They have been published in the federal register and the federal OMB is receiving comments.
I have always been amazed at the SPP indicators. I think that the current NCLB-inspired theory that everything can be reduced to data and measured or assessed has hit its odd high point here. I particularly don't like the SPP indicators as to dispute resolution. All that states are assessed on is the percentage of settlements in mediations and resolution sessions (indicators 18 and 19) and compliance with timelines for due process complaints and state complaint procedures(indicators 16 and 17). That's it. So a state could have the worst mediators, complaint investigators and hearing officers in the world, not trained to meet the IDEA requirements as to qualifications, never get a determination right, or worse even be in the pocket of one party or the other and still pass muster with the federal regulatory agency if timelines are met and settlement rates are high. There is also no attempt to measure the wealth/income level of those who access these and other procedural safeguards. (Many of us suspect that all procedural safeguards are accessed predominantly by wealthier parents.) The SPP indicators for dispute resolution seem absurd. The previous round of comments about SPP indicators resulted in 37 pages of analysis by OSEP, yet almost none of it related to the dispute resolution indicators.
The deadline for comments is November 21, 2008. To comment, you send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org or you can send via fax to (202) 395-6974. If you wish to send written comments, they should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response "Comment: collection #3870, IDEA Part B State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report."