25th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: to ensure the free
appropriate public education of all children with disabilities

2003

Vol. II

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

U.S. Department of Education

25th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, Vol. 2

2003

to ensure the free appropriate public education of all children with
disabilities

Prepared by Westat for the

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

U.S. Department of Education

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED01CO0082/0008 with Westat. Judith Holt served as the contracting
officer's representative.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

John H. Hager

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Troy R. Justesen

Acting Director

April 2005

This report is in the public domain, except for images on the cover,
section dividers, and the logo of VSA arts, all of which are
copyrighted. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is
granted. While permission to reprint this report is not necessary, the
citation should be U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education
Programs, 25th Annual (2003) Report to Congress on the Implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, vol. 2, Washington,
D.C., 2005.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

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

or order online at www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP.

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

Image on front cover

FREEDOM

© 2001 Kandyce Vessey, CO

Image provided courtesy of VSA arts www.vsaarts.org

VSA arts is an international nonprofit organization founded in 1974 by
Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., VSA
arts is creating a society where people with disabilities can learn
through, participate in, and enjoy the arts. Nearly 5 million people
with disabilities participate in VSA arts programs every year through a
network of affiliates nationwide and in over 60 countries worldwide.

25th OSEP Annual Report to Congress

Volume II

Contents

Notes Concerning the Data Tables That Follow

Data Sources Used in This Report

Introduction

Table AA1 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group,
During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA2 Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA3 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA4 Number of Children Ages 6-11 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA5 Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA6 Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Disability, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA7 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability and
Age, During the 2001-02 School Year

Table AA8 Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age, During
the 2001-02 School Year

All Disabilities

Table AA9 Number of Children Served Under IDEA by Disability and Age
Group, During School Years 1992-93 Through 2001-02

Table AA10 Percentage (Based on 2001 Population Estimates) of Children
Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During the 2001-02 School Year

All Disabilities

Table AA11 Percentage (Based on 2001 Population Estimates) of Children
Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 2001-02
School Year

Table AA12 Percentage (Based on 2001 Population Estimates) of Children
Ages 6-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 2001-02
School Year

Table AA13 Percentage (Based on Estimated Enrollment) of Children Ages
6-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 2001-02 School
Year

Table AA14 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Students
Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 2001-02
School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AA15 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Students
Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 2001-02
School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AA16 Percentage of Racial/Ethnic Group (Based on 2001 Population
Estimates) Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA, Part B, During the 2001-02 School
Year

> American Indian/Alaska Native
>
> Asian/Pacific Islander
>
> Black
>
> Hispanic
>
> White

Table AA17 Percentage of Racial/Ethnic Group (Based on 2001 Population
Estimates) Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B, During the 2001-02
School Year

> American Indian/Alaska Native
>
> Asian/Pacific Islander
>
> Black
>
> Hispanic
>
> White

Table AB1 Number and Percentage of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different
Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 2000-2001 School
Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AB2 Number and Percentage of Children Ages 6-21 Served in
Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, by Disability,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AB3 Number and Percentage of Children Ages 6-11 Served in
Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, by Disability,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AB4 Number and Percentage of Children Ages 12-17 Served in
Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, by Disability,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury

Table AB5 Number and Percentage of Children Ages 18-21 Served in
Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, by Disability,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury

Table AB6 Number of Children Ages 3-21 Served in Correctional Facilities
and Parent Initiated Private Schools Under IDEA, Part B, During the
2000-01 School Year

> All Disabilities 258

Table AB7 Number of Children Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During School Years
1991-92 Through 2000-01

Table AB8 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational
Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During School Years
1991-92 Through 2000-01

Table AB9 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Children
Ages 3-5 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part
B, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Early Childhood Setting
>
> Early Childhood Special Education Setting
>
> Home
>
> Part-Time Early Childhood/Part-Time Special Education Setting
>
> Residential Facility
>
> Separate School
>
> Itinerant Service Outside the Home
>
> Reverse Mainstream Setting
>
> Total

Table AB10 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Children
Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part
B, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Special Education Outside Class Less Than 21% of the Day
>
> Special Education Outside Class Between 21% and 60% of the Day
>
> Special Education Outside Class More Than 60% of the Day
>
> Public Separate School Facility
>
> Private Separate School Facility
>
> Public Residential Facility
>
> Private Residential Facility
>
> Homebound/Hospital
>
> Correctional Facility
>
> Children with Disabilities Enrolled in Private Schools Not Placed or
> Referred by Public Agencies
>
> Total

Table AC1 Total Number of Teachers Employed (in Full-Time Equivalency)
To Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth
Ages 3-5 with Disabilities, During the 2000-2001 School Year

Table AC2 Total Number of Teachers Employed (in Full-Time Equivalency)
To Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth
Ages 6-21 with Disabilities, During the 2000-2001 School Year

Table AC3 Number and Type of Other Personnel Employed (in Full-Time
Equivalency) To Provide Special Education and Related Services for
Children and Youth Ages 3-21 with Disabilities by Personnel Category,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

Table AD1 Number of Students Age 14 and Older Exiting Special Education,
During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury

Table AD2 Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting Special Education
by Age Year, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury

Table AD3 Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting School by
Graduation with a Diploma, Graduation with a Certificate, and Reached
Maximum Age by Age, During School Years 1991-92 Through 2000-01

Table AD4 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Children
Ages 14-21+ Exiting Special Education, by Basis of Exit, During the
2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Graduated with a Diploma
>
> Received a Certificate
>
> Reached Maximum Age
>
> No Longer Receives Special Education
>
> Died
>
> Moved, Known To Continue
>
> Moved, Not Known To Continue
>
> Dropped Out
>
> Total

Table AE1 Number of Children with Disabilities Subject to Unilateral
Removal by School Personnel for Drug or Weapon Offenses, Removal Based
on a Hearing Officer Determination Regarding Likely Injury, or Long-Term
Suspension/Expulsion, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AE2 Percentage of Children (Based on Child Count) with
Disabilities Subject to Unilateral Removal by School Personnel for Drug
or Weapon Offenses, Removal Based on a Hearing Officer Determination
Regarding Likely Injury, or Long-Term Suspension/Expulsion, During the
2000-2001 School Year

> All Disabilities
>
> Specific Learning Disabilities
>
> Speech or Language Impairments
>
> Mental Retardation
>
> Emotional Disturbance
>
> Multiple Disabilities
>
> Hearing Impairments
>
> Orthopedic Impairments
>
> Other Health Impairments
>
> Visual Impairments
>
> Autism
>
> Deaf-Blindness
>
> Traumatic Brain Injury
>
> Developmental Delay

Table AE3 Number of Children with Disabilities Subject to Unilateral
Removal by School Personnel for Drug or Weapon Offenses, Removal Based
on a Hearing Officer Determination Regarding Likely Injury, or Long-Term
Suspension/Expulsion by Race/Ethnicity, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> American Indian/Alaska Native
>
> Asian/Pacific Islander
>
> Black
>
> Hispanic
>
> White

Table AE4 Percentage of Racial/Ethnic Group (Based on Child Count) with
Disabilities Subject to Unilateral Removal by School Personnel for Drug
or Weapon Offenses, Removal Based on a Hearing Officer Determination
Regarding Likely Injury, or Long-Term Suspension/Expulsion by
Race/Ethnicity, During the 2000-2001 School Year

> American Indian/Alaska Native
>
> Asian/Pacific Islander
>
> Black
>
> Hispanic
>
> White

Population Estimates From the U.S. Census Bureau and Enrollment

Estimates From the National Center for Education Statistics

Table AF1 Estimated Resident Population for 2000 and 2001 for Children
Ages 3-21

Table AF2 Estimated Resident Population for 2000 and 2001 for Children
Ages Birth Through 2

Table AF3 Estimated Resident Population for 2000 and 2001 for Children
Ages 3-5

Table AF4 Estimated Resident Population for 2000 and 2001 for Children
Ages 6-17

Table AF5 Estimated Resident Population for 2000 and 2001 for Children
Ages 18-21

Table AF6 2001 Population Estimates (Number and Percent) for Children
Ages Birth Through 2 by Race/Ethnicity for the Reporting Year 2001-02

Table AF7 2001 Population Estimates (Number and Percent) for Children
Ages 3-5 by Race/Ethnicity for the Reporting Year 2001-02

Table AF8 2001 Population Estimates (Number and Percent) for Children
Ages 6-21 by Race/Ethnicity for the Reporting Year 2001-02

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

IDEA State Grants and Part C Tables

Table AG1 State Grant Awards Under Parts B and C of IDEA

Table AH1 Number and Percentage (Based on 2001 Population Estimates) of
Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services, December 1,
2001

Table AH2 Number of At-Risk Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early
Intervention Services (Duplicated Count), December 1, 2001

Table AH3 Number of Infants and Toddlers Ages Birth Through 2 Served in
Different Early Intervention Settings Under Part C, December 1, 2000

Table AH4 Number of Infants and Toddlers Ages Birth Through 2 Exiting
Part C Programs, During the 2000-2001 Reporting Year

Table AH5 Early Intervention Services on Individualized Family Services
Plan Provided to Infants, Toddlers, and Their Families in Accord With
Part C, December 1, 2000

Table AH6 Number and Type of Personnel Employed and Contracted To
Provide Early Intervention Services to Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities and Their Families, December 1, 2000

Table AH7 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Infants
and Toddlers Ages Birth Through 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C by
Race/Ethnicity, December 1, 2001

Table AH8 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of At-Risk
Infants and Toddlers Ages Birth Through 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C by
Race/Ethnicity, December 1, 2001

Table AH9 Percentage (Based on 2001 Population Estimates) of
Racial/Ethnic Group Ages Birth Through 2 Served Under IDEA, Part C,
December 1, 2001

Table AH10 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Infants
and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families Served Under Part C by
Program Settings, December 1, 2000

> Program for Developmental Delay
>
> Program for Typically Developing Children
>
> Home
>
> Hospital (Inpatient)
>
> Residential Facility
>
> Service Provider Location
>
> Other Setting
>
> Total Setting

Table AH11 Racial/Ethnic Composition (Number and Percentage) of Children
Ages Birth Through 2 Exiting Part C Programs, by Basis of Exit, During
the 2000-2001 School Year

> Completion of IFSP Prior to Maximum Age
>
> Part B Eligible
>
> Exit to Other Program
>
> Exit with No Referrals
>
> Part B Eligibility, Not Determined
>
> Deceased
>
> Moved Out of State
>
> Withdrawal by Parent
>
> Attempts To Contact Unsuccessful
>
> Total Number of Infants and Toddlers Exiting

Table AH12 Number and Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Ages Birth
Through 2 by Early Intervention Services Provided by Race/Ethnicity,
December 1, 2000

> American Indian/Alaska Native
>
> Asian/Pacific Islander
>
> Black
>
> Hispanic
>
> White

Data Notes for IDEA, Part B

Table 1 State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B Child Count Data 2001,
Other Data 2000-01

Data Notes for IDEA, Part C

Notes Concerning the Data Tables That Follow

The following will assist users of this volume:

-   The term state is used for column labels in this report to represent
    the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the BIA
    Schools, and the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, the
    Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands. Note that Section
    602 (27) of IDEA '97 (the law under which the data in this report
    were collected) states that "The term 'State' means each of the 50
    States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
    and each of the outlying areas."

-   Two national rows are included at the bottom of most tables in the
    report. The first, "U.S. and Outlying Areas," includes the 50
    states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the BIA Schools, and
    the outlying areas. The second,"50 States and DC," includes just the
    50 states and the District of Columbia.

-   Tables that show the percentage of children served based on
    population data do not include percentages for Puerto Rico, BIA
    Schools, and the outlying areas as no population data were available
    from the Census Bureau for these entities.

-   Many tables have a note indicating that the data included are as of
    August 30, 2002. This is because the Part B and Part C data included
    in this report are from a snapshot of the database maintained by
    Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP's) Data Analysis System.
    OSEP permits states to update data as necessary after original state
    submissions; however, a snapshot is used to prepare analyses for the
    annual reports to Congress. The use of a snapshot ensures that the
    data are not revised while the report is produced. It also ensures
    the accuracy of the presentation and analysis of data for the
    reports and facilitates the Department of Education review process
    for the reports.

-   Enrollment data (including students with and without disabilities)
    collected from states by the National Center for Education
    Statistics in the Common Core of Data are based on student grade.
    However, counts of students served under IDEA are based on student
    age. Therefore, in Table AA13, the numerator is the number of
    students ages 6 through 17 served under IDEA and the denominator is
    pre-kindergarten through grade 12 enrollment.

-   For purposes of Tables AA14 and AA15, racial/ethnic composition is
    defined as the number (or percentage) of students from a specific
    racial/ethnic group served under IDEA for a particular disability
    among all students served under IDEA for that disability. For
    example, of the total number of children ages 3 through 5 served
    under IDEA, Part B, in the U.S. and outlying areas, 14.83 percent
    were Hispanic (see Table AA14 \[continued\] on page 37).

Data Sources Used in this Report

The tables in this volume of the 25th Annual Report to Congress were
developed primarily from the Office of Special Education Programs'
(OSEP's) Data Analysis System (DANS). DANS is the repository for all of
the data mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) to be collected annually from the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the BIA Schools, and the outlying areas. These
data include the number of infants and toddlers being served under Part
C of IDEA and the settings in which they receive program services, as
well as their transition out of Part C. The states also report early
intervention services provided to this population and the personnel who
are providing services. For Part B, states report the number of children
and students who are being served, the educational environments in which
they receive education, disciplinary actions that affect them, personnel
providing educational services, and their exiting from the program.

Two additional data sources are used in some tables of this volume: the
National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data and
population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

NCES The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary
federal entity for collecting and analyzing data that are related to
education in the U.S. and other nations. NCES is located within the U.S.
Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences.

NCES fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and
report complete statistics on the condition of American education;
conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education
activities internationally. NCES statistics and publications are used by
Congress, other federal agencies, state education agencies, educational
organizations, the news media, researchers, and the public.

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is the Department of Education's primary
database on public elementary and secondary education in the United
States. CCD is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of
all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts that
contains data that are designed to be comparable across all states.

CCD is made up of a set of five surveys sent to state education
departments. Most of the data are obtained from administrative records
maintained by the state education agencies (SEAs). Statistical
information is collected annually from public elementary and secondary
schools, public school districts, and the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Department of Defense schools, and the outlying
areas. This report uses information from the CCD for 1999-2000, 2000-01,
and 2001-02, as noted in the text.

Below is a list of NCES references:

-   U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (1991). Early Estimates of
    Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year
    1991-92, NCES 92032, by Frank Johnson and Sharon Bobbitt.
    Washington, DC: Author.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2001). Early Estimates of
    Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year
    2000-2001, NCES 2001-311, by Lena McDowell. Washington, DC: Author.

-   U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2002). Early Estimates of
    Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year
    2000-2001, NCES 2001-311, by Lena McDowell and Frank Johnson.
    Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau Each year, the Population Estimates Program of the
U.S. Census Bureau publishes estimates of the resident population for
each state and county. Members of the Armed Forces on active duty
stationed outside the United States, military dependents living abroad,
and other United States citizens living abroad are not included in these
estimates. These population estimates are produced by age, sex, race,
and Hispanic origin. The state population estimates are solely the sum
of the county population estimates. The reference date for county
estimates is July 1.

Estimates are used in federal funding allocations, as denominators for
vital rates and per capita time series, as survey controls, and in
monitoring recent demographic changes. With each new issue of July 1
estimates, the estimates for years are revised back to the last census.
Previously published estimates are superseded and archived. See the
Census Bureau's document Estimates and Projections Area Documentation:
State and County Total Population Estimates
(http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/ methodology/2003_st_co_meth.pdf
accessed Feb. 24, 2005) for more information about how population
estimates are produced.

The Census files used in this report include the following:

-   U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population data for 1999 retrieved
    October 2000 from
    www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/stats/st-99-10.txt/.

-   U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population data for 1998 retrieved
    October 1999. This file is no longer available on the Web site.

Introduction

During the two decades that the annual reports to Congress have been
published, these documents have undergone several minor stylistic
changes and one major substantive redesign and refocus. In 1997, OSEP
adopted a policy-oriented approach to the annual report to Congress. The
results of this shift were first seen in the 1998 annual report, which
used a four-section modular format. The 2002 Annual Report to Congress
was the fifth volume to include four sections---Context/Environment,
Student Characteristics, Programs and Services, and Results---plus a
separate appendix of data tables.

The 5-year period since the introduction of the modular format has
provided sufficient time for OSEP to evaluate the current approach and
to suggest a redesign of the report. The implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001 amplified the importance of the annual
report to Congress. IDEA focuses on accountability and results. As the
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education pointed out,
this emphasis means that Congress and the public must know that IDEA is
implemented effectively and that federal funds are well spent.

This annual report focuses on three goals. First, the report is
congruent with NCLB. This means that the annual report focuses on
results and accountability throughout the text. The second goal is to
make the report more useful to Congress, parents, each state, and other
stakeholders. This report concentrates on a more readable and
user-friendly style. It focuses on key state performance data in
accordance with the recommendations of the President's Commission.
OSEP's third goal is to make the report more visually appealing.

The 2003 Annual Report to Congress has two volumes. The first volume
focuses on the children and students being served under IDEA and
provides profiles of individual states' special education environment.
In the national picture reported in the first section, the
child/student-focused material is presented in a question-and-answer
format. It contains three subsections: infants and toddlers served under
IDEA, Part C; children ages 3-21 served under IDEA, Part B; and students
ages 6-21 served under IDEA, Part B. All information available about
each group of children/students is presented in one section. Each
subsection focuses on available results. All available data relevant to
OSEP's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators are
included in this section. To the extent possible, the data are presented
through graphics, short tables, and bulleted text.

The second section of vol. 1 contains state-level performance data.
These state profiles, which provide all of the key information about a
state on one or two pages, will be valuable to Congress and other
stakeholders who are interested in individual state performance. The
state profiles are a new feature of the annual report.

The third section of vol. 1 contains the rank-order tables OSEP uses as
part of its continuous improvement and focused monitoring program. These
tables are also a new feature of the annual report. Vol. 2 contains all
of the state-reported data tables from DANS. OSEP's goal in separating
the text of the report from the extensive tables is to make the report
usable to all readers. The tables are also posted on www.IDEAdata.org.

The artwork for the covers of the report and its divider pages was
graciously provided by VSA (Vision, Strength, Artistic expression) arts.
\[Founded in 1974 by Jean Kennedy Smith as an affiliate of The John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, VSA arts is an international
organization that creates learning opportunities through the arts for
people with disabilities. The organization offers arts-based programs in
creative writing, dance, drama, music and the visual arts implemented
primarily through its vast affiliate network in 39 states and the
District of Columbia, collaborators in 10 states, and 70 international
affiliates in 67 countries. VSA arts programs now serve 4.3 million
Americans and 1.3 million people in other parts of the world.\]

Note: The actual data tables in Vol. II, due to their format and file
structure, are not included in this Word version of the OSEP Annual
Report to Congress. They can be accessed on-line in Microsoft Excel
format at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/.

Data Notes

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. The notes refer to the tables in volume 1, sections I and
II. 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 12 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 1. State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B Child Count Data
2001, Other Data 2000-01

+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| States                | Dif      |          |          |          |
|                       | ferences |          |          |          |
|                       | from     |          |          |          |
|                       | OSEP     |          |          |          |
|                       | r        |          |          |          |
|                       | eporting |          |          |          |
|                       | ca       |          |          |          |
|                       | tegories |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | Where    |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | H =      |          |          |          |
|                       | Reported |          |          |          |
|                       | in the   |          |          |          |
|                       | hearing  |          |          |          |
|                       | imp      |          |          |          |
|                       | airments |          |          |          |
|                       | category |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | O =      |          |          |          |
|                       | Reported |          |          |          |
|                       | in the   |          |          |          |
|                       | or       |          |          |          |
|                       | thopedic |          |          |          |
|                       | imp      |          |          |          |
|                       | airments |          |          |          |
|                       | category |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | P =      |          |          |          |
|                       | Reported |          |          |          |
|                       | in the   |          |          |          |
|                       | primary  |          |          |          |
|                       | di       |          |          |          |
|                       | sability |          |          |          |
|                       | category |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | R =      |          |          |          |
|                       | Reported |          |          |          |
|                       | in other |          |          |          |
|                       | di       |          |          |          |
|                       | sability |          |          |          |
|                       | ca       |          |          |          |
|                       | tegories |          |          |          |
+=======================+==========+==========+==========+==========+
|                       | Multiple | Other    | Deaf-b   | T        |
|                       | disa     | health   | lindness | raumatic |
|                       | bilities | imp      |          | brain    |
|                       |          | airments |          | injury   |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Colorado              |          | O        |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Delaware              | P        | O        |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Florida               | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Georgia               | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Illinois \[Illinois   | P        |          |          |          |
| and Minnesota         |          |          |          |          |
| reported children in  |          |          |          |          |
| the multiple          |          |          |          |          |
| disabilities category |          |          |          |          |
| for the 2001 child    |          |          |          |          |
| count, but reported   |          |          |          |          |
| children according to |          |          |          |          |
| primary disability    |          |          |          |          |
| for the 2000-01       |          |          |          |          |
| educational           |          |          |          |          |
| environments,         |          |          |          |          |
| exiting, and          |          |          |          |          |
| discipline tables     |          |          |          |          |
| (see vol. 2).\]       |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Michigan              |          | O        | H        | R        |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Mississippi           |          | O        |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Minnesota \[Illinois  | P        |          |          |          |
| and Minnesota         |          |          |          |          |
| reported children in  |          |          |          |          |
| the multiple          |          |          |          |          |
| disabilities category |          |          |          |          |
| for the 2001 child    |          |          |          |          |
| count, but reported   |          |          |          |          |
| children according to |          |          |          |          |
| primary disability    |          |          |          |          |
| for the 2000-01       |          |          |          |          |
| educational           |          |          |          |          |
| environments,         |          |          |          |          |
| exiting, and          |          |          |          |          |
| discipline tables     |          |          |          |          |
| (see vol. 2).\]       |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| North Dakota          | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Oregon                | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| West Virginia         | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Wisconsin             | P        |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Tables AA1-AA17: Child Count

Alabama---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
reported in the developmental delay category to a change in the state's
upper age limit for this category. The 2000 child count is the first
year that children over age 6 were reported in this category.

Alaska---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 with developmental delay to a change in state policy.
Until recently, the state did not have "defined and established
eligibility criteria" for developmental delay. This is only the second
year that Alaska has reported children in its child count using the
developmental delay category. Students currently reported under
developmental delay were previously reported in other categories.

Arizona---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with other health impairments to an increase in the
number of children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with autism to an increased public awareness of the condition
and improvements within school systems in identifying children with
autism.

California---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 and 6 through 21 with autism to an improved awareness
of the condition as well as to a steady increase in enrollment of
special education students.

Connecticut---The state attributed the increase in the number of
children ages 6 through 21 with autism to an increase in professional
and parental awareness and the growth of professional organizations
advocating services for children with autism. In addition, the state
identifies students at a younger age so more children are reaching age 6
with the identification already in place. In some cases, the state is
reclassifying older students with autism. Furthermore, children with
autism are not exiting from special education to return to regular
education.

District of Columbia---The District of Columbia attributed the increase
in the number of children reported in many categories of the child count
data to the addition of 528 students served in charter schools. This is
the first year these students have been counted.

Illinois---The 2001 child count is the first time that the state
reported children in the multiple disabilities category. In previous
years, the state reported students with multiple disabilities according
to their primary disability.

Indiana---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 with developmental delay to the fact that this is only
the second year that Indiana reported students in this category. Most of
the students who could have been reported with developmental delay in
last year's child count were reported in other categories.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with autism to an increased awareness and identification of
the condition.

Iowa---Iowa does not collect disability data for all 3- through
5-year-olds. In 2000, the state used the disability distribution among
children for whom these data were known to assign disability to the
count of children without a specific disability. In 2001, the state
assigned disability based on incidence data collected several years ago.
As a result of this change in methodology, the disability distribution
changed substantially between 2000 and 2001. In particular, the reported
count of children with speech or language impairments dramatically
declined and the count of children with specific learning disabilities
or mental retardation dramatically increased. The state is considering
resubmitting their data. They have undertaken a study to update the
incidence data they use to assign disability to the child count. New
data based on the study will be available in future reports

Kentucky---The state uses the developmental delay category to classify
children ages 3 through 5 unless an alternative disability category is
clearly more appropriate. The state attributed the high number of
students (compared to the national total) ages 6 through 9 with
developmental delay to the high number of children identified during
their preschool years. The number of students identified with
developmental delay peaks at age 4 and declines thereafter, resulting in
gradually decreasing counts as children matriculate through the system.
In addition, the state increased the upper age limit for developmental
delay from age 5 to age 8. This resulted in a greater number of children
in this category.

Maryland---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with autism to an increased awareness of the condition
and to improvements within the school system in identifying children
with autism. In addition, the increase may be due to families with
autistic children moving into Maryland due to its exemplary programs and
services for children with autism.

Massachusetts---The state is in the first year of a 3-year transition to
a new data collection system. Disability counts in prior years were
based on a formula. Beginning in 2001, the disability counts are based
on actual individual student data. Because the identification of
individual students by disability is not required until they either
undergo an initial eligibility determination or a 3-year re-evaluation,
some of the disability determinations for this school year were based on
the professional judgment of the school districts providing the data,
rather than representing an IEP team determination. Although this means
that the 2001 child count does not fully reflect team decisionmaking,
Massachusetts deems that these data are more accurate than the
formula-based reporting used in the past.

Massachusetts attributed the high number of children (compared to the
national total) ages 3 through 5 with traumatic brain injury (TBI), the
high number of children ages 6 through 21 with TBI, and the high number
of children ages 6 through 21 with deaf-blindness to changes in how the
state tracks and counts children using individual data.

Michigan---The state attributed the decrease in the total number of
Asian/Pacific Islanders served to correcting an error that was made in
reporting these children in previous years. Several local districts
erroneously were overreporting Asian/Pacific Islanders because of a
coding error. The state is still working with some districts to correct
this problem.

Minnesota---The 2001 child count is the first time that Minnesota
reported children in the multiple disabilities category. In previous
years, the state reported students with multiple disabilities according
to their primary disability.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 3
through 5 and 6 through 21 with autism to more staff resources,
continued outreach programs, better diagnosis and identification of the
disorder, and improved training methods and assessments.

Missouri---The state reported that the increase in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 with speech and language impairments is due to
a change in eligibility under the state plan. Districts now choose a
categorical diagnosis for children ages 3 and 4 in addition to using the
category "young child with a developmental delay."

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with autism to better diagnosis and identification of the
disorder by school personnel.

Montana---The state changed its method of reporting disability
categories for children ages 3 through 5. 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.
Because federal reporting requirements now 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 40 percent of the students in this age group were
reported by disability. The state imputed disability for the remaining
60 percent using the data reported for the 40 percent. In previous
years, the state imputed disability for 3- to 5-year-olds using the
disability distribution for 6-year-olds.

Nevada---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with autism to a change in data collection
methodology. Some students previously counted in the mental retardation
category are now reported in the autism category. The state also
attributed the increase to better diagnosis and identification of autism
by school personnel and physicians and improved training methods and
assessments.

New Jersey---In 1997-98, New Jersey changed its definition of
neurologically impaired (NI). Students previously defined as NI were
grandfathered into the TBI category until they could be re-evaluated.
The state attributed the large number of children (compared to the
national total) reported with TBI to the continuing reevaluation of the
students who were reclassified from NI to TBI.

New Mexico---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 9 with developmental delay to a change in the state
definition of this category 3 years ago. The change resulted in more
children being reported in the developmental delay category.

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

New York reported that it collects disability data only for 4- and
5-year-olds in school-age environments (e.g., kindergarten). The state
does not collect disability data for 3- through 5-year-olds in preschool
environments. Children with disabilities in preschool environments are
all reported in the developmental delay category.

North Dakota---The state is currently piloting the category of
developmental delay for children ages 6 through 9. Children reported in
this category are representative of pilot projects only.

Oregon---The state noted that its age ranges are different from the OSEP
definitions. Children who are 5 years old on September 1 are considered
to be school age and are included in the counts of 6- through
21-year-olds rather than the count of 3- through 5-year-olds.

The state attributed the increase in the number of American Indian and
Asian/Pacific Islanders ages 3 through 5 who were served under IDEA to
the changing demographics of Oregon, a trend also observed in previous
years.

South Carolina---In South Carolina, children ages 3 through 5 with
disabilities are served noncategorically. When the state reported these
children on the child count, 2,281 could not be categorized with a
specific disability. The state reported these students in the other
health impairments category, which led to an increase in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 reported in this category.

The state has criteria for reporting developmental delay but has not
fully implemented the developmental delay category into its data
collection. For the past 2 years, the state collected the category under
a pilot program. The results have not been stable.

Texas---The state attributed the relatively high number of children with
other health impairments (compared to the national total) to the fact
that Texas does not use the developmental delay category to describe
young children with disabilities. Children who would otherwise be
reported with developmental delay may be reported in other categories,
including, but not limited to, other health impairments.

Texas attributed the high number of children ages 3 through 5 in the
visual impairments category (compared to the national total) to three
factors. First, the definition of visual impairments in Texas is a
functional definition, based on educational need and not on an acuity
number (e.g., some states include only children with acuities of 20/200
or less). Using a functional definition may lead to higher
identification of students. Second, because it is the local school
districts, in conjunction with the state's early intervention agency,
that serve children with visual impairments from birth, these children
are already part of the education system when they reach age 3. This may
positively affect child-find efforts. Third, the state feels it has a
strong networked service delivery system with effective technical
assistance and training to districts in regard to identifying and
serving young children with visual impairments. With this support,
districts may be more able (and willing) to identify children with
visual impairments.

Utah---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children ages
3 through 5 with visual impairments to the reclassification of many
children previously reported in the visual impairments category as
having multiple disabilities.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 9 with developmental delay to the fact that the category has
only been used by the state for 2 years, and it has not had time to
stabilize.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 with autism to better diagnosis and identification of the
disorder by school personnel. In addition, the state hired an autism
specialist who has extensively trained school personnel across the
state. Each district now has a training team for autism.

Washington---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with autism to continued outreach programs, better
diagnosis and identification of the disorder by school personnel and
physicians, and improved training methods and assessments.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 9 with a developmental delay to an increase in the state's upper
age limit for this category from age 6 to age 9.

Wisconsin---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 with autism to better diagnosis and identification of
the disorder by school personnel and physicians and improved training
methods and assessments.

Tables AB1-AB10: Educational Environments

Alabama---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 3 through 5 served in the part-time early childhood/part-time early
childhood special education category to district-level improvements in
the transition of children from Part C to Part B.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students ages 6
through 21 served in public residential facilities to a concerted effort
to place students with disabilities in regular classrooms.

California---The state attributed the increase in the number of children
ages 6 through 21 who received special education outside the regular
class less than 21 percent of the day to an increase in the number of
special education students being placed in less restrictive
environments.

Illinois---The state noted that some of its definitions do not match
federal definitions for time outside the regular classroom. Illinois
tracks time outside the classroom in two categories: from 1 to 49
percent of the school day and more than 50 percent of the school day.
Illinois did not provide a crosswalk of how they report these data.

Kentucky---The state attributed the decreases in both the early
childhood setting and the early childhood special education setting and
the increase in the part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood
special education setting to district training on educational
environments. Districts have been trained to report students who have
any amount of time in both programs in the part-time early
childhood/part-time early childhood special education category.
Previously, many districts reported students as either full-time early
childhood or full-time early childhood special education setting based
on percentages similar to those used in the placement categories for
students ages 6 through 21.

The state attributed the increase in the separate school environment to
three specific districts, two of which had new special education
directors.

Missouri---The state reported that the increase in part-time early
childhood special education is due to a change in the crosswalk from the
school-age educational environment categories to the early childhood
categories used for kindergarten students.

Montana---The state has a statute that allows school districts to
identify children ages 3 through 5 under the category "child with
disabilities," without specifying a disability category. This year about
72 percent of the students in this age group were reported by
disability. The state used the reported disability for the 72 percent to
impute disability for the remaining 28 percent. In previous years, the
state imputed disability for 3- to 5-year-olds using the disability
distribution for 6-year-olds.

Montana provided unduplicated, rather than duplicated, counts of
children with disabilities served in correctional facilities and
enrolled in private schools not placed or referred by public agencies.
The state will correct this error for the 2001-02 educational
environments data.

Nebraska---The state reported that 67 students served in private
residential facilities were counted in other educational environments.

New York---The state reported that school-age (kindergarten) students
with disabilities who are 4 to 5 years old are not reported on the
educational environments table.

North Carolina---The state does not collect race/ethnicity data for
children enrolled in private schools, not placed or referred by public
agencies.

Ohio---The state increased the number of placement options from the 10
used during the 1999-2000 school year to 23 for the 2000-01 school year.
The state attributed the changes in the number of children served in
some of the educational environments for 6- through 21-year-olds to this
change in reporting categories.

Oregon---The state 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. The state counts children who turn 5 after September 1 in
the 3-through-5 age group.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of children ages 3
through 5 in part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
education settings to one program in the state that changed how it coded
children. This program had 171 students in this category during the
previous year, and none in the category for 2000-01. The program
increased the number of children reported in early childhood special
education. The state is providing additional training to all contractors
to improve data quality in the upcoming year.

The state attributed the increase in the number of children ages 6
through 21 in public residential facilities to the expanded Youth
Correction Education Program in Oregon. Within the past 3 years, five
youth correctional facilities and one "boot camp" opened, bringing the
state total to 13 facilities. The overall student population served in
these facilities, previously capped at 513 students, was raised to
around 1,100 statewide. The cap is increased gradually as facilities
fill. Many students in Oregon Youth Authority have been previously
determined IDEA eligible and were served while in public school
(estimates range from 40 percent to 64 percent). In addition, the state
reported that 73 students in this category were most likely miscoded by
LEAs. The state is working with LEAs to correctly code students in the
future.

Puerto Rico---The state attributed the changes in the number of students
served in various educational environments to population growth and to
the state's special education policies. Educational environments are
based on children's individual needs and are reevaluated every year.
Therefore, the same child may move in and out of different educational
environments each year based on need.

Texas---The state noted that some of its definitions do not match
federal definitions for the amount of time spent outside the regular
classroom. When Texas cross-walked state categories into federal
categories, many students were counted as spending more time outside the
regular classroom than they actually did. The following categories were
affected: (1) special education outside regular class less than 21
percent of day, (2) special education outside regular class at least 21
percent of day and no more than 60 percent of day, and (3) special
education outside regular class more than 60 percent of day. The
definition of the mainstream instructional arrangement in Texas includes
only those students who receive 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 are unavailable; therefore, many students who could be reported
in category 1 were reported in category 2. The Texas definition of
self-contained classroom includes students who spend 50 percent or more
of their school day outside the regular classroom, whereas the federal
definitions use 60 percent as the cutoff. Students in Texas who are
outside the regular classroom for 50 percent to 60 percent of their
instructional day were included in category 3. Texas revised its data
collection system and will more accurately capture data related to
federal categories for the 2001-02 school year.

Texas state law mandated a change in the collection of data in several
environments. Three state categoriesself-contained, separate campus,
multidistrict class, and community classwere collapsed into one "off
home campus" environment. Students served in these environments were
previously reported in the public separate facility and separate class
environments. In the 2000-01 count, these students were all reported to
OSEP in the public separate facility category. As a result, the number
of children reported in public separate facilities is higher than the
number of students actually served in this environment.

The state does not collect race/ethnicity data for children enrolled in
private schools, not placed or referred by public agencies.

West Virginia---The state attributed the decrease in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 served in part-time early childhood/part-time
early childhood special education environments to a change in data
collection methodology. The 1999-2000 data collection was the first year
that districts used the new definitions and codes for reporting children
ages 3 through 5; however, some districts did not update the definitions
and codes until 2000-01. The state believes that data collected this
year are more accurate.

Table AC1-AC3: Personnel

Alabama---The state attributed the decrease in the number of counselors
to a drop in school enrollment.

Arizona---The state attributed the increase in LEA
supervisors/administrators to an increase in population at charter
schools.

Arizona attributed the increase in the number of physical therapists to
LEAs that contract with private companies to provide the service.

The state attributed the increase in the number of not fully certified
interpreters to a shortage of fully certified interpreters. Due to the
shortage, the state has hired more interpreters who are not fully
certified.

Arkansas---The state counts personnel who provide speech services as
special education teachers rather than related services personnel.

California---The state attributed the increase in nonprofessional staff
to a change in the data collection. Recent state legislation has
resulted in general policy changes in the state educational system and
has changed the way some personnel data are collected and reported.

Connecticut---The state changed how it reports kindergarten personnel.
For the 2000-01 educational environments table, it reported kindergarten
teachers in the count of teachers serving children ages 3 through 5.
Last year, the state reported kindergarten teachers in the count of
teachers serving ages 6 through 21.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of teacher aides to a
decrease in the special education population, budget cuts, and aides
obtaining teaching certification.

Connecticut did not report physical education or vocational education
teachers because it was unable to distinguish staff serving special
education students from staff serving general education students.
However, the state provided data for school psychologists and social
workers serving both populations.

Illinois---This is the first year that the state reported school
psychology interns as fully certified, based on state requirements.

Illinois does not collect personnel data for staff in nonpublic schools.

Illinois does not collect personnel data by ages served. Data reported
for children ages 3 through 5 include personnel who only serve early
childhood or preschool students. The state reported other personnel
serving ages 3 through 5 as serving children ages 6 through 21.

Illinois does not collect full-time equivalency data for personnel
working in home or hospital environments, and therefore these personnel
have been omitted from the data. Local school districts reported 3,095
people working in home and hospital settings.

Kentucky---The state attributed the increase in the number of fully
certified interpreters to a new certification credential rather than an
increase in the number of interpreters.

The state attributed the increase in other professional staff to
increased federal funds that provided districts the opportunity to
enhance services in many areas and to employ greater numbers of
certified professionals to deliver these services.

Maine---The state counts personnel who provide speech services as
special education teachers rather than related services personnel. The
decrease in the number of personnel who provide speech services is due
to an error on last year's count, when the state double counted these
personnel.

Minnesota---The state attributed the increase in the number of
occupational therapists to a change in how the state counts Certified
Occupational Therapy Assistants (COTAs). In 2000-01, COTAs were included
in the occupational therapists category. Previously, they were counted
in the other professionals category.

The state attributed the increase in the number of
supervisors/administrators to districts counting coordinators and due
process facilitators in this category. Previously, these personnel had
been counted as lead teachers.

Minnesota noted an increase in the number of charter schools but
reported a high level of noncompliance with reporting data for these
schools.

Missouri---The state attributed the increase in the number of speech
pathologists to a movement from speech/language therapists as the
primary provider for early childhood special education to
speech/language services being provided as a related service.

The state reported that the increase in other professional staff may be
due to a change in the reporting method used to count full-time
equivalents in the professional staff categories.

New Mexico---The state reported professional personnel from the New
Mexico Department of Education for the first time in this year's
personnel data.

The state reported that the New Mexico Department of Education is no
longer the licensing authority for speech pathologists and audiologists.
Data were not provided for these categories before data were finalized
for the annual report to Congress.

North Carolina---The state attributed the decreases in many personnel
categories to budget deficits during the 2000-01 school year. North
Carolina school systems failed to fund a significant number of special
education personnel. In addition, changes from the previous year's count
in five categories (work study coordinators, recreation therapists,
physical therapists, other professional staff, and nonprofessional
staff) are due to a database error in last year's count.

The state attributed the increase in the number of physical therapists
to contracts with school systems that have resulted in full-time
positions across North Carolina.

North Carolina counts speech pathologists as special education teachers
rather than related services personnel.

Oregon---Oregon was unable to explain the year-to-year increases in the
number of physical education, occupational therapy, diagnostic and
evaluation, and other professional staff on the personnel table but
reported that they are consistent with preliminary data for 2001-02.

Virgin Islands---The Virgin Islands attributed the increase in the
number of fully certified counselors in 2000-01 to an error in last
year's table. Last year, St. Croix district counselors were erroneously
omitted from the personnel table.

Virginia---The state reported speech pathologists only in the count of
special education teachers. No speech pathologists were counted in the
related services personnel count.

Wyoming---The state reported that data for the personnel count were from
the October count. The previous year's data were from end-of-year
counts.

Tables AD1-AD4: Exiting

Alabama---The state attributed the increases in the number of students
exiting special education in the moved, known to be continuing category
and the decrease in the reached maximum age category to improvements in
its data collection methodology (see vol. 2).

Arizona---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
reported in the moved, not known to be continuing category to incorrect
data. The state noted that it is difficult to collect and report clean
data in this category but believes this will change in 1 to 2 years when
the new student accountability information system is in place (see vol.
2).

Arizona does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

California---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
reported in the moved, not known to be continuing category to a change
in the data collection methodology. The state is now forcing school
districts to do a better job of tracking students in the two moved
categories.

Colorado---Data reported for school year 2000-01 are actually data for
students exiting between December 1999 and December 2000.

Connecticut---In the past few years, many students were counted in the
no longer receives special education category because of a change in the
state eligibility guidelines. This change meant that many students were
no longer eligible for special education. These new eligibility
guidelines particularly affected students with specific learning
disabilities. This year, there was a decrease in the total number of
students who left special education services, as well as a decrease in
the number of students with specific learning disabilities who left
special education services. The state believes this is because the data
have begun to stabilize.

District of Columbia---The District of Columbia reported that it did not
report any students in the no longer receives special education services
exit category because it does not collect these data.

Georgia---The state attributed the increase in the number of students in
the moved, known to be continuing category to better tracking of
transient students in its database.

Guam---Guam does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

Hawaii---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
with speech or language impairments who are no longer receiving special
education services to better training of teachers regarding eligibility
for this category under IDEA. As a result of this training, students
were identified differently, and many were taken out of all special
education services and are now served under Section 504. The state
reported that the change in how students are identified also resulted in
an overall increase in the number of students exiting special education
and an increase in the number of Asian/Pacific Islanders exiting. Many
of the students now served under 504 rather than IDEA are of
Asian/Pacific Islander descent.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities who received a certificate to the large
number of students from this category who exited special education due
to state efforts to place students in the least restrictive environments
or to mainstream them.

Hawaii reported that its data were captured from the Integrated Special
Education Database (ISPED), a fairly new system. As improvements are
made in ISPED, the state expects the data to become increasingly
accurate. The Special Education Section also plans to resume the
practice of verifying data with districts. This practice was curtailed
this past year due to difficulties with matching information from
different databases.

Idaho---Data reported for school year 2000-01 are actually data for
students exiting between December 1999 and December 2000.

The state reported that it awards the same diploma to all students,
regardless of whether the diploma is earned by meeting regular
graduation requirements or IEP requirements.

Kansas---The state does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

Massachusetts---The state does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

New Jersey---The state does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

Ohio---The state noted that the number of children reported as reached
maximum age is incorrect. Most of the students reported have clearly not
reached maximum age pursuant to state law because they are under 21
years old.

The state does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

Oklahoma---The state does not use the exit category
received-a-certificate-of-completion.

Texas---Each fall, the state collects exiting data for the previous
year. Data reported for school year 2000-01 are actually for students
exiting in 1999-2000. Due to a different timeframe for the collection of
disability data and exiting data, 5,912 records did not have disability
data for exiting. Disability was imputed for these students using the
disability distribution for known cases. Disability information for the
entire school year will be available for the exiting report of 2000-01.

Texas does not use the exit category received a
certificate-of-completion.

Vermont---Data reported for school year 2000-01 are actually data for
students exiting between December 1999 and December 2000.

Wisconsin---Data reported for school year 2000-01 are actually data for
students exiting between December 1999 and December 2000.

The state reported that the number of Asian/Pacific Islanders collected
by one school district is incorrect.

Tables AE1-AE4: Discipline

Alabama---The state attributed the increases in the unduplicated count
of children and the number of children subject to unilateral removal by
school personnel for drug and weapon offenses to improvements in data
collection and reporting.

California---The state attributed the increase in the unduplicated count
of children removed for any reason (subject to unilateral removal for
drug or weapon offenses and/or removal by hearing officer determination
regarding likely injury and/or long-term suspension/expulsion) to a
coding error in the data reported last year (1999-2000 table). This
error resulted in an undercount of children. The state made changes to
the data system this year to correct the problem.

Connecticut---The state noted that there has been an overall increase in
the reporting of short- and long-term suspensions for students in both
regular and special education from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. The state
attributed this increase to improved data reporting and accuracy and
schools more consistently following state requirements for reporting
disciplinary offense information.

District of Columbia---The state reported that it did not report any
students in the removal based on a hearing officer determination of
likely injury because it does not collect these data.

The District of Columbia also noted that its unduplicated count of
children is incorrect. It is in the process of collecting the correct
numbers and will resubmit a corrected revision in the near future.

Georgia---The state attributed this year's increase in the unduplicated
count of students to errors in the 1999-2000 data.

The state attributed the decrease in the number of children subject to
unilateral removal by school personnel to a change in disciplinary
policy. The state makes a concerted effort to only remove students when
the student's conduct calls for it.

Idaho---The state attributed the decrease in the number of acts
pertaining to hearing officer removals to a change in data collection
methodology. In the past, the data collection differed from the OSEP
reporting instructions. This year, the state followed OSEP instructions
and reported only the number of acts leading to the 11th day of
suspension, rather than reporting all accumulated acts throughout the
year (as some districts had in the previous year).

Maine---The state attributed the decrease in the number of children
subject to unilateral removal by school personnel for drug and weapons
offenses to an overall decline in offenses for the entire school
population. Many schools in Maine now have police officers on duty
during the school day. Drug and weapons checks are randomly conducted by
police officers, police dogs, and school staff.

The state attributes the decline in the number of students removed by a
hearing officer to a change in data collection methodology. The state
has emphasized that only a hearing officer trained in special education
law should remove a student. In addition, this is only the second year
that the state has collected the data, and some of the LEAs are still
confused by the form.

Michigan---The state reported that a new department, the Center for
Educational Performance and Information, was responsible for collecting
discipline data for the first time during 2000-01. Due to the transition
to a new department, Michigan notes that it is now most likely
underreporting suspension data.

Minnesota---The state attributed the increase in unduplicated count of
students removed for any reason (subject to unilateral removal for drug
or weapon offenses and/or removal by hearing officer regarding likely
injury and/or long-term suspension/expulsion) to more accurate data and
additional data checks of individual student records. Most of this
increase was in the short-term suspension category.

Missouri---The state attributed the significant year-to-year decreases
in several discipline categories to a change in reporting methods. This
year, Missouri districts reported all suspensions and expulsions on an
incident basis, and the data were then compiled at the state level. In
the past, each district compiled its own data for the OSEP report.

Montana---The state attributed the substantial increase in the number of
students subject to unilateral removal by school personnel for drug or
weapons offenses to more accurate data collection and interpretation.
The way the state analyzes and interprets the data was revised.

Nevada---The state attributed the increase in the number of students
subject to long-term suspensions to districts increasingly adopting
"zero tolerance" policies for student conduct. In addition, districts
are becoming more knowledgeable about compliance with federal laws and
regulations.

New Jersey---The state attributed the significant increases in many
discipline categories from 1999-2000 to 2000-01 to a change to a new
web-based application in 1999-2000. This year the data are more
complete. Last year, the reporting districts were unfamiliar with the
system. The state expects less variation from year to year in the
future.

Rhode Island---The state was unable to report some disability
information on the discipline table because of the way the state
collects these data. Rhode Island uses separate databases for its child
count and discipline data and does not have a unique student
identification number that links the two. Disability information is not
part of the discipline data collection system.

Utah---The state attributed the increases in the number of students
subject to short-term suspensions and removals by school personnel for
drug and weapons offenses to the state's "zero tolerance" policies.

Vermont---The state reported that the unduplicated count of children
removed for any reason (subject to unilateral removal for drug or weapon
offenses and/or removal by hearing officer regarding likely injury
and/or long-term suspension/expulsion) on the discipline table is
incorrect. The state will be unable to provide a correct unduplicated
count for this year.

West Virginia---The state attributed the decrease in the number of
students subject to unilateral removal by school personnel for drug or
weapons offenses to mistakes in last year's data. In the past, districts
reported students as unilaterally removed for drugs and weapons offenses
when they were actually removed for other reasons. This was corrected on
the 2000-01 report.

Wisconsin---The state noted that this was the first year that
information on the number of acts pertaining to hearing officer removals
was collected. Therefore, comparisons between this year's data and last
year's data are meaningless.

Data Notes for IDEA, Part C

Counts of Infants and Toddlers Served

AlaskaRace/ethnicity was imputed for 99 children. The child count for
2- to 3-year-olds includes 49 children over the age of 3.

CaliforniaAlthough the state serves at-risk children, it did not submit
data on the number of at-risk children served in the 2001 child count.
Due to the time lag between when a delay is identified and when this
information is updated in the state's data system, the state is no
longer able to distinguish the at-risk population from other Early Start
consumers.

IndianaThe reported child count is not complete. The state expects to
revise the count in the future.

IowaThe state reported a 15 percent increase in the child count as a
result of improved Child Find and improved data reporting as a result of
modifications to the computerized information system.

NevadaThe state attributes the decrease in the number of children
served to unfilled direct service positions and/or frozen positions for
direct service personnel. These staff shortages have resulted in a
waiting list. Nevada is unable to serve all of the children with
disabilities that it has identified. In addition, as a result of a
change in state policy, Nevada no longer serves children who are
at-risk.

New HampshireThe slight decline in the child count reflects a change in
reporting methodology. Last year, the count was based on survey
information that was not completely accurate. The state believes this
year's data are correct.

Rhode IslandThe state imputed race/ethnicity for 122 infants and
toddlers using the known distribution. They also counted some children
(2.6 percent of total count) who had turned age 3 in the 2-to-3 age
category.

WashingtonThe state did not report race/ethnicity for 214 children
whose race/ethnicity was unknown.

Early Intervention Service Settings

AlabamaThe decline in the number of infants and toddlers in programs
designed for children with developmental delays or disabilities, the
decline in the service provider location, and the increase in the number
reported in the home setting category are the result of Alabama's move
to serve children in more natural environments.

FloridaThe change in the number of children reported in the settings
categories for 2000 is a result of a change in how the state classifies
a child who receives services in a variety of settings. Prior to 2000,
Florida assigned the child's setting/location based on the initial
service location data in the Florida Early Intervention Program data
system. For the December 2000 data, each child's service setting was
determined based on a hierarchy of settings.

IllinoisThe increase in the number of children served in almost all the
settings is the result of caseload growth during the 2000-01 reporting
period. This was reflected in the 2000 child count. The state continued
implementation of a new front-end data system, so the data are also
clean.

KentuckyKentucky only determines whether the program setting is home or
community based versus office or center based. Because all children may
receive services in multiple settings, when the state reports data to
OSEP it assigns the service provider location to all children not also
served in the home or community setting.

MissouriThe decrease in the other settings category is a result of
better identification of children's primary settings by the state. These
improvements allow the state to assign the applicable OSEP settings
category.

New YorkThe increase in children served primarily in the home
environment is the result of the state's emphasis on the delivery of
services in natural environments. This is also the explanation for the
decrease in the number of children served in programs designed for
children with developmental delays or disabilities.

The increase in the number of children served primarily at a service
provider location or other setting is a result of guidance the state
gave to counties regarding how to code specific settings into the OSEP
data collection categories.

OklahomaThe state attributes the increase in the other settings
category to a mistake in the assignment of settings categories. Through
technical assistance, the state encouraged data collectors to use the
other settings category when serving children in natural environment
settings other than the child's home or child care environments. The
state is providing further assistance to data collectors so that they
better understand each program settings category.

OregonThe state reported that the bulk of the number of infants and
toddlers served in the service provider location setting occurred in two
regions of the state. These two regions account for most of the decrease
in the number of children (N = -54) in the programs for developmental
delay category. According to Oregon, because of the similarity in the
definitions of these two settings (either can serve a group of children
with disabilities), they believe there was a
clarification/interpretation made for these two sites. This accounted
for the increase in the service provider location setting. They will
train service providers in the accurate interpretation of these
definitions this coming year.

Rhode IslandThe state reported that the increase in the other settings
category is related to how service settings are classified into this
setting. In Rhode Island, the individualized family service plan (IFSP)
form does not provide a space to define other locations. Providers
define other on a service-rendered form (SRF) at the time the services
are provided. However, the SRF has a different set of location codes
that do not correspond with those on the IFSP. In the future, these
codes will match, and providers will be asked to define other location
on the IFSP. Until then, the other settings category is inflated (e.g.,
daycare was entered into an SRF under other location. It should be
counted as a program designed for typically developing children). The
location codes will be revisited and more clearly defined within the
next 5 months. The state expects that the data for 2002 will be clearer.

Early Intervention Program Exiting

AlabamaBecause the state's definition of Part B eligibility does not
match OSEP's definition, it was unable to distinguish between children
determined to be Part B eligible with an IEP in place and children who
had been referred to Part B. As a result, these children were reported
in the eligibility not determined category.

The state also reports that the increase in the attempts to contact
unsuccessful category is a result of more accurate reporting.

ArizonaArizona has changed its data collection method for the
information reported to OSEP. In previous years, the state
retrospectively collected data for the previous year counts. Not all
agencies collected the necessary information, or they were unable to
submit data for the appropriate time period. Improved data collection
efforts for reporting year 2000-01 resulted in better reporting of table
counts.

CaliforniaThe change in the number of children in the different basis
of exit categories is the result of a revised consumer data system
implemented in April 2000. California can now distinguish between
children exiting early intervention because:

-   the case was closed during eligibility determination (284);

-   they moved out of state (147);

-   they were withdrawn by parent (620); and

-   attempts to contact were unsuccessful (583).

Previously, all of these reasons for exiting were counted in the
completion of an IFSP prior to maximum age exit category.

The revised data system also reduces data reporting time lags and
permits more comprehensive and timely identification of children exiting
Early Start who are not Part B eligible and those who exit to other
programs.

FloridaThe increase in the number of children exiting from the Florida
Part C program between 1999 and 2000 is the result of improvements in
its reporting requirements beginning in 2000. The number of children
reported as exiting Part C services in 1999 represents an underreporting
of children. Now, because this information is a critical monitoring
factor, the local agencies comply with the data reporting requirements.

IdahoThe decline in the number of children reported in the Part B
eligibility not determined category is the result of Idaho's dedicating
a considerable amount of the 2000 data collection year's effort to
cleaning up this category.

Due to the lag time in paperwork catching up with the data entry
process, the state reported that it will always have a small number of
children whose exit status is undetermined. The state plans to keep that
number down to 1 percent or 2 percent of the total exited count. It
believes that the large number of children whose exit status is Part B
eligibility not determined is an indication of a larger systemic problem
concerning the child's transition process in the state.

MissouriMissouri reports that the increase in the number of children
exiting with no referral is because caseloads have increased. In
addition, Part C personnel were not as successful in referring children
ineligible for Part B to other programs.

NebraskaNebraska does not collect data for the following exit
categories: not eligible for Part B, exit with no referrals, moved out
of state, and attempts to contact unsuccessful.

NevadaNevada attributes the increase in the number of children in the
Part B eligibility not determined category to the fact that no data
tracking system accurately collects Part C to Part B transition
information. The state's Part C program plans to provide technical
assistance to programs to ensure correct coding for children
transitioning to Part B.

PennsylvaniaThe state attributes the increase in the category
completion of IFSP prior to reaching maximum age to the state's now
serving more children and increasing its public awareness program for
early intervention.

It reports that the decrease in Part B eligibility not determined is a
result of increased coordination efforts with the Part B program so that
the state is able to establish eligibility earlier.

Rhode IslandWhen Rhode Island initiated a new data collection system in
2000, the discharge codes did not clearly reflect the OSEP reporting
categories. Exit with referral and exit with no referral were not
separate categories. As a result, all of these children were reported in
the exit with no referral category. Late in 2000, the discharge codes
were updated to break out the categories. Because Rhode Island mandates
that all children exiting the system without completing IFSP goals must
be referred, the state expects the number of exits with no referral to
decline in the next reporting period.

Early Intervention Services

ArizonaThe state of Arizona changed its methods for collecting Part C
data. In previous years, the state collected historical data from
service agencies. Not all agencies could provide the information or they
were unable to submit data for the appropriate time period. Revised data
collection efforts for the reporting year 2000-01 resulted in better
reporting of counts.

FloridaThe change in the number and type of services provided to
children reflects the variation in service needs of a cohort of children
from year to year. The greatest change, in the other category, is a
result of the state's including evaluations and assessments as services
in 1999 and not including them as services in the count for 2000.

IllinoisThe increase in the number of services provided in Illinois is
the result of caseload growth during the 2000-01 reporting period. The
state continued implementation of a new front-end data system, so the
data are also cleaner.

MinnesotaThe state does not collect services data by race/ethnicity.

MissouriThe state attributes the decrease in the family training
category to improved staff training and to providing staff with a
clearer definition of the service category. In the past, any informal
directives or instruction provided to parents were counted under the
family training category. Family training is now defined as a formal
instructional course or training, and informal instruction to parents is
no longer counted in the category.

There was also a change in the data reporting method for the 2000-01
data collection. An electronic collection was used, resulting in more
timely and improved reporting. This in turn resulted in different and
more accurate categorization of services. This is especially noticeable
in the health services category, which shows a large decrease from last
year. Services previously reported as health services are now reported
in other categories.

The state no longer includes service coordination in the other services
category as was incorrectly done in previous submissions. This accounts
for the decrease in the other services category.

Changes have also been made to the methods of reimbursement for services
provided in a natural environment. This change resulted in a decrease in
reported transportation costs.

Vision services data have decreased because the state no longer counts
vision screening services provided prior to Part C eligibility
determination.

OklahomaIn 2000, Oklahoma experienced a large increase in other early
intervention services. This increase reflects a change in where the
state reports child development specialists. In 1999, they were counted
in the special instruction category. In 2000, they were counted in the
other early intervention services category.

OregonOregon reports that the increase in the number of other early
intervention services provided is the result of collecting data on an
increased range of other early intervention services for state use.
Prior to 2000-01 the state reported relatively small numbers
(approximately 20) of other early intervention services (e.g.,
orientation and mobility and autism services), and categories and
definitions were changed. The 2000-01 data appear stable and represent
an accurate count of other early intervention services from the state.

Early Intervention Personnel Employed

AlabamaAlabama is unable to account for the decrease in total staff.
These data are as reported from providers.

FloridaChanges in the number of providers enrolled in the Early
Intervention Program reflect the changing array of individuals providing
services to the birth through 3-year-old population. Overall, the
Florida Early Intervention Program has made an effort to encourage and
enroll more professionals as service providers.

IllinoisIllinois reported that the increase in the number of personnel
employed is the result of caseload growth during the 2000-01 reporting
period. The state also continued implementation of a new front-end data
system, so the data are cleaner.

MissouriThe state reported that the decrease in number of other
professional staff is a result of excluding service coordination from
the count. In previous years, service coordinators were incorrectly
included in the count of personnel.

NebraskaNebraska reports that the decline in the total number of
full-time equivalent personnel reported by the state may be because they
are now able to prorate the full-time equivalency based on caseload.
This enables them to collect more accurate full-time equivalency data.

New YorkThe state explained that the increase in number of full-time
equivalent personnel providing services is due to a change in the
requirements for individuals providing services under contract to a
provider agency. The New York City Early Intervention Program received
approximately 6,500 applications from individuals for approval as an
individual provider. If these individuals subcontract with or are
employed by a provider agency, they may also be listed as a full-time
equivalent on the agency's application or information updates.

OhioOhio reported that the decline in the number of personnel is
because these data are not representative of service providers across
the state. Ohio is instituting a reporting tool to be used by all
agencies/organizations providing services to the early intervention
population. This survey will provide a more comprehensive report of
personnel who provide services to early intervention children in Ohio.

OregonOregon reported an increase in the number of paraprofessionals;
the number of special educators and speech and language pathologists
also increased. The state explained that the increases are not the
result of a mistake or specific anomaly. However, they were unable to
provide a specific explanation.

South DakotaThe state explained that the decrease in the total number
of full-time-equivalent personnel employed is the result of newly
established criteria for determining billable travel time. This change
in criteria reduced the number of hours contracted and thereby reduced
the number of full-time equivalents. The state is working on
implementing changes to its data system that will help it distinguish
between hours contracted and hours reimbursed. These changes should
result in more accurate counts of full-time equivalents employed.