**TO ASSURE THE FREE**

**APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES**

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 618

Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress

on the

Implementation of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

U.S. Department of Education

2000

> **DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED**
>
> No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color,
> or national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the
> benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
> activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or be so treated on
> the basis of sex under most education programs or activities receiving
> Federal assistance.
>
> No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United
> States shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from the
> participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
> discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
> financial assistance.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)**

Judith E. Heumann

*Assistant Secretary*

**Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)**

Kenneth R. Warlick

*Director*

Year 2000

This book is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Or via electronic mail, send your request to:

Edpubs@inet.ed.gov

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0083.

To order online, go to: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

This report is also available on the Department's web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 205-8113.

Preface[^1]

This *Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (IDEA) marks the 25^th^
anniversary of the passage of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975. The annual reports published since
that time have informed Congress and the public of the steady progress
made in implementing the Act and reflect a history of persistent
commitment and efforts to expand educational opportunities for children
with disabilities. The 25^th^ anniversary of IDEA offers an opportunity
to consider this important law and its history, to acknowledge the
progress that has been made, and to look forward to the challenges
ahead.

The terms used in the Act, and indeed the title of the law itself,
reflect the nation's changing attitudes over the past 25 years toward
persons with disabilities. For the first 15 years of its history, the
Act referred to "handicapped children." A decade ago, however, Congress
made significant changes in the title and wording of the law. The
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-476)
renamed the statute the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), and throughout the text, references to "handicapped children"
were amended to read "children with disabilities." These changes
reflected both the activism of persons with disabilities and their
advocates and an increasing public awareness that "disability is a
natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right
of individuals to participate in or contribute to society" (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995a, p. 5). Throughout this preface,
quotations from the different versions of the law will reflect the
language used in the law at that time.

Prior to the 1970s, millions of children with disabilities received
inadequate or inappropriate special education services from the public
schools; another 1 million children were excluded from school altogether
(U.S. Department of Education, 1995a). In fact, for much of the history
of American public schools, services to children with disabilities "were
minimal and were provided at the discretion of local school districts"
(Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996, p. 26). Many States had laws that
specifically excluded certain children, such as those who were deaf or
blind, those with emotional or behavioral problems, and those who were
"feeble-minded" (Weintraub, Abeson, & Braddock, as cited in U.S.
Department of Education, 1995a). As Martin, Martin, and Terman (1996)
report, "Only after Public Law 94-142 became effective in 1978 and, in
several States, after Federal and State court cases, did 'education for
all' policies become a fact" (p. 26).

Background and History

In the 1960s, advocates sought a Federal role in providing leadership
and funding for efforts to provide a free appropriate public education,
or FAPE, to children with disabilities. Congress took a step toward this
in 1966 when it established the Bureau for Education of the Handicapped
under Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA).
Subsequently, a number of initiatives earmarked small amounts of Federal
funds for serving children with disabilities. As these programs
proliferated, the Bureau recommended that they be codified under a
single law (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). The resulting Education of
the Handicapped Act, P.L. 91-230, was passed in 1970.

During the same period\--the 1960s and early 1970s\--parents began to
pursue State laws that would require local education agencies (LEAs) to
offer special education services to students with disabilities and that
would provide partial funding for those services. Despite the passage of
such laws in a number of States and the provision of some Federal
funding through P.L. 91-230, "many children with disabilities remained
unserved or underserved by public schools" (Martin, Martin, & Terman,
1996, p. 28). It was clear that further Federal legislation would be
required in order to ensure that students with disabilities were
provided FAPE.

Two landmark Federal court decisions, *Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania* in 1971 and *Mills v.
Board of Education of the District of Columbia* the following year,
established that "the responsibility of States and local school
districts to educate individuals with disabilities is derived from the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution" (U.S. Department of Education, 1995a, p. 1). These
decisions set the stage for the enactment of a major new law, and ". . .
States joined advocates in seeking the passage of Federal legislation to
provide consistency, Federal leadership, and Federal subsidy of the
costs of special education" (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996, p. 29).

By 1975, Congress had determined that millions of American children with
disabilities were still not receiving an appropriate education, finding
that "More than half of the handicapped children in the United States do
not receive appropriate educational services which would enable them to
have full equality of opportunity" (Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA), §3(b)(3)). Public Law 94-142 was enacted to remedy
this situation by requiring that all students with disabilities receive
FAPE and by providing a funding mechanism to help defray the costs of
special education programs (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996).

Today, IDEA includes broad mandates for the provision of services to all
children with disabilities, from the first grader with a speech
impairment to the junior high student with a history of emotional and
behavior difficulties and the college-bound high school student who uses
a wheelchair (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). Despite the challenges
involved in serving such a heterogeneous group, the key tenets of IDEA
have remained intact since 1975 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
Although provisions have been added or amended in order to expand the
provision of services to younger groups of children with disabilities,
or to improve the quality of the services provided under the law, the
four purposes of IDEA have remained essentially the same: "to ensure
that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and
related services designed to meet their particular needs; to ensure that
the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians
are protected; to assist States and localities to provide for the
education of all children with disabilities; and to assess and ensure
the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities"
(U.S. Department of Education, 1995a, p. 1).

######## Key Components of IDEA

The next section of this preface discusses some of the key components of
IDEA. This discussion necessarily involves comparisons between different
versions of the law and allows for reflection on the progress made in
the 25 years since P.L. 94-142 was first enacted. Many of these
constructs were included in the 1975 statute and have evolved over time.
Other components were added as new challenges were identified.

######### Identification of Children with Disabilities {#identification-of-children-with-disabilities .Sec-Head}

When P.L. 94-142 was first passed, Congress was especially concerned
that many children with disabilities were not succeeding in school
because their disabilities had not been identified (Martin, Martin, &
Terman, 1996). The emphasis on identifying children with disabilities,
or child find, was a hallmark of the 1975 statute and of subsequent
amendments. In addition, one of the basic purposes of IDEA has always
been to ensure that children with disabilities are not excluded from
school. The most recent data available suggest that the goal of seeing
that children with disabilities are not excluded from school is being
met: More than 11 percent of students ages 6 through 17 received special
education and related services during the 1998-99 school year.

######### Funding Formula {#funding-formula .Sec-Head}

Because of the importance of child find efforts, the initial funding
formula for P.L. 94-142 based allocations on the number of children with
disabilities receiving special education and related services in each
State (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). This funding mechanism remained
essentially unchanged until 1997, although the amounts of the grants to
States rose considerably in the intervening years.

Under the 1997 amendments, grants to States continued to be based on
child counts. Starting in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000, with
allocations made available beginning July 1, 2000, the year in which the
Federal appropriation for Part B, Section 611 exceeded approximately
\$4.9 billion, the funding formula changed. States now receive a base
allocation consisting of the amount of Section 611 funds that the State
received in FFY 1999. Eighty-five percent of the remaining funds after
base allocations are made are distributed to States based on the
relative populations of children ages 3 through 21 who are of the same
age as children with disabilities for whom the State ensures the
availability of FAPE under IDEA. Fifteen percent of the remaining funds
are distributed to States based on the relative populations of children
that fall within the age range for which the State ensures the
availability of FAPE under IDEA who are living in poverty.

######### Service Provision in the Least Restrictive Environment {#service-provision-in-the-least-restrictive-environment .Sec-Head}

Prior to the passage of P.L. 94-142, the educational prospects for
children with disabilities were bleak. This was particularly true for
children with mental retardation and other severe developmental
disabilities, many of whom were institutionalized. Today most of those
children can expect to live at home, and many receive special education
and related services in regular schools. For example, by 1997-98, just 8
percent of children with significant developmental disabilities[^2] were
served in separate schools or in residential facilities.

IDEA has long included provisions to ensure that students with
disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment possible,
with a continuum of placements designed to meet the individual needs of
each student with a disability (S. Rep. No. 105-17, 1997). Seventy-five
percent of the more than 5.5 million 6- through 21-year-olds with
disabilities served under IDEA in 1997-98 were educated in regular
classrooms, with their nondisabled peers.[^3]

######### Services to Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers {#services-to-infants-toddlers-and-preschoolers .Sec-Head}

As the importance of early identification and service provision has
become apparent, Congress has acted to expand IDEA's support for
services to younger groups of children with disabilities. The EHA
Amendments of 1986 established the Early Intervention Program for
Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities under Part H (now Part C) of
IDEA. The program was created in response to congressional findings of
"an urgent and substantial need" to provide early intervention services
to infants and toddlers with disabilities (EHA Amendments of 1986,
§101(a)). By September 30, 1994, all States and jurisdictions had
ensured full implementation of the Early Intervention Program (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995b). Full implementation has made a
substantial difference in the number of young children served. In
1991-92, 145,313 infants and toddlers were served under Part C, while
nearly 189,000 children ages birth through 2, along with their families,
were served under Part C in 1998-99.[^4] The Early Intervention Program
provides the supports necessary to help families meet their young
children's special needs.

In the EHA Amendments of 1986, Congress emphasized the importance of the
preschool years by amending Section 619 of IDEA to replace the Incentive
Grants Program with a new Preschool Grants for Children with
Disabilities Program. In order to continue their eligibility to receive
funding under this program, States were required to make FAPE available
to all children ages 3 through 5 with disabilities by the 1991-92 school
year. Today more than 573,000 3- through 5-year-olds with disabilities
are served in preschool programs that help prepare them to be successful
in school.

######### Parent Support {#parent-support .Sec-Head}

Having a child with a disability means that parents must develop an
understanding of how the disability influences development; it also
means that parents need to become familiar with their rights under IDEA
in order to ensure that their children receive appropriate services. To
this end, in 1986 Congress required that awards for Parent Training and
Information Centers (PTIs) to support parents be made in every State.
Now there are 94 PTIs across the country, plus a Technical Assistance
Alliance. In addition, 13 Community Parent Resource Centers work to meet
the needs of racially and ethnically diverse communities.

######### Improving Results {#improving-results .Sec-Head}

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 reaffirmed the strong Federal commitment to
the education of children with disabilities and did so within the
context of education reform. Acknowledging that the nation had made
great progress in expanding educational opportunities for children with
disabilities, the Senate committee report that accompanied the 1997
amendments attested to congressional intent to place greater emphasis on
improving educational results, moving away from the low expectations
that have often plagued students with disabilities, and seeking expanded
opportunities necessary for students with disabilities to prosper in the
21st century.

Section 612 of the 1997 amendments contained several new provisions that
aligned IDEA with general education reform efforts. One of the most
notable additions was the requirement that children with disabilities be
included in State- and districtwide assessments, with or without
accommodations as appropriate for each individual child. Alternate
assessments must be developed for students who cannot participate in
regular assessments. The law further stipulated that assessment reports
were to include disaggregated data on children with disabilities. And
Congress made a further effort to include students with disabilities in
accountability programs by requiring each State to establish performance
goals and indicators for children with disabilities.

The 1997 amendments also made some changes to the individualized
education program (IEP), long a cornerstone of IDEA, in order to align
the statute with general education reform. One purpose of the amendments
was to ensure that students with disabilities would have access to the
general education curriculum. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources wrote, "The majority of children identified as eligible for
special education and related services are capable of participating in
the general education curriculum to varying degrees with some
adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to ensure that
children's special education and related services are in addition to and
are affected by the general education curriculum, not separate from it"
(S. Rep. No. 105-17, 1997, p. 20). To this end, the 1997 amendments
required that the IEP address how a student with disabilities will
access the general education curriculum. Similarly, the IEP must include
a statement of any individual accommodations or modifications a student
requires in order to participate in State- and districtwide assessments.

Congress also sought to make IDEA a part of overall education reform
efforts by allowing IDEA funds to be used in conjunction with other
Federal funds to assist in the development of schoolwide programs under
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and by
establishing new State Improvement Grants (SIGs) to assist States in
their efforts to improve education for students with disabilities. The
purpose of the SIG program is to assist State education agencies and
their partners in engaging in comprehensive reform and improvement of
their efforts to provide services to children with disabilities.

######### Personnel {#personnel .Sec-Head}

A comprehensive system of personnel development has always been an
integral part of IDEA. With each set of amendments to the law, Congress
has encouraged the expansion of the professional workforce to support
the millions of children served under IDEA. When data were first
reported in 1976-77, there were 331,453 teachers and related services
personnel providing services to children with disabilities; today there
are more than 800,000. Personnel preparation efforts supported under
IDEA have helped States staff their classrooms with teachers and
paraprofessionals trained in special education and related services
fields and have promoted innovation in teacher preparation. Recent
IDEA-funded projects have focused on using the Internet to provide
distance education for teachers of the visually impaired in rural areas,
developing effective models of in-service training for veteran teachers,
and integrating the preparation of general and special educators.

######### Transition {#transition .Sec-Head}

By 1990, researchers and practitioners had recognized the importance of
careful planning to help students with disabilities move from school to
adult life. The inclusion of transition planning in the EHA Amendments
of 1990 "occurred in the context of at least a decade of attention to
the need to develop transition policies, programs, and services for
youth with disabilities that would allow them to make successful
transitions. . . ." (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. IV-53). The
1997 amendments reinforced the importance of transition planning by
requiring that IEPs for students age 14 and older include a statement of
the student's transition service needs; this statement must be updated
annually. In addition, beginning at the age of 16 (or younger if
appropriate), the IEP must include a statement of needed transition
services for the student, including interagency responsibilities and
necessary linkages. According to the U.S. Department of Education
(1999), "These transition statements are designed to provide
instruction, related services, and community experiences that lead to
positive postschool results in postsecondary education and training,
employment, adult services, independent living, and community
participation" (p. IV-53).

Through IDEA, Congress has funded systems change grants to the States in
order to help States develop the capacities and collaborations necessary
to ensure successful transitions. Congress also funded State- and
local-level implementation studies of Federal transition policies to
determine progress in meeting IDEA's transition mandates (U.S.
Department of Education, 1999). To further bolster transition efforts,
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded a series of
projects in the area of self‑determination. These projects have
demonstrated to educators, parents, and young people with disabilities
how students can take a substantive role in planning for their own
future. Rising rates of employment and postsecondary enrollment among
students with disabilities suggest the importance of transition planning
and services for these students.

######### Research {#research .Sec-Head}

Early versions of IDEA authorized discretionary grants for research
related to the education of children with disabilities, including
studies designed to increase the special education knowledge base and
improve the educational services provided to children with disabilities.
But the EHA Amendments of 1986 brought an increased focus on research in
the special education field, as Congress authorized several specific
studies designed to provide more information about children with
disabilities. For example, the 1986 amendments called for a major
longitudinal study of the educational and occupational results
experienced by students with disabilities. The National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS) examined the educational progress of a sample of
students in special education, then followed those students to determine
their educational, occupational, and independent living status after
their exit from special education. The 1986 amendments also included a
mandate for a study of special education expenditures, as well as a
series of studies of special populations of children with disabilities.
Special populations specifically mentioned in the amendments included
American Indian children with disabilities, Native Hawaiian and other
native Pacific basin children with disabilities, migrant children with
disabilities, children with disabilities living in rural areas, and
children with disabilities who had limited English proficiency (EHA
Amendments of 1986, §406).

More recent amendments to IDEA have also emphasized the importance of
conducting and disseminating research to add to the knowledge base and
improve results for students with disabilities. In the 1990 amendments,
for example, Congress authorized "the establishment of a center or
centers designed to organize, synthesize, and disseminate current
knowledge relating to children with attention deficit disorder. . . ."
(EHA Amendments of 1990, §501). Another example is an investigation of
the early reading problems of students with learning disabilities. This
work pointed out the importance of early attention to phonemic awareness
and is now used throughout the country to improve reading instruction
for students both with and without disabilities.

Section 674(b) of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 authorized a full national
assessment of activities carried out under the Act, including a series
of research studies. Four of the studies will be child-based. The first
of these, the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS),
will follow children entering early intervention services. Preliminary
findings from NEILS are included in this *Annual Report to Congress.*
Another project, the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study
(PEELS), will involve a nationally representative sample of 3- through
5-year-olds with disabilities. The study will follow the children
through their experiences in preschool and into early elementary school.

The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) will follow
a cohort of students in special education who are 6 through 12 years old
at the beginning of the study. SEELS will focus on these students\'
school experiences during the elementary and middle school years and as
they transition from elementary to middle school and from middle to high
school. The second National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS-2) is a
10-year project that will follow a sample of 13- to 17-year-old students
receiving special education until the oldest reach age 25.

Three of the National Assessment studies are policy based. The Study of
Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE) was designed to address
concerns about nationwide shortages in the number of personnel serving
students with disabilities and the need for improvement in the
qualifications of those employed. SPeNSE will provide information on the
quality of the special education workforce nationally, within each
geographic region, and within and across personnel categories. In
addition, researchers will explore ways to assess the quality of the
workforce based on State and local policies, preservice education,
continuing professional development, and working conditions.

Another study, State and Local Implementation of IDEA (SLIIDEA), will
examine how the IDEA Amendments of 1997 are being implemented by States,
school districts, and schools. In particular, the project will address
issues focused on student performance, access to the curriculum,
behavioral supports, parental involvement, and transitions for young
children to school and youth to adult life. Finally, the Special
Education Expenditure Project (SEEP) will be the first comprehensive
look at special education expenditures in 15 years.

The group of studies that constitute the national assessment represent
important investments in research designed to address particular areas
of concern within the special education field. Findings from these
studies will be reported in the *Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress
on the Implementation of IDEA* and in subsequent annual reports.

Conclusions

Although some of the emphases of IDEA have changed since P.L. 94-142 was
first passed in 1975, the central tenets and purposes of the law have
remained the same. In the intervening 25 years, Congress has repeatedly
acted to strengthen IDEA, to further align the law with movements in
general education, and to address emerging needs among the population of
students with disabilities.

As we look to the next 25 years, the nation will need to address many
critical issues if the progress begun under IDEA is to continue. The
special education knowledge base and the data presented in this report
suggest a number of questions: How will we as a nation address the
growing shortage of qualified special education teachers and related
services personnel, particularly those from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds? How will we ensure that special
education personnel have the skills they need to effectively serve
students with disabilities? What strategies are most effective in
helping students with disabilities to meet higher educational standards?
What are the most effective models for serving infants and toddlers and
their families in natural environments? How can our school systems best
respond to the needs of language minority children? What are the best
approaches for increasing the involvement of parents from racial/ethnic
minority groups in the education of their children with disabilities?
How can school districts use assessment data to improve educational
opportunities for students with disabilities? How can the Federal
government ensure that all school systems properly implement IDEA?

Our response to these and many of the other challenges facing the field
of special education will depend on the same stakeholders that have
helped achieve the progress made thus far\--parents, teachers,
researchers, and advocates\--working in partnership with the States and
the Federal government to develop innovative methods of addressing those
challenges. As it has been for the past 25 years, IDEA, with its
guarantee of a free appropriate public education for all children,
backed by Federal monitoring and guided by vigorous support for
research, technical assistance, parent training, personnel development,
and technological innovation, is the foundation upon which future
progress depends.

# References

Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986. P.L. 99-457.

Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1990. P.L. 101-476.

Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1991. P.L. 102-119.

Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et
seq.

Martin, E.W., Martin, R., & Terman, D.L. (1996). The legislative and
litigation history of special education. *The Future of Children, 6,*
25-39.

S. Rep. No. 105-17, 105^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. (1997).

U.S. Department of Education. (1995a). *Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1995: Reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995b). *Seventeenth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). *Twentieth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). *Twenty-first annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

Contents

[Page]{.underline}

**PREFACE** v

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** xxxi

**INTRODUCTION** 1

**I. CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT**

> The Importance of Minority Institutions of Higher Education in the\
> Preparation of Special Education Personnel I-1
>
> Minority Institutions of Higher Education I-2
>
> Preparation for High-Demand Positions I-4
>
> Partnerships I-9
>
> Federal Initiatives I-10
>
> Conclusion I-11
>
> Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol and Nicotine: Implications for Special
> Education I-15
>
> Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol I-15
>
> Prenatal Exposure to Nicotine I-23
>
> Effective Service Delivery for Prenatally Exposed Children I-27
>
> OSEP Research Initiatives I-27
>
> Department of Education Participation in Other Federal Initiatives
> I-28
>
> Summary I-29

**II. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS**

> Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA II-1
>
> The Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part C II-1
>
> Race/Ethnicity of Infants and Toddlers Served II-3
>
> Early Intervention Service Settings for Infants and Toddlers with\
> Disabilities II-5
>
> Summary II-7
>
> Preschoolers Served Under IDEA II-9
>
> The Number of Preschool Children Served Under Part B of\
> IDEA II-10
>
> Race/Ethnicity of Preschoolers Served Under IDEA II-11
>
> Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities II-13
>
> Summary II-15

**Contents** (continued)

[Page]{.underline}

> Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA II-19
>
> Students Served Under IDEA by Disability Category II-19
>
> Race/Ethnicity of Students with Disabilities II-25
>
> Summary II-27
>
> Meeting the Needs of Students with Co-occurring Disabilities II-29
>
> Review of the Literature II-30
>
> Study Methods II-35
>
> NHIS-D Findings II-37
>
> Summary and Implications Drawn From the Literature II-43
>
> Students with Orthopedic Impairments II-49
>
> Characteristics and Prevalence II-49
>
> Special Education and Related Services for Students with\
> Orthopedic Impairments II-50
>
> Personnel Serving Students with Orthopedic Impairments II-57
>
> Educational Results for Students with Orthopedic Impairments II-58
>
> OSEP Efforts To Improve Results for Students with Orthopedic\
> Impairments II-62

**III. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES**

> Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities III-1
>
> Trends in Data on Educational Environments III-2
>
> Factors Associated with Educational Environments III-2
>
> Summary III-5
>
> Applying Positive Behavioral Support in Schools III-7
>
> Introduction III-7
>
> Context III-7
>
> Positive Behavioral Support III-10
>
> Functional Behavior Assessment-based Behavior Support\
> Planning III-16
>
> Conclusion III-21

**Contents** (continued)

[Page]{.underline}

> Office of Special Education Programs Technology and Media\
> Services Program: A Focus on Implementation and\
> Utilization III-33
>
> Charting a National Agenda for Making Sound Investments: A\
> Brief History of Federal Support III-35
>
> Retrospective Studies III-39
>
> Innovative Activities III-42
>
> Summary III-45

IV. **RESULTS**

> Characteristics of Children and Families Entering Early Intervention
> IV-1
>
> Age at Entry and Reasons for Receipt of Early Intervention IV-1
>
> Demographic Information IV-8
>
> Gender IV-8
>
> Race and Ethnicity IV-9
>
> Receipt of Public Assistance IV-9
>
> Foster Care IV-10
>
> Summary IV-12
>
> High School Graduation IV-15
>
> Graduation Rates by Disability IV-17
>
> Graduation Rates by State IV-18
>
> OSEP Efforts To Study and Enhance Graduation Rates IV-19
>
> Summary IV-20
>
> State Improvement and Monitoring IV-23
>
> Part C: General Supervision and Administration IV-28
>
> Part C: Child Find/Public Awareness IV-30
>
> Part C: Early Intervention in Natural Environments IV-32
>
> Part C: Family-Centered Services IV-34
>
> Part C: Early Childhood Transition IV-35
>
> Part B: Parent Involvement IV-36
>
> Part B: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least\
> Restrictive Environment IV-37
>
> Part B: Secondary Transition IV-41
>
> Part B: General Supervision IV-42

Contents (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Appendices

**Appendix A.** Data Tables

Section A. Child Count Tables

Table AA1 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group
During the 1998-99 School Year A-1

Table AA2 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability During the\
1998-99 School Year A-2

Table AA3 Number of Students Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Race/Ethnicity and Disability During the 1998-99 School Year A-5

Table AA4 Number of Children Ages 6-11 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability During the\
1998-99 School Year A-33

Table AA5 Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served\
Under IDEA, Part B by Disability During\
the 1998-99 School Year A-36

Table AA6 Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served\
Under IDEA, Part B by Disability During\
the 1998-99 School Year A-39

Table AA7 Number of Students Ages 3-5 Served Under\
IDEA, Part B by Race/Ethnicity During the\
1998-99 School Year A-42

Table AA8 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability and
Age During the\
1998-99 School Year A-44

Table AA9 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age During the
1998-99 School\
Year A-45

**Content** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Table AA10 Number and Change in Number of Children\
Ages 3-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B A-49

Table AA11 Number and Change in Number of Children\
Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B A-50

Table AA12 Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident\
Population) of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During
the 1998-99 School Year A-64

Table AA13 Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident\
Population) of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During\
the 1998-99 School Year A-65

Table AA14 Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident\
Population) of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Race/Ethnicity,\
During the 1998-99 School Year A-68

Table AA15 Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident\
Population) of Children Ages 3-5 Served\
Under IDEA, Part B by Race/Ethnicity,\
During the 1998-99 School Year A-83

Table AA16 Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident\
Population) of Children Ages 6-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During\
the 1998-99 School Year A-84

Table AA17 Percentage (Based on Estimated Enrollment) of Children Ages
6-17 Served Under IDEA,\
Part B by Disability, During the 1998-99\
School Year A-87

Table AA18 Number of Children Served Under IDEA\
by Disability and Age Group, During the\
1989-90 Through 1998-99 School Years A-90

**Contents** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Section B. Educational Environments Tables

Table AB1 Number of Children Ages 3-21 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-93

Table AB2 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-96

Table AB3 Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-122

Table AB4 Number of Children Ages 6-11 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-124

Table AB5 Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-150

Table AB6 Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1997-98 School\
Year A-176

Table AB7 Number of Children Served in Different\
Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group During the
1988-89 Through 1997-98 School Years A-202

Table AB8 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Disability During the\
1988-89 Through 1997-98 School Years A-204

**Contents** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Section C. Personnel Tables

Table AC1 Total Number of Teachers Employed, Vacant Funded Positions,
and Number of Teachers\
Retained (in Full-Time Equivalency) to Provide\
Special Education and Related Services for\
Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages\
3-5 During the 1997-98 School Year A-209

Table AC2 Total Number of Teachers Employed, Vacant Funded Positions,
and Number of Teachers\
Retained (in Full-Time Equivalency) to Provide\
Special Education and Related Services for\
Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages\
6-21 During the 1997-98 School Year A-210

Table AC3 Number and Type of Other Personnel\
Employed and Vacant Funded Positions\
(in Full-Time Equivalency) to Provide\
Special Education and Related Services for\
Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages \
3-21, by Personnel Category, During the\
1997-98 School Year A-211

Section D. Exiting Tables

Table AD1 Number of Students Age 14 and Older Exiting Special Education
During the\
1997-98 School Year A-221

Table AD2 Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting\
Special Education by Age Year During the \
1997-98 School Year A-247

Table AD3 Number of Students Ages 17-21^+^ Exiting \
Special Education with a Diploma During \
the 1997-98 School Year A-260

Table AD4 Number of Students Ages 14-21^+^ Dropping \
Out of Special Education During the 1997-98\
School Year A-266

**Contents** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Table AD5 Percentage of Students Ages 14-21^+^ Dropping\
Out of Special Education Based on Number of Students Ages 14-21^+^
Leaving School During \
the 1997-98 School Year A-269

Table AD6 Percentage of Students Ages 14-21^+^ Dropping\
Out of Special Education Based on the Total\
Number of Students Ages 14-21^+^ Served Under IDEA During the 1997-98
School Year A-272

Table AD7 Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting\
School by Graduation with a Diploma,\
Graduation with a Certificate, and Reached\
Maximum Age by Age During the 1988-89\
Through 1997-98 School Years A-275

Section F. Population and Enrollment Tables

Table AF1 Estimated Resident Population for Children\
Ages 3-21 A-276

Table AF2 Estimated Resident Population for Children Birth Through Age 2
A-277

Table AF3 Estimated Resident Population for Children\
Ages 3-5 A-278

Table AF4 Estimated Resident Population for Children\
Ages 6-17 A-279

Table AF5 Estimated Resident Population for Children\
Ages 18-21 A-280

Table AF6 Estimated Resident Population (Number) for Children Ages Birth
Through 2 by Race/\
Ethnicity for the 1998-99 School Year A-281

Table AF7 Estimated Resident Population (Number) for Children Ages 3-5
by Race/Ethnicity for the\
1998-99 School Year A-283

**Contents** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Table AF8 Estimated Resident Population (Number) for Children Ages 6-21
by Race/Ethnicity for\
the 1998-99 School Year A-285

Table AF9 Enrollment for Students in Grades\
Pre-Kindergarten Through Twelve A-287

Section G. Financial Table

Table AG1 State Grant Awards Under IDEA, Part B, Preschool Grant Program
and Part C A-288

Section H. Early Intervention Tables

Table AH1 Number of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention
Services December 1,\
1998 A-289

Table AH2 Number of At-Risk Infants and Toddlers\
Receiving Early Intervention Services\
(Duplicated Count) December 1, 1998 A-290

Table AH3 Number of Infants and Toddlers Ages Birth\
Through 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C by\
Race/Ethnicity During the 1998-99 School\
Year A-291

Table AH4 Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Ages\
Birth Through 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C\
by Race/Ethnicity, Based on Estimated\
Population During the 1998-99 School Year A-295

Table AH5 Early Intervention Services on IFSPs Provided to Infants,
Toddlers, and Their Families in Accord with Part C\
December 1, 1997 A-296

Table AH6 Number and Type of Personnel Employed and Needed to Provide
Early Intervention\
Services to Infants and Toddlers with\
Disabilities and Their Families December 1,\
1997 A-299

**Contents** (cont'd)

[Page]{.underline}

Table AH7 Number of Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served in
Different Early Intervention Settings Under Part C\
December 1, 1997 A-305

**Appendix B.** Activities of the Regional Resource Centers

List of Tables

[Page]{.underline}

Table I-1 Changes in the U.S. Population Under Age 18: 1980-2005 I-2

Table I-2 Minority Institutions of Higher Education and Their Preservice
Programs I-3

Table I-3 Percentage of Women Who Smoked During Pregnancy by\
Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age I-24

Table II-1 Educational Settings for Children Ages 3 Through 5 with\
Disabilities II-14

Table II-2 Number of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA\
in the 1989-90 and 1998-99 School Years II-20

Table II-3 Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under\
IDEA by Disability Category, 1989-90 and 1998-99 II-21

Table II-4 Child Counts in States Reporting Students with Other Health\
Impairments in the Orthopedic Impairments Category II-23

Table II-5 Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served by\
Disability and Race/Ethnicity in the 1998-99 School Year II-26

Table II-6 Number and Percentage of Students Receiving Special\
Education and Related Services, by Family Structure and\
Number of Disabilities II-39

Table II-7 Number and Percentage of Students Receiving Special\
Education and Related Services, by Poverty Threshold and\
Number of Disabilities II-39

Table II-8 Number and Percentage of Students Receiving Special\
Education and Related Services, by Highest Educational\
Level of Responsible Adult Family Member and Number of\
Disabilities II-40

Table II-9 Number and Percentage of Students Receiving Selected\
Special Education and Related Services, by Type of Services\
Received and Number of Disabilities II-41

**List of Tables** (continued)

[Page]{.underline}

Table II-10 Number and Percentage of Students Receiving Special\
Education and Related Services in Various Educational\
Environments, by Number of Disabilities II-42

Table II-11 Number and Percentage of Students Whose Parents\
Expressed Overall Satisfaction with Educational Services, by\
Number of Disabilities II-43

Table II-12 Selected Conditions Causing Orthopedic Impairments in\
Children II-51

Table II-13 Demographic Characteristics of Secondary-aged Students\
with All Disabilities and Students with Orthopedic\
Impairments II-52

Table II-14 Knowledge and Skills for All Beginning Special Education\
Teachers of Students with Physical and Health Disabilities II-66

Table II-15 Percentage of Students Exiting High School, by Disability\
Status II-60

Table II-16 Percentage of Students Enrolled in Postsecondary\
Education, by Disability Status II-61

Table II-17 Percentage of Students Persisting in Postsecondary\
Education, by Disability Status II-62

Table II-18 1994 Employment Status of 1992-93 Bachelor's Degree\
Recipients, by Disability II-62

Table III-1 Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 with Disabilities\
Served in Different Educational Environments During the\
1997-98 School Year III-4

Table III-2 Foundations and Features of Positive Behavior Support III-12

Table III-3 Overview of Functional Behavioral Assessment and\
Behavior Support Planning III-19

Table IV-1 Frequency of Reasons for Receipt of Early Intervention and\
Age at IFSP IV-4

**List of Tables** (continued)

[Page]{.underline}

Table IV-2 Frequency and Average Age at IFSP for Developmental\
Delay, Diagnosed Condition, and At Risk IV-6

Table IV-3 Demographic Characteristics of Children Entering Early\
Intervention IV-8

Table IV-4 Number and Percentage of Students Ages 17 and Older\
Graduating with a Standard Diploma: 1997-98 IV-17

Table IV-5 Schedule of 1998-1999 Continuous Improvement\
Monitoring Reviews IV-28

Table IV-6 Schedule of 1999-2000 Continuous Improvement\
Monitoring Reviews IV-29

Table A-1 State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B Child Count\
Data 1998-99, Other Data 1997-98 A-307

List of Figures

[Page]{.underline}

Figure I-1 Secondary Conditions Among Persons with FAS or FAE I-21

Figure II-1 Number of Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C,\
1994 Through 1998 II-2

Figure II-2 Race/Ethnicity: National Versus Part C Percentages II-4

Figure II-3 Part C Settings II-6

Figure II-4 Number of Preschool Children with Disabilities Served by\
Age and Year, 1992-93 Through 1998-99 II-11

Figure II-5 Race/Ethnicity of Preschoolers Receiving Special Education\
and of the General Preschool Population, 1998-99 II-12

Figure II-6 Percentage of Preschool Children Served in Different\
Educational Environments in 1988-89 and 1997-98 II-15

Figure II-7 Growth Reported in Low-Incidence Disabilities From 1989-90\
to 1998-99 II-22

Figure II-8 Children Reported with Autism Served Under IDEA by Age\
Cohort Expressed as a Percentage of the Resident Population II-24

Figure III-1 Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 in Different\
Education Environments During 1988-89 Through 1997-98 III-3

Figure III-2 Continuum of Positive Behavior Support III-16

Figure IV-1 Age at Time of Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
IV-2

Figure IV-2 Age at IFSP by Reasons for Eligibility IV-7

Figure IV-3 Percentage of Students Ages 17 Through 21^+^ with
Disabilities\
Graduating with a Standard Diploma: 1994-95 to 1997-98 IV-16

Executive Summary

# 

# Section I

**Context/Environment:** This section contains background information on
the setting within which special education services are provided to
children and youth with disabilities. The first module in this section
describes the importance of minority institutions of higher education in
the preparation of special education personnel. It also discusses some
of the OSEP-sponsored programs at minority institutions that are
anticipated to improve the quality of the workforce teaching children
and students with disabilities.

The second module discusses prenatal exposure to alcohol and nicotine
and its implications for special education. Prevalence of use and
effects, service delivery for prenatally exposed children, and OSEP
research initiatives are also discussed.

The Importance of Minority Institutions of Higher Education in the
Preparation of Special Education Personnel

-   The need for personnel who are trained to work with minority
    students with disabilities is most acute in rural, remote, and urban
    districts. There is also a high demand for male practitioners.

-   The supply of culturally and linguistically diverse related services
    personnel is not adequate.

-   Programs in speech-language pathology or communication disorders are
    the most prevalent Minority Institution of Higher Education (MIHE)
    personnel programs in related services.

-   MIHE graduates may expedite progress in educating culturally and
    linguistically diverse students with disabilities and contribute to
    the development of greater cultural competence among their
    colleagues. Collectively, they represent 24 percent of the nation's
    special education personnel preparation programs.

######### Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol and Nicotine: Implications for Special Education

-   Prenatal exposure to alcohol or nicotine can result in significant
    and far-ranging intellectual, behavioral, and emotional effects and
    thus have particular implications for special education.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is apparent that significant numbers of children prenatally
    exposed to alcohol and nicotine will require special education and
    related services.

-   OSEP currently funds several research and personnel preparation
    projects intended to improve results for this population.

SECTION II

**Student Characteristics:** This section contains five modules related
to the characteristics of students served under IDEA and the Federal
funding that States receive to serve these students. The modules on
infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and students ages 6 through 21
served under IDEA summarize State-reported data. The fourth module
describes a special population of children\--those with co-occurring
disabilities. This module presents a review of the literature, findings
from the National Health Interview Survey-Disability Supplement
(NHIS-D), and recommendations drawn from the literature. The final
module, children with orthopedic impairments, describes this population,
provides prevalence data, and discusses special education issues,
personnel serving this population, and educational results for these
children.

######### Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA

-   Comparisons of the children served under Part C with the general
    population of infants and toddlers by race/ethnicity showed a
    generally comparable distribution. However, race/ethnicity data were
    a new component of the 1998 data collection and should be
    interpreted cautiously.

-   States continue to emphasize the home setting as a natural
    environment in providing services to infants and toddlers with
    disabilities.

######### Preschoolers Served Under IDEA

-   Over the past 7 years, the number of 3- and 4-year-old children
    being served grew at a faster rate than that of 5-year-old children,
    suggesting that children with disabilities are being identified and
    served at an earlier age.

-   Race/ethnicity data suggest that minority enrollment in special
    education was similar in 1998-99 to the resident population of 3-
    through 5-year-olds.

-   The majority of 3- through 5-year-olds served under IDEA received
    services in regular education classrooms with their nondisabled
    peers for 80 percent of the school day.

######### Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

-   The number of students with disabilities served under IDEA continues
    to grow at a greater rate than both the resident population and
    school enrollment. State-reported reasons for this continued
    increase include better diagnoses and identification.

-   In the 6 through 21 age group, Asian and white students were
    underrepresented in the special education population.

-   Black students were overrepresented and Native American students
    were slightly overrepresented in the special education population.

######### Meeting the Needs of Students with Co-occurring Disabilities

-   One-third of students with disabilities who received special
    education and related services had co-occurring disabilities. The
    most common combinations were learning disability and
    speech/language impairment and learning disability with emotional
    disturbance.

-   Caregivers of children with co-occurring disabilities requested
    services more often than caregivers whose children had only one
    disability and were less likely to report that they were satisfied
    with services provided to their children.

-   OSEP is designing or completing a series of child-based studies that
    may be used to confirm or refute the findings of the NHIS-D related
    to the prevalence of co-occurring disabilities, demographic factors
    associated with co-occurring disabilities, services provided to this
    group of students, and education outcomes.

######### Students with Orthopedic Impairments

-   In 1997-98, 94 percent of students with orthopedic impairments
    attended schools with their nondisabled peers, and 47 percent of
    these students received special education and related services
    outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school
    day.

-   In 1997-98, 72.4 percent of students ages 17 and older with
    orthopedic impairments graduated with a diploma. Another 12.8
    percent received a certificate of completion. Data also indicate
    that students with orthopedic impairments have high rates of
    postsecondary enrollment.

SECTION III

**School Programs and Services:** The three modules in this section
examine some of the programs and services available within schools for
children and youth with disabilities and their families. The module on
educational settings for students with disabilities presents
State-reported data on serving students in least restrictive
environments. Applying positive behavioral support (PBS) in schools, the
second module, describes the context in which PBS and functional
behavioral assessment exist, features of the concepts, and their
application to the school environment. The final module in this section,
considering assistive and instructional technology for students with
disabilities, provides a brief review of how past Federal investments in
technology for special education have been instrumental in improving the
lives of children with disabilities.

######### Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

-   Over the past 10 years, the percentage of students with disabilities
    served in schools and classes with their nondisabled peers has
    gradually increased.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The environments in which students receive special education and
    related services vary by student age and disability. More
    elementary-aged than secondary-aged students with disabilities are
    served in schools with their nondisabled peers across all disability
    categories.

-   OSEP currently funds a significant number of grants that target
    placement issues, primarily inclusion.

######### Applying Positive Behavioral Support in Schools

-   PBS represents an important approach to identifying and organizing
    effective school practices, especially for students who present
    significant problem behaviors.

-   PBS emphasizes teaching as a central behavior change tool and
    focuses on replacing coercion with environmental redesign to achieve
    durable and meaningful change in the behavior of students.

-   PBS implementations consider community, family, district, school,
    classroom, nonclassroom, and individual contexts.

*Office of Special Education Programs Technology and Media Services
Program: A Focus on Implementation and Utilization*

-   Beginning in the mid-1980s, OSEP focused resources on programs that
    would study pertinent issues about the use of technology in
    achieving educational results for students with disabilities.

-   The overarching goals of the OSEP national technology program are:
    fostering lifelong learning; encouraging participation in diverse
    educational, domestic, work, and community environments; promoting
    equity in opportunity for individuals with disabilities; and
    enabling individuals with disabilities to be productive and
    independent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   With OSEP's support, appropriate technology and media continue to be
    researched, developed, demonstrated, and made available in timely
    and accessible formats to parents, teachers, and other personnel who
    provide services to children with disabilities.

SECTION IV

**Results:** There are three modules in this section. The first module
provides a description of the characteristics of children and families
entering early intervention. The module on high school graduation
presents State-reported data on the graduation rates of students with
disabilities by disability and by State. The third module, state
improvement and monitoring, discusses OSEP's monitoring system and areas
of compliance and noncompliance for both Parts B and C.

######### Characteristics of Children and Families Entering Early Intervention

-   Preliminary data from the National Early Intervention Longitudinal
    Study (NEILS) indicate that most children are eligible for early
    intervention because of a developmental delay, and these children
    are likely to enter early intervention later than children with a
    diagnosed condition or a risk condition.

-   Data also indicate that there are more males in early intervention
    than are represented in the general birth-through-3 population and
    that families in early intervention are more likely to be receiving
    public assistance.

-   Future analyses of NEILS data will provide information about the
    location, amount, and nature of services provided to children with
    disabilities; types of programs serving young children and their
    families; and the costs of early intervention relative to the
    benefits achieved.

######### High School Graduation 

-   In 1997-98, 25.5 percent of students ages 17 and older with
    disabilities graduated from high school with a standard diploma.

-   High school graduation rates for students with disabilities vary
    considerably by disability. Among those least likely to graduate
    were students with mental retardation, multiple disabilities, and
    autism.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The percentage of students with disabilities graduating with a
    standard diploma varied considerably by State, ranging from a low of
    6.8 to a high of 45.4.

-   OSEP's efforts to understand factors influencing graduation rates
    for students with disabilities include funding for a second national
    longitudinal transition study, which will provide information on
    associations among high school completion, student characteristics,
    and educational services.

######### State Improvement and Monitoring

-   OSEP uses research, technical assistance, dissemination,
    demonstration, systems change, and other strategies to provide State
    and local early intervention providers and education agencies with
    tools to assist them in improving results for children with
    disabilities.

-   OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is built around
    continuity, partnership with stakeholders, State accountability,
    State self-assessment, data, public process, and the provision of
    technical assistance.

-   In States where there is evidence of substantial compliance with
    IDEA requirements, OSEP's focus is on the identification and
    implementation of best practices; in States not demonstrating
    compliance, OSEP works with the State to develop improvement
    strategies.

Introduction

The landmark Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in
1975 as a reflection of congressional determination that all children
with disabilities be offered a free appropriate public education, or
FAPE (U.S. Department of Education, 1981). The annual report to Congress
on the implementation of IDEA dates back to 1979, when *Progress Toward
a Free Appropriate Public Education: A Report to Congress on the
Implementation of Public Law 94-142* was published by the U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By the time the second
annual report was published in 1980, the Department of Education had
been established and responsibility for the report had passed to that
agency.

The primary purpose of the report to Congress has always been to examine
progress in the implementation of the nation's special education law.
Early reports looked at who was being served under the law and in what
settings those services were provided. Those publications included
State-reported data in an appendix, a feature that is still seen in
today's annual report. However, the body of the report has been
organized in a number of different ways over the past 22 years.

The first two annual reports were organized around six questions that
constituted the evaluation plan for the Act, with a focus on data and
administrative issues (U.S. Department of Education, 1981). The
publication of the third annual report in 1981 saw the introduction of a
number of lengthy chapters describing the State-reported data, State and
local accomplishments and challenges in implementing the Act, and
administrative strategies for implementation. Subsequent reports in the
1980s examined the impact of the Act and its implementing regulations
(e.g., see U.S. Department of Education, 1983).

The *Sixth Annual Report to Congress*, published in 1984, began to shift
the emphasis from the procedures of implementation to the quality of
educational programs for children with disabilities (U.S. Department of
Education, 1985). This trend continues today. Changes to the annual
report have also resulted from changes to the law. For example, the
*Ninth Annual Report to Congress* incorporated changes resulting from
the EHA Amendments of 1983 (U.S. Department of Education, 1987).
Specific changes included a more detailed statistical description of the
children receiving services, a description of monitoring activities, and
more information on discretionary programs. The ninth annual report was
organized around four lengthy chapters based on the four purposes of the
Act: to assure that all children with disabilities received a free
appropriate public education, to assure that the rights of children with
disabilities and their families were protected, to assist State
education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) in their
efforts to provide FAPE to children with disabilities, and to assure the
effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities (U.S.
Department of Education, 1987).

The report format that was introduced in 1987 was in use for the next 9
years. In addition, the 1992 publication of the fourteenth annual report
saw the introduction of a series of papers on special populations of
students with disabilities, mandated by the EHA Amendments of 1986. The
1992 report included an appendix on two special populations, migrant
students with disabilities and Native Pacific Basin and Native Hawaiian
students with disabilities. Limited English proficient students with
disabilities were studied as the special populations topic for the
fifteenth annual report.

In 1994, the special populations study, this time on Native American
students with disabilities, was moved to the main body of the report.
The *Seventeenth Annual* *Report* *to Congress*, published in 1995,
included a special populations report on serving students with
disabilities in rural areas, and the eighteenth report looked at the
needs of students with disabilities in the inner cities.

The *Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress* introduced a new format based
on a conceptual framework that was designed to aid in the understanding
of the different factors that affect educational results for students
with disabilities. The 1997 report was divided into four sections:
Context/Environment, Student Characteristics, Programs and Services, and
Results. The issues discussed in the first three sections were
envisioned as influencing the results described in the fourth section.
Each section contained several individual modules on different topics of
interest in the special education field. Taken together, the sections
provided an overview of important issues affecting the education of
students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

The first section describes societal and educational forces that have an
impact on the education of children with disabilities. The nineteenth
annual report included modules on topics such as general education
reform, poverty among children, and the disproportionate representation
of racial/ethnic minorities in special education. The Student
Characteristics section focuses on the population of students receiving
services under IDEA, with individual modules on infants and toddlers,
preschoolers, and students ages 6 through 21. The nineteenth report also
included a module on students with attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder in the Student Characteristics section. The third section looks
at school programs and services, and presents data on educational
environments, as well as other topics. In the 1997 report, modules on
promising classroom interventions, conflict resolution, and the
inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide assessments
appeared in the Programs and Services section. Finally, the Results
section of the nineteenth annual report highlighted State-reported
exiting data and OSEP monitoring efforts and also included a module on
the Part H Longitudinal Study. This four-section format is the one in
current use for the annual report, and the data-based modules,
monitoring module, and State-reported data tables are included in the
report each year. Modules are typically written by staff members from
OSEP-funded research centers and technical assistance projects and by
Westat staff members; the monitoring module is traditionally written by
OSEP staff.

The 1998 report was the second to rely on the modular format. The
Context/Environment section included an overview of the IDEA Amendments
of 1997 and a module on State accountability systems and students with
disabilities. In addition to the data-based modules, the Student
Characteristics section also presented a paper on gender as a factor in
special education, which was the 1997 special populations topic. Under
Programs and Services, there were modules on using individualized family
service plans (IFSPs) with preschoolers and on national trends in the
demand for and shortage of special education teachers. The Results
section included papers on standards-based reform and students with
disabilities and developing alternate assessments for students with
disabilities.

The *Twenty-first Annual Report to Congress*, published in 1999,
included modules on parent involvement in educating children with
disabilities, developing a highly trained teacher workforce, school
discipline and students with disabilities, paraprofessionals in the
education workforce, and a special populations study on special
education in correctional facilities. Modules in the Results section
included an interim report from the National Assessment and a look at
progress in implementing IDEA's transition requirements.

This volume of the annual report to Congress, the twenty-second,
examines contextual and environmental factors such as the role of
minority institutions of higher education in recruiting and training
minority educators, and the implications of fetal alcohol and nicotine
exposure for special education. In the Student Characteristics section,
readers will find modules based on the State-reported data for infants
and toddlers, preschoolers, and students ages 6 through 21, as well as
papers on students with orthopedic impairments and students with
co-occurring disabilities. School Programs and Services looks at
positive behavioral interventions and supports, assistive and
instructional technologies, and the State-reported educational
environments data. In addition to the exiting and monitoring modules,
the Results section also includes initial findings from the National
Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). The *Twenty-second Annual
Report to Congress* also includes a special preface reflecting on the
progress made in the 25 years since the initial passage of the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act. Modules were written by staff from
OSEP-funded research, training, and technical assistance projects, as
well as by OSEP staff, outside consultants, and Westat staff. The report
was reviewed at multiple levels within the Department of Education. This
report was produced by Westat under contract with the U.S. Department of
Education and under the direction of the Office of Special Education
Programs.

# References

U.S. Department of Education. (1981). *Third annual report to Congress
on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1983). *Fifth annual report to Congress
on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1985). *Seventh annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Education of Handicapped Act*. Washington,
DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1987). *Ninth annual report to Congress
on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). *Nineteenth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.* Washington, DC: Author.

[^1]: This preface was prepared by Westat with the assistance of Dr.
    Thomas Hehir, former director of the Office of Special Education
    Programs, who is now at Harvard University.

[^2]: This figure includes students with mental retardation, autism,
    multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairments, and deaf blindness.

[^3]: This figure includes students who spent 60 percent or less of
    their time outside the regular classroom.

[^4]: Infants and toddlers were first under Part C in 1987-88; however,
    the data collection was unreliable in the early years of the
    program. Consequently, counts of children served under Part C are
    generally included in totals only from 1991-92 forward.