Authored by Rob Frantum-Allen
Part 2 of a 2-Part Series

Accountability and assessment data can highlight performance gaps and create urgency for action, but they rarely provide a clear path forward. Indicator 3, a component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), measures participation and performance on statewide assessments, including proficiency gaps. It helps leaders identify where outcomes require attention, but it does not explain the conditions contributing to those results.

The data cannot tell leaders whether students consistently receive access to grade-level literacy instruction, whether intervention services provide sufficient time and intensity, whether specially designed instruction is intentionally planned and delivered, or whether educators have the support needed to implement effective literacy practices.

That distinction matters because the wrong diagnosis produces the wrong response.

A new curriculum will not solve a scheduling problem. More training will not correct weak alignment among assessment, intervention, and IEP implementation. Additional intervention will not help if it routinely replaces access to strong core instruction.

Before selecting a solution, districts need a practical way to move from an outcome signal to a disciplined investigation of the condition students experience every day.

From Accountability Data to Improvement Decisions

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Results-Driven Accountability and Differentiated Monitoring and Support frameworks place educational outcomes alongside compliance requirements within the broader IDEA accountability system. For states and districts, this creates an important opportunity: Indicator 3 can serve as more than a reporting measure. It can become a starting point for deeper inquiry and more informed decision-making.

The challenge is that accountability data often identifies where a problem exists but not what is causing it.

Multiple perspectives are needed to understand the full picture:

• State and district leaders can use accountability trends to prioritize support while avoiding assumptions about root causes.
• School leadership teams can verify whether intended schedules, instructional practices, collaboration structures, and support systems are visible in students’ daily experiences.
• Educators and families can provide insight into how instruction and services are experienced in practice, where implementation breaks down, and what strengths can be expanded.

When outcome data is treated as a diagnosis rather than a signal for investigation, districts risk investing time and resources in solutions that fail to address the underlying barriers affecting student outcomes.

Use a Self-Study Before Selecting the Solution

A useful self-study should connect multiple forms of evidence rather than rely on a single score or perception.

The Indicator 3 Literacy Landscape Self-Study helps leadership teams move beyond assumptions by bringing together multiple sources of evidence. Rather than relying on a single score, perception, or initiative, the self-study examines six interconnected domains:

• Indicator 3 and local data
• Systems
• Specially designed instruction
• Materials and assessment
• Educator knowledge
• Implementation conditions

Together, these domains help a leadership team test whether the conditions it intends to provide are the conditions students and educators actually experience.

The process begins with a cross-functional team and a clearly identified performance concern. Team members review evidence, discuss focused questions, identify strengths and challenges, and look for patterns across domains. The goal is not to generate a compliance score or predetermined recommendation. Instead, the process helps leaders identify the conditions most likely to be influencing outcomes and prioritize meaningful next steps for improvement.

Continue the Conversation at IDA 2026

PCG will be at the IDA 2026 Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference, November 12–14 in Las Vegas. Visit the PCG team to discuss how structured self-study can help districts strengthen literacy outcomes for students with disabilities.

If you will not be attending IDA 2026, contact PCG to learn how our team can support literacy improvement efforts year-round.

(800) 210-6113 | [email protected] | Teaching and Learning Consultants | Education Strategy Consulting | PCG