II\. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Characteristics of Children and Families Entering Early Intervention

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

######## 

######## 

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

######### Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities

Characteristics of Children and Families Entering Early Intervention

In 1999-2000, 205,769 children and their families in the United States
received early intervention services under Part C of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This figure represents 1.8
percent of the nation's infants and toddlers, according to July 2000
population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. What do we know about
these children and their families?

To answer this question, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
commissioned the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS).
NEILS is following a nationally representative sample of 3,338 infants
and toddlers who received early intervention services for the first time
between September 1997 and November 1998. Information is being collected
repeatedly on these children and their families throughout the early
intervention years and then again when the children enter kindergarten.
Data from NEILS will play a key role in efforts to improve early
intervention services and results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities.

Some descriptive information about the characteristics of children and
families receiving early intervention was presented in the *22^nd^
Annual Report to Congress*. Briefly, these initial findings indicated
that the average age of the child at the time of the first
individualized family service plan (IFSP) was 17.1 months.[^1] Most
children (64 percent) were eligible for early intervention because of a
developmental delay, and these children were most likely to begin early
intervention after 21 months of age.

One of the primary reasons for eligibility for service among the
youngest children were reasons related to their birth histories. Around
40 percent of the children who began early intervention at 12 months of
age or less needed services for reasons related to prenatal/perinatal
abnormalities. Among older children, a speech or communication problem
was the most frequent reason for receipt of early intervention services.

NEILS data indicate that boys made up 61 percent of the early
intervention population and 65 percent of those with developmental
delays. The largest racial/ethnic group in the early intervention
population was white (56 percent), followed by black (21 percent),
Hispanic (15 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (5 percent). These
figures differ somewhat from the State-reported data for 1999-2000,
which are reported in table AH7. States reported that 60.7 percent of
the Part C population was white, 18.0 percent was black, 16.5 percent
was Hispanic, 3.6 percent was Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.2 percent
was American Indian/Alaska Native.[^2] NEILS data also suggest that
children in foster care were substantially overrepresented among those
in early intervention. Seven percent of the children entering early
intervention were in foster care, a rate about 10 times greater than
that of the general population (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1998).

This module provides a more detailed description of the children in
early intervention based on new data available from NEILS. The module
includes data describing the nature of these children's disabilities and
their birth histories, health status, and behaviors. The text also
includes descriptive demographic data on the children and their
families, including family size, structure, and socioeconomic status.
The data presented in this report are based on a telephone interview
(*N*=3,000), which was conducted with a family member[^3] within the
first few months after the child and family started early intervention
services.

# Child Characteristics

## *Child Functioning*

To further explore the nature of the abilities and disabilities of
children receiving early intervention services, parents were asked a
series of questions about various aspects of their child's functioning,
including vision, hearing, mobility, and communication. These results
are shown in table II-1. Very few parents reported that their child had
a lot of trouble seeing or hearing (8 percent and 9 percent,
respectively). A hearing aid or other hearing device had been prescribed
for 2 percent, and glasses had been prescribed for 2 percent. One-fourth
of the children in early intervention were reported as having at least
some difficulty with their hands and arms; 7 percent had a lot of
trouble or no use of their hands and arms. Similarly, 26 percent of the
children in early intervention were reported as having at least some

Table II-1

Functional Characteristics of Children Entering Early Intervention\
as Reported by Caregivers

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
|                                                            | Percent |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Diagnosed hearing problem                                |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 9       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 91      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Diagnosed vision problem                                 |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 8       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 92      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Use of arms and hands                                    |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Uses both normally                                       | 75      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a little trouble                                     | 18      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a lot of trouble                                     | 6       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No use of one or both                                    | 1       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Use of legs and feet                                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Uses both normally                                       | 73      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a little trouble                                     | 19      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a lot of trouble                                     | 7       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No use of one or both                                    | 1       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > How well does child make needs known                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Communicates just as well as other children              | 30      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a little trouble communicating                       | 41      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a lot of trouble communicating                       | 25      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Doesn't communicate at all                               | 4       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > When child talks to people s/he doesn't know, child is\* |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Very easy to understand                                  | 12      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Fairly easy to understand                                | 22      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Somewhat hard to understand                              | 38      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Very hard to understand                                  | 28      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

> Note: Only asked if child used words to communicate.
>
> Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

trouble with their legs or feet, while 8 percent had a lot of trouble or
no use of one or both legs or feet. Eleven percent of those with a lot
of trouble or no use of their legs or feet entered early intervention
using some kind of equipment to help them get around.

Substantially greater numbers of infants and toddlers were reported as
having trouble communicating. Only 30 percent of the children were seen
as communicating their needs as well as other children, and 41 percent
were reported to have a little trouble communicating. One-fourth of the
children were reported as having a lot of trouble with communication,
and 4 percent did not communicate at all. Parents were also asked about
how easy the child is to understand when talking to people he or she
doesn't know. Two-thirds of the children were described as somewhat or
very hard to understand.

The parent reports were consistent with provider reports on the reasons
children were eligible for early intervention. Many different
conditions, delays, and disabilities were represented among the
population of children entering early intervention, with any one
particular difficulty being reported for only a small proportion of the
children. The notable exception was difficulty in the area of speech and
communication, which characterized a fairly large proportion of those
entering early intervention. This was especially true of those over 24
months of age. Children with communication delays might be those who
respond well to early intervention and require few or no services in
future years. Alternatively, communication delays could be an early
marker of other serious developmental problems such as cognitive delays.
Additional NEILS data in forthcoming years will provide information on
the results these children experience.

## *Birth History*

Because low birth weight[^4] is often associated with developmental
difficulties, it is not surprising to find that a substantial portion of
children in early intervention were not of normal birth weight. Nearly
one-third of the children in early intervention (32 percent) were low
birth weight (see table II-2), compared with 7.5 percent of the general
population. One in six children (17 percent) receiving early
intervention were very low birth weight, compared with 1 percent of the
general population (Ventura, Martin, Curtin, & Matthews, 1999).

Very low birth weight places an infant at even greater risk of serious
medical and developmental problems (Botting, Powls, Cooke, & Marlow,
1998). Among the children receiving early intervention there was a high
incidence of children of very low birth weight in all racial/ethnic
groups, but the proportions differed by race/ethnicity. Black infants
were most likely to be of very low birth weight; 31 percent of black
babies in early intervention were very low birth weight.

Black babies are also more likely to be low birth weight in the general
population. The ratio of black to white infants of low birth weight is
similar for both the general and early intervention populations;
slightly more than 2.5 times as many black babies

Table II-2

Birth Histories of Children Entering Early Intervention

  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
                                                               Percent

  Birth weight                                                 

  Less than 1000 grams                                         10

  1000 to 1499 grams                                           7

  1500 to 2499 grams                                           15

  2500 grams or more                                           68

  Percentage of babies from each ethnic group under 1500 grams 

  White                                                        12

  Black                                                        31

  Hispanic                                                     16

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                       13

  Mixed or Other                                               18

  Stayed in neonatal intensive care unit after birth           

  Yes                                                          37

  No                                                           59

  Don't know                                                   4

  Stayed in hospital after birth because of medical problems   

  No                                                           55

  1 to 4 days                                                  6

  5 to 14 days                                                 12

  15 to 30 days                                                7

  31 or more                                                   19
  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

as white babies were born of low birth weight in both groups (2.6 for
those in early intervention vs. 2.8 for the general population).
Hispanic babies in early intervention were 1.3 times more likely than
white infants to be very low birth weight, comparable to the ratio of
1.1 in the general population.

Another important indicator of birth problems and possible later
difficulties is whether the child was hospitalized in the neonatal
intensive care unit after birth. A sizable proportion of the early
intervention population37 percentwas in neonatal intensive care (see
table II-2). Consistent with the findings for low birth weight,
race/ethnicity was related to use of neonatal intensive care. Black
infants were in intensive care most frequently relative to other groups;
nearly half of the black children in early intervention had been in
intensive care after they were born.

One last indicator of difficulties at birth is whether the baby stayed
at the hospital after birth for a medical reason. Forty-four percent of
the children entering early intervention were required to stay in the
hospital after birth. Eighteen percent stayed 2 weeks or less. At the
other extreme, 19 percent stayed in the hospital for more than a month.
Parent-reported data on these children's birth histories indicate that a
relatively high percentage of children in early intervention had
difficulties at birth, especially prematurity and low birth weight. This
finding is consistent with provider information about the relatively
high proportions of children who entered early intervention in the first
year of life because of prenatal and perinatal abnormalities.

## *General Health and Health Care*

Parents were asked several questions regarding their child's current
health, health care, and health insurance status. Although some children
receive early intervention for disabling conditions related to their
health, many children are eligible for services because of developmental
problems rather than health per se. Most parents (84 percent) reported
their children's health to be good, very good, or excellent (see table
II-3). This is a lower figure, however, than reported for the general
population. Figure II-1 shows the distribution of responses on health
status for both the early intervention and general population. Nearly
all parents in the general population (98 percent) report their children
to be in good, very good, or excellent health.[^5]

Consistent with the ratings of overall health, 26 percent of the
children in early intervention were reported to be taking prescription
medication for a chronic condition. Sixteen percent were reported to be
using a medical device of some sort, with the most common medical
devices being respirators, breathing monitors, and nebulizers. Over a
third (34 percent) had been hospitalized at least 1 night since coming
home from the hospital, with 7 percent hospitalized for 15 or more days.

With regard to health care, families of nearly all children in early
intervention (97 percent) reported that their children had a place to go
for regular medical care. Similarly, nearly all children (95 percent)
were covered by health insurance. Health insurance can be a powerful
determinant of whether children have access to routine health care and
even to treatment in the event of illness. Slightly less than half (44
percent) of children were insured through a government insurance
program. Last, about one in five families (19 percent) reported that
their insurance company had refused to pay for something they tried to
get for their child.

Table II-3

Health Status of Children Entering Early Intervention

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
|                                                            | Percent |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Health Status                                            |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Excellent                                                | 36      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Very good                                                | 25      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Good                                                     | 23      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Fair                                                     | 12      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Poor                                                     | 4       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Regularly taking any prescription medication for a       |         |
| > specific condition or problem                            |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 26      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 74      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Uses any kind of medical device like an oxygen tank,     |         |
| > catheter, or a breathing monitor                         |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 16      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 84      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Hospitalized since coming home from hospital after birth |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 66      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > 1 to 4 days                                              | 16      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > 5 to 14 days                                             | 11      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > 15 or more                                               | 7       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Has a place to go for regular medical care               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 97      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 3       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Covered by any health insurance                          |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 95      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 5       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Covered by government-assisted health insurance          |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 44      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 56      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Ever tried to get insurance to pay for something for     |         |
| > child that it wouldn't pay for                           |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > Yes                                                      | 19      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| > No                                                       | 81      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

Figure II-1

Distribution of General Health Status Rating of Children in Early
Intervention Versus Children Under 5 General Population

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.497222222222222in"
height="3.678472222222222in"}

Source: Adams, P.F. et al., 1996; National Early Intervention
Longitudinal Study.

## *Behavior*

Children vary in temperment and personality style from a very early age.
The importance of some of these differences is not readily apparent.
Does a 2-year-old who pays attention for a long period of time become
the child who stays focused in first grade? Does the aggressive toddler
become the 5-year-old with behavior problems? Part of the significance
of the NEILS behavioral data rests in their stability or the extent to
which early behavior serves as a predictor of later behavior. Across
many different behavior items, the same pattern emerged (see table
II-4). Some children, usually about half, were reported by their
caregiver to have no trouble with a given behavior. Another third of the
children were reported as having some difficulty, and 10 to 40 percent
of the early intervention children are described as having behavioral
challenges. For example, 19 percent of parents reported that it was not
like their child to pay attention and stay focused; 25 percent reported
that their child was easily startled; 39 percent reported their child
was very active and excitable; 11 percent reported their child was often
aggressive with other children;

Table II-4

Behaviors of Children Entering Early Intervention as Reported\
by Their Caregivers

  -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
                                                                 Percent

  Does things on own even if hard                                

  Very much like this child                                      53

  A little like this child                                       32

  Not like this child                                            14

  Pays attention and stays focused                               

  Very much like this child                                      43

  A little like this child                                       38

  Not like this child                                            19

  Jumpy and easily startled                                      

  Very much like this child                                      25

  A little like this child                                       30

  Not like this child                                            45

  Very active and excitable                                      

  Very much like this child                                      39

  A little like this child                                       31

  Not like this child                                            29

  Trouble playing with other children                            

  No trouble                                                     56

  Some trouble                                                   32

  A lot of trouble                                               10

  Not around other children                                      2

  Aggressive with other children                                 

  Not at all                                                     39

  Sometimes                                                      50

  Often                                                          11

  Child has sleep trouble                                        

  Rarely or never                                                53

  Sometimes                                                      28

  Often                                                          19

  How easy is it to take child to the store or an appointment    

  Easier than other children his/her age                         23

  Just as easy                                                   45

  A little harder                                                21

  Much harder                                                    11
  -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

> Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

and 19 percent reported that their child has sleep problems. About 1 in
10 parents (11 percent) reported that their child was much harder to
take to the store or to an appointment than other children the same age.
This could be because of the child's behavior or because the child has
medical or other problems which might require special care. These are
not all the same children having difficulties in different behavioral
areas; rather the findings suggest that there are numerous ways for
young children to present challenges within their families, and a
minority of early intervention children present each of these
challenges. Longitudinal data will reveal whether these challenges
persist over time and thus their importance for future growth and
development.

# Family Characteristics

The family characteristics of young children are extremely powerful
predictors of how these children will develop (National Research
Council/Institute of Medicine, 2000). In addition to issues related to
birth history, health, and health care, there are other factors that
constitute risks or facilitators to development. One of the most
powerful factors is poverty. The impacts of poverty begin prenatally and
accumulate throughout childhood. The following sections present
information on family structure and family socioeconomic
characteristics. Both of these relate to the issue of resources, human
and fiscal, that are available to the child. A well-educated mother of
moderate to high income has many resources available to assist with
child-rearing, while a poor, uneducated, single mother continually faces
new challenges around the type of environment she is able to provide for
her children. These differences might be especially significant for a
young child with a delay or disability who might need more caregiving
than a typically developing infant.

## *Family Structure*

The number of adults in the child's household reveals an interesting
picture (see table II-5). Two-thirds of the children entering early
intervention were living with two adults in the household. Fifteen
percent were living with only one adult, and 18 percent lived in
households with three or more adults. The other adult(s) in the
household was not necessarily the child's other parent. Recent
population data indicate that 23 percent of the birth to 4 population
live with a single parent, and 74 percent live with two parents (Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). Whereas most
children entering early intervention (91 percent) were living with their
biological or adoptive mother, only 66 percent were in households with
their biological or adoptive father. Given that these are children under
the age of 3, the percentage of them living with their biological
fathers will almost certainly decrease over time.

Table II-5

Family Structure of Children Entering Early Intervention

  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
                                                               Percent

  Number of adults in household                                

  One                                                          15

  Two                                                          67

  Three                                                        11

  Four or More                                                 7

  Number of children in household                              

  One                                                          30

  Two                                                          36

  Three                                                        19

  Four or More                                                 15

  Other children in household with special needs               

  None                                                         80

  One                                                          16

  Two                                                          3

  Three or More                                                1

  Living with biological or adoptive parent                    

  Mother                                                       91

  Father                                                       66

  Age of biological mother at birth of child                   

  13 to 18                                                     4

  18 to 22                                                     16

  22 to 30                                                     37

  30 to 35                                                     25

  35 to 40                                                     14

  40 and above                                                 4
  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

The data on other children in the household show that 30 percent of
those in early intervention had no siblings or other children in their
households, and 36 percent were living with only one other child.
One-third of the children in early intervention were from households
with three or more children. In 20 percent of the households, there was
another child with special needs and sometimes more than one. The
biological mothers of the children in early intervention were a wide
range of ages at the time the child was born. Four percent were born to
teenage mothers and another 4 percent were born to mothers over 40, with
all of the age groups in between well-represented.

## *Socioeconomic Characteristics*

The level of education of the primary caregiver is also a powerful
predictor of a child's development. Many studies have shown a marked
difference between children of less-well-educated and educated mothers
(Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; Sameroff, Seifer, Barocas,
Zax, & Greenspan, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1992). Primary caregivers of the
children, most of whom were the child's biological mother, in early
intervention came from a variety of education levels. About half had a
high school diploma or less; 16 percent had not finished high school.
One-fourth of the caregivers had finished college. Hispanic and black
children receiving early intervention services were more likely than
children from other racial/ethnic groups to have caregivers with less
than a high school education, 29 and 25 percent respectively. Fathers
were slightly better educated than mothers, with 32 percent of the
fathers having graduated from college.

A little more than one-half the mothers were not working, and only 22
percent were working full time. Nearly all the fathers (90 percent) were
employed, and most of them were working full time. The data on household
income show that more families in the Part C early intervention program
tend to be low income than in the general population. Forty-one percent
of the families of children in the early intervention system reported
family incomes of less than \$25,000 a year. Another 29 percent had
incomes between \$25,000 and \$50,000. Although data on families of
children ages birth to 3 are not available for the general population,
data on families with children 18 and under highlight the extent of
poverty among the population served by the Part C program. Only 20
percent of families with children 18 and under in the general population
report household incomes of less than \$25,000. Some of the difference
in income could be due to the presumably greater work experience of the
parents in households with 18-year-old children versus those with
infants and toddlers. The differences are so large, however, that age of
parent or work force history is not likely to explain the entire
difference in income. Another indicator of the relative poverty of
families of children in early intervention was the high proportion of
families, one in three, who had received welfare or food stamps some
time during the past year. A small proportion of families had received
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for their child. Despite the
relatively low income levels of families in early intervention, slightly
more than half reported that they own their home.

# Conclusion

The data on the characteristics of children and families receiving early
intervention through the Part C program are diverse but do include a few
trends. Children are

Table II-6

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Families of Children Entering\
Early Intervention

  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
                                                               Percent

  Education level of mother/female caregiver                   

  Less than high school                                        16

  High school diploma/GED                                      32

  Some college                                                 28

  BA, BS or higher                                             24

  Education level of father/male caregiver                     

  Less than high school                                        11

  High school diploma/GED                                      34

  Some college                                                 23

  BA, BS or higher                                             32

  Employment status of mother/female caregiver                 

  Not employed                                                 56

  Part time                                                    21

  Full time                                                    22

  Employment status of father/male caregiver                   

  Not employed                                                 10

  Part time                                                    6

  Full time                                                    84

  Family Income                                                

  Less than \$25,000                                           41

  \$25 -- 50,000                                               29

  \$50 -- 75,000                                               17

  Over \$75,000                                                13

  Received welfare or food stamps in the past year             

  Yes                                                          32

  No                                                           68

  Ever received SSI payments for the child                     

  Yes                                                          15

  No                                                           85

  Type of Housing                                              

  Own                                                          54

  Rent                                                         36

  Public housing                                               8

  Other                                                        2
  ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

> Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study.

eligible for early intervention for a large number of different
conditions. When viewed from the perspective of children's functional
skills, the data show a small proportion of children who have
significant difficulties with hearing, vision, use of arms and hands, or
use of legs and feet. A much larger proportion have difficulty
communicating. A substantial portion of children in early intervention
have poor birth histories, especially black children. Some children in
early intervention are in good health, but compared to the general
population, higher percentages of early intervention children are
reported to be in poor or fair health. Some children in early
intervention also present challenging behaviors, while others do not.

The families of children in early intervention are equally diverse.
Relatively high proportions of them are low income, even though almost
all of their fathers and nearly half of their mothers were employed.
Nearly one in three early intervention families had received welfare or
food stamps in the past year. However, some families of children in
early intervention reported moderate to high education and income
levels. In sum, both the children and families in early intervention
represent a wide cross-section of all characteristics examined. These
child and family characteristics will be examined in future NEILS
analyses to see how they relate to outcomes in early intervention and
kindergarten.

# References

Adams, P.F., Hendershot, G.E., Marano, M.A. (1999). Current estimates
from the National Health Interview Survey, 1996. *Vital Health
Statistics*, *10* (200).

Botting, N., Powls, A., Cooke, R.W.I., & Marlow, N. (1998). Cognitive
and educational outcome of very-low birthweight children in early
adolescence. *Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology*, *40*,
652-660.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2001).
*America's children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2001*.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S.P. (1987). *Adolescent
mothers in later life*. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. (2000). *From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development*.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sameroff, A.J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S.
(1987). Intelligence quotient scores of 4-year-old children:
Social-environmental risk factors. *Pediatrics*, *79*, 343-350.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). *Trends in the
well-being of America's children and youth.* Washington, DC: Author.

Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., & Matthews, T.J. (1999).
*Report of final natality statistics, 1996*. Monthly vital statistics
report; vol. 47, no. 18, supp. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for
Health Statistics.

Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). *Overcoming the odds: High risk children
from birth to adulthood*. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Preschoolers Served Under IDEA

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires States
to have in effect policies and procedures to ensure the provision of a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all 3- through 5-year-olds
with disabilities in order to be eligible for funds under the Preschool
Grants Program and other IDEA funds targeted to children ages 3 through
5 with disabilities. States may also, at their discretion, serve
2-year-olds who will turn 3 during the school year. In addition, IDEA
requires States to report data regarding their progress in providing
special education and related services to preschoolers with
disabilities. This module presents State-reported data on preschoolers
served under IDEA for the 1999-2000 school year.

# The Number of Preschool Children Served Under Part B of IDEA

States reported serving 588,300 preschool children with disabilities
during the 1999-2000 school year (see table AA1). This number represents
approximately 5 percent of all preschoolers who lived in the United
States and its Outlying Areas during the year (see table AA8).

Special education enrollment rates continued to vary by State. As in
1998-99, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, West Virginia, and Wyoming reported
that more than 8 percent of their preschool populations were receiving
services. The national average for the percentage of preschoolers
receiving services was 5 percent.

At the other end of the continuum, Arizona, California, the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Texas reported serving fewer than 4
percent of their preschool-aged children. These data are consistent with
the 1998-99 school year, with the addition of Arizona in the group of
States serving fewer than 4 percent of their preschoolers. Outlying
Areas continued to report serving comparatively fewer preschoolers with
disabilities under IDEA. The Virgin Islands reported serving 2.5
percent, American Samoa reported serving 1 percent, Guam 1.6 percent,
and the Northern Marianas 1.3 percent of their preschool population (see
table AA8).

Examining the number of children served by discrete age groups suggests
that States continued to make progress in identifying younger children
and providing services. States reported serving more children within
each age group, and the percentage of 3-year-olds receiving services
continued to increase at a faster rate than the

Figure II-2

Preschoolers Receiving Services Under Part B 1992-93 -- 1999-2000

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.492361111111111in"
height="3.7555555555555555in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

percentage of 4- and 5-year-olds (see table AA9). Of the total number of
preschoolers receiving services in the 1999-2000 school year, 20.7
percent (121,768) were 3 years old, 34.9 percent (205,107) were 4 years
old, and 44.4 percent (261,425) were 5 years old. Compared with 1998-99,
States served 3.5 percent more 3-year-olds, 2.6 percent more
4-year-olds, and 2.1 percent more 5-year-olds. That States continue each
year to serve more 3-year-olds reflects their efforts to identify
children with disabilities early and to ease the transition process for
eligible children and families who move from Part C to Part B. Figure
II-2 shows the number of 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds, and 5-year-olds
receiving services under Part B from 1992-93 to 1999-2000.

Overall, States reported that they continued to serve more preschoolers
with disabilities under Part B of IDEA in 1999-2000 than in the previous
year. Only 12 of the 57 States and Outlying Areas reported a decrease in
the number of preschoolers served, and all of those declines were less
than 1 percent. The rate of change also increased this year. In
1999-2000, the number of preschoolers served rose 2.5 percent, compared
with a 0.6 percent increase between 1997-98 and 1998-99. The increase in
the number of preschoolers reported as receiving services was
particularly notable given the 1.2 percent decrease in the general
preschool population during the same period.[^6]

# Race/Ethnicity of Preschoolers Served Under IDEA

The 1999-2000 school year was the second year that States were required
to report data on the race/ethnicity of children receiving special
education and related services. This section of the module compares the
racial/ethnic distribution of preschoolers in special education to that
of the general preschool population. The section also compares 1999-2000
race/ethnicity data with those reported for 1998-99. Comparisons should
be interpreted cautiously, however, as 2 years of data are insufficient
to reveal trends, and States may be new to data collection procedures
for race/ethnicity.

State-reported data for 1999-2000 indicate that 67.3 percent of
preschoolers who received services under IDEA were white (non-Hispanic),
15.7 percent were black (non-Hispanic), 13.7 percent were Hispanic, 2.1
percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.2 percent were American
Indian/Alaska Native (see table AA13). U.S. Census Bureau population
estimates indicate that 61.8 percent of children ages 3 through 5 were
white (non-Hispanic), 13.7 percent were black (non-Hispanic), 19.3
percent were Hispanic, 4.3 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.9
percent were American Indian/Alaska Native. Although these percentages
are roughly comparable, they do suggest underrepresentation of Hispanic
children and overrepresentation of white children in the Part B
preschool population. To a lesser extent, black children appeared to be
overrepresented, and Asian/Pacific Islander children appeared to be
underrepresented. Table II-7 shows the differences between
race/ethnicity representation in the Part B and general preschool
populations for 1999-2000.

The racial distribution of preschool children served under IDEA was
generally comparable between 1998-99 and 1999-2000. There were slight
differences in the race/ethnicity categories of white (non-Hispanic) and
Hispanic. From 1998-99 to 1999-2000, the proportion of Hispanic
preschoolers served grew by 1.7 percent, and the proportion of white
preschoolers served declined by 1.6 percent.

The racial distribution of preschoolers served under IDEA varied by
State. Four StatesAlaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma---reported
serving 40 percent

Table II-7

Comparison of Race/Ethnicity Representation in the Part B and General
Preschool Populations for 1999-2000

  ------------------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------
                           Percentage in   Percentage in   Difference
                           Part B          General         
                           Population,\    Population,     
                           Ages 3-5        Ages 3-5        

  White                    67.3            61.8            +5.5

  Black                    15.7            13.7            +2.0

  Hispanic                 13.7            19.3            -5.6

  Asian/Pacific Islander   2.1             4.3             -2.2

  American Indian/Alaska   1.2             0.9             +0.3
  Native                                                   
  ------------------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

of the total number of American Indian/Alaska Native preschoolers served
in 1999-2000. California and Hawaii served 42 percent of the total
number of Asian/Pacific Islander preschoolers, and California and Texas
served 47 percent of the total number of Hispanic preschoolers.

# Summary

State-reported data for 1999-2000 show a continued increase in the
number of preschool children served under Part B of IDEA, although
States continue to vary in the percentage of population served. In this
second year of race/ethnicity data collection, comparisons of
preschoolers receiving services with the racial/ethnic distribution of
the general population suggest that white (non-Hispanic) children were
served in numbers that exceeded their representation in the general
population. To a lesser extent, this was also true for black
preschoolers. In contrast, Hispanic children appeared to be
underrepresented in the preschool population. Asian/Pacific Islander
children also appeared to be slightly underrepresented among
preschoolers receiving special education and related services.

Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

Since the 1975 passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EHA, P.L. 94-142), the Department of Education has collected data on
the number of children served under the law. Early collections of data
on the number of children with disabilities served under Part B of IDEA
used 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.

In 1997, the law was reauthorized with several major revisions (IDEA
Amendments of 1997; P.L. 105-17). One revision was the requirement that
data be collected on the number of children served by race/ethnicity.
The reauthorization also allowed States the option of reporting children
ages 6 through 9 under the developmental delay category.

This module presents changes in the number of students ages 6 through 21
served, the age distribution of students served, disability distribution
across age groups, and disability distribution by race/ethnicity.

# Changes in Numbers of Students Served

The number of students ages 6 through 21 with disabilities served under
Part B of IDEA reached 5,683,707 in 1999-2000, a 2.6 percent increase
over the 1998-99 school year. The number of children served has
increased steadily since 1990-91, when a total of 4,361,751 students
were served. By 1999-2000, the total number of students ages 6 through
21 served had grown by 30.3 percent (see table AA12).[^7]

Children served under Part B constituted 8.3 percent of the estimated
resident population in 1999-2000 (see table AA8)[^8], a similar
percentage to that served in 1998-99 (8.8 percent). The number of
students ages 6 through 17 with disabilities served comprised 11.4
percent of the estimated student enrollment for that age group (see
table AA11), which was also comparable to the previous year (11.2
percent).[^9] However, the 30.3 percent growth in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with disabilities served under Part B of IDEA for the
past 9 years exceeded the growth rate both in the resident population
and in school enrollment for the same age group. The resident population
of students ages 6 through 21 grew 12.2 percent between 1990-91 and
1999-2000, from 57,104,549 to 64,096,040. And pre-kindergarten through
12^th^ grade school enrollment increased by 13.7 percent, from
41,737,639 to 47,459,994.

# Students Served by Disability Category

States and Outlying Areas report data on students served in 13
disability categories: specific learning disabilities, speech or
language impairments, mental retardation, emotional disturbance,
multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments,
other health impairments, visual impairments, autism, deaf-blindness,
traumatic brain injury, and developmental delay. Developmental delay,
the most recently added disability category, is applicable only to
children ages 3 through 9, and its use for students ages 6 through 9 is
optional for States and local educational agencies (LEAs). In 1999-2000,
22 States used the developmental delay category for children ages 6
through 9.

The relative distribution of students with disabilities across the 13
disability categories did not change significantly from 1998-99 to
1999-2000. Specific learning disabilities continued to be the most
prevalent disability, representing half of the students with
disabilities served under IDEA (2,871,966, or 50.5 percent). Speech or
language impairments (1,089,964, or 19.2 percent), mental retardation
(614,433, or 10.8 percent), and emotional disturbance (470,111, or 8.3
percent) were the next most used disability categories. Almost 9 out of
10 students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA were classified under
one of these four disability categories (see table AA2).

Among low-incidence disabilities,[^10] the developmental delay category
showed the largest increase over last year: 62.1 percent. The increase,
from 11,907 students in 1998-99 to 19,304 in 1999-2000, may in part be a
reflection of the newness of the category. In addition, Minnesota,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia used the
developmental delay category for the first time in 1999-2000. The

Table II-8

Changes in Number of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

by Disability Category, 1990-1991 and 1999-2000

  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------------
                              1990-91     1999-2000   Difference   Change (%)

  Specific Learning           2,144,017   2,871,966   727,949      34.0
  Disabilities                                                     

  Speech or Language          987,778     1,089,964   102,186      10.3
  Impairments                                                      

  Mental Retardation          551,457     614,433     62,976       11.4

  Emotional Disturbance       390,764     470,111     79,347       20.3

  Multiple Disabilities       97,629      112,993     15,364       15.7

  Hearing Impairments         59,211      71,671      12,460       21.0

  Orthopedic Impairments      49,340      71,422      22,082       44.8

  Other Health Impairments    56,349      254,110     197,761      351.0

  Visual Impairments          23,682      26,590      2,908        12.3

  Autism                      .           65,424      .            [a]{.underline}/

  Deaf-Blindness              1,524       1,845       321          21.1

  Traumatic Brain Injury      .           13,874      .            [a]{.underline}/

  Developmental Delay         .           19,304      .            [b]{.underline}/

  All Disabilities            4,361,751   5,683,707   1,321,956    30.3
  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------------

[a]{.underline}/ Reporting on autism and traumatic brain injury was
first required in 1992-93.

[b]{.underline}/ Optional reporting on developmental delay for students
ages 3 through 7 was first allowed in the 1997-98 school year.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

next largest increase among low-incidence disabilities was in the autism
category. The number of students reported under this category rose 21.0
percent, from 54,062 in 1998-99 to 65,424 in 1999-2000. There was a 14.5
percent increase in the number of students reported in the
deaf-blindness category, from 1,612 to 1,845, and a 6.9 percent increase
in the traumatic brain injury (TBI) category. The number of students
with TBI rose to 13,874 in 1999-2000, up from 12,976 in the previous
year.

Table II-8 shows the percentage change of students served by disability
category between 1990-91 and 1999-2000 (see table AA12). The most
noticeable growth took place in the other health impairments category,
which showed a 351.0 percent increase during this period. Beginning in
1992, the number of children reported under this category rose at a
significantly greater rate than that of children served under other
categories. This may be due in part to a 1991 memorandum from the Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), which
clarified that students with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are eligible for
services under the other health impairments category when the disorder
is a chronic or acute health problem that results in limited alertness
that in turn adversely affects educational performance (U.S. Department
of Education, 1999). Twelve States reported to OSEP that their reported
increases in services to students with other health impairments were due
to increases in the identification and inclusion of students with
ADD/ADHD.

From 1990-91 through 1999-2000, growth in the number of students
reported with specific learning disabilities, orthopedic impairments,
and other health impairments exceeded the growth rate for all
disabilities among students ages 6 through 21 served under Part B of
IDEA.

Age-Group Distribution

Table AA12 shows the number of students served since 1990-91 by three
age groups: 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21. The data
show that, for the past 9 years, the number of students ages 6 through
11 with disabilities grew by 21.9 percent, or 502,907 students; the
number of students ages 12 through 17 with disabilities increased by
41.8 percent, or 765,266; and the number of students ages 18 through 21
with disabilities increased by 23.3 percent, or 53,783.

Figure II-3 compares the age group composition of students with
disabilities served in 1990-91 and 1999-2000 (see table AA12). The
relative composition of each age group compared with the total number of
6- through 21-year-old students served under Part B has remained
relatively steady from 1990-91 through 1999-2000.

Specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, mental
retardation, and emotional disturbance have consistently been the most
prevalent disabilities. However, their percentage distributions within
each age group diverge from that of the entire population of students
with disabilities ages 6 through 21, as illustrated in table II-9.

For the 6- through 11-year-old age group, specific learning disabilities
(39.9 percent) and speech or language impairments (34.2 percent) were
the most prevalent disabilities, comprising more than 70 percent of the
students served in this age group. However, only 4.9 percent of students
ages 12 through 17 were reported in the speech or language impairments
category, whereas the percentage of 12- through 17-year-old students
with mental retardation and emotional disturbance increased to

Figure II-3

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Served Under Part B of IDEA by
Age Group, 1990-91 and 1999-2000

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.492361111111111in"
height="3.7555555555555555in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

11.9 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively. The largest percentage of
students in this age group61.9 percentwas reported under the specific
learning disabilities category.

Among students ages 18 through 21, specific learning disabilities
accounted for 51.1 percent of the students receiving services in
1999-2000. Mental retardation was the second most prevalent disability,
comprising 23.5 percent of the students in this age group. Speech or
language impairments comprised only 1.8 percent of this population, and
emotional disturbance accounted for 9.3 percent of the students
reported.

The distribution of low-incidence disabilities appeared to be relatively
stable across the three age groups. This balance of disability
distribution within each age group has remained consistent over the past
9 years (see table AA12).

Table II-9

Percentage and Number of Children Served Under IDEA by Disability and
Age Group During the 1999-2000 School Year: High-Incidence Disabilities

  --------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ --------- ------------
                  Ages 6-11                Ages 12-17               Ages      
                                                                    18-21     

                  Number      Percentage   Number      Percentage   Number    Percentage

  Specific        1,118,152   39.9         1,608,645   61.9         145,169   51.1
  Learning\                                                                   
  Disabilities                                                                

  Speech or       958,182     34.2         126,724     4.9          5,058     1.8
  Language\                                                                   
  Impairments                                                                 

  Mental          238,714     8.5          308,802     11.9         66,917    23.5
  Retardation                                                                 

  Emotional\      159,879     5.7          283,934     10.9         26,298    9.3
  Disturbance                                                                 

  Multiple        51,312      1.8          47,010      1.8          14,671    5.2
  Disabilities                                                                

  All             2,802,385   100.0        2,597,134   100.0        284,188   100.0
  Disabilities                                                                
  --------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ --------- ------------

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

# Race/Ethnicity of Students with Disabilities

This section of the module examines the racial/ethnic distribution of
students with disabilities in 1999-2000 and compares those data with the
1998-99 data.

The 1999-2000 racial/ethnic distributions for each disability category
presented in table II-10 were very similar to the 1998-99 distributions.
The racial/ethnic distribution of students served under IDEA appears to
differ from that of the resident population of 6- through 21-year-olds.

Although Asian/Pacific Islander students constituted only 1.8 percent of
the students served under IDEA in 1999-2000, they made up 3.8 percent of
the resident population of children ages 6 through 21. However, these
students' representation in three disability categories, hearing
impairments (4.6 percent), autism (4.8 percent), and deaf-blindness (7.5
percent), exceeded their representation in the estimated resident
population. Not surprisingly, California and Hawaii accounted for large
percentages of Asian children with disabilities: 30.0 percent and 15.9
percent, respectively (see table AA14).

American Indian/Alaska Native students with disabilities comprised 1.3
percent of the students served under IDEA in 1999-2000 and 1.0 percent
of the resident population. In all disability categories, with the
exceptions of orthopedic

Table II-10

Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served by Disability and
Race/Ethnicity, 1999-2000 School
Year^[a]{.underline}/,[b]{.underline}/,[c]{.underline}/^

  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------
  \                       American   Asian/\    Black            Hispanic   White
  \                       Indian/\   Pacific    (non-Hispanic)              (non-Hispanic)
  \                       Alaska     Islander                               
  Disability              Native                                            

  Specific Learning       1.4        1.6        18.4             16.6       62.1
  Disabilities                                                              

  Speech or Language\     1.2        2.4        16.1             12.7       67.6
  Impairments                                                               

  Mental Retardation      1.1        1.8        34.2             9.1        53.8

  Emotional Disturbance   1.1        1.2        27.3             8.9        61.5

  Multiple Disabilities   1.5        2.3        20.0             11.5       64.8

  Hearing Impairments     1.3        4.6        16.4             17.9       59.8

  Orthopedic Impairments  0.8        3.0        14.7             14.8       66.8

  Other Health            1.1        1.4        14.9             8.0        74.7
  Impairments                                                               

  Visual Impairments      1.1        3.5        18.6             14.0       62.9

  Autism                  0.7        4.8        20.5             9.2        64.9

  Deaf-Blindness          2.0        7.5        24.7             11.2       54.6

  Traumatic Brain Injury  1.6        2.4        16.9             10.5       68.5

  Developmental Delay     0.9        0.8        30.5             4.1        63.7

  All Disabilities        1.3        1.8        20.3             13.7       62.9

  Resident Population     1.0        3.8        14.5             16.2       64.5
  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------

[a]{.underline}/ Due to rounding, rows may not sum to 100 percent.

[b]{.underline}/ Race/ethnicity distributions exclude Outlying Areas
because current population estimates by race/ethnicity were not
available for those areas.

[c]{.underline}/ Population counts are July 1999 estimates from the U.S.
Census Bureau.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

impairments (0.8 percent), autism (0.7 percent), and developmental delay
(0.9 percent), the proportion of American Indian/Alaska Native students
exceeded their representation among the resident population.
Deaf-blindness showed the highest percentage of American Indian/Alaska
Native students (2.0 percent), followed by traumatic brain injury (1.6
percent).

All black (non-Hispanic) students with disabilities (20.3 percent)
exceeded their representation among the resident population (14.5
percent). While their representation in all 13 disability categories
exceeded their national resident population estimates, the most striking
disparities were in the mental retardation (34.2 percent) and
developmental delay (30.5 percent) categories. Hispanic students were
underrepresented among students served under IDEA: 16.2 percent of the
resident student population was Hispanic, versus 13.7 percent of the
Part B population.

White (non-Hispanic) students were slightly underrepresented among
students with disabilities versus the resident population (62.9 percent
versus 64.5 percent). However, in eight disability categories, white
(non-Hispanic) students with disabilities exceeded their representation
in the resident population. Most notable was the finding that white
students constituted 74.7 percent of students classified as having other
health impairments.

# Summary

In 1999-2000, the number of students ages 6 through 21 served under Part
B of IDEA continued to grow at a rate more than twice that of both the
resident population and school enrollment estimates. Specific learning
disabilities continued to be the largest disability category, accounting
for half of all students with disabilities. Other health impairments,
with a 350.1 percent increase, demonstrated the greatest growth over the
past 9 years. In general, however, low-incidence disabilities showed
more rapid growth than did high-incidence disabilities.

Among the three age groups, the largest increase for the past 9 years
was seen for 12- through 17-year-olds. The disability distribution
within each age varied from that of the entire population of students
ages 6 through 21 with disabilities. Among 18- through 21-year-olds,
fewer students were served under the speech or language impairments
category, while the prevalence of mental retardation was higher than for
the younger age groups. Low-incidence disabilities appeared to be
relatively stable across the three age groups.

Data suggest that the racial/ethnic distribution of students in special
education essentially remained unchanged from the 1998-99 school year.
Asian/Pacific Islander students were again underrepresented among the
students served under IDEA. Hispanic students and, to a lesser extent,
white (non-Hispanic) students overall were also underrepresented
compared to their relative representation in the estimated resident
population. Black students, however, continued to be overrepresented in
special education across all disability categories. In addition, the
representation of American Indian/Alaska Native students with
disabilities slightly exceeded their representation in the resident
population in most disability categories.

# References

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.

Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities

Although estimates of the total school-aged limited English proficient
(LEP) population vary widely, it is clear that the number of LEP
students in the United States continues to grow. In the 1990 Census,
foreign-born residents accounted for approximately 7.9 percent of the
total U.S. population of 249 million (Rumbaut, 1996). By 1997, that
figure had risen to 9.7 percent of the population (Schmidley & Gibson,
1999).

This module presents descriptive information about the school-aged LEP
population in the United States, with a particular emphasis on LEP
students with disabilities. The first section discusses the number of
LEP students and the subset of LEP students who have a disability. The
second describes characteristics that may be shared by many LEP
students, and the final section addresses issues related to the
identification and assessment of LEP students with disabilities.

# The School-Aged LEP Population

As defined in *Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994*
(IASA; P.L. 103-382), a student is limited English proficient if he/she
"has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the
opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of
instruction is English or to participate fully in our society due to one
or more of the following reasons:

-   was not born in the United States or whose native language is a
    language other than English and comes from an environment where a
    language other than English is dominant;

-   is a Native American or Alaska Native or who is a native resident of
    the Outlying Areas and comes from an environment where a language
    other than English has had significant impact on such individual's
    level of English language proficiency; or

-   is migratory and whose native language is other than English and
    comes from an environment where a language other than English is
    dominant" (§7501).

Differing approaches (e.g., school-based reports vs. Census counts) and
State and local differences in the definition of "limited English
proficient" have contributed to considerable variation in estimates of
the school-aged LEP population (Anstrom, 1996).

For example, one study put the total number of LEP students at 2,430,712
in 1992. This estimate was based on an Office of Bilingual Education and
Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) survey of State educational agencies
(SEAs) funded under Title VII of IASA. The study did not include
Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, as those States
were not Title VII grantees (Henderson, Abbot, & Strang, 1993). A more
recent study of Title VII grantees estimated the total number of LEP
students at 3,452,073 in 1996-97. The latter figure represented 7.4
percent of the total U.S. student population in 1996-97 (Macías, 1998).

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) develops
estimates of the school-aged LEP population through compilation of the
data contained in Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports.
OCR estimated that 2,936,554 students were in need of LEP services in
1997. A slightly smaller number of students, 2,637,883, was reported as
enrolled in LEP services in 1997 (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

The differences in estimates notwithstanding, there appears to be
consensus that the LEP student population has continued to grow. The
number of students with disabilities, as reported by the U.S. Department
of Education (2000), has also continued to increase. It is reasonable,
then, to assume that the future will show proportionate growth in the
number of LEP students with disabilities.

## *Estimates of the Number of LEP Students with Disabilities*

OCR estimated that in 1997, 174,530 students with disabilities needed
services for limited English proficiency. This figure accounted for 5.9
percent of all students in need of LEP services. In addition, OCR
reported that 5.5 percent (*n* = 145,604) of all students enrolled in
LEP services also had a disability (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

In addition to the number of students with disabilities in need of or
enrolled in LEP services, the OCR report included estimates of the
number of LEP students in three disability categories: mental
retardation (MR), emotional disturbance, and specific learning
disabilities (SLD). While LEP students represented 5.5 percent of the
students identified as having SLD, they represented just 3.7 percent of
students identified with MR and 1.9 percent of students identified as
having emotional disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

# Characteristics of the LEP Student Population

## *Native Language*

Although LEP students in the United States come from a variety of
national, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, the majority are from
Spanish-speaking homes. One study found that Spanish was the first
language of almost 73 percent of LEP students; the other languages
reported most frequently were Vietnamese (3.9 percent), Hmong (1.8
percent), Cantonese (1.7 percent), Cambodian (1.6 percent), and Korean
(1.6 percent). Students speaking one of 29 different Native American
languages comprised another 2.5 percent of the sample (Fleischman &
Hopstock, 1993). This diversity in the language backgrounds of LEP
students has major implications for the provision of special language
services.

## *Race/Ethnicity* 

Perhaps the best estimates of the race and ethnicity of LEP students are
provided by OCR's 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights
Compliance Report, which contains national projections of the number of
students in need of and enrolled in LEP services during 1997 (see table
II-11). Among students identified as being in need of LEP services, 77.3
percent were Hispanic, 13.1 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.5
percent were white, 2.2 percent were black, and 1.9 percent were
American Indian/Alaska Native. Of those students reported to be enrolled
in LEP programs, 77 percent were Hispanic. Asian/Pacific Islander
students accounted for 13.2 percent of LEP enrollment, white students
for 5.6 percent, black students for 2.4 percent, and American
Indian/Alaska Native students for 1.8 percent (U.S. Department of
Education, 1999).

## *Socioeconomic Status*

Socioeconomic status has frequently been demonstrated to have a
relationship to parent and student participation in school and to
overall educational attainment. Fleischman and Hopstock (1993) found
that the socioeconomic status of LEP students was lower than that of the
general school population, as measured by their eligibility for free or
reduced-price school lunches. Overall, 77 percent of LEP students were
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches vs. 38 percent of all
students.

Table II-11

Students in Need of and Enrolled in LEP Services by Race/Ethnicity 1997

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Race/Ethnicity          In Need of LEP Services Enrolled in LEP
                                                  Services

  American Indian                                 

  Number                  54,718                  47,764

  Percent                 1.9                     1.8

  Asian/Pacific Islander                          

  Number                  385,714                 349,163

  Percent                 13.1                    13.2

  Hispanic                                        

  Number                  2,270,130               2,030,913

  Percent                 77.3                    77.0

  Black                                           

  Number                  65,829                  62,175

  Percent                 2.2                     2.4

  White                                           

  Number                  160,163                 147,868

  Percent                 5.5                     5.6

  Total                   2,936,554               2,637,883
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Source: OCR Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance
Report, 1997.

## *Student Achievement*

The information available regarding the achievement of LEP students on
large-scale assessments suggests that LEP students do not achieve on the
same level as their English-proficient peers. For example, a 1998 report
published by the Texas Education Agency compared the academic
performance of LEP and non-LEP students who entered the first grade in
Texas public schools during the 1992-93 school year. LEP students did
not perform as well as their non-LEP peers on the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS). LEP students were also found to experience a
relatively higher incidence of poverty, of attending schools with higher
concentrations of economically disadvantaged students, and of attending
schools that performed more poorly on the TAAS (Texas Education Agency,
1998).

Historically, LEP students have dropped out of school at higher rates
than their English-proficient peers. This has been particularly true for
Hispanic students (e.g., see Lockwood, 1996). Higher dropout rates among
Hispanic students have been associated with a number of factors in
addition to limited English proficiency, including recent arrival in the
United States, family poverty, low academic achievement, and being
retained in grade (Lockwood, 1996).

## *Geographic Distribution*

Two research studies (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993; Hopstock & Bucaro,
1993) identified major sources of information about the geographic
distribution of LEP students: the 1990 Census and Title VII SEA survey
responses on the number of LEP students in their States.

Although the number of LEP students reported in these two data sources
varied, both sources found that California had the largest LEP student
population, followed by Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois (Hopstock
& Bucaro, 1993). The data further suggested that although LEP students
were spread across the country, they were concentrated in a relatively
limited number of school districts. Approximately 6,400 of the 15,000
local educational agencies (LEAs) reported serving LEP students. Almost
half of the districts with LEP students served populations in which
fewer than 2 percent of the students were limited English proficient. In
contrast, 6 percent of districts served a student population that was
composed of at least 40 percent LEP students (Fleischman & Hopstock,
1993).

These descriptive findings provide some information about the general
population of LEP students and provide a backdrop against which the
smaller subset of LEP students with disabilities may be viewed. The
remaining sections of this module will focus on LEP students with
disabilities, beginning with a discussion of identification and
assessment among this population. The module will also examine the
influences of language, culture, socioeconomic status, parent
involvement, and other factors on the assessment process and on the
provision of special education services.

# Identification and Assessment of LEP Students with Disabilities

Assessment is particularly important for LEP students, since research
suggests that it is extremely difficult to distinguish between a genuine
disability and a student's lack of understanding of the majority culture
and language (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). LEP students differ
from native English speakers not only in terms of language but
culturally and socially as well. Assessment is a subjective process that
is highly influenced by the sociopolitical, cultural, and linguistic
context within which it takes place; therefore, practitioners must
realize that cultural background will affect every aspect of the
assessment process (Collier & Hoover, 1987). This section of the module
discusses the influences of language and of culture on the assessment
and identification process.

## *The Influence of Language on Assessment*

To limit assessment bias due to cultural and linguistic variables, IDEA
stipulates that testing and evaluation procedures should be
nondiscriminatory and requires that children be fairly assessed in their
native language (§612(a)(6)(B)). Meeting this Federal mandate may be a
challenge, however, particularly in regard to students whose first
language is neither English nor Spanish.

For LEP students, assessment begins with language. The first step in the
process is identification as having limited English proficiency and thus
being eligible for special language-related services. Although Title VII
of IASA includes a Federal definition of limited English proficiency,
the definition is considered ambiguous (Anstrom, 1996). In some States,
therefore, State law mandates a particular definition of LEP status. In
others, the SEA establishes a policy describing the linguistic
characteristics of LEP students. Some States permit the LEA to determine
this definition. Although limited English proficiency alone is not
sufficient reason for referring a student for special education
assessment, research has shown that LEP students are often assessed and
inappropriately placed within special education, where they are more
likely to receive low-level instruction and less challenging content
(Zehler, Hopstock, Fleischman, & Greniuk, 1994). Cummins (1984) noted
that one of the most serious problems with the assessment of LEP
students who are referred for special education testing is that they
frequently are not identified as limited English proficient prior to the
assessment.

In spite of research that shows that LEP students are often assessed and
inappropriately placed within special education, information provided on
the OCR 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance
Report indicates that disproportionately fewer LEP children receive
special education compared to their enrollment in schools. This may
suggest that many LEP children who are in need of special education
services are not being assessed and appropriately provided special
education.

## *The Influence of Culture on Assessment*

The cultural context of the interactions that comprise assessment is
also an important aspect of the assessment process. By definition,
culturally or linguistically diverse students "belong to a recognized
ethnic group . . . whose values, customs, patterns of thought, and/or
language are significantly different from those of the majority of the
society in which they live" (Sattler, 1990, p. 565). Chamberlain and
Madeiros-Landurand (1991) identified a number of difficulties that may
occur between members of different cultural groups.

First, there may be misperceptions between the student and the teacher
or evaluator. This may result in the two parties having different
understandings regarding their roles and expectations in a specific
situation, which in turn may lead to actual poorer performance or the
perception of poorer performance in the testing situation or classroom
(Chamberlain & Madeiros-Landurand, 1991).

A second problem that may occur is cross-cultural stereotyping. This
difficulty develops when, due to a lack of awareness of intra-group
cultural differences, certain groups are stereotyped as possessing
particular intrinsic traits when they merely exhibit behavioral
differences (Ishii-Jordan, 1997; Poon-McBrayer & Garcia, 2000).
Assessment bias may also result from not taking potential cultural
differences into account when assessing culturally diverse students.
Tests used in the American public schools are generally written by
middle-class individuals and reflect mainstream cultural experiences
(Chamberlain & Madeiros-Landurand, 1991; Ishii-Jordan, 1997). Students
who have not had those cultural experiences are at a serious
disadvantage in taking standardized tests. Therefore, appropriate
interpretation of test performance is particularly critical for
culturally or linguistically different students. The assessor must
examine possible reasons for the student's low score to determine
whether the student was unfamiliar with the testing context, lacked the
skills needed to take the test, or had values that conflicted with those
implied in the test items (Chamberlain & Madeiros-Landurand, 1991).

In addition to item bias, most tests used in the United States are
normed on the mainstream population. Even when test developers claim to
have included culturally and ethnically diverse populations in their
standardization procedures, those populations are included in such small
ratios that the results are insignificant. Assessors need to be aware of
this problem when interpreting a student's performance in the context of
norms (Chamberlain & Madeiros-Landurand, 1991).

## *Differentiating Between Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency*

The critical question regarding the referral of LEP students for special
education assessment is whether their current academic and/or emotional
difficulties are a function of some type of genuine disability or are
due to inadequately developed English language skills or to cultural
differences. LEP students may be inappropriately referred to special
education by caring teachers who are not equipped to provide effective
and appropriate language enrichment and content instruction to meet
their needs. For these teachers, special education may be seen as a
program that will provide second-language students the academic
foundations necessary for future scholastic success (Colorado Department
of Education (CDE), 1999). The converse of this situation is the
possibility that some students who are genuinely in need of specialized
services may not be referred to special education due to a fear of
misidentifying their educational needs. School staff may also be
hesitant to provide duplicative services to students with multiple needs
because they question whether these services support or supplant the
student's primary educational program (CDE, 1999).

To determine whether a LEP student qualifies for special education, it
is necessary to gather information about how the student functions in
the areas of cognition, communication, social-emotional status, physical
status, academic performance, and transition/life skills/adaptive
behavior. To gather this information, educators typically use
standardized assessment instruments. However, as discussed above,
standardized assessments often prove to be invalid predictors of a LEP
student's true functioning levels. Thus, the tests may become a measure
of the student's English language proficiency and knowledge of
mainstream culture rather than a measure of academic potential (CDE,
1999).

Accurate descriptions of a student's communicative competence in both
languages are essential to determine if a perceived problem or
difficulty in English is a true language disability. Students who are
able to engage in oral and written communication in their primary
language do not have a language disability. Evidence of language
difficulties only in the student's second language is an indication of a
language difference, not a disability. Therefore, assessment processes
in the speech/language area must be designed to provide detailed
descriptions of the student's ability to use his or her primary language
in addition to English. Only after documenting problematic behaviors in
the primary language and in English, and eliminating extrinsic variables
as the cause of these problems, should the possibility of the presence
of a language/learning disability be considered (Rice & Ortiz, as cited
in CDE, 1999).

# Summary 

Over the past three decades, rapid growth in the number of persons
immigrating to the United States and changes in immigration patterns
have substantially altered the demographic characteristics of the U.S.
population. By extension, the number of LEP students in American schools
has increased, creating a significant challenge for educators. Research
suggests that in the absence of appropriate supports, LEP students are
at risk of experiencing serious educational difficulties. A significant
number of LEP students also have a concomitant disability; those
students are at even greater risk for negative educational outcomes.

Differences in learning, behavior, culture, and language, either
separately or in combination, may exacerbate educational problems caused
by disabilities. In addition, some researchers believe that culturally
and linguistically diverse students may be disadvantaged in the
assessment and evaluation process. These researchers have called for
further efforts to incorporate cultural and linguistic sensitivity into
the assessment and identification process.

# References

Anstrom, K. (1996). *Defining the limited-English proficient student
population.* Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education. Retrieved May 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/09.htm

Chamberlain, C., & Madeiros-Landurand, P. (1991). Practical
considerations for the assessment of LEP students with special needs. In
E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), *Limiting bias in the assessment of
bilingual students* (pp. 111-156). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Collier, C., & Hoover, J.J. (1987). *Cognitive learning strategies for
minority handicapped students.* Lindale, TX: Hamilton.

Colorado Department of Education. (1999). *Special education for
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students: Meeting the
challenges, realizing the opportunities.* Denver, CO: Author.

Cummins, J. (1984). *Bilingualism and special education: Issues in
assessment and pedagogy.* San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Fleischman, H., & Hopstock, P. (1993). *Descriptive study of services to
limited English proficient students. Volume 1: Summary of findings and
conclusions.* Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc. Retrieved
April 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu//miscpubs/siac/descript/intro.htm

Henderson, A., Abbot, C., & Strang, W. (1993). S*ummary of the bilingual
education state educational agency program survey of states' limited
English proficient persons and available educational services,
1991-1992.* Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

Hopstock, P.J., & Bucaro, B. (1993). *A review and analysis of estimates
of the LEP student population.* Arlington, VA: Special Issues Analysis
Center. Retrieved April 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/siac/leppop.htm

Ishii-Jordan, S.R. (1997). When behavior differences are not disorders.
In A.J. Artiles & G. Zamora-Durán (Eds.), *Reducing disproportionate
representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted
education* (pp. 27-46). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lockwood, A.T. (1996). *Caring, community, and personalization:
Strategies to combat the Hispanic dropout problem.* Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved May 13, 2000,
from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/hdp/advances/s96no1.htm

Macías, R.F. (1998). *Summary report of the survey of the states'
limited English proficient students and available educational programs
and services, 1995-1996.* Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education. Retrieved March 24, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/95-96/

Poon-McBrayer, K., & Garcia, S.B. (2000). Profiles of Asian American
students with LD at initial referral, assessment, and placement in
special education. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33,* 61-71.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1996). Immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean: A
socioeconomic profile. *Immigration and ethnic communities: A focus on
Latinos.* (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413 157)

Sattler, J.M. (1990). *Assessment of children* (3^rd^ ed.). San Diego:
Jerome M. Sattler.

Schmidley, A.D., & Gibson, C. (1999). *Profile of the foreign-born
population in the United States.* (U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Reports, Series P23-195). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Texas Education Agency. (1998). *Academic performance of elementary
students with limited English proficiency in Texas public schools.*
Austin: Author. Retrieved May 20, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr10.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Limited English proficient
students with disabilities. In *The fifteenth annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act* (pp. F-1 -- F35). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999, December). *1997 elementary and
secondary school civil rights compliance report.* Washington, DC:
Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). *Twenty-first annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.* Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zehler, A.M., Hopstock, P.J., Fleischman, H.L., & Greniuk, C. (1994).
*An examination of assessment of limited English proficient students.*
Arlington, VA: SIAC. Retrieved March 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/siac/lepasses.htm

[^1]: All data presented here are weighted to represent the national
    population of infants and toddlers entering early intervention.

[^2]: For a number of reasons, the State-reported data are expected to
    differ from the NEILS data. Because collection of race/ethnicity
    data at the State level has taken place only for the past 2 years
    and several States have missing data, the race/ethnicity figures
    must be interpreted with caution. In addition, NEILS is a sample
    survey, and the sample was not drawn from all 50 States. The States
    report population data rather than sample data.

[^3]: The adult best able to talk about each child and his/her early
    intervention experiences was the respondent for the telephone
    interview; the vast majority were the child's biological, adoptive,
    or foster mother (90 percent), and respondents are referred to as
    parents here.

[^4]: Children who are born weighing less than 2,500 grams are termed
    "low birth weight," and those weighing less than 1,500 grams are
    referred to as "very low birth weight."

[^5]: The national data are for children under age 5. For this reason,
    some of the differences between the national data and the early
    intervention data could be due to the older children included in the
    national data.

[^6]: Population data are based on July 1999 estimates by the U.S.
    Census Bureau.

[^7]: Data for 1990-91 include children with disabilities served under
    Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, SOP).
    Prior to October 1994, children and youth with disabilities were
    served under IDEA, Part B, and Chapter 1 of ESEA. Beginning in
    1994-95, services to children and youth with disabilities were
    provided only through Parts B and C of IDEA.

[^8]: Resident population data from the Population Estimate Program,
    Population Division, are July 1999 estimates from the U.S. Census
    Bureau and are included in the U.S. Department of Education, Office
    of Special Education Programs Data Analysis System (DANS).
    Population data for Puerto Rico and the Outlying Areas are
    projections from the Bureau of Census, International Programs
    Center.

[^9]: Percentage of children served is based on enrollment counts from
    NCES. These counts include individuals with and without
    disabilities, in pre-kindergarten through grade 12.

[^10]: Low-incidence disabilities are defined as those that occur in
    fewer than 100,000 persons.