ERIC ED557419: 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act," 2014
Discrimination Prohibited Sec. 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under a ny program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.” Sec. 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: to ensure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities Office of Special Education and Rehabi …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://archive.org/download/ERIC_ED557419/ERIC_ED557419.pdf
SHA-256 d22c0aef89e0f599a0be125d6ea293eee9c730f4245aec44b68fac6de1389c9d
Re-using this document
mixed and recorded per item: public domain by age or as a US government work for what was taken; controlled-digital-lending and restrictively licensed items EXCLUDED, each listed with its reason
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-d22c0aef89e0
Document text
Discrimination Prohibited Sec. 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under a ny program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.” Sec. 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: to ensure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services U.S. Department of Education This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-OSE-12-C-0031 with New Editions Consulting, Inc. Richelle Davis served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Michael Yudin Acting Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Melody Musgrove Director December 2014 This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this report is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014, Washington, D.C. 2014. This report is available on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep To order copies of this report, Write to: ED PUBS, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Or fax your request to: 703-605-6794. Or email your request to: edpubs@edpubs.ed.gov. Or call in your request toll-free to: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734. If 877 service is not available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Or order online at: www.edpubs.gov. Availability of Alternate Formats Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872- 5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202. Content Contact: Richelle Davis Phone: 202-245-7401 Email: richelle.davis@ed.gov Contents Page List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................................................................... vi Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................... xv Key Findings at the National Level ..................................................................................................................... xxi Data Sources Used in This Report .......................................................................................................................... 1 Section I. Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the National Level ...................................... 7 Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C .................................................................................... 9 Numbers and Percentages of Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C ............................................................................................................................... 10 Primary Early Intervention Service Settings for Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C ........................................................................................... 14 Part C Exiting Status for Children Served Under IDEA, Part C .................................................... 16 Dispute Resolution for Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C ................................... 19 Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B ....................................................................... 24 Numbers and Percentages of Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B.............. 25 Educational Environments for Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B ........... 28 Special Education Teachers and Paraprofessionals Employed to Serve Children Ages 3 Through 5 Under IDEA, Part B ................................................................................................ 31 Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B ..................................................................... 33 Numbers and Percentages of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B ............ 34 Educational Environments for Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Part B Participation and Performance on State Assessments ......................................................... 49 Part B Exiting .................................................................................................................................... 56 Special Education Teachers and Paraprofessionals Employed to Serve Students Ages 6 Through 21 Under IDEA, Part B .............................................................................................. 62 Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B ............................................ 64 Personnel Employed to Provide Related Services for Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B .................................................................................. 64 Disciplinary Removals of Children and Students From Their Educational Placements.............. 66 Dispute Resolution for Children and Students Served Under IDEA, Part B ................................ 70 Coordinated Early Intervening Services .......................................................................................... 75 iii Contents (continued) Page Section II. Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the State Level ......................................... 77 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 79 Notes Concerning the Exhibits in Section II ............................................................................................. 80 Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C ........................................... 82 Part C Child Count ............................................................................................................................ 82 Part C Primary Early Intervention Service Settings ....................................................................... 88 Part C Exiting .................................................................................................................................... 91 Part C Dispute Resolution ................................................................................................................ 95 Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B ....................................................................... 98 Part B Child Count ............................................................................................................................ 98 Part B Educational Environments ................................................................................................. 104 Part B Personnel ............................................................................................................................. 112 Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B .................................................................. 115 Part B Child Count ......................................................................................................................... 115 Part B Educational Environments ................................................................................................. 130 Part B Participation on State Assessments ................................................................................... 142 Part B Exiting ................................................................................................................................. 150 Part B Personnel ............................................................................................................................. 157 Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B ......................................... 160 Part B Discipline ............................................................................................................................ 160 Part B Dispute Resolution ............................................................................................................. 169 Section III. Findings and Determinations Resulting From Reviews of State Implementation of IDEA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 175 Findings and Determinations Resulting From Reviews of State Implementation of IDEA .......... 177 The SPP and APR .......................................................................................................................... 177 Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 178 The Determination Process ........................................................................................................... 182 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................... 185 Determination Status ...................................................................................................................... 185 Status of Selected Indicators ......................................................................................................... 190 Early Childhood Transition: Part B Indicator 12 ......................................................................... 191 Early Childhood Transition: Part C Indicator 8 ........................................................................... 192 General Supervision: Part B Indicator 15 ..................................................................................... 194 General Supervision: Part C Indicator 9 ....................................................................................... 196 iv Contents (continued) Page Section IV. Summary of Research Conducted Under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 .............................................................................................................................................................. 199 Section V. Summary of Studies and Evaluations Under Section 664 of IDEA ........................................... 215 Section VI. Extent and Progress of the Assessment of National Activities .................................................. 221 Appendix A. Infants, Toddlers, Children, and Students Served Under IDEA, by Age Group and State ......................................................................................................................................................................... 227 Appendix B. Developmental Delay Data for Children Ages 3 Through 5 and Students Ages 6 Through 9 Served Under IDEA, Part B ............................................................................................................ 237 Appendix C. Differences in State Reporting of IDEA, Part B, Disabilities ................................................. 245 Appendix D. IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services ............................................................................................................................................. 249 v Exhibits Page Exhibit 1 Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 .............................. 10 Exhibit 2 Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 3 Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 ................................................................................................................ 12 Exhibit 4 Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by primary early intervention service setting: Fall 2012 .................................................................. 14 Exhibit 5 Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, within racial/ethnic groups, by primary early intervention service setting: Fall 2012 .............. 15 Exhibit 6 Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by exiting status: 2011–12 ................................................................................................................. 16 Exhibit 7 Percentage of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 and were eligible to exit Part C, by Part B eligibility status: 2011–12 ....................................................... 18 Exhibit 8 Percentage of written, signed complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by complaint status: 2011–12 .......................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 9 Percentage of due process complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by complaint status: 2011–12 .......................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 10 Percentage of mediation requests for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by request status: 2011–12 ............................................................................................................ 22 Exhibit 11 Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ...................................................... 25 Exhibit 12 Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category: Fall 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 26 Exhibit 13 Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 ............................... 27 Exhibit 14 Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment: Fall 2012 ................................................................................................................. 28 vi Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 15 Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment: Fall 2012 ..................................................... 30 Exhibit 16 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers and number and percentage of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 ................................................................................................................ 31 Exhibit 17 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education paraprofessionals and number and percentage of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 ........................................................................ 32 Exhibit 18 Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ...................................................... 34 Exhibit 19 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 20 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category: Fall 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 36 Exhibit 21 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and disability category: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 .................................................................. 37 Exhibit 22 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012.................. 38 Exhibit 23 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 24 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 25 Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 ............................ 41 Exhibit 26 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by disability category: Fall 2012 ............................................................... 42 Exhibit 27 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment: Fall 2012 ................................................................................................................. 43 vii Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 28 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and educational environment: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 ............................................................... 45 Exhibit 29 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within disability category, by educational environment: Fall 2012 ....................................................... 46 Exhibit 30 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment: Fall 2012 ..................................................... 47 Exhibit 31 Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school who participated in state math and reading assessments, by assessment type: School year 2011–12 ..................................................................................................................... 49 Exhibit 32 Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school classified as nonparticipants in state math and reading assessments, by nonparticipant category: School year 2011–12 ........................................................................... 51 Exhibit 33 Numbers of states assessing students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school in math and reading and median percentages of those students who were proficient, by assessment type: School year 2011–12 ....................................................... 53 Exhibit 34 Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, by exit reason: 2011–12 .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Exhibit 35 Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year: 2002–03 through 2011–12 ............................................................................................................ 57 Exhibit 36 Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who graduated with a regular high school diploma, by year and disability category: 2002–03 through 2011–12 ............................................................................................................ 59 Exhibit 37 Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who dropped out of school, by year and disability category: 2002–03 through 2011–12 ................ 61 Exhibit 38 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers and number and percentage of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 ................................................................................................................ 62 Exhibit 39 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education paraprofessionals and number and percentage of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 ...................................................................... 63 viii Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 40 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel and number and percentage of FTE fully certified personnel employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by personnel type: Fall 2011 ............ 64 Exhibit 41 Numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 who were served under IDEA, Part B; removed from their educational placements for disciplinary purposes; and removed per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by type of disciplinary removal: School year 2011–12 .................................................. 66 Exhibit 42 Numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed to an interim alternative educational setting and suspended or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and type of disciplinary removal: School year 2011–12 ................................................................................................................................. 68 Exhibit 43 Percentage of written, signed complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by complaint status: 2011–12 .............................................................................. 71 Exhibit 44 Percentage of due process complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by complaint status: 2011–12 .......................................................................................... 72 Exhibit 45 Percentage of mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by request status: 2011–12 ............................................................................................... 73 Exhibit 46 Number and percentage of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012 who received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) in school years 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12: Fall 2012 ............................................................ 75 Exhibit 47 Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 ................................................................................................. 82 Exhibit 48 Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 ........................................................................................ 85 Exhibit 49 Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year, primary early intervention service setting, and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 ................. 88 Exhibit 50 Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting or continuing in IDEA, Part C, by exiting status and state: 2011–12 ................................................................................ 91 Exhibit 51 Number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for infants and toddlers per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2011–12 ........................................................................... 95 Exhibit 52 Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 ................................................................................................. 98 ix Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 53 Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 ..................................................................................... 101 Exhibit 54 Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 .............................................................................................. 104 Exhibit 55 Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 ........................ 108 Exhibit 56 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011 ............................................................................................................................ 112 Exhibit 57 Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 .............................................................................................. 115 Exhibit 58 Percentage of the population ages 6 through age 21 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 ............................................................................ 118 Exhibit 59 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 ......................................... 121 Exhibit 60 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 .......... 124 Exhibit 61 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 127 Exhibit 62 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 .............................................................................................. 130 Exhibit 63 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 ........................ 133 Exhibit 64 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 136 Exhibit 65 Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 139 Exhibit 66 Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state math assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12 .............................................................................................................................. 142 x Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 67 Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state reading assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12 .............................................................................................................................. 146 Exhibit 68 Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year and state: 2008–09 and 2011–12 ...................................................................................................... 150 Exhibit 69 Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, by exit reason and state: 2011–12 ............................................................................................................................. 154 Exhibit 70 Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011 ................. 157 Exhibit 71 Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12 ..................... 160 Exhibit 72 Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12 ........................................................................................................ 163 Exhibit 73 Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance and suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by state: School year 2011–12 ....................................................... 166 Exhibit 74 Numbers of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by state: 2011–12 ...................................................... 169 Exhibit 75 Number of complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by complaint status and state: 2011–12 ....................................................................................................................................... 172 Exhibit 76 Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011............................................................. 178 Exhibit 77 Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part C, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011............................................................. 181 Exhibit 78 Process for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B and Part C, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011 ..................................................................................... 183 xi Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit 79 States determined to have met IDEA, Part B, requirements, by determination status: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 186 Exhibit 80 States determined to have met IDEA, Part C, requirements, by determination status: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 188 Exhibit 81 Number of states determined to have met IDEA, Part B, requirements, by determination status and change in status: Federal fiscal years 2010 and 2011 ..................... 189 Exhibit 82 Number of states determined to have met IDEA, Part C, requirements, by determination status and change in status: Federal fiscal years 2010 and 2011 ..................... 190 Exhibit 83 Number of states, by percentage of children referred to IDEA, Part B, by Part C prior to age 3 who were found eligible for Part B and who had individualized education programs (IEPs) developed and implemented by their third birthday: Federal fiscal year 2011 ..................................................................................................................................... 191 Exhibit 84 Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part B, Indicator 12: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 192 Exhibit 85 Number of states, by percentage of children exiting IDEA, Part C, who received timely transition planning by their third birthday, by sub-indicators of Part C Indicator 8: Federal fiscal year 2011 ......................................................................................... 193 Exhibit 86 Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part C, Indicator 8: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 194 Exhibit 87 Number of states, by percentage of IDEA, Part B, noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification: Federal fiscal year 2011 ..................................................... 195 Exhibit 88 Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part B, Indicator 15: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 195 Exhibit 89 Number of states, by percentage of IDEA, Part C, noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification: Federal fiscal year 2011 ..................................................... 196 Exhibit 90 Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part C, Indicator 9: Federal fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 197 Exhibit A-1 Number and percentage of the population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by age group and state: Fall 2012........................................................... 229 Exhibit A-2 Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 ............................................................................................. 231 xii Exhibits (continued) Page Exhibit A-3 Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 233 Exhibit A-4 Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 235 Exhibit B-1 Number of states reporting children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay and percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 .............................................................................. 240 Exhibit B-2 Number of states reporting students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay and percentage of the population ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 .............................................................................. 241 Exhibit B-3 States with different practices in reporting children served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay, by reporting practice and state: Fall 2012 .................. 242 Exhibit C-1 States that reported children and students with multiple disabilities in different disability categories for IDEA, Part B, child count and educational environments data collections: Fall 2012; and exiting and discipline data collections: 2011–12 ........................ 247 Exhibit D-1 Number of students who received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality or that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds reserved for CEIS, by state: School year 2011–12 ....................................................................................................................................... 252 Exhibit D-2 Number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements under 34 C.F.R. section 300.600(a)(2), had an increase in 611 allocations, and took the maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) in school year 2011–12, by state: School year 2011–12 ........................................................................................................ 254 xiii Preface Since its enactment, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law (P.L.) 94-142, requires the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (secretary) [and predecessor, the commissioner of education at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare] to transmit to Congress an annual report to inform Congress and the public of the progress being made in implementing the act. The annual reports to Congress reflect a history of persistent commitment and effort to expand educational opportunities for children with disabilities. In December 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 108-446), which was signed into law in the same month. The provisions of IDEA became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher”∗ that took effect upon the signing of the act. With reauthorization of IDEA, the nation reaffirmed its commitment to improving the early intervention and educational results and functional outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities (collectively this group may be referred to in this report as children with disabilities). The 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014† describes our nation’s progress in (1) providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities and early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, (2) ensuring that the rights of these children with disabilities and their parents are protected, (3) assisting states and localities in providing for the education of all children with disabilities, and (4) assessing the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. The report focuses on the children and students with disabilities being served under IDEA, Part C or B, nationally and at the state level. In particular, Part C of IDEA provides funds to states to assist them in developing and implementing statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary interagency systems to make early intervention services available to all children from birth through age 2 with disabilities and their families, whereas Part B of IDEA provides funds to states to assist them in providing FAPE to children ∗ When referring to a “highly qualified teacher,” the term “highly qualified” has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). For a highly qualified special education teacher, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in ESEA, as amended, except that such term also includes the requirements described in section 602(10)(B) of IDEA, and the option for teachers to meet the requirements of section 9101 of ESEA, as amended, by meeting the requirements of section 602(10)(C) or (D) of IDEA [see 20 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1401(10)]. † The year in the title reflects the U.S. Department of Education’s target year for submitting the report to Congress. The most current findings are based on data collected from July 2011 through December 2012. These data have been available to the public prior to their presentation in this report. Subsequent references to this report and previously published annual reports will be abbreviated: they will not include “on the Implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” xv ages 3 through 21 with disabilities who are in need of special education and related services. Throughout this report, infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, children served under IDEA, Part B, and students served under IDEA, Part B, refer to individuals with disabilities who receive services under IDEA, Part C or Part B. “Special education services,” which is referenced throughout this report, is a term that is synonymous with services provided under IDEA, Part B. Similarly, “early intervention services” is a term used synonymously with services provided under IDEA, Part C. This 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 follows the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013 in sequence and format, and it continues to focus on IDEA results and accountability. Similar to the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013, the 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 contains six major sections that address the five annual report requirements contained in section 664(d) of IDEA. The sections are: (1) a summary and analysis of IDEA section 618 data at the national level; (2) a summary and analysis of IDEA section 618 data at the state level;‡ (3) a summary and analysis of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) findings and determinations regarding the extent to which states are meeting the requirements of IDEA, Parts B and C; (4) a summary of special education research conducted under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002; (5) a summary of national special education studies and evaluations conducted under sections 664(a) and (c) of IDEA; and (6) a summary of the extent and progress of the assessment of national activities, which focus on determining the effectiveness of IDEA and improving its implementation. The content of this report differs from that of the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013 in the following ways: (1) it presents some data concerning IDEA, Part B maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction and coordinated early intervening services (CEIS), and (2) data for the three freely associated states (the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) are considered along with those for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico herein), and the four outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands) when the entirety of the United States is being represented. A summary of the six sections and four appendices that make up the 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 follows. ‡ 618 data consist of (1) the number of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C; the settings in which they receive program services; information on the transition at age 3 out of Part C; and dispute resolution information and (2) the number of children and students served under IDEA, Part B; the environments in which they receive education; their participation in and performance on state assessments; information on their exiting special education services; the personnel employed to provide educational services to them; disciplinary actions that affect them; and dispute resolution information. xvi Section I. Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the National Level Section I contains national data pertinent to Parts C and B of IDEA. It contains four subsections. The four subsections focus on infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C; children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B; students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B; and children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. The exhibits provide information about the characteristics of children and students receiving services under Parts C and B, their disabilities, the settings in which they receive services, their participation in and performance on state assessments, their exits from Part C and Part B programs, their disciplinary removals, and their legal disputes. Also addressed are the characteristics of the personnel employed to provide special education and related services for the children and students. The data presented in the exhibits and discussed in the bulleted text represent the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the four outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, the exhibits that concern special education and related services provided under IDEA, Part B, include data for BIE schools operated or funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the three freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Section II. Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the State Level Section II contains state-level data regarding Part C and Part B of IDEA. This section is organized into four subsections. The first subsection presents information about infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, while the second and third subsections present information about children ages 3 through 5 and students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, respectively. The fourth subsection provides information about children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. The four subsections address questions about the characteristics of children and students receiving services under Parts C and B, their disabilities, the settings in which they receive services, their participation in state assessments, their exits from Part C and Part B programs, their disciplinary removals, and their legal disputes. Also addressed are the characteristics of the personnel employed to provide special education and related services for the children and students. The data presented in exhibits and discussed in the bulleted text represent the 50 states, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, and Puerto Rico. Section III. Findings and Determinations Resulting From Reviews of State Implementation of IDEA Sections 616(d) and 642 of IDEA require the secretary to make an annual determination as to the extent to which each state’s Part B and Part C programs are meeting the requirements of the IDEA. To fulfill this requirement, the secretary considers each state’s State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual xvii Performance Report (APR). Based on the information provided by the state in the SPP and APR, information obtained through monitoring reviews, and any other public information made available, the secretary determines if the state meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA, needs assistance in implementing the requirements, needs intervention in implementing the requirements, or needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements. In June 2013, the Department issued the determination letters on implementation of IDEA for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2011 to 60 state education agencies (SEAs) for Part B and to 56 state lead agencies for Part C. Section III presents the results of the determinations. Section IV. Summary of Research Conducted Under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 When Congress reauthorized IDEA in December 2004, it amended the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-279) by adding a new Part E to that act. The new Part E established the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) as part of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). NCSER began operation on July 1, 2005. As specified in section 175(b) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, NCSER’s mission is to Bullet. Sponsor research to expand knowledge and understanding of the needs of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities in order to improve the developmental, educational, and transitional results of such individuals; Bullet. Sponsor research to improve services provided under, and support the implementation of, IDEA [20 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1400 et seq.]; and Bullet. Evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of IDEA in coordination with the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Section IV of this report describes the research projects funded by grants made during FFY 2013 (October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013) by NCSER under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Section V. Summary of Studies and Evaluations Under Section 664 of IDEA In the December 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress required the secretary to delegate to the director of IES responsibility to carry out studies and evaluations under sections 664(a), (b), and (c) of IDEA. As specified in section 664(a) of IDEA, IES, either directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements awarded to eligible entities on a competitive basis, assesses the progress in the implementation of IDEA, including the effectiveness of state and local efforts to provide (1) FAPE to children with disabilities and (2) early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and xviii infants and toddlers who would be at risk of having substantial developmental delays if early intervention services were not provided to them. As specified in section 664(c) of IDEA, IES is required to carry out a national study or studies that will inform efforts to ensure accountability for students who are held to alternate achievement standards. This section describes the studies and evaluations authorized by sections 664(a) and (c) of IDEA and supported by IES during FFY 2013 (October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013). Section VI. Extent and Progress of the Assessment of National Activities Under section 664(b) of IDEA (as amended in 2004), the secretary is responsible for carrying out a “national assessment” of activities supported by federal funds under IDEA. As delegated by the secretary, IES is carrying out this national assessment to (1) determine the effectiveness of IDEA in achieving the law’s purpose; (2) provide timely information to the president, Congress, the states, local education agencies (LEAs), and the public on how to implement IDEA more effectively; and (3) provide the president and Congress with information that will be useful in developing legislation to achieve the purposes of IDEA more effectively. The national assessment is designed to address specific research questions that focus on (1) the implementation and impact of programs assisted under IDEA in addressing developmental and academic outcomes for children with disabilities, (2) identification for early intervention and special education, (3) early intervention and special education services, and (4) early intervention and special education personnel. Studies funded in FFY 2013 that contribute to the national assessment are described in Section VI. Appendix A. Infants, Toddlers, Children, and Students Served Under IDEA, by Age Group and State Appendix A presents the numbers and percentages of the resident population represented by the infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in 2012 in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the four outlying areas (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands); children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B; and students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012 in each state, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states (the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands). It also presents the number of children served in each state, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states by race/ethnicity. xix Appendix B. Developmental Delay Data for Children Ages 3 Through 5 and Students Ages 6 Through 9 Served Under IDEA, Part B Appendix B presents information about the children ages 3 through 5 and students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay.§ Exhibits B-1 and B-2 provide data on the percentages of resident populations in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico represented by the children ages 3 through 5 and students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of developmental delay, respectively, in each year, 2003 through 2012. Exhibit B-3 identifies whether each state, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states used the developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 5, students ages 6 through 9, or both in 2012. Appendix C. Differences in State Reporting of IDEA, Part B, Disabilities Appendix C presents information on the states that reported children and students ages 3 through 21 with multiple disabilities in different disability categories for IDEA, Part B, child count and educational environments data collections in 2012, and for the exiting and discipline data collections in 2011–12. Appendix D. IDEA, Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services Appendix D presents state-level information on the number of students who received CEIS and number and percentage of LEAs and educational service agencies (ESAs) that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality or that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS. In addition, state-level data are presented on the number and percentage of LEAs and ESAs that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements under 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) section 300.600(a)(2) and had an increase in IDEA Part B section 611 allocations and took the MOE reduction pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) in school year 2011–12. § This descriptor and other section 618 data descriptors in this report are italicized within exhibits, text, and notes to clarify that the reference is to a grouping of data. xx Key Findings at the National Level The 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 showcases data collected from states. The report also includes information from studies, evaluations, and databases of the Institute of Education Sciences and U.S. Census Bureau. Some key findings from Section I of the report, “Summary and Analysis of IDEA, Section 618 Data at the National Level” follow. To more completely understand the meaning and context for each of the findings featured below, the reader is advised to review the exhibit cited and the additional associated bulleted text. Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C Bullet. In 2012, there were 333,982 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. Of those infants and toddlers, 329,859 were served in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This number represented 2.8 percent of the birth-through-age-2 population in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (Exhibit 1). Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, increased from 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent. The percentage of 2-year-olds in the resident population of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, either increased from the previous year or was approximately the same as in the previous year from 2003 through 2012. The percentage of 1-year-olds in the resident population of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, either increased from the previous year or was approximately the same as in the previous year from 2003 through 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, the percentage decreased from 2.7 percent to 2.6 percent. The percentage in 2012 was also 2.6 percent. From 2003 through 2012, approximately 1 percent of the infants and toddlers under 1 year old in the resident population were served under Part C (Exhibit 2). Bullet. White and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander infants and toddlers had risk ratios of 1.2 and 1.3, respectively, indicating that infants and toddlers in each of these racial/ethnic groups were slightly more likely than those in all other racial/ethnic groups combined to be served under IDEA, Part C. Asian and Hispanic/Latino infants and toddlers as well as infants and toddlers associated with two or more races had risk ratios of 0.8, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively, indicating that infants and toddlers in each of these groups were slightly less likely than those in all other racial/ethnic groups combined to be served under IDEA, Part C. American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American infants and toddlers, with risk ratios of 1.0, were as likely to be served under Part C as the infants and toddlers of all other racial/ethnic groups combined (Exhibit 3). Bullet. In 2012, 87.3 percent of infants and toddlers served under Part C received their early intervention services primarily in the home. The category of community-based setting was reported as the primary early intervention setting for 7.6 percent of those served under Part C. Consequently, 94.9 percent of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, in 2012 received their early intervention services primarily in natural environments, which are defined as the home or a community-based setting (Exhibit 4). xxi Bullet. In 2012, home was the primary early intervention service setting for more than 84 percent of the infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in each racial/ethnic group. The largest percentage of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, who received early intervention services in a community-based setting was associated with American Indian or Alaska Native children (10.2 percent), while the smallest percentage served in this setting was associated with White children (6.6 percent) (Exhibit 5). Bullet. Of the Part C exiting statuses in 2011–12, Part B eligible, exiting Part C accounted for the largest percentage of infants and toddlers (38.5 percent). An additional 2.9 percent of the infants and toddlers were found to be eligible for Part B but continued to receive services under Part C. No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 was the second most prevalent category of exiting status as it accounted for 13.5 percent of the of infants and toddlers (Exhibit 6). Bullet. In 2011–12, 61.4 percent of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 were determined to be Part B eligible, exiting Part C. An additional 4.6 percent of these children were found to be eligible for Part B but continued to receive services under Part C. Slightly more than one-sixth of the children served under IDEA, Part C, who had reached age 3 (17.4 percent) exited Part C without having their eligibility for Part B determined. The remaining 16.6 percent of the children served under Part C who had reached age 3 exited Part C and were determined to be not eligible for Part B. The children who were not eligible for Part B included those who exited with referrals to other programs (10.9 percent) and those who exited with no referrals (5.7 percent) (Exhibit 7). Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 132 written, signed complaints were received through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. A report was issued for 99 (75.0 percent) of the complaints, while 30 (22.7 percent) of the complaints were withdrawn or dismissed. Only three (2.3 percent) of the complaints that were received during the reporting period were pending or unresolved by the end of the period (Exhibit 8). Bullet. A total of 133 due process complaints were received during 2011–12 through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. For 107 (80.5 percent) of the due process complaints received during the reporting period, the complaint was withdrawn or dismissed. For 13 (9.8 percent) of the due process complaints received, a hearing was conducted, and a written legal decision was issued. For the remaining 13 complaints (9.8 percent), a hearing was still pending as of the end of the reporting period (Exhibit 9). Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 279 mediation requests were received through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. A mediation was conducted before the end of the reporting period for 142 (50.9 percent) of the mediation requests received. The mediation that was held in 14 (5.0 percent) of these cases was related to a due process complaint, while the session held in 128 (45.9 percent) of these cases was not related to a due process complaint. Of the 137 mediation requests received that did not result in a mediation being held by the end of the reporting period, 129 (46.2 percent) had been withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise ended without a mediation being held. The remaining eight (2.9 percent) were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Exhibit 10). xxii Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B Bullet. In 2012, 750,131 children ages 3 through were served under Part B. Of these children, 736,195 were served in the states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. This number represented 6 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5. Between 2003 and 2012, the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the states for which data were available increased from 680,142 to 750,131. This addition of 69,989 children represented a 10.3 percent increase in the number of children served. Between 2003 and 2004, the percentage of the resident population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 5.8 percent to 5.9 percent. The percentage remained at 5.9 through 2006 but fell to 5.8 percent in 2007. In 2009, the percentage reached 5.9 percent again, and it remained there until 2012, when the percentage reached 6 percent (Exhibit 11). Bullet. In 2012, the most prevalent disability category of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, was speech or language impairments (44.7 percent). The next most common disability category was developmental delay (37.2 percent), followed by autism (7.8 percent). The children ages 3 through 5 represented by the category “Other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining 10.3 percent of children served under IDEA, Part B (Exhibit 12). Bullet. In 2012, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White children as well as children associated with multiple races, ages 3 through 5 had risk ratios above 1.0 (i.e., 1.4, 1.5, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively). This indicates that the children in each of these groups were more likely to be served under Part B than were children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Black or African American children ages 3 through 5, with a risk ratio of 1.0, were as likely to be served under Part B as the children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Asian and Hispanic/ Latino children, with risk ratios of less than 1.0 (i.e., 0.7, and 0.8, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (Exhibit 13). Bullet. In 2012, a total of 65 percent of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, were in a regular early childhood program for some amount of their time in school. Of the four categories representing children who attended a regular early childhood program, the category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for the largest percentage of children. Moreover, as this category accounted for 37.2 percent of all children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, it represented more children than any other educational environment category. A separate class accounted for almost one-fourth (23.6 percent) of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, making it the second-most prevalent educational environment. Collectively, the environments of separate school, residential facility, and home (which are represented by the category “Other environments”) accounted for only 4.9 percent of the children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B. The educational environment for the remaining students, representing only 6.5 percent of the children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, was a service provider location or some other location (Exhibit 14). Bullet. In 2012, a regular early childhood program for some amount of the time spent in school was the educational environment for the majority of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in each racial/ethnic group. The category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of xxiii special education and related services in that program, accounted for the largest percentage of children who attended a regular early childhood program for every racial/ethnic group. Moreover for every racial/ethnic group except Asian, this category accounted for a larger percentage of the children than did any other category of educational environment. In particular, this environment accounted for 45 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children, 30.8 percent of Asian children, 38.9 percent of Black or African American children, 39.9 percent of Hispanic/Latino children, 35.8 percent of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander children, 35.6 percent of White children, and 37.7 percent of the children reported as two or more races. A separate class accounted for 31.9 percent of Asian children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, making it the most prevalent educational environment for Asians (Exhibit 15). Bullet. In 2011, a total of 39,498, or 95.9 percent, of the 41,203 full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified (Exhibit 16). Bullet. In 2011, a total of 44,293,or 96 percent, of the 46,138 FTE special education paraprofessionals who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified (Exhibit 17). Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Bullet. In 2012, a total of 5,823,844 students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B. Of these students, 5,699,640 were served in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 8.4 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21. The total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 6,046,051 in 2003 to 6,118,437 in 2004. In each year between 2004 and 2011, the number of students served was less than in the previous year. The number of students served under Part B in 2012 was 33,960 or 0.6 percent more students than that served in 2011. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was 9.0 percent or 9.1 percent in each year from 2003 through 2006. In each year after 2004 through 2012, the percentage of the population served was less than or equal to that served in the previous year. Moreover, the percentage served in each year after 2006 was smaller than the percentage served in 2003 (Exhibit 18). Bullet. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 9.0 percent in 2003 to 9.1 percent in 2004. Thereafter, the percentage decreased gradually, reaching a low of 8.4 percent in 2010 through 2012. The general pattern of an increase and then a decrease to a level slightly below the percentage served in 2003 was observed for the students ages 6 through 11 and the students ages 12 through 17 but not the students ages 18 through 21. The percentage for the latter group, which accounted for many fewer students than the other two groups, increased or stayed the same in each successive year from 2003 through 2009, when it peaked at 2 percent of the resident population ages 18 through 21. The percentage did not change after 2009 (Exhibit 19). Bullet. In 2012, the most prevalent disability category of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was specific learning disabilities (40.1 percent). The next most common disability category was speech or language impairments (18.2 percent), followed by other health impairments (13.2 percent), autism (7.6 percent), intellectual disabilities (7.3 percent), and emotional disturbance (6.2 percent). Students ages 6 through 21 in “Other disabilities xxiv combined” accounted for the remaining 7.3 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B (Exhibit 20). Bullet. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under each of six disability categories changed by 0.2 of a percentage point or more between 2003 and 2012. The percentages of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under other health impairments and under autism increased by 0.4 of a percentage point and 0.5 of a percentage point, respectively. In addition, the percentages of the population reported under emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and speech or language impairments decreased by 0.2 of a percentage point, 0.9 of a percentage point, 0.3 of a percentage point, and 0.2 of a percentage point, respectively (Exhibit 21). Bullet. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of autism increased steadily from 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism all increased. Specifically, the percentages of these three age groups that were reported under the category of autism were 165 percent, 285 percent, and 290 percent larger in 2012 than in 2003 (Exhibit 22). Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of other health impairments increased from 0.7 percent to 1.1 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairments were 53 percent, 77 percent, and 129 percent larger in 2012 than in 2003, respectively (Exhibit 23). Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of specific learning disabilities decreased from 4.3 percent to 3.4 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities were 22 percent, 20 percent, and 5 percent smaller in 2012 than in 2003, respectively (Exhibit 24). Bullet. In 2012, American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander children ages 6 through 21 had risk ratios above 1 (i.e., 1.7, 1.4, and 1.6, respectively). This indicates that the children in each group were more likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Asian and White children ages 6 through 21 as well as children ages 6 through 21 associated with more than one race, with risk ratios of less than 1.0 (i.e., 0.5, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Hispanic/Latino children ages 6 through 21, with a risk ratio of 1.0 were as likely to be served under Part B as children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (Exhibit 25). Bullet. For the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012, specific learning disabilities was the most prevalent disability category or as prevalent as any other category for every racial/ethnic group. In particular, this disability category accounted for 46.4 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 26.7 percent of Asian students, 41.8 percent of Black or African American students, 49 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 52.9 percent of xxv Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 36 percent of White students, and 35.6 percent of the children reported as of two or more races (Exhibit 26). Bullet. In 2012, a total of 94.8 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day. More than 60 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, (61.5 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. A total of 19.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, and 13.8 percent were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Only 5.2 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated outside of the regular classroom in “Other environments” (Exhibit 27). Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day increased from 49.9 percent to 61.5 percent. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day decreased from 27.7 percent in 2003 to 19.5 percent in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of students educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day decreased from 18.5 percent to 13.8 percent between these years. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated in “Other environments” increased from 3.9 percent in 2003 to 5.2 percent in 2012. However, it had accounted for as much as 5.3 percent in 2007 and 2009 (Exhibit 28). Bullet. In 2012, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in each educational environment varied by disability category. More than 8 in 10 students reported under the category of speech or language impairments (86.6 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Only 17.1 percent of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities and 13.1 percent of students reported under the category of multiple disabilities were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Almost one-half of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities (48.7 percent) and students reported under the category of multiple disabilities (46.2 percent) were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. In 2012, larger percentages of students reported under the categories of deaf-blindness (33.1 percent) and multiple disabilities (24.5 percent) than students reported under other disability categories were educated in “Other environments” (Exhibit 29). Bullet. In 2012, for each racial/ethnic group, the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. The students who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for at least 50 percent of the students in each of the racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students in the racial/ethnic groups who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day ranged from 53.9 percent to 64.5 percent. The category inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for between 16.7 and 27.4 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group. In contrast, less than 20 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group, except for Asian students (21.1 percent), were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. “Other environments” accounted for less than 6.2 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group (Exhibit 30). Bullet. In school year 2011–12, between 38.9 and 45.8 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in math. xxvi Between 29.9 and 39.3 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in math. In school year 2011–12, between 37.4 and 41.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in reading. Between 33.1 and 41.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in reading (Exhibit 31). Bullet. No more than 2.33 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a math assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants. Similarly, no more than 2.06 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a reading assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants. Larger percentages of the students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants for both the math assessment (5.78 percent) and the reading assessment (6.01 percent) (Exhibit 32). Bullet. In school year 2011–12, between 52 and 54 of the 60 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, BIE schools, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 3 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was 44.8 percent. The median percentage of students who were found to be proficient with these tests was less for each successive grade, reaching a low of 19.2 percent for students in high school. Non-suppressed data were available for between 51 and 53 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade, who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 67.7 percent to 72.2 percent (Exhibit 33). Bullet. In school year 2011–12, either 53 or 54 of the 60 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, BIE schools, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentages of these students who were found to be proficient with these reading tests ranged from 29.6 percent to 39.6 percent. Non-suppressed data were available for between 52 and 54 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 69.9 percent to 74.4 percent (Exhibit 33). Bullet. Of the seven exit reason categories, graduated with a regular high school diploma accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 14 through 21 who exited special education in 2011–12 (39.6 percent), followed by moved, known to be continuing in education (27.8 percent) and dropped out (12.7 percent) (Exhibit 34). xxvii Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having graduated with a regular high school diploma increased from 52.5 percent to 63.9 percent. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having dropped out decreased from 33.6 percent to 20.5 percent (Exhibit 35). Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the graduation percentage increased for students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school in all disability categories except deaf-blindness. Increases larger than 10 percent were associated with the following four disability categories: autism (10.6 percentage point increase), emotional disturbance (15.5 percentage point increase), specific learning disabilities (11.1 percentage point increase), and speech or language impairments (15.0 percentage point increase). In every year from 2002–03 through 2011–12 except 2006– 07, the disability category of visual impairments was associated with the largest graduation percentage. Moreover, while the students who exited special education and school reported under the category of emotional disturbance had the smallest graduation percentages in 2002–03 and 2003–04, the students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities had the smallest graduation percentages from 2004–05 through 2011–12 (Exhibit 36). Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the dropout percentage decreased for students in each disability category who exited IDEA, Part B, and school. The decreases were most notable for students reported under the categories of emotional disturbance (17.9 percentage point decrease) and speech or language impairments (15.4 percentage point decrease). In each year from 2002–03 through 2011–12, a larger percentage of the students reported under the category of emotional disturbance exited special education and school by dropping out. In fact in each year, the dropout percentage was no less than 37 percent, which was substantially larger than the dropout percentage for any other disability category (Exhibit 37). Bullet. In 2011, a total of 347,091, or 95.2 percent, of the 364,629 FTE special education teachers who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified (Exhibit 38). Bullet. In 2011, a total of 401,176, or 97.4 percent, of the 411,756 FTE special education paraprofessionals who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified (Exhibit 39). Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Bullet. In 2011, a total of 98.1 percent of all FTE personnel who were employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were fully certified. Ten of the 11 categories of FTE related services personnel had full certification percentages of 95 percent or more. Interpreters had the smallest full certification percentage (90.6 percent), while nearly all psychologists (99.0 percent) were fully certified (Exhibit 40). Bullet. During school year 2011–12, 6,891 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the states for which data were available were removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury. Given that 4,888,560 children and students ages 3 through 21 were served under Part B in 2011, in the states for which data were available, this type of action occurred with only 14 children and students for every 10,000 children and students who were served under Part B in 2011. Only 182 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or less than 5 for every 100,000 children and students served in xxviii 2011, in the states for which data were available were removed to an interim alternative educational setting by a hearing officer for likely injury to themselves or others in school year 2011–12. There were 48,607 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or 97 for every 10,000 children and students served in 2011, in the states for which data were available who received out-of-school suspensions or expulsions for more than 10 cumulative days in school year 2011–12. There were 29,076 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or 56 for every 10,000 children and students served in 2011, in the states for which data were available who received in-school suspensions for more than 10 cumulative days in school year 2011–12 (Exhibit 41). Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 41 children and students removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily during school year 2011– 12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 23 per 10,000 children and students served. Without regard for disability category, for every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011, no more than eight children and students were removed by a hearing officer for likely injury during school year 2011–12. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 407 children and students who received out-of-school suspensions or expulsions for more than 10 cumulative days during school year 2011–12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 161 per 10,000 children and students. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 163 children and students who received in-school suspensions for more than 10 cumulative days during school year 2011–12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 99 per 10,000 children and students (Exhibit 42). Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 5,025 written, signed complaints were received through the dispute resolution process for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. A report was issued for 3,223 (64.1 percent) of the complaints, while 1,683 (33.5) percent) of the complaints were withdrawn or dismissed. A total of 130 (2.6 percent) of the complaints that were received during the 2011–12 reporting period were pending or unresolved by the end of the period (Exhibit 43). Bullet. A total of 17,118 due process complaints were received during 2011–12 through the dispute resolution process for children and students served under IDEA, Part B. For 12,777 (74.6 percent) of the due process complaints received during the 2011–12 reporting period, a resolution was achieved without a hearing. For 2,262 (13.2 percent) of the due process complaints received, a hearing was conducted, and a written legal decision was issued. For 2,079 (12.1 percent) of the due process complaints received, a resolution was still pending at the end of the reporting period (Exhibit 44). Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 9,219 mediation requests were received through the dispute resolution process for children and students served under IDEA, Part B. For 3,223 (35.0 percent) of the mediation requests received, a mediation related to a due process complaint was conducted. For 2,832 (30.7 percent) of the mediation requests received, a mediation that was not related to a due process complaint was conducted. For 884 requests (9.6 percent), a mediation session was still pending as of the end of the 2011–12 reporting period. The xxix remaining 2,280 mediation requests (24.7 percent) were withdrawn or otherwise not to be held by the end of the reporting period (Exhibit 45). Bullet. A total of 149,672 or 2.3 percent of the 6,652,092 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under Part B in 2012 by the states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states received coordinated early intervening services in school year(s) 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12 (Exhibit 46). xxx Data Sources Used in This Report This 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 contains data obtained from the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW). Other data sources used in this report include the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP’s) Regional Resource Center Program, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Brief descriptions of these data sources1 follow below. Further information about each data source can be found at the website referenced at the end of each description. Unless otherwise specified, each URL provided below was accessed in fall 2013. EDFacts Data Warehouse Data Collections The text and exhibits contained in the 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 were developed primarily from data in the Department’s EDW. EDW is a repository for performance and administrative data collected across offices in the Department. It contains all of the data that states are required to collect under section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The state data that are in EDW are obtained each year through a set of data collections that were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Each data collection concerns a distinct domain of information. The data collections for the data that are primarily featured in this report concern: Bullet. The number of infants and toddlers served under Part C of IDEA and the number of children and students served under Part B of IDEA, Bullet. The settings in which Part C program services and environments in which Part B education services are received, Bullet. The exiting status of infants and toddlers from Part C and the reasons students exit from Part B, Bullet. Part C and Part B legal disputes and their resolution status, Bullet. Participation in and performance on state assessments in math and reading by students served under Part B, Bullet. The personnel employed to provide special education and related services for children and students under Part B, and Bullet. Disciplinary actions for Part B program participants. 1 When a data source referenced in the report is a website, the accompanying access date refers to the time when the data were originally gathered from EDW for preparing the exhibits or summaries that appear herein. 1 In addition, this report presents some data on IDEA, Part B maintenance of effort (MOE) reductions and coordinated early intervention services (CEIS), which are also maintained in EDW. Such data were not included in the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013 because some states had not yet developed the capability to report valid and reliable information. The chart below shows the collection and reporting schedule for the most current data regarding each of the domains presented in this report. Program Data collection domain Collection date Date due to OSEP Part C Child count State-designated date between Oct. 1, 2012, and Dec. 1, 2012 Feb. 6, 2013 Program settings State-designated date between Oct. 1, 2012, and Dec. 1, 2012 Feb. 6, 2013 Exiting Cumulative for state-determined 12-month reporting period, 2011–12 Nov. 7, 2012 Dispute resolution Cumulative for July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012 Nov. 7, 2012 Part B Child count State-designated date between Oct. 1, 2012, and Dec. 1, 2012 Feb. 6, 2013 Educational environments State-designated date between Oct. 1, 2012, and Dec. 1, 2012 Feb. 6, 2013 Assessment State determined testing date for school year 2011–12 Dec. 19, 2012 Exiting Cumulative for July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012 Nov. 7, 2012 Personnel State-designated date between Oct. 1, 2011, and Dec. 1, 2011 Nov. 7, 2012 Discipline Cumulative for school year 2011–12 Nov. 7, 2012 Dispute resolution Cumulative for July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012 Nov. 7, 2012 MOE reduction and CEIS FFYs 2010 and 2011 and school years 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 May 1, 2013 As shown in the chart, the data collections regarding the domains related to Part C child count and program settings, and Part B child count, educational environments, assessment, and personnel concern measurements at a particular point in time. The data collected under each of these domains concern a specific group of the Part C or Part B program participants. Except in the case of the Part B assessment data, the group is defined in terms of the program participants’ ages on the date that the state collects the data. The group of participants regarding the Part B assessment data collection is defined as all students with individualized education programs who are enrolled in grades 3 through 8 and the high school grade in which the assessment is administered by the state on the testing date. 2 The data collections for Part C and Part B exits and Part B disciplinary actions are also associated with a specific group defined by the participants’ ages, but they are cumulative as they concern what happens to the group during a period of time, either a school year or a 12-month period defined by a starting date and ending date. The data collections for Part C and Part B dispute resolution are also cumulative as they concern any complaint that was made during a 12-month period, defined by a starting date and ending date. The complaints concern all program participants during that time period as opposed to a specific group of participants defined by the participants’ ages or grades. Most of Part C and Part B data presented in this report are discussed in terms of the participants’ ages used to identify the group being represented. For example, an exhibit may present data for infants and toddlers birth through age 2, children ages 3 through 5, or students ages 6 through 21. The titles of exhibits identify the group(s) represented by the data. In addition, the titles of exhibits are worded to indicate the point in time or time period represented by the corresponding data collections. Specifically, the exhibits contain data that were collected by states at a particular point in time (e.g., Part C child count and program settings) have titles that refer to fall of the particular year or span of years considered. Similarly, the exhibits that contain data collected over the course of a school year (e.g., Part B discipline) or during a particular 12-month period (e.g., Part B exiting) have titles that indicate the school year(s) or the 12-month period(s) represented (e.g., 2011–12). Unlike the other data derived from EDW that are presented in this report, most of the IDEA, Part B MOE reduction and CEIS data do not specifically concern and cannot be related to individual participants in the Part C or Part B programs. In general, these data provide information on the percentage of the available reduction taken by local education agencies (LEAs) and educational service agencies (ESAs) pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) and the use of IDEA Part B funds to provide CEIS to children who are not currently identified as needing special education and related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Since the focus of this report has always been, and continues to be, to provide a description of the participants in the IDEA program, some of the IDEA, Part B MOE reduction and CEIS data, with one exception, are presented in Appendix D. The exception is that prior receipt of CEIS is examined as a characteristic of the Part B participants. It should be noted that like the Part B assessment data, these data are collected in terms of grades (i.e., children in kindergarten through grade 12) not age. The most recent data examined in the 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 were submitted directly by all states to EDW through the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN), which was developed as part of the Department’s EDFacts initiative to consolidate the collection of kindergarten through grade 12 education program information about states, districts, and schools. 3 All Part C, Part B, MOE reduction, and CEIS data in this report were tabulated from data files maintained in EDW, which is not accessible to the public, rather than from published reports. Consequently, EDW is cited as the source for these data in the notes that accompany the exhibits. Given that these data are based on data collection forms that were approved by OMB, the citations also provide the OMB approval number for each of the forms. Many of the exhibits in this report present only Part B or Part C data for the most current reporting period considered (i.e., fall 2012; school year 2011–12). However, some exhibits present data for multiple years. The data presented for the most current reporting period were accessed from files prepared as of fall 2013. The data for previous time periods were derived from files that were prepared at different points in time, but in no instance less than one year after the date of the original submission by the state to ensure that the state had a chance to update the data. The use of files with updated data allowed for the possibility that problematic data in the files originally submitted by states that may not have had a notable impact on the statistics for the nation as a whole, but might have incorrectly distinguished a state, were detected and corrected. The source notes for the exhibits in this report indicate the date on which each data file used was accessed and provide the address for the website on which a set of Excel files containing all of the data is available. Along with the actual data records, each Excel file presents the date on which the file was created and, if appropriate, the dates on which the data were revised and updated. This approach ensures that the data presented in the report are available, and the source notes present the necessary information about the data as succinctly as possible. Additional tables and data related to the Part C and Part B data collections are available at http://www.tadnet.org/. Many of the data categories associated with the domains of information considered in this report comprise a set of subcategories. Some of these subcategories require detailed descriptors.2 These descriptors are italicized within exhibit titles, text, and notes to clarify that the reference is to an actual subcategory or classification. Changes in Data Categories and Subcategories The most current Part C and Part B data examined in this report were collected using the same categories and corresponding subcategories that were used to collect the most current data examined in the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013. 2 In regard to the subcategories of data for Part B, please note that Rosa’s Law (P.L. 111-256, enacted on Oct. 5, 2010), amended IDEA and other federal laws to replace the term “mental retardation” with the term “intellectual disabilities.” Therefore, the U.S. Department of Education refers to the disability subcategory “intellectual disabilities” rather than “mental retardation” in this report. 4 Institute of Education Sciences The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, is the research arm of the Department. The work of IES is carried out through its four centers: the National Center for Education Research, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, and the National Center for Special Education Research. IES sponsors research nationwide to expand knowledge of what works for students from preschool through postsecondary education, including interventions for special education students and young children and their families receiving early intervention services. It collects and analyzes statistics on the condition of education, conducts long-term longitudinal studies and surveys, supports international assessments, and carries out the National Assessment of Educational Progress. IES data in this report were obtained from IES published reports and an IES database on funded research grants. More information about IES is available at http://ies.ed.gov. Regional Resource Center Program During the federal fiscal year 2011 Annual Performance Report (APR) reporting period, the Regional Resource Center Program (RRCP) was composed of six regional program centers funded by OSEP to assist state education agencies (SEAs) in the systemic improvement of education programs, practices, and policies that affect children and youths with disabilities. Services offered by the RRCP included consultation, information services, specially designed technical assistance, training, and product development. In particular, to assist states with the preparation and timely completion of the State Performance Plan (SPP) and APR that OSEP requires to determine state progress in meeting specific IDEA requirements, the RRCP disseminated OSEP guidance and provided technical assistance related to SPP/APR indicators and determinations via an OSEP-funded IDEA technical assistance and guidance website (http://therightidea.tadnet.org). In this report, data from summaries of state determinations and data from SPP/APR indicator analyses were obtained from this website. U.S. Census Bureau Each year, the Population Estimates Program of the U.S. Census Bureau publishes estimates of the resident population for each state and county. These estimates exclude: (1) residents of outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, as well as the freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands; (2) members of the Armed Forces on active duty stationed outside the United States; (3) military dependents living abroad; and (4) other U.S. citizens living abroad. The population estimates 5 are produced by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The state population estimates are solely the sum of the county population estimates. The reference date for county estimates is July 1. Estimates are used as follows: (1) in determining federal funding allocations, (2) in calculating percentages for vital rates and per capita time series, (3) as survey controls, and (4) in monitoring recent demographic changes. More information about how population estimates are used and produced is available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/index.html. In this report, annual resident population estimates for the 50 states and the District of Columbia were used to determine the percentages of the resident population served under IDEA, Part C and Part B, and to develop comparisons and conduct data analyses. When available, annual resident population estimates for Puerto Rico were also used. As the race/ethnicity categories used by the Census Bureau are not the same as those that were used by the Department, the following set of rules was used to allocate the resident population data from the Census into the seven categories of race/ethnicity used by the Department. The populations for all of the Census categories referencing “Hispanic,” regardless of race, were combined and assigned to the category “Hispanic/Latino.” The populations for the Census categories of “White alone not Hispanic,” “Black alone not Hispanic,” “American Indian or Alaska Native alone not Hispanic,” “Asian alone not Hispanic,” “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone not Hispanic,” and “Two or more races, not Hispanic” were assigned to the categories “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” and “Two or more races,” respectively. Specific population data estimates used in this report are available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. More information about the U.S. Census Bureau is available at http://www.census.gov. 6 Section I Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the National Level Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 established the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities under Part H (now Part C) of the IDEA. Providing early intervention services to children with disabilities as early as birth through age 2 and their families helps to improve child developmental outcomes that are critical to educational success. Early intervention services are designed to identify and meet children’s needs in five developmental areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, and adaptive development. The early intervention program assists states in developing and implementing a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, and multidisciplinary interagency system to make early intervention services available for all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. An infant or toddler with a disability is defined as an individual under 3 years of age who needs early intervention services because the individual is experiencing a developmental delay in one or more of the five developmental areas listed above or has a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay [see IDEA, section 632(5)(A)]. States have the authority to define the level of developmental delay needed for Part C eligibility [see IDEA, section 635(a)(1)]. States also have the authority to define other Part C eligibility criteria. For example, at a state’s discretion, infants or toddlers with a disability may also include (1) individuals younger than 3 years of age who would be at risk of having substantial developmental delay if they did not receive early intervention services, and (2) children 3 years of age and older with disabilities until such children are eligible to enter kindergarten3 [see IDEA, section 632(5)(B)]. The decisions that states make regarding these options may explain some of the differences found between states with respect to their Part C data. The Part C exhibits that follow present data for the infants and toddlers with disabilities who were served in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC). Where indicated in the notes, the exhibits include data from Puerto Rico (PR) and the four outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands that receive Part C funds. Data about infants and toddlers with disabilities that are contacted or identified through tribal entities that receive Part C funds through the 3 Most of the Part C data concern infants and toddlers birth through age 2 as Part C is designed primarily to serve them. Nevertheless, a small number of children age 3 and older do participate in Part C. For example in 2012, 1,047 children age 3 or older participated in Part C. 9 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),4 for which reporting is required by the U.S. Department of the Interior to the U.S. Department of Education, are not represented in these exhibits. Numbers and Percentages of Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C How many infants and toddlers birth through age 2 received early intervention services, and how has the percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, changed over time? Exhibit 1. Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Year Total served under Part C (birth through age 2) Resident population birth through age 2 in the 50 states and DC Percentagea of resident population birth through age 2 served under Part C in the 50 states and DC In the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas In the 50 states and DC 2003 274,747 271,889 11,914,846 2.3 2004 284,536 280,957 11,901,056 2.4 2005 299,048 294,714 11,944,057 2.5 2006 304,510 299,848 12,001,981 2.5 2007 321,925 316,761 12,123,691 2.6 2008 342,985 337,706 12,237,637 2.8 2009 348,604 343,203 12,185,386 2.8 2010 342,821 337,185 11,990,542 2.8 2011 336,895 331,636 11,937,319 2.8 2012 333,982 329,859 11,904,557 2.8 aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2003–12. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, there were 333,982 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. Of those infants and toddlers, 329,859 were served in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This number represented 2.8 percent of the birth-through-age-2 population in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 4 The BIE receives IDEA, Part C, funds under IDEA section 643(b) and reports separately every two years (or biennially) under IDEA section 643(b)(5) on the number of children contacted and served under IDEA, Part C, and reports annually under 34 C.F.R. section 303.731(e)(3) on the amount and dates of each payment distributed to tribal entities and the names of the tribal entities. Beginning with the biennial report submitted after July 1, 2012, under 34 C.F.R. section 303.731(e)(1) and (2), tribal entities must submit to BIE (and BIE provides the Department) as part of its report under IDEA section 643(b)(5) on the number of children contacted and served under IDEA Part C an assurance that the tribal entities have provided child find information to the state lead agency in the state where the children reside to ensure an unduplicated child count. 10 Bullet. Between 2003 and 2012, the total number of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, increased from 274,747 to 333,982. This addition of 59,235 infants and toddlers represented a 21.6 percent increase in the number of infants and toddlers served. Bullet. In 2003, 2.3 percent of the population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia were served under Part C. By 2008 and in each year thereafter through 2012, 2.8 percent of this population were served under Part C. How have the percentages of resident populations birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, changed over time? Exhibit 2. Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers in the age group served under IDEA, Part C, in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population in the age group for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2003–12. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, increased from 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent. Bullet. The percentage of 2-year-olds in the resident population of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, either increased from the previous year or was approximately the same as in the previous year from 2003 through 2012. 11 Bullet. The percentage of 1-year-olds in the resident population of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, either increased from the previous year or was approximately the same as in the previous year from 2003 through 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, the percentage decreased from 2.7 percent to 2.6 percent. The percentage in 2012 was also 2.6 percent. Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, approximately 1 percent of the infants and toddlers under 1 year old in the resident population were served under Part C. For infants and toddlers birth through age 2, how did the percentage of the resident population of a particular racial/ethnic group that was served under IDEA, Part C, compare to the percentage served of the resident population of all infants and toddlers in all other racial/ethnic groups combined? Exhibit 3. Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 Race/ethnicity Child counta in the 50 states and DC Resident population birth through age 2 in the 50 states and DC Risk indexb (%) Risk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combinedc (%) Risk ratiod Total 329,859 11,904,557 2.8 † † American Indian or Alaska Native 2,697 101,760 2.6 2.8 1.0 Asian 11,663 545,730 2.1 2.8 0.8 Black or African American 44,825 1,642,013 2.7 2.8 1.0 Hispanic/Latino 81,379 3,090,132 2.6 2.8 0.9 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 847 23,581 3.6 2.8 1.3 White 176,050 5,938,179 3.0 2.6 1.2 Two or more races 12,400 563,162 2.2 2.8 0.8 † Not applicable. aChild count is the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the racial/ethnic group(s). As race/ethnicity was suppressed for 272 infants and toddlers served in 10 individual states, the total number of infants and toddlers served under Part C in each racial/ethnic group for which some data were suppressed was estimated by distributing the unallocated count for each state equally to the race/ethnicity categories that were suppressed. Due to rounding, the sum of the counts for the racial/ethnic groups may not equal the total for all racial/ethnic groups. bPercentage of the population served may be referred to as the risk index. It was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 in the racial/ethnic group, then multiplying the result by 100. cRisk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combined (i.e., children who are not in the racial/ethnic group of interest) was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in all of the other racial/ethnic groups by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 in all of the other racial/ethnic groups, then multiplying the result by 100. dRisk ratio compares the proportion of a particular racial/ethnic group served under IDEA, Part C, to the proportion served among the other racial/ethnic groups combined. For example, if racial/ethnic group X has a risk ratio of 2 for receipt of early intervention services, then that group’s likelihood of receiving early intervention services is twice as great as for all of the other racial/ethnic groups combined. Risk ratio was calculated by dividing the risk index for the racial/ethnic group by the risk index for all the other racial/ethnic groups combined. 12 Bullet. White and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander infants and toddlers had risk ratios of 1.2 and 1.3, respectively, indicating that infants and toddlers in each of these racial/ethnic groups were slightly more likely than those in all other racial/ethnic groups combined to be served under IDEA, Part C. Bullet. Asian and Hispanic/Latino infants and toddlers as well as infants and toddlers associated with two or more races had risk ratios of 0.8, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively, indicating that infants and toddlers in each of these groups were slightly less likely than those in all other racial/ethnic groups combined to be served under IDEA, Part C. Bullet. American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American infants and toddlers, with risk ratios of 1.0, were as likely to be served under Part C as the infants and toddlers of all other racial/ethnic groups combined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states and DC. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 13 Primary Early Intervention Service Settings for Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C Part C of IDEA mandates that early intervention services be provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, in settings that are considered natural environments, which could be a child’s home or community settings where typically developing children are present. A multidisciplinary team, including the child’s parent(s), determines the primary service setting that is included on the child’s individualized family service plan (IFSP). What were the primary early intervention service settings for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C? Exhibit 4. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by primary early intervention service setting: Fall 2012 Homea (87.3%) Community-based settingb (7.6%) Other settingc (5.1%) aHome refers to the principal residence of the eligible child’s family or caregivers. bCommunity-based setting refers to settings in which children without disabilities are usually found. The community-based settings include, but are not limited to, child care centers, (including family day care), preschools, regular nursery schools, early childhood centers, libraries, grocery stores, parks, restaurants, and community centers (e.g., YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs). cOther setting refers to settings other than home or community-based setting in which early intervention services are provided. These include, but are not limited to, services provided in a hospital, residential facility, clinic, and early intervention center/class for children with disabilities. Additionally, this category should be used if the only services provided were to a family member; counseling, family training, and home visits are examples of such services. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the primary service setting by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in all the primary service settings, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 14 Bullet. In 2012, 87.3 percent of infants and toddlers served under Part C received their early intervention services primarily in the home. Bullet. The category of community-based setting was reported as the primary early intervention setting for 7.6 percent of those served under Part C. Consequently, 94.9 percent of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, in 2012 received their early intervention services primarily in natural environments, which are defined as the home or a community-based setting. How did infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, within racial/ethnic groups differ by primary early intervention service settings? Exhibit 5. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, within racial/ethnic groups, by primary early intervention service setting: Fall 2012 87.8 88.4 87.9 86.7 85.2 84.8 87.3 7.2 6.6 7.4 8.7 8.6 9.8 10.2 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.6 6.2 5.4 2.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Two or more races White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Percent Race/ethnicity aHome refers to the principal residence of the eligible infant’s or toddler’s family or caregivers. bCommunity-based setting refers to settings in which children without disabilities are usually found. Community-based settings include, but are not limited to, child care centers, (including family day care), preschools, regular nursery schools, early childhood centers, libraries, grocery stores, parks, restaurants, and community centers (e.g., YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs). cOther setting refers to settings other than home or community-based setting in which early intervention services are provided. These include, but are not limited to, services provided in a hospital, residential facility, clinic, and early intervention center/class for children with disabilities. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the racial/ethnic group and primary service setting by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the racial/ethnic group and all the primary service settings, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of bar percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 15 Bullet. In 2012, home was the primary early intervention service setting for more than 84 percent of the infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in each racial/ethnic group. The largest percentage of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, who received early intervention services in a community-based setting was associated with American Indian or Alaska Native children (10.2 percent), while the smallest percentage served in this setting was associated with White children (6.6 percent). Part C Exiting Status for Children Served Under IDEA, Part C What were the exiting statuses of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 who exited Part C or reached age 3? Exhibit 6. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by exiting status: 2011–12 Part B eligible, exiting Part C (38.5%) Part B eligible, continuing in Part C (2.9%) Not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs (6.8%) Part B eligibility not determineda (10.9%) No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 (13.5%) Withdrawal by parent (or guardian) (11.1%) Attempts to contact unsuccessful (8.6%) Other exiting categoriesb (7.8%) aThe Part B eligibility not determined category comprises children who were referred for Part B evaluation at the time they were eligible to exit Part C, but for whom the Part B eligibility determination had not yet been made or reported, and children for whom parents did not consent to transition planning. b“Other exiting categories” includes not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals (3.6 percent); deceased (0.4 percent); and moved out of state (3.8 percent). NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects Part C data on 10 categories of exiting: five categories that speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., Part B eligible, exiting Part C; Part B eligible, continuing in Part C; not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs; not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals; and Part B eligibility not determined) and five categories that do not speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., no longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3, deceased, moved out of state, withdrawal by parent [or guardian], and attempts to contact unsuccessful). The 10 categories are mutually exclusive. Part B eligibility status refers to eligibility for Part B preschool services under section 619 (Preschool Grants program) of IDEA. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in the exiting category by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in all the exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. Data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. 16 Bullet. Of the Part C exiting statuses in 2011–12, Part B eligible, exiting Part C accounted for the largest percentage of infants and toddlers (38.5 percent). An additional 2.9 percent of the infants and toddlers were found to be eligible for Part B but continued to receive services under Part C. Bullet. No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 was the second most prevalent category of exiting status as it accounted for 13.5 percent of the infants and toddlers. Bullet. Withdrawal by parent (or guardian) and Part B eligibility not determined accounted for 11.1 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 17 What were the Part B eligibility statuses of children served under Part C, when they reached age 3? Exhibit 7. Percentage of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 and were eligible to exit Part C, by Part B eligibility status: 2011–12 Part B eligible, exiting Part C (61.4%) Part B eligible, continuing in Part C (4.6%) Not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs (10.9%) Not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals (5.7%) Part B eligibility not determineda (17.4%) aThe Part B eligibility not determined category comprises children who were referred for Part B evaluation at the time they were eligible to exit Part C, but for whom the Part B eligibility determination had not yet been made or reported, and children for whom parents did not consent to transition planning. NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects Part C data on 10 categories of exiting: five categories that speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., Part B eligible, exiting Part C; Part B eligible, continuing in Part C; not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs; not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals; and Part B eligibility not determined) and five categories that do not speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., no longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3, deceased, moved out of state, withdrawal by parent [or guardian], and attempts to contact unsuccessful). The 10 categories are mutually exclusive. For data on all 10 categories, see exhibit 6. Part B eligibility status refers to eligibility for Part B preschool services under section 619 (Preschool Grants program) of IDEA. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 and were in the Part B eligibility status exiting category by the total number of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 and were in the five Part B eligibility status exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. Data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, 61.4 percent of children served under IDEA, Part C, who reached age 3 were determined to be Part B eligible, exiting Part C. An additional 4.6 percent of these children were found to be eligible for Part B but continued to receive services under Part C. Bullet. Slightly more than one-sixth of the children served under IDEA, Part C, who had reached age 3 (17.4 percent) exited Part C without having their eligibility for Part B determined. 18 Bullet. The remaining 16.6 percent of the children served under Part C who had reached age 3 exited Part C and were determined to be not eligible for Part B. The children who were not eligible for Part B included those who exited with referrals to other programs (10.9 percent) and those who exited with no referrals (5.7 percent). Dispute Resolution for Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C To protect the interests of children served under IDEA, Part C, and their families, IDEA requires public agencies to implement a formal set of procedural safeguards for children served under IDEA, Part C. Among these procedural safeguards are three formal options for registering and resolving disputes. One of these options is a written, signed complaint. Any individual or organization can file a written, signed complaint alleging a violation of any Part C requirement by a local early intervention service provider or the state lead agency. A second option available to parents and public agencies is a due process complaint. By filing a due process complaint, a parent may request a due process hearing5 regarding any matter relating to a proposal or a refusal to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or placement of their infant or toddler with a disability, or to the provision of early intervention services to such child or the child’s family. Mediation is a third option available through which parents and early intervention service providers, including public agencies, can try to resolve disputes and reach an agreement about any matter under Part C of IDEA, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint. The agreements reached through the mediation process are legally binding and enforceable. For more information about these and other procedural safeguards, go to http://www.nectac.org/topics/procsafe/procsafe.asp. Unlike the other Part C data collections, which are associated with a specific group of Part C participants defined by the participants’ ages, the Part C dispute resolution data collection is associated with all infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C. These infants and toddlers may include individuals who are 3 years or older and eligible under Part B but whose parents elect for them to continue receiving Part C services, as states have the authority to define “infants and toddlers” as individuals under 3 years of age and as individuals 3 years of age and older [see IDEA, section 632(5)(B) and 34 C.F.R. 303.21(c)] and serve them under Part C [see IDEA, section 635(c) and 34 C.F.R. 303.211] until the children are eligible to enter kindergarten. The Part C legal disputes and resolution data represent all complaints associated with these three state-level dispute resolution mechanisms under Part C during the 12 months during which the data were collected. 5 A due process hearing is designed to be a fair, timely, and impartial procedure for resolving disputes that arise from parents and public agencies regarding the identification and evaluation of, or provision of early intervention services to children referred to IDEA, Part C. 19 What were the statuses of the written, signed complaints that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part C of IDEA? Exhibit 8. Percentage of written, signed complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by complaint status: 2011–12 Complaints with reports issueda (75.0%) Complaints withdrawn or dismissedb (22.7%) Complaints pendingc (2.3%) aA complaint with report issued refers to a written decision that was provided by the state lead agency to the complainant regarding alleged violations of a requirement of Part C of IDEA. bA complaint withdrawn or dismissed refers to a written, signed complaint that was withdrawn by the complainant for any reason or that was determined by the state lead agency to be resolved by the complainant and the early intervention service provider or state lead agency through mediation or other dispute resolution means and no further action by the state lead agency was required to resolve the complaint or a complaint dismissed by the state lead agency for any reason, including that the complaint did not include all of the required content. cA complaint pending is a written, signed complaint that is either still under investigation or the state lead agency’s written decision has not been issued. NOTE: A written, signed complaint is a signed document with specific content requirements that is submitted to a state lead agency by an individual or organization (i.e., complainant) that alleges a violation of a requirement of Part C of IDEA or 34 C.F.R.303, including cases in which some required content is absent from the document. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of complaints in the status category by the total number of written, signed complaints, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage was based on a total of 132 written, signed complaints. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0678: “IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 132 written, signed complaints were received through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. Bullet. A report was issued for 99 (75.0 percent) of the complaints while 30 (22.7 percent) of the complaints were withdrawn or dismissed. Only three (2.3 percent) of the complaints that were received during the reporting period were pending or unresolved by the end of the period. 20 What were the statuses of the due process complaints made by parties that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part C of IDEA? Exhibit 9. Percentage of due process complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by complaint status: 2011–12 Due process complaints withdrawn or dismisseda (80.5%) Due process complaints that resulted in hearings fully adjudicatedb (9.8%) Due process complaints that were hearings pendingc (9.8%) aA due process complaint that was withdrawn or dismissed (including resolved without a hearing) is a complaint that has not resulted in a fully adjudicated due process hearing and is also not under consideration by a hearing officer. Such complaints can include those resolved through a mediation agreement or through a resolution meeting settlement agreement, those settled by some other agreement between the parties (i.e., parent and the public agency) prior to completion of the hearing, those withdrawn by the parent, those rejected by the hearing officer as without cause, and those not fully adjudicated for other reasons. bA hearing is fully adjudicated when a hearing officer conducts a due process hearing, reaches a final decision regarding matters of law and fact, and issues a written decision to the parties. cA due process complaint that is a hearing pending is a request for a due process hearing that has not yet been scheduled, is scheduled but has not yet been conducted, or has been conducted but is not yet fully adjudicated. NOTE: A due process complaint is a filing by a parent, early intervention service provider, or state lead agency to initiate an impartial due process hearing on matters related to the identification, evaluation, or placement of an infant or toddler with a disability, or to the provision of appropriate early intervention services to such child. Only 10 states reported one or more due process complaints. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of due process complaints in the status category by the total number of due process complaints, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage was based on a total of 133 due process complaints. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0678: “IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. A total of 133 due process complaints were received during 2011–12 through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. 21 Bullet. For 107 (80.5 percent) of the due process complaints received during the reporting period, the complaint was withdrawn or dismissed. For 13 (9.8 percent) of the due process complaints received, a hearing was conducted, and a written legal decision was issued. For the remaining 13 complaints (9.8 percent), a hearing was still pending as of the end of the reporting period. What were the statuses of the mediation requests made by parties that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part C of IDEA? Exhibit 10. Percentage of mediation requests for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by request status: 2011–12 Mediations held related to due process complaintsa (5.0%) Mediations held not related to due process complaintsb (45.9%) Mediations withdrawn or not heldc (46.2%) Mediations pendingd (2.9%) aA mediation held related to due process complaint is a process that was conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve a disagreement between parties that was initiated by the filing of a due process complaint or included issues that were the subject of a due process complaint. bA mediation held not related to due process complaint is a process that was conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve a disagreement between parties to a dispute involving any matter under Part C of IDEA that was not initiated by the filing of a due process complaint or did not include issues that were the subject of a due process complaint. cA mediation that has been withdrawn or not held is a request for mediation that did not result in a mediation being conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator. This includes requests that were withdrawn, requests that were dismissed, requests where one party refused to mediate, and requests that were settled by some agreement other than a mediation agreement between the parties. dA mediation pending is a request for mediation that has not yet been scheduled or is scheduled but has not yet been held. NOTE: A mediation request is a request by a party to a dispute involving any matter under Part C of IDEA for the parties to meet with a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve the dispute(s). Only 10 states reported one or more mediation requests. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of mediation requests in the status category by the total number of mediation requests, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage was based on a total of 279 mediation requests. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0678: “IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 279 mediation requests were received through the dispute resolution process for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. 22 Bullet. A mediation was conducted before the end of the reporting period for 142 (50.9 percent) of the mediation requests received. The mediation that was held in 14 (5.0 percent) of these cases was related to a due process complaint, while the session held in 128 (45.9 percent) of these cases was not related to a due process complaint. Of the 137 mediation requests received that did not result in a mediation being held by the end of the reporting period, 129 (46.2 percent) had been withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise ended without a mediation being held. The remaining eight (2.9 percent) were still pending at the end of the reporting period. 23 Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B Under Part B of IDEA, the secretary provides funds to states to assist them in providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children ages 3 through 21 with disabilities who are in need of special education and related services. The Preschool Grants program (IDEA, section 619) supplements funding available for children ages 3 through 5 under the Grants to States program (IDEA, section 611). To be eligible for funding under the Preschool Grants program and the Grants to States program for children ages 3 through 5, a state must make FAPE available to all children ages 3 through 5 with disabilities residing in the state. IDEA, Part B, has four primary purposes: Bullet. To ensure that all children with disabilities have FAPE available to them and receive special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs, Bullet. To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected, Bullet. To assist states and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities, and Bullet. To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. In general, the exhibits presenting Part B data in this section represent the 50 states; the District of Columbia (DC); the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools; Puerto Rico (PR); the four outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; and the three freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.6,7 As there are some exceptions, such as the exhibits that present Part B data with data about the residential population, each exhibit is accompanied by a note that identifies the particular jurisdictions that are represented. In this section, there are occasional references to “special education services.” The term is synonymous with services provided under IDEA, Part B. 6 Although BIE schools do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619, BIE schools may report 5-year-old children, who are enrolled in elementary schools for American Indian children operated or funded by BIE and who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(h)(1)(A). 7 The four outlying areas and the three freely associated states do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619. However, they may report children ages 3 through 5 who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(b)(1)(A). 24 Numbers and Percentages of Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B How have the number and percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, changed over time? Exhibit 11. Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Year Total served under Part B (ages 3 through 5) Resident population ages 3 through 5 in the 50 states and DCb Percentagec of resident population ages 3 through 5 served under Part B in the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools In the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areasa In the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools 2003 680,142 670,750 11,501,168 5.8 2004 701,949 693,245 11,714,436 5.9 2005 704,087 698,938 11,866,471 5.9 2006 714,384 706,635 11,987,484 5.9 2007 709,136 698,931 11,975,329 5.8 2008 709,004 700,296 12,037,364 5.8 2009 731,832 716,569 12,129,397 5.9 2010 735,245 720,740 12,255,590 5.9 2011 745,954 730,558 12,312,888 5.9 2012 750,131 736,195 12,203,162 6.0 aIn 2012, data for children served by the three freely associated states were included. bChildren served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. cPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010 and 2012, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010 and 2012, data for Wyoming were excluded. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, 750,131 children ages 3 through 5 were served under Part B. Of these children, 736,195 were served in the states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 6 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5. Between 2003 and 2012, the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the states for which data were available increased from 680,142 to 750,131. This addition of 69,989 children represented a 10.3 percent increase in the number of children served. Bullet. Between 2003 and 2004, the percentage of the resident population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 5.8 percent to 5.9 percent. The percentage remained at 5.9 through 2006 but fell to 5.8 percent in 2007. In 2009, the percentage reached 5.9 percent again, and it remained there until 2012, when the percentage reached 6 percent. 25 How did the percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, vary by disability category? Exhibit 12. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category: Fall 2012 Speech or language impairments (44.7%) Developmental delaya (37.2%) Autism (7.8%) Other disabilities combinedb (10.3%) aStates’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For more information on children ages 3 through 5 reported under the category of developmental delay and states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibits B-1 and B-3 in Appendix B. b“Other disabilities combined” includes deaf-blindness (less than 0.05 percent), emotional disturbance (0.4 percent), hearing impairments (1.3 percent), intellectual disabilities (2.0 percent), multiple disabilities (1.1 percent), orthopedic impairments (0.9 percent), other health impairments (2.9 percent), specific learning disabilities (1.2 percent), traumatic brain injury (0.1 percent), and visual impairments (0.4 percent). Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the value presented in the exhibit for this combination from the sum of the percentages associated with these individual categories. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability category by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were not available for Wyoming. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, the most prevalent disability category of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, was speech or language impairments (44.7 percent). The next most common disability category was developmental delay (37.2 percent), followed by autism (7.8 percent). Bullet. The children ages 3 through 5 represented by the category “Other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining 10.3 percent of children served under IDEA, Part B. 26 How did the percentage of the resident population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, for a particular racial/ethnic group compare to the percentage of the resident population served for all other racial/ethnic groups combined? Exhibit 13. Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 Race/ethnicity Child counta in 49 states, DC, and BIE schools Resident population ages 3 through 5 in 49 states and DCb Risk indexc (%) Risk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combinedd (%) Risk ratioe Total 6,736,195 12,203,162 6.0 † † American Indian or Alaska Native 8,577 104,993 8.2 6.0 1.4 Asian 23,082 563,266 4.1 6.1 0.7 Black or African American 102,677 1,689,886 6.1 6.0 1.0 Hispanic/Latino 163,970 3,110,463 5.3 6.3 0.8 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2,112 24,044 8.8 6.0 1.5 White 399,008 6,168,348 6.5 5.6 1.2 Two or more races 36,770 542,162 6.8 6.0 1.1 † Not applicable. aChild count is the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group(s). As race/ethnicity was suppressed for 88 children served in five individual states, the total number of children served under IDEA, Part B, in each racial/ethnic group was estimated by distributing the unallocated count for each state equally to the race/ethnicity categories that were suppressed. Due to rounding, the sum of the counts for the racial/ethnic groups may not equal the total for all racial/ethnic groups. bChildren served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. cPercentage of the population served may be referred to as the risk index. It was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 in the racial/ethnic group, then multiplying the result by 100. dRisk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combined (i.e., children who are not in the racial/ethnic group of interest) was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in all of the other racial/ethnic groups by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 in all of the other racial/ethnic groups, then multiplying the result by 100. eRisk ratio compares the proportion of a particular racial/ethnic group served under IDEA, Part B, to the proportion served among the other racial/ethnic groups combined. For example, if racial/ethnic group X has a risk ratio of 2 for receipt of special education services, then that group’s likelihood of receiving special education services is twice as great as for all of the other racial/ethnic groups combined. Risk ratio was calculated by dividing the risk index for the racial/ethnic group by the risk index for all the other racial/ethnic groups combined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, and BIE schools. Data for Wyoming were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, and BIE schools. Data for Wyoming were excluded. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White children as well as children associated with multiple races, ages 3 through 5 had risk ratios above 1.0 (i.e., 1.4, 1.5, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively). This indicates that the children in 27 each of these groups were more likely to be served under Part B than were children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Bullet. Black or African American children ages 3 through 5, with a risk ratio of 1.0, were as likely to be served under Part B as the children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined Bullet. Asian and Hispanic/Latino children, with risk ratios of less than 1.0 (i.e., 0.7, and 0.8, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than children ages 3 through 5 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Educational Environments for Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B In what educational environments were children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B? Exhibit 14. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment: Fall 2012 Regular early childhood programa at least 10 hrs/wk and majority (37.2%) Regular early childhood programa at least 10 hrs/wk, majority elsewhere (17.4%) Regular early childhood programa less than 10 hrs/wk and majority (5.3%) Regular early childhood programa less than 10 hrs/wk, majority elsewhere (5.1%) Separate classb (23.6%) Service provider location or some other locationc (6.5%) Other environmentsd (4.9%) aRegular early childhood program includes at least 50 percent of children without disabilities (i.e., children without individualized education programs). Regular early childhood programs include, but are not limited to, Head Start, kindergarten, preschool classes offered to an eligible pre-kindergarten population by the public school system, private kindergartens or preschools, and group child development center or child care. bSeparate class refers to a special education program in a class that includes less than 50 percent children without disabilities. cService provider location or some other location not in any other category refers to a situation in which a child receives all special education and related services from a service provider and does not attend a regular early childhood program or special education program in a separate class, separate school, or residential facility. This does not include children who receive special education and related services in the home. An example is a situation in which a child receives only speech instruction, and it is provided in a clinician’s office. d“Other environments” consists of separate school, residential facility, and home. 28 Bullet. In 2012, a total of 65 percent of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, were in a regular early childhood program for some amount of their time in school. Bullet. Of the four categories representing children who attended a regular early childhood program, the category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for the largest percentage of children. Moreover, as this category accounted for 37.2 percent of all children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, it represented more children than any other educational environment category. Bullet. A separate class accounted for almost one-fourth (23.6 percent) of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, making it the second-most prevalent educational environment. Bullet. Collectively the environments of separate school, residential facility, and home (which are represented by the category “Other environments”), accounted for only 4.9 percent of the children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. The educational environment for the remaining students, representing only 6.5 percent of the children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, was a service provider location or some other location. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the educational environment by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in all the educational environments, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum may not total 100 percent because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were not available for Wyoming. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 29 How did children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups differ by educational environments? Exhibit 15. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment: Fall 2012 37.7 35.6 35.8 39.9 38.9 30.8 45.0 11.4 19.8 11.1 13.5 18.1 12.7 21.9 5.0 5.8 6.4 4.9 4.0 5.4 5.2 4.0 5.7 11.6 4.2 4.6 6.7 2.6 30.7 21.1 26.6 25.9 25.6 31.9 18.2 4.2 7.4 4.4 6.5 3.6 6.8 3.8 7.0 4.5 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.8 3.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Two or more races White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Percent Race/ethnicity aRegular early childhood program includes a majority (i.e., at least 50 percent) of children without disabilities (i.e., children without individualized education programs). Regular early childhood programs include, but are not limited to, Head Start, kindergarten, preschool classes offered to an eligible pre-kindergarten population by the public school system, private kindergartens or preschools, and group child development center or child care. bSeparate class refers to a special education program in a class that includes less than 50 percent children without disabilities. cService provider location or other location refers to a situation in which a child receives all special education and related services from a service provider or in another location not associated with another category and does not attend a regular early childhood program or special education program in a separate class, separate school, or residential facility or receive special education and related services in the home. An example is a situation in which a child receives only speech instruction, and it is provided in a clinician’s office. d“Other environments” consists of separate school, residential facility, and home. NOTE: Percentage was calculated for each racial/ethnic group by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the educational environment by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in all the educational environments, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of the row percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were not available for Wyoming. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 30 • In 2012, a regular early childhood program for some amount of the time spent in school was the educational environment for the majority of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in each racial/ethnic group. • The category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for a larger percentage of the children than did any other category of educational environment for every racial/ethnic group except Asian. In particular, this environment accounted for 45 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children, 30.8 percent of Asian children, 38.9 percent of Black or African American children, 39.9 percent of Hispanic/Latino children, 35.8 percent of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander children, 35.6 percent of White children, and 37.7 percent of the children reported as two or more races. • A separate class accounted for 31.9 percent of Asian children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, making it the most prevalent educational environment for Asians. Special Education Teachers and Paraprofessionals Employed to Serve Children Ages 3 Through 5 Under IDEA, Part B To what extent were full-time equivalent teachers who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, highly qualified? Exhibit 16. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers and number and percentage of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 Year Total number FTE employed Number FTE highly qualifieda Percentageb FTE highly qualified 2011 41,203 39,498 95.9 aSpecial education teachers reported as highly qualified met the state standard for highly qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1401(10). For highly qualified special education teachers, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), except that such term also includes the requirements described in section 602(10)(B) of IDEA and the option for teachers to meet the requirements of section 9101 of ESEA, by meeting the requirements of section 602(10)(C) or (D) of IDEA [20 U.S.C. section 1401(10)]. In states where teachers who work with children ages 3 through 5 were not included in the state’s definition of highly qualified, teachers were considered highly qualified if they were (1) personnel who held appropriate state certification or licensure for the position held or (2) personnel who held positions for which no state certification or licensure requirements existed. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the total number of FTE special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011, a total of 39,498, or 95.9 percent, of the 41,203 full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified. 31 To what extent were full-time equivalent paraprofessionals who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, qualified? Exhibit 17. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education paraprofessionals and number and percentage of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 Year Total number FTE employed Number FTE qualifieda Percentageb FTE qualified 2011 46,138 44,293 96.0 aSpecial education paraprofessionals reported as qualified (1) met the state standard for qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1412(a)(14)(B), or (2) if paraprofessionals were not included in the state’s definition of qualified, either held appropriate state certification or licensure for the position held or held positions for which no state certification or licensure requirements existed. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the total number of FTE special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. NOTE: Paraprofessionals are employees who provide instructional support, including those who: (1) provide one-on-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher; (2) assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials; (3) provide instructional assistance in a computer laboratory; (4) conduct parental involvement activities; (5) provide support in a library or media center; (6) act as a translator; or (7) provide instructional support services under the direct supervision of a teacher. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011, a total of 44,293, or 96 percent, of the 46,138 FTE special education paraprofessionals who were employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified. 32 Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Since the 1975 passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), the U.S. Department of Education has collected data on the number of children served under the law. Early collections of data on the number of children served under Part B of IDEA focused on nine disability categories. Through the subsequent years and multiple reauthorizations of the act, the disability categories have been expanded to 13 and revised, and new data collections have been required.8 In 1997, the law was reauthorized with several major revisions (IDEA Amendments of 1997; P.L. 105-17). The reauthorization allowed states the option of using the developmental delay category9 for children ages 3 through 9. Another revision was the requirement that race/ethnicity data be collected on the number of children served. In general, the exhibits presenting Part B data in this section represent the 50 states; the District of Columbia (DC); the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools; Puerto Rico (PR); the four outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; and the three freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.10,11 As there are some exceptions, such as the exhibits that present Part B data with data about residential population, each exhibit is accompanied by a note that identifies the particular jurisdictions that are represented. There are occasional references to “special education services” in this section, and this term is synonymous with services provided under IDEA, Part B. 8 This section presents some data by disability category. Please note that for one category—multiple disabilities—a few states used different categories. For details, see Appendix C, exhibit C-1. 9 States’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For more information on students ages 6 through 9 reported under the category of developmental delay, see Appendix B. 10 Although BIE schools do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619, BIE schools may report 5-year-old children, who are enrolled in elementary schools for American Indian children operated or funded by BIE and who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(h)(1)(A). 11 The four outlying areas and the three freely associated states do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619. However, the outlying areas may report children ages 3 through 5 who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(b)(1)(A). 33 Numbers and Percentages of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B How have the number and percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, changed over time? Exhibit 18. Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Year Total served under Part B (ages 6 through 21) Resident population ages 6 through 21 in the 50 states and DCb Percentagec of resident population ages 6 through 21 served under Part B in the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools In the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areasa In the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools 2003 6,046,051 5,971,495 66,334,233 9.0 2004 6,118,437 6,033,425 66,450,824 9.1 2005 6,109,569 6,021,462 66,586,587 9.0 2006 6,081,890 5,986,644 66,841,838 9.0 2007 5,999,205 5,903,959 66,993,376 8.8 2008 5,889,849 5,789,806 67,243,169 8.6 2009 5,882,157 5,770,718 67,656,650 8.5 2010 5,822,808 5,705,466 67,788,496 8.4 2011 5,789,884 5,670,680 67,783,391 8.4 2012 5,823,844 5,699,640 67,543,992 8.4 aIn 2012, data for the students served by the three freely associated states were included. bStudents served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. cPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, a total of 5,823,844 students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B. Of these students, 5,699,640 were served in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 8.4 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21. Bullet. The total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 6,046,051 in 2003 to 6,118,437 in 2004. In each year between 2004 and 2011, the number of students served was less than in the previous year. The number of students served under Part B in 2012 was 33,960 or 0.6 percent more than in 2011. Bullet. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was 9.0 percent or 9.1 percent in each year from 2003 through 2006. In each year between 2004 and 2012, the percentage of the population served was less than or equal to that served in the previous year. Moreover, the percentage served in each year after 2006 was smaller than the percentage served in 2003. 34 How have the percentages of resident populations ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, changed over time? Exhibit 19. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students in the age group served under IDEA, Part B, in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population in the age group for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, increased from 9.0 percent in 2003 to 9.1 percent in 2004. Thereafter, the percentage decreased gradually, reaching a low of 8.4 percent in 2010 through 2012. Bullet. The general pattern of an increase and then a decrease to a level slightly below the percentage served in 2003 was observed for the students ages 6 through 11 and the students ages 12 through 17 but not the students ages 18 through 21. The percentage for the latter group, which accounts for many fewer students than the other two groups, increased or stayed the same in each successive year from 2003 through 2009, when it peaked at 2 percent of the resident population ages 18 through 21. The percentage did not change after 2009. 35 For what disabilities were students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B? Exhibit 20. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category: Fall 2012 Specific learning disabilities (40.1%) Speech or language impairments (18.2%) Other health impairments (13.2%) Autism (7.6%) Intellectual disabilities (7.3%) Emotional disturbance (6.2%) Other disabilities combineda (7.3%) a“Other disabilities combined” includes deaf-blindness (less than 0.03 percent), developmental delay (2.1 percent), hearing impairments (1.2 percent), multiple disabilities (2.2 percent), orthopedic impairments (0.9 percent), traumatic brain injury (0.4 percent), and visual impairments (0.4 percent). NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability category by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, the most prevalent disability category of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was specific learning disabilities (40.1 percent). The next most common disability category was speech or language impairments (18.2 percent), followed by other health impairments (13.2 percent), autism (7.6 percent), intellectual disabilities (7.3 percent), and emotional disturbance (6.2 percent). Bullet. Students ages 6 through 21 in “Other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining 7.3 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B. 36 How have the percentages of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, for particular disabilities changed over time? Exhibit 21. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and disability category: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Disabilitya 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 All disabilities below 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.2 Autism 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 Deaf-blindness # # # # # # # # # # Emotional disturbance 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 Hearing impairments 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Intellectual disabilities 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Multiple disabilities 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Orthopedic impairments 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other health impairments 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 Specific learning disabilities 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 Speech or language impairments 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 Traumatic brain injury # # # # # # # # # # Visual impairments # # # # # # # # # # # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aStates’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. Because the category is optional and the exhibit presents percentages that are based on the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21, the developmental delay category is not included in this exhibit. For information on the percentages of the population ages 6 through 9 reported under the category of developmental delay and states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibits B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability category in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under each of six disability categories changed by 0.2 of a percentage point or more between 2003 and 2012. The percentages of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under other health impairments and under autism increased by 0.4 of a percentage point and 0.5 of a percentage point, respectively. In addition, the percentages of the population reported under emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and speech or language impairments decreased by 0.2 of a percentage point, 0.9 of a percentage point, 0.3 of a percentage point, and 0.2 of a percentage point, respectively. 37 How have the percentages of resident populations ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism changed over time? Exhibit 22. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students in the age group served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population in the age group for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. This graph is scaled to demonstrate the change in the percentage of the population represented by students reported under the category of autism. The slope cannot be compared with the slopes of exhibits 23 and 24. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of autism increased steadily from 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent. Bullet. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism all increased. Specifically, the percentages of these three age groups that were reported under the category of autism were 165 percent, 285 percent, and 290 percent larger in 2012 than in 2003. 38 How have the percentages of resident populations ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairments changed over time? Exhibit 23. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students in the age group served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population in the age group for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. This graph is scaled to demonstrate the change in the percentage of the population represented by students reported under the category of other health impairments. The slope cannot be compared with the slopes of exhibits 22 and 24. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of other health impairments increased from 0.7 percent to 1.1 percent. Bullet. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairments were 53 percent, 77 percent, and 129 percent larger in 2012 than in 2003, respectively. 39 How have the percentages of resident populations ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities changed over time? Exhibit 24. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities, by year and age group: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students in the age group served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population in the age group for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. This graph is scaled to demonstrate the change in the percentage of the population represented by students reported under the category of specific learning disabilities. The slope cannot be compared with the slopes of exhibits 22 and 23. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states and DC with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010, data for Wyoming were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of specific learning disabilities decreased from 4.3 percent to 3.4 percent. Bullet. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities were 22 percent, 20 percent, and 5 percent smaller in 2012 than in 2003, respectively. 40 How did the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, for a particular racial/ethnic group compare to the percentage of the resident population served for all other racial/ethnic groups combined? Exhibit 25. Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, and percentage of the population served (risk index), comparison risk index, and risk ratio for children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 Race/ethnicity Child counta in the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools Resident population ages 6 through 21 in the 50 states and DCb Risk indexc (%) Risk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combinedd (%) Risk ratioe Total 5,699,640 67,543,992 8.4 † † American Indian or Alaska Native 84,787 592,851 14.3 8.4 1.7 Asian 127,808 3,074,346 4.2 8.6 0.5 Black or African American 1,086,471 9,634,014 11.3 8.0 1.4 Hispanic/Latino 1,242,543 15,139,717 8.2 8.5 1.0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 17,445 129,204 13.5 8.4 1.6 White 2,997,092 36,767,842 8.2 8.8 0.9 Two or more races 143,494 2,206,018 6.5 8.5 0.8 † Not applicable. aChild count is the number of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group(s). bChildren served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. cPercentage of the population served may be referred to as the risk index. It was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 in the racial/ethnic group, then multiplying the result by 100. dRisk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combined (i.e., children who are not in the racial/ethnic group of interest) was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in all of the other racial/ethnic groups by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 in all of the other racial/ethnic groups, then multiplying the result by 100. eRisk ratio compares the proportion of a particular racial/ethnic group served under IDEA, Part B, to the proportion served among the other racial/ethnic groups combined. For example, if racial/ethnic group X has a risk ratio of 2 for receipt of special education services, then that group’s likelihood of receiving special education services is twice as great as for all of the other racial/ethnic groups combined. Risk ratio was calculated by dividing the risk index for the racial/ethnic group by the risk index for all the other racial/ethnic groups combined. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander children ages 6 through 21 had risk ratios above 1 (i.e., 1.7, 1.4, and 1.6, respectively). This indicates that the children in each group were more likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. 41 Bullet. Asian and White children ages 6 through 21 as well as children ages 6 through 21 associated with more than one race, with risk ratios of less than 1.0 (i.e., 0.5, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Bullet. Hispanic/Latino children ages 6 through 21, with a risk ratio of 1.0 were as likely to be served under Part B as children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. How did the percentages of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability categories differ for the racial/ethnic groups? Exhibit 26. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by disability category: Fall 2012 Disability American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races All disabilities 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Autism 4.2 18.0 5.5 5.8 5.1 8.9 8.6 Deaf-blindness # # # # 0.1 # # Developmental delaya 4.9 2.0 2.5 1.4 3.3 2.2 3.0 Emotional disturbance 6.3 2.5 8.8 3.9 4.8 6.4 8.5 Hearing impairments 0.9 2.9 0.9 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.0 Intellectual disabilities 6.8 7.6 10.5 6.8 5.9 6.4 6.0 Multiple disabilities 2.4 2.8 2.2 1.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 Orthopedic impairments 0.5 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 Other health impairments 11.1 7.9 12.8 8.9 10.1 15.6 14.9 Specific learning disabilities 46.4 26.7 41.8 49.0 52.9 36.0 35.6 Speech or language impairments 15.8 26.7 13.7 19.4 10.6 19.1 18.9 Traumatic brain injury 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 Visual impairments 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aStates’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For more information on students ages 6 through 9 reported under the category of developmental delay and states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibits B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group and disability category by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group and all disability categories, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of column percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 42 Bullet. For the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012, specific learning disabilities was the most prevalent disability category, or as prevalent as any other category, for every racial/ethnic group. In particular, this disability category accounted for 46.4 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 26.7 percent of Asian students, 41.8 percent of Black or African American students, 49 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 52.9 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 36 percent of White students, and 35.6 percent of the children reported as of two or more races. Bullet. Speech or language impairments was as prevalent a disability category as specific learning disability for Asian students ages 6 through 21 and the second most prevalent category for students ages 6 through 21 in every other racial/ethnic group. The students served in this disability category accounted for 15.8 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 26.7 percent of Asian students, 13.7 percent of Black or African American students, 19.4 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 10.6 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 19.1 percent of White students, and 18.9 percent of the students reported as of two or more races. Educational Environments for Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B To what extent were students served under IDEA, Part B, educated with their peers without disabilities? Exhibit 27. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment: Fall 2012 Inside the regular classa 80% or more of the dayb (61.5%) Inside the regular classa 40% to 79% of the day (19.5%) Inside the regular classa less than 40% of the day (13.8%) Other environmentsc (5.2%) aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. c“Other environments” consists of separate school, residential facility, homebound/hospital environment, correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools. 43 Bullet. In 2012, a total of 94.8 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day. Bullet. More than 60 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, (61.5 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Bullet. A total of 19.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, and 13.8 percent were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Bullet. Only 5.2 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated outside of the regular classroom in “Other environments.” NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in all educational environments, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 44 How have the educational environments of students served under IDEA, Part B, changed over time? Exhibit 28. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and educational environment: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent Year Inside the regular classa less than 40% of the day aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. c“Other environments” is calculated by subtracting the sum of students in the three categories concerning regular class from the total number of students reported in all categories. The categories that are not related to regular class consist of separate school, residential facility, homebound/hospital environment, correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the educational environment in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in all educational environments for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areas with the following exceptions. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. For 2012, data for the three freely associated states were included. Data for 2003 through 2010 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. From 2003 through 2012, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day increased from 49.9 percent to 61.5 percent. Bullet. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day decreased from 27.7 percent in 2003 to 19.5 percent in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of these students educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day decreased from 18.5 percent to 13.8 percent between these years. 45 Bullet. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated in “Other environments” increased from 3.9 percent in 2003 to 5.2 percent in 2012. However, it had accounted for as much as 5.3 percent in 2007 and 2009. How did educational environments differ by disability category? Exhibit 29. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within disability category, by educational environment: Fall 2012 Disability Percentage of day inside the regular classa 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day Other environmentsc All disabilities 61.5 19.5 13.8 5.2 Autism 39.5 18.1 33.2 9.2 Deaf-blindness 21.5 11.5 34.0 33.1 Developmental delayd 62.4 19.5 16.5 1.6 Emotional disturbance 44.1 17.8 20.3 17.8 Hearing impairments 57.8 16.4 12.6 13.3 Intellectual disabilities 17.1 26.6 48.7 7.6 Multiple disabilities 13.1 16.2 46.2 24.5 Orthopedic impairments 54.8 16.2 21.6 7.4 Other health impairments 64.0 22.2 9.7 4.1 Specific learning disabilities 67.2 24.6 6.3 1.9 Speech or language impairments 86.6 5.5 4.3 3.7 Traumatic brain injury 49.0 22.3 20.1 8.6 Visual impairments 64.7 13.0 11.0 11.3 aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. c“Other environments” consists of separate school, residential facility, homebound/hospital environment, correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools. dStates’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For more information on students ages 6 through 9 reported under the category of developmental delay and states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibits B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability category and the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disability category and all educational environments for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of row percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in each educational environment varied by disability category. Bullet. More than 8 in 10 students reported under the category of speech or language impairments (86.6 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. 46 Bullet. Only 17.1 percent of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities and 13.1 percent of students reported under the category of multiple disabilities were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Bullet. Almost one-half of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities (48.7 percent) and students reported under the category of multiple disabilities (46.2 percent) were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Bullet. In 2012, larger percentages of students reported under the categories of deaf-blindness (33.1 percent) and multiple disabilities (24.5 percent) than students reported under other disability categories were educated in “Other environments.” To what extent were students with disabilities in different racial/ethnic groups being educated with their peers without disabilities? Exhibit 30. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment: Fall 2012 63.3 64.5 53.9 60.1 55.6 56.6 62.6 19.3 19.0 27.4 19.7 20.4 16.7 23.9 13.0 10.9 15.2 16.3 17.9 21.1 10.6 4.4 5.6 3.4 3.9 6.1 5.7 2.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 Two or more races White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Percent Race/ethnicity aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. c“Other environments” includes separate school, residential facility, homebound/hospital environment, correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group and educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the racial/ethnic group and all the educational environments, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of bar percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. 47 Bullet. In 2012, for each racial/ethnic group, the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. The students who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for at least 50 percent of the students in each of the racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students in the racial/ethnic groups who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day ranged from 53.9 percent to 64.5 percent. Bullet. The category inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for between 16.7 and 27.4 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group. In contrast, less than 20 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group, except for Asian students (21.1 percent), were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Bullet. “Other environments” accounted for less than 6.2 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 48 Part B Participation and Performance on State Assessments What percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, participated in regular and alternate state math and reading assessments? Exhibit 31. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school who participated in state math and reading assessments, by assessment type: School year 2011–12 Content area and student grade level Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb With accommodations Without accommodations Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Math Grade 3f 41.7 39.0 # 9.0 9.1 Grade 4g 44.0 33.9 # 12.1 9.0 Grade 5h 45.8 30.3 # 13.8 9.0 Grade 6 45.3 29.9 # 14.3 9.0 Grade 7h 44.5 30.2 # 14.6 9.0 Grade 8 43.7 34.1 # 10.7 9.2 High school 38.9 39.3 # 6.1 10.0 Readingi Grade 3j 37.4 41.5 0.2 10.3 9.2 Grade 4k 39.7 36.3 0.2 13.5 9.0 Grade 5l 41.3 33.2 0.3 15.1 9.1 Grade 6 40.8 33.6 0.2 14.9 9.0 Grade 7l 41.5 33.1 0.2 14.4 9.0 Grade 8 41.0 33.4 0.2 14.2 9.1 High school 38.8 40.7 # 5.2 9.2 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aRegular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an assessment that is designed to measure the student’s knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter based on academic achievement content for the grade in which the student is enrolled. bAlternate assessment is an assessment that is designed to measure the performance of students who are unable to participate in regular assessments even with accommodations. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) team makes the determination of whether a student is able to take the regular assessment. cAlternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities based on the same grade-level achievement standards measured by the state’s regular assessment. Such assessments are available to students who the IEP team determines cannot participate in all or part of the state assessments under paragraph (a)(1) of 34 C.F.R. section 200.6, even with appropriate accommodations. This assessment must yield results for the grade in which the student is enrolled in at least reading/language arts, mathematics, and, since the 2007–08 school year, science, except as provided in 34 C.F.R. section 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B). dAlternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is a an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities who access the general grade-level curriculum, but whose disabilities have precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency and who (as determined by the IEP team) are not expected to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. eAlternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This assessment may yield results that measure the achievement standards that the state has defined under 34 C.F.R. section 200.1(d). fNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. gNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Republic of the Marshall Islands. hNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. 49 Bullet. In school year 2011–12, between 38.9 and 45.8 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in math. Between 29.9 and 39.3 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in math. Bullet. Of all students who participated in some type of alternate assessment in math in school year 2011–12, larger percentages of these students in each of grades 4 through 8 took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards than the other two types of alternate tests. In contrast, larger percentages of the students in grade 3 and in high school took an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards. Bullet. In school year 2011–12, between 37.4 and 41.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in reading. Between 33.1 and 41.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in reading. Bullet. Of the students in each of grades 3 through 8 who participated in some type of alternate assessment in reading in school year 2011–12, a larger percentage took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. In contrast, a larger percentage of the students in high school who participated in some type of alternate assessment in reading, took an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards. iPercentages of students who participated in the regular reading assessments include students with limited English proficiency served under IDEA, Part B, who, at the time of the reading assessments, had been in the United States fewer than 12 months and took the English language proficiency tests in place of the regular reading assessments. In the case of Puerto Rico, language proficiency is determined with regard to Spanish. jNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. kNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. lNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, in the grade level who participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100. Suppressed data were excluded. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Assessment Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 50 What percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, were classified as nonparticipants in state math and reading assessments? Exhibit 32. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school classified as nonparticipants in state math and reading assessments, by nonparticipant category: School year 2011–12 Content area and student grade level Students whose assessment results were invalida Students who took an out-of- level testb Students who did not take any assessmentc Total Math Grade 3d 0.26 0.02 0.92 1.19 Grade 4e 0.21 0.03 0.82 1.07 Grade 5f 0.24 0.02 0.83 1.08 Grade 6 0.33 0.03 1.02 1.38 Grade 7f 0.38 0.01 1.30 1.70 Grade 8 0.69 0.02 1.63 2.33 High school 0.49 0.02 5.27 5.78 Readingg Grade 3h 0.39 0.05 0.92 1.36 Grade 4i 0.33 0.06 0.83 1.22 Grade 5j 0.30 0.02 0.83 1.15 Grade 6 0.36 0.04 1.04 1.43 Grade 7j 0.44 0.02 1.28 1.74 Grade 8 0.50 0.02 1.55 2.06 High school 0.95 0.04 5.01 6.01 aStudents whose assessment results were invalid were students whose assessment results could not be used for reporting assessment performance to the Office of Special Education Programs/Department of Education due to problems in the testing process and/or changes in testing materials that resulted in a score deemed by the state to not yield a valid evaluation of a student’s level of achievement on grade-level content. Students whose test results were determined to be invalid are counted as nonparticipants. bStudents who took an out-of-level test were students who took an assessment that was at a grade level below which the students were enrolled during the reporting period. Students who are tested out of level are considered nonparticipants because out-of- grade-level tests do not result in a valid score. Note that out-of-level testing is not in accordance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as specified in 34 C.F.R. section 200.1(b)(2). This category is included in this report only to ensure that all students with individualized education programs (IEPs) are fully accounted. States are expected to eliminate the out-of- level testing practice as required by statute. cStudents who did not take any assessment included students who received parental exemptions, students who were absent, and students who did not take any assessment for other reasons (e.g., exemptions due to a medical emergency, expulsion, or suspension). dNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. eNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Republic of the Marshall Islands. fNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. gPercentages of nonparticipants in the reading assessments can include students with limited English proficiency served under IDEA, Part B, who, at the time of the reading assessments, had been in the United States fewer than 12 months and took or were scheduled to take the English language proficiency tests in place of the regular reading assessments. In the case of Puerto Rico, language proficiency is determined with regard to Spanish. hNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. iNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. jNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. NOTE: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, in the grade level, content area, and nonparticipant category by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100. Suppressed data were excluded. 51 Bullet. No more than 2.33 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a math assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants. Similarly, no more than 2.06 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a reading assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants. Larger percentages of the students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school in school year 2011–12 were classified as nonparticipants for both the math assessment (5.78 percent) and the reading assessment (6.01 percent). Bullet. Of the three nonparticipant categories, students who did not take any assessment accounted for more of the nonparticipants in each grade in both math and reading. However, the percentage only exceeded 2 percent for high school students expected to be assessed in math (5.27 percent) and high school students expected to be assessed in reading (5.01 percent). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Assessment Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 52 What percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, were found to be proficient with state math and reading assessments? Exhibit 33. Numbers of states assessing students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3 through 8 and high school in math and reading and median percentages of those students who were proficient, by assessment type: School year 2011–12 Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Content area and student grade level Number of states Median percent students proficient Number of states Median percent students proficient Number of states Median percent students proficient Number of states Median percent students proficient Math Grade 3f 53 44.8 1 — 16 53.5 52 67.7 Grade 4g 53 42.0 1 — 16 52.7 52 71.3 Grade 5h 53 33.9 1 — 16 52.1 52 72.2 Grade 6 52 29.3 2 37.5 16 48.9 53 69.6 Grade 7h 54 25.6 1 — 16 42.9 52 72.0 Grade 8 52 25.4 1 — 16 40.7 52 67.8 High school 53 19.2 1 — 11 31.4 51 68.1 Readingi Grade 3j 54 39.6 4 87.5 15 47.5 53 71.3 Grade 4k 54 39.0 4 57.1 16 52.6 54 70.0 Grade 5l 54 37.0 4 44.4 16 58.9 53 72.5 Grade 6 53 29.6 4 75.0 16 49.9 53 69.9 Grade 7l 53 32.1 4 35.3 16 49.7 53 74.4 Grade 8 54 30.0 4 70.0 16 50.6 53 71.9 High school 53 31.4 3 37.0 10 53.2 52 73.6 — Median percentage cannot be calculated. aRegular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an assessment that is designed to measure the student’s knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter based on academic achievement content for the grade in which the student is enrolled. bAlternate assessment is an assessment that is designed to measure the performance of students who are unable to participate in regular assessments even with accommodations. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) team makes the determination of whether a student is able to take the regular assessment. cAlternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities based on the same grade-level achievement standards measured by the state’s regular assessment. dAlternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities who access the general grade-level curriculum, but whose disabilities have precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency and who (as determined by the IEP team) are not expected to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. eAlternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This assessment may yield results that measure the achievement standards that the state has defined under 34 C.F.R. section 200.1(d). fNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. gNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Republic of the Marshall Islands. hNo students in this grade were assessed in math by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. 53 Bullet. In school year 2011–12, between 52 and 54 of the 60 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, BIE schools, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 3 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was 44.8 percent. The median percentage of students who were found to be proficient with these tests was less for each successive grade, reaching a low of 19.2 percent for students in high school. Bullet. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for math was administered by two jurisdictions to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 6 and by only one jurisdiction to some students in each of grades 3 through 5, 7, 8, and high school. Bullet. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for math was administered to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 by 16 jurisdictions and in high school by 11 jurisdictions. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 3 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was 53.5 percent. The median percentage of students who were found to be proficient with these tests was less for each successive grade, reaching a low of 31.4 percent for students in high school. Bullet. Non-suppressed data were available for between 51 and 53 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 67.7 percent to 72.2 percent. iStudents with limited English proficiency served under IDEA, Part B, who at the time of the reading assessments had been in the United States fewer than 12 months and took English language proficiency tests in place of the regular reading assessments were not considered in the calculations of the percentage of students who were proficient in reading. In the case of Puerto Rico, language proficiency is determined with regard to Spanish. jNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of Palau. kNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. lNo students in this grade were assessed in reading by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. NOTE: “Students who were proficient” were students whom states considered proficient for purposes of Adequate Yearly Progress as reported under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Median percentage represents the mid-point of the percentages calculated for all of the states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, in the grade level who were proficient in the specific content area assessment in the state by the total number of students served under IDEA, Part B, in the grade level who participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level in the state, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Assessment Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 54 Bullet. In school year 2011–12, either 53 or 54 of the 60 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, BIE schools, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentages of these students who were found to be proficient with these reading tests ranged from 29.6 percent to 39.6 percent. Bullet. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for reading was administered to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 by four states and to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school by three states. The median percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 3, 6, and 8 who were found to be proficient with these reading tests were 87.5 percent, 75 percent, and 70 percent, respectively. The median percentage of students in each of the other grades who were found to be proficient was in a range from 35.3 percent to 57.1 percent. Bullet. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for reading was administered by 15 or 16 jurisdictions to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and by 10 jurisdictions to some students in high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 47.5 percent to 58.9 percent. Bullet. Non-suppressed data were available for between 52 and 54 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 69.9 percent to 74.4 percent. 55 Part B Exiting What were the percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, for specific reasons? Exhibit 34. Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, by exit reason: 2011–12 Graduated with a regular high school diploma (39.6%) Received a certificate (8.5%) Dropped out (12.7%) Transferred to regular education (10.2%) Moved, known to be continuing in educationa (27.8%) Other exiting reasonsb (1.1%) aThe moved, known to be continuing in education category includes exiters who moved out of the catchment area (e.g., state, school district) and are known to be continuing in an educational program. The catchment area is defined by the state education agency. b“Other exiting reasons” includes reached maximum age for services (0.9 percent) and died (0.2 percent). NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in the exit reason category by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in all the exit reason categories, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum may not total 100 percent because of rounding. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. Of the seven exit reason categories, graduated with a regular high school diploma accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 14 through 21 who exited special education in 2011–12 (39.6 percent), followed by moved, known to be continuing in education (27.8 percent) and dropped out (12.7 percent). 56 How have graduation and dropout percentages for students exiting IDEA, Part B, and school changed over time? Exhibit 35. Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year: 2002–03 through 2011–12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2002‒03 2003‒04 2004‒05 2005‒06 2006‒07 2007‒08 2008‒09 2009‒10 2010‒11 2011‒12 Percent Year Graduated with a regular high school diplomaa Dropped outb aGraduated with a regular high school diploma refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities were eligible. These were students with disabilities who met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 C.F.R. section 300.102(a)(3)(iv), “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or a general educational development credential (GED).” bDropped out refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were enrolled at the start of the reporting period, were not enrolled at the end of the reporting period, and did not exit special education through any other basis (see seven exit reason categories described below). Starting in 2004–05, the category moved, not known to be continuing, used in previous years, was eliminated, and exiters who moved and were not known to be continuing in an education program were added to the dropped out category. NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. This exhibit provides percentages for only two categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma and dropped out). For data on all seven categories of exiters, see exhibit 34. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in the exit reason category (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out) for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in the five exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating or dropping out as required under IDEA and included in this report are not comparable to the graduation and dropout rates required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The data used to calculate percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating or dropping out are different from those used to calculate graduation and dropout rates. In particular, states often use data such as the number of students who graduated in four years with a regular high 57 Bullet. In 2011–12, a total of 63.9 percent of the students ages 14 through 21 who exited IDEA, Part B, and school graduated with a regular high school diploma; an additional 20.5 percent dropped out. Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having graduated with a regular high school diploma increased from 52.5 percent to 63.9 percent. Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having dropped out decreased from 33.6 percent to 20.5 percent. school diploma and the number of students who entered high school four years earlier to determine their graduation and dropout rates under ESEA. For 2002–03 through 2004–05, data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. For 2005–06 through 2011–12, data are from the reporting period between July 1 and June 30 of the referenced year. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2002–03 through 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areas with the following exceptions. For 2004–05, data for Washington and DC were not available. For 2005–06, data for DC were not available. For 2006–07, data for Vermont and Washington were not available. For 2007–08, data for Texas, Vermont, and DC were not available. For 2008–09, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010–11, data for BIE schools were not available. For 2011–12, data for the three freely associated states were included. Data for 2002–03 through 2009–10 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2010–11 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2011–12 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 58 How have graduation percentages changed over time for students with different disabilities exiting IDEA, Part B, and school? Exhibit 36. Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who graduated with a regular high school diploma, by year and disability category: 2002–03 through 2011–12 Disability 2002– 03 2003– 04 2004– 05 2005– 06 2006– 07 2007– 08 2008– 09 2009– 10 2010– 11 2011– 12 All disabilities 52.5 54.5 54.4 56.7 56.0 59.0 60.6 62.6 63.6 63.9 Autism 54.0 58.2 55.6 57.7 58.8 63.2 64.4 66.2 64.8 64.6 Deaf-blindnessa 57.7 51.6 53.7 64.5 74.3 56.8 63.6 60.0 51.6 47.0 Emotional disturbance 35.6 38.4 40.1 43.4 42.7 45.6 47.4 49.9 52.3 51.1 Hearing impairments 67.1 67.6 69.6 68.9 67.0 69.7 71.7 71.8 73.1 73.4 Intellectual disabilities 37.8 38.9 35.1 37.2 37.6 37.6 38.7 40.7 39.9 40.3 Multiple disabilities 46.6 47.8 43.1 44.6 45.5 45.7 48.1 47.6 47.2 48.6 Orthopedic impairments 57.7 62.7 62.0 62.0 59.9 62.0 61.2 62.8 62.3 61.8 Other health impairments 60.0 60.5 61.9 63.6 62.4 66.5 67.3 69.2 70.0 69.9 Specific learning disabilities 57.7 59.6 59.6 61.7 60.7 64.2 65.5 67.4 68.4 68.8 Speech or language impairments 59.6 61.2 64.9 67.4 66.5 66.6 68.3 70.3 72.6 74.6 Traumatic brain injury 64.2 61.8 62.8 65.0 62.6 64.9 67.9 68.0 67.7 68.6 Visual impairments 69.5 73.4 72.4 72.1 69.7 77.1 75.0 77.9 78.6 77.1 aPercentages are based on fewer than 200 students exiting special education and school. NOTE: Graduated with a regular high school diploma refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities were eligible. These were students with disabilities who met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 C.F.R. section 300.102(a)(3)(iv), “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or a general educational development credential (GED).” The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. This exhibit provides percentages for only one category of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma). For data on all seven categories of exiters, see exhibit 34. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category who graduated with a regular high school diploma for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category in the five exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating as required under IDEA and included in this report are not comparable to the graduation rates required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The data used to calculate percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating are different from those used to calculate graduation rates. In particular, states often use data such as the number of students who graduated in four years with a regular high school diploma and the number of students who entered high school four years earlier to determine their graduation rates under ESEA. For 2002–03 through 2004– 05, data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. For 2005–06 through 2011–12, data are from the reporting period between July 1 and June 30 of the referenced year. 59 Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the graduation percentage increased for students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school in all disability categories except deaf-blindness. Increases larger than 10 percent were associated with the following four disability categories: autism (10.6 percentage point increase), emotional disturbance (15.5 percentage point increase), specific learning disabilities (11.1 percentage point increase), and speech or language impairments (15.0 percentage point increase). Bullet. In every year from 2002–03 through 2011–12, except 2006–07, the disability category of visual impairments was associated with the largest graduation percentage. Moreover, while the students who exited special education and school reported under the category of emotional disturbance had the smallest graduation percentages in 2002–03 and 2003–04, the students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities had the smallest graduation percentages from 2004–05 through 2011–12. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2002–03 through 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areas with the following exceptions. For 2004–05, data for Washington and DC were not available. For 2005–06, data for DC were not available. For 2006–07, data for Vermont and Washington were not available. For 2007–08, data for Texas, Vermont, and DC were not available. For 2008–09, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010–11, data for BIE schools were not available. For 2011–12, data for the three freely associated states were included. Data for 2002–03 through 2009–10 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2010–11 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2011–12 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 60 How have dropout percentages changed over time for students with different disabilities exiting IDEA, Part B, and school? Exhibit 37. Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school, who dropped out of school, by year and disability category: 2002–03 through 2011–12 Disability 2002– 03 2003– 04 2004– 05 2005– 06 2006– 07 2007– 08 2008– 09 2009– 10 2010– 11 2011– 12 All disabilities 33.6 31.1 28.3 26.3 25.7 24.6 22.4 21.1 20.1 20.5 Autism 16.1 13.3 10.8 9.2 7.2 7.0 6.2 6.6 6.3 7.3 Deaf-blindnessa 27.6 17.5 20.0 9.2 8.2 9.5 9.1 13.3 15.1 14.5 Emotional disturbance 55.9 52.3 48.2 45.0 44.8 43.3 40.6 38.7 37.0 38.1 Hearing impairments 18.8 16.7 13.1 13.5 13.0 11.1 10.5 10.2 10.2 10.2 Intellectual disabilities 29.3 27.6 24.5 22.3 22.2 21.5 19.8 19.2 18.5 18.8 Multiple disabilities 24.9 22.3 21.0 18.6 19.1 17.6 14.9 13.9 13.1 15.8 Orthopedic impairments 22.4 16.5 14.5 11.6 13.3 13.1 13.6 12.4 11.5 11.4 Other health impairments 28.9 27.8 24.7 23.6 23.2 22.4 20.4 19.1 18.4 19.2 Specific learning disabilities 31.4 29.1 26.8 25.3 24.5 23.6 21.4 20.2 19.4 19.9 Speech or language impairments 31.0 29.4 25.2 22.7 20.7 20.5 18.8 17.0 16.0 15.6 Traumatic brain injury 22.8 23.0 18.5 15.1 15.4 14.6 13.2 12.5 11.4 12.3 Visual impairments 15.5 12.7 11.3 11.5 11.2 9.6 9.6 8.4 8.5 7.3 aPercentages are based on fewer than 200 students exiting special education and school. NOTE: Dropped out refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were enrolled at the start of the reporting period, were not enrolled at the end of the reporting period, and did not exit special education through any other basis (see seven exit reason categories described below). Starting in 2004–05, the category moved, not known to be continuing, used in previous years, was eliminated, and exiters who moved and were not known to be continuing in an education program were added to the dropped out category. The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. This exhibit provides percentages for only one category of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., dropped out). For data on all seven categories of exiters, see exhibit 34. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category who dropped out for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category in the five exit- from-both-special education-and-school categories for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The percentages of students who exited special education and school by dropping out as required under IDEA and included in this report are not comparable to the dropout rates required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The data used to calculate percentages of students who exited special education and school by dropping out are different from those used to calculate dropout rates. In particular, states often use data such as the number of students who graduated in four years with a regular high school diploma and the number of students who entered high school four years earlier to determine their dropout rates under ESEA. For 2002–03 through 2004–05, data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. For 2005–06 through 2011–12, data are from the reporting period between July 1 and June 30 of the referenced year. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2002–03 through 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four outlying areas with the following exceptions. For 2004–05, data for Washington and DC were not available. For 2005–06, data for DC were not available. For 2006–07, data for Vermont and Washington were not available. For 2007–08, data for Texas, Vermont, and DC were not available. For 2008–09, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010–11, data for BIE schools were not available. For 2011–12, data for the three freely associated states were included. Data for 2002–03 through 2009–10 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2010–11 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2011–12 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 61 Bullet. From 2002–03 through 2011–12, the dropout percentage decreased for students in each disability category who exited IDEA, Part B, and school. The decreases were most notable for students reported under the categories of emotional disturbance (17.9 percentage point decrease) and speech or language impairments (15.4 percentage point decrease). Bullet. In each year from 2002–03 through 2011–12, a larger percentage of the students reported under the category of emotional disturbance exited special education and school by dropping out. In fact in each year, the dropout percentage was no less than 37 percent, which was substantially larger than the dropout percentage for any other disability category. Special Education Teachers and Paraprofessionals Employed to Serve Students Ages 6 Through 21 Under IDEA, Part B To what extent were full-time equivalent teachers who were employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, highly qualified? Exhibit 38. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers and number and percentage of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 Year Total number FTE employed Number FTE highly qualifieda Percentageb FTE highly qualified 2011 364,629 347,091 95.2 aSpecial education teachers reported as highly qualified met the state standard for highly qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1401(10). For highly qualified special education teachers, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), except that such term also includes the requirements described in section 602(10)(B) of IDEA, and the option for teachers to meet the requirements of section 9101 of ESEA, by meeting the requirements of section 602(10)(C) or (D) of IDEA [20 U.S.C. section 1401(10)]. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the total number of FTE special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011, a total of 347,091, or 95.2 percent, of the 364,629 FTE special education teachers who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified. 62 To what extent were full-time equivalent paraprofessionals who were employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, qualified? Exhibit 39. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education paraprofessionals and number and percentage of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2011 Year Total number FTE employed Number FTE qualifieda Percentageb FTE qualified 2011 411,756 401,176 97.4 aSpecial education paraprofessionals reported as qualified (1) met the state standard for qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1412(14)(B) or (2) if no state standard for qualified paraprofessionals existed, either held appropriate state certification or licensure for the position held or held positions for which no state certification or licensure requirements existed. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of FTE qualified special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the total number of FTE special education paraprofessionals employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. NOTE: Paraprofessionals are employees who provide instructional support, including those who: (1) provide one-on-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher; (2) assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials; (3) provide instructional assistance in a computer laboratory; (4) conduct parental involvement activities; (5) provide support in a library or media center; (6) act as a translator; or (7) provide instructional support services under the direct supervision of a teacher. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011, a total of 401,176, or 97.4 percent, of the 411,756 FTE special education paraprofessionals who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified. 63 Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Personnel Employed to Provide Related Services for Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B In 2011, the 50 states; the District of Columbia (DC); Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools; Puerto Rico (PR); the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; and the three freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands were asked to report the numbers of full-time equivalent fully certified and not fully certified personnel employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. Personnel who were fully certified for the position either held appropriate state certification or licensure for the position held or held positions for which no state certification or licensure requirements existed. To what extent were full-time equivalent personnel who were employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, fully certified? Exhibit 40. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel and number and percentage of FTE fully certified personnel employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by personnel type: Fall 2011 Personnel category Total number FTE employed Number FTE fully certified Percentagea FTE fully certified Total 198,571 194,736 98.1 Audiologists 1,385 1,355 97.8 Counselors and Rehabilitation Counselors 15,333 14,911 97.2 Interpreters 6,647 6,023 90.6 Medical/Nursing Service Staff 15,723 15,325 97.5 Occupational Therapists 20,043 19,664 98.1 Orientation and Mobility Specialists 1,498 1,433 95.6 Physical Education Teachers and Recreation and Therapeutic Recreation Specialists 14,657 14,486 98.8 Physical Therapists 8,255 8,130 98.5 Psychologists 33,466 33,147 99.0 Social Workers 17,540 17,269 98.5 Speech-Language Pathologists 64,024 62,994 98.4 aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of FTE fully certified personnel employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the total number of FTE personnel (fully certified and not fully certified) employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 100. NOTE: Not all states use all 11 related services personnel categories. The term “related services” refers to transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. Related services include speech-language pathology and audiology services; interpreting services; psychological services; physical and occupational therapy; recreation, including therapeutic recreation; early identification and assessment of disabilities in children; counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling; orientation and mobility services; medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes; school health services and school nurse services; social work services in schools; 64 Bullet. In 2011, a total of 98.1 percent of all FTE personnel who were employed to provide related services for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were fully certified. Bullet. Ten of the 11 categories of FTE related services personnel had full certification percentages of 95 percent or more. Interpreters had the smallest full certification percentage (90.6 percent), while nearly all psychologists (99.0 percent) were fully certified. and parent counseling and training. Related services do not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, the optimization of that device’s functioning (e.g., mapping), maintenance of that device, or the replacement of that device [34 C.F.R. section 300.34(a) and (b)(1)]. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 65 Disciplinary Removals of Children and Students From Their Educational Placements For school year 2011–12, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states were asked to report information on children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed from their educational placements for disciplinary reasons. How many children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were removed to an interim alternative educational setting and suspended or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year? Exhibit 41. Numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 who were served under IDEA, Part B; removed from their educational placements for disciplinary purposes; and removed per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by type of disciplinary removal: School year 2011–12 Type of disciplinary removal Number serveda Number disciplinedb Number disciplined per 10,000 servedc Removed to an interim alternative educational settingd Removed unilaterally by school personnele for drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injuryf 4,888,560 6,891 14 Removed by hearing officer for likely injuryg 4,968,354 182 # Suspended or expelled >10 days during school yearh Received out-of-school suspensions or expulsionsi 4,987,520 48,607 97 Received in-school suspensionsj 5,161,695 29,076 56 # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 100,000. aExcludes counts from states that did not have data available for the disciplinary removal category. bThe number reported within each of the four disciplinary categories is an unduplicated count of children and students. However, children and students who were involved in two or more incidents may be reported in more than one disciplinary category. cRatio was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the disciplinary removal category by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the entire 2011–12 school year, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. dAn appropriate setting determined by the child’s/student’s individualized education program (IEP) team in which the child/student is placed for no more than 45 school days. This setting enables the child/student to continue to progress in the general curriculum; to continue to receive the services and modifications, including those described in the child’s/student’s current IEP; and to meet the goals set out in the IEP. Setting includes services and modifications to address the problem behavior and to prevent the behavior from recurring. eInstances in which school personnel (not the IEP team) order the removal of children and students with disabilities from their current educational placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days. fData for California, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. gData for California, Delaware, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. hThe children and students reported in this category are those subject to multiple short-term suspensions/expulsions summing to more than 10 days during the school year, those subject to single suspension(s)/expulsion(s) over 10 days during the school year, and those subject to both. iData for California, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. jData for California, Maine, New York, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. 66 Bullet. During school year 2011–12, 6,891 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the states for which data were available were removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury. Given that 4,888,560 children and students ages 3 through 21 were served under Part B in 2011, in the states for which data were available, this type of action occurred with only 14 children and students for every 10,000 children and students who were served under Part B in 2011. Bullet. Only 182 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or less than 5 for every 100,000 children and students served in 2011, in the states for which data were available were removed to an interim alternative educational setting by a hearing officer for likely injury to themselves or others in school year 2011–12. Bullet. There were 48,607 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or 97 for every 10,000 children and students served in 2011, in the states for which data were available who received out-of-school suspensions or expulsions for more than 10 cumulative days in school year 2011–12. Bullet. There were 29,076 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, or 56 for every 10,000 children and students served in 2011, in the states for which data were available who received in-school suspensions for more than 10 cumulative days in school year 2011–12. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas with the exceptions noted above. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 67 How did the numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed to an interim alternative educational setting or suspended or expelled for more than 10 days, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, vary by disability category? Exhibit 42. Numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed to an interim alternative educational setting and suspended or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and type of disciplinary removal: School year 2011–12 Disability Removed to an interim alternative educational settinga Suspended or expelled >10 days during school yearb Removed unilaterally by school personnelc for drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injuryd Removed by hearing officer for likely injurye Received out-of-school suspensions or expulsionsf Received in-school suspensionsg All disabilities 14 # 97 56 Autism 3 # 15 8 Deaf-blindness 0 8 61 81 Developmental delayh # # 4 1 Emotional disturbance 41 1 407 163 Hearing impairments 6 # 31 21 Intellectual disabilities 7 # 91 45 Multiple disabilities 6 # 37 10 Orthopedic impairments 6 0 35 10 Other health impairments 21 1 160 98 Specific learning disabilities 22 # 117 80 Speech or language impairments 1 # 15 10 Traumatic brain injury 11 # 68 34 Visual impairments 4 0 21 21 # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 100,000. aAn appropriate setting determined by the child’s/student’s individualized education program (IEP) team in which the child/student is placed for no more than 45 school days. This setting enables the child/student to continue to progress in the general curriculum; to continue to receive the services and modifications, including those described in the child’s/student’s current IEP; and to meet the goals set out in the IEP. Setting includes services and modifications to address the problem behavior and to prevent the behavior from recurring. bThe children and students reported in this category are those subject to multiple short-term suspensions/expulsions summing to more than 10 days during the school year, those subject to single suspension(s)/expulsion(s) over 10 days during the school year, and those subject to both. cInstances in which school personnel (not the IEP team) order the removal of children and students with disabilities from their current educational placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days. dData for California, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. eData for California, Delaware, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. fData for California, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. 68 Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 41 children and students removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily during school year 2011– 12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 23 per 10,000 children and students served. Bullet. Without regard for disability category, for every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011, no more than 8 children and students were removed by a hearing officer for likely injury during school year 2011–12. Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 407 children and students who received out-of-school suspensions or expulsions for more than 10 cumulative days during school year 2011–12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 161 per 10,000 children and students. Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, there were 163 children and students who received in-school suspensions for more than 10 cumulative days during school year 2011–12. The ratio for the children and students reported under each of the other disability categories was less than 99 per 10,000 children and students. gData for California, Maine, New York, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not available for this disciplinary removal category. hStates’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. NOTE: The ratio reported within each of the four disciplinary categories is based on an unduplicated count of children and students. However, children and students who were involved in two or more incidents may be reported in more than one disciplinary category. Ratio was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category for the disciplinary removal category by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the disability category, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the entire 2011–12 school year, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. As the numbers of children and students in some disability categories for some states were suppressed, an imputation procedure was used to estimate the number of children associated with those categories. Specifically, the estimates for each state were created by allocating the total number of children and students associated with disability categories for which data were suppressed to those disability categories in relative proportions based on the national distribution of children and students served by disability in 2011. These estimates were used to calculate the total number of children and students in each disability category who were served by the particular set of states that reported data for each type of disciplinary action. The denominator for the disability category of deaf-blindness for each type of disciplinary action is fewer than 1,400 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. The denominator for each of the other disability categories for each type of disciplinary action exceeded 20,000 children and students. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2012. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, and the four outlying areas with the exceptions noted above. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 69 Dispute Resolution for Children and Students Served Under IDEA, Part B To protect the interests of children and students served under IDEA, Part B, the law requires states to implement a formal set of procedural safeguards for children and students served under IDEA, Part B. Among these procedural safeguards are three formal options for registering and resolving disputes. One of these options is a written, signed complaint. Any individual or organization can file a written, signed complaint alleging a violation of any Part B requirement by a school district, the state education agency (SEA), or any other public agency. A second option available to parents, school districts, or other public agencies is a due process complaint. By filing a due process complaint, a parent or public agency may request a due process hearing12 regarding any matter relating to a proposal or a refusal to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. Mediation is a third option available through which parents and school districts can try to resolve disputes and reach an agreement about any matter under Part B of IDEA, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint. The agreements reached through the mediation process are legally binding and enforceable. For more information about these and other procedural safeguards, go to http://www.nectac.org/topics/procsafe/procsafe.asp. Unlike the other Part B data collections, which are associated with a specific group of Part B participants defined by the participants’ ages, the Part B dispute resolution data collection is associated with all children and students served under IDEA, Part B. These children and students include individuals ages 3 through 21, as well as older individuals, as states have the option of serving students 22 years of age and older. The Part B legal disputes and resolution data represent all complaints associated with any participant in Part B during the 12 months during which the data were collected. 12 A due process hearing is designed to be a fair, timely, and impartial procedure for resolving disputes that arise from parents and public agencies regarding the education of children and students served under IDEA, Part B. 70 What were the statuses of the written, signed complaints that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA? Exhibit 43. Percentage of written, signed complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by complaint status: 2011–12 Complaints with reports issueda (64.1%) Complaints withdrawn or dismissedb (33.5 Complaints pendingc (2.6%) aA complaint with a report issued refers to a written decision that was provided by the state education agency (SEA) to the complainant and public agency regarding alleged violations of a requirement of Part B of IDEA. bA complaint withdrawn or dismissed refers to a written, signed complaint that was withdrawn by the complainant for any reason or that was determined by the SEA to be resolved by the complainant and the public agency through mediation or other dispute resolution means, and no further action by the SEA was required to resolve the complaint, or a complaint dismissed by the SEA for any reason, including that the complaint did not include all required content. cA complaint pending is a written, signed complaint that is either still under investigation or the SEA’s written decision has not been issued. NOTE: A written, signed complaint is a signed document with specific content requirements that is submitted to the SEA by an individual or organization (i.e., complainant) that alleges a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA or 34 C.F.R. section 300, including cases in which some required content is absent from the document. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of complaints in the status category by the total number of written, signed complaints, and then multiplying the result by 100. All 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and two outlying areas reported one or more complaints. Percentage was based on a total of 5,025 written, signed complaints. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0677: “IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and two freely associated states. Data were not available for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 5,025 written, signed complaints were received through the dispute resolution process for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. 71 Bullet. A report was issued for 3,223 (64.1 percent) of the complaints, while 1,683 (33.5 percent) of the complaints were withdrawn or dismissed. A total of 130 (2.6 percent) of the complaints that were received during the 2011–12 reporting period were pending or unresolved by the end of the period. What were the statuses of the due process complaints made by parties that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA? Exhibit 44. Percentage of due process complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by complaint status: 2011–12 Due process complaints withdrawn or dismisseda (74.6%) Due process complaints that resulted in hearings fully adjudicatedb (13.2%) Due process complaints pendingc (12.1%) aA due process complaint withdrawn or dismissed (including resolved without a hearing) is a complaint that has not resulted in a fully adjudicated due process hearing. Such complaints can include requests resolved through a mediation agreement or through a resolution session settlement agreement, those settled by some other agreement between the parties (i.e., parent and the public agency) prior to completion of the hearing, those withdrawn by the parent, those rejected by the hearing officer as insufficient or without cause, and those not fully adjudicated for other reasons. bA due process complaint hearing is fully adjudicated when a hearing officer conducts a due process hearing, reaches a final decision regarding matters of law and fact, and issues a written decision to the parties. cA due process complaint pending is a due process complaint wherein a due process hearing had not yet been scheduled or is scheduled but has not yet been held. NOTE: A due process complaint is a filing by a parent or public agency to initiate an impartial due process hearing on matters related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability or to the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of due process complaints in the status category by the total number of due process complaints, then multiplying the result by 100. Forty-nine states, DC, PR, and two outlying areas reported one or more due process complaints. Percentage was based on a total of 17,118 due process complaints. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0677: “IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, PR, the four outlying areas, and two freely associated states. Data were not available for BIE schools or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 72 Bullet. A total of 17,118 due process complaints were received during 2011–12 through the dispute resolution process for children and students served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. For 12,777 (74.6 percent) of the due process complaints received during the 2011–12 reporting period, a resolution was achieved without a hearing. For 2,262 (13.2 percent) of the due process complaints received, a hearing was conducted, and a written legal decision was issued. For 2,079 (12.1 percent) of the due process complaints received, a resolution was still pending at the end of the reporting period. What were the statuses of the mediation requests made by parties that alleged a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA? Exhibit 45. Percentage of mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by request status: 2011–12 Mediations held related to due process complaintsa (35.0%) Mediations held not related to due process complaintsb (30.7%) Mediations withdrawn or not heldc (24.7%) Mediations pendingd (9.6%) aA mediation held related to due process complaint is a process that was conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve a disagreement between a parent and public agency that was initiated by the filing of a due process complaint or included issues that were the subject of a due process complaint. bA mediation held not related to due process complaint is a process that was conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve a disagreement between a parent and public agency that was not initiated by the filing of a due process complaint or did not include issues that were the subject of a due process complaint. cA mediation withdrawn or not held is a request for mediation that did not result in a mediation being conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator. This includes mediation requests that were withdrawn, mediation requests that were dismissed, requests where one party refused to mediate, and requests that were settled by some agreement other than a mediation agreement between the parties. dA mediation pending is a request for mediation that has not yet been scheduled or is scheduled but has not yet been held. NOTE: A mediation request is a request by a party to a dispute involving any matter under Part B of IDEA for the parties to meet with a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve the dispute(s). Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of mediation requests in the status category by the total number of mediation requests, then multiplying the result by 100. Fifty states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and one outlying area reported one or more due process complaints. Percentage was based on a total of 9,219 mediation requests. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. 73 Bullet. During 2011–12, a total of 9,219 mediation requests were received through the dispute resolution process for children and students served under IDEA, Part B. For 3,223 (35.0 percent) of the mediation requests received, a mediation related to a due process complaint was conducted. For 2,832 (30.7 percent) of the mediation requests received, a mediation that was not related to a due process complaint was conducted. For 884 requests (9.6 percent), a mediation session was still pending as of the end of the 2011–12 reporting period. The remaining 2,280 mediation requests (24.7 percent) were withdrawn or otherwise not to be held by the end of the reporting period. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0677: “IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. These data are for the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and two freely associated states. Data were not available for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 74 Coordinated Early Intervening Services The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was amended to allow, and sometimes require, local education agencies (LEAs) to use funds provided under Part B of IDEA for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). This provision, which is found in section 613(f) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. section 1413(f)) and the regulations in 34 C.F.R. § 300.226 permits LEAs to use Part B funds to develop and provide CEIS for students who are currently not identified as needing special education. The rationale for using IDEA funds for CEIS is based on research showing that the earlier a child’s learning problems or difficulties are identified, the more quickly and effectively the problems and difficulties can be addressed, and the greater the chances that the child’s problems will be ameliorated or decreased in severity. Conversely, the longer a child goes without assistance, the longer the remediation time and the more intense and costly services might be. An LEA can use up to 15 percent of the amount it receives under Part B of the IDEA, less any amount reduced by the LEA pursuant to 34 C.F.R. section 300.205 (adjustment to local fiscal efforts), to develop and implement CEIS. However, an LEA is required to reserve 15 percent of the amount of funds available for CEIS if there is significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity with respect to the identification of children with disabilities; the identification of children in specific disability categories; the placement of children with disabilities in particular educational settings; or the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions (CEIS Guidance, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis.html). How many of the children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012 received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) in the current or previous two school years? Exhibit 46. Number and percentage of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012 who received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) in school years 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12: Fall 2012 Year Children and students served under Part B who received CEIS in school year(s) 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12 Number Percentagea 2011–12 149,672 2.3 aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under Part B in 2012 who received CEIS services anytime during school year(s) 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12, by the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under Part B in 2012, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0689: “IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS),” 2012. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. These data are for 49 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data were not available for Wyoming. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 75 Bullet. A total of 149,672 or 2.3 percent of the 6,652,092 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under Part B in 2012 by the states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states received CEIS in school year(s) 2009–10, 2010–11, or 2011–12. 76 Section II Summary and Analysis of IDEA Section 618 Data at the State Level Introduction This section of the 36th Annual Report to Congress, 2014 addresses a set of questions developed by the U.S. Department of Education based on information requests made by the public. The questions show the breadth and depth of information available and call for the examination of data elements addressing areas of particular interest. The discussion in this section offers a different perspective from that presented in Section I, where the discussion features counts, percentages, and ratios that represent the nation as a whole. The measures in Section I for Parts B and C represent the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; for Part B only, the measures usually also represent the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools and the three freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In contrast, the discussion in this section reflects a state-level perspective that features comparisons among the states for which data were available. The measures presented in this section do not include counts; they include only percentages and ratios and thereby provide a common basis for comparing the states. For Parts B and C, these measures are based on data for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; for Part B only, the measures usually also represent BIE schools. They are referred to collectively as “All states,” and individually by the term “state” in the exhibits and discussion. Consequently, the discussion may refer to as many as 53 individual “states” in total. The objective of the analyses in this section is to examine similarities and differences among and within states for specific time periods. For some elements, data for two time periods for each state are presented and examined. In these cases, the analysis focuses on comparing data for the two time periods presented to determine what, if any, substantial change occurred. The more recent (comparison) time periods depicted in the state-level data exhibits are consistent with the more recent time periods depicted in the national level data exhibits found in Section I. Earlier (baseline) time periods were selected for exhibits in this section based on data availability and the comparability of the data categories or definitions (see “Data Sources Used in This Report”). As was the case in Section I, any reference in this section to “early intervention services” is synonymous with services provided under IDEA, Part C. 79 Notes Concerning the Exhibits in Section II The following will assist readers of this section: 1. Majority is defined as greater than 50 percent. 2. Exhibits presenting statistics based on resident population measures include data for Puerto Rico except when cross-tabulated by race/ethnicity since the U.S. Census’ annual resident population estimates by race/ethnicity exclude residents of Puerto Rico. In addition, such exhibits concerning Part B information include data for BIE schools. Specifically, these exhibits include data for BIE schools in the measure presented for “all states.” They cannot, however, display data specifically for BIE schools. The reason is that the resident population relevant for BIE schools, which have no distinct geographic boundaries, is dispersed throughout all of the states and counted as part of the resident populations of the individual states. 3. The four outlying areas and three freely associated states are not included in the exhibits in this section because data were frequently not available due to cell suppression or data were not reported. For example, the U.S. Census’ annual population estimates exclude residents of these jurisdictions even though the most recent decennial census (collected in 2010) did include residents of the four outlying areas. The unavailability of annual population data results in an inability to calculate associated percentages. 4. The suppression of numerical data results in an inability to calculate associated percentages. Suppression of certain data occurs to limit disclosure of personally identifiable information consistent with federal law. Under IDEA section 618(b)(1), the data collected by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) under IDEA section 618(a) must be publicly reported by each state in a manner that does not result in the disclosure of data identifiable to individual children. Additionally, under 34 C.F.R. section 99.35(a)(1) of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations, authorized representatives of the secretary may have access to education records in connection with an audit or evaluation of federal or state-supported education programs or for the enforcement of or compliance with federal legal requirements that relate to those programs. However, under 34 C.F.R. section 99.35(b)(1) of the FERPA regulations, information collected by authorized representatives of the secretary for these purposes must be protected in a manner that does not permit personal identification of individuals by anyone other than those officials. Only those officials may make further disclosures in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. section 99.33(b). It 80 is the policy of the Department to be consistent with the provisions of IDEA and FERPA privacy statutes and regulations. Each office in the Department has different purposes for its data collections. Therefore, each office develops its own approach to data presentation that ensures the protection of privacy while meeting the purposes of the data collection and the Department’s Information Quality Guidelines, which were developed as required by the Office of Management and Budget. The 2003–04 data presented in the 28th Annual Report to Congress, 2006 were the first data in these reports to which OSEP applied its cell suppression policy. In preparing this report, OSEP determined that certain numbers required for calculating the percentages in the exhibits that follow would be suppressed in order to avoid the identification of children and students through data publication. In general, counts of one to three children or students were suppressed. In addition, other counts were suppressed when needed to prevent the calculation of another suppressed number. When counts were suppressed for a state, percentages and ratios that required those counts could not be calculated. In most cases however, national counts that were used to calculate the national percentages and ratios presented for “All states” in the exhibits that follow were not suppressed. 81 Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C Part C Child Count How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 47. Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 2012 All states 2.8 2.8 Alabama 1.6 1.6 Alaska 1.9 2.4 Arizona 2.0 2.0 Arkansas 2.4 2.7 California 2.6 2.2 Colorado 2.3 3.0 Connecticut 3.8 3.9 Delaware 2.5 2.7 District of Columbia 1.5 1.9 Florida 2.0 1.9 Georgia 1.3 1.9 Hawaii 6.9 3.4 Idaho 2.6 2.8 Illinois 3.7 4.0 Indiana 3.7 3.7 Iowa 2.9 3.0 Kansas 2.8 3.5 Kentucky 2.9 2.7 Louisiana 2.1 2.1 Maine 2.3 2.4 Maryland 3.3 3.4 Massachusetts 6.7 7.2 Michigan 2.7 2.8 Minnesota 2.1 2.4 Mississippi 1.6 1.7 Missouri 1.6 2.2 Montana 2.0 1.9 Nebraska 1.8 1.9 Nevada 1.8 2.4 New Hampshire 3.3 4.7 New Jersey 3.0 3.2 New Mexico 5.0 5.7 New York 4.4 4.0 North Carolina 2.4 2.8 See notes at end of exhibit. 82 Exhibit 47. Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012―Continued State 2008 2012 North Dakota 3.6 3.4 Ohio 3.4 2.7 Oklahoma 1.9 1.7 Oregon 1.8 2.3 Pennsylvania 3.8 4.4 Puerto Rico 3.5 3.0 Rhode Island 5.0 6.1 South Carolina 2.4 2.2 South Dakota 3.2 3.0 Tennessee 1.8 1.7 Texas 2.3 2.0 Utah 2.0 2.3 Vermont 4.0 4.2 Virginia 2.1 2.7 Washington 1.9 2.2 West Virginia 4.2 4.4 Wisconsin 2.8 2.7 Wyoming 4.6 5.1 NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 in the state for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 in all states for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2008 and 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “State Single Year of Age and Sex Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012—RESIDENT,” 2008 and 2012. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, 2.8 percent of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 in the resident population in “All states” were served under IDEA, Part C. The percentages served in the 52 individual states ranged from 1.6 percent to 7.2 percent. The percentage was less than 2 percent in the following nine states: the District of Columbia (1.9 percent), Florida (1.9 percent), Georgia (1.9 percent), Nebraska (1.9 percent), Montana (1.9 percent), Oklahoma (1.7 percent), Tennessee (1.7 percent), Mississippi (1.7 percent), and Alabama (1.6 percent). The percentage was larger than 5 percent in only the following four states: Massachusetts (7.2 percent), Rhode Island (6.1 percent), New Mexico (5.7 percent), and Wyoming (5.1 percent). Bullet. In 2008, 2.8 percent of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 in the resident population in “All states” were served under IDEA, Part C. Bullet. For 33 of the 52 states, the percentage of the population served increased between 2008 and 2012. For 11 of those states, the increase represented a percent change13 of more than 20 percent. The percent change increase exceeded 33 percent in the following four states: New 13 Percent change between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012, dividing the difference by the percentage for 2008, and then multiplying the result by 100. 83 Hampshire (43.7 percent), Georgia (40.0 percent), Missouri (39.0 percent), and Nevada (33.8 percent). Bullet. For 15 of the 52 states, the percentage of the population served decreased between 2008 and 2012. However, the decrease represented a percent change of less than 20 percent in each of the states except Hawaii and Ohio, where the percentage served decreased by 50.1 percent and 20.4 percent, respectively. 84 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population birth through age 2 within each racial/ethnic group who were served under IDEA, Part C, in 2012? Exhibit 48. Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races All states 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.6 3.6 3.0 2.2 Alabama x x 1.6 1.4 0.0 1.7 1.2 Alaska 4.7 1.4 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.0 1.8 Arizona 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 0.9 2.6 0.2 Arkansas 1.1 0.9 5.1 2.0 1.9 2.3 1.5 California 1.7 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.3 0.7 Colorado 2.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.2 Connecticut 2.8 2.2 3.6 4.6 28.4 3.9 2.0 Delaware x x 2.7 2.1 31.6 2.3 10.1 District of Columbia 0.0 1.5 2.4 2.0 17.6 1.1 1.9 Florida 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 Georgia 1.5 2.1 2.2 0.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 Hawaii 0.0 4.7 1.5 1.5 3.7 3.4 3.8 Idaho 2.4 1.7 4.5 2.2 4.9 3.0 2.0 Illinois 0.9 2.4 3.7 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.9 Indiana 0.8 2.5 3.5 3.9 10.4 3.7 2.8 Iowa x 2.0 3.8 3.5 x 2.9 4.2 Kansas 1.9 2.5 3.6 3.3 13.3 3.8 2.2 Kentucky 3.9 2.0 2.7 2.4 3.5 2.7 2.7 Louisiana x x 2.4 1.2 0.0 2.1 1.5 Maine 2.4 0.5 0.8 1.8 0.0 2.6 1.0 Maryland 1.7 2.6 3.3 3.1 7.8 3.9 2.5 Massachusetts 9.9 4.9 8.8 10.0 11.3 6.5 5.6 Michigan 3.7 1.6 3.0 2.7 10.1 2.9 1.1 Minnesota x 1.7 2.7 2.2 x 2.5 1.8 Mississippi x 2.2 1.7 0.7 x 1.7 1.1 Missouri 0.6 1.5 2.5 0.9 4.8 2.2 4.4 Montana 3.2 1.4 3.5 1.3 0.0 1.7 2.0 Nebraska x 1.3 1.0 1.4 x 0.1 34.8 Nevada 1.3 1.4 2.7 2.1 3.4 2.6 2.8 New Hampshire 0.0 3.8 3.4 3.0 23.5 4.9 3.6 New Jersey 1.3 1.9 2.3 3.3 14.3 3.7 3.9 New Mexico 5.7 3.2 5.5 6.2 7.7 5.2 1.7 New York 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8 11.6 4.9 1.1 North Carolina 2.8 1.7 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.8 1.4 See notes at end of exhibit. 85 Exhibit 48. Percentage of the population birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races North Dakota 4.3 2.9 1.7 1.4 13.0 3.4 5.0 Ohio 3.6 1.6 2.8 1.7 7.1 2.8 2.4 Oklahoma 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.1 2.1 2.4 1.2 Oregon 2.5 1.8 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 0.8 Pennsylvania 3.0 2.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 Rhode Island 3.4 3.2 5.3 6.4 9.7 6.2 6.4 South Carolina 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.2 4.5 2.1 1.7 South Dakota 3.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 13.6 3.0 1.8 Tennessee 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.3 4.9 1.8 1.3 Texas 1.2 1.3 1.6 2.0 3.3 2.2 0.6 Utah 3.1 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.4 1.3 Vermont x x 7.1 1.1 0.0 4.3 5.1 Virginia 1.1 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.1 3.0 3.5 Washington 2.6 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.7 West Virginia x 4.1 4.2 4.7 x 4.5 3.6 Wisconsin 2.7 1.4 3.4 3.5 5.9 2.6 2.5 Wyoming 5.1 3.8 x 4.7 x 5.3 2.7 x Percentage cannot be calculated because data were suppressed to limit disclosure. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, reported in the racial/ethnic group by the state by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 of the racial/ethnic group in the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, reported in the racial/ethnic group by all states by the estimated U.S. resident population birth through age 2 of the racial/ethnic group in all states, then multiplying the result by 100. As race/ethnicity was suppressed for 272 infants and toddlers served in 10 individual states, the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states in the racial/ethnic group was estimated by distributing the unallocated count for each state equally to the race/ethnicity categories that were suppressed. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. Data for Puerto Rico were excluded. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. Data for Puerto Rico were not available. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. A larger percentage of the resident population birth through age 2 who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander than any other racial/ethnic group was served under IDEA, Part C, in “All states.” Specifically, 3.6 percent of the resident population of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders were served under Part C. In contrast, a smaller percentage of the resident population who were Asian than any other racial/ethnic group was served under IDEA, Part C, in “All states.” Specifically, 2.1 percent of those who were Asian were served under Part C. Bullet. In 2012, 2.6 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were American Indian or Alaska Native were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from zero percent to 9.9 percent in the 42 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 5 percent or more in three states: Massachusetts (9.9 percent), New Mexico (5.7 86 percent), and Wyoming (5.1 percent). In contrast, less than 1 percent was served in the following seven states: Oklahoma (0.9 percent), Illinois (0.9 percent), Indiana (0.8 percent), Missouri (0.6 percent), the District of Columbia (0.0 percent), Hawaii (0.0 percent), and New Hampshire (0.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 2.1 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were Asian were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 0.5 percent to 4.9 percent in the 47 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 4 percent or more in three states: Massachusetts (4.9 percent), Hawaii (4.7 percent), and West Virginia (4.1 percent). In contrast, less than 1 percent was served in Arkansas (0.9 percent) and Maine (0.5 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 2.7 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were Black or African American were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 0.8 to 8.8 percent in the 50 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. In the following five states, the percentage was 5 percent or more: Massachusetts (8.8 percent), Vermont (7.1 percent), New Mexico (5.5 percent), Rhode Island (5.3 percent), and Arkansas (5.1 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 2 percent in 10 states, including Maine, in which the percentage was less than 1 percent (0.8 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 2.6 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were Hispanic/Latino were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 0.1 to 10 percent in the 51 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 5 percent or more in only the following three states: Massachusetts (10.0 percent), Rhode Island (6.4 percent), and New Mexico (6.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 1 percent in Missouri (0.9 percent), Georgia (0.8 percent), Mississippi (0.7 percent), and Oklahoma (0.1 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 3.6 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from zero to 31.6 percent in the 45 states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was larger than 20 percent in the following three states: Delaware (31.6 percent), Connecticut (28.4 percent), and New Hampshire (23.5 percent). However, the percentage was zero in the following five states: Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, and Vermont. Bullet. In 2012, 3 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were White were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 0.1 to 6.5 percent in the 51 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was larger than 4 percent in nine states, including the following four states in which the percentage was larger than 5 percent: Massachusetts (6.5 percent), Rhode Island (6.2 percent), Wyoming (5.3 percent), and New Mexico (5.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 2 percent in the following seven states: Tennessee (1.8 percent), Alabama (1.7 percent), Montana (1.7 percent), Mississippi (1.7 percent), Florida (1.6 percent), the District of Columbia (1.1 percent), and Nebraska (0.1 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 2.2 percent of the resident population birth through age 2 who were associated with multiple races were served under Part C in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 0.2 to 34.8 percent in the 51 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 5 percent or more in only the following five states: Nebraska (34.8 percent), Delaware (10.1 percent), Rhode Island (6.4 percent), Massachusetts (5.6 percent), and Vermont (5.1 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 1 percent in the following four states: Oregon (0.8 percent), California (0.7 percent), Texas (0.6 percent), and Arizona (0.2 percent). 87 Part C Primary Early Intervention Service Settings How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by primary early intervention service settings in 2012, and how did the distributions change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 49. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year, primary early intervention service setting, and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 2012 Homea Community- based settingb Other settingc Homea Community- based settingb Other settingc All states 86.1 5.7 8.1 87.3 7.6 5.1 Alabama 78.7 9.4 11.8 92.4 7.3 0.3 Alaska 88.5 7.3 4.2 93.0 5.8 1.2 Arizona 75.5 0.5 24.0 93.4 0.2 6.4 Arkansas 17.4 24.2 58.4 10.5 22.6 66.9 California 82.3 3.9 13.7 75.3 16.3 8.4 Colorado 97.0 1.8 1.2 98.6 1.1 0.2 Connecticut 95.1 4.6 0.3 97.9 2.0 # Delaware 78.9 11.0 10.1 85.7 8.3 6.0 District of Columbia 38.5 43.4 18.1 74.5 21.6 3.9 Florida 52.7 8.2 39.1 76.7 8.0 15.3 Georgia 98.5 0.4 1.1 98.8 0.9 0.3 Hawaii 91.6 2.8 5.6 87.3 3.3 9.4 Idaho 94.0 2.7 3.3 87.5 9.7 2.7 Illinois 88.1 4.2 7.8 90.2 5.8 3.9 Indiana 93.6 4.9 1.5 94.5 4.2 1.3 Iowa 96.1 2.5 1.5 95.5 3.1 1.4 Kansas 95.5 3.0 1.5 97.3 2.3 0.4 Kentucky 87.7 11.8 0.5 95.4 4.1 0.5 Louisiana 96.7 3.1 0.2 97.4 2.4 0.2 Maine 72.4 18.0 9.6 92.8 5.1 2.1 Maryland 83.9 8.4 7.7 82.3 15.2 2.4 Massachusetts 88.0 10.4 1.6 76.5 21.9 1.6 Michigan 85.3 8.0 6.7 90.1 6.1 3.8 Minnesota 91.2 3.3 5.5 93.3 2.7 4.0 Mississippi 85.0 6.2 8.8 84.7 8.8 6.5 Missouri 92.7 5.4 2.0 94.7 4.3 1.0 Montana 91.8 7.1 1.1 92.7 5.1 2.2 Nebraska 85.7 7.2 7.0 91.8 5.8 2.4 Nevada 97.8 1.9 0.2 93.4 5.4 1.2 New Hampshire 95.5 0.9 3.6 92.7 5.8 1.5 New Jersey 92.5 6.2 1.2 92.5 7.3 0.2 New Mexico 76.8 21.4 1.9 78.8 20.0 1.2 New York 90.1 2.5 7.4 90.3 3.4 6.3 North Carolina 90.2 8.8 1.0 91.7 7.5 0.8 See notes at end of exhibit. 88 Exhibit 49. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by year, primary early intervention service setting, and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012― Continued State 2008 2012 Homea Community- based settingb Other settingc Homea Community- based settingb Other settingc North Dakota 98.4 1.0 0.6 98.6 1.1 0.3 Ohio 86.6 3.6 9.8 76.1 4.6 19.3 Oklahoma 95.1 2.9 2.0 92.8 2.6 4.6 Oregon 90.3 2.9 6.8 93.7 3.4 3.0 Pennsylvania 97.6 2.0 0.4 97.8 2.0 0.2 Puerto Rico 85.1 x x 82.1 16.3 1.6 Rhode Island 84.4 6.6 9.0 90.9 3.0 6.0 South Carolina 83.2 0.8 16.1 97.0 2.1 0.9 South Dakota 80.8 18.4 0.8 84.8 14.8 0.4 Tennessee 72.9 17.1 10.0 70.1 12.3 17.5 Texas 94.5 5.1 0.4 95.8 3.7 0.5 Utah 67.4 3.2 29.3 89.8 4.6 5.7 Vermont 85.0 12.7 2.4 84.7 13.9 1.3 Virginia 75.4 4.4 20.3 84.5 3.1 12.4 Washington 66.8 16.0 17.3 71.9 20.6 7.5 West Virginia 97.6 2.4 0.0 99.1 0.9 0.0 Wisconsin 90.8 3.9 5.3 91.5 6.2 2.3 Wyoming 77.2 x x 76.2 23.2 0.6 x Percentage cannot be calculated because data were suppressed to limit disclosure. aHome refers to the principal residence of the eligible infant’s or toddler’s family or caregivers. bCommunity-based setting refers to settings in which children without disabilities are usually found. The community-based settings include, but are not limited to, child care centers (including family day care), preschools, regular nursery schools, early childhood centers, libraries, grocery stores, parks, restaurants, and community centers (e.g., YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs). cOther setting refers to settings other than home or community-based setting in which early intervention services are provided. These include, but are not limited to, services provided in a hospital, residential facility, clinic, and early intervention center/class for children with disabilities. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state who were reported in the primary service setting in the year by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state in the year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states who were reported in the primary service setting in the year by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states in the year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” includes suppressed data. The sum of row percentages for a year may not total 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2008 and 2012. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. The percentages of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, primarily in a home, a community-based setting, and some other setting by “All states” in 2012, were 87.3 percent, 7.6 percent, and 5.1 percent, respectively. In 2008, the values were very comparable with 86.1 percent, 5.7 percent, and 8.1 percent being primarily served in a home, a community-based setting, and some other setting, respectively. 89 Bullet. Home was the primary setting for 90 percent or more of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by 32 states in 2012. In addition, more than 50 percent of infants and toddlers in every state except Arkansas were served in a home. In Arkansas, other setting was the primary setting for 66.9 percent of infants and toddlers. Bullet. In 2008, home was the primary setting for 90 percent or more of infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, by 24 states. In addition, more than 50 percent of infants and toddlers in every state except Arkansas and the District of Columbia were served in a home. In the District of Columbia, a community-based setting was the most prevalent primary setting, accounting for 43.4 percent of the infants and toddlers served. In Arkansas, other setting was the most prevalent primary setting, accounting for 58.4 percent of the infants and toddlers served. 90 91 Part C Exiting How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting or continuing in IDEA, Part C, by exiting status in 2011–12? Exhibit 50. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting or continuing in IDEA, Part C, by exiting status and state: 2011–12 State No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 Part B eligible, exiting Part C Part B eligible, continuing in Part C Not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs Not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals Part B eligibility not determineda Deceased Moved out of state Withdrawal by parent (or guardian) Attempts to contact unsuccessful All states 13.5 38.5 2.9 6.8 3.6 10.9 0.4 3.8 11.1 8.6 Alabama 16.3 36.1 0.0 2.7 3.5 4.7 0.4 4.7 20.3 11.3 Alaska 8.7 39.4 0.0 3.6 4.0 6.1 0.4 10.7 14.5 12.8 Arizona 10.4 49.7 0.0 4.0 2.1 7.2 0.6 4.7 9.7 11.7 Arkansas 9.6 53.6 0.0 9.8 5.7 7.5 # 1.5 10.9 1.4 California 7.3 44.2 0.0 18.5 0.0 16.6 0.4 1.5 8.8 2.6 Colorado 14.1 44.9 0.0 5.0 7.2 9.2 0.2 6.0 9.1 4.2 Connecticut 9.0 47.3 0.0 7.2 4.1 6.6 0.3 4.7 12.3 8.4 Delaware 12.8 47.8 0.0 3.9 2.0 5.2 0.5 6.6 9.1 12.1 District of Columbia 8.0 63.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.2 9.4 3.9 11.2 Florida 7.3 38.4 0.0 2.7 1.9 9.4 0.7 3.9 5.9 29.7 Georgia 5.2 44.2 0.0 4.3 2.5 12.3 0.6 4.6 11.2 15.1 Hawaii 18.4 24.1 0.0 6.8 4.7 15.8 0.1 8.4 12.8 8.9 Idaho 21.0 38.5 0.0 6.3 5.2 5.4 0.3 5.7 9.1 8.6 Illinois 15.9 43.3 0.0 6.9 0.5 14.9 0.3 2.7 8.0 7.5 Indiana 25.5 33.0 0.0 11.8 7.5 3.3 0.3 3.6 13.7 1.3 Iowa 9.9 38.2 0.0 17.9 3.0 0.2 0.3 4.1 18.9 7.6 Kansas 21.5 48.1 0.0 3.6 2.5 4.4 0.4 6.6 8.0 4.9 Kentucky 12.5 51.5 0.0 2.8 4.3 9.8 0.6 4.3 7.7 6.5 Louisiana 5.2 47.7 0.0 6.6 4.2 10.3 0.7 4.2 11.0 10.0 Maine 12.0 55.0 0.0 0.1 5.7 2.5 0.2 3.6 13.6 7.3 See notes at end of exhibit. 92 Exhibit 50. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting or continuing in IDEA, Part C, by exiting status and state: 2011–12―Continued State No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 Part B eligible, exiting Part C Part B eligible, continuing in Part C Not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs Not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals Part B eligibility not determineda Deceased Moved out of state Withdrawal by parent (or guardian) Attempts to contact unsuccessful Maryland 27.9 14.3 30.5 1.5 0.9 2.6 0.2 3.9 8.4 9.7 Massachusetts 21.1 41.4 0.0 6.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 3.7 13.4 12.5 Michigan 12.8 40.4 0.0 3.7 9.1 2.3 0.3 7.5 12.5 11.4 Minnesota 6.2 61.8 0.0 8.6 7.0 0.5 0.3 3.7 9.9 1.9 Mississippi 17.0 36.6 0.0 2.4 4.5 14.9 0.6 5.3 10.6 8.1 Missouri 4.2 56.3 0.0 6.6 10.0 5.4 0.9 5.8 8.0 2.7 Montana 15.7 38.8 0.0 6.0 4.9 7.4 0.9 7.4 11.0 8.0 Nebraska 2.9 25.3 64.4 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.3 1.2 2.5 2.1 Nevada 8.4 42.7 0.0 2.4 1.9 12.6 1.0 8.8 8.8 13.3 New Hampshire 20.7 42.5 0.0 3.6 4.4 4.0 0.0 5.7 10.2 8.9 New Jersey 17.3 33.8 0.0 1.1 14.9 15.1 0.2 3.0 10.7 3.9 New Mexico 13.2 33.0 0.4 5.7 4.5 2.1 0.5 8.9 16.6 15.1 New York 12.3 27.2 20.4 1.8 4.2 24.6 0.2 2.2 4.1 2.9 North Carolina 9.7 35.7 0.0 3.8 5.6 16.6 0.5 4.7 14.2 9.2 North Dakota 2.6 54.0 0.0 23.8 5.4 8.0 0.1 0.6 5.5 0.0 Ohio 6.4 36.3 0.0 9.9 6.4 6.0 0.5 3.6 15.4 15.5 Oklahoma 7.2 15.5 0.0 1.8 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.5 33.0 34.9 Oregon 11.6 63.7 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.4 5.3 11.2 6.0 Pennsylvania 27.7 40.3 0.0 1.8 2.7 10.8 0.2 2.8 6.7 7.0 Puerto Rico 20.9 32.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 27.6 0.3 3.8 5.5 9.2 Rhode Island 20.7 37.1 0.0 8.4 3.1 5.3 0.1 5.4 8.0 12.0 South Carolina 18.0 33.1 0.0 5.4 8.1 7.6 0.5 5.2 12.0 10.0 South Dakota 9.4 48.2 0.0 14.0 4.4 2.8 0.4 6.8 7.5 6.4 Tennessee 10.0 38.6 0.0 4.5 3.0 18.9 0.6 5.4 11.5 7.6 Texas 13.1 29.9 0.0 7.6 2.1 10.6 0.3 3.9 22.1 10.4 Utah 15.3 40.0 0.0 2.2 7.0 8.2 0.3 4.8 17.2 5.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 93 Exhibit 50. Percentage of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting or continuing in IDEA, Part C, by exiting status and state: 2011–12―Continued State No longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3 Part B eligible, exiting Part C Part B eligible, continuing in Part C Not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs Not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals Part B eligibility not determineda Deceased Moved out of state Withdrawal by parent (or guardian) Attempts to contact unsuccessful Vermont 15.1 68.7 0.0 2.5 1.2 0.4 0.4 4.5 3.9 3.4 Virginia 17.4 41.8 0.0 5.7 7.6 5.0 0.4 6.1 9.6 6.5 Washington 6.3 46.2 0.0 7.9 6.8 6.9 0.3 5.3 13.5 6.9 West Virginia 20.6 30.0 0.0 7.6 2.2 12.9 0.3 6.3 11.7 8.3 Wisconsin 19.6 43.1 0.0 3.8 2.6 11.3 0.3 2.5 11.3 5.6 Wyoming 18.3 45.3 0.0 5.6 4.1 0.2 0.1 9.9 8.3 8.2 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aThe Part B eligibility not determined category comprises children who were referred for Part B evaluation at the time they were eligible to exit Part C, but for whom the Part B eligibility determination had not yet been made or reported and children for whom parents did not consent to transition planning. NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects Part C data on 10 exit status categories: five categories that speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., Part B eligible, exiting Part C; Part B eligible, continuing in Part C; not eligible for Part B, exit with referrals to other programs; not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals; and Part B eligibility not determined) and five categories that do not speak to Part B eligibility (i.e., no longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3, deceased, moved out of state, withdrawal by parent [or guardian], and attempts to contact unsuccessful). The 10 categories are mutually exclusive. Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state who were reported in the exiting category by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state who were reported in all the exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states who were reported in the exiting category by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states who were reported in all the exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of row percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. Data are from a cumulative 12-month reporting period, which may have varied from state to state. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, the most prevalent Part C exit status was Part B eligible, exiting Part C. This exit status accounted for 38.5 percent of the infants and toddlers birth through age 2 exiting Part C in “All states.” This exit status also was associated with the largest percentage in 49 of the 52 states. In nine of those states, this reason accounted for the majority of exits. In the following four of those states, the value was larger than 60 percent: Vermont (68.7 percent), Oregon (63.7 percent), the District of Columbia (63.5 percent), and Minnesota (61.8 percent). Bullet. The category of no longer eligible for Part C prior to reaching age 3, accounted for the second largest percentage of exits for “All states” but it represented only 13.5 percent of the exits. Moreover, this category did not account for the largest percentage of exits in any state. Bullet. In Nebraska and Maryland, the most prevalent Part C exit status, accounting for 64.4 percent and 30.5 percent of the exits, respectively, was Part B eligible, continuing in Part C. Bullet. In Oklahoma, the most prevalent Part C exit status, accounting for 34.9 percent of exits, was attempts to contact unsuccessful. 94 Part C Dispute Resolution Unlike the other Part C data collections, which are associated with a specific group of Part C participants defined by the participants’ ages, the Part C dispute resolution data collection is associated with all infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C. These infants and toddlers include individuals who are 3 years or older and eligible under Part B but whose parents elect for them to continue receiving Part C services, as states have the authority to define “infants and toddlers” as individuals under 3 years of age and as individuals 3 years of age and older [see IDEA, section 632(5)(B) and 34 C.F.R. 303.21(c)] and serve them under Part C [see IDEA, section 635(c) and 34 C.F.R. 303.211] until the beginning of the school year following the child’s third or fourth birthday or until the child is eligible to enter kindergarten. The Part C legal disputes and resolution data represent all complaints associated with any participant in Part C during the 12 months during which the data were collected. Nevertheless, since infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, account for nearly all of the participants in Part C in all states, the count for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served as of the state-designated date for the year was deemed a meaningful basis for creating a ratio by which to compare the volume of Part C disputes that occurred in the individual states during the year. For an overview of the Part C dispute resolution process, see the Section I discussion of these same data at the national level. How did the states compare with regard to the following ratios in 2011–12: 1. the number of written, signed complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served; 2. the number of due process complaints for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served; and 3. the number of mediation requests for infants and toddlers served under IDEA, Part C, per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served? Exhibit 51. Number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for infants and toddlers per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2011–12 State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 1,000 infants and toddlers served All states 0.4 0.4 0.8 Alabama 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alaska 1.3 0.0 0.0 Arizona 0.6 0.2 0.0 Arkansas 0.6 0.3 0.3 California 0.7 2.8 3.0 Colorado 0.0 0.0 0.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 95 Exhibit 51. Number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for infants and toddlers per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2011–12―Continued State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 1,000 infants and toddlers served Connecticut 0.7 0.2 0.2 Delaware 0.0 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 Florida 0.0 0.0 0.0 Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0.0 Idaho 0.6 0.0 0.0 Illinois 0.3 0.0 0.1 Indiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kentucky 1.7 0.0 0.0 Louisiana 2.7 0.0 0.0 Maine 2.0 0.0 3.1 Maryland 0.3 0.1 0.0 Massachusetts 0.1 0.0 0.0 Michigan 0.1 0.0 0.0 Minnesota 0.2 0.0 0.0 Mississippi 0.5 0.0 0.0 Missouri 0.4 0.2 0.0 Montana 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nevada 3.9 0.0 0.0 New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Jersey 0.7 0.6 0.4 New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York 0.9 1.0 5.9 North Carolina 0.1 0.1 0.1 North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ohio 0.1 0.0 0.0 Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pennsylvania 0.1 0.0 0.1 Puerto Rico 1.0 0.0 0.0 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 0.7 0.0 0.0 South Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tennessee 0.3 0.0 0.0 Texas 0.0 0.1 0.1 Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 96 Exhibit 51. Number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for infants and toddlers per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2011–12―Continued State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 1,000 infants and toddlers served Virginia 0.2 0.0 0.0 Washington 0.0 0.0 0.0 West Virginia 2.0 0.0 0.0 Wisconsin 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.0 aA written, signed complaint is a signed document with specific content requirements that is submitted to a state lead agency by an individual or organization that alleges a violation of a requirement of Part C of IDEA. The total number of written, signed complaints in 2011–12 was 132. bA due process complaint is a filing by any party to initiate a due process hearing on matters related to the identification, evaluation, or early intervention setting of a child with a disability, or to the provision of early intervention services to such child. The total number of due process complaints in 2011–12 was 133. cA mediation request is a request by a party to a dispute involving any matter under Part C of IDEA to meet with a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve the dispute. The total number of mediation requests in 2011–12 was 279. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of written, signed complaints; hearing requests; or mediation requests reported by the state by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the state, then multiplying the result by 1,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of written, signed complaints; hearing requests; or mediation requests reported by all states by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by all states, then multiplying the result by 1,000. The numerator is based on data from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0678: “IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 0.4 written, signed complaints per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in “All states.” However, the ratios were zero in 25 states and ranged from 0.1 to 3.9 per 1,000 infants and toddlers served in the other states. In only the following two states was the ratio larger than 2 per 1,000 infants and toddlers served: Nevada (3.9 per 1,000 infants and toddlers) and Louisiana (2.7 per 1,000 infants and toddlers). Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 0.4 due process complaints per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in “All states.” However, the ratios were zero in 42 states and larger than 1 per 1,000 infants and toddlers served in only California (2.8 per 1,000 infants and toddlers). Bullet. In 2011–12, there was 0.8 mediation request per 1,000 infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, in “All states.” However, the ratios were zero in 42 states and larger than 2 per 1,000 infants and toddlers served in only New York (5.9 per 1,000 infants and toddlers), Maine (3.1 per 1,000 infants and toddlers), and California (3.0 per 1,000 infants and toddlers). 97 Children Ages 3 Through 5 Served Under IDEA, Part B Part B Child Count How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 52. Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 2012 All states 5.8 6.1 Alabama 3.9 4.0 Alaska 6.6 6.6 Arizona 5.1 5.6 Arkansas 10.6 10.6 California 4.7 4.9 Colorado 5.5 6.1 Connecticut 6.1 6.6 Delaware 6.7 6.8 District of Columbia 3.1 7.7 Florida 5.3 5.7 Georgia 3.9 4.2 Hawaii 5.0 4.9 Idaho 5.6 4.5 Illinois 7.2 7.5 Indiana 7.2 7.1 Iowa 5.1 5.8 Kansas 8.3 8.8 Kentucky 11.9 10.3 Louisiana 5.3 5.9 Maine 8.5 9.0 Maryland 5.6 5.9 Massachusetts 7.3 7.5 Michigan 6.5 5.8 Minnesota 6.8 7.1 Mississippi 7.2 8.0 Missouri 6.6 6.9 Montana 5.4 4.5 Nebraska 5.8 6.7 Nevada 5.5 7.1 New Hampshire 6.5 7.7 New Jersey 4.5 5.5 New Mexico 7.7 5.2 New York 9.0 9.5 North Carolina 5.0 4.9 See notes at end of exhibit. 98 Exhibit 52. Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012―Continued State 2008 2012 North Dakota 6.6 6.5 Ohio 5.3 5.4 Oklahoma 4.9 5.3 Oregon 6.5 7.0 Pennsylvania 6.7 7.5 Puerto Rico 5.7 10.2 Rhode Island 8.1 8.5 South Carolina 6.2 5.7 South Dakota 8.2 7.3 Tennessee 5.1 5.3 Texas 3.3 3.7 Utah 5.6 6.2 Vermont — 9.5 Virginia 5.7 5.4 Washington 5.6 5.5 West Virginia 9.4 8.7 Wisconsin 7.0 7.5 Wyoming 14.0 — — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 in the state for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 in all states for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” includes data for children served by BIE schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2008 and 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2008 and 2012. Children served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, 6.1 percent of children ages 3 through 5 in the resident population in the 51 states (“All states”) for which data were available were served under IDEA, Part B. The percentages served in the individual states ranged from 3.7 percent to 10.6 percent. Values of 10 percent or more were observed in the following three states: Arkansas (10.6 percent), Kentucky (10.3 percent), and Puerto Rico (10.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was not more than 4 percent in Alabama (4.0 percent) and Texas (3.7 percent). Bullet. In 2008, 5.8 percent of children ages 3 through 5 in the resident population in the 51 states (“All states”) for which data were available were served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. In 34 of the 50 states for which data were available for both 2008 and 2012, the percentage of the resident population served under IDEA, Part B, increased between the two years. However, the increase represented a percentage change of 20 percent or more in only the following four states: the District of Columbia (145.0 percent), Puerto Rico (79.8 percent), Nevada (29.0 percent), and New Jersey (21.4 percent). 99 Bullet. In 14 of the 50 states for which data were available for both 2008 and 2012, the percentage of the population served decreased between the two years. However, the decrease represented a percentage change of 10 percent or more in only the following five states: New Mexico (-32.8 percent), Idaho (-19.6 percent), Montana (-17.9 percent), Kentucky (-13.4 percent), and South Dakota (-10.8 percent). 100 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population ages 3 through 5 within each racial/ethnic group who were served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012? Exhibit 53. Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races All states 8.2 4.1 6.1 5.3 8.8 6.5 6.8 Alabama 2.9 3.4 4.0 1.9 2.8 4.4 2.5 Alaska 10.6 4.6 7.1 5.5 8.7 5.9 5.0 Arizona 6.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 7.8 6.0 3.5 Arkansas 4.5 4.9 16.2 7.7 4.7 10.1 5.7 California 5.5 3.9 5.6 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.8 Colorado 8.7 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.7 5.9 4.8 Connecticut 8.2 4.4 7.1 7.3 10.4 6.5 4.8 Delaware 53.9 4.0 7.5 6.4 60.0 7.1 2.2 District of Columbia x 3.7 8.9 12.1 x 3.0 2.3 Florida 4.7 4.0 6.8 5.7 8.6 5.4 4.6 Georgia 3.8 2.9 4.5 3.3 7.6 4.3 3.9 Hawaii 4.4 4.4 6.9 5.0 10.4 6.0 2.3 Idaho 8.8 3.9 4.4 3.8 3.8 4.7 3.1 Illinois 19.4 5.0 5.9 6.2 58.6 8.7 7.5 Indiana 6.8 4.3 5.8 5.8 24.6 7.5 8.0 Iowa 9.6 4.2 7.7 5.0 7.8 5.9 5.6 Kansas 13.6 5.9 8.2 6.8 16.5 9.7 7.0 Kentucky 5.4 5.4 9.5 8.2 6.9 10.8 8.1 Louisiana 4.6 3.6 6.3 3.3 18.6 6.0 4.4 Maine 13.4 x 6.9 3.5 x 9.5 5.7 Maryland 9.6 4.2 6.2 6.1 27.9 6.0 4.2 Massachusetts 7.7 5.4 7.6 8.9 23.1 7.4 5.7 Michigan 8.2 3.8 5.4 4.7 44.4 6.3 3.2 Minnesota 10.6 4.9 7.9 7.6 27.0 7.1 5.7 Mississippi 3.1 4.6 8.3 3.3 22.2 8.5 2.5 Missouri 6.1 5.3 6.8 4.7 8.7 7.3 4.4 Montana 6.2 3.5 3.7 3.1 50.0 4.4 2.3 Nebraska 13.4 5.0 6.5 6.0 14.6 7.0 5.5 Nevada 10.6 3.2 8.8 6.3 9.5 8.3 5.8 New Hampshire 10.5 4.7 9.2 6.6 100 8.1 2.0 New Jersey 3.5 4.3 5.3 6.1 60.9 5.7 2.8 New Mexico 5.5 3.4 7.1 4.7 0.0 6.4 2.1 New York 10.5 4.5 6.9 7.7 32.6 8.5 54.4 North Carolina 9.9 3.1 5.8 4.2 8.3 4.8 3.5 See notes at end of exhibit. 101 Exhibit 53. Percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races North Dakota 7.9 3.1 8.5 5.3 70.6 6.5 3.5 Ohio 3.7 3.9 4.3 4.1 8.4 5.9 4.5 Oklahoma 8.7 4.0 4.5 3.2 6.6 5.9 2.5 Oregon 8.6 5.1 9.0 7.4 6.2 7.3 2.7 Pennsylvania 5.9 4.4 7.9 7.3 16.4 7.6 8.2 Rhode Island 21.6 5.5 7.0 7.6 33.3 9.3 6.5 South Carolina x 4.0 6.8 4.3 x 5.6 4.4 South Dakota 10.2 5.6 6.5 5.3 40.0 7.1 5.4 Tennessee 6.5 4.2 5.1 3.7 5.6 5.7 2.1 Texas 8.3 3.1 3.6 3.7 5.4 3.8 3.1 Utah 12.4 3.7 5.7 5.6 4.8 6.6 2.2 Vermont 0.0 5.0 12.2 2.7 x 10.0 x Virginia 6.2 3.8 6.0 5.5 14.0 5.4 3.9 Washington 6.9 3.9 6.5 6.1 3.5 5.5 4.6 West Virginia x 3.7 7.2 5.5 x 9.1 4.5 Wisconsin 9.1 4.3 8.8 8.4 40.3 7.5 5.0 Wyoming — — — — — — — x Percentage cannot be calculated because data were suppressed to limit disclosure. — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 of the racial/ethnic group in the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 3 through 5 in the racial/ethnic group in all states, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” includes data for BIE schools. As race/ethnicity was suppressed for 88 children served in five individual states, the number of children served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in the racial/ethnic group was estimated by distributing the unallocated count for each state equally to the race/ethnicity categories that were suppressed. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data for Puerto Rico were excluded. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. Children served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for Puerto Rico were not available. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, there were larger percentages of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and who were American Indian or Alaska Native than of the resident populations of the other racial/ethnic groups served under IDEA, Part B, in the 50 states (“All states”) for which data were available. Specifically, 8.8 percent of the resident population who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and 8.2 percent of the resident population who were American Indian or Alaska Native were served under Part B. In contrast, only 4.1 percent of the resident population who were Asian in “All states” were served under IDEA, Part B. 102 Bullet. In 2012, 8.2 percent of the resident population who were American Indian or Alaska Native were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from zero to 53.9 percent in the 47 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was more than 14 percent in only three states: Delaware (53.9 percent), Rhode Island (21.6 percent), and Illinois (19.4 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 4 percent in the following six states: Georgia (3.8 percent), Ohio (3.7 percent), New Jersey (3.5 percent), Mississippi (3.1 percent), Alabama (2.9 percent), and Vermont (0.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 4.1 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were Asian were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 2.9 to 5.9 percent in the 49 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 5 percent or more in the following nine states: Kansas (5.9 percent), Colorado (5.7 percent), South Dakota (5.6 percent), Rhode Island (5.5 percent), Massachusetts (5.4 percent), Kentucky (5.4 percent), Missouri (5.3 percent), Oregon (5.1 percent), and Nebraska (5.0 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 3 percent in Georgia (2.9 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 6.1 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were Black or African American were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 3.6 to 16.2 percent in the 50 individual states. In the following two states, the percentage was more than 10 percent: Arkansas (16.2 percent) and Vermont (12.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was no more than 4 percent in Alabama (4.0 percent), Montana (3.7 percent), and Texas (3.6 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 5.3 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were Hispanic/Latino were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 1.9 to 12.1 percent in the 50 individual states. In the following four states, the percentage was larger than 8 percent: the District of Columbia (12.1 percent), Massachusetts (8.9 percent), Wisconsin (8.4 percent), and Kentucky (8.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was not more than 3 percent in Vermont (2.7 percent) and Alabama (1.9 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 8.8 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from zero to 100 percent in the 45 states for which non-suppressed data were available. The percentage was 60 percent or more in the following four states: New Hampshire (100 percent), North Dakota (70.6 percent), New Jersey (60.9 percent), and Delaware (60.0 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 4 percent in the following four states: Idaho (3.8 percent), Washington (3.5 percent), Alabama (2.8 percent), and New Mexico (0.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 6.5 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were White were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 3 percent to 10.8 percent in the 50 individual states. The percentage was 10 percent or more in the following three states: Kentucky (10.8 percent), Arkansas (10.1 percent), and Vermont (10.0 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 4 percent in Texas (3.8 percent) and the District of Columbia (3.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 6.8 percent of the resident population ages 3 through 5 who were associated with multiple races were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 2 percent to 54.4 percent in the 49 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available. In the following four states, the percentage was 8 percent or more: New York (54.4 percent), Pennsylvania (8.2 percent), Kentucky (8.1 percent), and Indiana (8.0 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 3 percent in 13 states. 103 104 Part B Educational Environments How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 54. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere All states 37.1 17.4 5.3 5.1 23.6 2.7 # 2.2 6.5 Alabama 42.4 26.6 7.3 3.8 4.7 1.4 0.2 3.2 10.5 Alaska 30.0 20.9 3.1 5.2 34.4 1.3 0.0 0.5 4.6 Arizona 41.9 2.1 7.9 1.1 43.8 1.0 # 0.2 2.1 Arkansas 29.8 36.9 0.3 0.3 3.5 25.2 # 0.4 3.5 BIE schools 95.1 1.6 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 California 31.4 7.1 7.4 3.8 32.1 3.8 0.1 4.3 10.0 Colorado 81.0 6.5 4.3 1.0 5.2 0.9 # 0.2 0.9 Connecticut 69.3 7.4 4.2 1.1 12.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 4.6 Delaware 41.4 11.4 2.3 2.9 26.9 10.1 0.2 0.7 3.9 District of Columbia 56.2 26.3 0.3 0.5 13.5 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 Florida 20.5 12.6 6.7 4.9 46.9 4.4 # 0.6 3.3 Georgia 42.6 20.8 2.9 4.1 23.7 0.6 # 1.4 4.0 Hawaii 24.6 9.7 8.2 32.5 23.8 0.3 # 0.4 0.5 Idaho 18.7 7.6 12.0 3.5 47.3 5.3 # 1.0 4.5 Illinois 29.8 21.9 2.2 5.2 28.1 2.7 # 0.2 9.7 Indiana 35.0 9.1 5.4 4.3 31.9 1.4 # 0.4 12.5 Iowa 33.7 38.5 2.7 7.5 9.2 0.2 # 0.8 7.5 Kansas 30.4 21.1 8.5 6.3 31.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.2 Kentucky 63.2 24.8 1.7 2.1 4.6 0.5 # 0.4 2.7 Louisiana 22.1 48.7 0.8 15.7 2.8 0.2 # 4.9 4.8 Maine 55.0 13.2 13.9 5.1 6.8 0.9 # 0.3 4.7 See notes at end of exhibit. 105 Exhibit 54. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012― Continued State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Maryland 50.7 10.0 5.5 4.4 17.9 2.1 0.0 0.7 8.7 Massachusetts 29.4 29.1 9.5 8.0 13.8 1.3 0.0 0.1 8.8 Michigan 24.8 11.7 3.6 5.3 41.7 2.1 0.1 1.5 9.2 Minnesota 35.2 14.9 17.1 9.1 17.5 0.6 # 3.0 2.5 Mississippi 60.5 8.0 6.7 2.0 11.5 2.8 0.1 2.1 6.2 Missouri 43.9 17.5 3.3 4.0 21.5 1.4 0.0 0.7 7.7 Montana 30.6 11.3 8.4 3.3 27.5 3.6 0.2 0.7 14.3 Nebraska 56.4 2.3 14.0 2.2 10.2 1.1 0.1 10.3 3.4 Nevada 21.1 7.6 1.2 3.7 57.7 1.0 # 0.5 7.2 New Hampshire 34.5 18.7 13.4 14.7 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 New Jersey 32.7 5.2 6.9 15.9 32.0 5.4 0.2 0.1 1.6 New Mexico 40.4 8.1 4.3 1.2 26.6 10.3 0.0 0.2 8.9 New York 40.7 22.1 2.8 3.6 17.8 5.7 # 6.0 1.3 North Carolina 48.3 15.0 1.6 2.0 19.1 2.6 # 1.9 9.4 North Dakota 27.6 31.7 3.3 3.7 25.9 1.6 0.3 0.4 5.5 Ohio 49.8 3.0 2.4 1.1 34.7 3.7 # 2.2 3.0 Oklahoma 35.4 32.9 1.9 3.9 15.3 0.9 0.5 0.7 8.5 Oregon 24.4 24.2 8.1 12.8 24.1 1.0 # 3.5 1.8 Pennsylvania 48.1 6.9 13.7 4.8 14.4 1.5 # 5.2 5.4 Puerto Rico 85.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 6.3 5.6 Rhode Island 42.8 9.5 0.2 0.1 20.5 1.9 # 0.5 24.6 South Carolina 45.1 12.8 5.1 3.8 22.7 1.2 # 1.4 7.8 South Dakota 17.8 48.2 6.5 6.9 13.5 0.5 0.1 1.2 5.5 Tennessee 8.7 74.4 # 0.1 12.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 Texas 28.4 28.4 2.5 8.8 16.5 0.2 # 0.6 14.7 Utah 26.5 6.0 13.5 3.3 36.5 2.1 0.0 0.1 11.9 See notes at end of exhibit. 106 Exhibit 54. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012― Continued State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Vermont 61.9 7.2 11.8 2.2 4.2 0.6 0.0 5.0 7.2 Virginia 25.0 13.3 4.7 18.6 28.9 0.4 0.1 2.5 6.6 Washington 22.3 18.6 5.5 4.6 38.6 2.0 # 0.5 7.9 West Virginia 26.7 50.9 0.6 2.4 10.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 8.1 Wisconsin 29.4 30.7 3.1 5.7 21.7 0.5 # 1.5 7.3 Wyoming — — — — — — — — — — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aRegular early childhood program includes a majority (i.e., at least 50 percent) of children without disabilities (i.e., children without individualized education programs). Regular early childhood programs include, but are not limited to, Head Start, kindergarten, preschool classes offered to an eligible pre-kindergarten population by the public school system, private kindergartens or preschools, and group child development center or child care. bSeparate class, separate school, and residential facility are categories of special education programs that include less than 50 percent children without disabilities. cService provider location or some other location not in any other category refers to a situation in which a child receives all special education and related services from a service provider and does not attend a regular early childhood program or special education program in a separate class, separate school, or residential facility. This does not include children who receive special education and related services in the home. An example is a situation in which a child receives only speech instruction, and it is provided in a clinician’s office. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for the largest percentage of children ages 3 to 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. Specifically, the percentage associated with this category for “All states” was 37.1 percent. The category that accounted for the second largest percentage of students in “All states” was separate class, which accounted for 23.6 percent of the children. Bullet. In 31 individual states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for a larger percentage of children than any other category. In 11 of those states, this category accounted for a majority of the children. In the following three states, this category accounted for more than 80 percent of the children: BIE schools (95.1 percent), Puerto Rico (85.9 percent), and Colorado (81.0 percent). Bullet. In 11 states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a separate class accounted for a larger percentage of children than any other category. The percentage of children accounted for by a separate class was less than a majority in all of these states except Nevada, in which 57.7 percent were accounted for by this category. Bullet. In nine states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week but received the majority of hours of special education and related services elsewhere accounted for a larger percentage of children than any other category. The percentage represented a majority of the children in only Tennessee (74.4 percent) and West Virginia (50.9 percent). Bullet. The category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for less than 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services elsewhere accounted for more children than any other category in Hawaii (32.5 percent). 107 How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 55. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere All states 40.6 15.9 5.4 3.5 24.0 2.4 # 2.1 6.2 Alabama 45.0 33.3 8.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 6.7 Alaska 59.6 27.7 3.2 2.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Arizona 81.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arkansas 22.5 24.9 0.0 0.2 1.5 49.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 BIE schools 90.9 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 California 33.4 6.4 7.5 2.8 33.1 3.4 0.1 4.2 9.3 Colorado 77.5 7.0 4.5 0.6 8.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 Connecticut 91.5 2.0 0.0 0.3 5.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 Delaware 75.8 1.5 1.5 0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 62.6 29.7 1.0 0.5 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Florida 23.1 12.1 8.0 4.8 46.6 2.4 # 0.3 2.6 Georgia 47.3 27.8 2.5 4.2 16.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.4 Hawaii 37.5 11.5 9.4 18.8 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Idaho 37.0 13.6 7.4 1.2 34.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 Illinois 51.7 11.3 0.9 0.6 29.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 Indiana 74.8 8.0 2.8 0.7 9.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 Iowa 21.3 68.5 0.0 2.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Kansas 49.7 23.9 11.0 2.6 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kentucky 72.6 20.7 1.8 1.8 2.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Louisiana 24.6 70.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Maine 98.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 Maryland 60.3 8.9 2.3 2.0 17.7 1.3 0.0 0.4 6.9 See notes at end of exhibit. 108 Exhibit 55. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Massachusetts 24.6 41.3 5.0 4.4 21.8 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.1 Michigan 27.8 17.7 2.1 3.6 36.8 0.6 0.0 1.1 10.3 Minnesota 42.0 11.3 9.0 3.5 27.1 0.4 0.0 5.5 1.1 Mississippi 78.4 8.1 2.7 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 Missouri 83.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montana 60.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.3 6.7 6.7 0.0 6.7 Nebraska 63.1 2.4 20.1 2.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.8 Nevada 35.9 11.4 2.3 5.3 43.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.9 New Hampshire 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Jersey 53.3 8.5 18.0 11.5 7.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 New Mexico 75.0 1.8 8.9 1.8 10.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York 57.9 32.3 # 1.1 5.7 2.8 0.0 # # North Carolina 70.2 7.8 0.4 0.1 14.1 1.6 0.0 0.3 5.4 North Dakota 44.4 22.2 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 Ohio 52.3 2.7 2.3 1.6 39.5 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.4 Oklahoma 36.1 40.8 0.4 3.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Oregon 31.9 19.3 5.9 7.8 27.3 1.7 0.0 4.6 1.6 Pennsylvania 47.5 6.4 8.0 1.8 22.3 1.4 # 7.5 5.0 Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rhode Island 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 42.3 11.3 4.1 3.8 23.6 1.6 0.3 1.0 12.1 South Dakota 0.0 66.7 22.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tennessee 19.0 71.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Texas 34.5 41.9 1.4 5.1 3.7 # 0.0 0.2 13.3 Utah 81.1 16.5 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vermont 70.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 109 Exhibit 55. Percentage of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Regular early childhood programa Separate classb Separate schoolb Residential facilityb Home Service provider locationc At least 10 hours per week and majority At least 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Less than 10 hours per week and majority Less than 10 hours per week, majority elsewhere Virginia 44.7 21.9 0.7 24.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 Washington 30.4 38.7 5.3 2.4 19.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 2.4 West Virginia 45.5 40.9 0.0 9.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wisconsin 36.1 36.1 2.2 2.6 14.9 0.6 0.0 0.6 6.9 Wyoming — — — — — — — — — — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aRegular early childhood program includes a majority (i.e., at least 50 percent) of children without disabilities (i.e., children without individualized education programs). Regular early childhood programs include, but are not limited to, Head Start, kindergarten, preschool classes offered to an eligible pre-kindergarten population by the public school system, private kindergartens or preschools, and group child development center or child care. bSeparate class, separate school, and residential facility are categories of special education programs that include less than 50 percent children without disabilities. cService provider location or some other location not in any other category refers to a situation in which a child receives all special education and related services from a service provider and does not attend a regular early childhood program or special education program in a separate class, separate school, or residential facility. This does not include children who receive special education and related services in the home. An example is a situation in which a child receives only speech instruction, and it is provided in a clinician’s office. dLimited Spanish proficiency is the analogous measure for Puerto Rico. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient (LEP) and reported in the educational environment by the state by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP and reported in the educational environment by all states by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 110 Bullet. In 2012, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for the largest percentage of children ages 3 to 5 who were limited English proficient (LEP) served under IDEA, Part B, in the 51 states (“All states”) that reported children who were LEP and for which data were available. Specifically, the percentage associated with this category for “All states” was 40.6 percent. The category that accounted for the second largest percentage of students in “All states” was separate class, which accounted for 24 percent of the children. Bullet. In 37 individual states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week and received the majority of hours of special education and related services in that program accounted for a larger percentage of children who were LEP than any other category. In 24 of those states, the category accounted for a majority of the children who were LEP. In the following four of those states, the percentage was larger than 90 percent: Rhode Island (100 percent), Maine (98.3 percent), Connecticut (91.5 percent), and BIE schools (90.9 percent). Bullet. In nine states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a regular early childhood program for at least 10 hours per week but received the majority of hours of special education and related services elsewhere accounted for a larger percentage of children who were LEP than any other category. The category accounted for a majority of the children in Tennessee (71.4 percent), Louisiana (70.5 percent), Iowa (68.5 percent), and South Dakota (66.7 percent). Bullet. In four states, the educational environment category representing children who attended a separate class accounted for a larger percentage of children who were LEP than any other category. However, a separate class accounted for no more than 50 percent of the children who were LEP in each of these states. Specifically, a separate class accounted for 50 percent in New Hampshire, 46.6 percent in Florida, 43.6 percent in Nevada, and 36.8 percent in Michigan. Bullet. The educational environment category representing children who attended a separate school accounted for a larger percentage of children who were LEP than any other category in Arkansas (49.1 percent). 111 Part B Personnel How did the states compare with regard to the following ratios in 2011: 1. the number of all full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B; 2. the number of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B; and 3. the number of FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B? Exhibit 56. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011 State All FTE special education teachers FTE highly qualifieda special education teachers FTE not highly qualified special education teachers Per 100 children served All states 5.5 5.3 0.2 Alabama 4.0 3.8 0.2 Alaska 3.6 2.9 0.7 Arizona 4.6 4.4 0.2 Arkansas 4.7 4.1 0.7 BIE schools — — — California 3.1 3.1 0.1 Colorado 3.2 2.7 0.6 Connecticut 6.1 6.1 0.0 Delaware 0.0 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 4.4 3.8 0.5 Florida 18.3 17.4 0.9 Georgia 5.3 4.8 0.5 Hawaii 10.0 9.4 0.7 Idaho 0.8 0.7 0.1 Illinois 4.1 4.1 # Indiana 0.1 0.1 0.0 Iowa 7.5 7.5 0.0 Kansas 4.8 4.8 0.0 Kentucky 2.4 2.3 # Louisiana 5.6 5.5 0.1 Maine 1.8 1.8 0.0 Maryland 4.3 4.1 0.2 Massachusetts 7.3 7.1 0.2 See notes at end of exhibit. 112 Exhibit 56. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011―Continued State All FTE special education teachers FTE highly qualifieda special education teachers FTE not highly qualified special education teachers Per 100 children served Michigan 3.5 3.5 # Minnesota 4.8 4.7 0.2 Mississippi 1.9 1.6 0.3 Missouri 6.4 6.2 0.3 Montana 3.0 3.0 # Nebraska 4.3 4.1 0.3 Nevada 6.0 4.7 1.3 New Hampshire 9.3 9.3 0.0 New Jersey 8.8 7.6 1.2 New Mexico 6.6 6.6 # New York 7.9 7.7 0.2 North Carolina 8.9 8.8 0.1 North Dakota 5.1 5.1 0.0 Ohio 7.3 7.2 # Oklahoma 5.3 5.3 # Oregon 1.5 1.3 0.1 Pennsylvania 3.5 3.5 # Puerto Rico 1.9 1.6 0.3 Rhode Island 4.5 4.4 0.1 South Carolina 7.1 6.8 0.3 South Dakota 4.3 4.2 0.1 Tennessee 4.1 3.7 0.4 Texas 6.2 6.2 # Utah 2.5 2.4 0.1 Vermont 6.6 6.5 0.2 Virginia 2.6 2.6 # Washington 4.0 4.0 # West Virginia 6.4 4.7 1.8 Wisconsin 3.8 3.7 # Wyoming 2.9 2.5 0.5 — Ratio cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 10,000. aSpecial education teachers reported as highly qualified met the state standard for highly qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1401(10). For highly qualified special education teachers, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), except that such term also includes the requirements described in section 602(10)(B) of IDEA, and the option for teachers to meet the requirements of section 9101 of ESEA, by meeting the requirements of section 602(10)(C) or (D) of IDEA [20 U.S.C. section 1401(10)]. In states where teachers who work with children ages 3 through 5 were not included in the state’s definition of highly qualified, teachers were considered highly qualified if they were (1) personnel who held appropriate state certification or licensure for the position held or (2) personnel who held positions for which no state certification or licensure requirements existed. 113 Bullet. In 2011, there were 5.5 FTE special education teachers (including those who were highly qualified and not highly qualified) employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. Ratios of 8 or more FTE special education teachers per 100 children were observed in the following five states: Florida (18.3 FTEs per 100 children), Hawaii (10.0 FTEs per 100 children), New Hampshire (9.3 FTEs per 100 children), North Carolina (8.9 FTEs per 100 children), and New Jersey (8.8 FTEs per 100 children). In contrast, the following three states had ratios of less than 1 FTE per 100 children: Idaho (0.8 FTE per 100 children), Indiana (0.1 FTE per 100 children), and Delaware (0.0 FTE per 100 children). Bullet. In 2011, there were 5.3 FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed in “All states” to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B. A ratio of 8 or more FTE highly qualified special education teachers per 100 children was observed for four states. Those states were Florida (17.4 FTEs per 100 children), Hawaii (9.4 FTEs per 100 children), New Hampshire (9.3 FTEs per 100 children), and North Carolina (8.8 FTEs per 100 children). Yet a ratio smaller than 1 FTE highly qualified special education teacher per 100 children was found for the following two states that reported some FTE special education teachers: Idaho (0.7 FTE per 100 children) and Indiana (0.1 FTE per 100 children). Bullet. In 2011, there was 0.2 FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed in “All states” to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 per 100 children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B. The ratio was smaller than 1 FTE per 100 children for all but the following three states: West Virginia (1.8 FTEs per 100 children), Nevada (1.3 FTEs per 100 children), and New Jersey (1.2 FTEs per 100 children). NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of all FTE special education teachers, FTE highly qualified special education teachers, or FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 by the state by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of all FTE special education teachers, FTE highly qualified special education teachers, or FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for children ages 3 through 5 by all states by the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were excluded. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were not available. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 114 Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Part B Child Count How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 57. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 2012 All states 8.6 8.5 Alabama 7.2 7.0 Alaska 9.6 9.6 Arizona 7.8 7.8 Arkansas 8.3 8.1 California 7.1 7.3 Colorado 6.8 6.9 Connecticut 7.9 8.1 Delaware 8.8 8.9 District of Columbia 9.3 10.1 Florida 9.5 8.5 Georgia 7.5 7.4 Hawaii 6.6 6.4 Idaho 6.6 6.3 Illinois 9.9 9.1 Indiana 10.7 10.2 Iowa 9.2 8.7 Kansas 8.7 8.6 Kentucky 9.5 8.7 Louisiana 7.5 7.0 Maine 11.1 11.2 Maryland 7.4 7.4 Massachusetts 11.0 11.0 Michigan 9.2 8.5 Minnesota 9.2 9.4 Mississippi 8.1 8.0 Missouri 9.0 8.3 Montana 7.6 7.2 Nebraska 9.8 9.7 Nevada 7.4 7.3 New Hampshire 9.6 9.6 New Jersey 11.3 11.6 New Mexico 8.6 9.2 New York 9.3 9.7 North Carolina 8.3 8.2 North Dakota 8.1 7.7 See notes at end of exhibit. 115 Exhibit 57. Percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012―Continued State 2008 2012 Ohio 9.5 9.4 Oklahoma 10.5 10.9 Oregon 8.9 9.2 Pennsylvania 9.9 10.0 Puerto Rico 10.7 14.4 Rhode Island 10.6 9.5 South Carolina 9.2 8.9 South Dakota 8.5 8.6 Tennessee 7.9 8.4 Texas 7.1 6.4 Utah 8.0 9.0 Vermont — 9.3 Virginia 8.9 8.5 Washington 7.9 8.2 West Virginia 11.3 10.9 Wisconsin 8.9 8.8 Wyoming 9.9 9.8 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 in the state for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in the year by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 in all states for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” includes data for children served by BIE schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2008 and 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2008 and 2012. Children served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, 8.5 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 in “All states” were served under IDEA, Part B. The percentages observed for the 52 individual states, ranged from 6.3 percent to 14.4 percent. In the following three states, the percentage was larger than 11 percent: Puerto Rico (14.4 percent), New Jersey (11.6 percent), and Maine (11.2 percent). In the following six states, no more than 7 percent of the resident population was served: Alabama (7.0 percent), Louisiana (7.0 percent), Colorado (6.9 percent), Texas (6.4 percent), Hawaii (6.4 percent), and Idaho (6.3 percent). Bullet. In 2008, 8.6 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 in the 51 states (“All states”) for which data were available were served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. In 18 of the 51 individual states for which data were available for 2008 and 2012, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, increased between the two years. However, the increase represented a percentage change of more than 10 percent in only Puerto Rico (34.7 percent) and Utah (12.1 percent). 116 Bullet. In 28 of the 51 individual states for which data were available for 2008 and 2012, the percentage of the population ages 6 through 21 served decreased between the two years. However, the decrease represented a percentage change of more than 8 percent in only Texas (-9.9 percent), Rhode Island (-9.7 percent), Florida (-9.7 percent), and Kentucky (-9.0 percent). 117 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 within each racial/ethnic group who were served under IDEA, Part B, in 2012? Exhibit 58. Percentage of the population ages 6 through age 21 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races All states 14.3 4.2 11.3 8.2 13.5 8.2 6.5 Alabama 8.6 3.1 9.1 4.3 4.7 6.4 3.0 Alaska 15.8 5.8 12.1 8.1 12.9 8.2 8.2 Arizona 10.0 4.2 11.5 7.8 7.9 7.6 4.3 Arkansas 7.8 4.3 10.6 6.5 8.3 7.9 5.7 California 13.5 3.8 12.4 7.7 8.6 7.0 4.4 Colorado 12.0 4.1 10.8 8.2 8.3 6.2 5.5 Connecticut 13.7 4.0 11.6 9.9 16.9 7.2 5.3 Delaware 15.2 3.8 13.7 9.0 7.7 7.3 3.5 District of Columbia 4.1 1.5 14.5 9.0 10.5 1.7 2.3 Florida 13.0 4.1 10.8 8.4 10.2 7.8 9.0 Georgia 7.2 3.5 8.5 6.9 7.0 7.0 8.5 Hawaii 20.8 5.1 8.3 3.5 23.9 6.3 1.5 Idaho 11.6 4.4 11.0 6.5 10.8 6.2 4.6 Illinois 25.6 4.1 12.0 8.4 40.5 8.8 10.1 Indiana 16.9 4.0 12.8 8.4 11.0 10.0 16.2 Iowa 16.5 4.0 18.2 10.8 12.1 8.1 10.0 Kansas 16.1 4.3 12.7 8.0 10.9 8.3 10.3 Kentucky 7.4 3.8 11.4 6.7 4.6 8.6 6.7 Louisiana 7.2 3.0 9.0 3.8 6.1 6.1 3.4 Maine 18.9 5.8 14.2 9.8 18.3 11.3 6.0 Maryland 9.6 3.5 9.9 7.9 13.2 6.1 5.8 Massachusetts 17.3 4.9 14.4 15.0 26.1 10.2 10.1 Michigan 13.6 3.6 10.9 7.7 26.0 8.2 5.9 Minnesota 20.9 7.0 16.4 11.4 18.1 8.6 7.7 Mississippi 3.0 3.6 9.1 4.6 4.3 7.6 3.3 Missouri 10.8 4.6 11.4 6.0 5.3 8.2 5.0 Montana 12.6 4.7 11.2 6.5 27.2 6.8 4.2 Nebraska 18.8 5.6 14.4 10.9 10.6 9.0 11.5 Nevada 16.9 2.9 11.2 6.9 12.9 7.2 7.0 New Hampshire 12.2 3.7 14.3 8.2 27.5 9.9 1.4 New Jersey 9.9 5.2 15.0 11.3 46.5 12.2 3.7 New Mexico 10.0 5.1 11.9 9.5 0.0 8.4 5.7 New York 17.6 4.7 13.4 11.9 26.8 8.5 3.9 North Carolina 10.9 3.3 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.1 9.6 See notes at end of exhibit. 118 Exhibit 58. Percentage of the population ages 6 through age 21 served under IDEA, Part B, for each racial/ethnic group, by state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races North Dakota 11.5 4.0 11.9 8.7 26.4 7.4 3.5 Ohio 9.1 3.8 12.6 7.7 8.3 9.0 11.4 Oklahoma 17.2 4.5 14.7 8.7 10.6 10.8 5.0 Oregon 16.6 4.9 15.8 10.1 9.9 9.0 6.7 Pennsylvania 12.9 4.3 13.5 10.2 14.2 9.8 7.2 Rhode Island 21.2 4.0 13.4 11.7 16.6 8.8 7.7 South Carolina 8.1 4.0 11.9 6.6 7.2 7.6 8.4 South Dakota 12.1 6.0 12.7 8.6 18.1 8.1 5.2 Tennessee 8.9 4.1 10.7 6.6 7.6 8.2 2.7 Texas 10.3 2.9 8.8 6.6 7.8 5.7 5.7 Utah 15.7 4.6 14.0 10.1 9.0 8.9 4.9 Vermont 11.6 2.9 13.1 3.9 28.1 9.6 4.3 Virginia 10.9 4.6 11.6 9.8 12.0 7.4 8.0 Washington 13.0 4.5 12.8 9.7 7.3 7.8 7.6 West Virginia 7.7 4.3 12.9 5.7 7.5 11.1 5.3 Wisconsin 17.1 6.2 16.3 9.6 17.0 7.9 6.9 Wyoming 13.5 5.5 9.1 10.2 18.9 9.7 7.1 NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 of the racial/ethnic group in the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the racial/ethnic group by the estimated U.S. resident population ages 6 through 21 in the racial/ethnic group in all states, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” includes data for BIE schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data for Puerto Rico were excluded. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. Data for Puerto Rico were not available. Children served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, there were larger percentages of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were American Indian or Alaska Native and who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander than of the resident populations of the other racial/ethnic groups served under IDEA, Part B, in the 51 states (“All states”) for which data were available. Specifically, 14.3 percent of the resident population who were American Indian or Alaska Native and 13.5 percent of the resident population who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander were served under Part B. In contrast, only 4.2 percent of the resident population who were Asian in “All states” were served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. In 2012, 14.3 percent of the resident population who were American Indian or Alaska Native were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 3 to 25.6 percent in the 51 individual states. In the following four states, the percentage was larger than 20 119 percent: Illinois (25.6 percent), Rhode Island (21.2 percent), Minnesota (20.9 percent), and Hawaii (20.8 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 5 percent in the District of Columbia (4.1 percent) and Mississippi (3.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 4.2 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were Asian were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 1.5 to 7 percent in the 51 individual states. The percentage was more than 6 percent in only Minnesota (7.0 percent) and Wisconsin (6.2 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 3 percent in the following four states: Nevada (2.9 percent), Vermont (2.9 percent), Texas (2.9 percent), and the District of Columbia (1.5 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 11.3 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were Black or African American were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 8.3 to 18.2 percent in the 51 individual states. In the following four states, the percentage was 15 percent or more: Iowa (18.2 percent), Minnesota (16.4 percent), Wisconsin (16.3 percent), and Oregon (15.8 percent). In contrast, the percentage was 9 percent or less in the following four states: Louisiana (9.0 percent), Texas (8.8 percent), Georgia (8.5 percent), and Hawaii (8.3 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 8.2 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were Hispanic/Latino were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 3.5 to 15 percent in the 51 individual states. In the following five states, the percentage was more than 11 percent: Massachusetts (15.0 percent), New York (11.9 percent), Rhode Island (11.7 percent), Minnesota (11.4 percent), and New Jersey (11.3 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 4 percent in three states: Vermont (3.9 percent), Louisiana (3.8 percent), and Hawaii (3.5 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 13.5 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from zero to 46.5 percent in the 51 states. The percentage was more than 30 percent in New Jersey (46.5 percent) and Illinois (40.5 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 5 percent in Alabama (4.7 percent), Kentucky (4.6 percent), Mississippi (4.3 percent), and New Mexico (0.0 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 8.2 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were White were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 1.7 to 12.2 percent in the 51 individual states. The percentage was 11 percent or more in the following three states: New Jersey (12.2 percent), Maine (11.3 percent), and West Virginia (11.1 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 6 percent in Texas (5.7 percent) and the District of Columbia (1.7 percent). Bullet. In 2012, 6.5 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 who were associated with multiple races were served under Part B in “All states.” The percentages ranged from 1.4 to 16.2 percent in the 51 individual states. In the following three states, the percentage was 11 percent or more: Indiana (16.2 percent), Nebraska (11.5 percent), and Ohio (11.4 percent). In contrast, the percentage was less than 3 percent in Tennessee (2.7 percent), the District of Columbia (2.3 percent), Hawaii (1.5 percent), and New Hampshire (1.4 percent). 120 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of autism in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 59. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b All states 5.0 7.6 2.7 53.4 Alabama 3.9 6.8 2.9 74.0 Alaska 3.7 5.8 2.2 59.6 Arizona 4.7 7.7 2.9 61.3 Arkansas 4.0 6.2 2.3 57.4 BIE schools 1.1 2.1 1.1 98.9 California 7.0 10.4 3.5 49.6 Colorado 3.3 5.9 2.5 75.4 Connecticut 7.3 10.6 3.4 46.6 Delaware 4.3 6.0 1.7 38.6 District of Columbia 3.1 5.1 2.0 65.9 Florida 3.6 6.9 3.3 93.8 Georgia 5.3 7.6 2.3 42.3 Hawaii 5.5 7.0 1.4 26.1 Idaho 6.0 8.8 2.8 47.2 Illinois 4.3 6.8 2.5 58.7 Indiana 5.9 8.4 2.5 41.4 Iowa 1.1 1.1 # -0.8 Kansas 3.4 5.2 1.8 54.1 Kentucky 3.1 5.4 2.3 71.7 Louisiana 3.3 5.3 2.0 61.5 Maine 6.1 9.0 2.8 46.4 Maryland 7.4 9.9 2.5 33.2 Massachusetts 5.2 8.2 3.0 58.7 Michigan 5.8 8.1 2.3 40.5 Minnesota 10.5 13.3 2.8 26.5 Mississippi 2.4 5.5 3.1 127.8 Missouri 4.7 7.7 3.0 62.3 Montana 2.8 3.2 0.4 13.1 Nebraska 3.7 5.8 2.2 58.6 Nevada 5.6 9.0 3.5 62.8 New Hampshire 4.5 7.4 2.9 64.9 New Jersey 4.4 6.8 2.4 54.8 New Mexico 2.4 4.3 1.9 78.3 New York 4.5 6.3 1.8 41.1 North Carolina 5.1 7.4 2.3 46.1 North Dakota 4.0 6.2 2.2 53.5 See notes at end of exhibit. 121 Exhibit 59. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of autism, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012―Continued State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b Ohio 4.7 7.4 2.7 58.4 Oklahoma 2.5 4.2 1.7 68.7 Oregon 9.3 10.9 1.6 17.2 Pennsylvania 5.2 8.4 3.2 62.2 Puerto Rico 1.4 2.5 1.1 78.3 Rhode Island 5.4 9.0 3.6 67.1 South Carolina 2.9 5.0 2.2 75.9 South Dakota 3.8 4.9 1.1 28.0 Tennessee 3.8 5.7 1.9 49.9 Texas 5.5 9.1 3.6 66.9 Utah 4.8 6.6 1.8 37.5 Vermont — 7.4 — — Virginia 5.3 9.2 3.9 74.1 Washington 5.6 8.0 2.4 42.1 West Virginia 2.5 3.9 1.4 55.7 Wisconsin 5.7 8.2 2.6 44.9 Wyoming 3.6 6.0 2.4 67.7 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aChange between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the difference from the values presented in the exhibit. bPercent change between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012, dividing the difference by the percentage for 2008, then multiplying the result by 100. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the percent change from the values presented in the exhibit. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of autism in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of autism in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2008 and 2012. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, a total of 7.6 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) were reported under the category of autism. At least 10 percent of the students served in Minnesota (13.3 percent), Oregon (10.9 percent), Connecticut (10.6 percent), and California (10.4 percent) were reported under the category of autism. However, less than 4 percent of the students served in West Virginia (3.9 percent), Montana (3.2 percent), Puerto Rico (2.5 percent), BIE schools (2.1 percent), and Iowa (1.1 percent) were reported under the category of autism. Bullet. In 2008, a total of 5 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available were reported under the category of autism. 122 Bullet. The percentage of students who were reported under the category of autism was larger in 2012 than in 2008 in 51 of the 52 states for which data for both time periods were available. The sole exception was Iowa, in which 1.1 percent of the students served in both years were reported under the category of autism. Bullet. The percent change for 31 of the 51 states in which a larger percentage of the students were reported under the category of autism in 2012 than in 2008 exceeded 50 percent. Moreover, a percentage increase of more than 100 percent was found in Mississippi (127.8 percent). 123 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of other health impairments in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 60. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b All states 11.0 13.2 2.2 20.2 Alabama 8.2 12.1 3.9 46.8 Alaska 11.9 15.0 3.1 26.4 Arizona 6.7 8.2 1.5 22.2 Arkansas 15.3 18.0 2.7 17.6 BIE schools 6.1 8.1 2.0 32.2 California 7.8 10.2 2.4 31.2 Colorado — # — — Connecticut 18.5 20.7 2.2 11.8 Delaware 12.5 12.3 -0.2 -1.4 District of Columbia 4.9 11.7 6.7 136.3 Florida 6.7 8.5 1.8 27.6 Georgia 15.6 15.9 0.3 1.9 Hawaii 15.1 15.4 0.3 2.0 Idaho 10.9 16.5 5.6 51.0 Illinois 9.0 11.2 2.2 23.9 Indiana 7.5 11.0 3.5 47.0 Iowa 0.1 0.1 # -5.2 Kansas 12.5 12.6 0.1 0.5 Kentucky 17.6 16.8 -0.8 -4.6 Louisiana 12.3 13.6 1.3 10.9 Maine 18.6 20.6 2.1 11.2 Maryland 16.3 18.0 1.7 10.6 Massachusetts 7.5 11.1 3.6 48.0 Michigan 9.0 11.1 2.1 23.9 Minnesota 14.2 15.7 1.5 10.7 Mississippi 10.4 15.0 4.6 44.1 Missouri 14.5 18.6 4.0 27.5 Montana 10.8 12.3 1.5 13.4 Nebraska 13.1 14.1 1.0 7.5 Nevada 7.3 9.2 1.9 25.7 New Hampshire 17.7 19.4 1.7 9.7 New Jersey 13.5 17.8 4.2 31.4 New Mexico 7.9 8.7 0.8 9.6 New York 13.6 15.5 1.9 13.8 North Carolina 17.3 18.9 1.5 8.8 North Dakota 12.5 14.9 2.4 19.0 Ohio 10.7 14.3 3.6 33.5 See notes at end of exhibit. 124 Exhibit 60. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of other health impairments, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012― Continued State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b Oklahoma 10.7 14.4 3.7 34.1 Oregon 13.0 15.2 2.1 16.5 Pennsylvania 7.1 11.3 4.2 59.7 Puerto Rico 6.5 10.1 3.6 55.6 Rhode Island 17.1 16.3 -0.9 -5.1 South Carolina 9.7 12.5 2.8 28.9 South Dakota 10.4 12.3 1.9 18.7 Tennessee 11.0 12.6 1.6 14.6 Texas 12.7 13.2 0.4 3.5 Utah 6.9 8.5 1.5 22.4 Vermont — 16.9 — — Virginia 18.1 20.7 2.5 14.0 Washington 19.5 20.1 0.7 3.4 West Virginia 11.9 14.2 2.3 19.4 Wisconsin 14.1 17.9 3.8 27.0 Wyoming 14.3 15.9 1.6 10.9 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aChange between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the difference from the values presented in the exhibit. bPercent change between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012, dividing the difference by the percentage for 2008, then multiplying the result by 100. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the percent change from the values presented in the exhibit. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of other health impairments in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of other health impairments in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2008 and 2012. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, 13.2 percent of the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) were reported under the category of other health impairments. However, less than 9 percent of the students served in the following seven states were reported under the category of other health impairments: New Mexico (8.7 percent), Florida (8.5 percent), Utah (8.5 percent), Arizona (8.2 percent), BIE schools (8.1 percent), Iowa (0.1 percent), and Colorado (less than 0.05 percent). In contrast, more than 20 percent of the students served in the following four states were reported under the category of other health impairments: Connecticut (20.7 percent), Virginia (20.7 percent), Maine (20.6 percent), and Washington (20.1 percent). 125 Bullet. In 2008, 11 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 51 states (“All states”) for which data were available were reported under the category of other health impairments. Bullet. In 47 of the 51 states for which data were available for both years, the percentage of students reported under the category of other health impairments was larger in 2012 than in 2008. The difference between the percentage of children served in 2008 and the percentage of children served in 2012 by each of the four other states was less than 1 percent. Bullet. Percent changes of more than 30 percent were observed for 13 of the states for which an increase was found between 2008 and 2012. Included among these states were the following four in which the change was larger than 50 percent: the District of Columbia (136.3 percent), Pennsylvania (59.7 percent), Puerto Rico (55.6 percent), and Idaho (51.0 percent). 126 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities in 2012, and how did the percentages change between 2008 and 2012? Exhibit 61. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012 State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b All states 42.9 40.1 -2.8 -6.4 Alabama 50.0 44.4 -5.6 -11.2 Alaska 47.4 45.3 -2.1 -4.3 Arizona 50.4 46.2 -4.2 -8.4 Arkansas 37.5 34.9 -2.6 -6.9 BIE schools 55.5 50.8 -4.6 -8.4 California 47.8 45.5 -2.3 -4.8 Colorado 41.5 44.9 3.4 8.2 Connecticut 35.9 35.1 -0.8 -2.2 Delaware 53.8 51.3 -2.5 -4.7 District of Columbia 45.7 39.0 -6.7 -14.6 Florida 47.4 43.0 -4.4 -9.2 Georgia 31.3 34.9 3.6 11.5 Hawaii 47.7 49.6 2.0 4.1 Idaho 37.1 27.7 -9.4 -25.4 Illinois 46.2 41.1 -5.1 -11.0 Indiana 37.7 35.9 -1.8 -4.7 Iowa 60.3 60.4 0.1 0.1 Kansas 41.6 41.7 0.1 0.2 Kentucky 15.4 17.7 2.2 14.4 Louisiana 33.0 33.1 0.2 0.5 Maine 33.2 32.3 -0.8 -2.5 Maryland 36.5 34.6 -1.9 -5.2 Massachusetts 39.3 30.8 -8.5 -21.7 Michigan 41.1 37.5 -3.5 -8.6 Minnesota 28.9 27.4 -1.5 -5.1 Mississippi 39.6 26.1 -13.5 -34.2 Missouri 34.0 28.7 -5.4 -15.8 Montana 47.5 32.3 -15.2 -32.0 Nebraska 34.6 35.4 0.8 2.4 Nevada 57.5 52.6 -4.9 -8.5 New Hampshire 44.0 39.7 -4.3 -9.7 New Jersey 40.5 37.4 -3.2 -7.8 New Mexico 45.3 44.8 -0.5 -1.1 New York 41.9 38.8 -3.1 -7.4 North Carolina 37.1 40.2 3.2 8.5 North Dakota 36.1 36.3 0.2 0.6 Ohio 42.4 41.8 -0.6 -1.4 See notes at end of exhibit. 127 Exhibit 61. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of specific learning disabilities, by year and state: Fall 2008 and fall 2012― Continued State 2008 percent 2012 percent Change between 2008 and 2012a Percent change between 2008 and 2012b Oklahoma 47.9 43.8 -4.0 -8.4 Oregon 39.3 37.3 -2.0 -5.1 Pennsylvania 52.0 46.3 -5.7 -10.9 Puerto Rico 59.2 53.2 -6.0 -10.1 Rhode Island 41.7 39.0 -2.7 -6.4 South Carolina 48.6 46.7 -1.9 -4.0 South Dakota 41.3 40.5 -0.8 -1.9 Tennessee 41.1 41.1 0.1 0.2 Texas 47.6 42.1 -5.6 -11.7 Utah 49.2 48.7 -0.5 -1.1 Vermont — 32.3 — — Virginia 39.3 37.8 -1.5 -3.8 Washington 39.6 38.9 -0.8 -1.9 West Virginia 32.9 30.6 -2.4 -7.2 Wisconsin 35.0 31.0 -4.0 -11.5 Wyoming 38.1 35.8 -2.3 -6.1 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. aChange between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the difference from the values presented in the exhibit. bPercent change between 2008 and 2012 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008 from the percentage for 2012, dividing the difference by the percentage for 2008, then multiplying the result by 100. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the percent change from the values presented in the exhibit. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of specific learning disabilities in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of specific learning disabilities in the year by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states in that year, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2008 and 2012. Data for 2008 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, a total of 40.1 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities. The percentages of students reported under the category of specific learning disabilities by the individual states ranged from 17.7 percent to 60.4 percent. The percentages for the following five states were larger than 50 percent: Iowa (60.4 percent), Puerto Rico (53.2 percent), Nevada (52.6 percent), Delaware (51.3 percent), and BIE schools (50.8 percent). In contrast, the percentages for the following five states were less than 30 percent: Missouri (28.7 percent), Idaho (27.7 percent), Minnesota (27.4 percent), Mississippi (26.1 percent), and Kentucky (17.7 percent). Bullet. In 2008, 42.9 percent of the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities. 128 Bullet. The percentage of students reported under the category of specific learning disabilities was larger in 2008 than in 2012 in 41 of the 52 states for which data were available for both time periods. For all 11 states in which the percentage was larger in 2012 than in 2008, the difference was less than 4 percentage points. Moreover, the difference represented a percentage increase of less than 10 percent in each state except Georgia and Kentucky. For Georgia, the 3.6 percentage point difference represented an 11.5 percent increase. For Kentucky, the 2.2 percentage point difference represented a 14.4 percent increase. Bullet. While the percentage of students reported under the category of specific learning disabilities decreased in 41 states between 2008 and 2012, the difference between the percentage reported in 2008 and the percentage reported in 2012 was less than 10 percent for all but two states. For Montana and Mississippi, the difference was -15.2 percentage points and -13.5 percentage points, respectively. Moreover, the decrease for only the following four states represented a percent change larger than 16 percent: Mississippi (-34.2 percent), Montana (-32.0 percent), Idaho (-25.4 percent), and Massachusetts (-21.7 percent). 129 Part B Educational Environments How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 62. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day All states 61.5 19.5 13.8 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.3 Alabama 83.7 6.4 6.6 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 Alaska 61.1 24.5 11.1 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 Arizona 61.7 20.5 15.4 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 Arkansas 52.9 30.5 13.2 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.6 BIE schools 77.2 16.0 5.9 0.2 0.5 0.3 # 0.0 California 52.6 20.3 22.2 3.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 Colorado 72.3 16.8 7.2 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 Connecticut 69.4 16.4 5.7 5.7 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.9 Delaware 64.8 13.5 15.3 5.6 0.2 0.5 # 0.2 District of Columbia 49.5 18.7 11.6 18.0 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 Florida 69.3 10.7 14.2 2.9 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 Georgia 64.5 18.3 14.6 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 Hawaii 35.8 43.1 19.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 Idaho 60.4 26.3 11.4 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 Illinois 53.1 25.6 13.8 5.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.4 Indiana 68.8 14.2 10.9 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 3.7 Iowa 64.0 24.2 8.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.9 Kansas 67.2 21.5 7.2 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.3 Kentucky 71.8 16.7 8.7 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.7 Louisiana 60.5 21.3 13.6 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 3.1 Maine 55.7 29.8 10.8 2.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 Maryland 68.0 10.3 13.3 6.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 Massachusetts 58.8 18.7 14.9 6.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 Michigan 64.3 17.1 11.4 4.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.4 Minnesota 62.0 23.6 10.3 3.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Mississippi 67.0 15.4 13.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.1 1.4 Missouri 58.1 26.3 9.4 2.9 # 0.6 0.7 1.9 Montana 47.3 37.4 13.1 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 Nebraska 74.9 13.0 6.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.8 Nevada 64.7 19.4 13.9 1.2 # 0.3 0.3 0.2 New Hampshire 73.2 15.7 8.0 1.9 0.6 # # 0.6 New Jersey 44.9 25.7 16.6 6.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 5.4 New Mexico 50.4 27.0 20.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 New York 57.5 11.6 21.3 5.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.8 North Carolina 66.2 17.8 13.6 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 See notes at end of exhibit. 130 Exhibit 62. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day North Dakota 76.0 16.5 4.1 0.4 0.9 0.1 # 1.9 Ohio 60.2 21.5 11.4 3.2 0.2 0.6 # 2.9 Oklahoma 62.9 25.7 9.7 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 Oregon 72.6 14.1 10.8 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 Pennsylvania 62.1 23.5 8.9 4.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 Puerto Rico 77.8 8.6 5.8 1.7 0.0 1.9 # 4.2 Rhode Island 71.6 8.6 11.8 5.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.6 South Carolina 57.3 21.8 18.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 South Dakota 67.7 22.6 5.4 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 1.5 Tennessee 63.3 22.1 11.9 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.8 Texas 66.3 18.6 13.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 Utah 56.2 27.0 13.5 2.6 # 0.3 0.3 # Vermont 73.8 12.8 7.1 4.4 1.1 0.1 # 0.6 Virginia 61.9 20.8 12.5 2.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 Washington 52.4 32.9 13.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 West Virginia 63.9 24.5 8.7 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.8 Wisconsin 61.9 25.0 10.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.5 Wyoming 62.2 28.2 7.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.4 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. cSeparate school and residential facility are categories that include children with disabilities who receive special education and related services, at public expense, for greater than 50 percent of the school day in public or private separate day schools or residential facilities. dHomebound/hospital is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in hospital programs or homebound programs. eCorrectional facilities is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in short-term detention facilities or correctional facilities. fParentally placed in private schools is a category that includes children with disabilities who have been enrolled by their parents or guardians in regular parochial or other private schools and whose basic education is paid through private resources and who receive special education and related services at public expense from a local education agency or intermediate educational unit under a service plan. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, a total of 61.5 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. 131 Bullet. In 52 of the 53 individual states, a larger percentage of students was accounted for by the category of inside the regular class 80% or more of the day than any other educational environment category. Moreover, in 49 of the 53 states, a majority of such students were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. In four of those states, this category accounted for more than 75 percent of such students. The states were Alabama (83.7 percent), Puerto Rico (77.8 percent), BIE schools (77.2 percent), and North Dakota (76.0 percent). The only state that deviated from this pattern was Hawaii. In Hawaii, the most prevalent category was inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, accounting for 43.1 percent of such students. 132 How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 63. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day All states 57.4 23.3 17.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Alabama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alaska 60.2 29.8 8.1 1.2 0.2 # 0.3 # Arizona 69.3 22.2 8.4 # 0.0 # # 0.0 Arkansas 57.7 27.7 14.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 # 0.1 BIE schools 71.8 19.9 7.4 # 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 California 50.5 23.4 23.3 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Colorado 73.9 17.9 7.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Connecticut 73.1 19.0 5.1 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 Delaware 62.8 19.5 14.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 63.9 18.9 13.8 2.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 Florida 71.1 15.9 11.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 Georgia 64.6 25.6 9.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 # # Hawaii 26.6 48.4 23.1 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 Idaho 53.0 36.2 9.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Illinois 49.9 32.7 15.8 1.3 0.1 # 0.0 0.1 Indiana 73.0 18.5 5.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 # 1.7 Iowa 66.6 27.5 5.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Kansas 67.0 27.3 5.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 # 0.5 Kentucky 67.6 22.8 8.5 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Louisiana 65.9 20.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Maine 53.1 32.6 12.8 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland 73.5 9.2 15.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Massachusetts 46.4 25.0 25.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 Michigan 71.3 17.3 9.2 1.8 0.0 # # 0.3 Minnesota 62.5 26.2 9.6 1.5 # 0.1 0.0 0.0 Mississippi 70.6 17.0 12.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missouri 61.3 28.4 9.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Montana 44.2 45.8 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Nebraska 81.8 13.8 2.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.3 Nevada 60.3 27.7 11.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 # New Hampshire 72.8 17.4 8.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 New Jersey 45.4 24.5 26.0 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 2.5 New Mexico 46.7 30.6 22.0 0.2 # 0.2 0.1 0.2 New York 49.5 10.7 34.8 4.4 # 0.1 # 0.4 North Carolina 65.6 22.3 11.1 0.7 # 0.2 0.0 # North Dakota 64.6 29.8 4.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 Ohio 52.1 32.3 13.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 See notes at end of exhibit. 133 Exhibit 63. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day Oklahoma 52.9 36.9 9.9 0.1 # 0.2 0.0 # Oregon 78.3 15.8 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 # Pennsylvania 53.1 32.6 12.2 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 # Puerto Rico 80.1 11.2 7.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 Rhode Island 84.5 6.1 8.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 South Carolina 58.3 23.0 16.7 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 South Dakota 62.7 30.8 4.2 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 Tennessee 60.6 25.8 12.4 0.5 # 0.5 0.1 0.1 Texas 67.7 22.1 9.7 0.1 # 0.4 # # Utah 46.2 39.0 13.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 Vermont 77.1 13.7 4.6 2.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 Virginia 51.6 29.7 17.3 1.1 0.1 0.1 # 0.1 Washington 50.7 41.6 7.6 # # # 0.0 # West Virginia 67.4 24.3 6.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 Wisconsin 63.6 27.5 7.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 Wyoming 57.0 33.4 7.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.0 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. cSeparate school and residential facility are categories that include children with disabilities who receive special education and related services, at public expense, for greater than 50 percent of the school day in public or private separate day schools or residential facilities. dHomebound/hospital is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in hospital programs or homebound programs. eCorrectional facilities is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in short-term detention facilities or correctional facilities. fParentally placed in private schools is a category that includes children with disabilities who have been enrolled by their parents or guardians in regular parochial or other private schools and whose basic education is paid through private resources and who receive special education and related services at public expense from a local education agency or intermediate educational unit under a service plan. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were limited English proficient (LEP) and reported in the educational environment by the state by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP and reported in the educational environment by all states by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were LEP by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. In the case of Puerto Rico, language proficiency is determined with regard to Spanish. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2012, a total of 57.4 percent of the students ages 6 through 21 who were limited English proficient (LEP) and served under IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. 134 Bullet. In 50 individual states, the educational environment category of inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for the largest percentage of the students ages 6 through 21 who were LEP and served under IDEA, Part B. In 44 of those states, this educational environment accounted for a majority of such students. In the following three states, more than 80 percent of such students were in this environment: Rhode Island (84.5 percent), Nebraska (81.8 percent), and Puerto Rico (80.1 percent). Bullet. The category of inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day was the most prevalent educational environment category for Hawaii and Montana, accounting for 48.4 percent and 45.8 percent of such students, respectively. Alabama reported serving no students ages 6 through 21 who were LEP. 135 How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 64. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day All states 44.1 17.8 20.3 13.0 1.8 1.1 1.7 0.3 Alabama 68.9 7.9 6.8 5.4 9.0 1.4 0.4 0.1 Alaska 42.0 23.8 16.8 10.9 2.7 0.4 3.1 0.1 Arizona 39.8 16.0 34.1 6.6 0.8 0.6 2.1 # Arkansas 33.5 29.1 18.1 7.1 5.7 4.5 2.0 0.0 BIE schools 70.6 19.0 7.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.0 California 25.4 16.0 30.1 22.3 3.3 0.9 1.9 0.2 Colorado 53.2 15.8 13.3 10.0 4.4 0.6 2.7 # Connecticut 41.2 12.4 17.0 19.7 5.8 1.8 1.9 0.1 Delaware 43.4 14.6 18.8 20.0 1.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 30.5 12.6 20.7 28.3 4.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 Florida 41.1 12.6 26.7 11.9 0.4 0.3 6.5 0.4 Georgia 54.2 16.1 15.5 10.6 1.7 0.3 1.7 # Hawaii 32.3 35.1 24.6 2.9 1.0 1.1 2.9 0.0 Idaho 47.2 24.2 15.1 7.5 1.0 0.4 4.7 0.0 Illinois 31.2 20.7 17.3 26.7 2.7 0.4 0.7 0.2 Indiana 52.4 15.2 20.6 4.9 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.3 Iowa 64.1 24.2 8.4 1.3 0.5 # 0.5 0.9 Kansas 48.1 20.9 13.2 12.6 1.5 0.2 3.4 0.2 Kentucky 50.3 19.6 18.5 3.3 2.3 3.9 2.1 # Louisiana 48.3 23.8 21.8 0.1 0.3 2.8 2.7 0.1 Maine 42.2 24.7 18.6 11.7 2.1 0.3 0.3 # Maryland 40.4 12.0 19.6 25.0 0.1 0.8 2.1 0.1 Massachusetts 36.4 12.3 22.6 25.6 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.2 Michigan 50.5 16.7 16.5 9.7 0.9 0.5 4.9 0.3 Minnesota 54.8 21.1 12.8 10.8 # 0.4 0.0 0.0 Mississippi 56.2 20.5 14.0 3.8 2.4 2.7 0.1 0.2 Missouri 43.2 27.0 13.8 10.3 0.1 2.5 2.6 0.6 Montana 41.3 27.1 19.9 4.4 5.2 0.4 1.4 0.3 Nebraska 66.6 11.6 9.8 9.2 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.6 Nevada 51.1 20.8 18.7 7.1 0.1 0.4 1.8 0.1 New Hampshire 60.0 15.9 13.3 7.8 2.4 0.0 # 0.5 New Jersey 30.7 20.5 22.3 22.1 1.2 1.6 1.3 0.3 New Mexico 34.2 21.6 38.1 0.8 2.8 0.9 1.4 0.1 New York 29.1 9.8 35.7 19.0 3.0 1.7 1.1 0.6 North Carolina 50.8 19.0 21.9 3.5 0.4 3.2 1.3 0.0 North Dakota 73.0 14.1 4.8 2.7 4.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 See notes at end of exhibit. 136 Exhibit 64. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityc Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day Ohio 38.6 19.4 20.8 17.0 1.2 2.3 0.4 0.3 Oklahoma 47.3 26.6 18.9 1.3 2.7 2.6 0.5 # Oregon 55.5 14.5 20.2 6.3 # 1.1 2.2 0.1 Pennsylvania 45.5 20.7 13.5 16.6 2.2 0.3 1.0 # Puerto Rico 77.8 5.6 11.4 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.2 2.0 Rhode Island 42.1 6.6 21.1 25.0 3.6 0.2 1.2 0.1 South Carolina 32.6 24.4 33.6 3.9 2.0 2.4 1.1 # South Dakota 61.2 23.0 9.0 3.4 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 Tennessee 42.4 21.0 24.9 7.5 1.9 1.7 0.5 0.1 Texas 61.9 18.8 15.2 2.2 0.1 1.1 0.8 # Utah 37.6 25.5 29.7 3.3 0.1 1.5 2.3 # Vermont 56.1 10.5 12.3 17.2 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 Virginia 43.6 18.7 12.7 17.3 3.0 1.7 2.7 0.3 Washington 37.7 32.2 22.3 5.0 1.0 0.2 1.5 0.2 West Virginia 47.1 30.5 12.7 0.1 3.4 3.8 2.4 0.0 Wisconsin 57.2 23.0 14.1 2.5 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.1 Wyoming 50.2 23.2 11.4 3.1 5.1 0.6 5.6 0.6 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. cSeparate school and residential facility are categories that include children with disabilities who receive special education and related services, at public expense, for greater than 50 percent of the school day in public or private separate day schools or residential facilities. dHomebound/hospital is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in hospital programs or homebound programs. eCorrectional facilities is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in short-term detention facilities or correctional facilities. fParentally placed in private school is a category that includes children with disabilities who have been enrolled by their parents or guardians in regular parochial or other private schools and whose basic education is paid through private resources and who receive special education and related services at public expense from a local education agency or intermediate educational unit under a service plan. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of emotional disturbance who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of emotional disturbance, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of emotional disturbance who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of emotional disturbance, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 137 Bullet. In 2012, inside the regular class for 80% or more of the day accounted for a larger percentage (44.1 percent) of the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in the 53 states (“All states”) than any other category of educational environment. Moreover, this environment accounted for the largest percentage of students in 48 of the 53 individual states. The percentage exceeded 50 percent in 22 states, including the following three states, in which the percentage exceeded 70 percent: Puerto Rico (77.8 percent), North Dakota (73.0 percent), and BIE schools (70.6 percent). Bullet. In Hawaii, the educational environment category of inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for the largest percentage (35.1 percent) of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance. Bullet. In four states, the educational environment category of inside the regular class less than 40% of the day accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance. The four states were New Mexico (38.1 percent), New York (35.7 percent), South Carolina (33.6 percent), and California (30.1 percent). 138 How did the states compare with regard to the distribution of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities, by educational environment in 2012? Exhibit 65. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012 State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityd Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day All states 17.1 26.6 48.7 6.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 Alabama 45.5 20.9 29.0 3.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Alaska 13.6 20.6 56.5 8.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Arizona 7.6 15.6 73.3 2.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 # Arkansas 11.2 40.0 44.9 0.9 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 BIE schools 27.8 37.1 33.6 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 California 6.2 14.5 68.9 9.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 Colorado 16.9 44.4 34.9 3.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 # Connecticut 43.7 39.5 8.0 7.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 Delaware 11.1 17.5 57.6 12.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 District of Columbia 11.3 15.3 34.1 37.4 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 Florida 13.5 12.0 59.2 12.9 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.9 Georgia 20.3 22.0 55.1 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 # Hawaii 7.8 28.8 62.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Idaho 16.9 37.8 44.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 Illinois 8.9 28.0 50.3 11.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 Indiana 27.9 27.5 41.2 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.2 1.1 Iowa 64.0 24.2 8.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.9 Kansas 14.4 44.2 36.6 4.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 Kentucky 40.7 36.1 21.1 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 Louisiana 18.2 32.2 45.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.2 1.6 Maine 6.7 35.8 55.1 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland 14.3 20.6 56.1 8.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Massachusetts 13.0 21.5 58.1 6.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Michigan 14.7 22.9 43.0 18.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 Minnesota 9.1 38.7 43.3 8.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Mississippi 13.8 21.4 61.8 0.6 1.6 0.7 # # Missouri 8.9 43.5 38.1 7.9 # 0.7 0.7 0.2 Montana 7.6 46.6 45.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Nebraska 31.7 31.1 32.8 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 Nevada 5.5 16.9 74.6 2.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 New Hampshire 22.0 28.3 42.9 3.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 1.8 New Jersey 4.8 21.6 55.9 16.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 New Mexico 10.6 22.5 66.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 New York 5.6 14.7 57.2 21.2 0.5 0.2 # 0.6 North Carolina 15.9 27.5 51.5 3.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 See notes at end of exhibit. 139 Exhibit 65. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities, by educational environment and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Inside the regular classa Separate schoolc Residential facilityd Homebound/ hospitald Correctional facilitye Parentally placed in private schoolf 80% or more of the dayb 40% to 79% of the day Less than 40% of the day North Dakota 17.0 52.8 27.7 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 Ohio 31.7 42.3 23.9 1.0 0.1 0.4 # 0.6 Oklahoma 14.5 40.8 43.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 Oregon 14.6 29.6 53.3 1.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 Pennsylvania 12.4 33.7 42.6 9.8 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 Puerto Rico 48.6 8.1 29.0 12.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 Rhode Island 22.5 20.6 50.2 5.6 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 6.9 16.5 71.4 2.8 0.6 1.5 0.3 # South Dakota 14.9 57.0 21.5 3.1 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Tennessee 13.5 22.8 60.1 1.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 Texas 10.0 27.0 60.7 1.7 0.1 0.5 # # Utah 8.6 22.2 58.4 10.0 # 0.3 0.4 # Vermont 40.2 33.1 21.1 4.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Virginia 12.8 29.4 53.7 2.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 Washington 4.4 32.8 61.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 # 0.2 West Virginia 21.0 47.4 29.1 0.1 0.5 1.6 0.3 # Wisconsin 11.8 38.2 46.3 2.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 Wyoming 8.8 38.7 48.5 1.4 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aPercentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours the student spends each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100. bStudents who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day were classified in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day category. cSeparate school and residential facility are categories that include children with disabilities who receive special education and related services, at public expense, for greater than 50 percent of the school day in public or private separate day schools or residential facilities. dHomebound/hospital is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in hospital programs or homebound programs. eCorrectional facilities is a category that includes children with disabilities who receive special education and related services in short-term detention facilities or correctional facilities. fParentally placed in private schools is a category that includes children with disabilities who have been enrolled by their parents or guardians in regular parochial or other private schools and whose basic education is paid through private resources and who receive special education and related services at public expense from a local education agency or intermediate educational unit under a service plan. NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of intellectual disabilities who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of intellectual disabilities, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of intellectual disabilities who were reported in the educational environment by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of intellectual disabilities, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 140 Bullet. In 2012, a larger percentage (48.7 percent) of the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of intellectual disabilities in the 53 states (“All states”) were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day than in any other category of educational environment. Moreover, this environment accounted for the largest percentage of students in 37 of the 53 states. The percentage exceeded 50 percent in 25 states, including the following three states in which the percentage exceeded 70 percent: Nevada (74.6 percent), Arizona (73.3 percent), and South Carolina (71.4 percent). Bullet. The educational environment category of inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities in nine states. The percentage of students accounted for by this category exceeded 50 percent in South Dakota (57.0 percent) and North Dakota (52.8 percent). Bullet. In six states, the educational environment category of inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities. The six states were: Iowa (64.0 percent), Puerto Rico (48.6 percent), Alabama (45.5 percent), Connecticut (43.7 percent), Kentucky (40.7 percent), and Vermont (40.2 percent). Bullet. The educational environment category of separate school accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of intellectual disabilities in the District of Columbia (37.4 percent). 141 142 Part B Participation on State Assessments How did the states compare with regard to the percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state math assessments, by assessment type in school year 2011–12? Exhibit 66. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state math assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12 State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school All states 77.9 77.8 78.2 # # # 12.1 10.7 6.1 9.0 9.2 10.0 Alabama 90.5 88.7 88.5 — — — — — — 8.8 10.1 10.6 Alaska 93.6 91.1 87.9 — — — — — — 5.2 6.4 7.5 Arizona 91.0 89.1 86.7 — — — — — — 7.9 9.2 10.0 Arkansas 87.8 84.1 53.4 — — — — — — 11.3 14.8 43.6 BIE schools — — 98.8 — — — — — — — — — California 48.3 73.6 83.2 — — — 40.6 12.0 — 9.3 9.0 9.6 Colorado 89.5 88.4 86.5 — — — — — — 9.2 9.2 9.5 Connecticut 60.9 61.8 62.5 — — — 27.4 26.0 19.5 11.3 10.3 10.7 Delaware 91.2 89.8 90.3 — — — — — — 8.4 9.9 9.1 District of Columbia 86.8 88.0 77.6 — — — — — — 9.6 7.4 4.9 Florida 89.4 86.4 70.0 — — — — — — 9.0 9.7 18.3 Georgia 70.9 64.5 78.0 — — — 20.7 24.3 — 7.7 10.5 9.7 Hawaii 92.5 92.8 89.0 — — — — — — 4.5 2.9 2.8 Idaho 89.7 87.8 85.6 — — — — — — 8.7 10.1 11.1 Illinois 90.2 89.4 83.2 — — — — — — 8.8 8.9 10.6 Indiana 71.4 69.5 80.8 — — — 21.3 18.5 0.0 6.5 9.7 10.5 Iowa 93.2 93.3 90.5 — — — — — — 5.9 5.2 5.6 Kansas 74.6 68.3 66.4 — — — 16.2 21.6 21.8 8.1 8.7 10.5 Kentucky 91.8 88.3 83.9 — — — — — — 7.7 10.5 15.5 Louisiana 66.5 50.7 85.9 — — — 26.5 40.0 — 6.5 7.8 11.4 Maine 89.7 86.9 78.9 — — — — — — 8.4 9.3 10.2 Maryland 76.0 65.5 53.2 — — — 15.6 23.2 35.3 7.9 9.3 10.6 See notes at end of exhibit. 143 Exhibit 66. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state math assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Massachusetts 88.8 89.0 87.1 # 0.1 # — — — 10.3 8.5 8.2 Michigan 72.8 70.2 72.2 — — — 10.1 10.8 — 15.7 17.0 19.1 Minnesota 89.5 68.3 68.3 — — — 0.0 19.6 17.1 9.8 10.5 11.3 Mississippi 87.1 83.8 97.2 — — — — — — 11.5 13.3 — Missouri 90.4 89.1 87.2 — — — — — — 9.5 10.3 10.1 Montana 88.8 88.8 82.8 — — — — — — 9.3 7.4 10.4 Nebraska 92.6 89.9 88.9 — — — — — — 7.1 9.7 10.6 Nevada 90.2 90.9 91.8 — — — — — — 9.7 8.9 7.3 New Hampshire 91.4 92.0 88.5 — — — — — — 7.6 5.6 4.4 New Jersey 91.6 91.8 90.3 — — — — — — 7.4 6.5 7.3 New Mexico 92.3 91.8 91.1 — — — — — — 6.9 7.2 6.1 New York 89.7 88.0 85.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 — — — 8.6 8.1 7.8 North Carolina 71.6 67.6 85.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 24.0 0.0 6.3 7.4 6.6 North Dakota 76.0 69.3 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 18.4 17.7 8.1 10.6 10.0 Ohio 87.9 87.7 88.2 — — — — — — 11.5 11.2 10.2 Oklahoma 48.9 37.1 25.5 — — — 41.0 51.3 57.1 7.7 7.6 7.3 Oregon 84.5 87.6 83.2 — — — — — — 14.2 10.6 10.1 Pennsylvania 77.4 69.7 64.9 — — — 12.4 19.8 22.0 9.4 9.1 9.2 Puerto Rico 95.4 94.4 91.9 — — — — — — 3.9 3.6 6.1 Rhode Island 91.7 91.8 87.7 — — — — — — 7.0 5.5 5.1 South Carolina 92.5 94.8 93.0 — — — — — — 7.1 4.9 5.3 South Dakota 92.2 89.0 83.0 — — — — — — 7.7 10.6 13.9 Tennessee 44.8 37.7 74.8 — — — 46.7 51.8 0.0 8.0 9.5 9.9 Texas 55.2 52.0 49.8 — — — 33.5 37.7 39.2 10.9 9.4 8.6 Utah 92.4 89.0 84.5 — — — — — — 7.4 10.1 13.0 Vermont 87.4 93.9 86.1 — — — — — — 8.1 3.9 4.6 Virginia 83.8 81.7 92.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.8 1.3 9.4 9.1 3.9 See notes at end of exhibit. 144 Exhibit 66. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state math assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Washington 90.5 88.8 71.8 — — — — — — 6.8 6.2 6.5 West Virginia 89.9 87.2 83.9 — — — — — — 8.5 10.0 11.1 Wisconsin 89.4 89.4 88.3 — — — — — — 9.8 9.3 9.0 Wyoming 95.3 92.6 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 7.3 11.6 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aRegular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an assessment that is designed to measure the student’s knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter based on academic achievement content for the grade in which the student is enrolled. bAlternate assessment is an assessment that is designed to measure the performance of students who are unable to participate in regular assessments even with accommodations. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) team makes the determination of whether a student is able to take the regular assessment. cAlternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities based on the same grade-level achievement standards measured by the state’s regular assessment. dAlternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities who access the general grade-level curriculum, but whose disabilities have precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency and who (as determined by the IEP team) are not expected to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. eAlternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This assessment may yield results that measure the achievement standards that the state has defined under 34 C.F.R. section 200.1(d). NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were in the grade level and participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states for which data were available by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were in the grade level and participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Assessment Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. A regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math was administered by all of the states for which data were available to some students in grade 4 (52 states), some students in grade 8 (52 states), and some students in high school (53 states). An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards was administered to some students in each of grades 4, 8, and high school by only one of the six states for which data were available. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards was administered to some students in grade 4 by 15 of the 17 states for which data were available, some students in grade 8 by 16 of the 17 states for which data were available, and some students in high school by nine of the 13 states for which data were available. An alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards was administered by all of the states for which data were available to some students in grade 4 (52 states), some students in grade 8 (52 states), and some students in high school (51 states). Bullet. Of the four types of state math assessments, a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards was taken by larger percentages of the students with disabilities in “All states” for which data were available in grade 4 (77.9 percent), grade 8 (77.8 percent), and high school (78.2 percent). Bullet. Compared to the other types of state math assessments, a regular assessment based on grade- level academic achievement standards was also taken by a larger percentage of students with disabilities in grade 4 in 51 individual states, in grade 8 in 50 individual states, and in high school in 52 individual states. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards was the most prevalent type of assessment taken by students with disabilities in grade 4 in Tennessee (46.7 percent), in grade 8 in Oklahoma (51.3 percent) and Tennessee (51.8 percent), and in high school in Oklahoma (57.1 percent). 145 146 How did the states compare with regard to the percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state reading assessments, by assessment type and student grade level in 2011–12? Exhibit 67. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state reading assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12 State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school All states 76.0 74.5 79.5 0.2 0.2 # 13.5 14.2 5.3 9.0 9.1 9.2 Alabama 90.8 89.0 88.6 — — — — — — 8.8 10.1 10.6 Alaska 92.7 91.1 88.6 — — — — — — 5.2 6.7 7.5 Arizona 91.0 89.2 87.2 — — — — — — 7.9 9.2 10.0 Arkansas 87.8 84.1 76.1 — — — — — — 11.3 14.8 21.5 BIE schools 91.4 87.6 85.0 1.3 4.2 6.0 3.6 2.7 1.0 3.1 3.6 6.8 California 40.0 38.2 80.4 — — — 48.4 49.7 — 9.3 9.0 9.6 Colorado 89.1 88.0 86.0 — — — — — — 9.3 9.2 9.4 Connecticut 51.1 59.2 64.2 — — — 36.6 28.2 18.8 11.3 10.3 10.6 Delaware 86.6 88.5 88.8 — — — — — — 8.3 9.9 9.5 District of Columbia 87.0 89.4 78.7 — — — — — — 9.5 7.4 4.9 Florida 89.3 86.6 80.3 — — — — — — 9.0 9.7 9.7 Georgia 76.3 69.4 79.4 — — — 14.4 19.4 — 7.7 10.5 11.7 Hawaii 92.5 93.0 89.1 — — — — — — 4.4 3.0 2.7 Idaho 89.8 88.1 85.9 — — — — — — 8.7 10.1 11.1 Illinois 90.3 89.5 82.9 — — — — — — 8.8 8.9 10.6 Indiana 70.0 67.8 83.0 — — — 22.4 19.5 0.0 6.5 9.7 10.5 Iowa 93.0 93.1 90.5 — — — — — — 5.9 5.3 5.6 Kansas 70.2 70.1 66.9 — — — 20.4 20.2 22.3 8.3 8.3 9.8 Kentucky 91.8 88.3 88.1 — — — — — — 7.7 10.5 11.4 Louisiana 65.9 50.9 85.8 — — — 27.1 39.9 — 6.5 7.9 12.5 Maine 89.2 87.5 79.0 — — — — — — 9.1 9.3 10.2 Maryland 75.1 67.9 53.0 — — — 16.5 21.2 35.1 7.9 9.3 11.0 Massachusetts 88.7 89.9 86.9 # 0.1 0.1 — — — 10.3 8.0 8.1 See notes at end of exhibit. 147 Exhibit 67. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state reading assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Michigan 68.3 69.5 73.5 — — — 13.5 11.7 — 17.0 17.0 19.1 Minnesota 88.7 69.0 72.8 — — — 0.0 18.5 14.3 10.2 10.3 9.6 Mississippi 87.2 84.1 97.0 — — — — — — 11.5 13.3 — Missouri 90.4 89.1 88.8 — — — — — — 9.5 10.3 8.9 Montana 88.0 90.2 84.5 — — — — — — 9.3 7.4 10.4 Nebraska 92.6 90.0 89.1 — — — — — — 7.1 9.6 10.3 Nevada 90.3 90.9 91.4 — — — — — — 9.6 9.0 7.4 New Hampshire 91.4 92.2 89.0 — — — — — — 7.6 5.7 4.4 New Jersey 91.4 91.9 90.5 — — — — — — 7.5 6.6 7.2 New Mexico 92.2 91.6 91.2 — — — — — — 6.9 7.4 6.1 New York 89.7 88.1 82.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 — — — 8.6 8.1 8.0 North Carolina 66.5 65.2 95.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 26.4 0.0 6.3 7.4 0.0 North Dakota 72.3 67.3 68.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 20.0 16.8 8.4 10.6 10.0 Ohio 87.9 87.8 88.2 — — — — — — 11.5 11.2 10.3 Oklahoma 41.1 36.0 27.1 — — — 48.9 52.9 55.7 7.5 7.6 7.3 Oregon 82.4 88.2 86.2 — — — — — — 16.3 10.2 9.7 Pennsylvania 72.7 70.1 66.4 — — — 17.0 19.1 20.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 Puerto Rico 95.3 94.4 91.8 — — — — — — 3.9 3.6 6.1 Rhode Island 91.8 91.9 87.7 — — — — — — 7.0 5.5 5.1 South Carolina 91.0 94.8 93.1 — — — — — — 7.2 4.9 5.3 South Dakota 92.2 89.0 82.9 — — — — — — 7.7 10.6 13.9 Tennessee 44.9 37.5 74.3 — — — 46.6 52.0 0.0 8.0 9.5 8.7 Texas 52.1 53.9 57.1 — — — 36.4 35.5 31.7 10.8 9.5 8.8 Utah 92.4 90.3 86.7 — — — — — — 7.4 9.2 11.6 Vermont 89.0 94.3 91.2 — — — — — — 8.0 3.8 4.4 Virginia 80.8 83.4 90.1 9.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 8.2 8.6 Washington 90.5 89.0 81.5 — — — — — — 6.8 6.3 6.5 See notes at end of exhibit. 148 Exhibit 67. Percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grades 4, 8, and high school who participated in state reading assessments, by assessment type and state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Regular assessment (grade-level standards)a Alternate assessmentb Grade-level standardsc Modified standardsd Alternate standardse Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school Grade 4 Grade 8 High school West Virginia 89.8 87.1 84.1 — — — — — — 8.5 9.9 11.0 Wisconsin 88.8 89.1 88.3 — — — — — — 9.8 9.3 9.0 Wyoming 95.2 92.6 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 7.3 11.6 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Percentage was non-zero, but less than 0.05 or 5/100 of 1 percent. aRegular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an assessment that is designed to measure the student’s knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter based on academic achievement standards appropriate to the student’s grade level. bAlternate assessment is an assessment that is designed to measure the performance of students who are unable to participate in general large-scale assessments even with accommodations. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) team makes the determination of whether a student is able to take the regular assessment. cAlternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities based on the same grade-level achievement standards measured by the state’s regular assessment. dAlternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities who access the general grade-level curriculum, but whose disabilities have precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency and who (as determined by the IEP team) are not expected to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. eAlternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards is an alternate assessment that is designed to measure the academic achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This assessment may yield results that measure the achievement standards that the state has defined under 34 C.F.R. section 200.1(d). NOTE: Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were in the grade level and participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states for which data were available by dividing the number of students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were in the grade level and participated in the specific content area assessment and received a valid score and achievement level by the sum of the students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who participated in an assessment and students served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who did not participate in an assessment, then multiplying the result by 100.The students who participated in the regular reading assessments include students with limited English proficiency served under IDEA, Part B, who at the time of the reading assessments, had been in the United States fewer than 12 months and took the English language proficiency tests in place of the regular reading assessments. In the case of Puerto Rico, language proficiency is determined with regard to Spanish. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Assessment Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. A regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading was administered by all 53 states to some students in each of grade 4, grade 8, and high school. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards was administered to some students in each of grades 4 and 8 by three of the seven states for which data were available and to some students in high school by two of the seven states for which data were available. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards was administered to some students in grade 4 by 15 of the 18 states for which data were available, some students in grade 8 by 16 of the 18 states for which data were available, and some students in high school by nine of the 14 states for which data were available. An alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards was administered by all 53 of the states to some students in each of grades 4 and 8 and by 51 of the 52 states for which data were available to some students in high school. Bullet. Of the four types of state reading assessments, a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards was taken by larger percentages of the students with disabilities in “All states” in grade 4 (76.0 percent), grade 8 (74.5 percent), and high school (79.5 percent). Bullet. Compared to the other types of state reading assessments, a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards was taken by a larger percentage of students with disabilities in grade 4 in 50 of the 53 individual states, in grade 8 in 50 individual states, and in high school in 52 individual states. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards was the most prevalent type of assessment taken by students with disabilities in grade 4 in California (48.4 percent), Oklahoma (48.9 percent), and Tennessee (46.6 percent); in grade 8 in California (49.7 percent), Oklahoma (52.9 percent), and Tennessee (52.0 percent); and in high school in Oklahoma (55.7 percent). 149 150 Part B Exiting How did the states compare with regard to the percentages of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, exiting IDEA, Part B, and school by graduating or dropping out in 2011–12, and how did the percentages change between 2008–09 and 2011–12? Exhibit 68. Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year and state: 2008–09 and 2011–12 State 2008–09 2011–12 Change between 2008–09 and 2011–12a Percent change between 2008–09 and 2011–12b Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd All states 60.6 22.4 63.9 20.5 3.3 -1.9 5.4 -8.3 Alabama 33.5 12.7 47.4 12.1 13.9 -0.6 41.5 -4.6 Alaska 52.6 31.7 48.3 36.3 -4.3 4.5 -8.2 14.3 Arizona 78.2 21.0 70.5 28.7 -7.6 7.7 -9.8 36.6 Arkansas 81.2 16.2 82.5 14.6 1.3 -1.5 1.6 -9.3 BIE schools 35.6 53.3 45.1 51.1 9.5 -2.2 26.8 -4.1 California 49.4 23.1 52.5 16.3 3.1 -6.8 6.3 -29.5 Colorado 60.1 33.0 67.4 28.1 7.3 -5.0 12.1 -15.0 Connecticut 75.8 18.7 81.2 15.2 5.4 -3.5 7.1 -18.7 Delaware 59.0 33.4 68.6 20.6 9.6 -12.8 16.2 -38.4 District of Columbia 44.2 48.2 45.9 43.5 1.7 -4.7 3.9 -9.8 Florida 49.8 24.0 52.5 21.1 2.6 -2.9 5.3 -12.1 Georgia 40.5 27.9 42.6 29.7 2.1 1.8 5.2 6.6 Hawaii 80.5 2.8 73.7 11.5 -6.8 8.7 -8.4 316.2 Idaho 43.5 20.4 57.2 13.8 13.7 -6.7 31.5 -32.7 Illinois 77.9 19.1 80.6 15.3 2.7 -3.7 3.4 -19.6 Indiana 58.5 26.8 74.0 10.8 15.4 -16.0 26.4 -59.7 Iowa 67.0 28.8 76.9 21.5 9.9 -7.3 14.7 -25.3 Kansas 74.2 23.5 78.8 18.5 4.7 -5.0 6.3 -21.3 Kentucky 72.1 18.7 72.1 16.9 0.0 -1.8 0.0 -9.7 Louisiana 27.2 43.5 32.9 39.3 5.8 -4.2 21.2 -9.7 Maine 73.9 23.6 80.4 16.7 6.5 -6.9 8.8 -29.1 Maryland 62.3 24.8 59.6 27.3 -2.7 2.5 -4.3 10.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 151 Exhibit 68. Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year and state: 2008–09 and 2011–12―Continued State 2008–09 2011–12 Change between 2008–09 and 2011–12a Percent change between 2008–09 and 2011–12b Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Massachusetts 70.7 21.6 70.3 20.2 -0.3 -1.4 -0.5 -6.4 Michigan 66.2 31.4 63.7 29.6 -2.5 -1.8 -3.7 -5.6 Minnesota 89.0 10.7 88.3 10.9 -0.6 0.1 -0.7 1.3 Mississippi 24.3 13.4 27.8 10.1 3.5 -3.3 14.3 -24.8 Missouri 74.6 24.1 80.7 17.3 6.1 -6.8 8.2 -28.2 Montana 73.6 24.6 78.7 21.0 5.1 -3.6 6.9 -14.6 Nebraska 79.9 15.4 82.6 15.1 2.7 -0.2 3.4 -1.5 Nevada 28.3 35.0 36.0 44.6 7.7 9.6 27.0 27.3 New Hampshire 72.1 20.9 77.1 12.4 5.0 -8.5 6.9 -40.8 New Jersey 79.5 18.3 82.9 15.0 3.4 -3.3 4.2 -18.1 New Mexico 63.9 13.8 57.7 23.6 -6.2 9.8 -9.7 70.7 New York 52.4 25.6 60.5 20.7 8.0 -4.9 15.3 -19.2 North Carolina 58.2 31.9 69.5 24.1 11.3 -7.9 19.4 -24.6 North Dakota 68.3 27.4 73.3 19.4 5.0 -8.0 7.3 -29.2 Ohio 47.1 11.3 49.3 27.8 2.2 16.5 4.6 146.6 Oklahoma 77.1 22.2 78.9 20.7 1.8 -1.5 2.3 -6.9 Oregon 46.7 25.4 42.7 27.5 -4.0 2.0 -8.6 8.0 Pennsylvania 87.3 11.1 86.1 12.2 -1.2 1.1 -1.4 10.0 Puerto Rico 59.4 33.0 48.1 44.8 -11.3 11.8 -19.0 35.9 Rhode Island 71.4 22.4 83.1 10.4 11.7 -12.0 16.4 -53.5 South Carolina 40.4 52.5 41.6 46.2 1.2 -6.4 3.1 -12.1 South Dakota 78.2 18.7 66.1 24.4 -12.1 5.7 -15.4 30.5 Tennessee 66.0 12.3 75.6 7.3 9.5 -5.0 14.5 -41.0 Texas 47.5 20.7 54.0 17.6 6.5 -3.0 13.7 -14.7 Utah 68.5 21.8 51.5 44.1 -17.1 22.3 -24.9 102.0 Vermont — — 74.8 22.1 — — — — Virginia 47.3 14.2 52.3 9.3 5.1 -4.9 10.7 -34.3 Washington 68.7 27.3 67.8 28.6 -0.9 1.3 -1.4 4.6 See notes at end of exhibit. 152 Exhibit 68. Percentages of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma or dropped out of school, by year and state: 2008–09 and 2011–12―Continued State 2008–09 2011–12 Change between 2008–09 and 2011–12a Percent change between 2008–09 and 2011–12b Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd Graduatedc Dropped outd West Virginia 65.9 25.5 69.9 18.2 4.0 -7.4 6.0 -28.9 Wisconsin 75.3 20.5 78.1 17.5 2.9 -3.0 3.8 -14.7 Wyoming 54.8 35.6 62.0 27.3 7.3 -8.2 13.3 -23.2 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. aChange between 2008–09 and 2011–12 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008–09 from the percentage for 2011–12. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the difference from the values presented in the exhibit. bPercent change between 2008–09 and 2011–12 was calculated for each state and “All states” by subtracting the percentage for 2008–09 from the percentage for 2011–12, dividing the difference by the percentage for 2008–09, then multiplying the result by 100. Due to rounding, it may not be possible to reproduce the percent change from the values presented in the exhibit. cGraduated with a regular high school diploma refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities were eligible. These were students with disabilities who met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. dDropped out refers to students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were enrolled at the start of the reporting period, were not enrolled at the end of the reporting period, and did not exit special education through any other basis, such as moved, known to be continuing. NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. This exhibit provides percentages for only two categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma and dropped out). For data on all seven categories of exiters, see exhibit 69. Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the exit reason category for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the five exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the exit reason category for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the five exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating and dropping out included in this report are not comparable to the graduation and dropout rates required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The factors used to calculate percentages of students who exited special education and school by graduating and dropping out are different from those used to calculate graduation and dropout rates. In particular, states often rely on factors such as the number of students who graduated in four years with a regular high school diploma and the number of students who entered high school four years earlier to determine their graduation and dropout rates under ESEA. For 2008–09, data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. For 2011–12, data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2008–09 and 2011–12. Data for 2008–09 were accessed spring 2012. Data for 2011–12 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, a total of 63.9 percent of students ages 14 through 21 who exited services under IDEA, Part B, and school in the 53 states (“All states”) graduated with a regular high school diploma. In the following three states, less than 40 percent of the students who exited services under IDEA, Part B, and school graduated with a regular high school diploma: Nevada (36.0 percent), Louisiana (32.9 percent), and Mississippi (27.8 percent). In contrast, more than 80 percent of such students graduated with a regular high school diploma in 10 states, including the following two states in which the value exceeded 85 percent: Minnesota (88.3 percent) and Pennsylvania (86.1 percent). Bullet. In 2008–09, a total of 60.6 percent of students ages 14 through 21 who exited services under IDEA, Part B, and school in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available graduated with a regular high school diploma. Bullet. In 37 of the 52 states for which data were available for 2008–09 and 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma increased. Of those 37 states, the following five were associated with a percent change increase larger than 25 percent: Alabama (41.5 percent), Idaho (31.5 percent), Nevada (27.0 percent), BIE schools (26.8 percent), and Indiana (26.4 percent). In contrast, the percent change decrease was larger than 10 percent in only three of the 15 states in which the percentage of students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school who graduated with a regular high school diploma decreased. The three states were Utah (-24.9 percent), Puerto Rico (-19.0 percent), and South Dakota (-15.4 percent). Bullet. In 2011–12, a total of 20.5 percent of students ages 14 through 21 who exited services under IDEA, Part B, and school in the 53 states (“All states”) dropped out. The percentages for the individual states ranged from 7.3 percent to 51.1 percent. In the following seven states, less than 12 percent dropped out: Hawaii (11.5 percent), Minnesota (10.9 percent), Indiana (10.8 percent), Rhode Island (10.4 percent), Mississippi (10.1 percent), Virginia (9.3 percent), and Tennessee (7.3 percent). Yet in the following six states, more than 40 percent dropped out: BIE schools (51.1 percent), South Carolina (46.2 percent), Puerto Rico (44.8 percent), Nevada (44.6 percent), Utah (44.1 percent), and the District of Columbia (43.5 percent). Bullet. In 2008–09, a total of 22.4 percent of students ages 14 through 21 who exited services under IDEA, Part B, and school in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available dropped out. Bullet. In 37 of the 52 states for which data were available for both 2008–09 and 2011–12, the percentage of students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school who dropped out decreased. Of those 37 states, the following four were associated with a percent change decrease of more than 40 percent: Indiana (-59.7 percent), Rhode Island (-53.5 percent), Tennessee (-41.0 percent), and New Hampshire (-40.8 percent). A percent change increase of more than 50 percent was found for the following four of the 15 states for which an increase in the percentage of dropouts was found: Hawaii (316.2 percent), Ohio (146.6 percent), Utah (102.0 percent), and New Mexico (70.7 percent). 153 How did the states compare with regard to the percentage of students ages 14 through 21 who exited special education for specific reasons in 2011–12? Exhibit 69. Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, by exit reason and state: 2011–12 State Graduated with a regular diploma Received a certificate Dropped out Reached maximum age Died Transferred to regular education Moved, known to be continuing All states 39.6 8.5 12.7 0.9 0.2 10.2 27.8 Alabama 28.2 22.6 7.2 1.2 0.3 8.5 31.9 Alaska 32.5 9.2 24.4 0.9 0.3 13.3 19.4 Arizona 44.3 — 18.0 0.3 0.2 10.0 27.2 Arkansas 39.4 0.9 7.0 0.1 0.3 6.4 45.9 BIE schools 20.2 1.3 22.8 0.2 0.1 10.4 44.9 California 29.0 14.9 9.0 1.8 0.5 9.2 35.6 Colorado 35.4 0.9 14.7 1.3 0.3 12.0 35.6 Connecticut 58.6 0.6 11.0 1.8 0.2 16.5 11.3 Delaware 29.1 3.7 8.7 0.6 0.3 7.2 50.3 District of Columbia 36.5 6.6 34.5 1.0 0.9 6.9 13.7 Florida 23.6 11.6 9.5 — 0.2 15.4 39.6 Georgia 28.6 18.3 19.9 — 0.2 6.5 26.5 Hawaii 55.2 8.4 8.6 2.3 0.3 16.8 8.4 Idaho 31.4 13.9 7.5 1.9 0.1 14.5 30.7 Illinois 50.1 0.6 9.5 1.8 0.2 10.1 27.7 Indiana 61.4 11.5 9.0 0.8 0.3 6.7 10.4 Iowa 51.9 0.0 14.5 0.8 0.3 21.8 10.7 Kansas 45.9 — 10.8 1.2 0.3 12.3 29.5 Kentucky 48.4 6.6 11.4 0.5 0.3 13.2 19.6 Louisiana 24.0 19.2 28.6 0.5 0.5 17.8 9.4 Maine 51.7 1.3 10.7 0.5 0.1 20.4 15.3 Maryland 38.0 7.1 17.4 0.8 0.4 10.0 26.4 Massachusetts 54.6 3.8 15.7 3.3 0.2 10.4 12.0 Michigan 35.6 3.5 16.5 — 0.2 6.5 37.7 Minnesota 70.1 — 8.6 0.5 0.2 6.6 14.0 Mississippi 21.7 47.7 7.9 0.6 0.2 4.5 17.6 Missouri 50.2 0.1 10.8 0.9 0.2 11.6 26.1 Montana 52.1 — 13.9 0.2 0.0 9.0 24.9 Nebraska 64.2 0.4 11.8 0.9 0.4 19.7 2.6 Nevada 22.6 10.4 28.1 1.4 0.4 7.6 29.4 New Hampshire 51.0 5.8 8.2 1.0 0.2 23.3 10.5 New Jersey 60.8 — 11.0 1.4 0.1 6.0 20.7 New Mexico 38.9 12.2 15.9 0.2 0.2 7.1 25.4 New York 40.6 11.9 13.9 0.6 0.2 6.7 26.2 North Carolina 42.7 3.4 14.8 0.3 0.2 10.1 28.4 North Dakota 41.1 — 10.9 3.7 0.4 13.0 31.0 Ohio 22.9 10.3 12.9 0.2 0.2 2.5 51.1 See notes at end of exhibit. 154 Exhibit 69. Percentage of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, by exit reason and state: 2011−12―Continued State Graduated with a regular diploma Received a certificate Dropped out Reached maximum age Died Transferred to regular education Moved, known to be continuing Oklahoma 41.2 — 10.8 0.1 0.1 5.6 42.2 Oregon 20.6 12.4 13.3 1.9 0.1 12.8 38.9 Pennsylvania 56.0 0.3 8.0 0.7 0.2 6.4 28.5 Puerto Rico 40.0 4.7 37.2 0.8 0.3 7.2 9.7 Rhode Island 43.3 0.1 5.4 3.0 0.3 10.8 37.0 South Carolina 25.0 2.9 27.7 4.2 0.2 7.3 32.7 South Dakota 25.4 — 9.4 3.4 0.3 25.5 36.1 Tennessee 44.1 8.8 4.2 1.0 0.3 5.9 35.8 Texas 38.1 19.6 12.4 0.1 0.3 14.6 14.9 Utah 41.0 2.0 35.2 1.2 0.2 7.4 12.9 Vermont 43.0 0.2 12.7 1.3 0.3 22.4 20.2 Virginia 32.3 23.4 5.7 0.1 0.2 22.6 15.7 Washington 43.1 1.9 18.2 0.2 0.1 7.1 29.3 West Virginia 44.2 7.3 11.5 # 0.2 6.2 30.5 Wisconsin 59.2 1.1 13.3 1.9 0.3 19.5 4.6 Wyoming 32.4 3.2 14.3 1.8 0.6 16.9 30.9 — Percentage cannot be calculated because data were not available. NOTE: The U.S. Department of Education collects data on seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. Percentage for each state was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in the exit reason category by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were reported in all the exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. Percentage for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in the exit reason category by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were reported in all the exiting categories, then multiplying the result by 100. Data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, a total of 39.6 percent of students ages 14 through 21 exiting IDEA, Part B, in the 53 states (“All states”) graduated with a regular high school diploma. The percentage for this exit reason category was larger than that for each of the other exit reason categories. The prevalence of this category is underscored by the finding that in 37 of the 53 individual states, this category was associated with the largest percentage of students who exited special education. In 15 of those states, this category represented a majority of the students who exited special education. In the following four of those states, the percentage was more than 60 percent: Minnesota (70.1 percent), Nebraska (64.2 percent), Indiana (61.4 percent), and New Jersey (60.8 percent). Bullet. The second most prevalent exit reason, accounting for 27.8 percent of students who exited special education in “All states” in 2011–12, was moved, known to be continuing in education. In 14 of the 53 individual states, this category was associated with the largest 155 percentage of students who exited special education. A majority of students who exited special education was associated with this exit reason category in only Ohio (51.1 percent) and Delaware (50.3 percent). Bullet. Two states presented somewhat distinct distributions of exit reasons for students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who exited special education in 2011–12. In Mississippi, the largest percentage of the students, representing 47.7 percent, was classified as received a certificate. In Louisiana, the largest percentage of the students exiting special education, representing 28.6 percent, was associated with the category of dropped out. 156 Part B Personnel How did the states compare with regard to the following ratios in 2011: 1. the number of all full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B; 2. the number of FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B; and 3. the number of FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B? Exhibit 70. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011 State All FTE special education teachers FTE highly qualifieda special education teachers FTE not highly qualified special education teachers Per 100 students served All states 6.3 6.0 0.3 Alabama 6.8 6.2 0.6 Alaska 6.8 6.2 0.6 Arizona 5.7 5.4 0.2 Arkansas 7.5 6.9 0.6 California 3.6 3.4 0.2 Colorado 6.4 6.0 0.4 Connecticut 8.8 8.8 # Delaware 3.2 2.9 0.3 District of Columbia 5.4 4.7 0.7 Florida 2.3 2.1 0.2 Georgia 9.9 9.7 0.2 Hawaii 10.4 9.2 1.2 Idaho 3.3 2.9 0.4 Illinois 7.9 7.9 # Indiana 0.9 0.9 # Iowa 8.8 8.8 0.0 Kansas 7.4 5.2 2.2 Kentucky 8.1 7.9 0.2 Louisiana 7.6 7.3 0.3 Maine 6.5 5.9 0.6 Maryland 9.7 8.5 1.2 Massachusetts 5.1 4.9 0.2 Michigan 6.4 6.4 # Minnesota 7.1 6.9 0.3 See notes at end of exhibit. 157 Exhibit 70. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students served under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2011―Continued State All FTE special education teachers FTE highly qualifieda special education teachers FTE not highly qualified special education teachers Per 100 students served Mississippi 7.7 7.6 0.1 Missouri 7.4 7.1 0.3 Montana 5.8 5.8 # Nebraska 6.1 5.8 0.3 Nevada 6.4 5.6 0.7 New Hampshire 9.1 9.1 0.0 New Jersey 7.7 7.7 0.1 New Mexico 5.1 5.0 0.1 New York 11.2 10.6 0.6 North Carolina 5.2 5.1 0.1 North Dakota 7.5 7.5 0.0 Ohio 7.8 7.6 0.2 Oklahoma 3.7 3.6 # Oregon 4.1 3.8 0.3 Pennsylvania 7.8 7.8 0.1 Puerto Rico 4.6 3.8 0.8 Rhode Island 9.0 8.9 0.1 South Carolina 6.3 6.1 0.2 South Dakota 5.9 5.9 0.1 Tennessee 6.7 6.2 0.5 Texas 4.7 4.6 # Utah 3.4 3.1 0.3 Vermont 9.5 9.3 0.2 Virginia 7.5 5.4 2.0 Washington 4.7 4.5 0.1 West Virginia 6.6 5.3 1.4 Wisconsin 7.1 6.9 0.1 Wyoming 5.4 5.2 0.2 # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 10,000 students. aSpecial education teachers reported as highly qualified met the state standard for highly qualified based on the criteria identified in 20 U.S.C. section 1401(10). For highly qualified special education teachers, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), except that such term also includes the requirements described in section 602(10)(B) of IDEA, and the option for teachers to meet the requirements of section 9101 of ESEA, by meeting the requirements of section 602(10)(C) or (D) of IDEA [20 U.S.C. section 1401(10)]. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of all FTE special education teachers, FTE highly qualified special education teachers, or FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 by the state by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 100. Ratio for “All states” was calculated by dividing the number of all FTE special education teachers, FTE highly qualified special education teachers, or FTE not highly qualified special education teachers employed to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 by all states by the total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 100. 158 Bullet. In 2011, there were 6.3 FTE special education teachers (including those who were highly qualified and those who were not highly qualified) employed by the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, per 100 students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. Bullet. A ratio of 10 or more FTE special education teachers per 100 students was found for New York (11.2 FTEs per 100 students) and Hawaii (10.4 FTEs per 100 students). In contrast, a ratio smaller than 4 FTE special education teachers per 100 students was found for the following seven states: Oklahoma (3.7 FTEs per 100 students), California (3.6 FTEs per 100 students), Utah (3.4 FTEs per 100 students), Idaho (3.3 FTEs per 100 students), Delaware (3.2 FTEs per 100 students), Florida (2.3 FTEs per 100 students), and Indiana (0.9 FTE per 100 students). Bullet. In 2011, there were 6 FTE highly qualified special education teachers employed by “All states” to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. A ratio of 9 or more highly qualified FTE special education teachers per 100 students was found for the following five states: New York (10.6 FTEs per 100 students), Georgia (9.7 FTEs per 100 students), Vermont (9.3 FTEs per 100 students), Hawaii (9.2 FTEs per 100 students), and New Hampshire (9.1 FTEs per 100 students). In contrast, a ratio smaller than 3 FTE highly qualified special education teachers per 100 students was found for the following four states: Idaho (2.9 FTEs per 100 students), Delaware (2.9 FTEs per 100 students), Florida (2.1 FTEs per 100 students), and Indiana (0.9 FTE per 100 students). Bullet. In 2011, there was 0.3 FTE not highly qualified special education teacher employed by “All states” to provide special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 per 100 students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B. The ratio was smaller than 1 FTE not highly qualified special education teacher per 100 students for all but the following five states: Kansas (2.2 FTEs per 100 students), Virginia (2.0 FTEs per 100 students), West Virginia (1.4 FTEs per 100 students), Maryland (1.2 FTEs per 100 students), and Hawaii (1.2 FTEs per 100 students). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Personnel Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were excluded. Data were accessed fall 2012. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were not available. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 159 Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B Part B Discipline How did the states compare with regard to the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses during school year 2011–12? Exhibit 71. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12 State Number removed to an interim alternative educational settinga by school personnel per 10,000 children and students servedb All states 14 Alabama 20 Alaska 2 Arizona 10 Arkansas 1 BIE schools — California — Colorado 7 Connecticut 1 Delaware 16 District of Columbia 8 Florida 2 Georgia 6 Hawaii 2 Idaho 45 Illinois 2 Indiana 27 Iowa 1 Kansas 63 Kentucky 3 Louisiana 14 Maine — Maryland 3 Massachusetts 2 Michigan # Minnesota 1 Mississippi 10 Missouri 17 Montana 35 Nebraska — Nevada 10 See notes at end of exhibit. 160 Exhibit 71. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12― Continued State Number removed to an interim alternative educational settinga by school personnel per 10,000 children and students servedb New Hampshire 0 New Jersey 2 New Mexico 5 New York — North Carolina 10 North Dakota 4 Ohio 2 Oklahoma — Oregon 1 Pennsylvania 21 Puerto Rico 2 Rhode Island 2 South Carolina 12 South Dakota 12 Tennessee 19 Texas 74 Utah — Vermont 2 Virginia 6 Washington — West Virginia # Wisconsin — Wyoming — — Ratio cannot be calculated because data were not available. # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 100,000 children and students. aAn appropriate setting determined by the child’s/student’s individualized education program (IEP) team in which the child/student is placed for no more than 45 school days. This setting enables the child/student to continue to progress in the general curriculum; to continue to receive the services and modifications, including those described in the child’s/student’s current IEP; and to meet the goals set out in the IEP. Setting includes services and modifications to address the problem behavior and to prevent the behavior from recurring. bInstances in which school personnel (not the IEP team) order the removal of children and students with disabilities from their current educational placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for not more than 45 school days. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were removed to an IAES by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 10,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were removed to an IAES by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the entire 2011–12 school year, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 161 Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011 by the 43 states (“All states”) for which data were available, 14 children and students were removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury to others in school year 2011–12. Bullet. The numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were removed unilaterally to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for drug, weapons, or serious bodily injury offenses during school year 2011–12 per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011 in the 43 states for which data were available ranged from zero to 74. In New Hampshire, no children and students were removed to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for these offenses, and in Michigan and West Virginia, fewer than 5 children and students were removed for every 10,000 children and students who were served. In contrast, more than 50 children and students were removed to an interim alternative educational setting by school personnel for such offenses for every 10,000 children and students who were served in Texas (74 per 10,000 children and students) and Kansas (63 per 10,000 children and students). 162 How did the states compare with regard to the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12? Exhibit 72. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12 State Number suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students serveda All states 97 Alabama 100 Alaska 123 Arizona 82 Arkansas 77 BIE schools — California — Colorado 93 Connecticut 150 Delaware 24 District of Columbia 45 Florida 123 Georgia 59 Hawaii 148 Idaho 9 Illinois 63 Indiana 117 Iowa 35 Kansas 24 Kentucky 19 Louisiana 80 Maine — Maryland 114 Massachusetts 84 Michigan 167 Minnesota 78 Mississippi 129 Missouri 219 Montana 37 Nebraska — Nevada 194 New Hampshire 93 New Jersey 36 New Mexico 38 New York — See notes at end of exhibit. 163 Exhibit 72. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Number suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students serveda North Carolina 232 North Dakota 7 Ohio 119 Oklahoma 98 Oregon 69 Pennsylvania 45 Puerto Rico 1 Rhode Island 85 South Carolina 130 South Dakota 34 Tennessee 90 Texas 71 Utah — Vermont 47 Virginia 215 Washington — West Virginia 162 Wisconsin — Wyoming — — Ratio cannot be calculated because data were not available. aThe children and students reported in this category are those subject to multiple short-term suspensions/expulsions summing to more than 10 days during the school year, those subject to single suspension(s)/expulsion(s) over 10 days during the school year, and those subject to both. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 10,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the entire 2011–12 school year, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011 by the 44 states (“All states”) for which data were available, 97 children and students were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12. Bullet. The numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12 per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2011 in the 164 44 individual states for which data were available, ranged from 1 to 232. In the following three states, fewer than 10 children and students were suspended or expelled out of school for more than 10 days for every 10,000 children and students served: Idaho (9 per 10,000 children and students), North Dakota (7 per 10,000 children and students), and Puerto Rico (1 per 10,000 children and students). In contrast, more than 200 children and students were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12 for every 10,000 children and students served in 2011 in the following three states: North Carolina (232 per 10,000 children and students), Missouri (219 per 10,000 children and students), and Virginia (215 per 10,000 children and students). 165 How did the states compare with regard to the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12? Exhibit 73. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance and suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by state: School year 2011–12 State Number suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students serveda All states 406 Alabama x Alaska x Arizona 275 Arkansas 310 BIE schools — California — Colorado 476 Connecticut 491 Delaware x District of Columbia 122 Florida 629 Georgia 217 Hawaii 692 Idaho x Illinois 226 Indiana 476 Iowa 35 Kansas 87 Kentucky 109 Louisiana x Maine — Maryland 528 Massachusetts 287 Michigan 656 Minnesota 356 Mississippi 621 Missouri 1,117 Montana 176 Nebraska — Nevada x New Hampshire 401 New Jersey 185 New Mexico x See notes at end of exhibit. 166 Exhibit 73. Number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance and suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during the school year, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance, by state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Number suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days per 10,000 children and students serveda New York — North Carolina x North Dakota x Ohio 505 Oklahoma 391 Oregon 241 Pennsylvania 184 Puerto Rico 7 Rhode Island 257 South Carolina x South Dakota 96 Tennessee 310 Texas 297 Utah — Vermont x Virginia 785 Washington — West Virginia 920 Wisconsin — Wyoming — x Ratio cannot be calculated because data were suppressed to limit disclosure. — Ratio cannot be calculated because data were not available. aThe children and students reported in this category are those subject to multiple short-term suspensions/expulsions summing to more than 10 days during the school year, those subject to single suspension(s)/expulsion(s) over 10 days during the school year, and those subject to both. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of emotional disturbance who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state under the category of emotional disturbance, then multiplying the result by 10,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of emotional disturbance who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states under the category of emotional disturbance, then multiplying the result by 10,000. To calculate the ratio for “All states,” it was necessary to estimate the number of children and students served under the category of emotional disturbance by some states for which data were suppressed. These estimates were summed with the counts reported by other states to create the total number of children and students served under emotional disturbance by all of the states for which discipline data were available. The estimate for each state was created by allocating the total number of children and students associated with the category of emotional disturbance and the other disability categories for which data were suppressed for that state in relative proportions based on the national distribution of children and students served by disability in 2011. The numerator is based on data from the entire 2011–12 school year, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 167 Bullet. For every 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011 by the 44 states (“All states”) for which data were available, 406 children and students were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12. Bullet. The numbers of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance who were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12 per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of emotional disturbance in 2011, in the 33 individual states for which non-suppressed data were available, ranged from 7 to 1,117. Fewer than 100 out every 10,000 such children and students served in 2011 were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12 in South Dakota (96 per 10,000 children and students), Kansas (87 per 10,000 children and students), Iowa (35 per 10,000 children and students), and Puerto Rico (7 per 10,000 children and students). In contrast, more than 900 such children and students were suspended out of school or expelled for more than 10 days during school year 2011–12 for every 10,000 such children and students served in 2011 in Missouri (1,117 per 10,000 children and students) and West Virginia (920 per 10,000 children and students). 168 Part B Dispute Resolution Unlike the other Part B data collections, which are associated with a specific group of Part B participants defined by the participants’ ages, the Part B dispute resolution data collection is associated with all children and students served under IDEA, Part B. These children and students include individuals ages 3 through 21, as well as older individuals, as states have the option of serving students 22 years of age and older. The Part B legal disputes and resolution data represent all complaints associated with any participant in Part B during the 12 months during which the data were collected. Nevertheless, since children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, account for nearly all of the participants in Part B in all states, the count for children and students ages 3 through 21 served as of the state-designated date for the year was deemed a meaningful basis for creating a ratio by which to compare the volume of Part B disputes that occurred in the individual states during the year. For an overview of the Part B dispute resolution process, see the discussion of these same data at the national level in Section I. How did the states compare with regard to the following ratios in 2011–12: 1. the number of written, signed complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served; 2. the number of due process complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served; and 3. the number of mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served? Exhibit 74. Numbers of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by state: 2011–12 State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 10,000 children and students served All states 8 26 14 Alabama 2 18 11 Alaska 5 5 4 Arizona 7 5 5 Arkansas 6 3 2 California 15 46 45 Colorado 1 2 4 Connecticut 24 28 42 Delaware 7 6 5 District of Columbia 27 805 22 Florida 3 5 2 Georgia 5 6 4 See notes at end of exhibit. 169 Exhibit 74. Numbers of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by state: 2011–12―Continued State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 10,000 children and students served Hawaii 9 54 3 Idaho 8 4 13 Illinois 4 11 7 Indiana 6 4 3 Iowa 1 2 5 Kansas 5 2 2 Kentucky 4 3 2 Louisiana 6 2 1 Maine 13 15 32 Maryland 10 24 30 Massachusetts 18 35 74 Michigan 12 4 10 Minnesota 4 3 4 Mississippi 9 4 7 Missouri 5 4 3 Montana 3 2 1 Nebraska 2 1 2 Nevada 4 16 1 New Hampshire 22 14 10 New Jersey 9 36 31 New Mexico 10 8 11 New York 5 135 6 North Carolina 4 3 3 North Dakota 2 0 3 Ohio 10 5 6 Oklahoma 2 1 2 Oregon 4 3 7 Pennsylvania 9 28 13 Puerto Rico 7 138 50 Rhode Island 11 16 20 South Carolina 4 1 1 South Dakota 2 2 2 Tennessee 8 6 3 Texas 7 8 7 Utah 2 1 # Vermont 17 19 38 Virginia 8 3 8 Washington 5 7 5 West Virginia 9 3 5 See notes at end of exhibit. 170 Exhibit 74. Numbers of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; and mediation requests for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by state: 2011–12―Continued State Written, signed complaintsa Due process complaintsb Mediation requestsc Per 10,000 children and students served Wisconsin 5 3 4 Wyoming 10 2 5 # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 100,000 children and students. aA written, signed complaint is a signed document with specific content requirements that is submitted to a state education agency by an individual or organization that alleges a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA. The total number of written, signed complaints in 2011–12 was 5,013. bA due process complaint is a filing by any party to initiate a due process hearing on matters related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or to the provision of free appropriate public education to such child. The total number of hearing requests in 2011–12 was 17,109. cA mediation request is a request by a party to a dispute involving any matter under Part B of IDEA to meet with a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve the dispute. The total number of mediation requests in 2011–12 was 9,212. NOTE: Ratio for each state was calculated by dividing the number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; or mediation requests reported by the state by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 10,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing number of written, signed complaints; due process complaints; or mediation requests reported by all states by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0677: “IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. Data for BIE schools were excluded. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were not available. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 8 written, signed complaints per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratios in the 52 individual states ranged from 1 per 10,000 children and students in Colorado and Iowa to more than 20 per 10,000 children and students in the District of Columbia (27 per 10,000 children and students), Connecticut (24 per 10,000 children and students), and New Hampshire (22 per 10,000 children and students). Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 26 due process complaints per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratio was larger than 50 due process complaints per 10,000 children and students in only the following four of the 52 states: the District of Columbia (805 per 10,000 children and students), Puerto Rico (138 per 10,000 children and students), New York (135 per 10,000 children and students), and Hawaii (54 per 10,000 children and students). In contrast, the ratio was no larger than 1 per 10,000 children and students in Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 14 mediation requests per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. A ratio larger than 40 mediation requests per 10,000 children and students was found for Massachusetts (74 per 10,000 children and students), Puerto Rico (50 per 10,000 children and students), California (45 per 10,000 children and students), and Connecticut (42 per 10,000 children and students). In contrast, the ratio was no larger than 1 per 10,000 children and students in Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Utah. 171 How did the states compare with regard to the following ratios in 2011–12: 1. the number of written, signed complaints with reports issued for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served; 2. the number of written, signed complaints withdrawn or dismissed for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served; 3. the number of fully adjudicated due process complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served; and 4. the number of due process complaints resolved without a hearing for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served? Exhibit 75. Number of complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by complaint status and state: 2011–12 State Complaints with reports issueda Complaints withdrawn or dismissedb Fully adjudicated due process complaintsc Due process complaints resolved without hearingd Per 10,000 children and students served All states 5 3 3 20 Alabama 1 1 # 12 Alaska 5 0 2 3 Arizona 6 1 # 3 Arkansas 4 2 # 2 California 11 4 2 41 Colorado 1 1 0 2 Connecticut 15 8 2 20 Delaware 5 2 1 6 District of Columbia 22 5 214 590 Florida 1 1 # 4 Georgia 4 1 # 5 Hawaii 8 1 10 26 Idaho 5 3 1 3 Illinois 3 1 # 8 Indiana 4 3 # 4 Iowa 1 # # 1 Kansas 3 2 # 2 Kentucky 2 1 # 1 Louisiana 3 3 # 2 Maine 3 10 1 13 Maryland 8 2 1 22 Massachusetts 13 5 1 26 Michigan 8 4 # 2 Minnesota 2 1 # 3 Mississippi 5 4 1 3 See notes at end of exhibit. 172 Exhibit 75. Number of complaints for children and students served under IDEA, Part B, per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served, by complaint status and state: 2011–12―Continued State Complaints with reports issueda Complaints withdrawn or dismissedb Fully adjudicated due process complaintsc Due process complaints resolved without hearingd Per 10,000 children and students served Missouri 4 1 # 3 Montana 1 1 0 1 Nebraska 2 # 0 # Nevada 3 # # 12 New Hampshire 11 12 2 10 New Jersey 5 2 2 28 New Mexico 5 5 1 6 New York 3 2 15 99 North Carolina 3 1 # 2 North Dakota 0 2 0 0 Ohio 2 6 # 4 Oklahoma 2 1 0 1 Oregon 2 2 0 2 Pennsylvania 4 5 2 22 Puerto Rico 6 1 69 63 Rhode Island 8 2 1 15 South Carolina 3 1 0 1 South Dakota 2 1 1 1 Tennessee 4 3 # 5 Texas 4 3 # 6 Utah 1 0 # 1 Vermont 8 9 2 17 Virginia 7 2 # 2 Washington 4 1 1 6 West Virginia 4 5 # 3 Wisconsin 4 1 # 2 Wyoming 7 3 1 1 # Ratio was non-zero, but smaller than 5 per 100,000 children and students. aA complaint with report issued refers to a written decision that was provided by the state education agency to the complainant and local education agency regarding alleged violations of a requirement of Part B of IDEA. The total number of complaints with reports issued in 2011–12 was 3,216. bA complaint withdrawn or dismissed refers to a written, signed complaint that was withdrawn by the complainant for any reason or that was determined by the state education agency to be resolved by the complainant and the public agency through mediation or other dispute resolution means, and no further action by the state education agency was required to resolve the complaint. The total number of complaints withdrawn or dismissed in 2011–12 was 1,678. cA due process complaint is fully adjudicated when a hearing officer conducts a hearing, decides matters of law, and issues a written decision to the parent/guardian and public agency. The total number of fully adjudicated due process complaints in 2011– 12 was 2,261. dA due process complaint resolved without a hearing is a hearing request that was not fully adjudicated and was not under consideration by a hearing officer. The total number of hearing requests resolved without a hearing in 2011–12 was 12,770. NOTE: A written, signed complaint is a signed document with specific content requirements that is submitted to a state education agency by an individual or organization that alleges a violation of a requirement of Part B of IDEA. A hearing request is a filing by any party to initiate a due process hearing on matters related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or to the provision of free appropriate public education to such child. Ratio for each state was calculated 173 Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 5 written, signed complaints with reports issued per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratio was larger than 10 per 10,000 children and students in only the following five states: the District of Columbia (22 per 10,000 children and students), Connecticut (15 per 10,000 children and students), Massachusetts (13 per 10,000 children and students), California (11 per 10,000 children and students), and New Hampshire (11 per 10,000 children and students). In contrast, the ratio was no more than 1 per 10,000 children and students in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah. Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 3 written, signed complaints withdrawn or dismissed per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratio was zero in Alaska and Utah and larger than 5 per 10,000 in only the following five states: New Hampshire (12 per 10,000 children and students), Maine (10 per 10,000 children and students), Vermont (9 per 10,000 children and students), Connecticut (8 per 10,000 children and students), and Ohio (6 per 10,000 children and students). Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 3 fully adjudicated due process complaints per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratio was zero in the following seven states: Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Carolina and larger than 5 per 10,000 in only the following four states: the District of Columbia (214 per 10,000 children and students), Puerto Rico (69 per 10,000 children and students), New York (15 per 10,000 children and students), and Hawaii (10 per 10,000 children and students). Bullet. In 2011–12, there were 20 due process complaints resolved without a hearing per 10,000 children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 52 states (“All states”) for which data were available. The ratio was no more than 1 per 10,000 in 10 states. In contrast, the ratio was larger than 30 per 10,000 in the following four states: the District of Columbia (590 per 10,000 children and students), New York (99 per 10,000 children and students), Puerto Rico (63 per 10,000 children and students), and California (41 per 10,000 children and students). by dividing the number of complaints with reports issued, complaints withdrawn or dismissed, fully adjudicated due process complaints, or due process complaints resolved without hearing reported by the state by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the state, then multiplying the result by 10,000. Ratio for “All states” was calculated for all states with available data by dividing the number of complaints with reports issued, complaints withdrawn or dismissed, fully adjudicated due process complaints, or due process complaints resolved without hearing reported by all states by the total number of children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by all states, then multiplying the result by 10,000. The numerator is based on data from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, whereas the denominator is based on point-in-time data from fall 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0677: “IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey,” 2011–12. Data for BIE schools were excluded. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2011. Data for BIE schools were not available. Data were accessed fall 2012. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 174 Section III Findings and Determinations Resulting From Reviews of State Implementation of IDEA Findings and Determinations Resulting From Reviews of State Implementation of IDEA Section 616(a)(1)(A) of IDEA requires the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to monitor the implementation of IDEA through oversight of general supervision by the states and through the State Performance Plans (SPP) described in section 616(b). To fulfill these requirements, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), on behalf of the secretary, has implemented the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS), which focuses resources on critical compliance and performance areas in IDEA. Under IDEA sections 616(d) and 642, the Department performs an annual review of each state’s SPP and the associated Annual Performance Report (APR) (collectively, the SPP/APR) under Parts B and C of the IDEA and other publicly available information to make an annual determination of the extent to which the state is meeting the requirements and purposes of Parts B and C of IDEA. The SPPs/APRs and the Department’s annual determinations are components of CIFMS. The SPP and APR Sections 616(b) and 642 of IDEA require each state to have in place an SPP for evaluating the state’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describing how the state will improve its implementation of IDEA. The original SPP that states submitted in 2005 covered a period of six years for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2005 through FFY 2010 and is made up of quantifiable indicators (20 under Part B and 14 under Part C), established by the secretary under sections 616(a)(3) and 642 of IDEA, which measure either compliance with specific statutory or regulatory provisions of IDEA (compliance indicators) or results and outcomes for children with disabilities and their families (results indicators). SPPs were submitted in December 2005 by each state education agency under Part B and by each state lead agency under Part C. Each SPP includes measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities for each indicator. The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. Every February, pursuant to sections 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and 642 of IDEA, each state must submit an APR that documents its progress or slippage toward meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established for each indicator in the SPP for a specific federal fiscal year (FFY). In February 2013 each state submitted an APR under Part B and Part C to OSEP for the FFY 2011 APR reporting period (i.e., July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012). This section examines and summarizes the states’ performance during FFY 2011 under both Parts B and C of the IDEA. 177 Please note that throughout this section, the term “states” is used to reference all of the jurisdictions that submitted FFY 2011 SPPs/APRs. The jurisdictions include the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico (PR), and the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, all of which reported separately on Part B and Part C. In addition, for Part B, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) submitted SPP/APRs as did the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Thus, unless stated otherwise, the discussion and exhibits in this section concern the 56 states for Part C and 60 states for Part B. Indicators The secretary established, with broad stakeholder input, 20 indicators for Part B (nine compliance indicators, 10 results indicators, and one results/compliance indicator) and 14 indicators for Part C (seven compliance indicators and seven results indicators) for the SPP/APR. Exhibits 76 and 77 explain the measurement that was in place during the FFY 2011 reporting period for each Part B and Part C indicator on which states were required to report and identify whether each indicator is a compliance or a results indicator. States were not required to report Part B indicators B16 and B17 and Part C indicators C10 and C11 for FFY 2011. Exhibit 76. Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011 Indicator Measurement Type of indicator B1 – Graduation Percent of youths with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Results B2 – Dropout Percent of youths with IEPs dropping out of high school. Results B3 – Assessment Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments: (a) percent of districts with a disability subgroup that met the state’s minimum “n” size that met the state’s annual yearly progress (AYP) targets for the disability subgroup; (b) participation rate for children with IEPs; and (c) proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade-level, modified, and alternate academic achievement standards. Results See notes at end of exhibit. 178 Exhibit 76. Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011—Continued Indicator Measurement Type of indicator B4 – Suspension/ Expulsion Rates of suspension and expulsion: (A) percent of districts having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (B) percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. B-4 (A) Results B-4 (B) Compliance B5 – School Age Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: (a) inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day; (b) inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day; and (c) in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Results B6 – Preschool LRE Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a (a) regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and (b) separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility. Results B7 – Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrated improved: (a) positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); (b) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and (c) use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Results B8 – Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Results B9 – Disproportionality (Child with a Disability) Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the result of inappropriate identification. Compliance B10 – Disproportionality (Eligibility Category) Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification. Compliance B11 – Child Find Percent of children, who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the state establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. Compliance See notes at end of exhibit. 179 Exhibit 76. Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011—Continued Indicator Measurement Type of indicator B12 – Early Childhood Transition Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who were found eligible for Part B, and who had an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Compliance B13 – Secondary Transition Percent of youths with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that included appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that were annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study, that would reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals; and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must have been evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who had reached the age of majority. Compliance B14 – Post-school Outcomes Percent of youths who were no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: (a) enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; (b) enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; or (c) enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. Results B15 – General Supervision General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) that identified and corrected noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Compliance B18 – Resolution Sessions Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Results B19 – Mediations Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Results B20 – State-Reported Data State-reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) were timely and accurate. Compliance NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, OMB #1820-0624: “Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR): Part B Indicator Measurement Table,” 2011-12. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2013/index.html (accessed June 24, 2014). 180 Exhibit 77. Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part C, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011 Indicator Measurement Type of indicator C1 – Early Intervention Services in a Timely Manner Percent of infants and toddlers with individualized family service plans (IFSPs) who received the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner. Compliance C2 – Settings Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily received early intervention services in the home or community-based settings. Results C3 – Infant and Toddler Outcomes Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrated improved: (a) positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); (b) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and (c) use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Results C4 – Family Outcomes Percent of families participating in Part C who reported that early intervention services had helped the family: (a) know their rights, (b) effectively communicate their children’s needs, and (c) help their children develop and learn. Results C5 – Child Find: Birth to One Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs compared to national data. Results C6 – Child Find: Birth to Three Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs compared to national data. Results C7 – 45-day Timeline Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline. Compliance C8 – Early Childhood Transition The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency had: (a) developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday; (b) notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the state) the state education agency (SEA) and the local education agency (LEA) where the toddler resided at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and (c) conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services. Compliance C9 – General Supervision General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) that identified and corrected noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Compliance C12 – Resolution Sessions Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable if Part B due process procedures were adopted). Results See notes at end of exhibit. 181 Exhibit 77. Compliance and results indicators for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part C, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011—Continued Indicator Measurement Type of indicator C13 – Mediations Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Results C14 – State-Reported Data State-reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) were timely and accurate. Compliance NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, OMB #1820-0578: “Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR): Part C Indicator Measurement Table,” 2011-12. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2013/index.html (accessed June 24, 2014). The Determination Process Sections 616(d)(2)(A) and 642 of IDEA require the secretary to make an annual determination as to the extent to which each state is meeting the requirements of Parts B and C of IDEA. The secretary determines if a state: • Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA, • Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA, • Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA, or • Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA. Exhibit 78 presents the key components in the determination process. 182 Exhibit 78. Process for determining the extent to which each state met IDEA, Part B and Part C, requirements: Federal fiscal year 2011 December 2005: States submitted State Performance Plans (SPPs)a February 2013: States submitted FFY 2011 Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and if applicable, revised SPPs Secretary reviewed FFY 2011 SPPs/APRs and considered multiple additional factors in making determinations June 2013: Secretary released determinations based on data reported in FFY 2011 SPPs/ APRs and other available data Secretary took specific enforcement actions Special conditions State single-audit findings Information obtained through monitoring visits Other public information made available aIn December 2005, each state submitted an SPP that covered a period of six years for FFY 2005 through 2010. Sections 616(b)(1)(C) and 642 require each state to review its SPP under Part B and Part C at least once every six years and submit any amendments to the secretary. Each state is also required to post the most current SPP on its state website. Since December 2005, most states have revised their SPP at least once. The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. States are required to submit a new SPP for FFYs 2013 through 2018 on February 2, 2015. NOTE: In June 2012, the secretary issued determinations based on data reported in the FFY 2010 APR and other available data. A discussion of those determinations is found in the 35th Annual Report to Congress, 2013. SOURCE: Information taken from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “OSEP Memo 13-6 to State Education Agency Directors of Special Education and State Data Managers dated December 12, 2012.” Available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2013/index.html; “OSEP Memo 13-7 to Lead Agency Directors, Part C Coordinators and State Interagency Coordinating Council Chairpersons dated December 12, 2012.” Available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2013/index.html (accessed June 24, 2014). Since 2007, the Department has made an annual determination for each state under Part B and Part C of the IDEA and based each state’s determination on the totality of the state’s data in its SPP/APR and other publicly available information about the state, including any information about outstanding compliance issues. For the years 2007 through 2012, the Department used specific factors in making determinations, including considering (1) state data in any one compliance indicator if it reflected very low performance, (2) whether the state lacked valid and reliable data for that indicator, or (3) as was the 183 case in the later years, the state’s inability to correct longstanding noncompliance that had been the subject of continuing Departmental enforcement actions such as special conditions on the state’s grant. In making each state’s 2013 determination under Parts B and C, the Department used a Compliance Matrix that reflected the totality of the state’s compliance data instead of one particular factor. However in making this transition to a matrix approach in 2013 to consider multiple factors, the Department also applied the prior single factor approach such that no state would receive a lower determination under the 2013 Compliance Matrix approach than it would have had in the prior years’ single factor approach. In making the determinations for each state in June 2013, the Department used a Compliance Matrix that reflected the following data: (1) the state’s FFY 2011 data for compliance indicators (including whether the state reported valid and reliable data for each indicator), and, if the data reflected a certain level of compliance, whether the state demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance it had identified in FFY 2010 under such indicators; (2) the state’s FFY 2011 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of state complaint and due process decisions; (3) whether the Department imposed Special Conditions on the state’s FFY 2012 IDEA, Part B or Part C grant award, whether those Conditions were in effect at the time of the determination, and the number of years for which the state’s grant award had been subject to Special Conditions; and (4) whether there were any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 or earlier by either the Department or the state that the state had not yet corrected. In the determinations released in June 2013, each state received a score on its Compliance Matrix, ranging from zero to two points, for each of the compliance indicators and for the other factors noted above related to that state’s compliance data. Using the cumulative number of points as the denominator, and using the actual number of points the state received in the scoring under these factors as the numerator, the Compliance Matrix reflected a percentage score that the Department used to make each state’s 2013 determination under Parts B and C of the IDEA. The percentage score on the Compliance Matrix was used in the 2013 determinations to identify a state as either “meets requirements,” “needs assistance,” or “needs intervention” such that if a state received a Compliance Matrix percentage score below 75 percent, it received a determination of “needs intervention.” As noted above, however, no state was identified as “needs intervention” even if its Compliance Matrix percentage score was below 75 percent, unless it also did not meet one of the three factors identified in the 2012 determinations criteria: (1) the state’s compliance data reflected very low performance (i.e., below 50 percent); (2) the state lacked valid and reliable data for a compliance indicator; or (3) the state’s grant was subject to Special Conditions for multiple years for failing to comply with key IDEA requirements, the noncompliance had been long-standing, the state’s data in response to the Department’s FFY 2012 Special Conditions 184 demonstrated continued noncompliance, and the Special Conditions were in effect at the time of the 2013 determination. Enforcement Sections 616(e) and 642 of IDEA require, under certain circumstances, that the secretary take enforcement action(s) based on a state’s determination under section 616(d)(2)(A). Specifically, the secretary must take an enforcement action when the Department has determined that a state: (1) needs assistance for two or more consecutive years, (2) needs intervention for three or more consecutive years, or (3) at any time when the secretary determines that a state needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA or that there is a substantial failure to comply with any condition of a state’s eligibility under IDEA. The Department has taken enforcement actions based on the first two categories in the former sentence but, to date, no state has received a determination that it needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA. Determination Status In June 2013, the secretary issued determination letters on the implementation of IDEA to each state education agency (SEA) for Part B and to each state lead agency for Part C. Exhibit 79 shows the results of the FFY 2011 determinations by state for Part B; Exhibit 80 shows the results for Part C. 185 Exhibit 79. States determined to have met IDEA, Part B, requirements, by determination status: Federal fiscal year 2011 Determination status Meets requirements Needs assistance Needs assistance: two or more consecutive years Needs intervention Needs intervention: two consecutive years Needs intervention: three or more consecutive years Alabama Colorado American Samoa Virgin Islands Bureau of Indian Education District of Columbia Alaska Delaware Guam Arizona Maine Illinois Arkansas Massachusetts Indiana California Northern Mariana Islands Iowa Connecticut Oklahoma Louisiana Federated States of Micronesia Puerto Rico New York Florida Texas Georgia West Virginia Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Republic of Palau Pennsylvania Republic of the Marshall Islands Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia See notes at end of exhibit. 186 Exhibit 79. States determined to have met IDEA, Part B, requirements, by determination status: Federal fiscal year 2011―Continued Determination status Meets requirements Needs assistance Needs assistance: two or more consecutive years Needs intervention Needs intervention: two consecutive years Needs intervention: three or more consecutive years Washington Wisconsin Wyoming NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made determinations based on the totality of each state’s data, including its FFY 2011 APR data, which determinations were issued in June 2013. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “Part B State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report State Determination Letters,” 2012 and 2013. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/allyears.html (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). 187 Exhibit 80. States determined to have met IDEA, Part C, requirements, by determination status: Federal fiscal year 2011 Determination status Meets requirements Needs assistance Needs assistance: two or more consecutive years Needs intervention Needs intervention: two consecutive years Needs intervention: three or more consecutive years Alabama Arizona American Samoa North Dakota California Alaska Delaware District of Columbia South Carolina Arkansas Hawaii Guam Colorado Northern Mariana Islands Illinois Connecticut Oklahoma Maine Florida Nevada Georgia New York Idaho Virgin Islands Indiana Wisconsin Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made the FFY 2011 determinations, which were released in June 2013. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “Part C State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report State Determination Letters,” 2012 and 2013. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partcspap/allyears.html (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). 188 The results of an examination of the states’ Part B and Part C determinations for FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 are presented in exhibits 81 and 82. A summation of the numbers presented in exhibit 81 shows that 41 states met the requirements for Part B in FFY 2011. In addition, this exhibit shows that between FFY 2010 and FFY 2011, 17 states had a more positive determination or made progress; six states received a more negative determination or slipped; and 37 states received the same determination for both years. Of the 17 states that showed progress, 13 states made sufficient progress to meet the requirements in FFY 2011. Of the 37 states that received the same determination status in both years, 28 met the requirements in both years; seven were found to be in need of assistance for another year; and two were determined to be in need of intervention for another year. Exhibit 81. Number of states determined to have met IDEA, Part B, requirements, by determination status and change in status: Federal fiscal years 2010 and 2011 Determination status FFY 2011 Change in determination status since FFY 2010 Total Progress Slippage No change Total 17 6 37 60 Meets requirements 13 0 28 41 Needs assistance 4 5 0 9 Needs assistance two or more consecutive years 0 0 7 7 Needs intervention 0 1 0 1 Needs intervention two consecutive years 0 0 1 1 Needs intervention three or more consecutive years 0 0 1 1 NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made the FFY 2010 determinations, which were released in June 2012. The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made the FFY 2011 determinations, which were released in June 2013. The 50 states, DC, PR, BIE, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands are included in this exhibit. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “Part B State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report State Determination Letters,” 2012 and 2013. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/allyears.html (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). A summation of the numbers presented in exhibit 82 shows that 39 states met the requirements for Part C in FFY 2011. In addition, this exhibit shows that between FFY 2010 and FFY 2011, six states had a more positive determination or made progress; four states received a more negative determination or slipped; and 46 states received the same determination for both years. Of the six states that showed progress, five made sufficient progress to meet the requirements in FFY 2011. Of the 46 states that received the same determination status in both years, 34 met the requirements in both years; nine were found to be in need of assistance for another year; and three were found to be in need of intervention for another year. 189 Exhibit 82. Number of states determined to have met IDEA, Part C, requirements, by determination status and change in status: Federal fiscal years 2010 and 2011 Determination status FFY 2011 Change in determination status since FFY 2010 Total Progress Slippage No change Total 6 4 46 56 Meets requirements 5 0 34 39 Needs assistance 1 4 0 5 Needs assistance two or more consecutive years 0 0 9 9 Needs intervention 0 0 0 0 Needs intervention two consecutive years 0 0 1 1 Needs intervention three or more consecutive years 0 0 2 2 NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made the FFY 2010 determinations, which were released in June 2012. The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based on the states’ data submissions, the secretary of education made the FFY 2011 determinations, which were released in June 2013. The 50 states, DC, PR, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands are included in this exhibit. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “Part C State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report State Determination Letters,” 2012 and 2013. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partcspap/allyears.html (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). As a result of the determinations for Part B and Part C issued to states for FFY 2010 and FFY 2011, the secretary took enforcement actions against those states that were determined to need assistance for two or more consecutive years and the states determined to need intervention for three or more consecutive years. Subject to the provisions in section 616(e)(1)(A), the secretary advised each of these states of available sources of technical assistance (TA) that would help the state address the areas in which the state needed to improve. See http://therightidea.tadnet.org/technicalassistance for additional information about the type of TA activities that are available and have been used in the past. Status of Selected Indicators This section summarizes the results of a 2013 analysis of two Part B compliance indicators and two Part C compliance indicators included in the states’ FFY 2011 APRs. In the APRs, states reported actual performance data from FFY 2011 on the indicators. States also discussed how the FFY 2011 actual performance data compared to FFY 2010 actual performance data on the indicators. The four indicators focus on early childhood transition and general supervision and include Part B Indicators 12 (Early Childhood Transition) and 15 (General Supervision) and Part C Indicators 8 (Early Childhood Transition) and 9 (General Supervision). These indicators, along with other indicators not examined in this section, were used for the 2013 determinations. The two early childhood transition and the two general supervision indicators were chosen for examination in this section because their data and the results of their analyses in 2013 were sufficiently complete to show how states performed on related Part B and C indicators. This section summarizes states’ FFY 2011 actual performances on each indicator and how states’ FFY 2011 actual performances compare to states’ FFY 2010 actual performances. Two documents 190 published online by OSEP in 2013, under 2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: “Part B Complete (revised B7, 9.30.13)” and “Part C Complete (revised C3, 9.30.13)” were used as the sources for the summaries of the results of the analysis of the indicators presented in this section. Both are available at http://therightidea.tadnet.org and were accessed in October 2013. Early Childhood Transition: Part B Indicator 12 Part B Indicator 12 measures the percentage of children referred to Part B by Part C prior to age 3 who were found eligible for Part B and who had an individualized education program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthday. Indicator 12 is considered a compliance indicator with a target of 100 percent. This indicator applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Exhibit 83 displays the results of a 2013 analysis of FFY 2011 actual performance data on Indicator 12 from the 56 states to which this indicator applies. Exhibit 83. Number of states, by percentage of children referred to IDEA, Part B, by Part C prior to age 3 who were found eligible for Part B and who had individualized education programs (IEPs) developed and implemented by their third birthday: Federal fiscal year 2011 Percentage of childrena Number of states Total 56 100 10 90 to 99 44 80 to 89 2 a“Percentage of children” measures a state’s performance on Part B Indicator 12, for which the target is 100 percent. NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part B Complete (revised B7, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). For Indicator 12, a total of 10 states reported full compliance at 100 percent of the target, and 44 additional states reported percentages that were between 90 to 99 percent of the target. Only two states reported a percentage less than 90 percent of the target, and the smallest percentage reported was 88 percent. Exhibit 84 presents the results of a 2013 analysis of the descriptions of state-reported changes in performance status based on comparisons of FFY 2011 actual performance data to FFY 2010 actual performance data on Indicator 12 from the 56 states that reported data. The results are that a total of 31 states showed progress; 14 states showed slippage; and 11 states showed the same performance in FFY 2010 and FFY 2011. 191 Exhibit 84. Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part B, Indicator 12: Federal fiscal year 2011 Change in statusa Number of states Total 56 Progress 31 Slippage 14 No change 11 a“Change in status” was determined by whether a state’s FFY 2011 actual performance data showed an increase (progress) or decrease (slippage) in the percentage of children referred to IDEA, Part B, by Part C prior to age 3 who were found eligible for Part B and who had individualized education programs (IEPs) developed and implemented by their third birthdays, compared to the same percentage reported by the state in its FFY 2010 performance data. NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part B Complete (revised B7, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). Early Childhood Transition: Part C Indicator 8 Part C Indicator 8, which is composed of three sub-indicators, measures the percentage of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support their transition from the IDEA, Part C early intervention program to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday. Timely transition planning is measured by the following three sub-indicators: (a) individualized family service plans (IFSPs) with transition steps and services; (b) notification to local education agency (LEA), if the child is potentially eligible for Part B; and (c) transition conference, if the child is potentially eligible for Part B.14 Indicator 8 is a compliance indicator and its three sub-indicators, 8a, 8b, and 8c, have performance targets of 100 percent. These sub-indicators apply to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Exhibit 85 displays the results of a 2013 analysis of FFY 2011 actual performance data on the three sub- indicators from the 55 states for which Indicator 8 applies and valid and reliable data were available. 14 Note that the timely transition requirements in effect during the FFY 2011 APR reporting period were the requirements in the prior Part C regulations in 34 C.F.R. section 303.148 and that the early childhood transition requirements in the new Part C regulations in 34 C.F.R. section 303.209 were published on September 28, 2011, and became effective on July 1, 2012 (which is the FFY 2012 APR reporting year). The three sub-indicators changed with the FFY 2012 APR reporting period to reflect the new requirements. 192 Exhibit 85. Number of states, by percentage of children exiting IDEA, Part C, who received timely transition planning by their third birthday, by sub-indicators of Part C Indicator 8: Federal fiscal year 2011 Percentage of childrena Sub-indicator 8a: IFSPs with transition steps and services 8b: Notification to LEA 8c: Transition conference Number of states Number of states Number of states Total 55 55 55 90 to 100 52 52 45 80 to 89 1 1 6 70 to 79 1 4 60 to 69 1 1 50 to 59 1 a“Percentage of children” measures a state’s performance on a sub-indicator of Part C Indicator 8, for which the target is 100 percent. NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part C Complete (revised C3, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). As shown in exhibit 85, 52 states reported that they had complied with the requirement of the sub-indicator 8A concerning IFSPs with transition steps and services for 90 to 100 percent of the children. In addition, 52 states reported that they had complied with the requirement of the sub-indicator 8b concerning notifications to the LEA for 90 to 100 percent of the children. In contrast, only 45 states reported meeting the requirement of sub-indicator 8C concerning a transition conference for 90 to 100 percent of the children. However, none of the 10 states that reported meeting the requirements of sub- indicator 8C for less than 90 percent of the children reported meeting the requirement for less than 75 percent of the children. Exhibit 86 shows the results of a 2013 analysis of the reported changes in performance status based on comparisons of FFY 2011 actual performance data to FFY 2010 actual performance data on the three sub-indicators from the 55 states with data available for both time periods. Progress was made by 18 states on 8a (IFSP steps and services), 17 states on 8b (notification to LEA), and 27 states on 8c (transition conference). Slippage from FFY 2010 was reported by fewer states (eight states) on sub- indicator 8b than on sub-indicators 8a (18 states) and 8c (17 states). In contrast, no change was reported by more states (30) on sub-indicator 8b than on sub-indicator 8a (19 states) and sub-indicator 8c (11 states). 193 Exhibit 86. Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part C, Indicator 8: Federal fiscal year 2011 Change in statusa Sub-indicator 8a: IFSPs with transition steps and services 8b: Notification to LEA 8c: Transition conference Number of states Number of states Number of states Total 55 55 55 Progress 18 17 27 Slippage 18 8 17 No change 19 30 11 a“Change in status” was determined by whether a state’s FFY 2011 actual performance data showed an increase (progress) or decrease (slippage) in the percentages of children exiting IDEA, Part C, who received timely transition planning by their third birthdays, broken out by sub-indicators (i.e., by percentages of (a) children who had IFSPs with transition steps and services; (b) those for whom notification had been given to the local education agency, if the child was potentially eligible for Part B; and (c) those for whom a transition conference had been held, if the child was potentially eligible for Part B), compared to the same percentages reported by the state in its FFY 2010 actual performance data. NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. The FFY 2011APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: “Part C Complete (revised C3, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). General Supervision: Part B Indicator 15 The SEA is responsible for ensuring the general supervision of all educational programs for children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, including all such programs administered by any other state agency or local agency. Part B Indicator 15 measures whether the state’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, or other activities) identified and corrected findings of noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. This indicator is measured as the percentage of noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification. To calculate this measurement, the number of findings corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification, are divided by the number of findings of noncompliance and then multiplied by 100. Indicator 15 is a compliance indicator with a target of 100 percent. This indicator applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, BIE schools, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Exhibit 87 displays the results of a 2013 analysis of FFY 2011 actual performance data on Indicator 15 for the 60 states for which this indicator applies. 194 Exhibit 87. Number of states, by percentage of IDEA, Part B, noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification: Federal fiscal year 2011 Percentage of noncompliance findings correcteda Number of states Total 60 90 to 100 44 80 to 89 8 70 to 79 2 <70 4 Valid and reliable actual performance data not available 2 a“Percentage of noncompliance findings corrected” measures a state’s performance on Part B Indicator 15, for which the target is 100 percent. NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part B Complete (revised B7, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). For Indicator 15, there were 44 states that reported achieving 90 percent or more of the target, eight states that reported achieving between 80 and 89 percent of the target, two states that reported achieving between 70 and 79 percent of the target, and four states that reported achieving less than 70 percent. Reliable valid data were not available for two states. Exhibit 88 presents the results of a 2013 analysis that compared FFY 2011 actual performance data to FFY 2010 actual performance data on Indicator 15 from the 57 states for which reliable and valid data were available for both time periods. Overall, 21 states showed improvement; 20 states showed slippage; and 16 states showed no change in performance. Exhibit 88. Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part B, Indicator 15: Federal fiscal year 2011 Change in statusa Number of states Total 60 Progress 21 Slippage 20 No change 16 Valid and reliable actual performance data not available for FFY 2010 or FFY 2011, or both 3 a“Change in status” was determined by whether a state’s FFY 2011 actual performance data showed an increase (progress) or decrease (slippage) in the percentage of findings of Part B noncompliance corrected within one year of identification, compared to the same percentage reported by the state in its FFY 2010 actual performance data. NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part B Complete (revised B7, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). 195 General Supervision: Part C Indicator 9 The state lead agency is responsible for ensuring the general supervision of all early intervention service programs and providers for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C. Part C Indicator 9 measures whether the state lead agency’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, or other activities) identified and corrected findings of noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. This indicator is measured as the percentage of noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification. To calculate this measurement, the number of findings corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification, is divided by the number of findings of noncompliance and then multiplied by 100. The target for this compliance indicator is 100 percent. This indicator applies to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Exhibit 89 displays the results of a 2013 analysis of FFY 2011 actual performance data on Indicator 9 from the 56 states for which this indicator applies. Exhibit 89. Number of states, by percentage of IDEA, Part C, noncompliance findings corrected within one year of identification: Federal fiscal year 2011 Percentage of noncompliance findings correcteda Number of states Total 56 90 to 100 41 80 to 89 3 70 to 79 3 50 to 69 3 Valid and reliable actual performance data not available 6 a“Percentage of noncompliance findings corrected” measures a state’s performance on Part C Indicator 9, for which the target is 100 percent. NOTE: The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part C Complete (revised C3, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). For Indicator 9, there were 41 states that reported correcting between 90 percent and 100 percent of the noncompliant findings. In addition, three states reported percentages that ranged from 80 to 89 percent of target; three states reported percentages that ranged from 70 to 89 percent of the target; and three states reported between 50 and 69 percent of the target. Valid and reliable performance data were not available for six states. 196 Exhibit 90 shows the results of a 2013 analysis of the descriptions of state-reported changes in performance status based on comparisons of FFY 2011 actual performance data to FFY 2010 actual performance data on Indicator 9 from the 47 states for which valid and reliable data for both time periods were available. The exhibit reveals eight states reported progress, while 11 states reported slippage, and 28 states reported the same performance in FFY 2010 and FFY 2011. Exhibit 90. Number of states, by change in performance status on IDEA, Part C, Indicator 9: Federal fiscal year 2011 Change in statusa Number of states Total 56 Progress 8 Slippage 11 No change 28 Valid and reliable actual performance data not available for FFY 2010 or FFY 2011, or both 9 a“Change in status” is determined by whether a state’s FFY 2011 actual performance data showed an increase (progress) or decrease (slippage) in the percentage of findings of Part C noncompliance corrected within one year of identification, compared to the same percentage reported by the state in its FFY 2010 actual performance data. NOTE: The FFY 2010 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. The FFY 2011 APR reporting period was from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, “2013 SPP/APR Analyses—Parts B and C: Part C Complete (revised C3, 9.30.13),” 2013. Available at http://leadership-2013.events.tadnet.org/pages/660 (accessed Oct. 31, 2013). 197 Section IV Summary of Research Conducted Under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 Summary of Research Conducted Under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 In December 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and, in doing so, amended the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9501, et seq., by adding a new Part E. The new Part E established the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) as part of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) was responsible for carrying out research related to special education. NCSER began operation on July 1, 2005. As specified in section 175(b) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, NCSER’s mission is to • Sponsor research to expand knowledge and understanding of the needs of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities in order to improve the developmental, educational, and transitional results of such individuals; • Sponsor research to improve services provided under, and support the implementation of, IDEA; and • Evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of IDEA in coordination with the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 (i.e., Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013), NCSER conducted three grant competitions: Special Education Research Grants program, Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students With Learning Disabilities Research Initiative, and Research Training Program in Special Education: Early Career Development and Mentoring. In FFY 2013, 356 applications were peer reviewed, and 18 new research and research training grants were awarded across the three grant programs. Descriptions of projects funded by NCSER grants in FFY 2013 under Part E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 follow. The descriptions summarize the proposed purposes of the projects based on information taken from the research grants and contracts database on the IES website. NCSER awarded 14 grants for its Special Education Research Grants program under the following seven topics: Autism Spectrum Disorders; Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education; Families of Children With Disabilities; Mathematics and Science Education; Professional Development for Teachers and Related Services Providers; Reading, Writing, and Language Development; and Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students With Disabilities. NCSER made no awards for the Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education; Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning; Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems; and Technology for Special Education topics in FFY 2013. Competitions 201 for the Research Training Programs in Special Education: Postdoctoral Research Training and Special Education Research and Development Center topics were not held in FFY 2013.The descriptions of the Special Education Research Program Grants are organized and presented in terms of the seven topics. Following them are descriptions of the grants NCSER awarded under the Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students With Learning Disabilities Research Initiative and the Research Training Program in Special Education: Early Career Development and Mentoring program. Additional information on the projects funded in FFY 2013 and continuing projects can be found at http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/ (accessed July 16, 2013). Autism Spectrum Disorders Award Number: R324A130216 Institution: Canisius College Principal Investigator: Christopher Lopata Description: Efficacy of a Comprehensive School-Based Intervention for Children with High- Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders (HFASDs). Core features of HFASDs include a significant and pervasive deficit in social skills and repetitive and restricted behaviors, interests, and/or activities. Associated features include problems in pragmatic communication, comprehension of affective information, and emotional-behavioral functioning. Together, these deficits and features interfere with learning and academic performance because classroom learning involves social communication, sustained attention, and behavioral regulation. The increasing number of students with HFASD and the heterogeneity in symptoms pose a major intervention challenge to schools. This has led to a significant need for manualized, school-based interventions for students with HFASD. This project will use a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive school-based intervention (CSBI) on the outcomes of elementary school children with HFASD. The research team hypothesizes that students with HFASD who complete the CSBI will demonstrate significantly greater social- communicative understanding, fewer ASD symptoms, better social skills, higher rates of peer interactions, and greater academic achievement compared to students in a control group. In addition, the team will examine the potential mediating role of fidelity of implementation and moderating roles of IQ and language level. The research team will randomly assign schools to the treatment and control conditions, with stratification by economic level. The team will recruit 96 students and their parents over a four-year period. For the treatment group, the intervention will take place over the course of the full school year, with data collected on fidelity of implementation for each component. The team will conduct pre- and post-testing of child outcomes at the beginning and end of each school year for both groups using direct child measures, teacher and parent reports, and behavioral observation. The team will analyze the data using linear mixed effects models and, for the potential mediating effect of implementation fidelity, structural equation modeling. Products of the project will include evidence of the efficacy of the CSBI on elementary school students with HFASD, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $3,399,077 Period of Performance: 8/1/2013–7/31/2017 202 Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education Award Number: R324A130350 Institution: University of California, San Diego Principal Investigator: Aubyn Stahmer Description: Adapting an Evidence-Based Program for Infants and Toddlers at High Risk for Autism. Infants and toddlers who have difficulties in communication, behavior regulation, and developing early relationships are at risk for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and represent a significant public health challenge. Service providers hesitate to serve very young children with social and communicative difficulties in the hopes that the infants will “grow out” of these delays. Yet these issues persist over time in 75 percent of young children presenting with multiple problems, and, if untreated, these children are likely to need intervention when they reach school age. Early intervention agencies are also struggling to implement appropriate, effective programs for this population, and families have limited access to services. Evidence-based practices for young children with ASD were not designed for community contexts, and very few communities are providing them. The purpose of this project is to adapt an evidence-based practice for infants and toddlers (ages 12–24 months) at risk for ASD and their families. The proposed study builds directly on the promising results of a pilot study in which a parent- implemented program originally targeted for preschoolers called Teaching Social Communication to Children with Autism (TSC) was selected in collaboration with community stakeholders to address the needs of infants and toddlers at risk for ASD. This study will focus on specific adaptations identified during the pilot that will be needed to meet the needs of early intervention agencies, as well as infants and toddlers and their families (e.g., enhancing provider coaching and support, revising the manual to be more developmentally appropriate). The researchers will use an existing community collaborative structure to adapt TSC for use in early intervention agencies serving young children at risk for ASD. There will be three phases of the proposed research. In Phase 1, the research team will use a qualitative focus group approach to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how different providers and parents use, modify, and apply TSC with infants and toddlers and their families and to examine additional support that might be needed for ongoing implementation. During Phase 2, the team will use information from Phase 1 to adapt TSC supports to enhance sustainability. The research team will develop a toddler TSC manual and accompanying supports using an iterative process of community testing and feedback. In Phase 3, the research team will conduct a community-based pilot study of the training plan and the adapted TSC program in terms of fidelity, feasibility, and promise for change in child outcomes. Products of the project will include a fully developed TSC program that can be implemented in early intervention settings with infants and toddlers, data on the feasibility and promise of the program, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,155,999 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2016 Award Number: R324A130205 Institution: University of Cincinnati Principal Investigator: Allison Breit-Smith Description: Developing an Expository Book Reading Intervention for Preschool Children with Language Impairment. Language impairment (LI) is a common disorder among the school-age population, affecting approximately 7.4 percent of children. Approximately half of the children identified with LI at a young age will go on to be identified later with a reading disability. Young children with impaired language are six times more likely to be identified with a reading disability at school age than children without impaired language. One intervention demonstrating significant and positive effects on preschool children's early language and literacy skills is interactive book reading, in which adults (e.g., parents, teachers) actively involve children in the book reading process. However, few language and literacy interventions have focused on using expository (nonfiction) texts that provide information such as facts, explanations, and reasons for true-life phenomenon with preschool-aged children. Instead, 203 interventions have largely included fictional narratives, with little attention to expository text and language comprehension skills. However, knowledge of the structures and language of expository texts appears to be critical to later reading achievement. The purpose of this project is to develop a supplemental book reading intervention that uses expository books to teach language and expository text skills (i.e., topic knowledge, text structures, signal words, academic vocabulary, inferential language) to preschool-age children with LI. This four-year research project will use an iterative process that includes three phases. Phase I will include development, implementation, and revision of two of the four intervention modules. Phase II will include development, implementation, and revision of the remaining two intervention modules. Phase III will include a feasibility/pilot study to (1) assess the promise of the intervention for improving the language and expository text skills of children identified with LI and (2) assess the effects of the intervention on practitioners’ expository text knowledge, self-efficacy, and quality of book reading interactions. In addition, the research team will develop and test an intervention- based assessment as a proximal outcome measure for the intervention. Products of the project will include a fully developed expository book reading intervention that can be implemented within the typical school day, an intervention-based assessment measure, data on the feasibility and promise of the intervention, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,456,438 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Award Number: R324A130121 Institution: Florida State University Principal Investigator: Juliann Woods Description: Embedded Practices and Intervention with Caregivers (EPIC). For children enrolled in Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (early intervention services for infants and toddlers birth through age 2), the role of the early intervention provider is to enhance a family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the infant or toddler. A substantial gap exists, however, between recommended and actual practice in Part C service delivery, particularly related to interventions that facilitate the caregivers’ ability to support their children's learning. Researchers consistently identify the child as the focus of home visits with the early intervention provider implementing “hands on” instruction directly to the child, rather than supporting and enhancing interactions between the parent and child. There is little research on evidence-based practices with caregivers (parents) as implementers of their children's interventions and even less that is focused on the unique learning needs of infants and toddlers with significant disabilities. The purpose of this project is to develop and pilot test a caregiver- implemented intervention approach called Embedded Practices and Intervention with Caregivers (EPIC). This intervention aims to increase the consistency and effectiveness with which caregivers embed learning opportunities in everyday routines so that their infants or toddlers with significant disabilities acquire and maintain critical functional skills. Once EPIC is developed, the research team will evaluate whether the EPIC approach leads to increased caregiver use of embedded instruction and improved child outcomes. The research will take place in three phases: (1) development, refinement, and feasibility testing of the intervention; (2) validation of the intervention components; and (3) pilot testing of the intervention. The research team will collect data through focus groups of stakeholders (e.g., caregivers and early intervention professionals) to inform the manual and protocol development. In addition, four caregiver-child dyads will try out the intervention and provide the researchers with information regarding the initial acceptability, feasibility, utility, and fidelity of implementation. Next, the team will conduct a series of three single-subject studies to examine contextual variation in the implementation of the intervention. Finally, the pilot study will examine the promise of the intervention on caregiver use of embedded instruction and child learning outcomes. Products of the project will include a fully developed 204 version of the intervention, data on the feasibility of the use of the intervention with caregivers of infants and toddlers with disabilities, evidence of the potential impact of the intervention on caregiver use of embedded instruction and child learning outcomes, published reports, and presentations. Amount: $1,499,971 Period of Performance: 6/01/2013–5/31/2016 Award Number: R324A130066 Institution: The Ohio State University Principal Investigator: Laura Justice Description: Read It Again! In Early Childhood Special Education. The majority of children in early childhood special education programs exhibit disabilities that place them at high risk for future reading difficulties. These difficulties include primary speech-language impairment or a general developmental delay in which language skills are impaired concomitantly with one or more other developmental domains, typically cognition. Children with primary speech-language impairment or a general developmental delay typically show significant lags in attainment of important early literacy skills during the preschool years, exhibit significantly poorer kindergarten readiness compared to their peers, and are susceptible to exhibiting a reading disability in the later primary grades. In the last decade, numerous intervention studies have focused on improving the language and literacy skills of young children. However, very few of these interventions emphasize teachers’ use of differentiated instructional strategies that are essential for such interventions to be used effectively in early childhood special education classrooms. Furthermore, very few available language and literacy interventions have been rigorously examined for their relevance to children with disabilities. The purpose of this project is to examine the efficacy of an intervention called Read It Again! for children with disabilities enrolled in early childhood special education and their typically developing classmates over the academic year and during kindergarten. Read It Again! comprises 60 lessons delivered over a 30-week period in twice weekly whole-class sessions. Components of the intervention include a systematic scope and sequence of instruction targeting four key areas of literacy development (narrative, vocabulary, phonological awareness, and print knowledge) and embedding of explicit language and literacy instruction within shared-reading sessions. The research team will conduct a randomized controlled trial of Read It Again! over the course of four years by recruiting more than 100 early childhood special educators and their students. The team will assign two sequential cohorts of teachers to a treatment or control condition to participate in the study during an initial implementation year followed by a maintenance year. The team will collect data across a range of literacy outcomes at pretest and at post-test for each cohort of participants. The team will use hierarchical linear models with children nested within classrooms to compare the relative impacts of Read It Again! to the comparison condition on children's language, literacy, and school readiness outcomes. Products of the project will include assessment of evidence for the efficacy of Read It Again! in early childhood special education classrooms, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $ 3,500,000 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Award Number: R324A130249 Institution: Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia Principal Investigator: Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch Description: Supporting Young Children's School Readiness and Reduced Challenging Behaviors: An Online Course to Enhance Toddler Teacher-Child Interactions. Children who struggle with behavioral problems at school entry are at significant risk for a host of school difficulties. Many of these children will be referred for special education because of adjustment problems in the classroom, achievement problems co-varying with behavioral concerns, or both. Many will ultimately be placed within the special education system. Interventions are available to prevent and reduce these early disruptive behaviors by providing children with high-quality teacher-child interactions and targeted supports for their skill 205 development. Teachers in toddler classrooms, however, are not receiving access to these interventions or effective professional development on how to use them. As a result, the quality of teacher-child interactions in toddler classrooms is low, and the number of children with early challenging behaviors who receive special education services in elementary school is high. The purpose of this project is to develop, refine, and test an online course for teachers of toddlers aimed at improving the quality of their interactions with children as a mechanism to support children's school readiness and reduce challenging behaviors. There will be three phases for this work: (1) module development, (2) field testing, and (3) pilot testing. The research team will develop an initial course module that will provide an opportunity for early feedback from small groups of teachers and expert consultants. Course development will cover both content and technology for delivering the content. The team will revise the initial module based on feedback received, creating a version that will be field tested. Following feedback from the field test, the team will pilot test a revised version of the course. The team will analyze the data and make final revisions to the course. Products of the project will include a fully developed online course for teachers of toddlers with behavioral challenges, data on the feasibility and promise of the intervention, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,476,894 Period of Performance: 9/1/2013–8/31/2017 Families of Children With Disabilities Award Number: R324A130180 Institution: University of Nebraska, Lincoln Principal Investigator: Kristin Duppong Hurley Description: Parent Connectors: An Efficacy Study of Peer-Support for Parents of Middle School Youth with Emotional Disturbance. Youth with emotional and behavioral disorders are more likely to experience poor education outcomes than those from any other disability group. Although the effectiveness of parental involvement in improving academic outcomes of students is supported by research, students with emotional disturbance (ED) are the least likely to have families who are involved in their education. Because schools have not yet established effective interventions for this population, there is a need to evaluate the efficacy of family support programs. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the efficacy of Parent Connectors, an innovative parent-to-parent intervention developed to support the families of middle-school youth with ED. The investigators aim to examine: (1) the outcomes of the intervention on caregiver strain and self-efficacy (proximal outcomes), parent and child participation in education and mental health services, and child behavioral and educational outcomes in school (intermediate outcomes); (2) whether these outcomes are maintained in the subsequent school year following the completion of services; and (3) how various factors and processes may mediate or moderate outcomes. More specifically, the project will examine (a) how child demographics and parent characteristics may moderate proximal and intermediate outcomes; (b) how processes such as implementation level may mediate proximal and intermediate outcomes; and (c) how proximal outcomes may mediate intermediate outcomes, which may then mediate improvement in child academic performance (distal outcomes). The research team will conduct a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial with three cohorts of families of middle school students with ED. The team will randomly assign families to Parent Connectors or services as usual, with stratification by school. The team will collect data on proximal, intermediate, and distal parent and child outcomes for both groups at pre-test and post-test, with a 12-month follow-up data collection to examine the sustainability of outcomes following the conclusion of Parent Connectors services. Products of the project will include analysis of the efficacy of Parent Connectors on middle school students with ED and their families, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $3,206,013 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 206 Mathematics and Science Education Award Number: R324A130001 Institution: University of North Carolina at Charlotte Principal Investigator: Diane Browder Description: The Solutions Project: Teaching Students with Moderate/Severe Intellectual Disability to Solve Mathematical Problems. Students with significant cognitive impairments often have difficulty participating in key aspects of the mathematics learning process. Many of these students have not had access to the general education curriculum. Recent education policy has encouraged instruction and assessment efforts to focus on grade-level content for all students, including students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. The major mathematics textbooks on educating students with severe disabilities include minimal information on teaching mathematics, aside from money and measurement. However, recent studies indicate that students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities are capable of problem solving in mathematics. The purpose of this project is to develop materials for teaching mathematical problem solving to students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities by combining methods used to teach problem solving to students with high-incidence disabilities and evidence-based practices for teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. The intervention will include scripted teacher read alouds and a standard problem format to improve accessibility for nonreaders; adapting schema-based instruction, including use of a graphic organizer; and teaching students to generalize the problem solving across problems, real-life activities, and education settings. The intervention will also include a peer-tutoring component to be implemented in general education math classrooms. During the first year of the project, the research team will develop 150 word problems and a teaching script. In the second year, the team will develop generalization strategies and a word problem assessment. The team will develop the criterion word problem-solving assessment to measure students’ ability to solve word problems related to addition, subtraction, and comparing sets/quantities. During the third-year pilot study, the team will use a multiple probe single-case design across dyads, replicated across classrooms, to evaluate the impact of the intervention on word problem solving and generalization to real world activities and a general education context. On completion of the pilot study, the team will develop a manual to include all components of the instructional package and other support materials. Products of the project will include a fully developed word problem-solving intervention for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities, peer- reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,199,999 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2016 Professional Development for Teachers and Related Services Providers Award Number: R324A130144 Institution: Regents of the University of Minnesota Principal Investigator: Kristen McMaster Description: Supporting Teachers’ Data-Based Instruction in Early Writing: Tools, Learning, and Collaborative Support. Learning to write is critical to students’ overall literacy development. Writing provides students with the means to communicate what they know and is important for integrating knowledge and critical thinking. Beyond the K–12 school years, lack of writing proficiency can have a serious impact on postsecondary and employment opportunities. Improving student writing outcomes is particularly important for students with or at risk for disabilities that affect writing. Researchers have found that only 6 percent of eighth-grade students with learning disabilities (LD) reached proficiency in writing, and 46 percent were below the basic level. Writing by students with LD is often characterized by fewer ideas, poorer organization, and lower quality than that of their peers without LD, as well as by difficulties with handwriting, spelling, and mechanics. Early identification and effective, individualized writing instruction could prevent long-term negative consequences for many students. The purpose of this 207 project is to develop a professional development system to support teachers’ use of data-based instruction (DBI) with students with or at risk for disabilities that affect early writing development. The professional development system is called DBI-TLC, representing the tools, learning modules, and collaborative support that the system provides. Over the course of three years, the researchers will develop the DBI protocol, including a manual to document teacher knowledge and skills related to DBI, their instructional decisions, and implementation fidelity. The team will develop and use tools for measuring the feasibility of the DBI-TLC intervention to determine whether it is accessible, meets teacher needs, and is cost effective. Finally, the team will assess the promise of DBI-TLC to improve teachers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to DBI and early writing practices; teachers’ use of DBI; and students’ early writing outcomes. Products of the project will include a fully developed professional development program designed to improve teachers’ early writing instruction and data-based instruction for students with or at risk for LD, tools for measuring intervention fidelity, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,499,458 Period of Performance: 9/1/2013–8/31/2016 Reading, Writing, and Language Development Award Number: R324A130161 Institution: Regents of the University of Minnesota Principal Investigator: Theodore Christ Description: Decision Rule Research Project: Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading. Curriculum- based measurement (CBM) is frequently used to estimate the rate of individual student progress and evaluate instructional effects. CBM resources provide teachers with guidelines and decision rules for interpreting CBM scores and making instructional and placement decisions based on the data. However, these guidelines and rules have little information about the technical adequacy of the guidelines and rules, indicating that potentially high-stakes decisions could be made with little support for the reliability or validity of the data interpretation and decision-making procedures. This project will evaluate CBM progress monitoring data, decision rules, and data interpretation procedures in reading. The project will answer questions related to the amount of data needed to best guide decisions, optimal standardization of assessment conditions, quality of measures and instrumentation, precision of growth estimates, accuracy of decision rules, schedule for data collection, and combinations of these factors to yield reliable and valid results to guide education decisions. The project will result in evidence-based guidelines for the reliable and valid interpretation of CBM progress monitoring reading data as they are used to guide education practices and teacher decisions. The research team has four activities planned for the development and validation of the guidelines. First, the team will use extant datasets to review technical documentation of CBM instrumentation related to reading, analyze the datasets, and conduct simulation studies to investigate accurate methods for estimating growth and determining decision rules. Second, the team will collect progress monitoring data to evaluate the rules generated in the first activity using a subset of progress monitoring measures. Third, the team will compare the results and guidelines based on simulated data from the first activity with the results from the data collection and analyses from the second activity. Fourth, the project team will develop a web-based program that enables practitioners to enter and interpret data. The team will use a combination of analytic strategies, including linear mixed effects regression, ordinary least squares, and analysis of variance, to determine guidelines and compare their reliability and validity across activities. Products of the project will include a fully developed and validated set of guidelines for progress monitoring data collection, interpretation, and use and a web-based interface that enables practitioners to enter and interpret data. Amount: $1,599,994 Period of Performance: 07/01/2013–6/30/2017 208 Award Number: R324A130214 Institution: Texas A & M University Principal Investigator: Nathan Clemens Description: Investigating the Technical Adequacy of Progress Monitoring Measures for Kindergarten Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities. Progress monitoring is recommended for students who are considered at risk for reading disabilities. While progress-monitoring measures are readily available and frequently used in early elementary school, little research exists on which reading-monitoring measures are most appropriate for use in kindergarten, and there is little information about their psychometric properties. This project will investigate the technical adequacy of six existing early literacy measures and validate their use for monitoring the reading progress of kindergarten students at risk for reading disabilities. The project will result in the identification of progress-monitoring measures that are the most reliable, sensitive to growth, valid, and feasible for monitoring reading progress. This project will compare results from six reading progress-monitoring measures. The research team will recruit approximately 500 kindergarteners at risk for reading disabilities across three cohorts based on school- and researcher-administered screening assessments in fall of the kindergarten year. Students in cohorts 1 and 2 will be assessed in kindergarten and followed through second grade to examine the predictive validity of the progress-monitoring measures for later reading achievement. Students in cohort 3 will be assessed only in kindergarten to investigate the practical implementation of the measures and their acceptability and ease of interpretation by teachers and school staff. The team will determine the technical adequacy of each progress-monitoring measure, including reliability of estimated trend lines, concurrent and predictive validity, and validity of slope estimates. The team will also investigate whether there are differences in the technical adequacy of the measures for students who are English learners compared to those who are not and will analyze teacher ratings to determine which progress measures best reflect students’ reading skills and are easiest to administer and interpret. The main product of the project will be a set of conclusions and practical implications pertaining to the technical adequacy of measures used to monitor the progress of kindergarten children who are at risk for developing reading disabilities. Amount: $1,599,401 Period of Performance: 07/01/2013–6/30/2017 Award Number: R324A130262 Institution: Florida State University Principal Investigator: Jeanne Wanzek Description: Passport to Literacy: Examining the Effectiveness of the Voyager Passport Intervention for Fourth-Grade Students with or at High Risk for Reading Disabilities. Many students who enter fourth grade, particularly those with disabilities, struggle significantly with reading. Research to date indicates that an estimated 69 percent of fourth-graders with disabilities and 30 percent of fourth-graders without disabilities cannot read at basic levels. Students who enter the upper grades as poor readers continue to struggle throughout their schooling. They are at high risk for academic failure, dropping out, unemployment, low income, and criminal activity. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the Voyager Passport intervention with fourth-grade children with or at high risk for reading disabilities to determine whether the intervention improves reading outcomes. Despite its wide use, Voyager Passport has never been rigorously evaluated. Approximately 650 fourth-graders with reading difficulties and disabilities and 280 students who do not struggle with reading will participate in this research project. The research team will conduct two efficacy studies during this project. The first study will examine the efficacy of Voyager Passport compared to instruction and intervention the schools typically provide for students with reading difficulties and disabilities. The second study will compare the relative efficacy of standard implementation of Voyager Passport to an intensified version and to instruction schools typically provide for students with the most severe reading difficulties and disabilities. For both studies, two successive cohorts of fourth-grade students will participate. The team will randomly assign students to a condition within pairs or groups of three and assess the students immediately after the intervention and in fall and spring of the year following the intervention. The research team will analyze the data to estimate 209 immediate and long-term differences between groups on reading outcomes. Products of the project will include reports on the efficacy of standard and intensive implementations of the Voyager Passport intervention for improving reading outcomes for students with reading difficulties or disabilities, peer- reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $3,464,901 Period of Performance: 07/01/2013–06/30/2017 Award Number: R324A130102 Institution: Southern Methodist University Principal Investigator: Jill Allor Description: Project Intensity: The Development of a Supplemental Literacy Program Designed to Provide Extensive Practice with Multiple-Criteria Text for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Many students with intellectual disabilities fail to achieve minimal literacy skills. Intervention techniques effective for struggling readers can also improve literacy outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities. Students with intellectual disabilities, however, need more intensive instruction and support to master discrete skills, transfer learned skills to other tasks, and overcome low language skills that can limit comprehension. The purpose of this project is to develop a reading program that will supplement current reading instruction and increase the intensity of instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. The intervention will include carefully designed texts and lessons to provide focused opportunities to develop listening and reading comprehension skills, additional cumulative review of key skills, and explicit instruction in transferring and applying skills to other texts and tasks. The research team will develop approximately 130 lessons arranged into four bands that span content typically taught in kindergarten and first grade. The bands will increase in difficulty and include phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension instruction. Students will receive the intervention lessons two to three times per week after skills are introduced in the core reading program. During years 1 and 2, the team will develop and revise lesson units based on results from exploratory field testing and feedback from teachers, parents, and expert consultants. The team will conduct two pilot studies in years 2–4 to assess the feasibility and promise of the intervention for improving literacy outcomes. The first study will span one academic semester and assess children's progress on weekly measures that are proximal to the intervention. The second study will span five academic semesters to assess progress on distal measures that are administered monthly. Both pilot studies will use a single-case multiple baseline design. Products of the project will include a fully developed, supplemental intervention to teach reading to students with intellectual disabilities and published reports describing its promise for improving literacy outcomes. Amount: $1,499,904 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students With Disabilities Award Number: R324A130065 Institution: University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. Principal Investigator: Michael Wehmeyer Description: Assessing Self-Determination in the Era of Evidence-Based Practices: The Development and Validation of Student and Adult Measures of Self-Determination. Higher levels of self-determination are related to better life outcomes for students with disabilities. However, the current measures of self- determination available were developed in the 1990s and were developed and tested for a specific disability group. This limitation creates issues with cross-disability group comparisons of self- determination and does not allow comparisons between students with and without disabilities. The development of the Self-Determination Inventory System (SDIS) will address this problem by developing a valid self-determination assessment for a range of disability groups and for youth and young adults without disabilities. The research team will develop, refine, calibrate, and validate the computer adaptive 210 test of the SDIS for youth and young adults with and without disabilities. The research team will also develop, refine, calibrate, and validate a computer adaptive version to be completed by the teachers or parents of the youth or young adults with or without disabilities. Approximately, 3,600 students ages 13– 22 with and without disabilities will participate in the study. Another 1,600 teachers, parents, and other adult caregivers will complete the adult SDIS. The SDIS will focus on four characteristics of self- determination: autonomous functioning, self-regulation, self-realization, and psychological empowerment. Products of the project will include a fully developed and validated computer adaptive test of self-determination for youth with and without disabilities, a fully developed and validated adult version of the computer adaptive test of the youth’s or young adult’s self-determination completed by the teachers or parents, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. Amount: $1,589,610 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students With Learning Disabilities Research Initiative Award Number: R324D130003 Institution: Vanderbilt University Principal Investigator: Douglas Fuchs Description: Improving Reading and Mathematics Outcomes for Students with Learning Disabilities: Next Generation Intensive Interventions. Over the last 10 to 15 years, strides have been made in the development of reading and mathematics instruction to improve student achievement, yet there is a wide and persistent achievement gap between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities. The proportion of students determined to be at high risk for disability or school failure decreases with more intensive interventions, and students who receive more intensive instruction show significant improvements compared to students who receive instruction their schools typically provide. A number of students, however, show limited or no progress despite receiving secondary, tertiary, or both levels of more intensive instruction. Thus, there is a need to develop a science of intensive instruction for students who have disabilities in reading, mathematics, or both, or who are at high risk for being identified as such. By late elementary school, academic deficits and achievement gaps between students with disabilities and their peers have become well established, and the likelihood of accurately identifying students who need more intensive interventions (i.e., true positives) is improved. The purpose of this project is to develop and evaluate the efficacy of math and reading interventions for students with learning disabilities in grades 3–5. The primary research will involve two sets of studies across five years: (1) developing math and reading interventions and (2) evaluating the efficacy of the interventions and their components. The research team will develop approximately 60 lessons for each academic area, intended to be administered three times per week, for 40 minutes per session, over a period of 20 weeks. The interventions will consist of multiple evidence-based components and be tailored to each grade level. The reading intervention will focus on basic literacy skills and the transition from story-based to informational text. The math intervention will focus on the transition from whole numbers to fractions, decimals, and algebraic thinking. The interventions will be linked to the Common Core State Standards. During year 1, the research team will develop base reading and math programs, consisting of multiple evidence-based components. The team will conduct a series of four six-week pilot studies to contrast the effects of two active treatment conditions against each other and a business-as-usual condition. The team will compare approaches to inferencing in reading, approaches to algebraic thinking in math, and explicit transfer approaches in both reading and math. During year 2, the team will develop language comprehension and executive functioning components and conduct another series of four six-week pilot studies to contrast the newly developed components with a business-as-usual condition. In year 3, the research team will conduct four 20-week randomized controlled trials (two in reading and two in math) to contrast two further refined components with a business-as-usual condition. In reading, these studies will focus on two of the four components (inferencing, explicit transfer, language comprehension, executive functioning) selected on the basis of results from years 1 and 2. In math, these studies will focus on two of the four 211 components (algebraic thinking, explicit transfer, language comprehension, executive functioning) also selected on the basis of results from years 1 and 2. In year 4, the team will conduct two randomized controlled trials (one in reading and one in math) to assess the added value of the embedded language comprehension and executive functioning components over the base intervention. The team will finalize reading and math interventions based on results from these studies. In year 5, the team will conduct its final randomized controlled trials for the reading and math interventions. For all studies, the team will randomly assign students to a condition and then randomly assign them to their small group. Amount: $10,000,000 Period of Performance: 9/1/2013–8/31/2018 Research Training Program in Special Education: Early Career Development and Mentoring Award Number: R324B130005 Institution: Board of Regents, University of Nebraska, University of Nebraska—Lincoln Principal Investigator: Michael Hebert Description: Structures: Improving the Reading Comprehension of Struggling Readers in 4th Grade through Expository Text Structure and Writing. The principal investigator (PI) will develop skills in qualitative and mixed methods research and apply the skills to the research project. The project is designed to develop and pilot test a supplemental intervention aimed at teaching students with and at risk for learning disabilities (LD) to detect and use expository text structures to analyze and interpret complex text. The PI will develop and test Structures, an intervention for students with and at risk for LD, in three phases. The intervention will take place in small groups led by a teacher and will focus on modeling, guided practice, and independent practice to enhance reading comprehension in the context of specific content areas (e.g., science). Intervention components will include detecting key features of different text structures (description, sequence, compare/contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution), writing extensive responses to text to inform analyses and interpretations, and discriminating multiple text structures within complex texts. In Phase I, the PI will use an iterative development process using qualitative methods to determine the elements for each instructional component, the sequence of procedures for teaching text structure, and the level of specificity needed in the lesson materials. In Phase II, the PI will use mixed methods to determine whether the instructional procedures are feasible for teachers with varied levels of experience to implement with fidelity and to explore whether there is evidence that the lessons improve student learning. In Phase III, the PI will use a small-scale randomized trial to determine whether teachers can implement the entire sequence of revised lessons with fidelity and whether the intervention has promise for improving the reading comprehension of students with and at risk for LD. Amount: $399,073 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Award Number: R324B130023 Institution: Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia Principal Investigator: Michael Kennedy Description: Using Multimedia to Improve Middle School Science and Special Education Teachers’ Use of Evidence-Based Vocabulary Practices, and the Impact of Vocabulary Performance of Students with Disabilities. The principal investigator (PI) will develop skills in use of multi-level modeling statistics and item response theory, development of reliable and valid measures of teacher implementation and practices, and working with practitioners to design and implement professional development (PD) activities while conducting related research activities. Using a multimedia approach, the researcher aims to develop and pilot test PD processes to improve vocabulary instruction and use of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) by science and special education teachers, thereby improving vocabulary learning in science courses for students with disabilities. The goals of the research project are to develop and pilot PD materials and processes to augment middle school science and special education teachers’ knowledge and 212 skills in the delivery of evidence-based vocabulary instruction for students with disabilities. The PD activities include teachers’ use of the following media-based tools: (1) Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs), which are short instructional vignettes, and (2) the teachers’ productions of their own videos practicing effective vocabulary instructional strategies and use of CBMs. The PI will follow a series of iterative steps in developing the materials, procedures, and CBMs with input from the practitioners, followed by a small-scale randomized controlled trial to pilot test the procedures. The PI will randomly assign middle school co-teacher dyads (science teacher and special education teacher) to the intervention or the control condition (standard practice PD). The PI will examine the extent to which: (1) teachers improve procedural knowledge of vocabulary instruction and CBMs after viewing CAPs alone, (2) teachers improve implementation of the evidence-based vocabulary practices and CBMs after viewing CAPs plus producing their own videos, and (3) these PD activities are associated with student achievement in middle school students with and without disabilities (with a focus on those with disabilities) compared to standard PD activities. Amount: $399,974 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 Award Number: R324B130014 Institution: University of Georgia Research Foundation Principal Investigator: Jennifer Ledford Description: Using Peer Models in the Context of Small-Group Direct Instruction to Teach Social and Academic Skills to Children with Autism. The principal investigator (PI) will develop skills in conducting single-case design research on children with autism while conducting a series of studies using this population and methodology. The research goals are to modify a small group intervention with peer models and examine the impact on academic and social skills. The PI will modify, refine, and pilot test an intervention for children with autism using a series of single-case design studies. The intervention is a small-group direct instruction (SGDI) with systematic response prompting and typically developing peer models to teach children with autism social and academic skills. Evidence exists that this intervention is effective for preschool children, but the intervention will be modified for different populations of children and different implementers. The PI will conduct a series of single-case design studies beginning with implementation by the research team and moving to implementation by classroom teachers to examine implementation feasibility, modifications to the SGDI, and impacts of the intervention on teaching behavior and student academic and social outcomes. More specifically, the PI will examine whether the SGDI techniques are effective for teaching elementary as well as preschool students, with a focus on students with autism; whether these techniques can be used to teach targeted academic and social skills that can generalize to other settings; and whether teachers or other classroom personnel can implement these procedures with fidelity. Amount: $365,894 Period of Performance: 7/1/2013–6/30/2017 213 Section V Summary of Studies and Evaluations Under Section 664 of IDEA Summary of Studies and Evaluations Under Section 664 of IDEA In the December 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Congress required the secretary to delegate to the director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) responsibility to conduct studies and evaluations under sections 664(a), (b), and (c) of IDEA. This section of the annual report describes studies authorized by sections 664(a) and 664(c) of the law; the next section (Section VI) describes studies that contribute to the national assessment of IDEA required by section 664(b). As specified in section 664(a), IES, either directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements awarded to eligible entities on a competitive basis, assesses the progress in the implementation of IDEA, including the effectiveness of state and local efforts to provide (1) a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities and (2) early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and infants and toddlers who would be at risk of having substantial developmental delays if early intervention services were not provided to them. Under section 664(a), IES supports rigorous studies and evaluations that (1) analyze the impact of state and local efforts to improve educational and transitional services for children with disabilities; (2) analyze state and local needs for professional development, parent training, and other appropriate activities to reduce the need for disciplinary actions involving children with disabilities; (3) assess educational and transitional services and results for children with disabilities from minority backgrounds; (4) measure educational and transitional services and results for children with disabilities, including longitudinal studies; and (5) identify and report on the placement of children with disabilities by disability category. As specified in section 664(c) of IDEA, IES is required to conduct a national study or studies related to students with disabilities who take alternate assessments. In particular, IES is responsible for carrying out a national study or studies that examine: (1) the criteria that states use to determine eligibility for alternate assessments and the number and type of children who take those assessments and are held accountable to alternate achievement standards; (2) the validity and reliability of alternate assessment instruments and procedures; (3) the alignment of alternate assessments and alternate achievement standards to state academic content standards in reading, mathematics, and science; and (4) the use and effectiveness of alternate assessments in appropriately measuring student progress and outcomes specific to individualized instructional need. The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) and the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), which are part of IES, are responsible for and collaborate on studies and evaluations conducted under sections 664(a), (b), and (c) of IDEA. The 217 following studies, authorized by section 664(a) of IDEA and supported by IES, were ongoing during federal fiscal year 2013 (i.e., Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013): Contract Number: ED-04-CO-0059/0023 Contractor: Westat Project Director: Karen Tourangeau Description: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten and First-Grade Data Collections. The ECLS-K:2011 is the third in a series of longitudinal studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to examine children’s early learning and development, transitions into kindergarten and beyond, and progress through school. It is following a cohort of children from their kindergarten year (the 2010–11 school year) through the 2015–16 school year, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. Approximately 18,000 children participated in the first year of the study, which included data collections in the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011. The study design also includes data collections in fall 2011 and spring 2012, when most of the children were in first grade; fall 2012 and spring 2013, when most of the children were in second grade; spring 2014, when most of the children were in third grade; spring 2015, when most of the children are expected to be in fourth grade; and spring 2016, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. This particular contract covered national data collections in fall 2010, spring 2011, and fall 2011. These data collections included one-on-one direct child assessments (measuring knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, and science as well as executive function, height, and weight), computer-assisted parent interviews; and surveys for general classroom teachers, special education teachers of children receiving special education services, and school administrators. In addition, this contract included surveys of child care providers of children in after-school care, and an assessment of Spanish-speaking children’s basic reading skills in Spanish. Data collection from special education teachers on study children with an individualized education program was supported with IDEA studies and evaluations funding ($345,000). The reports from this study are expected to be available at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). Amount: $30,434,468 Period of Performance: 4/18/2008–4/17/2013 Contract Number: ED-IES-10-C-0048 Contractor: Westat Project Director: Karen Tourangeau Description: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), First- and Second-Grade Data Collections. The ECLS-K:2011 is the third in a series of longitudinal studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to examine children’s early learning and development, transitions into kindergarten and beyond, and progress through school. It is following a cohort of children from their kindergarten year (the 2010–11 school year) through the 2015–16 school year, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. Approximately 18,000 children participated in the first year of the study, which included data collections in the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011. The study design also includes data collections in fall 2011 and spring 2012, when most of the children were in first grade; fall 2012 and spring 2013, when most of the children were in second grade; spring 2014, when most of the children were in third grade; spring 2015, when most of the children are expected to be in fourth grade; and spring 2016, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. This particular contract covered national data collections in spring 2012, fall 2012, and spring 2013. These data collections included one-on-one direct child assessments (measuring knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, and science as well as executive function, height, and weight); computer- assisted parent interviews; and surveys for general classroom teachers, special education teachers of children receiving special education services, and school administrators. In addition, an evaluation of children’s hearing was conducted in the fall 2012 collection. Data collection from special education teachers on study children with an IEP and from classroom teachers and school administrators on 218 Response to Intervention practices in study schools was supported with IDEA studies and evaluations funding ($859,454). The reports from this study are expected to be available at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). Amount: $31,347,491 Period of Performance: 8/20/2010–2/19/2015 Contract Number: ED-IES-12-C-0037 Contractor: Westat Project Director: Karen Tourangeau Description: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), Third- and Fourth-Grade Data Collections. The ECLS-K:2011 is the third in a series of longitudinal studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to examine children’s early learning and development, transitions into kindergarten and beyond, and progress through school. It is following a cohort of children from their kindergarten year (the 2010–11 school year) through the 2015–16 school year, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. Approximately 18,000 children participated in the first year of study, which included data collections in the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011. The study design also includes data collections in fall 2011 and spring 2012, when most of the children were in first grade; fall 2012 and spring 2013, when most of the children were in second grade; spring 2014, when most of the children were in third grade; spring 2015, when most of the children are expected to be in fourth grade; and spring 2016, when most of the children are expected to be in fifth grade. This particular contract covers national data collections in spring 2014 and spring 2015. These data collections include one-on-one direct child assessments (measuring knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, and science, as well as executive function, height, and weight); a child questionnaire; computer-assisted parent interviews; and surveys for general classroom teachers, special education teachers of children receiving special education services, and school administrators. In addition, an evaluation of children’s hearing was conducted in the spring 2014 collection. Data collection from special education teachers on study children with an individualized education program and from classroom teachers and school administrators and on Response to Intervention practices in study schools is supported with IDEA studies and evaluations funding ($350,926). The reports from this study are expected to be available at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). Amount: $28,346,941 Period of Performance: 6/29/2012–6/28/2017 Contract Number: ED-CFO-10A-0133/0002 Contractor: SRI Associates, Westat, RMCE, and Compass Evaluation and Research Project Director: Jose Blackorby Description: Study of Early Intervention and Special Education Services and Personnel. This study is supporting the analysis of extant data to examine early intervention and special education service delivery and the personnel providing services. The study is examining early intervention service delivery across states; special education and related services received by children and youths over time, across states, and by school characteristics; and how the distribution of personnel providing special education services varies over time, across states, and by school characteristics. Among the extant data sources the study team is using are cross-sectional data from the IDEA section 618 data states submit to the U.S. Department of Education and from the Schools and Staffing Survey. The report from this study will be available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee (accessed Apr. 17, 2014). Amount: $1,149,233 Period of Performance: 9/17/2010–9/16/2015 219 Contract Number: ED-IES-10-C-0073 Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research, the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Community Integration (ICI), Decision Information Resources (DIR) Project Director: Joshua Haimson Description: National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (Study of Transition Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities, Phase I). This study is the third in a series examining the characteristics and school experiences of a nationally representative sample of youths with disabilities. The study is addressing several questions. What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of youths with disabilities in public schools across the country? What regular education, special education, transition planning, and other relevant services and accommodations do youths with disabilities receive? How do the services and accommodations differ from those for youths not served under IDEA, including those identified for services under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973? How do the services and accommodations for youths with disabilities vary with youth characteristics? How much have the services and accommodations of youths with disabilities changed over time? The NLTS 2012 focuses on a group of about 12,000 students ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011), of which 10,000 were students with individualized education programs across the federal disability categories. Data collection includes surveys of youths and their parents/guardians. The study team gathered information in 2012 and 2013 to describe the transition experiences of youths and outcomes as they prepare to leave school. A report reviewing evidence on improving post-high school outcomes for youths with disabilities was released in August 2013 and is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134011/index.asp (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Reports describing the survey results will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Amount: $24,093,405 Period of Performance: 9/27/2010–6/26/2016 220 Section VI Extent and Progress of the Assessment of National Activities Extent and Progress of the Assessment of National Activities As specified in section 664(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as reauthorized in 2004, the secretary has the responsibility to conduct a “national assessment” of activities carried out with federal funds under IDEA. The secretary has delegated to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), [in accordance with section 664(a) of IDEA] the responsibility for performing this national assessment [as required by section 664(b)] of the implementation and effectiveness of IDEA and of the federal, state, and local programs and services supported under the law. IES is carrying out this national assessment to determine the effectiveness of IDEA in achieving the law’s purpose and to collect information on how to implement IDEA more effectively. Information generated through this national assessment is intended to help federal policymakers and state and local administrators implement the law more effectively and help federal policymakers shape future legislation regarding infants, toddlers, preschoolers, children, and youths with disabilities. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), which is part of IES, is responsible for the national assessment of IDEA, in coordination with the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) at IES. NCEE supported the following studies and evaluations related to the national assessment during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 (i.e., Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013). Contract Number: ED-04-CO-0059/0022 Contractor: Westat, Council for Exceptional Children, and Compass Consulting Project Director: Thomas Fiore Description: Evaluation of the IDEA Personnel Development Program. This evaluation included two descriptive studies, each focusing on different funding recipients for the IDEA Subpart 2 Part D, Personnel Development Program. The first study was of the national centers that are funded under this grant program and that are designed to provide a variety of national capacity-building and scientifically based products and services to a range of audiences, including researchers, trainers, and education services providers. Panels of experts rated the quality and relevance/usefulness of documented materials and technical assistance provided by the national centers. The second study was of higher education institutions’ special education personnel preparation programs funded through this grant program. In addition to examining a number of funded program outcomes (e.g., number of students enrolled in courses and number of students who exited courses of study without completing them), the second component included expert panel ratings of the quality and relevance/usefulness of additions or significant modifications to courses of study during the period of each grant. To determine what became of nonfunded programs, the second study also included a survey of applicants from FY 2006 and FY 2007 who were not funded in those years. The final report from this evaluation was released in January 2014 and is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144007/ (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Amount: $2,804,871 Period of Performance: 9/19/2007–9/30/2013 223 Contract Number: ED-04-CO-0025/0013 Contractor: American Institutes for Research and NORC at the University of Chicago Project Director: Mengli Song Description: Study of School Accountability for Students With Disabilities. This study is describing the extent to which schools are accountable for the students with disabilities (SWD) subgroup under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, how adequate yearly progress and school improvement status of schools vary with school accountability status, and how regular and special education practices for students with disabilities vary with school accountability for the SWD subgroup. Data sources for the evaluation include extant data from the U.S. Department of Education’s EDFacts database as well as 2011 surveys of principals and special education designees from elementary and middle schools in 12 states. The evaluation is addressing three research questions: (1) To what extent are schools accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup, and how does this accountability vary across schools and over time? (2) To what extent have schools accountable for the SWD subgroup been identified as needing improvement? (3) How does school accountability for the SWD subgroup relate to regular and special education practices for SWD? An interim report, relying on analysis of EDFacts data from 2005–06 to 2008–09 school years from up to 40 states, was released in May 2012 and is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124056/ (accessed Mar. 1, 2013). An update on the interim report, using data through the 2009–10 school year from up to 44 states, was released in October 2013 and is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134017/ (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). A third report, relying on analysis of data from EDFacts and 2011 surveys of school staff in 12 states, is expected to be released by early 2015. Reports from this study will be announced at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ (accessed Apr. 17, 2014). Amount: $3,626,218 Period of Performance: 2/28/2008–2/27/2015 Contract Number: ED-04-CO-0111/0003 Contractor: MDRC, SRI International, Instructional Research Group, and Survey Research Management Project Director: Fred Doolittle Description: Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. This evaluation is investigating the effects on Grades 1–3 reading achievement of providing intensive interventions to children who have been identified as at risk for reading difficulties. This study is also investigating the range of Response to Intervention (RtI) practices for early reading being used by a representative sample of schools in 13 states and how schools experienced with RtI vary the intensity of reading instruction to children based on student benchmark reading performance. The evaluation is relying on a combination of regression discontinuity methods and descriptive comparisons. Site recruitment and data collection occurred in 2011 and 2012.The report from this study is expected to be released by early 2015 and will be announced at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ (accessed Apr. 17, 2014). Amount: $14,204,339 Period of Performance: 3/26/2008–3/25/2015 Contract Number: ED-04-CO-0059/0032 Contractor: Westat and Empatha Project Director: Tamara Daley Description: National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program. As specified in IDEA Part D, the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Program is to provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research to meet the needs of children with disabilities. The National Evaluation of the IDEA TA&D Program is designed to describe the products and services provided by the TA&D Program grantees, state and local needs for technical assistance, and the role that the TA&D Program plays in meeting those needs and supporting implementation of IDEA 2004. Research questions focus on three topic areas: (1) Description of needs for and uses of TA&D services: What are the areas in which states and local providers report needing and/or receiving technical 224 assistance to support IDEA implementation across all education levels? Which services are seen as most helpful in contributing to the improvement of key student outcomes, and what are the perceived barriers to local level implementation? (2) Description of TA&D grantee services: What are the TA&D Network objectives and provider areas of practice? How do TA&D grantees identify their clients, assess their needs, and develop and maintain their relationship with clients? (3) To what extent is assistance from TA&D grantees perceived as helpful in the implementation of special education policies and practices and how satisfied are customers with the support they receive related to the implementation of IDEA? Data collection for the interim report occurred in 2011 and 2012 and included administering surveys to TA&D Program grantees, all state IDEA Part B and Part C administrators, and a sample of state-level special education program staff. An interim report based on these data was released in October 2013 (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144000/). For the final report, additional data will be collected from each State Deaf-Blind Project grantee and from those who provide services at the local level to children with deaf-blindness and their families. These data will be analyzed together with relevant extant data. The final report from the study will be announced at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ (accessed Apr. 17, 2014). Amount: $2,995,294 Period of Performance: 9/25/2009–8/31/2016 225 Appendix A Infants, Toddlers, Children, and Students Served Under IDEA, by Age Group and State Exhibit A-1. Number and percentage of the population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by age group and state: Fall 2012 State Birth through age 2 3 through 5 6 through 21 Number served Percentage of the population serveda Number served Percentage of the population servedb Number served Percentage of the population servedc Alabama 2,993 1.6 7,344 4.0 72,361 7.0 Alaska 810 2.4 2,116 6.6 15,843 9.6 Arizona 5,100 2.0 15,386 5.6 112,895 7.8 Arkansas 3,130 2.7 12,789 10.6 51,909 8.1 California 33,737 2.2 75,285 4.9 613,061 7.3 Colorado 5,989 3.0 12,799 6.1 76,481 6.9 Connecticut 4,410 3.9 8,025 6.6 61,705 8.1 Delaware 918 2.7 2,304 6.8 16,920 8.9 District of Columbia (DC) 482 1.9 1,550 7.7 11,035 10.1 Florida 12,036 1.9 37,470 5.7 316,882 8.5 Georgia 7,519 1.9 17,395 4.2 167,642 7.4 Hawaii 1,846 3.4 2,554 4.9 17,142 6.4 Idaho 1,878 2.8 3,283 4.5 23,803 6.3 Illinois 19,247 4.0 37,211 7.5 255,219 9.1 Indiana 9,232 3.7 18,476 7.1 150,339 10.2 Iowa 3,502 3.0 7,109 5.8 58,773 8.7 Kansas 4,297 3.5 10,850 8.8 56,519 8.6 Kentucky 4,453 2.7 17,455 10.3 80,100 8.7 Louisiana 4,013 2.1 11,209 5.9 70,029 7.0 Maine 953 2.4 3,793 9.0 28,401 11.2 Maryland 7,478 3.4 13,062 5.9 90,367 7.4 Massachusetts 15,705 7.2 16,583 7.5 149,854 11.0 Michigan 9,458 2.8 20,831 5.8 182,596 8.5 Minnesota 5,027 2.4 15,289 7.1 108,496 9.4 Mississippi 1,967 1.7 10,244 8.0 54,616 8.0 Missouri 4,999 2.2 16,040 6.9 107,615 8.3 Montana 667 1.9 1,697 4.5 14,753 7.2 Nebraska 1,485 1.9 5,379 6.7 40,185 9.7 Nevada 2,553 2.4 8,047 7.1 42,285 7.3 New Hampshire 1,815 4.7 3,227 7.7 26,102 9.6 New Jersey 10,066 3.2 17,954 5.5 214,363 11.6 New Mexico 4,886 5.7 4,494 5.2 42,004 9.2 New York 28,757 4.0 65,031 9.5 385,763 9.7 North Carolina 10,206 2.8 18,665 4.9 171,433 8.2 North Dakota 943 3.4 1,804 6.5 11,430 7.7 Ohio 11,073 2.7 23,401 5.4 232,552 9.4 Oklahoma 2,612 1.7 8,500 5.3 92,393 10.9 Oregon 3,219 2.3 10,052 7.0 72,131 9.2 Pennsylvania 19,030 4.4 33,041 7.5 262,461 10.0 Rhode Island 1,977 6.1 2,910 8.5 21,255 9.5 South Carolina 3,789 2.2 10,626 5.7 88,904 8.9 South Dakota 1,071 3.0 2,659 7.3 15,657 8.6 Tennessee 3,966 1.7 13,067 5.3 114,340 8.4 Texas 22,642 2.0 43,981 3.7 395,654 6.4 Utah 3,557 2.3 9,890 6.2 68,380 9.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 229 Exhibit A-1. Number and percentage of the population of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, and children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by age group and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Birth through age 2 3 through 5 6 through 21 Number served Percentage of the population serveda Number served Percentage of the population servedb Number served Percentage of the population servedc Vermont 754 4.2 1,831 9.5 12,042 9.3 Virginia 8,267 2.7 16,611 5.4 144,887 8.5 Washington 5,814 2.2 14,763 5.5 116,015 8.2 West Virginia 2,703 4.4 5,483 8.7 39,004 10.9 Wisconsin 5,679 2.7 16,325 7.5 106,962 8.8 Wyoming 1,149 5.1 — — 11,883 9.8 50 states and DC 329,859 2.8 735,890 6.0d 5,693,441 8.4 BIE schoolse † † 305 † 6,199 † American Samoa 52 — 102f — 768 — Guam 185 — 161f — 1,856 — Northern Mariana Islands 59 — 86f — 809 — Puerto Rico (PR) 3,683 3.0 13,276 10.2 116,936 14.4 Virgin Islands 144 — 151f — 1,167 — 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and outlying areas 333,982 — 749,971 — 5,821,176 — Federated States of Micronesia † — 127g — 1,856 — Republic of Palau † — 9g — 110 — Republic of the Marshall Islands † — 24g — 702 — 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, outlying areas, and freely associated states — — 750,131 — 5,823,844 — — Not available. † Not applicable. aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by the estimated resident population birth through age 2, then multiplying the result by 100. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by the estimated resident population ages 3 through 5, then multiplying the result by 100. cPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the estimated resident population ages 6 through 21, then multiplying the result by 100. dExcludes data for the estimated resident population birth through age 2 for Wyoming. eThe Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) receives IDEA, Part C, funds under IDEA section 643(b) and reports separately every two years under IDEA section 643(b)(5) to the U.S. Department of Education on the number of children contacted and served by tribal entities that receive Part C funds. The BIE receives IDEA, Part B, funds under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A) to serve only children ages 5 through 21 enrolled in elementary and secondary schools for American Indian children operated or funded by the BIE. Children and students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. fThe four outlying areas do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619. However, they may report children ages 3 through 5 who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(b)(1)(A). gThe three freely associated states do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619. However, they may report children ages 3 through 5 who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(b)(1)(A). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 230 Exhibit A-2. Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Alabama x x 925 231 0 1,728 75 Alaska 282 20 25 50 13 332 88 Arizona 283 79 189 1,938 4 2,587 20 Arkansas 10 15 1,118 291 9 1,616 71 California 97 3,093 2,040 19,089 82 8,766 570 Colorado 27 167 245 1,928 9 3,398 215 Connecticut 9 130 471 1,300 23 2,381 96 Delaware x x 220 112 6 386 190 District of Columbia 0 12 275 85 3 83 24 Florida 30 231 2,892 4,158 16 4,341 368 Georgia 12 265 2,917 525 12 3,563 225 Hawaii 0 506 19 159 195 278 689 Idaho 20 14 24 273 5 1,487 55 Illinois 7 571 2,746 5,578 7 9,653 685 Indiana 4 121 983 1,115 10 6,687 312 Iowa x 53 186 402 x 2,638 200 Kansas 18 80 293 762 18 2,978 148 Kentucky 9 47 424 262 5 3,510 196 Louisiana x x 1,700 158 0 2,010 100 Maine 8 3 8 18 0 899 17 Maryland 8 340 2,211 1,054 10 3,558 297 Massachusetts 40 721 1,546 3,826 14 9,006 552 Michigan 76 166 1,796 760 10 6,446 204 Minnesota x 195 444 421 x 3,654 196 Mississippi x 23 902 39 x 961 34 Missouri 5 66 762 143 18 3,535 470 Montana 113 4 8 24 0 478 40 Nebraska x 21 45 193 x 43 1,165 Nevada 13 83 233 956 24 1,032 212 New Hampshire 0 53 21 67 4 1,615 55 New Jersey 7 568 1,023 2,907 19 5,112 430 New Mexico 510 30 83 3,090 5 1,121 47 New York 55 1,570 3,739 6,991 46 16,031 325 North Carolina 126 163 2,710 1,815 8 5,151 233 North Dakota 99 8 10 19 3 744 60 Ohio 25 139 1,718 422 12 8,266 491 Oklahoma 129 30 198 27 6 2,009 213 Oregon 40 90 80 749 17 2,171 72 Pennsylvania 18 413 2,643 2,259 7 12,830 860 Rhode Island 5 38 120 519 3 1,189 103 South Carolina 7 37 1,318 386 5 1,917 119 South Dakota 176 8 21 59 3 772 32 Tennessee 13 75 727 309 8 2,715 119 Texas 35 522 2,105 11,931 35 7,806 208 Utah 49 44 37 704 30 2,616 77 Vermont x x 20 5 0 680 41 See notes at end of exhibit. 231 Exhibit A-2. Number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served under IDEA, Part C, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Virginia 8 316 1,649 874 3 4,764 653 Washington 94 359 229 1,326 44 3,352 410 West Virginia x 19 103 53 x 2,431 93 Wisconsin 63 102 618 861 5 3,809 221 Wyoming 36 7 x 156 x 915 24 American Samoa 0 x 0 0 x 0 0 Guam 0 21 x 0 134 x 25 Northern Mariana Islands 0 23 0 0 23 0 13 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 3,683 0 0 0 Virgin Islands 0 x 118 15 0 x 6 x Data suppressed to limit disclosure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0557: “IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 232 Exhibit A-3. Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Alabama 24 79 2,179 292 3 4,621 146 Alaska 601 67 67 156 45 965 215 Arizona 848 298 583 6,730 39 6,531 357 Arkansas 40 81 3,594 1,161 27 7,627 259 California 311 6,384 4,401 41,052 265 19,318 3,554 Colorado 91 311 540 4,582 21 6,820 434 Connecticut 24 283 975 2,129 5 4,362 247 Delaware 48 53 617 354 6 1,182 44 District of Columbia x 14 1,036 349 x 131 18 Florida 76 661 9,232 11,069 39 15,243 1,150 Georgia 30 414 6,172 2,142 20 8,015 602 Hawaii 5 501 75 439 677 469 388 Idaho 67 27 26 526 4 2,557 76 Illinois 143 1,182 4,552 8,018 65 21,908 1,343 Indiana 31 211 1,711 1,799 16 13,813 895 Iowa 37 102 431 640 11 5,609 279 Kansas 121 184 658 1,615 17 7,770 485 Kentucky 12 131 1,508 924 9 14,270 601 Louisiana 56 103 4,538 409 13 5,827 263 Maine 44 x 86 47 x 3,492 94 Maryland 45 563 4,306 1,914 31 5,687 516 Massachusetts 32 812 1,390 3,451 21 10,355 522 Michigan 174 405 3,160 1,488 24 14,989 591 Minnesota 336 615 1,473 1,533 20 10,617 695 Mississippi 24 45 4,670 200 8 5,216 81 Missouri 53 225 2,185 765 32 12,296 484 Montana 244 7 9 67 10 1,318 42 Nebraska 121 78 312 830 7 3,841 190 Nevada 93 190 821 2,994 65 3,465 419 New Hampshire 9 69 65 165 10 2,878 31 New Jersey 23 1,369 2,366 5,124 53 8,713 306 New Mexico 482 31 96 2,474 0 1,364 47 New York 251 2,259 7,348 13,071 88 28,550 13,464 North Carolina 449 333 5,059 2,697 26 9,507 594 North Dakota 192 8 59 71 12 1,419 43 Ohio 22 328 2,802 1,125 17 18,101 1,006 Oklahoma 1,412 110 574 895 18 5,083 408 Oregon 139 268 281 2,478 46 6,605 235 Pennsylvania 35 649 4,616 3,621 19 22,569 1,532 Rhode Island 36 62 184 616 5 1,890 117 South Carolina x 103 4,001 781 x 5,379 328 South Dakota 496 19 56 108 6 1,879 95 Tennessee 30 182 2,530 912 9 9,200 204 Texas 240 1,338 4,863 22,301 49 14,273 917 Utah 170 82 105 1,538 80 7,794 121 Vermont 0 14 44 13 x 1,749 x See notes at end of exhibit. 233 Exhibit A-3. Number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Virginia 47 753 3,740 2,325 27 9,012 707 Washington 273 722 697 3,608 78 8,349 1,036 West Virginia x 16 165 90 x 5,076 125 Wisconsin 211 326 1,719 2,282 25 11,304 458 Wyoming — — — — — — — BIE schoolsa 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Samoa 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 Guam — — — — — — — Northern Mariana Islands — — — — — — — Puerto Rico 8 x 4 13,212 x 43 0 Virgin Islands 0 0 119 23 0 x x Federated States of Micronesia 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 Republic of Palau 0 0 0 0 x x 0 Republic of the Marshall Islands 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 x Data suppressed to limit disclosure. — Not available. aAlthough Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619, BIE schools may report 5-year-old children who are enrolled in elementary schools for American Indian children operated or funded by the BIE and served with IDEA, Part B, section 611(h)(1)(A) funds. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 234 Exhibit A-4. Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012 State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Alabama 513 376 28,811 2,358 25 39,628 650 Alaska 4,595 542 740 1,095 334 7,095 1,442 Arizona 7,400 1,523 7,490 47,871 213 46,490 1,908 Arkansas 404 370 12,620 4,184 167 33,220 944 California 4,759 35,648 61,166 326,792 2,692 167,367 14,637 Colorado 919 1,255 5,057 26,514 131 40,428 2,177 Connecticut 245 1,242 9,991 14,624 49 34,358 1,196 Delaware 82 242 6,693 2,131 5 7,500 267 District of Columbia 9 45 9,385 1,071 8 450 67 Florida 1,279 3,899 82,579 86,095 256 133,816 8,958 Georgia 358 2,612 66,310 18,333 104 74,984 4,941 Hawaii 128 3,741 477 1,344 7,794 2,501 1,157 Idaho 520 190 361 4,054 67 18,130 481 Illinois 1,078 4,982 56,196 52,749 297 132,744 7,173 Indiana 537 1,105 20,340 11,035 58 110,151 7,113 Iowa 407 591 5,237 5,923 74 44,611 1,930 Kansas 983 717 5,567 8,282 57 38,093 2,820 Kentucky 126 476 9,977 2,773 29 64,914 1,805 Louisiana 539 458 34,313 1,826 24 32,188 681 Maine 377 228 823 591 17 25,962 403 Maryland 279 2,368 39,179 10,316 68 35,328 2,829 Massachusetts 468 4,016 15,505 29,615 143 96,134 3,973 Michigan 1,876 2,219 38,781 11,454 143 123,576 4,547 Minnesota 3,233 4,380 13,786 9,645 93 73,867 3,492 Mississippi 118 224 26,932 1,043 10 25,928 361 Missouri 595 1,069 20,565 4,157 95 79,061 2,073 Montana 2,219 81 187 667 44 11,230 325 Nebraska 853 471 3,386 6,428 33 27,583 1,431 Nevada 884 1,046 5,899 15,522 492 16,446 1,996 New Hampshire 74 255 656 1,053 22 23,945 97 New Jersey 301 8,013 40,330 46,551 263 117,270 1,635 New Mexico 4,752 267 981 25,111 0 10,331 562 New York 2,487 13,499 86,967 104,894 460 173,636 3,820 North Carolina 2,948 1,715 56,211 20,119 110 84,123 6,207 North Dakota 1,273 69 375 487 23 9,051 152 Ohio 384 1,669 45,092 8,954 76 166,535 9,842 Oklahoma 15,520 707 10,768 9,885 135 52,050 3,328 Oregon 1,724 1,551 2,686 15,668 374 47,404 2,724 Pennsylvania 484 3,560 46,024 24,205 98 182,831 5,259 Rhode Island 237 324 2,046 5,024 25 12,995 604 South Carolina 307 535 38,050 4,600 43 43,180 2,189 South Dakota 2,743 132 452 699 17 11,289 325 Tennessee 292 886 29,661 6,031 58 76,475 937 Texas 1,943 6,294 67,231 192,166 393 121,019 6,608 Utah 1,240 621 1,272 12,344 746 51,072 1,085 Vermont 47 74 292 130 9 11,343 147 See notes at end of exhibit. 235 Exhibit A-4. Number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by race/ethnicity and state: Fall 2012―Continued State American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/ Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Virginia 493 4,422 42,649 17,962 150 73,419 5,792 Washington 2,872 4,482 7,415 25,076 829 68,061 7,280 West Virginia 46 116 1,893 412 7 36,002 528 Wisconsin 2,164 2,450 16,904 11,071 64 71,932 2,377 Wyoming 474 51 163 1,609 21 9,346 219 BIE schoolsa 6,199 — — — — — — American Samoa 0 x 0 0 765 x 0 Guam x 267 5 3 1,531 x 24 Northern Mariana Islands 0 156 0 0 499 5 149 Puerto Rico 205 8 38 116,558 10 117 0 Virgin Islands x x 905 229 x 30 0 Federated States of Micronesia 0 0 0 0 1,856 0 0 Republic of Palau 0 x 0 0 x 0 0 Republic of the Marshall Islands 0 0 0 0 x x 0 — Not available. x Data suppressed to limit disclosure. aBureau of Indian Education schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 236 Appendix B Developmental Delay Data for Children Ages 3 Through 5 and Students Ages 6 Through 9 Served Under IDEA, Part B Developmental Delay Data for Children Ages 3 Through 5 and Students Ages 6 Through 9 Served Under IDEA, Part B IDEA allows states flexibility in the use of the developmental delay category. Per statute, use of the category is optional. Only children ages 3 through 9 may be reported in the developmental delay disability category and then only in states with the diagnostic instruments and procedures to measure delays in physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, or adaptive development. States must have defined and established eligibility criteria for developmental delay in order to report children in this category. Although IDEA does not require that states and local education agencies categorize children according to developmental delay, if this category is required by state law, states are expected to report these children in the developmental delay category. Appendix B presents information about the children ages 3 through 5 and students ages 6 through 9 reported in the developmental delay category. In particular, exhibits B-1 and B-2 provide data on the percentages of resident populations in the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico (PR) represented by the children ages 3 through 5 and students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, who were reported under the category of developmental delay, respectively, in each year, 2003 through 2012. Exhibit B-3 identifies whether each state, the District of Columbia, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands), and the three freely associated states (the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) used the developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 5, students ages 6 through 9, or both in 2012. 239 Exhibit B-1. Number of states reporting children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay and percentage of the population ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Year Number of statesa Percentage of resident population servedb 2003 47 2.82 2004 48 2.94 2005 49 2.92 2006 49 2.78 2007 49 2.86 2008 49 2.73 2009 50 2.78 2010 49 2.84 2011 49 2.89 2012 48 2.98 aThese are states that reported a non-zero count for children ages 3 through 5 under the category of developmental delay and had estimated resident population data available. For the purpose of this exhibit, number of states may include any of the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, and PR. Population data are not available for the outlying areas or the freely associated states. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay by the estimated resident population ages 3 through 5 in the states that reported children under the category of developmental delay for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. NOTE: States’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For information on states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibit B-3. Although BIE schools do not receive funds under IDEA, Part B, section 619, BIE schools may report 5-year-old children who are enrolled in elementary schools for American Indian children operated or funded by BIE and who receive services funded under IDEA, Part B, section 611(h)(1)(A). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–2012. These data are for the states, DC, BIE schools, and PR that reported children under the category of developmental delay. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. For 2012, data for Wyoming were not available. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2011,” 2003–12. These data are for the states, DC, and PR that reported children under the category of developmental delay. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010 and 2012, data for Wyoming were excluded. Children served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003–11 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 240 Exhibit B-2. Number of states reporting students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay and percentage of the population ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay, by year: Fall 2003 through fall 2012 Year Number of statesa Percentage of resident population servedb 2003 29 1.01 2004 29 1.15 2005 31 1.17 2006 33 1.17 2007 35 1.11 2008 34 1.26 2009 37 1.25 2010 35 1.33 2011 35 1.41 2012 36 1.49 aThese are states that reported a non-zero count for students ages 6 through 9 under the category of developmental delay and had estimated resident population data available. For the purpose of this exhibit, number of states may include any of the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, and PR. Population data are not available for the outlying areas or the freely associated states. bPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 6 through 9 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under the category of developmental delay by the estimated resident population ages 6 through 9 in the states that reported students under the category of developmental delay for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. NOTE: States’ use of the developmental delay category is optional for children ages 3 through 9 and is not applicable to children older than 9 years of age. For information on states with differences in developmental delay reporting practices, see exhibit B-3. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2003–12. These data are for the states, DC, BIE schools, and PR that reported children under the category of developmental delay. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were not available. For 2010, data for Wyoming were not available. For 2011, data for BIE schools were not available. In 2010 and 2011, Puerto Rico reported zero students ages 6 through 9 under the category of developmental delay. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. “Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2012,” 2003–12. These data are for the states, DC, and PR that reported children under the category of developmental delay. For 2007 and 2008, data for Vermont were excluded. For 2010 data for Puerto Rico and Wyoming were excluded. For 2011, data for Puerto Rico were excluded. Students served through BIE schools are included in the population estimates of the individual states in which they reside. Data for 2003–11 were accessed fall 2012. Data for 2012 were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 241 Exhibit B-3. States with different practices in reporting children served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay, by reporting practice and state: Fall 2012 State Does not use developmental delay category Uses developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 9 Uses developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 5 only Alabama X Alaska X American Samoa X Arizona X Arkansas X BIE schools X California X Colorado X Connecticut X Delaware X District of Columbia X Federated States of Micronesia X Florida X Georgia X Guam X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Northern Mariana Islands X Ohio X Oklahoma X See notes at end of exhibit. X 242 Exhibit B-3. States with different practices in reporting children served under IDEA, Part B, under the category of developmental delay, by reporting practice and state: Fall 2012―Continued State Does not use developmental delay category Uses developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 9 Uses developmental delay category for children ages 3 through 5 only Oregon X Pennsylvania X Puerto Rico X Republic of Palau X Republic of the Marshall Islands X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Virgin Islands X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 243 Appendix C Differences in State Reporting of IDEA, Part B, Disabilities Differences in State Reporting of IDEA, Part B, Disabilities Exhibit C-1 summarizes how some states reported children and students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, with multiple disabilities in different disability categories for child count and educational environments data collections in 2012 and for exiting and discipline data collections in 2011– 12. In particular, seven states reported children and students with multiple disabilities in the primary disability category listed on their individualized education programs (IEPs). Exhibit C-1. States that reported children and students with multiple disabilities in different disability categories for IDEA, Part B, child count and educational environments data collections: Fall 2012; and exiting and discipline data collections: 2011–12 Statea Multiple disabilities Delaware P Florida P Georgia P North Dakota P Oregon P West Virginia P Wisconsin P P = Children and students with multiple disabilities reported in the primary disability category identified on their IEP. aStates report data according to state law. States do not uniformly categorize children and students with disabilities according to IDEA disability categories as defined for purposes of child count, educational environments, exiting, and discipline data collections. NOTE: For 2011–12, states’ exiting data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, while states’ discipline data are from the entire 2011–12 school year. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2012. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Discipline Collection,” 2011–12. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual Part B data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 247 Appendix D IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services Appendix D presents state-level information on maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction and coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). In particular, Exhibit D-1 presents the number of students who received CEIS and number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) and educational service agencies (ESAs) in the 50 states, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico (PR), the four outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands), and the three freely associated states (the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands), that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality or that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds reserved for CEIS. Exhibit D-2 presents state-level data on the number and percentage of LEAs and ESAs that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements under 34 C.F.R. section 300.600(a)(2), had an increase in section 611 allocations, and took the MOE reduction pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) in school year 2011–12. 251 Exhibit D-1. Number of students who received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality or that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds reserved for CEIS, by state: School year 2011–12 State Number of students who received CEIS LEAs/ESAs required to use or voluntarily used IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS Number Percentagea Alabama 732 3 2.3 Alaska 36 1 1.9 American Samoa 0 0 0.0 Arizona 10,356 21 3.7 Arkansas 3,267 43 16.5 BIE schools 4,451 159 95.2 California 16,359 13 1.4 Colorado 0 0 0.0 Connecticut 2,976 16 9.5 Delaware 9,377 10 27.8 District of Columbia (DC) 4,730 5 11.6 Federated States of Micronesia — — — Florida 66,520 30 40.5 Georgia 4,362 37 18.7 Guam 0 0 0.0 Hawaii 187 1 100.0 Idaho 0 0 0.0 Illinois 202,362 201 23.1 Indiana 4,924 19 5.2 Iowa 11,832 19 5.2 Kansas 39 1 1.3 Kentucky 4,935 10 5.7 Louisiana 65,682 128 85.3 Maine 1,582 22 10.2 Maryland 2,770 1 4.0 Massachusetts 50 1 0.3 Michigan 9,836 56 10.4 Minnesota 3,958 133 49.6 Mississippi 24,070 78 51.7 Missouri 1,279 7 1.3 Montana 0 0 0.0 Nebraska 7,581 34 13.5 Nevada 65,090 1 5.9 New Hampshire 508 10 5.8 New Jersey 6,836 20 3.0 New Mexico 3,311 14 11.1 New York 44,805 66 9.4 North Carolina 13,000 25 11.4 See notes at end of exhibit. 252 Exhibit D-1. Number of students who received coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality or that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds reserved for CEIS, by state: School year 2011–12―Continued State Number of students who received CEIS LEAs/ESAs required to use or voluntarily used IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS Number Percentagea North Dakota 1,162 8 25.0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0.0 Ohio 52,083 172 19.2 Oklahoma 3,754 18 3.3 Oregon 11,881 15 7.5 Pennsylvania 56,887 10 1.6 Puerto Rico (PR) 0 0 0.0 Republic of Palau 0 0 0.0 Republic of the Marshall Islands 0 0 0.0 Rhode Island 7,526 30 55.6 South Carolina 18,623 32 34.8 South Dakota 1,315 13 8.4 Tennessee 3,174 7 5.0 Texas 138,235 149 12.0 Utah 68,958 17 14.2 Vermont 1,986 11 18.3 Virgin Islands 509 1 50.0 Virginia 18,065 17 12.9 Washington 568 8 3.0 West Virginia 0 0 0.0 Wisconsin 20,598 91 20.4 Wyoming 5,361 24 49.0 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, outlying areas, and freely associated states 1,008,488 1,808 12.3 — Not available. aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of LEAs and ESAs that were required to use 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality in school year 2011–12 and the number of LEAs and ESAs that voluntarily used up to 15 percent of IDEA sections 611 and 619 funds for CEIS, by the total number of LEAs and ESAs in school year 2011–12, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0689: “IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS),” 2012. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB #1875-0240: “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 253 Exhibit D-2. Number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements under 34 C.F.R. section 300.600(a)(2), had an increase in 611 allocations, and took the maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) in school year 2011–12, by state: School year 2011–12 State LEAs/ESAs had an increase in 611 allocations, met requirements, and took the MOE reduction Number Percentagea Alabama 8 6.1 Alaska 0 0.0 American Samoa 0 0.0 Arizona 0 0.0 Arkansas 0 0.0 BIE schools — — California 25 2.6 Colorado 0 0.0 Connecticut 0 0.0 Delaware 0 0.0 District of Columbia (DC) 0 0.0 Federated States of Micronesia 0 0.0 Florida 0 0.0 Georgia 0 0.0 Guam 0 0.0 Hawaii 0 0.0 Idaho 0 0.0 Illinois — — Indiana 13 3.6 Iowa 0 0.0 Kansas 0 0.0 Kentucky 13 7.4 Louisiana 0 0.0 Maine 0 0.0 Maryland 0 0.0 Massachusetts 15 3.9 Michigan 0 0.0 Minnesota 0 0.0 Mississippi 0 0.0 Missouri 10 1.8 Montana 0 0.0 Nebraska 14 5.6 Nevada 0 0.0 New Hampshire 0 0.0 New Jersey 0 0.0 New Mexico 10 7.9 New York 0 0.0 North Carolina 0 0.0 North Dakota 0 0.0 See notes at end of exhibit. 254 Exhibit D-2. Number and percentage of local education agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies (ESAs) that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements under 34 C.F.R. section 300.600(a)(2), had an increase in 611 allocations, and took the maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction pursuant to IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) in school year 2011–12, by state: School year 2011–12―Continued State LEAs/ESAs had an increase in 611 allocations, met requirements, and took the MOE reduction Number Percentagea Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 Ohio 7 0.8 Oklahoma 48 8.8 Oregon 0 0.0 Pennsylvania 35 5.4 Puerto Rico (PR) 0 0.0 Republic of Palau 0 0.0 Republic of the Marshall Islands 0 0.0 Rhode Island 0 0.0 South Carolina 0 0.0 South Dakota 0 0.0 Tennessee 0 0.0 Texas 12 1.0 Utah 3 2.5 Vermont 0 0.0 Virgin Islands 0 0.0 Virginia 0 0.0 Washington 0 0.0 West Virginia 0 0.0 Wisconsin 3 0.7 Wyoming 0 0.0 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, outlying areas, and freely associated states 216 1.5 — Not available. aPercentage was calculated by dividing the number of LEAs and ESAs that met the IDEA, Part B, requirements and had an increase in 611 allocations and took the maintenance of effort reduction in school year 2011–12, by the total number of LEAs and ESAs, then multiplying the result by 100. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS), OMB #1820-0689: “IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS),” 2012. Data were accessed fall 2013. For actual data used, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep. 255 The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. www.ed.gov