I. CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

Special Education Teacher Quality

What Are We Spending on Special Education Services in the United States,
1999-2000?

Children With Disabilities in Low-Income Families: An Analysis of Data
From the ECLS-K

Use of the Developmental Delay Classification for Children\
Ages 3 Through 9

Special Education Teacher Quality

Recent Federal legislation has been peppered with references to teacher
quality and its importance in improving educational outcomes. The No
Child Left Behind Act, which President Bush signed into law in January
2002, includes grants to assist public agencies in enhancing students'
academic achievement by increasing teacher quality and the number of
highly qualified teachers. In amending the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, Congress reasserted its support for
professional development activities to give teachers the knowledge and
skills they need to help students meet challenging educational goals and
lead productive, independent adult lives (§601(c)(5)).

Over the past 20 years, a consensus has gradually emerged that teacher
quality is best measured by student achievement, and previous research
shows that the quality of children's teachers significantly influences
their achievement. In a Tennessee-based study, Sanders and Rivers (1996)
found that, on average, the least effective teachers in one district
produced annual gains of roughly 14 percentile points among
low-achieving students, while the most effective teachers produced gains
of 53 percentile points. Furthermore, they reported that the effects of
teachers were long term: 2 years after having a particularly weak or
strong third-grade teacher, student achievement was still affected. The
researchers concluded that students with similar initial achievement
levels have "vastly different academic outcomes as a result of the
sequence of teachers to which they are assigned" (p. 6). Similar results
have been documented in Dallas and Boston (Bain et al., as cited in
Haycock, 1998; Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997).

However, these studies leave many questions unanswered. They do not
indicate what teacher practices, attitudes, or attributes account for
differences in student outcomes. In addition, the studies have been
conducted in regular education rather than special education.
High-quality special educators may possess knowledge and skills not
required of high-quality general educators. Moreover, because special
education teachers often serve a supporting rather than a primary role
in delivering instruction, their influence on student achievement may be
indirect or intermingled with that of regular education teachers.

Study Methods

The Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), conducted by
Westat under contract with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP), was designed to describe the quality
of personnel serving students with disabilities and the factors
associated with workforce quality.[^1] It included telephone interviews
with a nationally representative sample of 358 local administrators and
8,061 service providers, including special and regular education
teachers, speech-language pathologists, and special education
paraprofessionals.[^2] This module summarizes results from SPeNSE on
special education teacher quality.

Before we can answer questions about the quality of the nation's special
education teachers, we must first explore further what we mean by a
high-quality teacher. Teacher quality is a highly complex construct. As
such, it cannot be defined or measured through one or two variables.
Rather, many different beliefs, attributes, and experiences, and the
behaviors that result from those beliefs, attributes, and experiences,
interact as indicators of teacher quality.

SPeNSE researchers used factor analysis to explore the extent to which
the data reported by special education teachers supported previous
theoretical and empirical work on teacher quality and to derive a
teacher-quality measure. Factor analysis manipulates a large set of
variables and groups them into a smaller number of factors that contain
most of the information inherent in the original variables, making the
data easier to analyze and interpret. In this analysis, LISREL was used
to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, meaning the factors were
determined a priori.

Limitations of SPeNSE for Measuring Teacher Quality

It is important to note from the outset that there were several
limitations for measuring teacher quality using the SPeNSE data. First,
in regular education, strong verbal and math skills have been associated
with student achievement. For example, in studies in Texas and Alabama
(Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996), higher scoring teachers were
more likely than their lower scoring colleagues to produce significant
gains in student performance, when teachers were assessed on a basic
literacy test or the American College Test (ACT). While SPeNSE
interviews included a few items on teachers' test participation and
performance, specifically with regard to tests for certification or
licensure, an insufficient number of special education teachers took
those tests to include the items in the factor analysis. Furthermore,
the missing data were not random. Because tests for certification have
become more prevalent in recent years, teachers who took them had
significantly fewer years of teaching experience than those who did not.
This precluded entering teachers' years of experience and test
performance in the same model. Consequently, we cannot speak to verbal
ability specifically, or tested ability more generally, as a component
of teacher quality.

Second, if growth in student achievement is the ultimate measure of
teacher quality, the validity of the SPeNSE model can only be tested
through a confirmatory analysis using a data set that contains relevant
information on special education teachers and the achievement of the
students they serve. The SPeNSE data set does not include student
achievement data. As such, this analysis and its results should be
considered exploratory. Despite its limitations, it may further the
dialogue on ways to identify, prepare, and retain high-quality teachers.
It represents a first step in the exploration of special education
teacher quality. At the end of this module, plans for further research
are described.

Correlates of Teacher Quality

Using the SPeNSE data on special education teachers, five
teacher-quality factors were tested. They were:

-   experience,

-   credentials,

-   self-efficacy,

-   professionalism, and

-   selected classroom practices.

Table I-1 includes a brief description of the variables included in each
of the teacher-quality factors. At the end of this module, a table lists
factor loadings for each variable and the amount of variance explained
by the factor.

This next section presents descriptive information on the variables that
were important in the factor analysis on special education teacher
quality. This information provides a context for understanding the
results of the factor analysis and the resulting factor scores. Where
appropriate, we summarize previous research related to the relationship
between the factor in question and student achievement.

*Factor 1: Experience*

Over the past 20 years, research has shown a consistent, positive
relationship between teachers' experience and student achievement
(Biniaminov & Glasman, 1983; Lopez, 1995; Murnane, 1981) at the
individual, classroom, school, and district

Table I-1

Variables Included in the Five Teacher-Quality Factors

[Factor 1: Experience]{.underline}. This factor included two
variables---years teaching and years teaching special education. The
factor loadings for the two experience variables are close to 1, which
is very high. This means that the factor explains most of the variance.

[Factor 2: Credentials]{.underline}. This factor included three
variables: level of certification (none, emergency, certified out of
field, fully certified for position); number of fields in which teachers
were certified; and highest degree earned. In defining the credential
factor, level of certification was most important. The variable that
measured the number of fields in which teachers were certified was least
important, with its variance largely unexplained.

[Factor 3: Self-efficacy]{.underline}. This factor included three
variables. The first was a scale on special education teachers'
perceptions of their skill in completing a variety of tasks related to
their work, such as using appropriate instructional techniques, managing
behavior, monitoring student progress and adjusting instruction
accordingly, and working with parents. The second was teachers'
assessment of their overall performance as a teacher. The third
summarized several items designed to measure teacher beliefs (e.g., *If
you try hard you can get through to even the most difficult student)*.
The factor loadings for all three self-efficacy variables were
reasonably high.

[Factor 4: Professionalism]{.underline}. This factor included three
variables: the number of professional journals teachers read regularly,
the number of professional associations to which they belonged, and the
number of times per month that colleagues asked them for professional
advice. The three variables have moderate and more or less equal factor
loadings; their variances are largely unexplained.

[Factor 5: Selected classroom practices]{.underline}. This factor
included four variables. Three of them were scale scores for the
frequency with which special education teachers reported using specified
best practices in teaching reading, managing behavior, and promoting
inclusion. The fourth was a variable on the extent to which teachers
individualized reading instruction. The reading scale and the inclusion
scale have reasonable factor loadings. The other variables, although
significant, have small factor loadings.

Source: Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education.

levels (Ferguson, 1991; Murnane, 1981; Turner & Camilli, 1988; Wendling
& Cohen, 1980). Ferguson (1991) found that students in districts with
more experienced teachers performed better after controlling for many
other factors. The percentage of a district's teachers with 5 to 9 or 9
or more years of experience explained more than 10% of the
between-district variance in student test scores. For elementary school
teachers, experience beyond 5 years did not contribute to enhanced
achievement, but it did for high school teachers.

Based on studies of classes and schools in two U.S. cities, Murnane
(1981) reported that teachers with 3 to 5 years of experience were more
effective than those with fewer than 3 years of experience. He found
that classes with teachers who had 3 to 5 years of teaching experience
averaged 2 to 3 months more reading progress in second grade than did
classes with first-year teachers. Differences in math achievement were
even greater.

SPeNSE data show that the nation's special education teachers, as a
group, are highly experienced, averaging 14.3 years of teaching in
1999-2000; 12.3 of those years were spent teaching special education.
This compares with SPeNSE estimates of 15.5 years of teaching experience
for the nation's regular education teachers.

*Factor 2: Credentials*

The two components of the teacher credential factor were certification
and teachers' level of education. There has been considerable debate in
the literature about the importance of certification as a component or
measure of teacher quality (Abell Foundation, 2001; Ballou & Podgursky,
1998; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000). Results of
research on the relationship between student achievement and teacher
certification have been ambiguous. Lopez (1995) found that teacher
certification did not affect student achievement. However, Goldhaber and
Brewer (2000) found that having a teacher who had standard certification
had a statistically significant positive effect on 12th-grade test
scores in math compared to teachers with private school certification or
no certification in mathematics. They also reported that students
assigned to mathematics and science teachers with emergency
certification did no worse than students assigned to teachers with
standard certification after controlling for many other factors.
Darling-Hammond (2000) found that the proportion of a state's teachers
with full state certification and a major in their teaching field was a
significant predictor of student achievement at the state level.

SPeNSE data indicate that nationwide, 92% of special education teachers
were fully certified for their main teaching assignment. Of those who
were not fully certified, 1.5% did not have any teaching certificate or
license, 4.8% had only an emergency certificate, and 2.0% were fully
certified in a position other than their main assignment or in another
state. Certification issues were most prevalent among less experienced
teachers and teachers of students with emotional disturbance (ED). Only
71% of teachers with fewer than 3 years of experience were fully
certified for their positions, compared to 94% of those with 3 or more
years' experience. Eighty-four percent of all ED teachers were fully
certified for their positions.

Results of previous studies have been ambiguous about a relationship
between teacher level of education and student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ferguson, 1991; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997;
Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2000). Darling-Hammond
(2000) reported that the percentage of a state's teachers with a
master's degree was a weak but significant predictor of student
achievement. In SPeNSE, teacher's level of education was significantly
and moderately associated with the credentials factor. SPeNSE data show
that 59% of special education teachers had a master's degree, compared
to 49% of regular education teachers.

*Factor 3: Self-Efficacy*

Teacher self-efficacy[^3] has repeatedly predicted student achievement
and other important student outcomes despite inconsistencies in the
instruments used to measure self-efficacy and the tests used to measure
student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992. Gibson and Dembo (1984) found
that teachers with high self-efficacy behaved differently from their
colleagues. They more often persisted with struggling students and less
often criticized students who answered incorrectly. Bender and Ukeje
(1989) found that teachers with high self-efficacy were more likely to
use effective instructional practices, and Landrum and Kaufman (1992)
found that colleagues of regular education teachers with high
self-efficacy perceived these teachers to be more capable of teaching
students with behavior disorders.

Overall, special education teachers reported high levels of
self-efficacy in SPeNSE. They agreed to a moderate/great extent that
they had the preparation and experience to deal with most of their
students' learning problems, that they dealt successfully with their
students' behavior problems, and that they made a significant difference
in their students' lives. They were slightly less likely to agree that
if they tried hard, they could get through to even the most difficult or
unmotivated students, or if their students mastered a new concept
quickly, it was probably because they knew how to teach it. In rating
their overall job performance, 62% said *very good*, and 20% said
*exceptional*.

Special education teachers reported being highly skilled in many
specific tasks required in their work, including planning effective
lessons, managing behavior, using appropriate instructional techniques,
and working with parents. They considered themselves relatively less
skilled in using technology in instruction and accommodating culturally
and linguistically diverse students' instructional needs.

*Factor 4: Professionalism*

Reading professional journals and belonging to professional associations
may help teachers stay abreast of developments in the field and promote
a sense of community among educators. However, rather than being a
direct measure of teacher quality, professionalism is likely a proxy for
attitudinal differences among educators, such as professional identity,
commitment to teaching, or an orientation toward life-long learning.

Professionalism from the SPeNSE factor analysis is loosely aligned with
the concept of the professional teacher described by Murnane and Raizen
(1988). Their professional teacher is knowledgeable about the subject
matter, is intellectually curious, can modify curricula to best benefit
students, and is a life-long learner. The authors also mention
involvement in professional associations and work on publications as
activities appropriate for the professional teacher (Murnane & Raizen,
1988).

SPeNSE found that the typical special education teacher reads one
professional journal on a regular basis and belongs to one professional
association. While professional activities emerged as a strong factor in
SPeNSE, no research has been identified to support or refute the theory
that students of teachers who read professional journals and belong to
professional associations have better rates of academic achievement.

*Factor 5: Selected Classroom Practices*

Classroom practices are basic to teacher quality because interactions
between teachers and their students directly affect the outcome of
interestimproved student achievement. Process-product research has shown
that specific teaching practices are related to student achievement
(Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Allington, Block, & Morrow, 1998;
Wenglinsky, 2000). However, specific practices may also have their
limits as indicators of teacher quality because good teaching requires
using a variety of strategies, depending on the instructional context
(Murnane & Raizen, 1988). This may be especially true in special
education, where flexibility and individualization of instruction are
especially important.

SPeNSE did not measure classroom practices through direct observation.
Rather, it relied on self-reports of the use of various classroom
practices. SPeNSE gave particular attention to five instructional areas:
teaching reading, managing behavior, facilitating secondary transition,
teaching English language learners (ELLs), and promoting inclusion.[^4]
Two of the instructional areas, teaching ELLs and facilitating secondary
transition, were excluded from this factor analysis because the items
were inappropriate for many of the respondents due to the types of
students they taught. Teachers' responses on the frequency with which
they used various classroom practices were combined into scales for
teaching reading, managing behavior, and promoting inclusion. On
average, special education teachers reported using all three categories
of classroom practices (i.e., teaching reading, managing behavior, and
promoting inclusion) to a moderate extent.

Most of the individual items included in the SPeNSE classroom practice
scales have documented links to student achievement. For example, the
reading scale included questions about how often teachers asked their
students to practice phonics or phonemic skills, systematically learn
vocabulary, study the style or structure of a text, summarize what they
had read, and read aloud. Previous research consistently links these
practices with improvements in reading achievement (Pressley et al.,
1998; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

Positive behavioral supports, which use ". . . long-term strategies to
reduce inappropriate behavior, teach more appropriate behavior, and
provide contextual support necessary for successful outcomes" (Warger,
1999, p. 1), have been associated with reductions in problem behaviors,
increases in instructional time, and enhanced academic achievement
(Pressley et al., 1998; Sugai & Horner, 2001). Many of the items
included in the best practice scale for managing behavior are associated
with research on positive behavioral supports, including teaching social
skills, using tangible and social acknowledgements for appropriate
behavior, giving in-class time-outs, and conducting functional
behavioral assessments.

The goals of including students with disabilities in classes with their
nondisabled peers are often social and functional as well as academic.
Studies have linked the use of co-teaching models, in which special and
general educators teach classes together, with enhanced social skills
and academic achievement for low-achieving students (Pugach & Wesson,
1995; Walther-Thomas, 1997). However, most of the literature on
inclusion does not attempt to associate student outcomes with specific
teaching practices used in inclusive schools and classrooms.
Consequently, the connection between student achievement and the items
in the SPeNSE best practice scale on inclusion is tenuous.

An Aggregate Teacher-Quality Measure

In an attempt to derive a single measure of teacher quality, SPeNSE
researchers conducted a second-order factor analysis in which the
first-order factors (experience, credentials, self-efficacy,
professionalism, and selected classroom practices) were combined to
generate a single teacher-quality factor. In the aggregate
teacher-quality measure, professionalism was the most important factor,
followed by self-efficacy. The other three were almost equal, with
moderate factor loadings. The results suggest that each of the five
teacher-quality factors is an important component of an aggregate
teacher-quality measure and should be considered in future research on
teacher quality.

SPeNSE analyses suggest that complex measures are required for assessing
whether teachers are of high quality or for comparing workforce quality
across schools, districts, or states. SPeNSE also suggests that teacher
attitudes, such as self-efficacy or an orientation toward life-long
learning, may be important areas of research in teacher quality. In
particular, the professionalism factor requires further exploration to
determine its component parts and their relationship to teacher quality
and student achievement. It may be equally important to learn whether
teacher attitudes linked to student achievement are relatively stable
aspects of a teacher's personality or whether they can be taught during
preservice preparation and, if so, how that is best accomplished.

Next Steps: Testing the Model Using Student Achievement Data

OSEP has a unique opportunity to test the validity of the
teacher-quality model described in this module. The Special Education
Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS), which is being conducted by SRI
International under contract with the U.S. Department of Education, will
provide nationally representative data on students with disabilities,
including their academic achievement and the characteristics of their
language arts teachers. Through a coordinated set of analyses using data
from SPeNSE and SEELS, researchers will study the influence of teacher
characteristics on the academic achievement of students with
disabilities.

Researchers will develop multivariate models that explore the
relationship between teacher characteristics, such as years of
experience, certification status, level of education, self-efficacy, and
practices for teaching reading,[^5] and student achievement, while
controlling for other known correlates of student achievement (e.g.,
parents' education, family income, and school size). Several different
models will be developed. Some will include individual teacher
characteristics, like those specified; others will include an aggregate
teacher-quality measure that combines these various teacher
characteristics into a single variable.

It is likely that the quality of the special education teachers in a
given school or district may be affected by many variables. These
variables may include preservice preparation that provides future
teachers with the knowledge and skills needed in the classroom,
personnel policies that help administrators recruit and retain
high-quality staff, continuing professional development that hones
teachers' skills, and working conditions that facilitate the teaching
and learning process. These influences may also affect the quality of
the workforce nationwide through the career choices people make. For
example, if salaries in teaching are not competitive with those in other
professions, talented young adults may chose alternative careers, and
experienced teachers may leave teaching for higher paying positions in
other fields.

Local, state, and Federal policymakers and administrators of teacher
preparation programs must make difficult choices about how to allocate
their financial and personnel resources to greatest effect. It is
important for them to know what changes in policy and practice are most
effective for improving teacher quality in special education. If the
SPeNSE teacher-quality model is confirmed in SEELS, researchers will try
to address these issues by exploring conditions and experiences
associated with high-quality teachers. Such research would yield
information on issues such as the role of professional development in
enhancing teacher quality, the influence of salary and other forms of
compensation on teacher quality, and the relationship between preservice
program characteristics and teacher quality.

Summary

The initial SPeNSE factor analysis tested experience, credentials,
self-efficacy, professionalism, and selected classroom practices.
Experience proved to be the strongest of the factors in this first
analysis, with the highest factor loadings. Researchers then conducted a
second-order factor analysis in an attempt to derive a single, aggregate
measure of teacher quality. The second analysis indicated that
professionalism, as defined by a finite set of professional activities,
was the most important factor in the aggregate measure, followed by
self-efficacy. The three remaining factors had moderate and nearly equal
factor loadings. The results of the second analysis suggest that all
five of the teacher-quality factors are important components of the
aggregate teacher-quality measure.

Attempts to use SPeNSE data to measure teacher quality have several
limitations. However, these exploratory analyses are an important first
step in measuring special education teacher quality. Future analyses of
SPeNSE data in conjunction with SEELS data will test the validity of the
SPeNSE teacher-quality model and shed new light on how teacher
characteristics influence the academic achievement of students with
disabilities.

Appendix

Factor Loadings and Model Fit Statistics

The factor loadings range from --1 to 1. The size indicates the relative
importance of each variable among those variables that define the
factor. The factor loadings are the correlations between the variables
and the factor. Their squares tell how much variance is explained by the
factor. For example, if a factor loading of a variable is 0.5, then 25%
of its variance is explained by the factor.

Factor Loadings of the First-Order Factors^[a]{.underline}/^

  ------------------------ -------------------- ---------- ------ --------- ------ ------- ----------
                                                Factor                                     Error
                                                loadings                                   variance

  Variable                 Variable description Exper      Cred   Self-ef   Prof   Pedag   

  SYEARTCH                 Years teaching       .986                                       0.03

  SYEARSSE                 Years teaching in    .908                                       0.18
                           special education                                               

  D2CERT                   Level of                        .560                            0.69
                           certification                                                   

  DHIGHED                  Highest degree                  .367                            0.88
                           earned                                                          

  dcntcert                 Number of fields in             .181                            0.97
                           which certified                                                 

  SEFF^[b]{.underline}/^   Score on the Gibson                    .510                     0.73
                           & Dembo                                                         
                           self-efficacy scale                                             

  doverall                 General                                .682                     0.53
                           self-assessment of                                              
                           performance as a                                                
                           teacher                                                         

  DSKILLSE                 Scale combining                        .768                     0.40
                           self-assessment on                                              
                           specific                                                        
                           professional skills,                                            
                           a subset of those in                                            
                           the CEC Standards                                               
                           for Entry into                                                  
                           Practice                                                        

  SJOURNALS                \# professional                                  .301           0.90
                           journals teachers                                               
                           read regularly                                                  

  SASSOCIA                 \# professional                                  .333           0.89
                           associations to                                                 
                           which teachers                                                  
                           belong                                                          

  DRADVICE                 Times per month                                  .331           0.89
                           teachers are asked                                              
                           for professional                                                
                           advice from                                                     
                           colleagues                                                      

  DREADSP                  Frequency with which                                    .504    0.75
                           teachers reported                                               
                           using identified                                                
                           best practices to                                               
                           teach reading                                                   

  dindiv                   Extent to which                                         .163    0.90
                           teachers                                                        
                           individualized                                                  
                           reading instruction                                             

  DMANAGS2                 Frequency with which                                    .295    0.92
                           teachers reported                                               
                           using identified                                                
                           best practices to                                               
                           manage behavior                                                 

  DINCLUS2                 Frequency with which                                    .523    0.72
                           teachers reported                                               
                           using identified                                                
                           best practices to                                               
                           promote inclusion                                               

  DREMAIN                  Plans to remain in                                              
                           teaching special                                                
                           education                                                       

  SFARRELO                 Distance teacher                                                
                           relocated to accept                                             
                           current position                                                

  SKNOWCUL                 Extent to which                                                 
                           teachers know the                                               
                           cultures of the                                                 
                           students in their                                               
                           school                                                          
  ------------------------ -------------------- ---------- ------ --------- ------ ------- ----------

[a]{.underline}/ All variables with significant factor loadings in
LISREL were retained.

[b]{.underline}/ This variable was itself derived through a factor
analysis of individual items in the Gibson & Dembo self-efficacy scale.

Source: Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education.

Factor Loadings of the Second-Order Factor

Factor: Teacher Quality

  ------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
  Variable                              Factor Loading   Error Variance

  EXPERIENCE                            0.400            0.84

  CREDENTIALS                           0.414            0.83

  SELF-EFFICACY                         0.874            0.24

  PROFESSIONALISM                       0.924            0.15

  SELECTED CLASSROOM PRACTICES          0.441            0.81
  ------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

Source: Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education.

Model Fit Statistics

The following model fit statistics show that the model fit was adequate.
However, some error terms were correlated, and the model included the
correlated error terms.

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.0414

90 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = (0.0319 ; 0.0509)

P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA \< 0.05) = 0.930

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.965

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.0412

Standardized RMR = 0.0413

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.967

# References

Abell Foundation. (2001). *Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling
for quality.* Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved October 23, 2001, from
http://www.abell.org/\
TeacherCertReconsidered.pdf

Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). *Making a difference: Teachers' sense
of efficacy and student achievement*. New York: Longman.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1998, Summer). The case against teacher
certification. *Public Interest, 132*, 17-29.

Bender, W.N., & Ukeje, I.C. (1989, March/April). Instructional
strategies in mainstream classrooms: Predictions of strategies teachers
select. *Remedial and Special Education*, *10*, 23-30.

Biniaminov, I., & Glasman, N.S. (1983, Summer). School determinants of
student achievement in secondary education. *American Educational
Research Journal, 20*, 251-268.

Brownell, M.T., & Pajares, F. (1999, Summer). Teacher efficacy and
perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior
problems. *Teacher Education and Special Education*, *22*, 154-164.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. *Education Policy Analysis Archives*,
*8*. Retrieved January 24, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (1995). Do teachers'
race, gender, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. *Industrial and Labor Relations
Review*, *48*, 547-561.

Farkas, G., Grobe, R.P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990, Feburary).
Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty
groups within an urban school district. *American Sociological Review,
55*, 127-142.

Ferguson, R.F. (1991, Summer). Paying for public education: New evidence
on how and why money matters. *Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28,*
464-498.

Ferguson, R.F., & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why money matters: An
analysis of Alabama schools. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.). *Holding schools
accountable: Performance-based reform in education* (pp. 265-298).
Washington: Brookings Institution.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct
validation. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, *76*, 569-582.

Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher
degree level on educational performance. In W.J. Fowler (Ed.),
*Developments in school finance* (pp.197-210). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
February 14, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97535l.pdf

Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000, Summer). Does teacher
certification matter? High school teacher certification status and
student achievement. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, *22*,
129-145.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters a lot*. Thinking K-16*, *2*.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved June 25, 2001, from
http://www.cftl.org/\
documents/k16.pdf

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., & Greenwald, R. (1994, April). Does money
matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school
inputs on student outcomes. *Educational Researcher*, *23*, 5-14.

Jordan, H., Mendro, R.L., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997, July). *Teacher
effects on longitudinal student achievement: A report on research in
progress*. Paper presented at the CREATE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis,
IN.

Landrum, T.J., & Kaufman, J.M. (1992). Characteristics of general
education teachers perceived as effective by their peers: Implications
for inclusion of children with learning and behavioral disorders.
*Exceptionality*, *3*, 147-163.

Lopez, O. (1995). *The effect of the relationship between classroom
student diversity and teacher capacity on student performance.* (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED386423)

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J.S. (1989). Change in teacher
efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics
during the transition to junior high school. *Journal of Educational
Psychology*, *81*, 247-258.

Moore, W.P., & Esselman, M.E. (1992, April). *Teacher efficacy,
empowerment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student
achievement benefit?* Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Murnane, R.J. (1975). *The impact of school resources on the learning of
inner city children*. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Murnane, R.J. (1981). Inner-city schools can make a difference. In
Educational Testing Service (Ed.), *The minority student in public
schools: Fostering academic excellence* (pp. 31-41). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service, Office of Minority Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED243981)

Murnane, R.J., & Raizen, S.A. (Eds.) (1988). *Improving indicators of
the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K-12.*
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C.C., &
Morrow, L. (1998*). The nature of effective first-grade literacy
instruction*. (Rep No. 11007). Albany, NY: National Research Center on
English Learning and Achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED427338)

Pugach, M.C., & Wesson, C.L. (1995, January). Teachers' and students'
views of team teaching of general education and learning-disabled
students in two fifth-grade classes. *The Elementary School Journal,
95*, 279-295.

Ross, J.A. (1992, Winter). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching
on student achievement. *Canadian Journal of Education*, *17*, 51-65.

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996*). Cumulative and residual effects
of teachers on future student academic achievement*. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2001, June). *School climate and discipline:
Going to scale. A framing paper for the National Summit on the Shared
Implementation of IDEA.* Eugene, OR: Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports.

Turner, R.L., & Camilli, G. (1988, April). *The influence of salary
schedule variables on teacher applicant pools, retention, and advanced
degrees, and on student achievement*. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans,
LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED310500)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on
Child Health and Human Development. (2000, April). *Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read*. (NIH Publication No.
00-4769). Washington, DC: Author.

Walther-Thomas, C.S. (1997, July/August). Co-teaching experiences: The
benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time.
*Journal of Learning Disabilities*, *30*, 395-407.

Warger, C. (1999, Winter). Positive behavior support and functional
assessment. *Research Connections in Special Education, 4*, 1-4.

Wendling, W., & Cohen, J. (1980*). The relationship of education
resources to student achievement levels in New York state*. *Working
paper in education finance no. 27.* Denver, CO: Education Commission of
the States, Education Finance Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED202176)

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). *How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom
back into discussions of teacher quality*. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service. Retrieved February 14, 2002, from
www.ets.org/research/pic/teamat.pdf

What Are We Spending on Special Education Services in the United States,
1999-2000?[^6]

This module is based on descriptive information derived from the Special
Education Expenditure Project (SEEP), a national study conducted by the
American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs. SEEP is the fourth
project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education to examine the
nation's spending on special education and related services (Kakalik,
Furry, Thomas, & Carney, 1981; Moore, Strang, Schwartz, & Braddock,
1988; Rossmiller, Hale, & Frohreich, 1970).

This module provides basic summary information on the following issues
for the 1999-2000 school year:

-   What are we spending on special education services for students with
    disabilities in the United States?

-   How do special and regular education expenditures compare?

-   How has special education spending changed over time?

-   What are the components of special education spending?

-   What are we spending on transportation services for students with
    disabilities?

-   What are we spending on identification and due process for students
    with disabilities?

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Special Education Spending

Before presenting the numbers, it is important to distinguish between
*total special education spending* and *total spending to educate a
student with a disability*. *Total special education spending* includes
amounts used to employ special education teachers, related service
providers, and special education administrators, as well as spending on
special transportation services and nonpersonnel items (e.g., materials,
supplies, technological supports) purchased under the auspices of the
special education program. Some portion of special education spending is
used for instructional services that normally would be provided as part
of the general education curriculum offered to regular education
students.

In contrast to total special education spending*, total spending to
educate a student with a disability* encompasses *all* school resources,
including both special and regular education and other special needs
programs, used to provide a comprehensive educational program to meet
student needs. Most students with disabilities spend substantial amounts
of time in the regular education program and benefit from the same
administrative and support services as all other students.

The additional expenditure attributable to special education students is
measured by the difference between the total spending to educate a
student with a disability and the total spending to educate a regular
education student (i.e., a student with no disabilities or other special
needs). This concept of additional expenditure emphasizes that what is
being measured is a reflection of actual spending patterns on special
and regular education students and not a reflection of some ideal
concept of what it should cost to educate either student. The numbers
presented in this report represent "what is" rather than necessarily
"what ought to be."

This report uses the term expenditure instead of cost to emphasize the
fact that all that is being measured is the flow of dollars. The word
cost, in contrast to expenditure, implies that one knows something about
results. To say it cost twice as much to educate a special versus a
regular education student implies that one is holding constant what is
meant by the term "educate." All of the studies (including the present
study) are focused on expenditures with no implications about the
results. The expenditure figures presented represent an estimate of the
current behavior of the schools and districts across the nation and
imply nothing about what spending is required to provide similar results
for students with disabilities.

Total Spending on Students With Disabilities

During the 1999-2000 school year, the United States spent about \$50
billion on special education services. Another \$27.3 billion was
expended on regular education services, and an additional \$1 billion
was spent on other special needs programs (e.g., Title I, English
language learners, or Gifted and Talented Education) for students with
disabilities eligible for special education. Thus, total spending to
educate all students with disabilities found eligible for special
education programs amounted to \$78.3 billion (see Figure I-1).

Figure I-1

Total Spending on Students With Disabilities Who Are Eligible for
Special Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.500694444444444in"
height="3.1534722222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

In per-pupil terms, the total spending used to educate the average
student with a disability amounts to \$12,639 (see Figure I-2). This
amount includes \$8,080 per pupil on special education services, \$4,394
per pupil on regular education services, and \$165 per pupil on services
from other special need programs (e.g., Title I, English language
learners, or Gifted and Talented Education). The total including only
the regular and special education services amounts to \$12,474 per
pupil.

Based on these figures, the total spending to educate students with
disabilities, including regular education, special education, and other
special needs programs combined, represents 21.4% of the \$360.6 billion
total spending on elementary and secondary education in the United
States. Total special education spending alone accounts for 13.9% of
total spending.

Figure I-2

Calculation of Additional Expenditure on a Student With a Disability,\
1999-2000

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="4.128472222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

*Additional Expenditure To Educate a Student With a Disability*

How much more is being expended to educate a student with a disability
than a student with no special programmatic needs? In other words, what
is the additional *spending* on a student with a disability? Addressing
this question permits a comparison of the special education student to a
consistent benchmark---the regular education student who requires
***no*** services from any special program (e.g., for students with
disabilities, students from economically disadvantaged homes, or
students who are English language learners).

The data derived from SEEP indicate that the base expenditure on a
regular education student amounts to \$6,556 per pupil. Comparing this
figure to the average expenditure for a student eligible to receive
special education services, the additional expenditure amounts to
\$5,918 per pupil attributable to special education.

Alternatively, one can use these figures to estimate the ratio of
expenditure to educate a special versus regular education student. The
ratio of additional expenditures attributable exclusively to special
education may be estimated as 1.90 (\$12,639-\$165)/\$6,556). This
suggests that, on average, the nation spends 90% more on a special
education student than on a regular education student.

In most states, school funding formulas are designed to provide revenues
necessary to support current operating expenditures for schools and
school districts.[^7] Expenditures on capital facilities such as school
and central office buildings are funded separately from the standard
school funding formulas. The expenditure figures reported above include
both current operating expenditures and estimates of capital
expenditures for serving special and regular education students. If one
excludes expenditures on capital facilities from the figures above, the
ratio of current operating expenditure to educate a special education
student relative to a regular education student is 2.08 (or 2.11 if
other special programs are included).[^8] In other words, the
***additional current operating expenditure*** to educate a special
education student is 108% of the current operating expenditure to
educate a regular education student with no special needs. The reason
this ratio increases from 1.90 to 2.08 is that the additional time and
personnel required to meet the needs of special versus regular education
students exceeds the additional amount of classroom space necessary to
serve these needs in relative terms.[^9]

Figure I-3

Changes in Special Education Spending Per Pupil Over Time\
(Excluding Other Special Needs Program Spending)

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="4.128472222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

*Changes in Spending Over Time*

Figure I-3 illustrates how expenditures have changed over time by
comparing the findings from this study with those from the previous
three studies of special education spending sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education. In constant dollars, total spending to educate
a student with a disability (excluding Other Special Needs Program
Spending) has increased from an average of \$9,858 per pupil in 1985-86
to \$12,474 in 1999-2000, an annualized growth rate of 0.7%. During this
same period, total expenditure per pupil (including all students but
excluding Other Special Needs Spending) in public elementary and
secondary schools increased from \$5,795 to \$7,597, an annualized
growth rate of 0.8%.

Since 1968-69, when the earliest study on special education expenditures
was conducted, the total per pupil spending on students with
disabilities has risen from \$5,961 to \$12,474 in constant dollars,
while total spending per pupil in all public elementary and secondary
schools (excluding Other Special Needs Program Spending) has increased
from \$3,106 to \$7,597. In other words, total per pupil spending on the
average special education student has increased by 110%, while total per
pupil spending on *all* elementary and secondary education students has
increased by 140%.

While per pupil spending for all students increased at a faster relative
rate than per pupil spending on students with disabilities, total
spending on students with disabilities as a percentage of total
education spending (excluding Other Special Needs Program Services)
increased from about 16.6% in 1977-1978[^10] to 21.4% in 1999-2000. Over
the same period, the percentage of students ages 3 through 22 who were
receiving special education services increased from about 8.5% to almost
13% of the school-age population. The implication is that the growth in
the numbers of students served in special education programs accounts
for the increase in spending on special education.

*Changes in Spending Ratio Over Time*

For the past decade, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners
familiar with special education finance estimated the ratio of total
expenditure (including Other Special Needs Sepnding) to educate a
student with a disability to the total expenditure to educate the
typical regular education student to be about 1.3*.* That is, the
additional expenditure (i.e., the spending ratio) on a student with
disabilities was estimated to be 130% more (1.3 times) than the amount
spent on a typical regular education student. However, using the
1999-2000 school year SEEP data, this spending ratio is now estimated to
be 1.90 or 90% more than the amount spent on a typical regular education
student. Expressed in dollars, the additional expenditure amounts to
\$5,918 per pupil over the base expenditure of \$6,556.[^11] Figure I-4
shows how the estimated expenditure ratio has changed over the time-span
of the four special education expenditure studies. The ratio appears to
have increased from 1.92 in

Figure I-4

Ratio of Spending Per Special and Regular Education Student Over Time\
(Including Other Special Needs Program Spending)

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="4.128472222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

1968-69, to 2.17 in 1977-78, to a high of 2.28 in 1985-86, then declined
to 1.90 in 1999-2000.[^12]

Several factors have likely affected the changes in this ratio over
time. First, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of
students identified with less intensive service needs over recent
decades. Since 1975, the proportion of students with learning
disabilities has increased from about one fourth of the population of
students with disabilities to almost one half. The special educational
services necessary to meet these students' needs may not be as costly as
other disability categories, thus lowering the overall incremental
expenditure.

Second, over the past 10 years, there has been a decline in the extent
to which special education students are served outside of the regular
education classroom and in separate school facilities. These trends
toward less restrictive placements may have resulted in somewhat lower
per pupil expenditures on special education instruction and related
services (e.g., home-to-special-school transportation).[^13]

Working in the opposite direction to *increase* the incremental
expenditure are the successes in medical science that have reduced
mortality among students with certain severely disabling conditions who
might not have survived long enough to be enrolled in special education
programs. Some of these students may be among the most severely disabled
populations served currently under IDEA, tending to increase the per
pupil expenditure necessary to serve students with disabilities overall.

Allocation of Special Education Expenditures

*Components of Special Education Spending*

Focusing on the \$50 billion of special education spending, it is useful
to see how funds are allocated among different spending components.
Special education spending includes central office administration and
support of the program, direct instruction and related services for
preschool (ages 3 through 5) and school-aged (ages 6 through 21)
students, special education summer school, programs for students who are
homebound or hospitalized, and special transportation services. Figure
I-5 shows the dollar amount and percentage of special education spending
on each of these components.

*Direct Instruction and Related Services*

During the 1999-2000 school year, over 80% of total special education
expenditures were allocated to direct instruction and related services.
This figure includes preschool programs, school-aged programs, summer
school programs, and homebound and hospital programs. It takes into
account the salaries of special education teachers, related service
personnel, and special education teaching assistants. It also includes
nonpersonnel expenditures (i.e., supplies, materials, and capital outlay
for specialized equipment) necessary to provide direct special education
instruction and related services to students with disabilities.

Figure I-5

Allocation of Special Education Expenditures, 1999-2000

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="3.595833333333333in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

Direct instruction and related services for special education preschool
programs represent approximately 9% of total special education
expenditures, or \$4.4 billion. The majority of preschool spending
(\$4.1 billion) occurs in public schools operated by the school
districts in which students reside. Most of the remaining funds
allocated to preschool programs (\$263 million) are used to pay tuition
and fees for preschool programs operated in nonpublic schools or public
agencies other than the public school district in which the student
resides and to support direct expenditures for additional related
services.

At \$36 billion, instruction and related services for school-aged
students (ages 6 through 21) account for 72% of total special education
expenditures. Direct instruction and related services for programs
operated by the student's home district amount to approximately \$31
billion. This represents more than 60% of total special education
expenditures, serving almost 5.4 million of the 6.2 million special
education students in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. For
the approximately 200,000 students placed in nonpublic school programs
or programs operated by public agencies or institutions other than the
public school district in which they reside, the expenditure is \$5.3
billion. These expenditures include tuition, fees, and amounts allocated
for other related services that are provided by the home district.

Other instructional programs include homebound and hospital programs, as
well as summer school programs for students with disabilities. It is
estimated that, for the 1999-2000 school year, just under 30,000
students with disabilities were served in homebound and hospital
programs and that these programs account for less than 0.5%, or \$98
million, of the total special education spending. Summer school programs
serve about 10% of the total number of students (623,000) in special
education programs and account for about 1.6% (\$815 million) of the
total special education expenditures.

*Administration and Support*

Overall, administration and support account for about 10% or \$5 billion
of total special education spending. Administration and support
expenditures include three components:

-   Central office administration and support of the special education
    program\$4 billion, or 8.2% of total special education expenditures.
    This expenditure includes salaries of central office employees, fees
    for contractors, and nonpersonnel expenditures to support staff in
    the performance of central office functions for the special
    education programs. These functions include administration,
    coordination, staff supervision, monitoring and evaluation, due
    process, mediation, litigation support, assessment of student
    progress, and eligibility determination.

-   Certain categories of related service personnel assigned to the
    school site\$745 million, or 1.5% of total special education
    expenditures. These categories of school-site staff spend a
    substantial portion of their time involved in various indirect
    support activities related to assessment and evaluation of students
    with disabilities.

-   Administration and support activities of special education
    schools\$131 million, or less than 0.3% of total special education
    spending. These schools are designed explicitly and exclusively for
    serving students with disabilities---generally the most severely
    disabled students.[^14]

*Transportation*

It is estimated that more than 800,000 students with disabilities
receive special home-to-school transportation services at a total
expenditure of more than \$3.7 billion. These numbers suggest that less
than 14% of students with disabilities received special transportation
services during the 1999-2000 school year, representing about one fourth
of total expenditures on all home-to-school transportation services
provided in the United States.[^15]

Since 1985-86, the percentage of students receiving special
transportation has dropped by more than half, and the per pupil
expenditure (expressed in constant dollars) has increased from about
\$2,463 to \$4,418 (an increase of 180%).[^16] These comparative data
suggest that fewer students are being transported today to separate
special education schools and that perhaps only the most severely
disabled students, who require more costly accommodations, are currently
receiving special transportation services. The evidence further suggests
that more students with disabilities are receiving regular
transportation services.

*Per Pupil Spending on Special Education Services*

Figure I-6 provides another perspective for exploring special education
expenditure by dividing the total expenditure within each special
education program component by the number of students served within that
component to arrive at per-pupil spending. These figures include only
the special education expenditures associated with each component; they
do **not** include the full expenditure to educate these students since
no regular education instruction or administrative expenditures are
included in these numbers.

Average special education spending on a student served in programs
outside the public schools amounted to \$26,440. This figure includes
spending on the tuition for nonpublic schools and expenditures on any
direct, related services that might be

Figure I-6

Per Pupil Special Education Spending, 1999-2000

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="4.128472222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

provided by the district of residence. In contrast, special education
spending on direct instruction and related services for school-aged
students served within public schools amounted to \$5,709 per pupil. For
preschool students, the special education spending on students served in
programs operated **outside** public schools amounted to \$9,062 per
pupil compared to \$7,667 for those students served in programs
**within** public schools.

The expenditures on central office administration of the special
education program (i.e., the operations of the office of the director of
special education within local education agencies) amounted to \$662 per
pupil. Administration and support expenditures for operation of a
special education school averaged \$4,388.[^17]

*Expenditures on Assessment, Evaluation, and IEP-Related Activities*

Previous studies have suggested that expenditures for the processes that
determine the eligibility of students to be served in the special
education program take up a substantial share of total special education
spending.[^18] For the purposes of this study, determination of
eligibility involves a variety of activities, including prereferral and
referral activities; initial screening; ongoing assessment, evaluations,
and reviews; and preparation of the individualized education program
(IEP).

Based on SEEP data, it is estimated that total spending on eligibility
determination activities during the 1999-2000 school year was about
\$6.8 billion, or \$1,086 per special education student.[^19] As Figure
I-7 indicates, 28% of the total expenditure on these activities is
accounted for by salaries and benefits of special education related-
service providers at the school site, while 27% is spent on special
education teachers, 23% on regular education teachers, and 22% on
central office special education staff.

It is important to recognize that the \$1,086 per pupil does not
represent the expenditure to determine the eligibility for any given
student. While the figures above reflect the best estimates of the total
dollars supporting these activities, the denominator is simply the count
of special education students. Some students who go through this process
for determining eligibility are found ineligible to receive special
education services. On the other hand, re-evaluations of students who
are already in the special education program can, in many instances, be
done with relatively limited effort on the part of staff.

Allocation and Use of Federal Funds

In 1999-2000, local school districts received a total of \$3.7 billion
(or \$605 per student) in Federal IDEA funds for the purpose of
providing special education services.[^20] As such, Federal funds
supported 7.5% of total special education expenditures at the local
level and 4.9% of total expenditures used to educate a student with
disabilities. When taken as a percentage of the additional expenditure
on

Figure I-7

Assessment, Evaluation, and IEP-Related Expenditures, 1999-2000

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.497916666666667in"
height="4.128472222222222in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

a special versus regular education student, Federal IDEA funds amounted
to more than 10% of the additional expenditure on students with
disabilities for the 1999-2000 school year.[^21]

Figure I-8 shows how these Federal IDEA funds---basic and
preschool---are allocated to instruction, related services, and
administration, and it compares the use of Federal funds to the use of
all Federal and non-Federal funds that support special education
spending. The first vertical bar shows that 63% of total special
education spending is used for instruction; 27% is allocated to related
services; and the rest (10%) is allocated to administration.

Figure I-8

Allocation of Special Education Funds by Function, 1999-2000

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.496527777777778in"
height="4.060416666666667in"}

Source: Special Education Expenditure Project.

The second and third vertical bars in Figure I-8 show how Federal Part
B-basic grants and preschool grants are used. Of those districts
reporting the allocation of Part B basic grant funds, 64% of the funds
were allocated to instruction, 25% were distributed to related services,
and the remaining 11% were spent on administration and support services.
In districts reporting how the preschool funds were spent, almost three
fourths of the funds were used for instruction, 21% were allocated to
related services, and the remaining 6% were expended on administration
and support services.

Medicaid is another source of Federal funding for providing special
education services. Of reporting districts, 44% of districts recovered
funds spent on special education services from Medicaid, with an average
of \$105 per special education student. This represents an estimated
national total of \$648 million from Medicaid sources, or about 1.3% of
total special education expenditure or about 1.8% of additional spending
on the average student with disabilities.

Thus, as of the 1999-2000 school year, total Federal IDEA and Medicaid
support of special education spending at the local level represents
about 8.8% of total special education spending or about 12% of
additional spending on special education students.

Future Reports

This module reflects the first in a series of reports that will explore
in greater depth the factors that underlie special education spending
patterns across local jurisdictions, over time, and on different
categories of students. These analyses will show the tremendous
diversity of needs represented among students identified as eligible for
special education services. The analyses will also explore how student
characteristics and the characteristics of districts and states are
related to variations in spending on students with disabilities. Further
analysis will also examine specific components of special education
expenditures such as due process, assessment and the processes
surrounding the development of individualized education programs, and
transportation services.

# References

Chaikind, S., Danielson, L.C., & Brauen, M.L. (1993). What do we know
about the costs of special education? A selected review. *The Journal of
Special Education, 26*, 344-370.

Kakalik, J., Furry, W., Thomas, M., & Carney, M. (1981). *The cost of
special education*. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Moore, M.T., Strang, E.W., Schwartz, M., & Braddock, M. (1988).
*Patterns in special* e*ducation service delivery and cost*. Washington,
DC: Decision Resources Corp. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED303027)

Rossmiller, R.A., Hale, J.A., & Frohreich, L. (1970). *Educational
programs for exceptional children: Resource configurations and costs*.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Educational
Administration.

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

Children With Disabilities in Low-Income Families: An Analysis of Data
From the ECLS-K

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that more than 11 million children live
in poverty in the United States. This figure represents 16% of all U.S.
children under the age of 18 (Dalaker, 2001). The Census Bureau poverty
threshold for a family of four was \$18,267 in 2001.

Child poverty has implications for the field of special education
because it can affect children's health and behavior, as well as their
cognitive development and academic achievement. Although poverty has not
been established as a direct cause of disability, studies show that it
"acts as a proxy for many of the variables that in turn increase the
risk of disability. Inadequate prenatal care, single teenage pregnancy,
poor nutrition, and low educational attainment, while not exclusive to
any one segment of society, are more readily encountered among the poor"
(Seelman & Sweeney, 1995, p. 3). Researchers have found that poverty
trends are exacerbated when a child with a disability lives in the
household; they also have identified an increased risk of disability
among children in poor families (Fujiura & Yamaki, 2000). The
association between poverty and disability is therefore an important
issue for special education researchers to address.

Child poverty is of importance to special education service delivery for
another reason as well. The initial funding formula for P.L. 94-142
based allocations on the number of children with disabilities receiving
special education and related services in each state. However, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997
revised the funding formula so that a percentage of the funds allocated
to each state is based on the relative population of children living in
poverty in that state. This change in the funding formula, which took
effect in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 1998 for the Preschool Grants
Program and FFY 2000 for the Grants to States program, has heightened
the importance of studying child poverty in relation to children with
disabilities.

The study reported in this module uses base-year data from the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study -- Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K)
to examine the effects of poverty and associated variables on cognitive
assessment scores and social skills ratings. It also compares the
demographic characteristics of poor and nonpoor kindergartners with
disabilities.

The module begins with a review of the literature on the physical,
cognitive, and behavioral effects that poverty may have on children.
Subsequent sections explain the methods used in the study and present
the study findings. The final section of the module discusses those
findings in relation to the literature and suggests directions for
future research.

Poverty and Child Development

Research has demonstrated that poverty may have an impact on children's
physical health, their cognitive development and achievement, and their
behavior. This section of the module discusses some of the research in
each of these areas.

*Physical Health*

The literature suggests a general relationship between children's health
and family income, with lower income families reporting that their
children are in poorer health (e.g., Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). In addition to
differences in general measures of child health, research indicates that
poor children are more likely to experience a number of specific
health-related problems that may lead to eligibility for services under
IDEA. One example is low birth weight (LBW), which is defined as
weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth. LBW significantly increases the
risk of long-term disability and early mortality (Ventura, Martin,
Curtin, & Mathews, 1997) and is associated with higher rates of specific
health problems such as childhood asthma (Brooks, Byrd, Weitzman,
Auinger, & McBride, 2001). It is also associated with learning
disabilities and with negative school outcomes such as grade repetition,
as well as lower levels of intelligence and of math and reading
achievement (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). LBW children frequently score
lower on intelligence tests than do children of normal birth weight,
even after controlling for other sociodemographic variables (Hack,
Klein, & Taylor, 1995). Low birth weight is 1.7 times more common among
poor children than nonpoor children (Federman et al., as cited in
Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).

Lead poisoning is another health problem that occurs more frequently in
poor children, as well as those living in older housing (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2000). Even low levels of lead
exposure can have negative effects, and health problems vary with the
length and intensity of exposure and the child's developmental stage,
with risks beginning before birth (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Lead
exposure is associated with health problems such as hearing loss
(Schwartz & Otto, 1991) and damage to the renal, endocrine,
reproductive, and central nervous systems (Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, 1993). It is also associated with a decrease in
intelligence quotient (IQ) (Schwartz, 1994), a problem that is discussed
in detail later in this module, and with a range of behavior problems
(National Research Council (NRC), 2002). Studies using Federal data have
repeatedly indicated that poor and minority children are at greater risk
for lead poisoning, a risk that is compounded by the fact that
low-income families are more likely to live in older housing (Brody et
al., 1994; CDC, 1997; President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children, 2000). The most recent prevalence
data indicate that 8% of children in low-income families have elevated
blood lead levels, compared with about 2% of middle-income children and
1% of high-income children. About 11% of Black children have elevated
blood lead levels, as do 4% of Mexican American children and 1% of White
children (Needleham, as cited in NRC, 2002).

*Cognitive Ability and Achievement*

The NRC (2002) has noted that child outcomes are indisputably worse in
families with low socioeconomic status but that the reasons for this
difference are complex. Nonetheless, poorer outcomes, both academically
and behaviorally, often result in referrals for special education and
related services. This section of the module first reviews some of the
studies showing differences in cognitive outcomes by poverty status,
then discusses some of the biological and environmental influences on
cognitive ability and achievement.

***Differences in Ability and Achievement***

A number of studies have demonstrated that child poverty is associated
with lower scores on standardized ability and achievement tests. In
general, the IQ scores of poor children average 5 to 10 points lower
than those of middle-class comparison samples, and a greater number of
poor children fall into the range of borderline or mild mental
retardation (Kaiser & Delaney, 1996)[^22]. Some of these differences may
be due to lead poisoning, which, as noted above, is associated with a
decrease in IQ as well as with various physical problems. Poor nutrition
and maternal alcohol and tobacco use during pregnancy are other
biological factors that are associated with lower achievement (NRC,
2002).

A number of studies have shown that children from lower income families
have poorer academic outcomes than do children from middle-class
families. For example, one study used National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY) data to compare children in families with incomes below 50%
of the poverty threshold to children whose family incomes were between
1.5 and 2 times the poverty threshold. After controlling for
characteristics associated with poverty (e.g., family structure,
mother's education), the poorer children scored 6 to 13 points lower on
standardized tests of IQ, verbal ability, and achievement (Korenman,
Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995). (Many standardized tests have a standard
deviation of 10 points.)

Duncan and his colleagues (1994) used the Infant Health and Development
Program dataset to investigate poverty and IQ scores in 5-year-olds. The
IQ scores of children who had lived in persistent poverty were an
average of 9 points lower than those of children who had not experienced
poverty at all in their first 5 years of life (*SE* = 2.1), while those
who had experienced short-term poverty were an average of 4 points lower
(*SE* = 1.6).

In addition to test scores, school outcomes such as high school
graduation rates also differ by poverty status. These differences may be
related both to cognitive ability and achievement and to behavioral
problems, an issue that is discussed later in this module. Data from
Series 10 of *Vital Health and Statistics* (as cited in Brooks-Gunn &
Duncan, 1997) indicate that poor children are twice as likely as nonpoor
children to repeat a grade or to be suspended or expelled. Children from
low-income families are also significantly less likely to graduate from
high school. In 1999, there was an 11% dropout rate among students whose
family incomes were in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. This
figure may be compared with the 5% dropout rate among students from
middle-income families and the 2.1% dropout rate among those in the top
20% of the income distribution (Kaufman, Kwon, Klein, & Chapman, 2000).

Lead poisoning also has negative effects on cognitive ability and
achievement. As previously discussed, research has consistently
demonstrated that exposure to lead is associated with lower IQs.
According to the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH, 1998),
even low levels of lead exposure have been shown to be related to
decreased intelligence. Lead poisoning is also associated with learning
disabilities and behavioral problems (National Academy of Sciences,
1993; NCEH, 2001). In a meta-analysis of studies examining the
relationship between blood lead levels and IQ in school-aged children,
Schwartz (1994) found that an increase in blood lead from 10 to 20
micrograms per deciliter was associated with a decrease of 2.6 IQ
points. Since lead poisoning is disproportionately found among poor
children (CDC, 1997, 2000), this environmental hazard must be considered
as one of the factors that contributes to problems with cognitive
development and achievement in this population.

*Social and Environmental Influences on Cognitive Development*

Although the evidence does suggest that biological factors play a role
in achievement differences, those influences are only part of the story.
More than 20 years ago, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) presented an
ecological model of child development suggesting that biology, family,
caregivers, school, and other contextual influences all have powerful
and reciprocal influences on human development. This seminal research
led to the current understanding that "biological and environmental
factors are not completely separate parts of the picture. . . . They
combine as two pigments in a single paint, together determining a color
that neither alone could create" (NRC, 2002, p. 94). Moreover, in the
past two decades, researchers have increasingly adopted the view that
the number and combination of risk factors in a child's life have a
powerful influence on that child's development. As the number of
stresses rises, the probability of a positive outcome declines (NRC,
2002).

While some of the differences in cognitive ability and achievement
discussed above are related to biological factors such as lead exposure,
others may be attributed to differences in home and family environments
and to multiple risks and the interactions among them. As the NRC (2002)
notes, "Children, themselves tremendously diverse in the individual
characteristics they bring into the world, develop in family and
community contexts that vary widely" (p. 121). Further, poverty "is
strongly correlated with less optimal home environments" (NRC, 2002, p.
123).

A wide range of social and contextual factors influence child
development and, in turn, affect the likelihood that a child will be
referred for special education. For example, many studies have
demonstrated that parenting styles, parental responsiveness and
sensitivity to the child, and the amount and type of language
stimulation provided to the child all strongly influence a child's
intellectual and problem-solving abilities (NRC, 2002).

In addition, early language development is a key element of later school
success. Vocabulary size is the single most important predictor of
reading success (Anderson & Nagy, as cited in NRC, 2002). But studies
have consistently demonstrated that children from low-income families
have smaller vocabularies than those from middle-class families (Hart &
Risley, 1995) and that there is a connection between parents' and
children's vocabularies (NRC, 2002). These effects are dramatic: After
observing children for a period of nearly 2 1/2 years, Hart and Risley
(1995) found that by the time the children were 3 years old, their
families' SES accounted for 42% of the variance in their rates of
vocabulary growth, 40% of the variance in their vocabulary use, and 29%
of the variance in their measured IQ scores. These differences may be
largely attributable to differences in home environments. The NRC (2002)
reports that in a number of studies, "higher-SES mothers have been found
to talk to children more, sustain conversation longer, and elicit more
response from the child" (p. 125).

***Demographic Characteristics Associated With Lower Achievement***

In addition to the social and environmental factors discussed above, two
family demographic characteristics that are associated with lower
academic achievementsingle parenthood and lower parental education
levelsare found more frequently among poor children and families. Some
researchers have suggested that these characteristics are related to
school problems that may result in referrals to special education. The
NRC (2002) has reported that "poverty is highly correlated with
single-parent status, decreasing the parental attention available to the
child" (p. 122). Astone and McLanahan (1991) suggest that family
structure may be related to low academic achievement and school failure.
They note that "children from non-intact families report lower
educational expectations on the part of their parents, less monitoring
of school work by mothers and fathers, and less overall supervision of
social activities than children from intact families" (p. 318).

In their classic longitudinal study of adolescent mothers and their
children, Furstenberg and his colleagues (1987) noted that single-parent
homes may differ from two-parent homes in that "child supervision is
reduced, time spent with the parent is low, and emotional support is
difficult in part because of competing demands on a single parent's
time" (p. 107). Although mother's marital status appeared to have only
weak effects on preschool outcomes in the Furstenberg et al. study, at
follow-up the researchers found that among adolescents, having a single
mother was associated with grade failure and behavior problems
(Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987). Analyses of ECLS-K data
carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found
that first-time kindergartners from two-parent families were more likely
than those from single-parent families to have reading, mathematics, and
general knowledge scores in the highest quartile (NCES, 2000).

Parent education levels may also influence child outcomes. Furstenberg
and his colleagues (1987) found that mother's educational status did not
appear to influence children's scores on a preschool inventory. By
adolescence, however, having a mother who did not complete high school
was associated with a considerably higher likelihood of grade failure.
ECLS-K analyses performed by NCES found that children whose mothers had
higher education levels were more likely to score in the highest
quartile on all three cognitive measures (NCES, 2000). Zill (1996),
reviewing the literature on the link between parent education and child
well-being, noted that parent education level is an important
independent determinant of well-being among children.

While single parenthood and lower parental educational attainment are by
no means found exclusively among poor families, these demographic
characteristics are strongly associated with poverty. NCES analyses of
ECLS-K data suggest that mother's education and family type, along with
home language and the family's receipt of public assistance, influence
not only kindergartners' cognitive skill development but their health
and physical well-being, social skills, and approaches to learning
(NCES, 2000).

*Behavioral Outcomes*

Research suggests a link between childhood poverty and behavior
problems, although poverty's effects on behavioral outcomes are not as
pronounced as its effects on cognitive outcomes (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,
1997). This link is important because behavior problems frequently
result in referrals to special education (NRC, 2002).

An analysis of data from the NLSY on 3- through 11-year-olds looked at
behavior problems in poor and nonpoor children. Children who lived in
long-term poverty scored three to seven percentile points higher on a
behavior problem index than did children from nonpoor families (Korenman
et al., 1995). McLeod and Shanahan (1993), also using NLSY data, found
that persistent poverty was positively related to the occurrence of
internalizing symptoms such as anxiety and unhappiness in 4- to
8-year-olds. This finding held true after controlling for mother's age,
education, marital status, and current poverty as determined by family
income divided by household size. Current (as opposed to persistent)
poverty was associated with greater occurrence of externalizing
symptoms, such as hyperactivity and peer conflict.

A study using the Infant Health and Development Program dataset found
greater prevalence of both internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems in children from persistently poor families. Children whose
families experienced short-term poverty also had more behavioral
problems than did nonpoor children, although the differences were not as
pronounced. Both the short-term and long-term poverty analyses
controlled for mother's education and family structure (Duncan,
Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994).

An analysis of the ECLS-K (NCES, 2000) examined problem behaviors among
first-time kindergartners in general and found some differences by
family type. The incidence of problem behaviors was relatively
infrequent as reported by both parents and teachers, although parents
reported more of these behaviors than did teachers Single mothers were
more likely than respondents from two-parent families to report their
children as arguing, fighting, or getting angry often or very often.
Similarly, teachers were more likely to rate children from single-parent
households as exhibiting problem behavior (NCES, 2000). The NCES
analyses did not examine differences in behavior by poverty status.

Some of the differences in behavioral outcomes by poverty status may be
due to the biological effects of exposure to substances such as lead,
alcohol, and nicotine (see the *Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress
on the Implementation of IDEA* for a discussion of prenatal alcohol and
tobacco exposure and NRC, 2002, for a full discussion of all three
issues). However, behavioral outcomes are also related to differences in
home environment and parenting practices. A number of studies cited in
the recent NRC report (2002) indicate that social and economic
disadvantage have "strong and negative effects" on parenting practices
(p. 123). Research has demonstrated, for example, that "social
disadvantage predicted harsh parental discipline, which in turn
predicted aggressive child behavior" (Bank et al., as cited in NRC,
2002, p. 123). In addition, researchers have found that preschoolers in
low-income welfare families have the highest prevalence of oppositional
defiant disorder (Offord et al., as cited in NRC, 2002). Early
behavioral problems strongly predict later behavioral problems. As is
true of cognitive and academic outcomes, it is likely that a combination
of biological and contextual factors contributes to the poorer
behavioral outcomes that have been observed among low-income children
(NRC, 2002).

Summary of the Literature Review

Although research does not directly link disability among children to
poverty status, poor children are more likely than nonpoor children to
experience LBW and other health complications related to poor maternal
nutrition and health care. These children are also less likely to have
the adequate nutrition, housing, and health care that might prevent the
development of serious health conditions and disabilities (Meyers,
Lukemeyer, & Smeeding, 1996). The studies reviewed here indicate that
childhood poverty is associated with lower general health status and
with higher levels of health problems such as LBW, asthma, and lead
poisoning. In addition, child poverty is associated with problems in
cognitive development, behavior problems, and negative school outcomes.

Health problems such as LBW occur more frequently in groups with higher
poverty rates, particularly among families headed by single mothers and
families in which mothers have lower education levels (Brooks-Gunn &
Duncan, 1997). Among kindergartners, these demographic characteristics
also have been linked to lower scores on measures of reading,
mathematics, and general knowledge, and to increased reports of
behavioral problems (NCES, 2000). Because these relationships may make
it difficult to interpret the independent effects of each variable, the
study described below examined the effects of poverty and mother's
education and family type while controlling for poverty on outcomes such
as cognitive assessment scores and social skills ratings for
kindergartners with disabilities. The study also attempted to determine
the influence of the three explanatory variables, poverty, mother's
education, and family type, on the likelihood of having an
individualized education program (IEP). Finally, analyses were conducted
to determine how poor and nonpoor children differ in terms of
demographic characteristics.

Methods

The study described here used spring data from the base year of the
ECLS-K, which is being conducted by NCES. The Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) also contributes funding and support for the
study.

The ECLS-K involves direct assessment of children's skills and abilities
in order to measure important cognitive and noncognitive outcomes. The
cognitive assessment battery included questions in three subject areas:
language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and general knowledge. In
addition to these direct assessment data, parents and guardians provided
information about their children and their households, and teachers
provided data about the children and their learning environments. The
primary special education teacher or service provider for each child
with an IEP also provided data. Since poverty was the primary
independent variable of interest and family income data were collected
from parents and guardians only in the spring, this study used direct
child assessment data, parent data, and teacher data from spring 1999.

The ECLS-K sample included more than 21,000 children. Data were
available for 677 kindergartners with IEPs.[^23] Researchers selected
weights in consultation with statistical staff and varied according to
the type of data that were being analyzed. We used the parent
full-sample weight for analyses of child and parent data and the
child-parent-teacher full-sample weight for analyses that included
teacher data.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all students with disabilities, based on our
analyses of the ECLS-K, are presented in Table I-2. The table includes
population estimates for all kindergartners with IEPs, regardless of
poverty status.

The mean income of families of children with disabilities was \$40,880,
and the median income was \$29,294. To compare kindergartners with IEPs
living in poverty with those who were not living in poverty, we began
with the 1998 Census Bureau poverty threshold of \$16,660 for a family
of four. To account for factors such as regional differences in the cost
of living and in accordance with other recent literature (e.g., Duncan &
Brooks-Gunn as cited in Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, Smith, & Judith,
1998), we used 150% of the poverty level to arrive at a working poverty
threshold of \$24,990 for a family of four.[^24] This threshold was well
below the sample's mean and median incomes. The poverty variable was
computed by dividing household income by the total number of household
members.

About 55% of the families of ECLS-K kindergartners with disabilities
reported incomes above the threshold of \$24,990 for a family of four;
45% of children with disabilities lived in households with incomes below
this threshold. Thus, for the purpose of these analyses, children whose
household income was below 150% of the Federal poverty threshold were
considered to be poor. Those whose family incomes were at or above the
150% poverty level were considered nonpoor.

Of the demographic data for all kindergartners with IEPs, two findings
were of particular note. Sixty-five percent were male, a difference that
is not unexpected given that boys tend to outnumber girls among the
special education population (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In
addition, the percentage of kindergartners with IEPs who were poor was
higher than one might observe in the general population. The U.S.
Department of Education (1997) has noted that poverty among children is
associated with educational problems that result in referrals to special
education, so this finding is again not surprising.

Table I-2

Demographic Variables for All Kindergartners With IEPs

  ----------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                  National    
                                                  estimates   

                                                  Number      Percent

  **Sex**                                                     

  Male                                            92,110      65.2

  Female                                          49,100      34.8

  **Race/ethnicity**                                          

  White, non-Hispanic                             87,787      62.4

  Black                                           22,630      16.1

  Hispanic                                        23,241      16.5

  Asian/Pacific Islander                          1,538       1.1

  Other                                           5,428       3.9

  **Poverty status**                                          

  Poor                                            63,645      45.1

  Nonpoor                                         77,565      54.9

  **Family type**                                             

  Single-parent family/other                      38,575      27.3

  Two-parent family                               102,634     72.7

  **Mother's education**                                      

  Less than high school                           26,512      19.3

  High school diploma or some college             90,646      65.8

  Bachelor's degree or higher                     20,543      14.9

  **Father's education**                                      

  Less than high school                           15,282      14.4

  High school diploma or some college             71,708      67.5

  Bachelor's degree or higher                     19,189      18.1

  **Primary disability category**                             

  Speech or language impairment                   95,610      65.0

  Learning disability                             16,988      11.6

  Developmental delay                             13,975      9.5

  Mental retardation                              4,301       2.9

  Health impairment                               3,589       2.4

  Physical impairment                             3,176       2.2

  Autism                                          2,957       2.0

  Multiple impairments                            2,776       1.9

  Emotional disturbance                           2,527       1.7

  Deaf/hard of hearing                            881         0.6

  Blind/visual impairment                         224         0.2

  Deaf/blind                                      0           0.0

  **Family received AFDC/TANF in the last 12                  
  months**                                                    

  Yes                                             17,215      12.3

  No                                              122,336     87.7

  **Family received food stamps in the last 12                
  months**                                                    

  Yes                                             36,326      26.0

  No                                              103,224     74.0

  Table I-2 (continued)                                       

                                                  National    
                                                  estimates   

                                                  Number      Percent

  **Child receives free or reduced-price lunch**              

  Yes                                             60,076      67.1

  No                                              29,403      32.9

  **Child covered by health insurance**                       

  Yes                                             131,047     93.5

  No                                              9,117       6.5
  ----------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
> 1998-99, Base-Year Restricted-Use Special Education Child File.

*Demographic Variables*

Researchers compared poor and nonpoor kindergartners with IEPs on nine
demographic variables: sex, race, family type (two-parent vs.
one-parent/other), mother's education, father's education, family
receipt of AFDC/TANF in the past 12 months, family receipt of food
stamps in the past 12 months, child's receipt of free or reduced-price
lunch, and child health insurance coverage (see Table I-3). All of the
chi squares were significant (*p* \< .0001) except for sex and child
health insurance coverage. Nonpoor children with IEPs were more likely
to be White and to live in a two-parent family.

The differences in parent education levels were particularly striking.
As would be expected, the mothers and fathers of poor kindergartners
with IEPs had lower levels of education than did the parents of the
nonpoor children. Particularly noticeable were the differences in the
percentages of parents who had less than a high school education. Fully
a third of mothers of poor children with IEPs did not finish high
school, compared with 7% of mothers of nonpoor children with IEPs.
Twenty-nine percent of fathers of poor children had less than a high
school diploma, versus 7% of fathers of nonpoor children (see Table
I-3).

*Cognitive Assessment Scores and Social Skills Ratings*

The next step in the data analyses was to compare the scaled scores of
poor and nonpoor children with disabilities on the three direct
cognitive assessments: general knowledge, mathematics, and reading. As
Table I-4 shows, poor children with disabilities had lower scores than
nonpoor children with disabilities in all three areas (*p* \< .0001).

Table I-3

Demographic Variables for Kindergartners With IEPs by Poverty Status

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -------------
                                                   **Poor**    **Nonpoor**

                                                   Row percent Row percent

  **Sex**                                                      

  Male                                             64.4        66.0

  Female                                           35.7        34.1

  **Race/ethnicity**                                           

  White, non-Hispanic                              46.9        75.2

  Black                                            26.1        7.9

  Hispanic                                         22.2        11.8

  Asian/Pacific Islander                           0.7         1.5

  Other                                            4.2         3.6

  **Family type**                                              

  Single-parent/other                              48.9        15.9

  Two-parent                                       51.1        84.1

  **Mother's education**                                       

  Less than high school                            33.8        7.4

  High school diploma or some college              63.4        67.8

  Bachelor's degree or higher                      2.8         24.8

  **Father's education**                                       

  Less than high school                            29.1        6.8

  High school diploma or some college              68.1        67.2

  Bachelor's degree or higher                      2.8         26.0

  **Family received AFDC/TANF in the last 12                   
  months**                                                     

  Yes                                              23.3        3.3

  No                                               76.7        96.7

  **Family received food stamps in the last 12                 
  months**                                                     

  Yes                                              52.3        4.3

  No                                               47.7        95.7

  **Child receives free or reduced-price lunch**               

  Yes                                              94.7        35.3

  No                                               5.3         64.7

  **Child covered by health insurance**                        

  Yes                                              92.4        94.4

  No                                               7.6         5.6
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -------------

Note: All comparisons were statistically significant (*p* \< .0001)
except for sex and health insurance coverage.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
1998-99, Base-Year Restricted-Use Special Education Child File.

Table I-4

Cognitive Assessment Scores and Social Skills Ratings by Poverty Status

  ------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------------
                                              Mean scores   

                                              Poor          Nonpoor

                                              *(SE)*        *(SE)*

  **Cognitive skills**                                      

  General knowledge                           18.75         25.14^[b]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.48)        (0.58)

  Reading                                     23.33         28.11^[b]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.61)        (0.66)

  Mathematics                                 19.35         24.47^[b]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.51)        (0.60)

  **Parent ratings of social skills**                       

  Approaches to learning                      2.90          3.02^[d]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.04)        (0.04)

  Self-control                                2.63          2.78

                                              (0.06)        (0.03)

  Social interaction                          3.22          3.31

                                              (0.04)        (0.04)

  Impulsive/overactive^[a]{.underline}/^      2.28          2.12^[d]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.05)        (0.04)

  Sad/lonely^[a]{.underline}/^                1.59          1.59

                                              (0.03)        (0.02)

  **Teacher ratings of social skills**                      

  Approaches to learning                      2.57          2.82^[c]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.06)        (0.06)

  Self-control                                2.95          3.01

                                              (0.04)        (0.05)

  Interpersonal                               2.80          2.95^[d]{.underline}/^

                                              (0.05)        (0.05)

  Externalizing problem                       1.87          1.76
  behaviors^[a]{.underline}/^                               

                                              (0.07)        (0.05)

  Internalizing problem                       1.84          1.72^[d]{.underline}/^
  behaviors^[a]{.underline}/^                               

                                              (0.04)        (0.04)
  ------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------------

> Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.
>
> [a]{.underline}/ On these scales, lower scores are better; on the
> other social rating scales and the cognitive skills measures, higher
> scores are better.
>
> [b]{.underline}/ *p* \< .0001.
>
> [c]{.underline}/ *p* \< .01.
>
> [d]{.underline}/ *p* \< .05.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
1998-99, Base-Year Restricted-Use Special Education Child File.

The ECLS-K included parent and teacher ratings of social skills using
the Social Rating Scale (SRS). The parent SRS has five
subscalesapproaches to learning, self-control, social interaction,
impulsive/overactive, and sad/lonelyscored on a 4-point Likert-type
scale, with 1=Never and 4=Very Often. The teacher SRS, which is scored
in the same way, also has five subscales: approaches to learning,
self-control, interpersonal, externalizing problem behaviors, and
internalizing problem behaviors.

Comparisons of poor and nonpoor kindergartners yielded statistically
significant differences on the approaches to learning and
impulsive/overactive subscales (see Table I-4). Differences on the
self-control subscale approached but did not achieve significance. In
each case, nonpoor kindergartners with IEPs scored better than poor
kindergartners with IEPs. On the teacher SRS, there were significant
differences by poverty status on three subscales: approaches to
learning, interpersonal, and internalizing problem behaviors. On each of
these subscales, poor children scored worse than nonpoor children (see
Table I-4).

*Effects of Family Type and Mother's Education*

The results reported above indicate that poor and nonpoor kindergartners
with IEPs varied in terms of cognitive assessment scores and social
skills ratings. However, it is unclear to what extent these effects are
attributable to poverty rather than to demographic characteristics such
as mother's education and family type that the literature suggests may
be associated with lower achievement. For this reason, linear models
were developed to analyze the effects of mother's education and family
type on kindergartners' cognitive assessment scores and social skills
scores while controlling for poverty.

The results of the linear model suggest that poverty had a negative
effect, or influence, on all three cognitive assessment scores. (This
does not imply that poverty directly caused the scores to be lower; it
merely shows that the poverty variable influenced the scores and that
the direction of the influence was negative.) Mother's education had the
only other significant effect: Among poor kindergartners, children whose
mothers had less than a high school education were significantly more
likely to have a lower math score. Among nonpoor children, those whose
mothers had at least a bachelor's degree had significantly higher scores
on all three cognitive measures. Family type did not have an independent
effect on cognitive assessment scores after controlling for poverty.

In regard to the SRS scores, poverty alone had a negative effect on
teacher ratings of approaches to learning. Among nonpoor children,
maternal education of at least a bachelor's degree had a positive effect
on teacher ratings of internalizing problem behaviors. Family type
influenced social interaction and impulsive behavior as rated by parents
and externalizing problem behaviors as rated by teachers. Kindergartners
from poor one-parent families scored worse on those subscales.

One explanation for the apparent overall lack of influence of mother's
education and family type is that the final models controlled for
poverty. Preliminary analyses showing effects for those two explanatory
variables did not control for poverty, which turned out to be strongly
associated for both. Thus, the apparent initial effects of mother's
education and family type may have been largely attributable to poverty.

*Odds Ratio for Having an IEP*

Finally, we developed a logistic regression model and calculated an odds
ratio to predict the likelihood of having an IEP, using poverty status,
family type, and mother's education as predictors. An odds ratio greater
than 1.0 indicates a direct or positive relationship between two
variables.

Poverty had the only significant main effect at the .05 level. The odds
of having an IEP were 1.5 times greater for children living in poverty
(95% confidence interval, 1.15, 1.97). The interactions of family type
and mother's education were not significant.

Discussion

The findings of this study are limited for several reasons. The ECLS-K
was not designed for making comparisons between groups of students based
on poverty status, nor was it designed specifically to look at children
with disabilities. Another significant limitation is the age of the
children at the time the base-year data were collected, since
kindergartners have a very different disability distribution than do
older children. Data collected in later years of the study may prove
more useful for research on students with disabilities. In addition,
because the ECLS-K did not oversample for children with IEPs, this
subpopulation accounts for only a small proportion of the full sample.

These limitations notwithstanding, the analyses of the ECLS-K reported
here yielded some interesting findings. Poor and nonpoor kindergartners
with disabilities in this study differed on most demographic variables.
Poor kindergartners with IEPs scored lower on all three cognitive
assessment measures and on several of the parent and teacher SRS
subscales. Poor children were 1.5 times more likely to have an IEP than
were nonpoor children. The findings reported here suggest that mother's
education and family type have few effects on outcomes for
kindergartners with IEPs when controlling for poverty.

OSEP's current longitudinal studies of students with disabilities,
particularly the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study
(SEELS), the second National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2), and
the upcoming Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS), will provide
information about poverty status and students with disabilities. OSEP's
longitudinal studies will also be uniquely situated to provide data on
how poor students with IEPs fare over time and on the demographic
differences between poor and nonpoor students with disabilities, as well
as possible differences in services and teacher characteristics that
were not examined here.

# References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (1993). *Toxicological
profile for lead* (PB-93-182475). Atlanta: U.S. Public Health Service.

Astone, N., & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices
and high school completion. *American Sociological Review, 56*, 309-320.

Brody, D.J., Pirkle, L., Kramer, R., et al. (1994). Blood lead levels in
the U.S. population. *Journal of the American Medical Association, 272,*
1257-1262.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). *The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design.* Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Brooks, A.M., Byrd, R.S., Weitzman, M., Auinger, P., & McBride, J.T.
(2001). Impact of low birth weight on early childhood asthma in the
United States. *Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 155,*
401-406.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on
children. *The Future of Children: Children and Poverty, 7,* 55-71.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Update: Blood lead
levelsUnited States, 1991-1994. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
46,* 141-146.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Blood lead levels in
young children: United States and selected states, 1996-1999. *Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 49,* 1133-1137.

Dalaker, J. (2001). *Poverty in the United States: 2000*. U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-214. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P.K. (1994). Economic
deprivation and early-childhood development. *Child Development, 65,*
296-318.

Duncan, G.J., Yeung, W., Brooks-Gunn, J., Smith, J., & Judith, R.
(1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of
children*? American Sociological Review, 63,* 406-423.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2001).
*America's children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2001.*
Retrieved July 23, 2001, from childstats.gov/ac2001/ac01.asp

Fujiura, G.T., & Yamaki, K. (2000). Trends in demography of childhood
poverty and disability. *Exceptional Children, 66,* 187-199.

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

Hack, M., Klein, N., & Taylor, G. (1995). Long-term developmental
outcomes of low birth weight infants. *The Future of Children, 5*,
176-196.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). *Meaningful differences in the everyday
experience of young American children.* Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kaiser, A., & Delaney, E. (1996). The effects of poverty on parenting
young children. *Peabody Journal of Education, 71*, 66-85.

Kaufman, P., Kwon, J.Y., Klein, S., & Chapman, C.D. (2000). *Dropout
rates in the United States: 1999.* Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Korenman, S., Miller, J.E., & Sjaastad, J.E. (1995). Long-term poverty
and child development in the United States: Results from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth. *Children and Youth Services Review, 17,*
127-151.

McLeod, J.D., & Shanahan, M.J. (1993). Poverty, parenting and children's
mental health. *American Sociological Review, 58,* 351-366.

Meyers, M.K., Lukemeyer, A., & Smeeding, T.M. (1996). *Work, welfare,
and the burden of disability: Caring for special needs of children in
poor families.* Retrieved November 16, 2000, from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/wrkwlfes.htm

National Academy of Sciences. (1993). *Measuring lead exposure in
infants, children, and other sensitive populations.* Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). *America's
kindergartners* (NCES 2000-070). Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Center for Environmental Health. (1998). *CDC's lead poisoning
prevention program.* Retrieved July 30, 2001, from http://www.cdc.gov/\
nceh/lead/factsheets/leadfcts.htm

National Center for Environmental Health. (2001). *What every parent
should know about lead poisoning in children.* Retrieved July 31, 2001,
from http://www.cdc.gov/\
nceh/lead/faq/cdc97a.htm

National Research Council. (2002). *Minority students in special and
gifted education*. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to
Children. (2000). *Eliminating childhood lead poisoning: A federal
strategy targeting lead paint hazards.* Retrieved July 23, 2001, from
http://www.epa.gov/\
children/whatwe/leadhaz.pdf

Schwartz, J. (1994) Low-level lead exposure and children's IQ: A
meta-analysis and search for a threshold. *Environmental Research*,
*65,* 42-55.

Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991) Lead and minor hearing impairment.
*Archives of Environmental Health*, *46*, 300-305.

Seelman, K., & Sweeney, S. (1995, Autumn-Winter). The changing universe
of disability. *American Rehabilitation*, 2-12.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2001). *Income eligibility
guidelines.* Retrieved July 20, 2000, from
www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/IEGs&NAPs/\
IEG.Archives/IEGs98-99.htm

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

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

Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., & Mathews, T.J. (1997).
Report of final natality statistics, 1995. *Monthly Vital Statistics
Report, 45* (Supplement).

Zill, N. (1996). Parental schooling and children's health. *Public
Health Reports, 3,* 34-43.

Use of the Developmental Delay Classification for Children Ages 3
Through 9

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of
1991 (P.L. 102-119) amended the definition of "children with
disabilities" under Part B to include children ages 3 through 5 who were
experiencing developmental delays. This change allowed states to look at
a young child's physical, cognitive, communication, social/emotional,
and adaptive development to determine if the child needed special
education and related services. A state could, at its own discretion,
define "developmental delay" to ensure that all eligible preschool-aged
children with disabilities were provided a free appropriate public
education without being inappropriately labeled under one of the other
disability categories used for school-aged children and youth. The IDEA
Amendments of 1997 added some additional requirements pertaining to
states' use of developmental delay. Congressional intent is clearly
stated in the amendments' legislative history:

> "\[t\]he bill expands the definition for service eligibility in part B
> called "developmental delay," to be used at state and local
> discretion, for children ages three through nine. The use of a
> specific disability category to determine a child's eligibility for
> special education and related services frequently has led to the use
> of the category to drive the development of the child's Individualized
> Education Program (IEP) and placement to a greater extent than the
> child's needs. The committee believes that, in the early years of a
> child's development, it is often difficult to determine the precise
> nature of the child's disability. Use of "developmental delay" as part
> of a unified approach will allow the special education and related
> services to be directly related to the child's needs and prevent
> locking the child into an eligibility category which may be
> inappropriate or incorrect, and could actually reduce later referrals
> of children with disabilities to special education" (S. Rep. No.
> 105-17, 1997, pp. 6-7).

The 1997 amendments included three overall changes to previous
developmental delay requirements. The age range to which developmental
delay may apply was expanded to cover ages 3 through 9, and use of the
developmental delay category for this expanded age range was stipulated
as optional for states. In addition, once a state has adopted use of
developmental delay, defined the term, and established an age range,
local education agencies (LEAs) were given the option of using or not
using the classification.

The regulations implementing the new developmental delay requirements
(34 CFR §300.313) clarify the statutory language. First, the regulations
stipulated that states may adopt the term "developmental delay" and
determine whether it applies to children ages 3 through 9 or to a subset
of that age range. The state also defines the term. The state may not
require LEAs to use developmental delay, but any LEA that opts to use it
must conform to both the state's definition of the term, as well keep
within the state's age range. No LEA can use developmental delay absent
the state's adoption of the term and establishment of a definition and
applicable age range. Finally, the regulations state that the other 13
disability categories may continue to be used for children who fall
within the state's prescribed developmental delay age range.

These changes to the statute and regulations raised a series of
questions about the long-term implications of expanding the age range
through age 9. To answer those questions, the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health co-funded a
project in August 1999 to examine the use of developmental delay through
age 9 in states, identify issues affecting states' decisions, and
consider options reflecting various ways developmental delay can be
implemented above age 5. The project was to study whether the expanded
age range would increase the number of children served under IDEA, thus
leading to increased costs for providing services or possible
misidentification of children. The project was also to study whether
developmental delay would simply be an alternate way of reporting
students who would otherwise be eligible under one of the 13 disability
categories under Part B or if children classified as developmentally
delayed have a distinct set of characteristics separating them from any
of the other 13 categories of disability. CDC's interest was based on
its approach to serving children with developmental delays from an
interdisciplinary approach that remediates skill deficits within the
context of the family.

The study involved an in-depth survey of state practices on the use of
the developmental delay classification for preschool-aged children as
well as for children ages 6 through 9. The appendix at the end of this
module is a summary chart of developmental delay age ranges and
classification criteria across states. Twenty states reported using
developmental delay above age 5, while other states said they were
considering expanding the age range above 5. Use of some or all of the
13 Part B disability categories in conjunction with developmental delay
varies among states. In some instances, states continue to use all 13
disability categories in addition to developmental delay, while other
states subsume one or more Part B categories under the definition of
developmental delay. There is also variation in the definition of
developmental delay, including eligibility criteria. For example, some
states use two standard deviations below the mean in one developmental
area and/or one and a half standard deviations below the mean in two
developmental areas, while other states use percent delay in one or two
developmental areas (National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, 2000). Sometimes other criteria in addition to quantitative
scores are used to determine eligibility, such as diagnosed conditions,
professional judgment, or informed clinical opinion (Danaher, 2001).

OSEP was concerned that using developmental delay above age 5 could
greatly expand the population of children served under IDEA. Public
comments on the proposed regulations implementing the IDEA Amendments of
1997 revealed concern about local option to use developmental delay
(*Federal Register*, 1999). In response to these issues, researchers
conducted surveys and held focus groups with state Section 619 preschool
coordinators, state directors of special education, and school
psychologists. Only one fifth of state directors and school
psychologists felt there would be significant increases in the number of
children being served under IDEA; one third of both groups thought there
would be little change, and one third of both groups felt there would be
moderate increases (Simeonsson et al., 2001). Only 5% of the state
Section 619 coordinators believed there would be a substantial increase
in the number of children served (Simeonsson et al., 2001). Local option
to use developmental delay did not appear to be a problem. Ninety-six
percent of state directors responding to the survey reported that
inconsistencies across LEAs do not exist because 95% or more of their
LEAs elected to use developmental delay (Simeonsson et al., 2001).

The surveys and focus group results revealed other areas likely to be
affected by the extension of developmental delay above age 5. Some of
these areas included training and technical assistance, implementation
and programming, family issues, identification and referral, funding
mechanisms, assessments, and transition from developmental delay to
another Part B category or out of special education (Simeonsson et al.,
2001).

In general, the research suggests a positive, child-oriented attitude
about using developmental delay both for preschool-aged children as well
as for children above age 5. Using developmental delay into the
elementary school years was seen as a benefit because it would:

-   serve children earlier who would later be found eligible for special
    education, i.e., keep children from "falling through the cracks";

-   keep a functional and service focus on the child rather than
    deficit-oriented labels that tend to drive services;

-   provide more age appropriate assessments and eligibility
    determinations for the early elementary years when instruments for
    determining some specific disability categories are limited or
    nonexistent;

-   continue to serve children who may not meet specific categorical
    criteria; and

-   provide a smoother transition from preschool into kindergarten or
    first grade (Simeonsson, 2001).

Simeonsson et al. (2001) also provide philosophical underpinnings as
guidance for states to consider as they study changes in state policy
and service delivery systems. These considerations include the premise
that developmental delay focuses on functional limitations of the whole
child rather than characteristics specific to a Part B disability
category. Services can be coordinated from a variety of sources and
targeted to address a child's functional levels rather than providing a
standard menu of services in response to the diagnostic label of a
child. Using developmental delay through age 9 allows for continuity of
services throughout the developmental years without a stigmatizing label
that may be associated with a specific disability category. Finally,
emphasis on functional needs, or a noncategorical approach, may help
reduce later referrals to special education. Designing programs based on
functional needs also aligns with CDC's interdisciplinary approach to
treating the "whole person" (Simeonsson et al., 2001).

Simeonsson et al. (2001) present options for states to consider during
the decision-making process of whether to use developmental delay above
age 5. First, a child eligible for special education under one of the 13
categories could be identified as developmentally delayed rather than
assigned another, potentially more stigmatizing, disability category.
Developmental delay would be the term used to describe any child with a
disability but would not be a discrete additional category. Second,
developmental delay could be a discrete category of disability used as a
last resort, (i.e., when the child's assessed characteristics do not fit
the eligibility requirements of any of the 13 existing categories).
Third, developmental delay could be a discrete additional category based
on functional limitations regardless of whether eligibility criteria
under one of the existing 13 categories were met. A fourth option is a
hybrid category so that developmental delay would not be a discrete
category but would subsume any existing category or categories for which
the criteria of functional limitations would be sufficient to determine
eligibility. This option looks at multiple developmental domains that,
taken individually, would be assigned to a specific disability category
and eliminates the need to determine which disability should be the
child's "main" disability for categorization and service delivery
purposes. The final option is a noncategorical approach for all children
with disabilities. This option focuses on functional limitations
associated with characteristics needed for learning, regulation of
behavior, communication, mobility, seeing and listening, use of limbs
and extremities, literacy and numeracy ability, and daily living skills.

Changes in Numbers of Children Served

In Table I-5, Part B annual child count data collected by OSEP for
school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 show the change in use of
developmental delay above age 5. The figures indicate that there has not
been a substantial increase in the number of children served under Part
B. In fact, the number of 6- through 9-year-old children served
decreased from 1,730,414 in 1999-2000 to 1,710,389 in 2000-01. There was
a small increase in children ages 6 through 9 categorized as
developmentally delayed (from 19,304 to 28,935 students), which could
reflect the fact that more states used developmental delay above age 5
in 2000-01 than in the previous year.

State-reported data indicate a steady increase in the number of states
expanding use of developmental delay above age 5. In 1999-2000, 18
states used developmental delay above age 5, but did not necessarily use
it for the full 6-through-9 age range. By 2000-01, 20 states had
expanded their age range above age 5, again not necessarily for the
entire 6-through-9 age range. Most of the children who are served as
developmentally delayed above age 5 are 6 years old.

States continue to study the option of using developmental delay for
children with disabilities above age 5. Although half of the states have
extended use of the classification to 6- through 9-year-olds, there has
not been a surge in the numbers of children 6 through 9 served as
developmentally delayed. Beginning at age 3, there is a steady decrease
in the developmental delay classification as chronological age
increases. During 2000-01, 33.4% of 3-year-olds were reported as
developmentally delayed, compared to 29.8% of 4-year-olds, and 16.9% of
5-year-olds.

Use of developmental delay continues in all but two states that adopted
it. Nearly 25% of preschool-aged children with disabilities are
categorized as developmentally delayed. Comparative data to show if this
number is increasing are not yet available because 2000-01 was the first
year that child count data for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children were
reported by disability category. The options for using developmental
delay in relation to the other 13 disability categories for preschoolers
are similar to the recommendations set forth by Simeonsson et al.
(2001). Danaher (2001) reports that some states use developmental delay
for the age range to which it applies only after considering other
disability categories. More than half of the states add developmental
delay to the list of Part B categories (i.e., developmental delay is a
discrete, 14^th^ category).

Table I-5

Total Number of 6-, 7-, 8-, and 9-Year-Old Students With Disabilities
and Number With Developmental\
Delay for School Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01

  ------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------
               All            6-year-olds   All            7-year-olds   All            8-year-olds   All            9-year-olds
               6-year-olds    with DD       7-year-olds    with DD       8-year-olds    with DD       9-year-olds    with DD
               with                         with                         with                         with           
               disabilities                 disabilities                 disabilities                 disabilities   

  School year  328,674        10,021        397,967        5,153         470,944        3,103         532,830        1,027
  1999-2000                                                                                                          

  School year  331,439        14,593        393,828        8,278         463,958        4,491         521,164        1,573
  2000-01                                                                                                            
  ------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------

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

Summary

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 extended the use of the term developmental
delay for 6- through 9-year-olds at states' discretion. OSEP and the CDC
commissioned a study of how states have used the term since the 1997
amendments. Twenty states reported using the developmental delay option
for children over 5, while other states said they are considering doing
so. State-reported data suggest that there has been no surge in the
number of children reported to be receiving services under IDEA and that
use of the developmental delay option steadily decreases as
chronological age increases.

# References

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Part 300. U.S. Government
Printing Office (2001).

Danaher, J. (2001). Eligibility policies for young children under Part B
of IDEA. (*NECTAS Notes No. 9*). Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham
Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical
Assistance Center.

*Federal Register*. (March 12, 1999). Attachment 1 -- Analysis of
comments and changes, *64*, 48, 12,540.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Amendments of 1997. *20 USC
1400 et seq*.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2000).
*Developmental delay: Review of research and future directions*.
Proceedings of a policy forum held July 19-21, 2000. Chapel Hill, NC:
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

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

Simeonsson, R.J., Huntington, G.S., McMillen, J.S., Danaher, J.,
Aberl-Boone, H., & McMillan, V.J. (2001). *Study of classification of
disability in special education: Extending the definition of
developmental delay from 6 through 9 years*. (CDC RO4/CCR414143-03).
Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

Appendix

Summary Table of Early Childhood Special Education Eligibility Criteria
in the States, District of Columbia,\
American Samoa, and Guam as of October 2001

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+=====+=======================+=================+=================+=====+
| AL  | "Developmental        | 3 through 8     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 1   |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 | /01 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Supporting evidence   |                 |                 |     |
|     | on                    |                 |                 |     |
|     | criterion-referenced  |                 |                 |     |
|     | or other              |                 |                 |     |
|     | norm-referenced       |                 |                 |     |
|     | instrument and        |                 |                 |     |
|     | evidence delay        |                 |                 |     |
|     | adversely affects     |                 |                 |     |
|     | performance of        |                 |                 |     |
|     | age-appropriate       |                 |                 |     |
|     | activities            |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| AK  | "Early childhood      | 3 through 8     | *Used:* All     | G   |
|     | developmentally       |                 |                 |     |
|     | delayed":             |                 | *Restriction*:  | 9   |
|     |                       |                 | "Early          | /01 |
|     | 2 SD or 25% delay in  |                 | childhood       |     |
|     | one area              |                 | developmentally |     |
|     |                       |                 | delayed" used   |     |
|     | 1.7 SD or 20% delay   |                 | as a last       |     |
|     | in two areas          |                 | resort          |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| AS  | None                  | N/A             | *Used:* All     |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| AZ  | "Preschool moderately | 3 to "required  | *Used:*         | L   |
|     | delayed":             | age for         | Hearing, vision |     |
|     |                       | kindergarten"   | impairment      | 5   |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   | (LEA may admit  |                 | /00 |
|     |                       | child within 90 | *Subsumed:* All |     |
|     | "Preschool severely   | days of third   | others          |     |
|     | delayed":             | birthday but    |                 |     |
|     |                       | receives no     |                 |     |
|     | More than 3 SD in one | state or        |                 |     |
|     | area                  | Federal funds   |                 |     |
|     |                       | until date of   |                 |     |
|     | "Preschool            | third birthday) |                 |     |
|     | speech/language       |                 |                 |     |
|     | delayed":             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD and assessment |                 |                 |     |
|     | indicates child not   |                 |                 |     |
|     | eligible under a      |                 |                 |     |
|     | different category    |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *plus*                |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Parent input,         |                 |                 |     |
|     | comprehensive         |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental         |                 |                 |     |
|     | assessment and        |                 |                 |     |
|     | preponderance of      |                 |                 |     |
|     | information           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| AR  | "Noncategorical":     | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:*     | R   |
|     |                       |                 | Mental          |     |
|     | Means a condition of  |                 | retardation,    | 6   |
|     | developmental delay   |                 | emotional       | /00 |
|     | which impairs a       |                 | disturbance,    |     |
|     | child's functioning   |                 | learning        |     |
|     |                       |                 | disability      |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Delays in self-help   |                 |                 |     |
|     | and motor skills      |                 |                 |     |
|     | (gross and fine) can  |                 |                 |     |
|     | be expressed in       |                 |                 |     |
|     | months, percentile,   |                 |                 |     |
|     | or age equivalents    |                 |                 |     |
|     | using                 |                 |                 |     |
|     | criterion-referenced  |                 |                 |     |
|     | tests:                |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 3 years: 11 months,   |                 |                 |     |
|     | \<13 percentile, 2 yr |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1 mo or lessone area  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 8 months, \<7         |                 |                 |     |
|     | percentile, 2 yr 4 mo |                 |                 |     |
|     | or lesstwo areas      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 4 years: 14 months,   |                 |                 |     |
|     | \<3 percentile, 2 yr  |                 |                 |     |
|     | 10 mo or lessone area |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 11 months, \<7        |                 |                 |     |
|     | percentile, 3 yr 1 mo |                 |                 |     |
|     | or lesstwo areas      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 5 years: 18 months,   |                 |                 |     |
|     | \<3 percentile, 3 yr  |                 |                 |     |
|     | 6 mo or lessone area  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 14 months, \<7        |                 |                 |     |
|     | percentile, 3 yr 10   |                 |                 |     |
|     | mo or lesstwo areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| CA  | "Individual with      | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:* All | L   |
|     | exceptional needs"    |                 |                 |     |
|     | has disabling         |                 |                 | 1   |
|     | condition per 34 CFR  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | 300.7 or,             |                 |                 |     |
|     | "established medical  |                 |                 |     |
|     | disability"           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| CO  | "Preschool child with | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | a disability":\       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in one area or |                 | *Restriction*:  | 3   |
|     | 7 percentile or       |                 | "Preschool      | /99 |
|     | standard score of 76  |                 | child with a    |     |
|     |                       |                 | disability"     |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 | used as a last  |     |
|     |                       |                 | resort          |     |
|     | Has identifiable      |                 |                 |     |
|     | condition known to be |                 |                 |     |
|     | associated with       |                 |                 |     |
|     | significant delays in |                 |                 |     |
|     | development           |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Informed opinion of   |                 |                 |     |
|     | assessment team with  |                 |                 |     |
|     | written documentation |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| CT  | "Developmental        | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | L   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 1   |
|     | Significant delay in  |                 |                 | 998 |
|     | one or more areas     |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| DE  | "Developmental delay" | 3 only          | For 3-year-olds | R   |
|     | --- 3-year-olds only  |                 |                 |     |
|     | (categorical for      |                 | *Used:* Autism, | 7   |
|     | 4-year-olds):         |                 | deaf-blindness, | /00 |
|     |                       |                 | hearing         |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 | impairment,     |     |
|     |                       |                 | severe and      |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 | trainable       |     |
|     |                       |                 | mental          |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 | disability,     |     |
|     |                       |                 | physical        |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 | impairment,     |     |
|     | of IEP team based on  |                 | traumatic brain |     |
|     | multiple sources of   |                 | injury, visual  |     |
|     | information and       |                 | impairment      |     |
|     | written justification |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Subsumed:*     |     |
|     |                       |                 | Learning        |     |
|     |                       |                 | disability,     |     |
|     |                       |                 | emotional       |     |
|     |                       |                 | disturbance,    |     |
|     |                       |                 | educational     |     |
|     |                       |                 | mental          |     |
|     |                       |                 | disability      |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | For 3- and      |     |
|     |                       |                 | 4-year-olds     |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Used*:         |     |
|     |                       |                 | Preschool       |     |
|     |                       |                 | speech delay    |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | For 4-year-olds |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Used:* All     |     |
|     |                       |                 | others          |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| DC  | Uses Part B           | N/A             | *Used:* All     |     |
|     | categories only       |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| FL  | "Developmentally      | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delayed":             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 5   |
|     | 2 SD or 25% delay in  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | one area              |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or 20% delay   |                 |                 |     |
|     | in two areas          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Informed clinical     |                 |                 |     |
|     | opinion               |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| GA  | "Significant          | 3 through 7     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | developmental delay": |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 8   |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 | /01 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| GU  | "Developmental delay" | B through 5     |                 | O   |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 2   |
|     |                       |                 |                 | /01 |
|     |                       |                 |                 | pc  |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| HI  | "Developmental        | 3 through 8     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       | Note: Different |                 | 6   |
|     | 1.5 SD in one area,   | criteria for 6  |                 | /00 |
|     | except if the area is | through 8       |                 |     |
|     | cognitive, then       |                 |                 |     |
|     | adaptive development  |                 |                 |     |
|     | must also be 1.5      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | SD below the mean (3  |                 |                 |     |
|     | through 5)            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in 3 areas (6  |                 |                 |     |
|     | through 8)            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Team, including       |                 |                 |     |
|     | parent, determines    |                 |                 |     |
|     | that patterns of      |                 |                 |     |
|     | learning deviate from |                 |                 |     |
|     | age expectations      |                 |                 |     |
|     | across settings and   |                 |                 |     |
|     | provides the basis    |                 |                 |     |
|     | and method used in    |                 |                 |     |
|     | determining           |                 |                 |     |
|     | eligibility           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| ID  | "Developmental        | 3 through 9     | *Subsumed:*     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 | Learning        |     |
|     |                       |                 | disabled (for 3 | 4   |
|     | Used when other       |                 | through 5)      | /00 |
|     | disability categories |                 |                 |     |
|     | do not apply          |                 | *Used:* All     | and |
|     |                       |                 | others          |     |
|     | 2 SD or 30% delay in  |                 |                 | G   |
|     | age equivalency or    |                 | *Restriction*:  |     |
|     | function at less than |                 | "Developmental  | 4   |
|     | the 3^rd^ percentile  |                 | delay" used as  | /97 |
|     | in one area           |                 | a last resort   |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   |                 |                 |     |
|     | in age equivalency or |                 |                 |     |
|     | function at less than |                 |                 |     |
|     | the 7^th^ percentile  |                 |                 |     |
|     | in two or more areas  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | LEAs may apply for    |                 |                 |     |
|     | and use               |                 |                 |     |
|     | noncategorical waiver |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| IL  | "Developmentally      | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delayed":             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 5   |
|     | Meet the criteria of  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | one or more of the    |                 |                 |     |
|     | other disability      |                 |                 |     |
|     | categories and are    |                 |                 |     |
|     | experiencing delay in |                 |                 |     |
|     | at least one area     |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| IN  | "Developmental        | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 6   |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 | /00 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| IA  | SEAs and LEAs may     | N/A             | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | identify students     |                 |                 |     |
|     | with disabilities     |                 |                 | 2   |
|     | using either a        |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | categorical or        |                 |                 |     |
|     | noncategorical model. |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | "\...diagnosis of     |                 |                 |     |
|     | specific disability,  |                 |                 |     |
|     | such as autism or     |                 |                 |     |
|     | sensory impairment    |                 |                 |     |
|     | may enhance the       |                 |                 |     |
|     | development and       |                 |                 |     |
|     | ongoing provision of  |                 |                 |     |
|     | an appropriate        |                 |                 |     |
|     | educational program." |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| KS  | "Early Childhood      | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:* All | R   |
|     | Disability":          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       | 6 through 9     | *Used:* All     | 5   |
|     | Significant delay in  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | one or more           |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | "Developmental        |                 |                 |     |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Definition as per     |                 |                 |     |
|     | Federal regulations   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| KY  | "Developmental        | 3 through 8     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 9   |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 | /00 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 |                 |     |
|     | of significant        |                 |                 |     |
|     | atypical quality or   |                 |                 |     |
|     | pattern of            |                 |                 |     |
|     | development if normed |                 |                 |     |
|     | scores are            |                 |                 |     |
|     | inconclusive and      |                 |                 |     |
|     | there is written      |                 |                 |     |
|     | documentation         |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| LA  | "Developmental        | 3 through 8     | *Used:* All     | O   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 4   |
|     | > 1.5 SD or 25% delay |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | > in one area         |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| ME  | "Developmental        | Birth through 5 | *Used:* All for | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 | ages 3 through  |     |
|     |                       |                 | 5 (the birth    | 6   |
|     | Parent report,        |                 | through 2       | /00 |
|     | informed clinical     |                 | program under   |     |
|     | judgment,             |                 | Part C of IDEA  |     |
|     | standardized measures |                 | uses only       |     |
|     | where appropriate     |                 | "developmental  |     |
|     |                       |                 | delay")         |     |
|     | 2 SD or 25% delay in  |                 |                 |     |
|     | one area              |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or 15% delay   |                 |                 |     |
|     | in two areas          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1 SD or 10% delay in  |                 |                 |     |
|     | one area, plus        |                 |                 |     |
|     | established           |                 |                 |     |
|     | biological risk       |                 |                 |     |
|     | factors               |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MD  | "Developmental        | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | O   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 10  |
|     | 25% delay in one area |                 |                 | /01 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 | pc  |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Atypical development  |                 |                 |     |
|     | or behavior           |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Diagnosed condition   |                 |                 |     |
|     | with high probability |                 |                 |     |
|     | of delay              |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MA  | "Developmental        | 3 through 9     | > *Used:* All   | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 9   |
|     | > Learning capacity   |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | > significantly       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > limited, impaired,  |                 |                 |     |
|     | > or delayed and is   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > exhibited by        |                 |                 |     |
|     | > difficulties in one |                 |                 |     |
|     | > or more areas       |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MI  | "Preprimary           | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | impaired":            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Restriction*:  | 4   |
|     | > 50% delay in one or |                 | "Preprimary     | /97 |
|     | > more areas,         |                 | impaired" used  |     |
|     | > measured by more    |                 | as a last       |     |
|     | > than one            |                 | resort          |     |
|     | > developmental       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > scale, which cannot |                 |                 |     |
|     | > be resolved by      |                 |                 |     |
|     | > medical or          |                 |                 |     |
|     | > nutritional         |                 |                 |     |
|     | > intervention (use   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > only if one of the  |                 |                 |     |
|     | > categories is not   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > clearly             |                 |                 |     |
|     | > differentiated)     |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MN  | "Developmental        | 3 through 6     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 6   |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 | /00 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Medically diagnosed   |                 |                 |     |
|     | syndrome or condition |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 |                 |     |
|     | (i.e., team override) |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MS  | "Developmental        | Birth through 5 | *Used:* All     | P   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 4   |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | in two areas          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Diagnosis of disorder |                 |                 |     |
|     | of known etiology or  |                 |                 |     |
|     | chronic or acute      |                 |                 |     |
|     | medical condition by  |                 |                 |     |
|     | physician with        |                 |                 |     |
|     | research to support   |                 |                 |     |
|     | predicted delays      |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MO  | "Young Child with a   | 3 through 5 if  | *Used:* All     | P   |
|     | Developmental Delay": | identified      |                 |     |
|     |                       | prior to age of |                 | 4   |
|     | 2 SD or equivalent    | kindergarten    |                 | /00 |
|     | levels in one area    | eligibility     |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or equivalent  |                 |                 |     |
|     | levels in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 |                 |     |
|     | -- significant        |                 |                 |     |
|     | deficit that does not |                 |                 |     |
|     | meet stated           |                 |                 |     |
|     | criterion; or,        |                 |                 |     |
|     | functioning above     |                 |                 |     |
|     | criterion due to      |                 |                 |     |
|     | intensive early       |                 |                 |     |
|     | intervention, to      |                 |                 |     |
|     | avoid regression      |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| MT  | "Child with           | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:* All | R   |
|     | disabilities... ages  |                 |                 |     |
|     | 3 through 5":         |                 |                 | 7   |
|     | experiences a severe  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | delay in development, |                 |                 |     |
|     | meets criteria of one |                 |                 |     |
|     | of the disability     |                 |                 |     |
|     | categories            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NE  | "Developmental        | Birth through   | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               | 8+ (at          |                 |     |
|     |                       | discretion of   |                 | 10  |
|     | 2 SD in one area      | LEA beyond age  |                 | /00 |
|     |                       | 5)              |                 |     |
|     | 1.3 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Informed clinical     |                 |                 |     |
|     | opinions of qualified |                 |                 |     |
|     | professionals in      |                 |                 |     |
|     | consultation with the |                 |                 |     |
|     | family                |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Diagnosed condition   |                 |                 |     |
|     | with high probability |                 |                 |     |
|     | of resulting in a     |                 |                 |     |
|     | substantial delay     |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NV  | "Developmentally      | 3 until age 6   | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delayed":             | on or before    |                 |     |
|     |                       | 9/30 of current |                 | 2   |
|     | 2 SD in one area      | school year     |                 | /00 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1 SD in two areas     |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NH  | "Developmental        | 3 through 9     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Restriction:*  | 7   |
|     | Has impairment in     |                 | Must be         | /01 |
|     | development           |                 | determined to   |     |
|     | [and]{.underline} has |                 | have one of the |     |
|     | been determined to    |                 | other           |     |
|     | have one of the other |                 | educationally   |     |
|     | educationally         |                 | disabling       |     |
|     | disabling conditions  |                 | conditions      |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NJ  | "Preschool disabled": | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Identified disabling  |                 |                 | 6   |
|     | condition or          |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | measurable            |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental         |                 |                 |     |
|     | impairment            |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NM  | "Developmentally      | 3 through 9     | *Used:* All     | O   |
|     | delayed":             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Restriction*:  | 12  |
|     | 2 SD or 30% in one    |                 | "               | /00 |
|     | area                  |                 | Developmentally |     |
|     |                       |                 | delayed" used   |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 | as a last       |     |
|     |                       |                 | resort          |     |
|     | Professional judgment |                 |                 |     |
|     | of qualified          |                 |                 |     |
|     | evaluator and IEP     |                 |                 |     |
|     | team                  |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NY  | "Preschool student    | 3 through 4     | *Used:*         | R   |
|     | with a disability":   |                 | Autistic, deaf, |     |
|     |                       |                 | deaf-blind,     | 1   |
|     | 2 SD or 33% delay in  |                 | hearing         | /00 |
|     | one area              |                 | impaired,       |     |
|     |                       |                 | orthopedically  |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   |                 | impaired, other |     |
|     | in two areas          |                 | health          |     |
|     |                       |                 | impaired,       |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 | traumatic       |     |
|     |                       |                 | brain-injured,  |     |
|     | 12-month delay in one |                 | visually        |     |
|     | or more areas         |                 | impaired        |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Subsumed:*     |     |
|     |                       |                 | Mentally        |     |
|     |                       |                 | retarded,       |     |
|     |                       |                 | multiple        |     |
|     |                       |                 | disabilities,   |     |
|     |                       |                 | emotionally     |     |
|     |                       |                 | disturbed,      |     |
|     |                       |                 | learning        |     |
|     |                       |                 | disabled,       |     |
|     |                       |                 | speech or       |     |
|     |                       |                 | language        |     |
|     |                       |                 | impaired        |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NC  | "Developmentally      | 3 through 7     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | Delayed":             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 8   |
|     | \(a\)                 |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | Delayed/Atypical      |                 |                 |     |
|     | Development           |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > 2 SD or 30% delay   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > in one area         |                 |                 |     |
|     | >                     |                 |                 |     |
|     | > 1.5 SD or 25% delay |                 |                 |     |
|     | > in two areas        |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | and                   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > Informed            |                 |                 |     |
|     | >                     |                 |                 |     |
|     |  educational/clinical |                 |                 |     |
|     | > opinion and         |                 |                 |     |
|     | > appropriate         |                 |                 |     |
|     | > assessment measures |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.  Delayed/Atypical  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     Behavior          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > Evidence that the   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > patterns of         |                 |                 |     |
|     | > behavior occur in   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > more than one       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > setting over an     |                 |                 |     |
|     | > extended period of  |                 |                 |     |
|     | > time.               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | (i) For ages 3-5, one |                 |                 |     |
|     |     or more of the    |                 |                 |     |
|     |     following:        |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```{=html}            |                 |                 |     |
|     | <!-- -->              |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```                   |                 |                 |     |
|     | a.  delayed or        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     abnormalities in  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     achieving         |                 |                 |     |
|     |     milestones and/or |                 |                 |     |
|     |     difficulties with |                 |                 |     |
|     |     issues, such as:  |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| NC  | 1.  attachment and/or |                 |                 |     |
| (c  |     interaction with  |                 |                 |     |
| ont |     other adults,     |                 |                 |     |
| 'd) |     peers, materials, |                 |                 |     |
|     |     and objects;      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2.  ability to        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     communicate       |                 |                 |     |
|     |     emotional needs;  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 3.  ability to        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     tolerate          |                 |                 |     |
|     |     frustration and   |                 |                 |     |
|     |     control behavior, |                 |                 |     |
|     |     or                |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 4.  ability to        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     inhibit           |                 |                 |     |
|     |     aggression.       |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```{=html}            |                 |                 |     |
|     | <!-- -->              |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```                   |                 |                 |     |
|     | b.  Fearfulness,      |                 |                 |     |
|     |     withdrawal, or    |                 |                 |     |
|     |     other distress    |                 |                 |     |
|     |     that does not     |                 |                 |     |
|     |     respond to        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     comforting or     |                 |                 |     |
|     |     interventions;    |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | c.  Indiscriminate    |                 |                 |     |
|     |     sociability, for  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     example,          |                 |                 |     |
|     |     excessive         |                 |                 |     |
|     |     familiarity with  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     relative          |                 |                 |     |
|     |     strangers; or     |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | d.  Self-injurious or |                 |                 |     |
|     |     other aggressive  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     behavior.         |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```{=html}            |                 |                 |     |
|     | <!-- -->              |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```                   |                 |                 |     |
|     | i.  ages 6-7, two or  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     more of the       |                 |                 |     |
|     |     following:        |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```{=html}            |                 |                 |     |
|     | <!-- -->              |                 |                 |     |
|     | ```                   |                 |                 |     |
|     | a.  the inability to  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     interact          |                 |                 |     |
|     |     appropriately     |                 |                 |     |
|     |     with adults and   |                 |                 |     |
|     |     peers;            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | b.  the inability to  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     cope with normal  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     environmental or  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     situational       |                 |                 |     |
|     |     demands;          |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | c.  the use of        |                 |                 |     |
|     |     aggression or     |                 |                 |     |
|     |     self-injurious    |                 |                 |     |
|     |     behavior, or      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | d.  the inability to  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     learn due to      |                 |                 |     |
|     |     social/emotional  |                 |                 |     |
|     |     deficits.         |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > \(iii\)             |                 |                 |     |
|     | > Identification      |                 |                 |     |
|     | > based on informed   |                 |                 |     |
|     | > educational/\       |                 |                 |     |
|     | > clinical opinion    |                 |                 |     |
|     | > and appropriate     |                 |                 |     |
|     | > assessment          |                 |                 |     |
|     | > measures.           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| ND  | "Non-categorical      | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               | (through the    |                 |     |
|     |                       | end of the      | *Restriction:*  | 12  |
|     | 2.0 SD or 30% delay   | school year in  | Use limited to  | /99 |
|     | in one area,          | which the child | unclear         |     |
|     |                       | turns 6)        | diagnosis and   |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or 20% in two  |                 | well documented |     |
|     | areas                 |                 | delay           |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Syndromes and         |                 |                 |     |
|     | disorders associated  |                 |                 |     |
|     | with disability;      |                 |                 |     |
|     | children functioning  |                 |                 |     |
|     | above stated criteria |                 |                 |     |
|     | but eligible based on |                 |                 |     |
|     | expected regression   |                 |                 |     |
|     | if intervention       |                 |                 |     |
|     | discontinued;         |                 |                 |     |
|     | children affected by  |                 |                 |     |
|     | severe environmental  |                 |                 |     |
|     | deprivation such as   |                 |                 |     |
|     | both parents being    |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmentally       |                 |                 |     |
|     | disabled              |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Use limited to        |                 |                 |     |
|     | unclear diagnosis and |                 |                 |     |
|     | well documented delay |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| OH  | "Preschool child with | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:* All | R   |
|     | a disability":        |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 12  |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 | /00 |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 | (Dr |
|     |                       |                 |                 | aft |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 | 2   |
|     |                       |                 |                 | .0) |
|     | Meets specific        |                 |                 |     |
|     | criteria for vision   |                 |                 |     |
|     | or hearing deficit    |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| OK  | "Developmental        | 3 through 7     | *Used:* Deaf    | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 | blindness,      |     |
|     |                       |                 | deafness or     | 4   |
|     | 2 SD or 50% in one    |                 | hearing         | /00 |
|     | area                  |                 | impairment,     |     |
|     |                       |                 | visual          | (   |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   |                 | impairment      | Dra |
|     | in two areas          |                 | including       | ft) |
|     |                       |                 | blindness       |     |
|     | For ages 6 -- 7 may   |                 |                 |     |
|     | use categorical       |                 |                 |     |
|     | criteria              |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| OR  | "Developmental        | Birth to age of | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":\              | eligibility for |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   | kindergarten    |                 | 5   |
|     | (Birth to 3, 3 to 5   |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | years)                |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2.0 SD in one area    |                 |                 |     |
|     | (Birth to 3 years)    |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| PA  | "Developmental        | 3 to            | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               | kindergarten    |                 |     |
|     |                       | entry, could be |                 | 6   |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   | 5.5 years as    |                 | /01 |
|     | in one area           | set by LEA      |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| RI  | "Developmental        | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 12  |
|     | 2 SD or 25% delay in  |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | one area              |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Diagnosed condition   |                 |                 |     |
|     | which would adversely |                 |                 |     |
|     | affect educational    |                 |                 |     |
|     | performance           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| SC  | "Preschool child with | 3 through 5     | > *Subsumed:*   | R   |
|     | a disability":        |                 | > All           |     |
|     |                       | Pilot - 6       |                 | 10  |
|     | 2 SD in one area      | through 8 or    |                 | /99 |
|     |                       | any subpart     |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 | O   |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 | 4   |
|     |                       |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | Meets state criteria  |                 |                 |     |
|     | for selected          |                 |                 |     |
|     | categories            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Pilot -- Significant  |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental delay   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| SD  | "Developmental        | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 9   |
|     | Has Part B disability |                 |                 | /98 |
|     | or severe delay which |                 |                 |     |
|     | is defined as         |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| TN  | "Developmental        | 3 through 9     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               | (initial        |                 |     |
|     |                       | eligibility     | TN also uses a  | 7   |
|     | 2 SD or 40% delay in  | before age 7)   | "functionally   | /00 |
|     | one area              |                 | delayed"        |     |
|     |                       |                 | category of     | Pr  |
|     | 1.5 SD or 25% delay   |                 | disability      | opo |
|     | in two areas          |                 |                 | sed |
|     |                       |                 | *Restriction*:  |     |
|     | *and*                 |                 | "Developmental  |     |
|     |                       |                 | delay" used as  |     |
|     | Professional          |                 | a last resort,  |     |
|     | observation in the    |                 | initial         |     |
|     | child's natural       |                 | eligibility     |     |
|     | environment           |                 | before age 7    |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *and*                 |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Interview with family |                 |                 |     |
|     | member documenting    |                 |                 |     |
|     | child's strengths and |                 |                 |     |
|     | needs                 |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| TX  | "Noncategorical Early | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | Childhood":           |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Subsumed:*     | 3   |
|     | May be used when a    |                 | learning        | /01 |
|     | child meets criteria  |                 | disabled,       |     |
|     | for learning          |                 | mental          |     |
|     | disability, mental    |                 | retardation,    |     |
|     | retardation,          |                 | emotional       |     |
|     | emotional             |                 | disturbance,    |     |
|     | disturbance, or       |                 | autism          |     |
|     | autism, or when       |                 |                 |     |
|     | evaluation data       |                 |                 |     |
|     | establish a belief    |                 |                 |     |
|     | that the child meets  |                 |                 |     |
|     | the requirements for  |                 |                 |     |
|     | one or more of these  |                 |                 |     |
|     | categories            |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| UT  | "Developmental        | 3 through 7     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 | *Restriction*:  | 6   |
|     | 2.5 SD or \< 1        |                 | "when adequate  | /00 |
|     | percentile in one     |                 | evaluation data |     |
|     | area                  |                 | are available,  |     |
|     |                       |                 | children must   |     |
|     | 2.0 SD or \< 2        |                 | be classified   |     |
|     | percentile in two     |                 | in one of the   |     |
|     | areas                 |                 | other specific  |     |
|     |                       |                 | disabilities    |     |
|     | 1.5 SD or \< 7        |                 | categories"     |     |
|     | percentile in three   |                 |                 |     |
|     | areas                 |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| VT  | "Eligible for         | 3 through 5     | *Used:* None    | R   |
|     | essential early       |                 |                 |     |
|     | education":           |                 |                 | 3   |
|     |                       |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | 40% delay in one area |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Medical condition     |                 |                 |     |
|     | that may result in    |                 |                 |     |
|     | significant delays    |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | If a child receives   |                 |                 |     |
|     | special instruction,  |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental therapy |                 |                 |     |
|     | services, or speech   |                 |                 |     |
|     | services through an   |                 |                 |     |
|     | IFSP, eligibility is  |                 |                 |     |
|     | established until 3   |                 |                 |     |
|     | years from initial    |                 |                 |     |
|     | Part C eligibility    |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| VA  | "Developmental        | 2 through 8 (2  | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | delay":               | through 5       |                 |     |
|     |                       | required,\      |                 | 1   |
|     | Delay in one or more  | 5 through 8     |                 | /01 |
|     | areas (local          | optional)       |                 |     |
|     | standards used, 25%   |                 |                 |     |
|     | delay or 1.0 SD per   |                 |                 |     |
|     | anecdotal reports)    |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| WA  | "Developmental        | 3 through 8     | *Subsumed:* All | R   |
|     | delay":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       | Note: Different |                 | 1   |
|     | Child meets criteria  | criteria for 6  |                 | /00 |
|     | for developmental     | through 8       |                 |     |
|     | delay ---             |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     | (does not apply for 6 |                 |                 |     |
|     | through 8)            |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *or*                  |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Qualify for one of    |                 |                 |     |
|     | the Part B categories |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

Appendix (continued)

+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| St  | Developmental delay   | Age range for   | Use of Part B   | Sou |
| ate | (DD) or early         | DD or early     | categories      | rce |
|     | childhood-specific\   | chi             | (those used,    | ^[e |
|     | ca                    | ldhood-specific | those subsumed  | ]{. |
|     | tegory/classification | category^[b     | in definition   | und |
|     | and                   | ]{.underline}/^ | of              | erl |
|     | crite                 |                 | DD)^[c]         | ine |
|     | ria^[a]{.underline}/^ |                 | {.underline}/^\ | }/\ |
|     |                       |                 | restriction on  | ^   |
|     |                       |                 | DD/EC           | and |
|     |                       |                 | category^[d     | d   |
|     |                       |                 | ]{.underline}/^ | ate |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ^[f |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ]{. |
|     |                       |                 |                 | und |
|     |                       |                 |                 | erl |
|     |                       |                 |                 | ine |
|     |                       |                 |                 | }/^ |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| WV  | "Preschool special    | 3 through 5     | *Subsumed:* All | R   |
|     | needs":               |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 | 1   |
|     | > 25% delay in two    |                 |                 | /00 |
|     | > areas               |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| WI  | "Significant          | 3 through 5     | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | developmental delay": | *or* below      |                 |     |
|     |                       | compulsory      | *Restriction*:  | 2   |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   | school age      | "Significant    | /97 |
|     | or other appropriate  |                 | developmental   |     |
|     | measures.             |                 | delay" used     | O   |
|     |                       |                 | after other     |     |
|     | Other suspected       |                 | categories      | 4/  |
|     | handicapping          |                 | considered      | 97, |
|     | conditions shall be   |                 |                 | 8   |
|     | considered            |                 |                 | /98 |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+
| WY  | "Developmental        | 3 to enrollment | *Used:* All     | R   |
|     | disability":          | in a public     |                 |     |
|     |                       | school program  | *Restriction*:  | 5   |
|     | Child does not        |                 | "Developmental  | /00 |
|     | qualify in other      |                 | disability"     |     |
|     | categories;\          |                 | used as a last  |     |
|     | 2 SD in one area      |                 | resort          |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | 1.5 SD in two areas   |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | *and*                 |                 |                 |     |
|     |                       |                 |                 |     |
|     | Confirmation of       |                 |                 |     |
|     | developmental         |                 |                 |     |
|     | disability through    |                 |                 |     |
|     | observation data and  |                 |                 |     |
|     | information obtained  |                 |                 |     |
|     | from the child's      |                 |                 |     |
|     | parent(s), teachers,  |                 |                 |     |
|     | and/or primary        |                 |                 |     |
|     | caregivers.           |                 |                 |     |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----+

How To Read This Table

[a]{.underline}/ Contains the state's term(s) in quotation marks for
disability category used only for young children, typically in the age
range 3 through 9 or a subset thereof.

Contains the eligibility criteria for said term(s).

Criteria for early-childhood-specific eligibility categories typically
reference a child's status in one or more developmental areas. The term
"area" in this column refers to developmental area. Although states vary
somewhat, most list five areas (or some variation thereof): cognitive,
language, physical, psychosocial, and self-help. SD refers to standard
deviations below the mean on a norm-referenced standardized instrument.

[b]{.underline}/ States may change their developmental delay age range
at any time, so numbers presented here are subject to change.

[c]{.underline}/ "Used" indicates which Part B disability categories are
used for children in the early childhood age range designated by the
state.

Subsumed" indicates which Part B disability categories the state
includes within its definition or criteria for DD or for its early
childhood-specific category; developmental delay is used for categories
such as learning disabilities which may be difficult to definitively
diagnose in younger children.

[d]{.underline}/ "Restriction" indicates whether the state policy is to
use developmental delay, or other disability term specific to early
childhood, only if the child is not eligible under another category but
meets the criteria for developmental delay, or other term.

[e]{.underline}/ R \-- Rules or regulations; G \-- Guidance document
such as Guidelines, Handbook; L \-- state law, statute, code; O \--
Other - correspondence, memo distributed within the state on
implementing eligibility policy; P \-- state's plan and procedures for
implementing IDEA submitted to OSEP; Subscript (pc) - personal
communication from Section 619 Coordinator or other state official.

[f]{.underline}/ Date on the source document, date effective, or most
recent date acknowledged. For example, some state documents on-line may
show the most recent date that volume of regulations was updated. It may
not mean that the regulations for special education changed on that
date. NASDSE's FORUM project has provided leadership in the National
State Policy Database and maintains a table of expected state
regulations revisions. Many states have revised their regulations very
recently or are in the process of doing so.

[^1]: For more information on the SPeNSE study design and results, go to
    www.spense.org.

[^2]: SPeNSE data were weighted to generate national estimates.

[^3]: Brownell and Pajares (1999) defined teacher efficacy as
    "situation-specific 'perceptions of their own teaching abilities'. .
    .contextual judgments of their capability to succeed in particular
    instructional endeavors" (p. 154).

[^4]: In each of these professional areas, service providers were asked
    the extent to which they used various best practices identified by
    experts in the field. For example, 12 instructional practices were
    listed for teaching reading, and respondents were asked, for each of
    the 12, whether they use that approach *not at all*, *to a small
    extent*, *to a moderate extent*, or *to a great extent*. Scale
    scores were created by combining responses to those items that were
    highly correlated.

[^5]: SEELS did not include questions on facilitating inclusion,
    managing behavior, or professional activities.

[^6]: A longer article with greater detail can be found at:
    www.seep.org/results.html. The article is titled "What Are We
    Spending on Special Education Services in the United States,
    1999-2000? Advanced Report #1."

[^7]: Current operating expenditures include salaries, employee
    benefits, purchased services, supplies, tuition, and other annual
    expenditures for operations. Examples of items not included are
    capital outlays, debt service, facilities acquisition and
    construction, and property expenditures.

[^8]: This ratio is calculated by dividing total current expenditures
    used to educate students with disabilities (excluding facilities,
    \$11,096) by total current expenditure for a regular education
    student with no special needs (excluding facilities, \$5,325). Thus,
    the ratio is 2.08 = 11,096/\$5,325. This 2.08 ratio compares to the
    1.90 reported previously.

[^9]: Consider the example of a special education student whose needs
    are met by adding the time of a resource specialist in the regular
    classroom. There is virtually no additional classroom space required
    (e.g., capital expenditure), while there is an increase in the time
    required of professional staff to provide services (e.g., operating
    expenditure).

[^10]: The 1977-78 school year was 2 years after passage of the
    Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, the
    predecessor to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
    (IDEA).

[^11]: Estimates of per pupil expenditure for a regular education
    student are based on a combination of data from the SEEP school
    surveys and the surveys for those special education students who
    spend the vast majority of their time in the regular education
    classroom. Expenditures for these students include both direct
    instruction as well as administration and support services provided
    to the typical regular education student.

[^12]: In addition to estimates based on the current SEEP, these ratios
    are derived from Kakalik et al. (1981), Moore et al. (1988), and
    Rossmiller et al. (1970). For a summary of these three previous
    studies, see Chaikind, Danielson, & Brauen (1993). The ratios are
    estimated from data derived from Chaikind et al. (1993), Table 7.

[^13]: See Figure III-1 in the *22^nd^ Annual Report to Congress on the
    Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*.

[^14]: Special schools include those operated by public school districts
    as well as state special education schools.

[^15]: According to figures reported by the sample districts, it is
    estimated that total transportation expenditure (regular and special
    transportation combined) amounts to more than \$13 billion per year.
    Based on these figures, special education transportation represents
    about 27% of total transportation expenditure.

[^16]: Moore et al. (1988) reported that 30% of students with
    disabilities received special transportation services at an average
    expenditure per student of \$1,583. Using the Consumer Price Index
    (CPI) adjusted to the school year, per student expenditure adjusted
    to 1999-2000 dollars amounts to \$2,463 \[=1,583/(108.8/169.3) where
    169.3 is the CPI for 1999-2000 school year and 108.8 = the CPI for
    the 1985-86 school year\].

[^17]: This figure includes both special education schools operated
    within local school districts as well as those operated by the state
    such as the state schools for the deaf and blind.

[^18]: See the discussion in Moore et al*.* (1988), p. 100.

[^19]: Estimates from previous studies of assessment expenditures are
    not compared due to the different methodologies used.

[^20]: These only include Federal IDEA Part B funds, basic and preschool
    grants that flow through the state education agencies to the local
    school districts. The average per pupil amount of Federal funding
    awarded to the states for 1999-2000 was about \$734 (or \$4.5
    billion, including \$4.2 billion from the basic grant and \$371
    million for the preschool grant). Approximately 17% of the Federal
    funds were retained at the state level.

[^21]: In fact, Federal IDEA funding to local education agencies is
    10.2% of additional total expenditure (=\$605/\$5,918) and 10.5% of
    additional total current expenditure (=\$605/\$5,769) used to
    educate the average special education student.

[^22]: Since many standardized ability and achievement tests were
    developed for and normed on White, middle-class children, test bias
    may also influence the scores of lower income and minority children.

[^23]: Throughout this module, the terms "children with IEPs" and
    "children with disabilities" are used interchangeably.

[^24]: The 150% threshold is also in line with Federal guidelines for
    free and reduced-price meals. Children in families with incomes
    below 130% of the Federal poverty guidelines are eligible to receive
    free meals, while those whose family incomes are below 185% of the
    guidelines are eligible for reduced-price meals (U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, 2001).