Part C Coordinators’ Use of Data Through Implementation of Results-Driven Accountability

Abstract

State administrators have reported data for compliance since the inception of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, Part C in 1986. Recently, Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) introduced a shift to use data for continuous improvement at the state and local levels. While ample research addresses how teachers learn to use data, none has focused on the state administrators who have to implement RDA. This act assumes that administrators can apply their data to continually improving programs for children with disabilities: however, this has been unexplored by researchers. I used a multiple-case study to investigate the environmental factors that influence the behavioral shift from using data solely for compliance to using data for continuous improvement. This research finds that multiple environmental factors contribute to the use of data for continuous improvement.

Keywords

Results-Driven Accountability continuous improvement data practices compliance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allard

S. W.

Wiegand

E. R.

Schlecht

Datta

A. R.

Goerge

R. M.

Weigensberg

(2018). State Agencies’ use of administrative data for improved practice: Needs, challenges, and opportunities. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12883

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bruder

M. B.

(2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and their families for the future. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600306

Bruns

D. A.

LaRocco

D. J.

Sharp

O. L.

Sopko

K. M.

(2017). Leadership competencies in U.S. Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education service systems: A national survey. Infants & Young Children, 30(4), 304. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000104

Buzhardt

Greenwood

Walker

Carta

Terry

Garrett

(2010). A web-based tool to support data-based Early Intervention decision making. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121409353350

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-247, 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. (2004).

Coburn

C. E.

Turner

E. O.

(2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9(4), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.626729

Cochenour

Hebbeler

(2015). Early childhood data governance: A prerequisite for answering important policy questions. In Kagan

S. L.

Gomez

R. E.

(Eds.), Early childhood governance (pp. 112–120). Teachers College Press.

Coffey

Chatis

Irvine

Sellers

Duarte

(2014). What is an early childhood integrated data system (ECIDS). National Center for Education Statistics. https://slds.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/4441

10.

Coffey

Sirinides

Dabbs

E. R.

(2023, August 9-11). 2022 Early childhood integrated data national study [Conference session]. National Center for Education Statistics STATS-DC Data Conference, Washington, DC, United States.

11.

Datnow

Park

(2022). Evidence-informed decision making in schools and districts: The role of equity (pp. 169–176). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.05033-8

12.

Datnow

Park

Kennedy-Lewis

(2012). High school teachers’ use of data to inform instruction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2012.718944

13.

Datnow

Park

Kennedy-Lewis

(2013). Affordances and constraints in the context of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311500

14.

deMonsabert

Brookes

Coffey

M. M.

Thornburg

(2022). Data use for continuous instructional improvement in early childhood education settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(3), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01168-3

15.

Derrington

Cochenour

(2015, December). Big data for little kids: The importance and utility of early childhood integrated data systems [Poster presentation]. Annual Zero to Three National Training Institute, Seattle, WA.

16.

Derrington

Spiker

Hebbeler

Diefendorf

(2013). IDEA Part C and Part B 619 state data systems: Current status and future priorities. https://dasycenter.sri.com/downloads/DaSy_papers/DaSyNeedsAssessmentReport.pdf

17.

Division for Early Childhood. (2014). Division for Early Childhood recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. http://www.dec-sped.org/dec-recommended-practices

18.

Gullo

D. F.

(2013). Improving instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes for early childhood language and literacy through data-driven decision making. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0581-x

19.

Gupta

S. S.

Sherif

Zhu

(2023). Re-examining state Part C Early Intervention program coordinators’ practices through a positive lens on leadership: A qualitative secondary analysis. The Qualitative Report, 28(2), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.4786

20.

Halverson

Grigg

Prichett

Thomas

(2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 159–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700202

21.

Hebbeler

(2015). Setting the course and steering the ship. In Division for Early Childhood (Ed.), DEC recommended practices: Enhancing services for young children with disabilities and their families (pp. 23–33). https://books.google.com/books?id=WG3CsgEACAAJ

22.

Hebbeler

Spiker

Kahn

(2012). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s early childhood programs: Powerful vision and pesky details. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(4), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121411429077

23.

Hickman

B. J.

(2022). The implementation of Results-Driven Accountability: A systemic approach to large-scale initiatives. Journal of Education, 202(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420943175

24.

Honig

M. I.

Venkateswaran

(2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/663282

25.

IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2016). 2016 ITCA tipping points survey part C implementation: State challenges and responses. http://ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2016-ITCA-State-Challenges-Report.pdf

26.

IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2022). Why intervene early? https://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/about-early-intervention.php

27.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

28.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2011, September 15). Grants for statewide, longitudinal data systems. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2012_84372.pdf

29.

Jimerson

J. B.

Garry

Poortman

C. L.

Schildkamp

(2021). Implementation of a collaborative data use model in a United States context. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100866

30.

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-36, 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. (2004). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ36/pdf/PLAW-108publ36.pdf

31.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

32.

Mandinach

E. B.

Jackson

(2012). Transforming teaching and learning through data-driven decision making. Corwin.

33.

Mandinach

E. B.

Schildkamp

(2021). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842

34.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.

35.

Means

Padilla

Gallagher

(2012). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

36.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Sage.

37.

Morrison

Coffey

Peyton

(2021). Federal investment in early childhood data systems. ECDataWorks. https://repository.upenn.edu/entities/publication/5ef8c0b1-e1a8-42c9-ac6b-5c74e5dffc4f

38.

National Forum on Education Statistics. (2011). Traveling through time: The forum guide to longitudinal data system. Book three of four: Effectively managing LDS data (NFES 2011–805). U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2011805.asp

39.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf

40.

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Results-Driven accountability in special education summary. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda-summary.pdf

41.

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). Slides to explain Results Driven Accountability. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

42.

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2014b, June 24). New accountability framework raises the bar for state special education programs. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-accountability-framework-raises-bar-state-special-education-programs

43.

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2017). OSEP child count data-number of infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 and 3 and older, and percentage of population, receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by age and state [Data file]. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html

44.

Park

Datnow

(2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29, 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430903162541

45.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and Practice (4th ed.). Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962

46.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

47.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

48.

Silverman

(2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.

49.

Slavit

Nelson

T. H.

Deuel

(2013). Teacher groups’ conceptions and uses of student-learning data. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112445517

50.

Stake

R. E.

(2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.

51.

Thayer

Coffey

Hebbeler

Spiker

(2022). IDEA Part C and Part B 619 state data systems: Current status and changes from 2013 to 2019. SRI International.

52.

Torres

R. T.

Preskill

(2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00170-9

53.

Van Dyke

M. K.

Naoom

S. F

. (2016). The critical role of state agencies in the age of evidence-based approaches: The challenge of new expectations. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2014.942021

54.

Yazejian

Bryant

(2013). Embedded, collaborative, comprehensive: One model of data utilization. Early Education & Development, 24(1), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.736128