Appendix B

Data Notes for IDEA, Part B

These data notes contain information on the ways in which states
collected and reported data differently from the OSEP data formats and
instructions. In addition, the notes provide explanations of significant
changes in the data from the previous year. The chart below summarizes
differences in collecting and reporting data for 10 states. These
variations affected the way data were reported for the IDEA, Part B
child count and the educational environment, exiting, and discipline
collections. Additional notes on how states reported data for specific
data collections follow this table.

Table B-1

State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B\
Child Count Data, 2002

Educational Environments Data, 2001 and 2002\
Exiting and Discipline Data, 2001-02

+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| States        | D          |            |            |            |
|               | ifferences |            |            |            |
|               | from OSEP  |            |            |            |
|               | Reporting  |            |            |            |
|               | Categories |            |            |            |
|               | \[States   |            |            |            |
|               | report     |            |            |            |
|               | according  |            |            |            |
|               | to state   |            |            |            |
|               | law. The   |            |            |            |
|               | U.S.       |            |            |            |
|               | Department |            |            |            |
|               | of         |            |            |            |
|               | Education  |            |            |            |
|               | does not   |            |            |            |
|               | have       |            |            |            |
|               | authority  |            |            |            |
|               | to         |            |            |            |
|               | override   |            |            |            |
|               | state      |            |            |            |
|               | law.\]     |            |            |            |
|               |            |            |            |            |
|               | Where H =  |            |            |            |
|               | Reported   |            |            |            |
|               | in the     |            |            |            |
|               | hearing    |            |            |            |
|               | i          |            |            |            |
|               | mpairments |            |            |            |
|               | category   |            |            |            |
|               |            |            |            |            |
|               | O =        |            |            |            |
|               | Reported   |            |            |            |
|               | in the     |            |            |            |
|               | orthopedic |            |            |            |
|               | i          |            |            |            |
|               | mpairments |            |            |            |
|               | category   |            |            |            |
|               |            |            |            |            |
|               | P =        |            |            |            |
|               | Reported   |            |            |            |
|               | in the     |            |            |            |
|               | primary    |            |            |            |
|               | disability |            |            |            |
|               | category   |            |            |            |
|               |            |            |            |            |
|               | R =        |            |            |            |
|               | Reported   |            |            |            |
|               | in other   |            |            |            |
|               | disability |            |            |            |
|               | categories |            |            |            |
+===============+============+============+============+============+
|               | Multiple   | Other      | Deaf-\     | Traumatic  |
|               | Di         | Health     | Blindness  | Brain      |
|               | sabilities | I          |            | Injury     |
|               |            | mpairments |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Colorado      |            | O          |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Delaware      | P          | O          |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Florida       | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Georgia       | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Michigan      |            | O          | H          | R          |
| \[Michigan    |            |            |            |            |
| and           |            |            |            |            |
| Mississippi   |            |            |            |            |
| began         |            |            |            |            |
| reporting     |            |            |            |            |
| children in   |            |            |            |            |
| the other     |            |            |            |            |
| health        |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| category on   |            |            |            |            |
| the 2002      |            |            |            |            |
| child count   |            |            |            |            |
| and           |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments  |            |            |            |            |
| tables. In    |            |            |            |            |
| previous      |            |            |            |            |
| years, they   |            |            |            |            |
| reported      |            |            |            |            |
| children with |            |            |            |            |
| other health  |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| in the        |            |            |            |            |
| orthopedic    |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| category.     |            |            |            |            |
| This includes |            |            |            |            |
| the 2001      |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments, |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| exiting, and  |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| discipline    |            |            |            |            |
| tables.\]     |            |            |            |            |
| \[Michigan    |            |            |            |            |
| began using   |            |            |            |            |
| the traumatic |            |            |            |            |
| brain injury  |            |            |            |            |
| category on   |            |            |            |            |
| the 2002      |            |            |            |            |
| child count   |            |            |            |            |
| and           |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments  |            |            |            |            |
| tables. In    |            |            |            |            |
| previous      |            |            |            |            |
| years, it     |            |            |            |            |
| reported      |            |            |            |            |
| children with |            |            |            |            |
| traumatic     |            |            |            |            |
| brain injury  |            |            |            |            |
| in other      |            |            |            |            |
| disability    |            |            |            |            |
| categories.   |            |            |            |            |
| This includes |            |            |            |            |
| the 2001      |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments, |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| exiting, and  |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| discipline    |            |            |            |            |
| tables.\]     |            |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Mississippi   |            | O          |            |            |
| \[Michigan    |            |            |            |            |
| and           |            |            |            |            |
| Mississippi   |            |            |            |            |
| began         |            |            |            |            |
| reporting     |            |            |            |            |
| children in   |            |            |            |            |
| the other     |            |            |            |            |
| health        |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| category on   |            |            |            |            |
| the 2002      |            |            |            |            |
| child count   |            |            |            |            |
| and           |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments  |            |            |            |            |
| tables. In    |            |            |            |            |
| previous      |            |            |            |            |
| years, they   |            |            |            |            |
| reported      |            |            |            |            |
| children with |            |            |            |            |
| other health  |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| in the        |            |            |            |            |
| orthopedic    |            |            |            |            |
| impairments   |            |            |            |            |
| category.     |            |            |            |            |
| This includes |            |            |            |            |
| the 2001      |            |            |            |            |
| educational   |            |            |            |            |
| environments, |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| exiting, and  |            |            |            |            |
| 2001-02       |            |            |            |            |
| discipline    |            |            |            |            |
| tables.\]     |            |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| North Dakota  | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Oregon        | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| West Virginia | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Wisconsin     | P          |            |            |            |
+---------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

Note: Table numbers given below refer to tables in vol. 2 of this
report.

Tables 1-1 through 1-16: Part B, Child Count

Alabama---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 9 in the developmental delay category to a change in the
state definition of the category. In 2000, the state changed its
definition of developmental delay to include students up to age 9. This
is the second year that the child count reflects the new age range.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with autism to extensive statewide training on the autism
spectrum. The state believes this training resulted in more accurate
identification and placement of children with this disability.

Arizona---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
with other health impairments to the greater number of children
identified with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

California---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 6 through 21 with autism to an increase in the total number of
children served in special education this year. The state reported that
a large number of the new students fall into the autism category. In
addition, the state attributed the increase in autism to better
identification of children with this disability.

Delaware---The state does not collect data on multiple disabilities or
other health impairments. Children with multiple disabilities are
reported according to their primary disability, and students with other
health impairments are reported in the orthopedic impairments category.

Florida---The state does not collect data on multiple disabilities.
Children with multiple disabilities are reported according to their
primary disability.

Georgia---The state does not collect data on multiple disabilities.
Children with multiple disabilities are reported according to their
primary disability.

Hawaii---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 6 through 21 in the autism category to a number of factors. First,
teachers are better trained to identify students with this disability.
Second, pediatricians are more aware of the signs of autism, recognize
it, and refer children to psychologists for assessment and diagnosis. In
addition, some students previously included in other disability
categories were reclassified autistic. Finally, the state broadened the
definition of autism when the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders-IV was released. The broader definition results in more
students identified with this disability.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 9 in the developmental delay category to new training provided
to teachers. The training includes how to identify students eligible for
this disability category. In addition, Hawaii uses this category for
most students ages 3 through 5 who are eligible for special education
services. The state reported that as these children get older, the
number of children ages 6 through 9 identified with developmental delay
increases.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 with other health impairments to a change in the way the
state determines eligibility for special education. In the past,
district individualized education program (IEP) teams determined
students' eligibility. Now, school-based teams are responsible for
determining eligibility. The state believes that these school-based
teams may be finding an increased number of students eligible for this
category because they are more knowledgeable about their students'
history and specific needs. The Department of Education of the State of
Hawaii plans to continue teacher training on eligibility criteria. In
addition, it plans to monitor data to ensure that students are not
overidentified in any disability category.

Idaho---The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages
6 through 21 with autism to a change in the state definition of autism.
The state definition now includes Autism Spectrum Disorder. As a result,
local education agencies (LEAs) are now including a wider range of
diagnoses in the autism category, including Asperger's syndrome.

The state reported 261 children with noncategorical eligibility. Of
these, 17 were ages 3 through 5, and 244 were ages 6 through 21. When
reporting to OSEP, the state distributed these children into disability
categories based upon the distribution of students whose disabilities
were known.

Illinois---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 6 through 21 with multiple disabilities to the newness of the
category. This is only the second year that the state used the multiple
disabilities category.

Indiana---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 with developmental delay to the newness of the
category. This is only the third year the state used the category. It
became a recognized exceptionality area in Indiana for the 2000 school
year. The state reported that most students currently reported in the
developmental delay category received special education previously, but
were reported in different disability categories.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 in the other health impairments category to an increase in
the identification of students with ADD and ADHD. In addition, the state
reported that students in the other health impairments category who have
certain medical conditions are living longer and being served in school
rather than at home.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 in the autism category to improvements in Indiana's data
collection system. The improvements resulted in a more accurate count of
students with autism. Previously, Indiana reported many of these
students in different disability categories. The state also reported a
growing awareness and recognition of autism as a separate disability. In
addition, more of the higher functioning children with autism (e.g.,
those with Asperger's syndrome) are now in special education.

Iowa---The state serves children with disabilities noncategorically.
Iowa uses incidence figures to estimate disability data for federal
reports. During 2001, the state conducted a study to reassess the
incidence percentages it uses. The 2002 child count is the first data
report based on the new incidence figures implemented as a result of
this study. As a result of the new calculations, the number of children
reported in various disability categories changed significantly.

Kansas---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 6 through 9 with developmental delay to younger students originally
identified with developmental delay getting older. In addition, the
state reported that LEAs are beginning to use the developmental delay
category for children initially evaluated and identified between the
ages of 6 through 9.

Maine---Maine reported that the increase in the number of students ages
6 through 21 in the autism category occurred in two age groups: ages 7
through 11 (roughly 2nd grade through 6th grade) and 14 through 16
(roughly freshman through junior year of high school). The state
attributed the increase to new programs for students with autism and to
growing awareness of autism. The state reported that the Maine Autistic
Society provides information and training on autism and the autism
spectrum. In addition, doctors and professional evaluators are more
knowledgeable about this population. Finally, the increase is also
attributable to a change in the disability classification of some
students. Some students previously classified as mentally retarded,
learning disabled, or emotionally disturbed are now identified as
students with autism.

Maryland---Maryland attributed the increase in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds and 6- through 21-year-olds with developmental delay to a
change in the state's age range for that disability category and to
additional training of school systems about the use of the category. In
2002, the maximum age for developmental delay increased from 5 to 9
years old. In addition, the state provided technical assistance to local
school systems at annual data managers' meetings, Preschool Special
Education Coordinators Administrative Briefings, and through the
publication of a Technical Assistance Bulletin and Implementation
Guidelines in fall 2002. The state believes that the additional
attention to this category, along with the increased age range, resulted
in an increased use of the category by local school systems.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 with autism to a number of factors. First, the state expanded
the definition of autism to include Autism Spectrum Disorders such as
pervasive developmental delay and Asperger's syndrome. Second, there is
a greater awareness of autism both among parents and diagnosing
professionals. As a result, children are now diagnosed at younger ages.
Third, there may be a genuine increase in the prevalence of autism,
possibly attributed to environmental triggers. Fourth, there is
currently less resistance by parents to the diagnosis of autism. Autism
may even be a preferred diagnosis since there is a belief that, with
early intervention and intense services, a child can experience
significant improvement. Finally, the increase in autism may be due to
families of children with autism moving to Maryland to access state
programs for these children. The state reported that several local
school systems are nationally regarded for providing exemplary programs
and services to children with autism.

Massachusetts---The 2002 child count is the second year that
Massachusetts used actual student-level data to report students by
disability and race/ethnicity. In previous years, Massachusetts did not
require individualized education program (IEP) teams to identify the
type of disability for each student, only to state that in the opinion
of the team, the student had a disability. To report disability data to
OSEP, Massachusetts calculated disability and race/ethnicity using
ratios based on a survey conducted in 1992, in which districts
identified the probable disability for each of their students using the
"best information available" to them. The state estimates that the
transition from estimated data to actual student-level disability data
will be completed in approximately 3 years. During this time, IEP teams
in the state will identify all students' specific disabilities, either
when they are first determined to be eligible for special education or
at the time of their 3-year reevaluations. The state expects that for
the 2004 child count, all children will be reported according to their
identified (rather than estimated) disabilities.

Massachusetts includes children with neurological impairments in the
traumatic brain injury (TBI) category. The state's definition of
neurological impairments is broader than the federal definition of TBI.
This may account for the unexpectedly large number of children reported
in the TBI category.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with speech or language impairments to training sessions that
clarified the distinction between this disability category and specific
learning disabilities. The number of students reported with specific
learning disabilities decreased by 2,958 cases while the number of
students with speech or language impairments increased by 3,071.

Massachusetts attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 with developmental delay to the newness of this category. The
state believes that districts now have a better understanding of which
children to report in this category.

Michigan---Michigan used the disability categories other health
impairments and TBI for the first time on the 2002 child count. Prior to
2002, the state reported students with other health impairments in the
orthopedic impairments category and reported students with TBI in other
disability categories. The state expects these categories to grow over
the next 3 years as districts implement the categories.

Minnesota---The state reported that the increase in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 and 6 through 21 reported in the autism
category is due to increased awareness of autism. More tools are
available to identify these students, and evaluation measures have
improved. In addition, the state reported that it increased the capacity
of teachers in this area.

Mississippi---Mississippi used the disability category other health
impairments for the first time on the 2002 child count. Prior to 2002,
the state reported students with other health impairments in the
orthopedic impairments category.

The 2002 school year is also the first year that Mississippi reported
data using its new statewide web-based data collection system. The state
believes this system will greatly improve its data accuracy.

Missouri---The state attributed the increase in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds with speech or language impairments to changes in the
eligibility criteria for sound system disorders. These changes went into
effect in October 2001. The previous criterion was that a child's sound
production level must be 1 year beyond upper limits of developmental
ranges as established by normative data. The current criterion is that a
child's sound production level must be equal to or less than the child's
actual chronological age as established by accepted normative data. This
change essentially removed the "one year beyond" requirement, and made
children eligible for special education if their sound production level
is "equal to or less than the child's chronological age." The state
anticipated that this will increase the number of young children
identified with sound system disorders. However, by identifying children
at an earlier age when remediation of articulation problems is easier,
in the long run the number of children with speech or language
impairments at older ages should decrease. That is, the distribution
across age groups will change, but the number served will not.

The state reported that it began using the developmental delay category
in October 2001. Districts can serve children under that diagnosis until
1 year after the child leaves kindergarten.

Montana---In Montana, a state statute allows school districts to
identify a child ages 3 through 5 as a "child with disabilities" (CWD),
without specifying a specific disability category. However, Montana
encourages schools to use one of the federal disability categories. As a
result, districts reported a specific disability for 60 percent of the
3- through 5-year-olds served. The state imputed disability for the
remaining 40 percent using the disability distribution for the 3-
through 5-year-olds for whom disability data were reported. This is the
second year that Montana used this method. Previously the missing
disability data for 3- through 5-year-olds was imputed based on the
disability distribution for 6-year-olds.

Nebraska---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 3 through 5 and 6 through 9 in the developmental delay category to
the technical assistance it provided to school districts. Technical
assistance targeted early screening, evaluation, and identification of
children with special needs. Collaboration with other agencies, such as
Health and Human Services, also increased the focus on early childhood
intervention strategies and preschool educational services for children
birth through the age of 8.

Nevada---The state reported that it is experiencing increased
identification of children ages 6 through 21 with autism and that this
increase is similar to current national trends.

New Jersey---The state reported that the increase in the number of 6-
through 21-year-olds in the other health impairments category and the
decrease in the number reported in the TBI category are unusual. The
state believes that districts may be using these categories
interchangeably. It plans to clarify reporting instructions and further
investigate the cause of these changes.

New Mexico---Based on a recommendation from the state legislature, New
Mexico did not estimate race/ethnicity data for unknown or missing
race/ethnicity cases. The state has missing race/ethnicity data for:

3- through 5-year-olds in the following categories: speech or language
impairments (12), other health impairments (1), specific learning
disabilities (1), multiple disabilities (1), and developmental delay
(54); and

6- through 21-year-olds in the following categories: mental retardation
(16), hearing impairments (3), speech or language impairments (81),
visual impairments (2), emotional disturbance (32), orthopedic
impairments (1), other health impairments (22), specific learning
disabilities (192), multiple disabilities (7), autism (4), TBI (2), and
developmental delay (20).

The state attributed the increase in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds with speech and language impairments to a change in data
collection methods. The number of students in this age group did not
change significantly, but there was a change in the disability
categories where they are reported. Prior to 2000, New Mexico's
state-level data system was programmed so that the developmental delay
category was the only disability option available for reporting 3- and
4-year-olds. The state changed this in 2000 when it revised its state
regulations. The developmental delay category is now only used when no
other disability category is more appropriate. The state reports that
its LEAs now collect more accurate disability information for 3- and
4-year-olds.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 with developmental delay to an increase in the state age
range for this category. In 2000, New Mexico changed the upper age range
for developmental delay from age 4 to age 9. School year 2001 was the
final year for phasing in the new age range. In addition, the state
reported that it is not surprised to see increases in developmental
delay because the criteria for developmental delay are relatively
flexible compared to other disability categories.

New York---New York does not classify preschool children by specific
disability. The state reported all children ages 3 through 5 in the
developmental delay disability category. Of these, 37,111 are considered
by the state to be preschool students, and 17,217 are school age (e.g.,
kindergarten) students.

New York does not have an individual student record system. It collects
aggregated counts of students from local school districts. These
aggregate counts do not include a count of the race/ethnicity of 4- and
5-year-old children in school-age environments (e.g., kindergarten)
separately from the race/ethnicity count for all school-age students
(ages 4 through 21). The state based the race/ethnicity distribution for
the 17,217 school-age 4- and 5-year-olds on the race/ethnicity
distribution for 3- through 5-year-olds in preschool environments.

The race/ethnicity distribution for 386,187 students ages 6 through 21
is based on the race/ethnicity distribution for students ages 4 through
21 with disabilities.

North Carolina---The state attributed the increase in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 with autism to a number of factors. First, the
state definition of autism changed to include additional
characteristics. Second, the state now identifies children with autism
at a younger age. Finally, parents of children with autism move into the
state to get services for their child through the TEACCH program
(Treatment and Education of Autistic and Related Communication
Handicapped Children).

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 9 in the developmental delay category to the 2001 increase of
the state's maximum allowable age (from age 5 to age 7) for a student to
be classified as having developmental delay.

The state attributed the increase in the number of American
Indian/Alaska Native children reported on its child count of 3- through
5-year-olds to an increase in the American Indian population in the
state.

North Dakota---North Dakota has defined and established eligibility
criteria for developmental delay for ages children 3 through 5. The
state is still piloting this category for ages 6 through 9. Its
developmental delay data for ages 6 through 9 are representative of
pilot projects only.

North Dakota attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 in the other health impairments category to an increase in
the number of children with ADD and ADHD. The state continues to train
districts on properly reporting students with ADD and ADHD.

The state attributed the increase in the number of American
Indian/Alaska Native children ages 3 through 5 served in the state to a
new and more effective system for identifying children with disabilities
in areas with a high concentration of American Indian students.

North Dakota does not use the multiple disabilities category. Children
with multiple disabilities are reported according to their primary
disability.

Ohio---The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages
6 through 21 with other health impairments to increased awareness and
identification of children with ADD and ADHD. The state reports that the
increase is not located in any one particular geographic area, but is
equally distributed across the state.

The state reported that the increase in the number of children with
autism, ages 6 through 21, is consistent with national trends. It cited
a 2002 report to the California legislature, titled The Epidemiology of
Autism in California, which reports that while autism was once
considered relatively rare, "the Centers for Disease Control reports
autism prevalence data as 1 in 500 persons in the population."

Oregon---The state reported that it does not collect data on multiple
disabilities. Children with multiple disabilities are reported according
to their primary disability.

Puerto Rico---Puerto Rico was unable to correct some errors on its child
count table. As a result, the race/ethnicity totals are lower than
totals by disability in two categories for ages 3 through 5: speech and
language impairments and developmental delay.

Rhode Island---The state reported that the increase in the number of
students ages 6 through 21 in the other health impairments category is
due to increased identification of children with ADD and ADHD.

Rhode Island's definition of developmental delay only includes children
ages 3 through 5.

South Carolina---The state attributed the decrease in the number of
students ages 6 through 21 reported in the multiple disabilities
category to a change in how one residential facility reported students.
In 2001, this facility reported 137 students with multiple disabilities,
123 students with hearing impairments, and 42 students with visual
impairments. In 2002, this LEA did not report any students with multiple
disabilities, but reported all students with either hearing impairments
or visual impairments.

South Dakota---The state attributed the increase in the number of
students ages 6 through 21 with other health impairments to an increase
in the number of students diagnosed with ADD and ADHD.

Tennessee---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 6 through 21 with autism to improved awareness and training in this
area and to a change in the state definition of autism. In previous
years, Asperger's syndrome, Rhett's syndrome and Pervasive Developmental
Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) were not in the state's
definition of autism.

Utah---The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages
6 through 21 in the other health impairments category and the number of
students ages 6 through 9 in the developmental delay category to the
data from two of the state's largest districts. The state plans to
monitor these districts and provide additional training to them.

West Virginia---West Virginia does not collect data on students with
multiple disabilities. Students with multiple disabilities are reported
according to their primary disability.

Wisconsin---Wisconsin does not collect data on students with multiple
disabilities. Students with multiple disabilities are reported according
to their primary disability.

Wyoming---The state reported that it only uses the developmental delay
category to report children between the ages of 3 and 5 who are in
preschool.

Tables 2-1 through 2-10: Part B, Educational Environments, 2002

Arizona---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 in the early childhood special education category to a
number of factors. First, 2002 was the first year that Arizona used
student detail reporting within its new accountability system. The
increase could be due to inaccurate reporting resulting from the change
in data collection methods. Second, the state reported that it is
possible that more severely disabled 3- through 5-year-olds are now
accepting special education. Finally, local education agencies may need
more assistance in setting up inclusive environments.

Connecticut---The state reported that it calculates the percentage of
time outside the regular classroom for students ages 6 through 21 based
on a number of variables, including total hours of education, hours of
special education, and hours with nondisabled peers.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 3
through 5 who receive itinerant services outside the home to an overall
increase in demand for services and to better communication between
Part B and Part C providers.

The state reported that it collects data using an additional
race/ethnicity category of "other." The state proportionately
distributed students in this category into OSEP's five race/ethnicity
categories based on the known race/ethnicity distribution.

Georgia---Georgia reported that 2002 was the first year that it
collected service plan information through its electronic data
collection system. The state used this information to obtain the
duplicated count of students in private schools, not placed or referred
by a public agency. This change in reporting methodology may explain the
large decline in the number of students reported in this category.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students reported
outside of the regular classroom less than 21 percent of the school day
to a concerted effort by the Georgia Department of Education to improve
the accuracy of data on educational environments submitted by local
school systems.

Hawaii---The state attributed changes on its 2002 educational
environments data to the use of a new staffing allocation formula for
deriving educational environment in the 2002 school year. This tool uses
information, such as levels of support provided to students and the
location where special education services are delivered, to create
reports. The state expects data accuracy to improve as school personnel
continue to train and practice on the staffing allocation formula.

Idaho---The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages
3 through 5 reported in early childhood settings and the decrease in the
number reported in reverse mainstream settings to a change in the state
data system. In 2002, Idaho's special education student enrollment data
system underwent a major upgrade. In the new data system, each age group
has its own unique set of code numbers for educational environments.
Prior to 2002, it used the same code numbers for preschool and
school-age environments. However, the definition of the code was
dependent on the age of the child. For example, code 01 for 3- through
5-year-olds meant reverse mainstream setting; when used for 6- through
21-year-olds, it meant less than 21 percent of the school day outside
regular classroom. The use of the same code numbers for both preschool
and school-age environments confused some LEAs and may have led to
incorrect reporting of preschool children. The state believes the use of
unique codes led to more accurate data in 2002.

Illinois---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
reported in correctional facilities to one detention center in Chicago.
In 2001, the district reported students in this detention center in the
various unduplicated environments on the table, but not in the
duplicated correctional facilities category. In 2002, the district also
included these students in the duplicated count of students in
correctional facilities.

Indiana---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 in early childhood settings and the increase in the
number in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
education to more accurate reporting at the district level. In the past,
some districts reported 5-year-old kindergarten children in the early
childhood setting because they incorrectly applied the definition of
regular class (outside the classroom less than 21 percent) to this
category. As a result, kindergarten children who received a small
percentage of speech outside the kindergarten class were sometimes
incorrectly reported in the early childhood setting rather than in the
part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education
setting. To correct this error, the Indiana Department of Education sent
a memorandum to districts prior to the 2002 child count to clarify the
use of preschool educational environment codes. As a result, the
districts reported 5-year-old kindergartners more accurately.

Kentucky---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 in early childhood settings and the increase in the
number of children in part-time early childhood/part-time early
childhood special education settings to state efforts to clarify the
definitions of these categories. In the past, some districts believed
that the early childhood settings definitions were equivalent to the
school-age category definitions. As a result, they reported students who
received services in an early childhood special education setting for a
limited time (e.g., speech services or other pullouts for less than 21
percent of their day) in the early childhood setting. In 2002, the state
emphasized that the early childhood category meant 100 percent of
children's time was in an early childhood setting and that any amount of
time in an early childhood special education setting precluded these
students from being reported in this category. As a result, the number
of children reported in early childhood settings decreased, and the
number reported in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood
special education settings increased. In addition, the state had an
increase in the total number of children ages 3 through 5 that it
served. This also contributed to the increase in the latter category.

Louisiana---In 2002, Louisiana began using the category itinerant
services outside the home. It attributed the decrease in the number of
children reported in early childhood settings to the reporting of these
children in the itinerant services category who were previously reported
in early childhood settings.

Maine---The state reported that it does not collect data for children in
correctional facilities or in private schools, not placed or referred by
public agencies.

Maryland---The state attributed the changes on the educational
environments table to state efforts to improve the accuracy of data
reported by local school systems. Because data are used for monitoring
practices, local education agencies are striving to increase data
accuracy. The state reported that it provided training for data
collection/reporting regarding identification of students in private
schools, not placed or referred by a public agency. The state expects
that the data will continue to change as accuracy increases.

Massachusetts---Beginning in September of 2001, Massachusetts required
correctional facilities to contact districts to ensure that students in
their facilities had valid IEPs. The state anticipates that in the long
term, this will lead to additional contact between the facilities and
districts, better data on these students, and an increase in the number
of students reported in correctional facilities. However, the state
reported that a short-term consequence of the new policy is that many
students have an "IEP in limbo" because it has not yet been signed or
coordinated with the district. These students are not reported in the
OSEP data. As a result, in 2002 Massachusetts reported fewer students in
correctional facilities. In addition, Massachusetts reported that, in
prior years, its correctional facilities count included students with
emotional disturbance who were served in public residential facilities.
The state corrected this error on the 2002 educational environments
count.

The state attributed the increase in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood
special education settings to a change in data collection methodology.
The state collects data on educational environments on October 1 and
updates the data in December in order to report to OSEP. Prior to 2002,
preschool students receiving less than 2 hours of services were not
reported in the October data but were reported in the December data. In
2002, the state included these students in the October data collection,
which the state believes resulted in more accurate data in December.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students in early
childhood special education settings to better data reporting by
districts. Last year, when the state's new data collection system was
implemented, many 3- through 5-year-olds were not reported because some
districts were unclear on reporting guidelines.

The state reported that the changes from 2001 to 2002 in the number of
6- through 21-year-olds reported in separate facilities and residential
facilities are due to incorrect data on the 2001 report. Districts were
confused about which separate facilities were public and which were
private. The state set up data validations and trained the districts on
how to report students in these categories. As a result, private
separate facilities decreased by 468 children, public separate
facilities and public residential facilities (combined) increased by 453
children.

The state reported that the decrease in the duplicated count of private
schools, not placed or referred by a public agency, is due to more
accurate reporting. The Massachusetts Department of Education instructed
districts to report students in this category only if they have IEPs and
receive special education and related services at the public expense.
The state believes that in the past, some districts may have reported
all children with IEPs sent to a private school.

Minnesota---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood
special education settings to efforts to establish stronger local
partnerships between early childhood special education programs and
other community-based early childhood programs.

Missouri---The state attributed the decrease in the separate school
category for ages 3 through 5 to the data from two of the largest
districts in the state. Both reported fewer children in separate
schools. The state believes the decrease is the result of more accurate
reporting by those districts.

Missouri had a decrease in the duplicated count of students in private
schools, not placed or referred by a public agency. The state reported
that its count of these students comes from a voluntary survey of
non-public schools, and non-reporting by the schools could lead to
fluctuations in the numbers of students in this category.

Montana---Educational environments are reported as a cross-tabulation by
disability category. Montana has a state statute that allows school
districts to identify children ages 3 through 5 under "child with
disabilities," without specifying a disability category. Montana
encourages schools to use one of the federal disability categories, and,
as a result, 60 percent of students ages 3 through 5 were reported with
a disability category. The state imputed disability for the remaining 40
percent using the distribution of 3- through 5-year-olds whose
disabilities were reported.

New Jersey---New Jersey did not collect race/ethnicity data for 14,327
students whose parents placed them in private schools. As a result, in
2002 the state reported no race/ethnicity data for the duplicated count
of students in private schools. In addition, the state did not report
the race/ethnicity for these students in the unduplicated count for
environment data. As a result, the race/ethnicity total for students
ages 6 through 21 is lower than the total reported by disability. The
environments categories affected are outside the regular classroom less
than 21 percent of the school day and outside the regular classroom
21-60 percent of the school day. New Jersey plans to collect
race/ethnicity data for these students in 2003.

New Mexico---Based on a recommendation from the state legislature, New
Mexico did not estimate race/ethnicity data for students with an unknown
or missing race/ethnicity. The state has missing race/ethnicity data
for:

Twenty-nine 3- through 5-year olds in the early childhood category, 36
in early childhood special education, one at the home, two in part-time
early childhood/part-time early childhood special education, and one in
a separate school;

One hundred fifty-five 6- through 21-year-olds in the outside the
regular classroom less than 20 percent category, 104 outside the regular
classroom 21-60 percent, 120 outside the regular classroom greater than
60 percent, one in public residential, one in private residential, and
one in homebound/hospital categories; and

Twelve students through age 21 in the duplicated counts for students in
correctional facilities and two in private schools, not placed or
referred by a public agency categories.

New York---New York collects aggregated race/ethnicity counts for all
school-age students with disabilities (ages 4 through 21), but does not
separately collect race/ethnicity counts for students with disabilities
who are ages 6 through 21. The reported race/ethnicity for 6- through
21-year-olds was computed using race/ethnicity data from students with
disabilities ages 4 through 21. The race/ethnicity of 17,217 4- and
5-year-old children in school-age environments (e.g., kindergarten) is
based on the race/ethnicity distribution for 3- through 5-year-olds in
preschool educational environments.

New York does not classify preschool children by particular
disabilities. The state reported all children ages 3 through 5 in the
developmental delay disability category. Of these, 37,111 are considered
by the state to be preschool students, and 17,217 are school age (e.g.,
kindergarten) students.

Ohio---Ohio attributed the decrease in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds in separate schools to the additional training it provided
to districts to clarify the definition of separate school.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of 6- through 21-year
olds in public residential facilities to the additional training it
provided to districts to clarify the definition of public residential
facility. In addition, the state reported that enrollment in residential
facilities also declined.

Ohio reported that it allows districts to report students in a "mixed
race" category. When it reports these students to OSEP, the state
assigns them to any one of the other five race/ethnicity categories. The
state believes that the number of American Indian/Alaska Native children
ages 3 through 5 may have declined because districts used the mixed race
category for many of the children previously reported in this category.
The state plans to work with districts to clarify the race/ethnicity
categories.

Oregon---The state reported that the decrease in the number of students
reported in public residential facilities from 2001 to 2002 was due to a
change in the way the state reported students in correctional
facilities. Prior to 2002, the state incorrectly reported students
served in correctional facilities in the public residential facilities
category, as well as in the duplicated count of students in correctional
facilities. In 2002, based on input from OSEP, the state reported
students in correctional facilities according to time outside the
regular classroom, in addition to reporting them in the duplicated
count. As a result, the total number of students in public residential
facilities decreased.

In 2002, the state began reporting the duplicated count of children with
disabilities in private schools, not placed or referred by public
agencies.

The state noted that its age ranges are different from the OSEP
definitions. Oregon considers children who are 5 years old on or before
September 1 to be school age. These 5-year-olds are included in the
school-age educational environments with the 6- through 11-year-old age
group rather than in the preschool environments with 3- through
5-year-olds.

Pennsylvania---Pennsylvania Act 212 of 1990 provides the opportunity for
parents to continue their child in an early intervention program for an
additional year at school district cost. Because of their age, 179
6-year-olds with developmental delay served in preschool environments
were reported in school-age environments. In Pennsylvania, the category
developmental delay is only used for children in preschool. However,
because those 179 children are reported on the school-age form, it
appears that developmental delay is a legitimate school-age disability
category.

Puerto Rico---Puerto Rico did not submit 2002 educational environments
data.

South Carolina---The state reported an unduplicated, rather than
duplicated, count of children in correctional facilities. Students
reported in correctional facilities are not reported by educational
environment.

Tennessee---The state attributed the decrease in the number of students
ages 3 through 5 reported in the part-time early childhood/part-time
early childhood special education category and the number reported in
the separate school category to an overall decrease in the number of
preschool students with disabilities served.

Texas---The state does not collect race/ethnicity data for students in
private schools, not placed or referred by a public agency.

Virginia---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 receiving itinerant services outside the home to more
consistent use of this code for children who receive only speech and
language services.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 reported in public residential facilities to an increase in
numbers of students in correctional facilities. Virginia incorrectly
counts students in correctional facilities in the public residential
facility category as well as in the duplicated count of students served
in correctional facilities.

Virginia attributed the increase in the number of students reported in
correctional facilities to an increase in the number of students served
in local jails.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students ages 6
through 21 reported in the homebound/hospital category to more accurate
reporting of homebound placements.

Tables F-1 through F-10: Part B, Educational Environments, 2001

Arizona---The state did not use the reverse mainstream setting in 2001.
The state reported that some children in reverse mainstream settings may
be included in the early childhood special education category. This
contributed to the increase in the early childhood special education
category. The state plans to use the reverse mainstream setting in 2002.

Bureau of Indian Affairs---BIA was unable to correct some of the errors
on its 2001 educational environments table. Totals by race/ethnicity do
not match totals by disability in six categories for ages 3 through 5,
in eight categories for ages 6 through 21, and on the duplicated count
of children in correctional facilities.

Colorado---The state reported that the increases in the number of
children served in early childhood special education settings and in the
number served in the itinerant services outside the home setting are not
due to a service delivery shift in a specific LEA or area of the state.
The change is cumulative across the state.

Connecticut---The state reported that it calculates the percentage of
time outside the regular classroom for students ages 6 through 21 based
on a number of variables, including total hours of education, hours of
special education, and hours with nondisabled peers.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 3
through 5 reported in the itinerant services outside the home category
to new data consistency checks, which yielded cleaner and more accurate
data.

Connecticut collects race/ethnicity data using an additional category,
"other." The state distributed students in this category proportionally
in other race/ethnicity categories.

Georgia---Georgia attributed the decrease in the duplicated count of
children in private schools, not placed or referred by a public agency
to more accurate data. The state clarified the definition of this
category for districts. In previous years, many districts were
incorrectly including students who were not privately placed in this
count.

Illinois---The state reported that districts had the option of reporting
3- through 5-year-olds in either the preschool or school-age educational
environments, and most of these students were reported by the districts
in the school-age categories. The state crosswalks these students into
the preschool categories for federal reporting purposes. Students
reported outside the classroom less than 20 percent are crosswalked into
the early childhood category. Students reported outside the classroom
21-60 percent and more than 60 percent are crosswalked into the
part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education
category.

In previous years, in addition to the duplicated count, students in
correctional facilities were incorrectly reported in the public
residential facility category. This year, the state reported these
students in the category outside the regular class more than 60 percent
of the day.

Indiana---The state attributed the 64 percent increase in the number of
3- through 5-year-olds in the part-time early childhood/part-time early
childhood special education category to more accurate data. Prior to the
December 1, 2001, child count, the Indiana Department of Education
issued a memorandum to districts clarifying the use of the preschool
educational environment codes. The memo was issued because the state was
concerned that schools were reporting 5-year-old kindergarten children
based on the definitions used for children ages 6 through 21 (e.g., less
than 21 percent outside the regular classroom). This meant that
5-year-olds in kindergarten who received some speech services outside
the classroom but spent the majority of their time in the general
education kindergarten class were incorrectly counted in the early
childhood environment rather than in the part-time early
childhood/part-time early childhood special education environment. The
memorandum specified that for children to be included in the early
childhood category, they must receive 100 percent of their instruction
with children without disabilities.

The state also had an increase in the number of students ages 6 through
21 served outside the regular classroom 21-60 percent of the school day.
The state attributed this change to state efforts to educate students in
the least restrictive environment. The state attributed most of the
increase in this category to the decrease in the number of students
served outside the classroom more than 60 percent of the school day.

Maine---The state reported that it does not collect data for children in
correctional facilities or in private schools, not placed or referred by
public agencies.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of children ages 3
through 5 served in separate schools to significant discussions by Early
Childhood Teams about the least restrictive environment for each child.
Maine is making an effort to ensure that children are served in the
general education setting.

Massachusetts---The state attributed year-to-year changes in the number
of children reported in different educational environment categories to
a change from aggregate reporting in 2000 to student-level reporting in
2001.

Massachusetts reported that the 2001 school year is the second year that
the districts reported environments data according to special education
placement categories rather than the state's "prototype" categories. The
state expects the transition to the new reporting system to take 3
years.

Minnesota---The state reported that it is unable to disaggregate data
for students in correctional facilities; therefore, these students are
not reported in the duplicated count of children in correctional
facilities. These students are counted in the other unduplicated
educational environment categories.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children in part-time
early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings to
efforts to establish stronger local partnerships between early childhood
special education programs and other community-based early childhood
programs.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students who received
itinerant services outside the home to increased use of one-on-one or
small group speech-language services. These services are delivered in
the school setting rather than in a center-based program.

Mississippi---Mississippi was unable to explain the increase in the
number of students in private schools, not placed or referred by a
public agency. The state reported that the number of students in this
category depends upon the number of parents who enroll their children in
a private facility and on LEAs accurately reporting these data.

Missouri---The state attributed the increase in the part-time early
childhood/part-time early childhood special education and the itinerant
services outside the home categories to an overall increase in the child
count for ages 3 through 5 and to a continued emphasis on serving
children in the least restrictive environments.

The state attributed the decrease in the separate school setting for
ages 3 through 5 to the use of more specific definitions of educational
environment categories.

Montana---Educational environments are reported as a cross-tabulation by
disability category. Montana, by statute, allows schools to report
students ages 3 through 5 under the general disability category of
"child with a disability," in addition to, or in place of, one of the
specific federal disability categories. Because federal reporting
requirements require states to report students ages 3 through 5 by
disability, Montana encouraged school districts to report specific
disability categories for this age group. This year about 60 percent of
the students in this age group were reported by disability. The state
imputed disability for the remaining 40 percent using the disability
data reported for the 60 percent.

The state attributed the increases in the number of 3- through
5-year-olds in the part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood
special education category and the itinerant services outside the home
category to changes in state data collection methodology and to
additional district training on category definitions. In the past, each
service provider submitted a report of students, and the Office of
Public Instruction processed the data to eliminate any duplicated
students. One problem with this method was that the different service
providers could report two different environments for the same child. In
2001, school districts provided an unduplicated count of eligible
students. Districts entered these data on an Internet application, and
the state provided training to districts on how to use it. One section
of the training focused on clarifying definitions for the preschool
environment categories. The state believes this training resulted in
more consistent and accurate reporting of the educational environments
data in 2001.

New Jersey---New Jersey does not collect race/ethnicity data for
students in private schools, not placed or referred by a public agency.
As a result, the state reported no race/ethnicity data for 14,161
students reported in the duplicated count. As a result, the
race/ethnicity total for ages 6 through 21 is lower than the total by
disability in the categories outside the regular classroom less than 21
percent of the school day and outside the regular classroom 21-60
percent of the school day. New Jersey plans to collect race/ethnicity
data for these students in 2003.

New Jersey attributed the increase in the number of 3- through 5-year
olds in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
education settings to districts implementing state policy to place more
students in less restrictive settings.

The state attributed the increase in the number of Asian/Pacific
Islanders ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA to a substantial increase
in the acceptance of special education classification among this
population.

New York---New York reported that this year it used a different
methodology to report children ages 3 through 5 who were served in
school-aged environments. Prior to 2001, New York did not report
educational environments of 4- and 5-year-olds served in school-aged
environments, which resulted in a large (17,000) discrepancy between the
child count and environments data. This year, the state proportionally
assigned 17,169 school-age 4- and 5-year-olds into preschool categories
based on the distribution of the 3- through 5-year-olds served in
preschool settings. This method was approved by OSEP.

New York does not classify preschool children by particular
disabilities. The state reported all 53,313 children ages 3 through 5 in
the developmental delay disability category.

New York does not collect the race/ethnicity of 4- and 5-year-old
children in school-age environments (e.g., kindergarten) separately from
the race/ethnicity of all school-age students (ages 4 through 21). The
race/ethnicity of 17,169 school-age 4- and 5-year-olds is on the
race/ethnicity distribution for 3- through 5-year-olds who received
preschool special education services.

New York collects data on race/ethnicity of all school-age students with
disabilities (ages 4 through 21), but does not separately collect
race/ethnicity data for students with disabilities who are ages 6
through 21. The reported race/ethnicity for 6- through 21-year-olds was
computed using race/ethnicity data from students with disabilities ages
4 through 21.

North Carolina---North Carolina does not collect ethnicity data on
children with disabilities enrolled in private schools, not placed or
referred by public agencies.

North Dakota---North Dakota had a significant increase in the number of
American Indian students, ages 3 through 5, on the educational
environments table. The state reported that over 40 percent of the
increase occurred in one, predominantly American Indian, school
district. The administrator of this multi-district special education
unit reported that this was the result of increased efforts to identify,
report, and serve preschool children in the district, as well as the
result of the increased accountability required of the district.

Oregon---The state noted that its age ranges differ from the OSEP
definitions. Oregon considers children who are 5 years old on September
1 to be school age and includes them in the count of 6- through
21-year-olds rather than the count of 3- through 5-year-olds.

Oregon does not collect data on children with disabilities in private
schools, not placed or referred by public agencies.

Oregon does not use the multiple disabilities category.

Puerto Rico---Puerto Rico reported that educational environments are
based on children's individual needs and are reevaluated every year by
the IEP team. Therefore, the same child may move in and out of different
educational environments each year based on need. The team first
considers the placement option that is as close as possible to regular
education.

South Carolina---The state attributed the increase in the number of
students served outside the regular classroom less than 21 percent of
the school day to an emphasis in South Carolina on serving children in
the least restrictive environment. Prior to the 2001 data collection,
the state provided training to LEAs on the placement of children in the
least restrictive environment, and emphasized the importance of
following the federal definitions for each environment category.

The state also reported that it changed one of its educational
environments definitions in 2001. Prior to 2001, South Carolina
collected data on children who spent more than 50 percent of their time
outside of the regular classroom. In 2001, the state changed the cut-off
from 50 percent to 60 percent of time outside the regular classroom, in
order to match the federal definitions.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students reported in
homebound/hospital environments to the effect of a committee that was
formed to examine students in these environments and state training of
LEAs on the correct use of this category.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children reported in
the duplicated count of children in private schools, not placed or
referred by a public agency to a reporting error. The state mistakenly
included the students from one district in this count. The correct count
of students in this category in 2001 is 310 students rather than 2,822
students.

Tennessee---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 reported in early childhood settings category to
increased inclusion of students with disabilities, rather than educating
these students in separate special education settings.

Texas---In 2001, the state changed its categories used for reporting the
amount of time students ages 6 through 21 spent outside the regular
classroom. The state's categories now match the federal categories.
Prior to 2001, the state's categories did not match federal definitions,
and when Texas crosswalked its state categories into the federal
categories, many students were reported as spending more time outside
the regular classroom than they actually did. For example, the
definition of the mainstream instructional arrangement in Texas included
only those students who received their full instructional day in a
general education setting with special education support. Specific data
about students receiving "pull-out" services for less than 21 percent of
the day were unavailable; therefore, many students who could have been
reported outside the classroom less than 21 percent were reported
outside the classroom 21 to 60 percent of the school day. In addition,
the definition of self-contained classroom used prior to 2001 included
students who spent 50 percent or more of their school day outside the
regular classroom whereas the federal definition uses 60 percent as the
cutoff. Students in Texas who were outside the regular classroom for 50
to 60 percent of the day were reported outside the regular classroom
greater than 60 percent of the school day. Now that the state categories
match the federal categories, the state experienced significant changes
in its educational environments data, including an increase in the
number of students outside the regular classroom less than 21 percent
and decreases in the number of students outside the regular classroom 21
to 60 percent and outside the classroom greater than 60 percent of the
school day.

Texas does not collect data on race/ethnicity for children with
disabilities enrolled in private schools, not placed or referred by
public agencies.

Washington---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
ages 3 through 5 reported in reverse mainstream settings to a change in
the way one medium- to large-sized district serves preschoolers. This
district moved from providing special education to preschoolers in an
early childhood special education setting to providing it in reverse
mainstream programming. The district believes this philosophical change
will positively affect more children overall.

Wyoming---The state included home-schooled children in the duplicated
count of students in private schools, not placed or referred by public
agencies. The state also reported home-schooled children in the other
unduplicated categories on the table.

Tables 3-1 through 3-3: Part B, Personnel, 2001

Alabama---The state attributed the increase in the number of fully
certified counselors, other professional staff, and non-professional
staff to LEAs filling positions that were left vacant last year. These
vacant positions were the result of proration (a reduction by 6.7
percent of the expected budget for the 2000 school year).

The state attributed the increases in the number of special education
teachers for ages 6 through 21, counselors, and non-professional staff
to school systems that rehired personnel previously terminated. The
state reported that although school budgets were not increased through
state funding in 2001, school systems made adjustments in their budgets
(i.e., finding alternative funding sources, realigning budgets so that
staff could be rehired). These adjustments facilitated the rehiring of
some staff previously terminated.

Arizona---The state attributed the various year-to-year changes on the
personnel table to LEA confusion resulting from a change in data
reporting procedures. The 2001 school year was the first year the state
required LEAs to report personnel data by school or site rather than by
district. Next year, the state plans to go back to requiring LEAs to
report the data at the district level.

The state reported that overall personnel increases were due to an
increase in the student population and an increase in the number of
LEAs. More personnel were hired to serve these students.

The state reported that the decrease in the number of special education
teachers for ages 3 through 5 may be due to LEAs erroneously reporting a
head count of all personnel last year, instead of full-time equivalents
(FTEs). Reporting a head count would have resulted in an overcount last
year.

Arizona reported that the increases in other professional staff and
non-professional staff are due to training sessions that clarified the
definitions of these categories.

Arkansas---Arkansas attributed the increase in the number of personnel
for several related services personnel categories to the addition of
data on personnel serving 3- through 5-year-olds. The 2001 school year
was the first year that preschool programs for ages 3 through 5
submitted data on related services personnel. In prior years, these
programs did not submit data on related services personnel.

The state counted personnel who provide speech services as special
education teachers rather than as related services personnel. Speech is
not considered a related service in Arkansas.

California---The state attributed the increase in the number of
certified occupational therapists, recreation specialists, interpreters,
and both certified and not fully certified occupational therapists and
recreation specialists to the increase in special education enrollment.

Connecticut---Personnel in Connecticut are counted according to the
grade level they serve rather than the age they serve. The state's count
of special education teachers for ages 3 through 5 includes teachers who
work in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Special education teachers
for ages 6 through 21 include teachers who work in grades 1 through 12.

Georgia---The state reported that it changed its definition of fully
certified to include only those individuals who do not have additional
unfulfilled requirements or conditions attached to the certification.
Teachers reported as fully certified for 2001 hold appropriate
certification in their fields of instruction and have completed all
certification requirements for their positions. Last year, teachers were
reported as fully certified if they held appropriate certification in
their fields of instruction even if they had not necessarily completed
all certification requirements for their positions.

Hawaii---The state attributed the increase in the number of fully
certified school social workers and the decrease in not fully certified
school counselors to Hawaii's efforts to hire personnel who are fully
qualified in their areas of expertise.

Illinois---Illinois does not collect personnel data by ages served. The
count of special education teachers reported as serving ages 3 through 5
only includes those serving early childhood or preschool students. All
other special education teachers serving ages 3 through 5 are reported
as serving ages 6 through 21.

Illinois's personnel data do not include staff employed by and providing
services in nonpublic schools. Counts of these personnel are not
available.

The state's personnel data also do not include home-hospital personnel.
Illinois does not collect FTE data for these personnel. The total number
of home/hospital personnel claimed by local school districts during 2001
was 3,005.

The state reported that the total number of SEA administrators reported
(47.79 FTE) is the actual number of staff paid with IDEA, Part B funds.

Iowa---Iowa reported that the decrease in the number of interpreters is
an error. In 2001, the state incorrectly reported these personnel in the
category for teacher aides.

Louisiana---The state attributed the increase in other professional
staff to increased funding and to the reorganization of one of the
larger districts in the state. Increased funding at the local level led
to hiring of personnel in professional positions, such as transition
coordinators, job coaches, and behavior interventionists. The
reorganization at one of the largest districts in the state changed how
some personnel are reported. Several positions that were reported as
supervisor/administrators last year were reported in the other
professional staff category this year.

Massachusetts---The state attributed the decrease in fully certified
psychologists and other professional staff and the increase in fully
certified teacher aides, physical therapists, and
supervisor/administrators (LEA) to a change in data collection
methodology, rather than a true change in the number of personnel in
these categories. In 1999 and 2000, Massachusetts began collecting
personnel data in an aggregated, detailed, web-based data collection
rather than on a paper form. In 2001, the state returned to the paper
form. The state considers the current data, collected on paper, to be
more reliable and accurate than the data collected from the web-based
form.

Minnesota---Minnesota reported that it changed its method for reporting
special education teachers for ages 3 through 5. As a result, Minnesota
did not report a separate count of these teachers. Prior to 2001, the
state collected data on these teachers using a paper data collection
form submitted by LEAs. In 2001, the state began using an existing data
source that includes data on special education teachers for ages 3
though 21. An advancement in programming allowed crosstabulation of
licensure status with special education assignment. While the new report
provides more accurate data, the state is no longer able to disaggregate
teachers who work with ages 3 through 5. Special education teachers who
serve children ages 3 through 5 are now included in the count of
teachers serving ages 6 through 21.

The state attributed the increase in non-professional staff to a new
state policy. Beginning in 2001, Minnesota began reimbursing districts
for the cost of clerical staff who support special education teachers.
As a result, many school districts hired additional support staff.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of counselors to an
error on last year's report. Last year, districts incorrectly included
in their count those school counselors employed for all students. This
year, districts only counted counselors employed by school districts
exclusively for special education. These counselors typically provide
services to students with disabilities through contractual arrangements
with the LEAs.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of LEA
supervisor/administrators to better data for the 2001 school year. In
2000 the counts of supervisor/administrators also included coordinators,
due process facilitators, and administrators. In 2001, the data only
include true administrators.

The state reported that some districts may have underreported
occupational therapists. These districts erroneously reported some
occupational therapists in personnel categories such as other
professional or non-professional staff. This misreporting led to a
decrease in the occupational therapists category.

Minnesota no longer reimburses school districts for non-certified
interpreters. The state attributes the decrease in not fully certified
interpreters to the fact that it no longer employs them.

The state attributes the increase in the number of other professional
staff to a correction in its data reporting procedures. This year,
coordinators and lead teachers are included in this category. Last year,
districts mistakenly counted coordinators in the
supervisor/administrator category. The state did not report lead
teachers anywhere on the personnel form last year.

In Minnesota, the Handicapped Vocational data system is separate from
the Special Education data system. The state reported that the systems
are currently in transition, which makes it difficult to obtain accurate
data on vocational education teachers, work-study coordinators, and
rehabilitation counselors.

Missouri---Missouri reported that the supervisor/administrator category
at the LEA level includes two categories of personnel: special education
administrators and process coordinators. Both of these categories have
certification requirements. This year, all LEA
supervisors/administrators were fully certified. This is a significant
increase over the last year. The state is unsure why such a large number
were not fully certified in previous years, but mentioned that it has
difficulty matching certification data with Exceptional Pupil Aid
payment data and personnel assignment data. Missouri is looking into
ways to better collect and report personnel data.

Missouri reported that the diagnostic and evaluation staff category
includes school psychological examiners and educational diagnosticians.
Both have certification requirements. If these requirements are not met,
the state reports the personnel as not fully certified. This year, some
of these personnel were reported as fully certified, and others were
reported as not fully certified. Last year all were reported as fully
certified. The state is unsure why all diagnostic and evaluation staff
were reported as fully certified in previous years.

Montana---The state reported that it changed its data collection
methodology for the 2001 school year. It integrated the data collection
process into a larger, agency-wide collection that school districts
complete in the fall of the year.

The state reported that Montana special education teachers frequently
teach students of all ages. When reporting personnel counts to OSEP, the
state used the proportion of students in each age group to determine the
breakout of teachers by age group.

The state attributed the decrease in the total number of personnel to
improved data accuracy resulting from its new agency-wide data
collection process. Previously, it used the agency-wide collection
process to count special education teachers for accreditation purposes.
Because those reporting the accreditation information are more likely to
know the exact FTE of special education teachers in each district, the
state believes the data reported to OSEP are now more accurate.

Montana reports that in previous years, it incorrectly interpreted the
supervisor/administrator, state education agency (SEA) category. The
state interpreted this category to include only personnel who administer
a school that was taken over by the state. Because this has never
occurred in Montana, the state did not report any personnel in the
supervisor/administrator (SEA) category. This year the state provided
data for this category based on OSEP's definition of
supervisor/administrator (SEA).

The state attributed the decrease in the number of non-professional
staff to a new state data collection process implemented in 2001. The
state reported that this new process requires a finer level of detail
and places additional constraints on data entry (i.e., does not allow
duplicate records), which improves data accuracy. Many of the reporting
changes focused specifically on aides (i.e., mobility, speech,
behavior), who are reported in the non-professional staff category.
Following are changes that the state made to the reporting methods for
aides, which may have led to the decrease in the non-professional staff
category:

In the past, school districts reported the number and types of aides
(i.e., mobility, speech, behavior) as part of a teacher's reporting
form. During the state's validation process, the state asked schools to
check total FTE for aides to ensure an unduplicated count. Although the
process did catch some duplication, the state believes that it did not
catch all duplication. As a result, aides may have been overreported in
the past.

Prior to 2001, school districts were allowed to count time spent prior
to and after the regular school day providing services to the student
(i.e., riding with the student to and from school). Therefore, an aide
could report an FTE greater than 1.0. Beginning with the 2001 data
collection, school districts could no longer report aides as being over
1.0 FTE. The state reported that the majority of the reduction in aide
FTE can be attributed to a change in the reporting of FTE, rather than a
change in the number of aides.

The state reported that these changes not only affect the FTE count for
aides reported in the non-professional staff category, but for those in
the teacher's aide category as well. The FTE Montana reported for
teacher's aides also decreased in 2001.

Nebraska---The state attributed the increase in fully certified
diagnostic and evaluation staff and the decrease in other professional
staff to a change in reporting methods. This year, the state removed
school psychological and speech technicians from the other professional
staff category and counted them in the diagnostic and evaluation staff
category.

The state reported that in previous years, it did not collect data on
interpreters, and these personnel may have been reported as other
professional staff. In 2001 the state began collecting data on
interpreters. As a result, the reported number of interpreters
increased, and the number of other professional staff decreased.

Nevada---This year, Nevada reported an increase in the number of
counselors and a decrease in the number of interpreters. The state
reported that these data are correct. Variations in counselors and
interpreters are common in Nevada. The number employed depends on their
availability, and the need for their services is based on changes in
service delivery patterns.

New Jersey---New Jersey attributed the increase in the number of not
fully certified speech pathologists to the use of emergency certified
staff. The state reported that it has difficulty finding and hiring
certified staff in these positions. As a result, staff turnover is high
and reporting of these staff is inconsistent.

The state attributed the increase in the number of fully certified
audiologists to normal fluctuation in the numbers of these staff. The
state reported 30 more personnel in the category this year, which it
believes is not an unusual fluctuation.

The state attributed the increase in the number of fully certified
non-professional staff to inconsistent reporting in this category. The
state reported that this category includes many different positions for
which there may be a demand or surplus during any given year. For this
reason, the state believes that the increase in this category is not
unusual.

New Jersey attributed the increase in the number of not fully certified
diagnostic and evaluation staff to inconsistent reporting from
districts.

New Mexico---In 2000 and in 2001, New Mexico was unable to obtain
certification information on audiologists and speech pathologists from
the agency that collects these data. In 2001, the state estimated the
ratio of certified to uncertified personnel in these categories using
certification rates for 2002. The total number of personnel in these two
categories is based on actual counts submitted to the state.

New York---New York reported that it included the following positions in
the category special education teachers for ages 3 through 5: Preschool
Teacher of Special Education, Preschool Teacher of Special
Education-Bilingual, Teacher of English as a Second Language, Teacher of
the Speech and Hearing Handicapped-Certified Only, Teacher of the Speech
and Hearing Handicapped-Bilingual-Certified Only, Teacher of the Deaf
and Hearing Impaired, Teacher of the Deaf and Hearing
Impaired-Bilingual, Teacher of the Blind and Partially Sighted and
Teacher of the Blind and Partially Sighted-Bilingual.

New York also reported that it included the following positions in the
category special education teachers for ages 6 through 21: Teacher of
Special Education, Teacher of Special Education-Bilingual, Teacher of
English as a Second Language, Teacher of the Speech and Hearing
Handicapped-Certified Only, Teacher of the Speech and Hearing
Handicapped-Bilingual-Certified Only, Teacher of the Deaf and Hearing
Impaired, Teacher of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired-Bilingual, Teacher of
the Blind and Partially Sighted and Teacher of the Blind and Partially
Sighted-Bilingual.

The state included the following positions in the category other
professional staff: Teacher Assistant, Teacher Assistant-Bilingual,
Physical Therapist Assistant, Physical Therapist Assistant-Bilingual,
Occupational Therapist Assistant, Occupational Therapist
Assistant-Bilingual, Orientation and Mobility Instructor, Orientation
and Mobility Instructor-Bilingual, Registered Nurse, Registered
Nurse-Bilingual, Licensed Practical Nurse, Licensed Practical
Nurse-Bilingual, and Other Professional Staff.

The state included the following positions in the non-professional staff
category: Instructional Volunteer, Instructional Volunteer-Bilingual,
Non-Professional Staff, and Administrative Volunteer.

North Carolina---The state explained the decline in some of the
personnel categories from 2000 to 2001 as the result of state employees
losing their jobs to budget cuts.

South Dakota---South Dakota reported that it changed to a computerized
data collection system. The state attributed changes in the data
reported for various personnel categories to increased data accuracy.

Texas---The state included the following positions in the other
professional staff category: Art Therapist, Corrective Therapist, Music
Therapist, Orientation/Mobility Instructor, Vocational Ed Coordinator,
Teacher Facilitator, Other Campus Professional Personnel, Other
Non-campus Professional Personnel, School Nurse, Visiting Teacher, and
Department Head.

Vermont---The state reported that the category other professional staff
includes behavior specialists and other professional staff.

Virginia---The state reported speech pathologists and other personnel
who provide services to students with speech/language impairments in the
count of special education teachers. No speech pathologists were
included in the related services personnel count.

Virgin Islands---The Virgin Islands attributed the increase in LEA
supervisor/administrators to an error on last year's report. In 2000,
Virgin Islands did not report school administrators. These personnel
were reported in 2001.

Wyoming---Wyoming reported that it revised its personnel categories to
match the federal categories for vocational education teachers,
work-study coordinators, and recreation specialists. Last year, these
personnel were reported as either other professional or non-professional
staff. This year, they are reported in the correct category.

The state reported that it includes psychological therapists in the
other professional staff category.

The state does not include contracted services personnel on the
personnel table.

The state reported that it included the following positions in the other
non-professional staff category: special education clerks, job coaches,
related service aides, and other non-professionals.

The state reported that it included psychological therapists in the
other professional staff category.

Wyoming reported that its data are taken from its end-of-the-year
report. That is, the counts are not for December 1. However, the state
feels this provides the most accurate count of staff.

Tables 4-1 through 4-4: Part B, Exiting

Alabama---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
with specific learning disabilities that exited with a certificate to
the availability of an Alabama Occupational Diploma (AOD). This exiting
option prepares students for employment. The state reported that the
increase in the number of certificates is an indication that more
students are choosing to graduate with the AOD. Alabama's high standards
for graduation with a regular diploma (course content requirements and a
graduation exam including reading, language, mathematics, and science)
make it difficult for many students with disabilities to receive a
regular high school diploma.

The state also attributed the decrease in students who dropped out to
the AOD. The biggest decrease was in the disability area of specific
learning disabilities, the population of students most likely to choose
the AOD as an exit. In addition, more higher functioning students with
emotional disturbance and mental retardation are choosing the AOD as an
exit option. As a result, these students are staying in school rather
than dropping out.

Arkansas---The state reported that the decrease in the total number of
students on the exiting table may be due to errors associated with
implementing a new data collection system in 2001. The agency handling
the data collection implemented a new special education module that
districts used to enter student withdrawals from special education. Many
of the districts reported to the state that they did not understand how
this system worked. They continued entering student graduations,
dropouts, and other exits with general education exits, thinking that
these records would be imported into the special education module. This
was not the case. The state believes that many of its special education
exits were not captured in the data collection and is working with
districts to correct the situation for the 2002 school year and to
revise data from 2001.

California---The state attributed the increases in the number of
students exiting in the graduated with a regular high school diploma
category and the number of students with specific learning disabilities
exiting in that category to an increase in special education enrollment.
The state also reported that in the past 5 years it has worked closely
with districts, focusing on the educational benefits for students with
disabilities rather than just procedural compliance. Among the focused
monitoring indicators used by the state to measure educational benefit
are: an increase in the number of students graduating with a diploma, a
decrease in the number of students dropping out, and an increase in the
number of students with disabilities who receive instruction with their
nondisabled peers. The state believes that the rapid increase in the
number of students reported in the category graduated with a high school
diploma is a direct result of these efforts.

The state reported that the decrease in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities who received a certificate was a direct
result of the increase in the number of these students who received a
regular high school diploma. The state attributed the increase in the
number of students with mental retardation who received a certificate to
an increase in special education enrollment.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities and all disabilities combined in the
moved, not known to continue category to an increase in special
education enrollment.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities and all disabilities combined who dropped
out to the state's quality assurance process. This process has been in
place for 4 years and encourages students to get diplomas and
certificates.

Colorado---Data reported for 2001-02 are for students exiting between
December 2000 and December 2001.

Connecticut---Connecticut reported that its reporting period is from
December 1, 2001, to November 30, 2002. It incorrectly calculated
students' ages as of December 1, 2002, rather than December 1, 2001.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students who moved
and were known to continue and the decrease in the number of students
who moved and were not known to continue to new edit checks conducted by
the state. This year, the state verified that students who were
initially reported as moved, not known to be continuing were not
enrolled in another school district. If the state found that one of
these students was enrolled in another district, the state re-coded the
student as moved, known to be continuing. The state conducted similar
checks for students to check whether students reported as dropouts were
actually enrolled in another school district. As a result, the number of
dropouts reported by the state decreased slightly.

Georgia---Georgia had a significant decrease in the number of students
reported as dropping out and moved, not known to continue. The state
reported that in previous years, these counts frequently were duplicated
counts based on the number of occurrences rather than unduplicated
counts of students. This year, enrollment in the fall was checked
against students reported as dropouts the prior year. If a student was
reported as a dropout in the prior year, but enrolled in the fall,
he/she was not considered a dropout or counted in the moved, not known
to continue category.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students with
disabilities receiving a regular diploma to better data collection and
an increased emphasis by the Department of Education on test results and
inclusion.

Georgia attributed the decrease in the number of students who no longer
receive special education to a change in the state's data reporting
methods. In 2001, the state eliminated duplicated students from its data
report. The state did not report students who returned to the regular
education environment during the year, but were in special education at
the end of the reporting year. In previous years, a student in this
situation might have been reported in the no longer receives special
education category.

Hawaii---In 2000, Hawaii trained teachers on the eligibility criteria
for the speech and language impairments category. As a result, 1,220
students in this category exited special education to be served under
Section 504 rather than IDEA. In 2001, significantly fewer students with
speech and language impairments were reported as no longer receiving
special education. The state believes that these data are accurate and
that the number of students with this disability exiting special
education has stabilized.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities reported in the category no longer
receives special education to the implementation of a Comprehensive
Student Support System. Under this new system, students are provided
with comprehensive, coordinated, integrated, and customized supports
that are accessible, timely, and strength-based to enable them to
achieve in school and return to regular education. The increase may also
be attributed to a change in data collection methods in
2001 for students who returned to regular education. Data for these
students were gathered using the Integrated Special Education Database,
a process-based system which was implemented in 2001.

Illinois---The state reported that it calculated student age for the
2001 exiting report as of the 2001 child count date (December 1, 2001).
In the past, Illinois calculated student age based on the school year
during which the student exited. The state used the age of the student
as of the child count for that school year to calculate the age. For
example: If the student exited May 2000, age was calculated from the
December 1999 child count. If the student exited October 2000 the age
was calculated from the December 2000 child count.

Illinois began using the multiple disabilities category for the 2001
school year.

Louisiana---Louisiana attributed the decrease in the moved, not known to
continue category to policy and system changes in the state. In prior
years, the state allowed local school systems to use the code "other" as
a valid exit reason. For federal reporting purposes, students coded as
"other" were reported in the moved, not known to continue category. In
early 2001, the "other" code was eliminated due to a state policy change
that required school systems to more accurately track student exits.

The state attributes the slight decrease in the number of dropouts to a
state policy that requires school districts to implement changes at the
local level to reduce dropouts. The dropout rate is included in
Louisiana's accountability and school performance scores. A school's
dropout rate affects its school performance scores and possibly funding.

Maine---Maine reported that its exiting data for 2001 were actually
collected between December 1, 2000, and November 30, 2001.

Missouri---The state attributed the increase in the moved, known to be
continuing category to better understanding of the difference between
the two moved categories. This has resulted in more appropriate use of
these two moved categories.

Oregon---The state attributed the decrease in the moved, known to be
continuing category to improved SEA-generated reports, which were sent
to LEAs to help eliminate duplicate exit records.

Oregon attributed the decrease in the number of students reported as
moved, known to be continuing and moved, not known to be continuing to
better data cleaning at the state level. The state reported that in
2001, it improved its methods for tracking exits by eliminating
duplicated exit reasons. In addition, the state implemented a hierarchy
of exit codes. For example, a student who moved and graduated with a
diploma would only be reported as having graduated. Similarly, a student
who moved twice and exited with a certificate would only be reported as
exiting with a certificate. Finally, the state told districts that
students in the moved, not known to be continuing category would be
considered dropouts when the state calculated the district dropout
rates. This encouraged districts to use another exit category whenever
possible.

Texas---Each fall, the state collects exiting data for the previous
year. Data reported for school year 2001 are actually for students
exiting between August 2000 and August 2001.

The state reported that it counts students who complete an IEP in the
graduated with a regular high school diploma category.

Texas does not use the category received a certificate.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students reported as
moved, known to be continuing to changes in the in the TYC (Texas Youth
Commission School) methodology for determining if a youth continues in
school after release. TYC campuses improved their methods for gathering
post-release information about students with respect to continuing
education.

Texas reported that 2,044 students on the exiting table were missing
disability information. The state imputed disability for these students
based on the known disabilities of other students on the table.

Utah---The state attributed the increase in the number of students with
disabilities who graduated and the increase in the number who reached
maximum age to a change in data collection methodology. Prior to 2000,
data were collected on paper forms. In 2000, the state began collecting
exit data electronically, and districts were unfamiliar with the
electronic forms. As a result, the state believes the data were not
accurate. The state reports that districts are now more familiar with
the electronic forms, and as a result the current data are more
accurate.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities who no longer receive special education
to better data and to a focus on accountability and making sure that
student IEP goals are met.

The state attributed the increase in the number of students reported as
moved, known to be continuing to better data. The statewide
clearinghouse warehouse system makes it possible to better track and
follow students as they move from district to district.

Vermont---Data reported for school year 2001 are actually data for
students exiting between December 2000 and December 2001.

Wisconsin---Data reported for school year 2001 are actually data for
students exiting between December 2000 and December 2001.

Tables 5-1 through 5-4: Part B, Discipline

Arizona---Arizona was unable to correct some errors on its discipline
table. The race/ethnicity totals in the following categories do not
match the totals by disability: the unduplicated count of children
removed for drug and weapon offenses, the unduplicated count of children
removed by a hearing officer, and the unduplicated count of children
with multiple short-term suspensions.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of children unilaterally
removed by school personnel to more accurate data resulting from
additional training. LEAs were trained on how to properly report data
and how to differentiate between suspension/expulsions and removals to
alternative educational settings.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students reported as
unilaterally removed by a hearing officer to a change in data collection
methods. In 2000, public education agencies were responsible for
reporting data on removals by hearing officers. The state believes that
many public education agencies may have misinterpreted the term hearing
officer. They may have been erroneously reporting removals by local
hearing officers, rather than state hearing officers. In 2001, the
dispute resolution team began collecting these data, utilizing the
correct definition of hearing officer. The state believes the data are
more accurate for 2001 than for 2000.

Arkansas---Arkansas had an increase in the number of students
unilaterally removed by school personnel for drug and weapon offenses.
The state reported that this increase was due to an increase in the
number of removals for drug offenses and not to an increase in the
number of removals for weapon offenses. The state reported a statewide
effort to make schools weapon and drug free, leading to more
disciplinary actions for these types of offenses. School administrators
are making an effort to discipline children caught with drugs.

California---The state attributed the decrease in the number of students
reported in all categories on the discipline table to an error on
previous reports. In previous years, California reported all students
with disabilities who had been suspended, rather than only those who
were suspended for 10 days or more. This year, the state only reported
students who were suspended for more than 10 days.

Colorado---The state attributed the decrease in the number of students
who were unilaterally removed by school personnel to an interim
alternative educational setting to more accurate reporting by LEAs. The
state emphasized to the districts that they should only report students
in this category if they were removed by school personnel. The state
attributed most of this change to data from one of the largest LEAs in
the state.

Connecticut---Connecticut reported that data on all in-school and
out-of-school suspensions; expulsions; and alcohol, drug, and weapon
offenses for both regular and special education for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the Gun-Free Schools Act, and the Drug Free
Schools Act are in one individual student database system. To ensure
data accuracy, the state implemented a validation system to identify
incomplete and erroneous data submitted by school districts. The state
then sends reports to districts requesting corrections of their data.

Delaware---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
with multiple short-term suspensions to new edit checks conducted by the
state. The state queried the data to check for errors and sent
inaccurate data back to districts for correction. In the past,
corrections were made at the state level.

Georgia---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
unilaterally removed by a hearing officer to a change in the terminology
used in the state's data collection system. It replaced the term
"hearing officer" with the term "administrative law judge" because, in
Georgia, an administrative law judge is required in the removal process
for likely injury. This change in terminology helped local school
systems better understand which students they should report. The state
believes that previously districts incorrectly counted students
disciplined by internal (school system) hearing officers.

Hawaii---The state attributed the decrease in the number of students
unilaterally removed by school personnel for drug and weapon offenses to
a new discipline data tracking system. In 2001, the state used its
"Chapter 19 Database" to provide the state's discipline data for the
first time. The state reports that although it trained users on this
system, further training is needed. It expects to report more accurate
data in future reports.

Illinois---The state reported that it collected the 2001 discipline data
using the old data collection format from 2000. As a result, the data
reported by the state differ from the federal categories:

The state reported the number of children with single suspensions
greater than 10 days, rather than the number of suspensions greater than
10 days. This may result in an undercount of suspensions.

The state was unable to report an accurate unduplicated count of all
children with suspensions and calculated this unduplicated count by
adding the number of children with single suspensions greater than 10
days and the number of children with multiple short-term suspensions.
The calculated count may be higher than a true unduplicated count.

The state reported the number of drug and weapon acts precipitating
removal by school personnel rather than the actual number of removals
for drug and weapon offenses.

The state was unable to correct logic errors in the unduplicated counts
of students reported by race/ethnicity. The unduplicated counts of white
and Hispanic students reported as removed by school personnel for drug
and weapon offenses was not logical (too high) based on the number of
removals reported.

Indiana---The state reported that the decrease in the number of children
unilaterally removed by a hearing officer (from 46 to 0) is due to an
increase in data accuracy in 2001-02. The Indiana Department of
Education reviewed the local discipline reports submitted by LEAs for
2000-01 and found that districts reported students disciplined by a
"local expulsion examiner" in the removed by a hearing officer category.
The state corrected this misunderstanding for the 2001-02 report, and
these data will be correct in future reports.

Kentucky---The state attributed the decrease in the number of students
unilaterally removed by school personnel to an interim alternative
educational setting (IAES) for drug or weapon offenses to districts'
better understanding of state law. The state reported that Kentucky
Revised Statute (state law) is more restrictive than federal law on the
authority of school personnel to remove students to an IAES for drug or
weapon offenses. Under state law, a student can only be sent to an IAES
for 10 days at a time, no matter what the reason for the removal was. In
order for a student to be removed for more than 10 days (and thus be
reported on the federal discipline table), the student would have to
commit multiple offenses. This state law is fairly new. The state
believes that in 2000, districts were not fully aware of the law, and
their data were largely based on single events. Districts are becoming
more aware that they cannot remove a student for more than 10 days
unless there are multiple incidents, which has resulted in a decrease in
the category of unilateral removals by school personnel.

Louisiana---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
removed by school personnel for drug and weapon offenses to district
changes in disciplinary policies, coupled with system improvements in
data tracking and reporting methods at the local level.

Maryland---Maryland reported that, after the data were published, it
discovered an error in the race/ethnicity portion of its discipline
data. Asian students were reported as white, non-Hispanic, Native
American students were reported as black, non-Hispanic, white,
non-Hispanic students were reported as Asian/Pacific Islander, and
Hispanic students were reported as Native American.

Maryland attributed the decrease in the number of children removed by a
hearing officer to new administrative procedures and behavior programs
put in place by local school systems. The state reported that last year,
all of the removals by hearing officers occurred in 7 of the 24 local
school systems in Maryland. This year, the state contacted these
districts to determine the reason for the decrease in the number of
students they reported as removed by hearing officials. Three of the
local school systems had a decrease of one or two cases, which the state
considers to be a non-significant change. Three other school systems had
more significant decreases. Of these, one reported that it developed and
implemented definitive criteria that must be used by schools prior to
seeking such a removal for a 45-day interim placement by a hearing
officer. Another reported that it is the district's aim to maintain all
children in school as long as possible, and therefore, it only removes
children to a 45-day IAES when it is absolutely necessary to do so. The
third reported that it has expanded its efforts in the middle and high
schools to provide a high level of effective intervention in the
classroom. It implemented class- and grade-wide incentive models and
behavior support interventions. All students with IEPs who display
problem behavior receive the highest quality of behavior support in the
classroom. In addition, IEP teams develop behavior support plans with
the appropriate professional specialists to address these behaviors.

Massachusetts---The state reported that it collected the 2001 discipline
data using the old data collection format from 2000. As a result, the
data reported by the state differ from the federal categories:

The state reported the number of children with single suspensions
greater than 10 days, rather than the number of suspensions greater than
10 days. This may result in an undercount of suspensions.

The state was unable to report an accurate unduplicated count of all
children with suspensions and calculated this unduplicated count by
adding the number of children with single suspensions greater than 10
days and the number of children with multiple short-term suspensions.
The calculated count may be higher than a true unduplicated count.

Michigan---Michigan reported that it is unable to provide an accurate
unduplicated count of students removed by school personnel for drug or
weapon offenses. The state currently is unable to identify students who
had multiple removals for drug or weapon offenses. The state calculated
this unduplicated count by adding the number of removals for drugs and
the number of removals for weapons. This count may be higher than a true
unduplicated count.

Minnesota---The state reported that its counts do not include data from
several districts, including one of the largest districts in the state.

The state had a 25 percent increase in the number of children subject to
multiple short-term suspensions. The state attributes this increase to
improved data collection procedures. In addition, the state reported
that it is also possible that more students are receiving multiple
suspensions summing to more than 10 days.

Missouri---From 2000 to 2001, Missouri had a significant increase in the
number of students with multiple short-term suspensions summing to
greater than 10 days. The state reported that the 2001 school year was
the second year the state used a web-based data collection on discipline
incidents that was designed to collect information on students with and
without disabilities. Since the data collection method is so new, it is
difficult to determine the reason for the increase. Missouri reported
that there have been no state policy changes related to discipline which
would cause this increase, but suggested that the change may be due to
better reporting. The state reported that this is supported by an
overall increase in the total number of reported incidents for students
with and without disabilities as well as an increase in the number of
reported multiple short-term suspensions for students with and without
disabilities.

Nevada---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
unilaterally removed by school personnel to increased familiarity with
discipline regulations (such as making manifestation determinations
\[Section 615(k)(4) of IDEA, 1997\] that are defensible) at the district
level. As a result of their increased familiarity with the regulations,
districts are more willing to "engage the process" rather than adopting
an unstated rule that students with disabilities will not be disciplined
by removals.

Oklahoma---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
removed to IAES's by school personnel for drug or weapon offenses to two
factors. First, the state conducted training with the LEAs on how to
report the data. The state believes that this led to more accurate
reporting. Second, more schools instituted a "zero tolerance" policy
towards drug or weapon offenses; therefore, students who commit these
offenses are automatically removed.

Pennsylvania---Pennsylvania had increases in the number of children who
were unilaterally removed by school personnel and who received multiple,
short-term suspensions summing to more than 10 days. In addition, the
state had a decrease in the number of children removed by a hearing
officer. The state attributes these changes to statewide and regional
training, an improved communication system from state to regional
offices to districts, and assistance from a statewide advisory
committee. In addition, this is the second year it used the current data
system, and districts reported that this year they were more familiar
with the system.

South Carolina---The state attributed the increase in the number of
students reported as unilaterally removed by school personnel for drug
or weapons offenses and the increase in the number reported as removed
by hearing officer determination regarding likely injury, as well as the
decrease in the number of students with multiple short-term suspensions,
to changes in data collection methods. Last year, the discipline data
were generated from a database with definitions for the unilateral
removal categories that did not match OSEP definitions. As a result of
the differences, some removals were not included in the reported data.
This year, the state corrected the definitions.

Tennessee---In 2001, the number of students removed by school personnel
for drug and weapons offenses increased, and the number of students with
multiple short-term suspensions decreased. The state reported that it
experienced an overall increase in the number of offenses in its
schools. The state provided additional information and guidance to the
school systems about how to respond to these offenses, and as a result,
it has become the norm for IEP teams to place special education students
in the LEA's alternative school when a child is suspended or expelled
from school, rather than to dismiss the student from school. The state
law under Rule 0520-1-9-.15 (4) specifies that FAPE must be provided to
children suspended or expelled from school: (b) "In the case of a child
eligible for special education who has been removed from their current
placement for more than ten (10) school days in that school year, the
local school system, for the remainder of the removals, must: (1)
Provide services to the extent necessary to enable the child to
appropriately progress in the general curriculum and advance toward
achieving the goals set out in the child's IEP, if the removal is: (i)
Under the school personnel's authority to remove for not more than ten
(10) consecutive school days as long as that removal does not constitute
a change of placement; (2) Provide services in the appropriate interim
alternative educational setting, if the removal is for drug or weapons
offenses or based on a hearing officer's determination that maintaining
the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in
injury to the child or to others if he or she remains in the current
placement."