Measuring What Matters: A Practical Guide to Special Education Program Quality for District Leaders
Written by Heather Volchko, BCBA
School districts already sit on a goldmine of data that can illuminate the quality of their special education programs. At the same time, many leaders struggle to use existing tools with true fidelity - self‑assessments get completed once and shelved, classroom observations are sporadic, and data often lives in disconnected systems that rarely inform day‑to‑day decisions. When our district partners intentionally organize that scattered information with complementary tools, they gain a coherent, usable blueprint for what to measure and how to turn those measures into continuous improvement, rather than another compliance exercise.
“When our district partners intentionally organize that scattered information with complementary tools, they gain a coherent, usable blueprint for what to measure and how to turn those measures into continuous improvement, rather than another compliance exercise.”
Three Tools, One Common Purpose
Our team specializes in the following three powerful tools not just because they are well organized, but because each is grounded in a solid evidence and practice base that makes their use defensible with staff, families, and leaders.
The High‑Leverage Practices (HLPs), developed by the Council for Exceptional Children with the CEEDAR Center, synthesize decades of research into 22 practices that are both empirically supported and feasible for everyday use. They underwent expert review, alignment with professional standards, and broad field vetting, which is why they are now widely used in teacher preparation and professional development as a valid, common language for “good practice.”
The Emotional and Behavioral Program Quality Indicators (EBPQI) translate implementation science and evidence‑based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders into a structured programmatic self‑assessment. The framework is embedded in statewide technical assistance, which reinforces its practical and technical validity.
The Autism Program Quality Indicators (APQI) derive their strength from tight alignment with research and consensus guidance on effective practices. Each domain is divided into concrete components rated along a tiered system, and repeated use at the program level generates consistent data that can be linked to specific outcomes.
These tools don’t just add “one more thing” to a district’s plate; they give our partners a shared, research‑anchored explanation of what quality looks like in practice. Used together, they anchor special education strategic planning in common, research‑aligned frameworks that enable departments to set coherent goals, select metrics, and align professional learning, staffing, and resource allocation around the same clear picture of quality.
“These tools don’t just add “one more thing” to a district’s plate; they give our partners a shared, research‑anchored explanation of what quality looks like in practice.”
Multi‑Tiered Supports and Use of Data
High‑quality programs treat data‑based decision making as infrastructure, not an afterthought. HLPs emphasize the use of multiple data sources to understand students’ strengths and needs and to monitor progress over time, including curriculum‑based measures, observations, FBAs, and family input. EBPQI’s data collection and documentation specifies that EBD programs should have documented procedures, standardized tools, and clear timelines for collecting and using data. APQI’s review and monitoring of progress and outcomes similarly expects life skills programs to use systematic progress monitoring and data‑based instructional decisions.
In practice, districts can track the percentage of schools with documented, three‑tiered systems of academic and behavioral supports aligned with data‑driven HLPs, the proportion of EBD programs with fully implemented data-collection and documentation indicators, and the percentage of life skills programs that fully implement progress‑monitoring as defined in the APQI. They can also monitor how often teams review data (for example, every four to six weeks), the average frequency of progress monitoring in academics and behavior for students with IEPs, and how many IEPs explicitly reference multiple data sources - all of which are expectations of HLPs, EBPQI, and APQI.
Curriculum, Instruction, and Methodology
Once there is a clear picture of the data infrastructure, the next logical question is what that data reveals about day‑to‑day teaching and learning. High‑quality programs are defined as much by the instruction students receive as by the services they are offered. HLPs highlight evidence‑based instructional practices (e.g., explicit instruction, modeling, scaffolding, opportunities to respond, and frequent formative assessment) that ensure students with additional needs can access standards‑aligned content. EBPQI’s curriculum and instruction indicators specify that EBD programs should use evidence‑based curricula, explicit teaching routines, and differentiated instruction tied to students’ academic and social‑emotional needs. APQI’s curriculum components similarly expect life skills programs to deliver a comprehensive curriculum addressing communication, social relationships, behavior, and independence through structured, research‑aligned methods.
In practice, districts can track the percentage of students with additional needs who have documented access to grade‑level standards and core curriculum, as reflected in HLPs’ instructional expectations, alongside the proportion of EBD programs rated as fully implementing EBPQI curriculum and instruction indicators. They can also monitor the percentage of life skills programs that fully implement the APQI curriculum and methodology components, including the use of structured teaching strategies and visual supports. Classroom observation data can capture how often teachers use explicit instruction, modeling, and frequent opportunities to respond, and whether those practices align with both HLPs and EBPQI expectations. Districts can also examine the extent to which staff have received training in these evidence‑based methods and how consistently they are implemented across classrooms, reinforcing the curriculum and instruction standards embedded in all three tools.
Social‑Emotional and Behavioral Practices
As instructional quality improves, districts inevitably turn to the social‑emotional and behavioral conditions that enable that instruction. High‑quality programs recognize that social‑emotional and behavioral development is foundational to academic success, not a separate track. HLPs emphasize practices such as building positive classroom environments, explicitly teaching expectations, and supporting self‑management to help students engage meaningfully in learning. EBPQI’s social‑emotional and behavioral expectations for EBD programs call for integrated supports across the day, rather than isolated lessons, and prioritize environments where emotional regulation and relationship skills are taught, modeled, and reinforced. APQI’s social‑emotional and behavioral components likewise expect life skills programs to provide direct instruction in social communication, emotional regulation, and peer interaction within naturally occurring routines.
In practice, districts can track the percentage of classrooms that explicitly embed social‑emotional and self‑regulation instruction aligned with HLP expectations, as well as the proportion of EBD programs that fully implement EBPQI social‑emotional and behavioral indicators. They can also monitor how many life skills classrooms fully implement the APQI components related to social communication and emotional regulation, and whether those supports are visible across the school day rather than confined to a single period. Outcome data (e.g., trends in office discipline referrals, suspensions, and documented progress on social‑emotional IEP goals) can help districts determine whether these practices are having the intended impact, as these measures indicate whether social‑emotional and behavioral supports are truly embedded in districtwide programming.
Positive Behavior Supports and Functional Behavioral Assessment
Once strong universal social‑emotional practices are in place, the next layer is how programs respond when students still struggle behaviorally. High‑quality programs rely on proactive, instructionally focused behavior supports grounded in functional behavioral assessments. HLPs stress the importance of using functional thinking and data to understand why behavior occurs and to design proactive, skill‑building interventions, rather than relying on reactive or restrictive responses. EBPQI’s behavior management supports and interventions specify that EBD programs should conduct functional behavioral assessments, develop individualized behavior intervention plans, and implement positive, preventative systems schoolwide and in classrooms. APQI’s behavior components similarly expect life skills programs to use functional assessment to guide environmental adjustments, teach replacement skills, and prevent crises through structured supports.
In practice, districts can track the percentage of students with recurrent challenging behavior who have a documented FBA and BIP that reflect HLP‑aligned, function‑based interventions, as well as the proportion of EBD programs that fully implement the behavior management indicators defined in the EBPQI. They can also monitor how many life skills programs fully implement the APQI behavior components, including proactive environmental supports and the explicit teaching of replacement behaviors. Classroom observation data can reveal how consistently staff implement positive behavior supports (e.g., clear expectations, active supervision, high rates of positive feedback), which align with the intent of all three tools. Over time, districts should see decreases in restraint, seclusion, and other highly restrictive responses, and increases in the use of de‑escalation and coping strategies, signaling that positive, function‑based supports are firmly in place.
Turning LRE from Placement to Practice
As behavior supports become more proactive and instructionally focused, districts are better positioned to honor students’ rights to learn in their least restrictive environment. High‑quality programs define success not only by what supports students receive, but also by where and alongside whom they learn. HLPs encourage practices that make participation-focused settings workable (e.g., collaboration between general and special educators, ease-of-access instruction, and proactive behavioral supports) so students can participate in general education as much as possible. EBPQI’s access expectations ask EBD programs to examine whether students are educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs and with commensurate access to core instruction and school activities. APQI’s environment and program options components similarly expect life skills programs to maximize access to typical peers and engaging opportunities while still providing the specialized instruction students require.
In practice, districts can track the percentage of students with additional needs who spend most of their day in general education settings, alongside the proportion of EBD programs that are fully implementing impartiality and access indicators tied to participation-focused placement. They can also monitor how many life skills programs fully implement APQI expectations related to welcoming environments and program options, including participation in core classes, electives, and extracurriculars. Reviewing IEPs and service logs can show how often supports are delivered through co‑teaching and push‑in services rather than more restrictive, segregated settings, reflecting the intent of all three tools to pair strong support with the least restrictive, most balanced learning environment possible.
“High‑quality programs define success not only by what supports students receive, but also by where and alongside whom they learn.”
Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Teaming
Underneath all of these efforts - data systems, instruction, behavior, and open participation - are the teams of adults who coordinate and sustain the work. High‑quality programs are sustained by strong, interdisciplinary teams rather than isolated specialists. HLPs emphasize structured collaboration among general educators, special educators, related service providers, and families to plan instruction, share assessment information, and coordinate supports. EBPQI’s consultation and collaboration indicators specify that EBD programs should have clear teaming structures with defined roles, agendas, and processes for reviewing data and planning interventions. APQI’s evaluation, progress‑monitoring, and family involvement components similarly expect life skills programs to use multidisciplinary teams to design IEPs, monitor progress, and adjust supports across domains.
In practice, districts can track how often interdisciplinary teams meet, how many schools have formal teaming structures in place, and what proportion of EBD programs are fully implementing EBPQI collaboration indicators. They can also monitor the percentage of life skills programs that fully implement APQI components requiring multidisciplinary teaming for evaluation, planning, and progress review. Documentation and service logs can show how frequently staff co‑plan and co‑teach, and how often related service goals are integrated into classroom instruction, reflecting the collaborative expectations of all three tools. Over time, these teaming metrics reveal whether special education operates as a coordinated, shared responsibility across the system or as a set of disconnected services.
Leading Without Doing It Alone
Even the most skilled district leaders cannot will program quality into existence through effort and intuition alone. The kind of coherent, data‑driven system described here requires disciplined infrastructure, honest self‑assessment, and an outside perspective that can surface blind spots districts cannot see from within their own organization. Trying to design, implement, and evaluate all of this in isolation often leads to stalled initiatives, siloed efforts, and dashboards that gather dust rather than drive change.
The good news is our district partners do not have to do this alone. Partnering with a group that lives and breathes program evaluation and development accelerates analysis, builds internal capacity, and keeps local efforts anchored in what actually drives student outcomes. The Alliance offers program evaluation and development services that help districts translate these tools into customized metrics, practical data systems, and realistic implementation plans - all while coaching your teams. Hence, the work is sustainable long after the initial evaluation ends. When district leaders bring their deep contextual knowledge together with the specialized members of TLC, special education systems are not just compliant, but truly high‑quality, impartial, and responsive to the students and families they serve.
“Trying to design, implement, and evaluate all of this in isolation often leads to stalled initiatives, siloed efforts, and dashboards that gather dust rather than drive change.”
