831766

research-article2019
TECXXX10.1177/0271121419831766Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationKasprzak et al.

Conceptual statements
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

A State System Framework for

1­–13
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
High-Quality Early Intervention and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0271121419831766
https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419831766

Early Childhood Special Education tecse.sagepub.com

Christina Kasprzak, MA1, Kathleen Hebbeler, PhD2, Donna Spiker, PhD2,

Katy McCullough, MA1, Anne Lucas, MS1, Sharon Walsh, MA3, Judy Swett4,
Barbara J. Smith, PhD5, Grace Kelley, MSW2, Kathy T. Whaley, MS1,
Lynda Pletcher, MEd1, Debbie Cate, MS1, Mary Peters, MSE1,
Betsy C. Ayankoya, MEd1, and Mary Beth Bruder, PhD6

Abstract
The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center used a rigorous 2-year collaborative process to develop, test, and revise
a conceptual framework for high-quality state early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE) systems.
The framework identifies six critical components of a state system and what constitutes quality in each component.
This new conceptual framework addresses the critical need to articulate what constitutes quality in state EI and ECSE
systems. The framework and companion self-assessment are designed for state leaders to use in their efforts to evaluate
and improve state systems to implement more effective services for infants and young children with disabilities and their
families. This article describes the contents of the framework and the processes used to ensure that the framework
incorporated current research, was relevant to all states, and was useful for systems improvement.

Keywords
early intervention, IDEA, preschool special education, systems improvement

In 2018, states reported that they provided early interven- often within a division of special education (ECTA Center,
tion (EI) services to 388,694 children and early childhood 2018). Local education agencies (LEAs) and local school
special education (ECSE) services to 773,595 children districts are responsible for providing free and appropriate
under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act public education (FAPE) for eligible preschool children,
(IDEA) according to the U.S. Department of Education, ages 3 to 5 (IDEA, 2004).
Office of Special Education Programs (2018a, 2018b). All states have an infrastructure that supports the provi-
States served more than 1 million children aged 5 years and sion of services at the local level (Campbell, Bellamy, &
below with delays and disabilities and their families because Bishop, 1988). Although the state infrastructure might be
each state had established a service delivery system. Most invisible to local program personnel and the young chil-
states have two systems: one for IDEA Part C, or EI, which dren and families being served, it is essential in ensuring
is the infant and toddler component, and another for Part B, that high-quality services are delivered as required under
Section 619, which is the ECSE component. The Part C IDEA (Gallagher, Harbin, Eckland, & Clifford, 1994;
program is housed within a governor-appointed lead agency
(IDEA, 2004), which is usually either the state department 1
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
2
of education or department of health and human services SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA
3
(The Early Childhood Technical Assistance [ECTA] Center, Walsh Taylor Incorporated, Burke, VA, USA
4
PACER Center, Bloomington, MN, USA
2016). EI systems differ across states as determined by the 5
University of Denver, CO, USA
lead agency, but the lead agency typically uses a regional or 6
UConn Health, Farmington, USA
local administrative structure to oversee local programs and
Corresponding Author:
the personnel delivering services to infants and toddlers
Christina Kasprzak, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute,
(birth to age 3) and their families (Spiker, Hebbeler, Wagner, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 8040, Chapel Hill,
Cameto, & McKenna, 2000). In contrast, Part B, Section NC 27599-8040, USA.
619, is administered from the state education agency (SEA), Email: [email protected]
2 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

Martin, 1989). For example, IDEA (2004) stipulates that hypothesized to directly impact the family’s interactions
one state function is monitoring local implementation of with the child and ultimately child outcomes.
the law. The state system also carries out other important Implementation science addresses the multiple influ-
functions such as establishing personnel requirements, ences on whether and how a given practitioner is imple-
planning for fiscal sustainability, providing policy and menting evidence-based practices (Odom, 2009; Snyder,
procedural guidance, and delivering technical assistance Bishop, & Crow, 2019). These influences are referred to as
(TA) to local programs. drivers and include leadership; competency or the selection,
The last several decades have seen increasing recogni- training, and coaching of individuals; and the organization
tion of the importance of a well-functioning state infra- which includes facilitative administration, systems-level
structure to the provision of high-quality services for all intervention, and a decision support data system (Halle,
young children, including those with disabilities (Bruner, Metz, & Martinez-Beck, 2013). These drivers exist at the
Wright, Gebhard, & Hibbard, 2004; Gallagher & Clifford, local level as proximal influences on services but also are
2000; Hebbeler, Spiker, & Kahn, 2012; Kagan & Kauerz, impacted by state policies such as personnel standards and
2012a). The federal government has invested in states to fiscal policies (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Duda, 2015).
support system building through grants such as the Race Implementation science provides a conceptualization of the
to the Top—Early Learning Challenge. It has spent more complex interplay of positive or negative influences on the
than US$1 billion for projects in 20 states to build state extent to which local practitioners are implementing evi-
systems to raise the quality of early learning and develop- dence-based practices. Although implementation science
ment programs and increase access of children with high does not address the role of the state infrastructure in much
needs to high-quality programs (Early Learning Challenge depth, the proposition that state factors will influence local
Technical Assistance Program, 2013). More recently, the implementation is theoretically consistent with the basic
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. tenets of implementation science.
Department of Education, has required that states develop Both ecological theory and implementation science
and implement a State Systemic Improvement Plan underscore the important role of the state system in local
(SSIP), with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for programs’ capacity to deliver services that are evidence
students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, based and consistent with the requirements of IDEA, but
2014). One of the requirements of the SSIP is that every neither defines the critical components of a state system or
state systematically examines its infrastructure and design what constitutes quality in those components. For a local
and adopt improvement strategies to produce a stronger program, it is obvious that a primary function is to provide
state system. services and that it also must carry out other functions such
According to both developmental and implementation as hiring and budgeting to be successful. The functions of
sciences, state systems play a critical role in achieving posi- the state system are not as obvious. To become learning
tive outcomes for young children. For example, state per- organizations and pursue systems change, state EI and
sonnel standards and education and training requirements ECSE state agencies would benefit from an evidence-based
influence the qualifications and experience of the providers conceptualization of the key components of a state system
and teachers who work in local programs and schools. Staff (Senge, 1990; Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2011).
knowledge and skills in turn influence the quality of the Achieving a high-quality state system also requires
services children and families experience. One model defining what constitutes quality in these components.
emerging from developmental science is the ecological With agreed-upon standards, state agencies would be bet-
model. The ecological model of development posits multi- ter positioned to undertake ongoing improvement efforts
ple layers of influence on the developing child. These toward an articulated end goal (BUILD Initiative, 2017;
include the microsystem which includes the child’s imme- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2012). Specification of
diate settings (e.g., the child’s family) which have the stron- what constitutes quality would, for example, distinguish
gest influence on development (Bronfenbrenner, 1976; between what is good and poor governance in state sys-
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The family’s ability to tems (Kagan & Kauerz, 2012b). The Quality Rating and
support the child’s development is influenced by factors in Improvement System (QRIS), a statewide rating system
the community, which are more distal developmental influ- for child care programs that most states use, is an example
ences. One factor of particular importance for the develop- of how states have used quality specification to drive pro-
ment of young children with disabilities is the availability gram improvement at the local level (Schaack, Tarrant,
of high-quality EI and ECSE services in the community Boller, & Tout, 2012). A comparable approach to articulat-
(Hebbeler et al., 2012). The state infrastructure is conceptu- ing quality has not been applied to state-level early child-
alized as part of the exosystem or the outermost layer of hood systems. In addition to supporting system change, a
influence that indirectly impacts the type, quantity, and framework that defines quality in state EI and ECSE sys-
quality of the services families receive. These are tems would provide a common language and shared
Kasprzak et al. 3

understanding to support future TA efforts and research on improvement. We developed the framework through an
state-level system building. iterative process that involved literature reviews and exten-
In this conceptual statement, we describe a framework sive input, review, and feedback from a variety of voices in
for state EI and ECSE systems that was developed through the field.
a rigorous and systematic process by the ECTA Center at
the request of OSEP. We also describe the rigorous process
State Partners
that was used to develop the framework, the resulting con-
tents, and the companion self-assessment. Finally, we out- The first step in the process was to identify state partners
line how states can use it to produce a quantitative state to participate in the development process. Inclusion of
status and set priorities for system improvement. state leaders in EI and ECSE was critical to developing a
The primary purpose of the framework and its compan- resource that would be relevant to all states, reflective of
ion self-assessment is to guide states in evaluating their Part real systems, and useful for state improvement efforts. We
C and Part B, Section 619 state systems, identifying areas established a process for state program coordinators (with
for improvement, and providing direction on how to develop teams) to apply to be partners in the framework develop-
a more effective, efficient state system that better supports ment. ECTA Center staff members reviewed the state
local implementation of effective practices. The primary applications for demographic diversity (age of the popula-
audiences for the framework are state EI and ECSE coordi- tion the program served, state population size, geographic
nators and staff, recognizing that other key stakeholders in location, Part C lead agency) and merit of the application
a state will need to be engaged in state system improve- (overall commitment and strength in one or more of the
ment. Other audiences for the framework are TA providers, component areas described in the application). Six partner
researchers, faculty in leadership programs, and others who states—Delaware, Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey,
have an interest in describing and improving state systems. Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—were identified that
No framework for EI and ECSE state systems existed collectively brought wide-ranging perspectives that would
before we began this work, but some previous efforts, ensure the framework reflected and was applicable to all
mostly focused on the overall early childhood system, had state systems.
conceptualized key components of a state system. The Early The partner states were convened for the first of a series
Childhood Systems Working Group, a group of individuals of monthly web meetings in May 2013. The partner states’
from an array of national early childhood organizations, role was to share information about their own state system
identified seven elements of a state early childhood system: and experience, contribute ideas for the framework’s con-
governance, standards, financing, monitoring, provider/ ceptual foundations, provide written and verbal feedback on
practitioner support (including professional development draft versions of framework content, and pilot-test the
and TA), research and development (including data and framework using their own state system. Partner states were
evaluation), and communications (Bruner, 2012). A group encouraged to invite other individuals from their state to
convened by the National Governors Association (2012) join the monthly meetings, as appropriate, based on the
identified the key areas of leadership and governance, learn- meeting agenda. For example, when the finance component
ing standards, child assessments, accountability, teacher/ was to be discussed, states were encouraged to bring a per-
leader preparation and professional development, and son from their fiscal/budget office. The monthly web meet-
resource allocation and reallocation. Specifically in regard ings typically rotated with 1 month being a cross-state call
to EI and ECSE systems, Kahn et al. (2009) defined state with all states and the next month being an individual call
infrastructure to encompass administrative structures; poli- with each partner state facilitated by national TA center
cies, procedures, and guidance; funding; and state inter- staff. Face-to-face meetings were held at three strategic
agency collaboration. Although these conceptualizations points in the development. Thus, partner states participated
have similarities, there also are differences that must be in a total of eight cross-state web meetings, seven individ-
resolved for EI and ECSE state agencies to support and sys- ual state web meetings, and three face-to-face meetings, as
tematically examine the effectiveness of their state systems. well as in regular email communications and document
Furthermore, none of this work identified what constitutes review and feedback during a 19-month period.
quality in these state system components.
Technical Work Group (TWG)
Development Process The process also included identification and recruitment
The ECTA Center engaged in a 2-year collaborative process of national research and TA experts to form a TWG with
for developing the system framework. The goal was to expertise in EI and ECSE, broader early childhood sys-
develop a framework that incorporated current research, tems, family-centered services, systems building, finance
was relevant to all states, and was useful for systems systems, and personnel development. The TWG met for
4 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

the first time in April 2013. The TWG members’ role was Once the components were identified, TA Center staff
to identify additional relevant literature, contribute ideas conducted literature reviews for each of the components
to the design of the system framework content and format, and drafted descriptions of the subcomponents, quality
and provide feedback on draft versions of the framework. indicators, and elements of quality for each of the compo-
TWG members participated in bimonthly web meetings nents. For example, for the quality standards component,
typically held in conjunction with partner state meetings. we searched for research on child standards and program
In addition, they were invited to two face-to-face meetings standards. Very little empirical literature was found to guide
with partner states. The TWG experts participated in a the specification of quality for each of the components. For
total of six web meetings and two face-to-face meetings initial drafts, TA staff drew on the limited literature and
during a 20-month period. TWG members also were asked their own experiences. Partner states, TWG members, and
to support dissemination. other invited experts reviewed drafts and provided input.
After multiple rounds of review and revision extending
over many months, partner states piloted the framework by
Developing the Content
applying the content to their own systems, including pro-
The Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC) and the viding evidence for the elements of quality. The final con-
Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy tents were validated through a consensus process involving
Center) contributed expertise in comprehensive systems state partners and TWG members.
of personnel development and early childhood data sys-
tems, respectively. ECTA Center personnel worked col-
laboratively with staff from ECPC in developing the
System Framework Content
personnel/workforce component of the system frame- The development process produced a new conceptualiza-
work. The ECPC director also was a member of the tion for high-quality EI/ECSE systems organized around
TWG. The DaSy Center developed the data system com- six interrelated components: governance, finance, person-
ponent of the framework independently and simultane- nel/workforce, data system, accountability and quality
ously in close coordination with the ECTA Center. improvement, and quality standards. Figure 1 illustrates the
Ongoing communication throughout the development hypothesized relationships between the state system com-
process ensured that the data system component of the ponents and local practices and child and family outcomes
framework was consistent with the structure of the other that incorporate key concepts from ecological theory (e.g.,
components as they were developed. The DaSy Center’s the role of the exosystem) and implementation science (e.g.,
development process was similar to the ECTA Center’s, state influences on the drivers at the local level). The six
involving iterations that incorporated extensive input interrelated components of the state system are conceptual-
from Part C and Part B, Section 619 staff from seven ized as working together as essential supports for the imple-
partner states (two of which also were ECTA framework mentation of effective practices at the local level.
partner states). Each component contains subcomponents that further
To begin the process of framework development, we specify key content areas. Each subcomponent contains a
reviewed the literature to identify the key components of a set of quality indicators that identify what needs to be in
high-quality EI and ECSE state system. The search focused place for an EI or ECSE state system to be considered high
on EI and ECSE but also included all early care and educa- quality. The quality indicators are broad statements about
tion systems. (Key references found through this and the the actions or activities that state agency staff undertake or
additional literature searches described below are available the policies, procedures, or documents that the state needs
at http://ectacenter.org/sysframe/.) We found no experimen- to have in place to support a high-quality system. Each
tal research but did locate some descriptive literature and quality indicator has a corresponding set of quality elements
thought pieces. In addition, some aspects of the framework that operationalize the implementation of the indicator.
content were derived from analyzing the contents of IDEA. Table 1 presents the overall structure and content of the
Information from the initial literature review was presented framework—the six components, 26 subcomponents, 74
to partner states and the TWG. quality indicators, and 439 elements of quality. The data
Input from the state partners and TWG during the first system component has a disproportionate number of quality
web meetings resulted in the identification of six compo- indicators and elements of quality because it was developed
nents of an EI and ECSE state system: governance, finance, as a stand-alone framework and also as a component of the
personnel/workforce, data system, accountability and qual- ECTA framework. The ECTA System Framework is avail-
ity improvement, and quality standards. Early discussions able at http://ectacenter.org/sysframe/.
also produced consensus on an overall framework structure State partners and national experts also identified seven
where each component would have subcomponents, quality themes that cut across all components: (a) stakeholder
indicators, and elements of quality. engagement, (b) establishing/revising policies, (c) promoting
Kasprzak et al. 5

Figure 1. A system framework for building high-quality early intervention and preschool special education programs.

collaboration, (d) using data for improvement, (e) communi- Table 1. Structure and Content of the System Framework:
cating effectively, (f) family leadership and support, and (g) Components, Subcomponents, Quality Indicators, and Elements
of Quality.
coordinating or integrating across the broader early child-
hood service sector. The team working on each component Component Subcomponents
considered how to incorporate these themes into the quality
Governance Vision, mission, and/or purpose
indicators and elements of quality. An aspirational feature of
4 subcomponents Legal foundations
the framework is an emphasis on linking EI and ECSE with 8 quality indicators Administrative structures
other state efforts in early care and education. Although the 49 elements of quality Leadership and performance
framework focuses on IDEA systems and services, it also management
addresses the interface of EI and ECSE with the general early Finance Finance planning process/forecasting
care and education system in the state to promote inclusion of 5 subcomponents Fiscal data
young children with disabilities in early care and education 10 quality indicators Procurement
66 elements of quality Resource allocation, use of funds
programs.
and disbursement
In the next section, we describe the contents of each of Monitoring and accountability of
the six components of the framework, listing the subcom- funds and resources
ponents and highlighting why the component was identi- Personnel/workforce Leadership, coordination, and
fied as critical to the state system. Literature relevant to the 6 subcomponents sustainability
contents of the component is cited, but most of the content 12 quality indicators State Personnel Standards
was developed through the expertise of those who contrib- 62 elements of quality Preservice personnel development
Inservice personnel development
uted to the development process. To further elucidate the
Recruitment and retention
structure and contents of the framework, the section on the Evaluation
first component, governance, also includes a description of Data system Purpose and vision
one quality indicator and its elements of quality. Table 1 6 subcomponents Data governance and management
provides an overview to the content of the framework by 31 quality indicators Stakeholder engagement
presenting the subcomponents of each of the six compo- 171 elements of System design and development
nents of the framework. quality Data use
Sustainability
Accountability and Planning for accountability and
Governance quality improvement improvement
3 subcomponents Collecting and analyzing
Governance “refers to a state’s organizational structure and 7 quality indicators performance data
its placement of authority and accountability for making 44 elements of quality Using results for continuous
program, policy, financing, and implementation decisions” improvement
(Regenstein & Lipper, 2013, p. 2). States’ IDEA Part C and Quality standards Child-level standards
Part B, Section 619 systems are intended to be comprehen- 2 subcomponents Program-level standards
sive and coordinated, with services provided by profession- 6 quality indicators
47 elements of quality
als from many disciplines (Trohanis, 2008). Children served
6 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

Table 2. Example of the Structure and Contents: One Quality Indicator From the Governance Component.

Governance

Subcomponent Vision, mission, and/or purpose

Quality indicator Vision, mission, and/or purpose guide decisions and provide direction for quality comprehensive and
coordinated Part C and Section 619 statewide systems.
Elements of quality a. Core values, beliefs, guiding principles, and current evidence-based practices are the foundation for public
statements of vision/mission/purpose.
b. These public statements are consistent with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
c. These public statements address who the program serves, what the program does, and the intended
outcomes for children and families.
d. T  hese public statements are developed with input from all stakeholders.
e. T hese public statements are readily available (e.g., on the website, in a parent handbook, etc.) and
effectively communicated to all stakeholders including practitioners, families, and community partners.
f. These public statements are clear and understood by staff, local program administrators, and families.
g. System-level decisions (e.g., fiscal, data, standards, personnel, monitoring), programmatic decisions (e.g.,
services and supports), and strategic planning are guided by the public statements of vision/mission/purpose.
h. These public statements are reviewed and revised as necessary with stakeholder input.
i. These Part C and 619 public statements of vision, mission, and/or purpose are recognized as an integral part
of the broader early care and education public statements and strategic plans.

under EI and ECSE are served by a variety of other pro- vision subcomponent is that the vision, mission, and/or pur-
grams and initiatives including Head Start, Early Head pose guide decisions and provide direction for quality com-
Start, Child Care, and State Prekindergarten (Kaczmarek, prehensive and coordinated Part C and Part B, Section 619
2011; Spiker, Hebbeler, & Barton, 2011). Thus, a cohesive statewide systems. Some states may call it vision, others
set of local services for children and families requires col- mission or purpose. But regardless of the term, the frame-
laborative relationships, formal and informal agreements, work asserts that state EI and ECSE systems must have an
and shared decision-making and responsibility at the state overarching statement that guides decisions and provides
level (Trohanis, 2008). direction.
We identified governance as a critical—arguably the Finally, the state partners and TWG validated nine ele-
foundational—component of a state EI and ECSE system ments of quality to describe what it means for a state to have
because it addresses the essential functions of authority and this quality indicator in place and fully implemented (see
accountability (Kagan & Gomez, 2015). Governance Table 2). The first element is that the core values, beliefs,
addresses the human and fiscal resources and the overall guiding principles, and evidence-based practices are the
vision that underpin every other component of the system. foundation for the public statements of vision. The second
Accordingly, the four subcomponents of governance are and third address consistency of the vision with IDEA and
vision, legal foundations, administrative structures, and clarity on who the program serves, what the program does,
leadership and performance management. The vision (mis- and the intended outcomes for those served. The fourth and
sion, and/or purpose) refers to the collection of public state- fifth address the need to develop the vision with input from
ments that guide decisions and provide direction for the relevant stakeholders and to make it readily available. The
state system. The legal foundations are the statues, regula- other four further specify what constitutes quality relative
tions, policies, agreements, or other legal documents that to the state’s vision for the EI or ECSE program.
provide the authority to implement the state system.
Administrative structures refer to the state, regional, and/or
Finance
local entities that carry out the statewide implementation.
The last subcomponent, effective leadership, refers to the EI and ECSE operate as systems of services, relying on
oversight of fiscal and human resources, program priorities, multiple federal, state, and local funding streams. Most
strategic planning, and the communication and collabora- funding sources are public (IDEA Infant & Toddler
tion needed for the state system and services. This subcom- Coordinators Association, 2012), although some state,
ponent aligns with and expands the leadership drivers from regional, or local entities also may access private funds.
implementation science (Snyder et al., 2019). States have the discretion to determine which funding
Each of the subcomponents contains a set of quality indi- sources to use, and those decisions are influenced by mul-
cators that were identified through the development pro- tiple factors including federal, state, and local guidelines for
cess. For example, the first quality indicator under the use of funds; political will; and identified need (IDEA
Kasprzak et al. 7

Infant & Toddler Coordinators Association, 2014). occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and lan-
Consequently, state leaders benefit from having a deep guage therapy, nursing, and social work, who provide
understanding of the landscape of early childhood services intervention services or administer local or state EI or
and needs in their state to identify opportunities for collabo- ECSE programs (Bruder et al., 2009). From its beginning
ration and alignment with other early care and education as PL 94-142, IDEA required state systems to establish a
programs serving the same populations (Greer, Taylor, & comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD)
Mackey-Andrews, 2007). to promote the knowledge, skills, and competencies of
As with governance, the state partners and the TWG those providing special education and related services to
recognized finance as foundational to a system’s ability to eligible students aged 3 to 21 years. The requirements
function. Without sufficient funds and resources, EI and related to CSPD have changed over the years, including
ECSE would be unable to establish and sustain the state expanding them to address EI and then changing the
and local infrastructure necessary to deliver services to requirement for Part B by deferring to the personnel
young children with disabilities and their families. The requirements of No Child Left Behind Act (2002).
finance component addresses policies on the funds and Nevertheless, planning for personnel development remains
resources needed to support and sustain other components critical to promoting both evidence-based practices and
of the state system and contains five subcomponents: the implementation of legal requirements determined by
finance planning process and forecasting, fiscal data, pro- IDEA (Snyder, Hemmeter, & McLaughlin, 2011).
curement, resource allocation, use of funds and disburse- The personnel/workforce component addresses the
ment, and monitoring and accountability of funds and planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of
resources. Working relationships with key partners such as a CSPD that is similar to the original personnel require-
agency fiscal staff, early care and education program ments of IDEA. The six subcomponents are leadership,
administrators, and advocates are seen vital as states navi- coordination, and sustainability; state personnel standards;
gate various funding streams to support the EI and ECSE preservice personnel development; inservice personnel
systems. The framework indicates that a high-quality development; recruitment and retention; and evaluation.
finance system requires the development and implementa- This subcomponent aligns with and expands the compe-
tion of a finance plan that includes forecasting program tency drivers from implementation science that focuses on
infrastructure and service delivery needs and budgeting selection, training, and coaching of personnel (Fixsen
the funds to meet them. Accessing and using fiscal data et al., 2015). The framework indicates that a cross-sector
also are a critical part of the finance planning and key to leadership team is needed to set priorities, make decisions,
the ongoing management of budget expenditures. The and establish a plan for the ongoing implementation of a
framework indicates that the system must be able to pro- CSPD. States also need to establish professional standards
cure funds and coordinate and align resources and funding across all the disciplines addressed in the IDEA, and these
streams with other agencies, programs, and initiatives to standards should reflect standards established by national
enable leveraging resources for common activities and professional organizations and state regulatory policies
goals. With funding secured, states must allocate funds and procedures defining criteria for certification, licen-
equitably and ensure they are used efficiently and effec- sure, credentialing, and endorsement for personnel who
tively to implement high-quality systems and services. provide EI and ECSE services. The framework stipulates
State, regional, and local systems must disburse funds and that the CSPD must coordinate and address the content,
make timely payments or reimbursement for allowable process, and availability of preservice and inservice per-
expenses. Finally, because all these finance activities must sonnel programs for all disciplines under IDEA. EI and
be monitored regularly to ensure that spending is in com- ECSE training content should be evidence based and
pliance with contract performance and federal, state, and aligned with personnel discipline-specific standards, the
local fiscal requirements, fiscal monitoring is addressed in training process should reflect evidenced-based adult
a quality indicator. learning principles, and the availability of both preservice
and inservice opportunities should be coordinated across
state early childhood systems. Equally important is a com-
Personnel/Workforce
prehensive system to attract and retain personnel to pro-
As with any service system, the quality of EI and ECSE vide EI and ECSE services. This system should comprise
depends on the knowledge and skills of the individuals strategies based on current research and state personnel
who provide the services (Bruder, 2016; Bruder, Mogro- data. Finally, the framework indicates that a state must
Wilson, Stayton, & Dietrich, 2009; Kagan, Kauerz, & develop and implement an evaluation plan to collect for-
Tarrant, 2008; Winton, McCollum, & Catlett, 2008). These mative and summative data about personnel to monitor
are professionals and paraprofessionals from many disci- their needs and performance and make decisions about
plines, such as education, special education, psychology, future state needs.
8 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

Accountability and Quality Improvement and ECSE state agencies, the need for high-quality data is
underscored by OSEP’s vision for results-driven account-
In recent decades, accountability has become a central focus ability, which focuses on using data to improve results for
for many public agencies including the U.S. Department of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities (U.S.
Education, with programs being asked to demonstrate Department of Education, n.d.). The framework stipulates
whether public funds are being used wisely and whether that state leaders need to understand the characteristics and
children are learning (Freund, Ohlson, Browne, & Kavulic, capabilities of a good state data system, actively participate
2006; Meisels, 2006; National Early Childhood in developing their data system, and use their data system to
Accountability Task Force, 2007). State Part C and Part B, comply with federal IDEA reporting requirements, answer
Section 619 systems have a responsibility under federal law important program and policy questions, and improve ser-
to implement a general supervision system to monitor the vices and outcomes for young children with disabilities and
statewide implementation of IDEA, identify and correct their families.
noncompliance, and work toward improved outcomes for As described above, the data system component of the
children and families (Council of Chief State School framework was developed as a stand-alone framework
Officers, 2011; Freund et al., 2006; Garrison-Mogren, (available at http://dasycenter.org/resources/dasy-frame-
Fiore, Bollmar, Brauen, & Munk, 2007; Hebbeler, Barton, work/) as well as a component of the ECTA System
& Mallik, 2008; Kasprzak et al., 2012). Programs must Framework. The framework defines a data system broadly
have systems to collect the data required for accountability to include all aspects of collecting, analyzing, reporting,
and to support ongoing quality improvement and improved and using Part C and Part B, Section 619 data. It includes
outcomes (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011; the hardware and software necessary for an effective data
Hebbeler & Cochenour, 2015; Meisels, 2006; Wholey, system, as well as the types of data collected, the process
Hatry, & Newcomer, 2010). and structures for governing the data, and processes and
Three subcomponents were identified for this compo- systems for analyzing and using the data. The six subcom-
nent: planning for accountability and improvement, collect- ponents are purpose and vision, data governance and man-
ing and analyzing performance data, and using results for agement, stakeholder engagement, system design and
continuous improvement. Planning for accountability refers development, data use, and sustainability. Purpose and
to documenting the need for change, tracking progress, and vision address the reasons for building the data system, its
demonstrating improvement. The subcomponent specifies short-term benefits, and how it will contribute to the long-
that states need a written accountability plan that addresses term goals of the program. Data governance and manage-
requirements and includes the details needed to implement ment refer to the creation, implementation, and oversight of
a sound and effective statewide accountability and improve- policies and procedures for the data system to produce read-
ment system. The plan may be a stand-alone description or ily available, high-quality, usable, and secure data.
included in one or more state documents (e.g., policies and Stakeholder engagement refers to the use of a collaborative
procedures, monitoring and accountability manuals, the process to gather input on the collection and use of data
annual performance plan). The framework further indicates from stakeholders at every level of an organization or sys-
that states must collect and analyze high-quality data to tem. System design and development address the develop-
monitor requirements, measure the quality of the system ment of the functional and technical requirements for a data
and services, and determine results. Leadership at all levels system and the development and implementation of a data
must have sufficient information to make decisions about system based on those requirements. The data use subcom-
accountability and improvement. Finally, the framework ponent addresses the need for state leaders to facilitate
indicates that state and local leaders need to work to effec- ongoing use of data for program accountability, program
tively use data. This includes disseminating the data to improvement, and program operations at the state and local
appropriate audiences, supporting state and local programs levels. The sustainability subcomponent refers to the state’s
in using data for continuous improvement as outlined in the capacity to support enhancements to the Part C and Part B,
accountability plan, and supporting the use of data-informed Section 619 data systems to meet the programs’ evolving
practices. needs.

Data System Quality Standards

A focus on the importance of data for informed decision- Early childhood programs can have both child-level and
making has gained widespread support across the education program-level standards. Information on the extent to
and human services fields in recent years (The Early which standards are being met is critical for guiding pro-
Childhood Data Collaborative, 2010; Marsh, Pane, & gram improvements and helping programs better support
Hamilton, 2006; Means, Padilla, & Gallagher, 2010). For EI children’s learning and development (Scott-Little, Cassidy,
Kasprzak et al. 9

Lower, & Ellen, 2010; Spiker et al., 2011; Wesley & Different sets of stakeholders may be appropriate partici-
Buysse, 2010). Child standards, also referred to as early pants for different components.
learning guidelines or early learning standards, are the The Excel spreadsheet-based self-assessment captures
“expectations for the learning and development of young numeric ratings for the quality indicators and the indicators’
children” (National Association for the Education of Young associated elements of quality. When completing the self-
Children, 2002, p. 1). The Race to the Top—Early Learning assessment, stakeholders review and discuss each element
Challenge described child standards as the “expectations, of quality, assign it a consensus rating of 1 (The element is
guidelines or developmental milestones that describe what not in place and the state is not planning to work on it at this
all young children are expected to know and be able to do” time) to 4 (The element is fully implemented), and record
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, brief notes (evidence) that supports the rating. Documenting
Administration for Children & Families, Office of Child the basis for the rating decision is important for improve-
Care, 2014, p. 1). All states have developed standards to ment planning as it provides a record of what the stakehold-
articulate expectations for preschoolers’ development and ers considered in reaching their decision. For example, if
learning, and nearly all have developed them for infants the element was rated as partially implemented, the notes
and toddlers (National Center on Early Childhood Quality would indicate what aspect of the element was identified as
Assurance, 2017). The child standards subcomponent not yet in place or not yet of high quality. The combination
addresses the general quality of the contents of the state’s of ratings given to the set of elements determines the rating
early learning guidelines as well as their applicability to for the associated quality indicator. A quality indicator can
young children with disabilities. Not all states’ early learn- receive a rating of 1 to 7, with a 1 meaning none of the asso-
ing guidelines were written to support the full inclusion of ciated elements of quality is planned or in place and a 7
children with disabilities, so it is important that EI and meaning all of them are fully implemented. The self-assess-
ECSE agencies examine their guidelines through the dis- ment creates a profile that includes a summary of the
ability lens addressed in this subcomponent (Guralnick & numerical ratings and a graph of the results with color-
Bruder, 2016; Scott-Little, Kagan, Stebbins Frelow, & coded bars indicating the relative strengths and weaknesses
Reid, 2009). across the quality indicators.
Program-level standards refer to the “expectations for The results show the relative strengths and weaknesses
the characteristics or quality of schools, child care centers, of the state system, but they are not a road map telling the
and other educational settings” (National Association for state where to start or what to do next. After reviewing the
the Education of Young Children, 2002, p. 1). This sub- overall results for the quality indicators, the stakeholders
component addresses the existence and content of pro- can determine the priority areas for improvement within the
gram standards for general early care and education self-assessment tool by assigning priority ratings of low,
programs in the state, with a specific focus on applicabil- medium, or high to the elements of quality, the quality indi-
ity for serving young children with disabilities in general cators, or both. The stakeholders can develop an improve-
early care and education programs. This subcomponent ment plan based on the profile and assigned priorities. After
also includes the contents, accessibility, and use of pro- the plan has been implemented, the stakeholders can com-
gram standards specific to EI and ECSE programs. Both plete the self-assessment again to monitor progress and
the child and program subcomponents address the impor- visually display changes to the state system.
tance of a state infrastructure for supporting local pro-
grams in using the child-level standards and achieving
Conclusion
program-level standards.
Through a 2-year collaborative process, the ECTA Center
developed, tested, and revised a conceptual framework
Framework Self-Assessment that identifies the critical components of EI and ECSE
To support states in using the framework for systems state systems. The framework articulates what constitutes
improvement, we developed a self-assessment that incorpo- quality in each component through a set of quality indica-
rates the framework contents (http://ectacenter.org/sys- tors and associated elements of quality. Developed
frame/selfassessment.asp). We recommend that key through a review of the literature, input from state and
stakeholders, including staff and beneficiaries of EI and national leaders in the field, and pilot-testing in states, the
ECSE services, participate in completing the self-assess- framework and the companion self-assessment can guide
ment. The goal is that the process of completion generates states in understanding the characteristics of an effective
open, thoughtful input from a variety of stakeholders that state system and identifying the strengths and weaknesses
results in a useful quantitative and qualitative picture of the in their own system. The hope is that when armed with a
system’s strengths and areas for improvement. States may vision for a high-quality system and information on cur-
elect to complete all or a selected subset of the components. rent status compared with that vision, states will be better
10 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

able to improve their systems of services and ultimately partnership with early intervention (EI) and preschool special edu-
build more effective ones. cation coordinators and staff members from six states (Delaware,
A national survey distributed to 124 state Part C and Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia),
Part B, Section 619 program administrators from 60 as well as national and regional experts who participated on a tech-
nical work group. The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data
states and jurisdictions in November 2016 provided feed-
Systems (DaSy) developed the data system component of the
back from states on their initial use of the framework.
framework with extensive input from EI and preschool special
Seventy-five individuals (61%) responded, representing education coordinators and personnel from seven partner states
47 states. The majority (65%) of respondents reported (Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts,
having used the framework, and 89% of those respondents and Pennsylvania). Mary Beth Bruder and staff members from the
rated the framework as high quality and relevant to their Early Childhood Personnel Center collaborated on the develop-
work. Anecdotally, we know that many states have ment of the personnel/workforce component of the Comprehensive
reported using the framework as part of their improvement System of Personnel Development. We gratefully acknowledge
planning related to state and local systems and local EI/ the contributions of these individuals and projects. A complete list
ECSE practices. Early feedback has identified some short- of contributors is in the ECTA System Framework and the DaSy
comings of the framework, including the time required to Data System Framework.
The contents of the system framework were developed under
complete the self-assessment and the need for clarification
cooperative agreement numbers #H326P120002, #H325B120004,
on some of the content. Feedback based on states’ contin-
and #H373Z120002 from the Office of Special Education
ued use of the framework will be incorporated into future Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed
resources supporting the use of the framework as well as herein do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S.
potential revisions to the tool itself. Department of Education, and one should not assume endorse-
This new conceptual framework was developed through ment by the Federal Government. Special thanks to OSEP Project
a rigorous process and addresses a critical need to articu- Officers: Julia Martin Eile, Dawn Ellis, Meredith Miceli, and
late what constitutes quality in state EI and ECSE systems. Richelle Davis.
The framework draws on and expands concepts from eco-
logical theory and implementation science. The framework Declaration of Conflicting Interests
specifies key components and defines quality for one The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
aspect of ecological theory’s exosystem for young children to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
with disabilities and their families: the existence of a well-
functioning state-level EI or ECSE system. The framework Funding
advances work in implementation science for EI and ECSE The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
by identifying the state-level structures seen as influencing for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
local level drivers for the implementation of evidence- Contents of the system framework were developed under coopera-
based practice. The operating assumptions underlying the tive agreement numbers #H326P120002, #H325B120004, and
framework are that a well-functioning state system is #H373Z120002 from the Office of Special Education Programs,
essential to high-quality local service delivery and that the U.S. Department of Education.
use of the framework will support states in moving toward
improved systems. The framework provides a common References
language for describing state systems and thus also pro- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of educa-
vides researchers with a conceptualization for further study tion. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5–15. doi:10.3102/0013
of the relationship between state infrastructure and local 189X005009005
service delivery. Given the limited research on the influ- Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecologi-
ence of EI and ECSE state systems on local practice, the cal model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),
development of the framework had to rely heavily on a sys- Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828).
tematic process for deriving the wisdom of the field to pro- Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Bruder, M. B. (2016). Personnel development practices in early
vide states with a tool to support system change (Sackett,
childhood intervention. In B. Reichow, B. Boyd, E. E. Barton,
Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996). Additional
& S. L. Odom (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood special
study of the system framework is needed to determine the education (pp. 289–333). New York, NY: Springer.
extent to which it supports improved state systems, the Bruder, M. B., Mogro-Wilson, C., Stayton, V. D., & Dietrich,
implementation of evidence-based practices, and ulti- S. L. (2009). The national status of in-service professional
mately better outcomes for children and families. development systems for early intervention and early child-
hood special education. Infants & Young Children, 22(1),
13–20. doi:10.1097/01.IYC.0000343333.49775.f8
Authors’ Note
Bruner, C. (2012). A systems approach to young children’s
The System Framework for Part C and Section 619 was developed healthy development and readiness for school. In S. L. Kagan
by the Early Childhood Technical Assistance (ECTA) Center in & K. Kauerz (Eds.), Early childhood systems: Transforming
Kasprzak et al. 11

early learning (pp. 35–45). New York, NY: Teacher College survey from the evaluation of states’ monitoring and improve-
Press. ment practices under the Individuals With Disabilities
Bruner, C., Wright, M. S., Gebhard, B., & Hibbard, S. (2004). Education Act. Washington, DC: National Center for Special
Building an early learning system: The ABCs of planning and Education.
governance structures. Retrieved from http://www.buildi- Greer, M., Taylor, A., & Mackey-Andrews, S. D. (2007). A
nitiative.org/portals/0/uploads/documents/resource-center framework for developing and sustaining a Part C finance
/build_earlylearningsystem_1.pdf system (NECTAC Notes, No. 23). Chapel Hill: The
BUILD Initiative. (2017). Continuous quality improvement in University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development
early childhood and school age programs: An update from Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance
the field. Boston, MA: Author. Center. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/
Campbell, P. H., Bellamy, G. T., & Bishop, K. K. (1988). nnotes23.pdf
Statewide intervention systems: An overview of the new Guralnick, M. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2016). Early childhood
federal program for infants and toddlers with handicaps. The inclusion in the United States: Goals, current status, and
Journal of Special Education, 22, 25–40. future directions. Infants & Young Children, 29, 166–177.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Roadmap doi:10.1097/iyc.0000000000000071
for next-generation accountability systems. Washington, Halle, T., Metz, A., & Martinez-Beck, I. (Eds.). (2013). Applying
DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ccsso.org/sites/ implementation science in early childhood programs and sys-
default/files/2017-10/Roadmap_for_Next-Generation_ tems. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Accountability_2011.pdf Hebbeler, K., Barton, L., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and
The Early Childhood Data Collaborative. (2010). Building and accountability for programs serving young children with dis-
using coordinated state early care and education data sys- abilities. Exceptionality, 16, 48–63.
tems: A framework for state policymakers. Washington, DC: Hebbeler, K., & Cochenour, M. (2015). Early childhood
Author. data governance: A prerequisite for answering important
The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2016). Part policy questions. In S. L. Kagan & R. E. Gomez (Eds.),
C lead agencies. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/partc/ Governance of early childhood education: Choices and
ptclead.asp consequences (pp. 112–120). New York, NY: Teachers
The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2018). State College Press.
Section 619 Coordinators. Retrieved from http://ectacenter. Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., & Kahn, L. (2012). IDEA’s early
org/contact/619coord.asp childhood programs: Powerful vision and pesky details.
Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 199–207.
(2013). Race to the top—Early learning challenge. doi:10.1177/0271121411429077
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop- IDEA Infant & Toddler Coordinators Association. (2012). 2012
earlylearningchallenge/2013-early-learning-challenge-flyer. ITCA Finance Survey report. Retrieved from http://www.
pdf ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2012-Finance-Survey-Report.pdf
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Naoom, S., & Duda, M. (2015). IDEA Infant & Toddler Coordinators Association. (Ed.).
Implementation drivers: Assessing best practices. Chapel Hill: (2014). 2014 ITCA Finance Survey. Retrieved from http://
The University of North Carolina, National Implementation ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2014-ITCA-Finance-Survey.pdf
Science Network. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §
unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/NIRN-Imple 1400 et seq C.F.R. (2004).
mentationDriversAssessingBestPractices.pdf Kaczmarek, L. A. (2011). Crossing systems in the delivery of ser-
Freund, M., Ohlson, C., Browne, B., & Kavulic, C. (2006). vices. In C. Groark, S. M. Eidelman, L. A. Kaczmarek, & S.
Emerging accountability systems within Part C and Section P. Maude (Eds.), Early childhood intervention: Shaping the
619 programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, future for children with special needs and their families (Vol.
168–178. doi:10.1177/088840640602900303 3, pp. 205–240). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Books.
Gallagher, J. J., & Clifford, R. (2000). The missing sup- Kagan, S. L., & Gomez, R. E. (Eds.). (2015). Early childhood
port infrastructure in early childhood. Early Childhood governance: Choices and consequences. New York, NY:
Research & Practice, 2(1). Retrieved from https://eric. Teachers College Press.
ed.gov/?id=ED439850 Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (Eds.). (2012a). Early childhood sys-
Gallagher, J. J., Harbin, G. L., Eckland, J., & Clifford, R. (1994). tems: Transforming early learning. New York, NY: Teachers
State diversity and policy implementation: Infants and tod- College, Columbia University.
dlers. In L. J. Johnson, R. J. Gallagher, M. J. Montagne, J. Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2012b). Looking forward: Four steps
B. Jordan, J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Hutinger, & M. B. Karnes in early childhood systems building. In S. L. Kagan & K.
(Eds.), Meeting early intervention challenges: Issues from Kauerz (Eds.), Early childhood systems: Transforming early
birth to three (2nd ed., pp. 235–250). Baltimore, MD: Paul learning (pp. 283–302). New York, NY: Teachers College
H. Brookes. Press.
Garrison-Mogren, R., Fiore, T., Bollmar, J., Brauen, M., & Munk, Kagan, S. L., Kauerz, K., & Tarrant, K. (2008). The early care and
T. (2007). Characteristics of states’ monitoring and improve- education teaching workforce at the fulcrum. New York, NY:
ment practices: State responses to the Part B and Part C mail Teachers College Press.
12 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 00(0)

Kahn, L., Hurth, J., Kasprzak, C. M., Diefendorf, M. J., Goode, S. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from https://www.rwjf.org
E., & Ringwalt, S. S. (2009). The National Early Childhood /en/library/research/2012/06/improving-the-science-of-con-
Technical Assistance Center model for long-term systems tinuous-quality-improvement-program-0.html
change. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B.,
24–39. doi:10.1177/0271121409334039 & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: What
Kasprzak, C., Hurth, J., Rooney, R., Goode, S. E., Danaher, J. it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.
C., Whaley, K. T., & Cate, D. (2012). States’ accountability Schaack, D., Tarrant, K., Boller, K., & Tout, K. (2012). Quality
and progress in serving young children with disabilities. rating and improvement systems: Frameworks for early care
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32, 151–163. and education systems change. In S. L. Kagan & K. Kauerz
doi:10.1177/0271121411408119 (Eds.), Early childhood systems: Transforming early learn-
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense ing (pp. 71–86). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, University.
CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://rand.org Scott-Little, C., Cassidy, D. J., Lower, J. K., & Ellen, S. (2010).
/pubs/occasional_papers/2006/RAND_OP170.pdf Early learning standards and quality improvement initiatives:
Martin, E. W. (1989). Lessons from implementing PL 94-142. In A systemic approach to supporting children’s learning and
J. J. Gallagher, P. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy development. In P. W. Wesley & V. Buysse (Eds.), The quest
implementation & PL 99-457 (pp. 19–32). Baltimore, MD: for quality: Promising innovations for early childhood pro-
Paul H. Brookes. grams (pp. 69–89). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of educa- Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., Stebbins Frelow, V., & Reid, J.
tion data at the local level from accountability to instruc- (2009). Infant-toddler early learning guidelines: The content
tional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department that states have addressed and implications for programs serv-
of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy ing children with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 22,
Development. 87–99.
Meisels, S. J. (2006). Accountability in early childhood: No easy Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of
answers. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), learning organizations. New York, NY: Random House.
School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., & McLaughlin, T. (2011).
era of accountability (pp. 31–48). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Professional development in early intervention: Where we
Brookes. stand on the Silver Anniversary of PL 99-457. Journal of
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2002). Early Intervention, 33, 357–370.
Early Learning Standards: Creating the conditions for suc- Snyder, P. A., Bishop, C. D., & Crow, R. (2019). Responsive
cess. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file practice-focused leadership for early intervention. In J. B.
/positions/position_statement.pdf Crockett, B. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook
National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. (2017). of leadership and administration for special education
Early learning and development guidelines. Fairfax, VA: (pp. 393–416). New York, NY: Routledge.
Author. Retrieved from https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov Spiker, D., Hebbeler, K., & Barton, L. (2011). Measuring qual-
/resource/state-early-learning-standards-and-guidelines ity of ECE programs for children with disabilities. In M.
National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. (2007). Zaslow, I. Martinez-Beck, K. Tout, & T. Halle (Eds.), Quality
Taking stock: Assessing and improving early childhood learn- measurement in early childhood settings (pp. 229–226).
ing and program quality. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Trusts. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/ Spiker, D., Hebbeler, K., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., &
legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/pre-k_educa- McKenna, P. (2000). A framework for describing varia-
tion/taskforcereport1pdf.pdf tions in state early intervention systems. Topics in Early
National Governors Association. (2012). Governor’s role in align- Childhood Special Education, 20, 195–207. doi:10.1177
ing early education and K-12 reforms: Challenges, opportu- /027112140002000401
nities, and benefits for children. Retrieved from https://eric. Trohanis, P. L. (2008). Progress in providing services to
ed.gov/?id=ED537362 young children with special needs and their families:
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of An overview to and update on the implementation of
2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 20 U.S.C § 6301. the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based prac- Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 140–151. doi:10.1177/
tice, implementation science, and child outcomes. Topics 1053815107312050
in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53–61. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Dear colleague letter to
doi:10.1177/0271121408329171 chief state school officers on Results Driven Accountability.
Regenstein, E. M., & Lipper, K. E. (2013). A framework for Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers
choosing a state-level early childhood governance system. /osep/rda/050914rda-lette-to-chiefs-final.pdf
Boston, MA: BUILD Initiative. Retrieved from http://www U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). RDA: Results Driven
.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Early%20 Accountability. Retrieved from https://ed.gov/about/offices
Childhood%20Governance%20for%20Web.pdf /list/osers/osep/rda/index.html
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2012). Improving the science U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
of continuous quality improvement program and evaluation. Programs. (2018a). Number of children and students served
Kasprzak et al. 13

under IDEA, Part B, by age group and state (2017-2018 Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (Eds.). (2010). The quest for qual-
data table). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs ity: Promising innovations for early childhood programs.
/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html#partb-cc Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. (2010). Handbook
Programs. (2018b). Number of infants and toddlers ages of practical program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
birth through 2 and 3 and older, and percentage of popula- Bass.
tion, receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R. (Eds.). (2011). Systems
C, by age and state (2017-2018 data table). Retrieved from concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Stanford, CA:
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static Stanford University Press.
-tables/index.html#partc-cc Winton, P. J., McCollum, J. A., & Catlett, C. (2008). A frame-
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration work and recommendations for a cross-agency professional
for Children & Families, Office of Child Care. (2014). State development system. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C.
/territory early learning guidelines. Retrieved from https:// Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood pro-
childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/resource/state-early-learning-stan- fessional development: Evidence, strategies, and resources
dards-and-guidelines (pp. 263–272). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.