Data Notes for IDEA, Part B

These data notes contain information on the ways in which states
collected and reported data differently from the OSEP data formats and
instructions. In addition, the notes provide explanations of significant
changes in the data from the previous year. The chart below summarizes
differences in collecting and reporting data for 12 states. These
variations affected the way data were reported for the IDEA, Part B
child count and the educational environment, exiting, and discipline
collections. Additional notes on how states reported data for specific
data collections follow this table.

Table A-1

State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B

Child Count Data 2000-01,\
Other Data 1999-2000

+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| States      | D          |              |             |             |
|             | ifferences |              |             |             |
|             | from OSEP  |              |             |             |
|             | reporting  |              |             |             |
|             | categories |              |             |             |
|             |            |              |             |             |
|             | Where      |              |             |             |
|             |            |              |             |             |
|             | H =        |              |             |             |
|             | Reported   |              |             |             |
|             | in the     |              |             |             |
|             | hearing    |              |             |             |
|             | i          |              |             |             |
|             | mpairments |              |             |             |
|             | category   |              |             |             |
|             |            |              |             |             |
|             | O =        |              |             |             |
|             | Reported   |              |             |             |
|             | in the     |              |             |             |
|             | orthopedic |              |             |             |
|             | i          |              |             |             |
|             | mpairments |              |             |             |
|             | category   |              |             |             |
|             |            |              |             |             |
|             | P =        |              |             |             |
|             | Reported   |              |             |             |
|             | in the     |              |             |             |
|             | primary    |              |             |             |
|             | disability |              |             |             |
|             | category   |              |             |             |
|             |            |              |             |             |
|             | R =        |              |             |             |
|             | Reported   |              |             |             |
|             | in other   |              |             |             |
|             | disability |              |             |             |
|             | categories |              |             |             |
+=============+============+==============+=============+=============+
|             | Multiple   | Other health | Deaf-\      | Traumatic   |
|             | di         | impairments  | blindness   | brain       |
|             | sabilities |              |             | injury      |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Colorado    |            | O            |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Delaware    | P          | O            |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Florida     | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Georgia     | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Illinois    | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Michigan    |            | O            | H           | R           |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minnesota   | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mississippi |            | O            |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| North       | P          |              |             |             |
| Dakota      |            |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Oregon      | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| West        | P          |              |             |             |
| Virginia    |            |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Wisconsin   | P          |              |             |             |
+-------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+

Tables AA1-AA17: Child Count

**Arkansas**---The state attributed the decrease in the number of
American Indian/Alaska Native children ages 3 through 5 to a large
cohort of children reaching age 6 during the past year. A significant
increase in the number of American Indian/Alaska Native students ages 6
through 21 during the same reporting period supports the explanation.

**Arizona**---The state attributed the increases from 1999-2000 to
2000-01 in the number of students with autism and traumatic brain injury
(TBI) to a change in the state's reporting system. The state changed the
crosswalk it uses to translate the multiple disability categories it
collects for each student to the IDEA disability categories. This was
done to make the data more closely align with the IDEA disability
categories.

**Colorado**---The state attributed the increase from 1999-2000 to
2000-01 in the number of students with autism to the increased training
the state has provided to local education agencies (LEAs) in identifying
students with autism.

**Florida**---The state attributed the increase from 1999-2000 to
2000-01 in the number of students with other health impairments to the
growth in the number of children identified with attention deficit
disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) and
children identified with Asperger's syndrome.

**Kentucky**---The state attributed the increase in other health
impairments to an increase in the number of students served with
ADD/ADHD.

**Minnesota**---The state attributed the increase in the number of
children served with autism to the success of early intervention
programs within the state.

**Montana**---The state attributed the increase from 1999-2000 to
2000-01 in the number of children with autism served to the
implementation of the state early intervention program. Montana
attributes the increase in the developmental delay category to the fact
that the category has been used for only 2 years.

**New Jersey**---The state indicated that in 1998, a change in state
regulations redefined the state category "neurologically impaired"
exclusively as the Federal category TBI. This change has resulted in a
huge increase in New Jersey's and the Nation's TBI figures. In the past,
the previous combination of "neurologically impaired" and "perceptually
impaired" was reported under the Federal "specific learning disability"
category. New Jersey indicated that most of the neurologically impaired
pupils will eventually be reevaluated and classified under specific
learning disability, communication impairments, some other category, or
declassified as not eligible for special education. To provide
consistency in these data over time, the numbers reported here have been
projected based on previous New Jersey reporting patterns.

The state attributed the increase in students with autism to a change in
the definition to include in the autism category students with onset
after age 3 and also children with Asperger's syndrome.

**New York**---The state noted that race/ethnicity data for students
with disabilities will not be submitted this school year. In addition,
New York noted that it does not classify preschool students with
disabilities by disability category. The state uses estimates to report
the disability categories of 3- to 5-year-olds.

**North Carolina**---The state noted that seven charter schools failed
to submit data and therefore are not included in the child count.

**Oklahoma**---The state indicated that the increases in other health
impairments and autism are consistent with the increases reported in
these categories over the last 3 to 4 years. The state continued to
provide training and technical assistance in identifying and reporting
other health impairments and autism, and as a result there is much more
awareness and better recognition of students with these disabilities.

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

**Utah**---The state indicated that the increase in the number of
students served with autism was due to a more accurate collection
system. In addition, the state noted that two districts collected and
submitted erroneous information in last year's data submission. The
state also indicated that improved training in the area of autism
identification has resulted in an increase in the number of autistic
children served and reported.

**Wisconsin**---The state attributed the increase in the number of
autistic children served and reported to its autism training program.

Tables AB1-AB11: Educational Environments

**Alabama**---The state attributed some of the increase in the number of
children ages 3 through 5 served in an early childhood special education
setting and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
education setting, and the decreases in the number served in an early
childhood setting and separate school setting, to coding errors in last
year's report. The state also suggests that the changes in the
educational environments categories are the result of more students ages
3 through 21 being served in less restrictive environments within the
state.

**Arkansas**---The state attributed the decrease in the number of
students served in private residential facilities to the new policy of
reclassifying students receiving services at the following facilities:
(a) the Arkansas School of the Deaf, (b) the Arkansas School of the
Blind, and (c) the Arkansas Department of Human Services. These students
are now placed in the public residential facilities category.

**Arizona**---The state reported that the home and part-time early
childhood categories were transposed in the 1998-99 submission. The
state also noted that its current definition for part-time early
childhood includes the reverse mainstream setting. Next school year, the
state will provide data for the reverse mainstream setting separately.

**Bureau of Indian Affairs**---The Bureau reported that the data for
children ages 3 through 5 only include those children whose tribe has
contracted with a BIA-funded school to provide services.

**Colorado**---The state was unable to report race/ethnicity data for
children ages 3 through 5.

**Connecticut**---The state noted that for the second year, data for
students ages 6 through 21 are a duplicate count of students with
disabilities served in correctional facilities and children enrolled in
private schools, not placed by the local district. In the past, these
numbers were reported as unduplicated counts. Students classified as
"other" race/ethnicity were distributed proportionately by disability.

**District of Columbia**---The state was unable to provide data about
the educational environments of children ages 3 through 5.

**Illinois**---The state noted that some of its definitions regarding
least restrictive environment do not match the Federal definitions. For
example, those students who are reported as being in resource classrooms
may be receiving services in the resource room from 1 percent to 49
percent of the school day. Additionally, the count for students in
separate classes includes students receiving special education and
related services for 50 percent or more of the school day.

**New Jersey**---The state attributes the differences in the number of
children served in itinerant services outside the home from 1998-99 to
1999-2000 to a change in collection methodology. In 1998-99, students
receiving speech for fewer than 3 hours a week were reported in
part-time early childhood general education/part-time early childhood
special education. This year, the students were reported in the
itinerant services category.

**New Mexico**---The state attributed the changes from 1998-99 to
1999-2000 to the use of a new data collection system and a change in
collection methodology. The state went from a special-education-only
data collection to a unified data collection for special education and
regular education.

**New York**---The state noted that race/ethnicity data reported for
children ages 3 through 5 are for all students receiving "preschool
special education services," not for all children ages 3 through 5.
Race/ethnicity data provided for students ages 6 through 21 are for all
students with disabilities receiving "school-age special education
services," not for all students ages 6 through 21. There was no
duplication between the two tables, and all students ages 3 through 21
with disabilities are reported by race/ethnicity.

**North Carolina**---The state noted that seven charter schools failed
to submit data and therefore are not included in the environment counts.

**Ohio**---The state noted that the settings data for ages 3 through 5
were not correct for 1998-99 and that this year's numbers are correct.

**Oregon**---The state noted its age ranges are different from the OSEP
definitions. Children who are 5 years old on September 1 are considered
to be school age and, therefore, are included in the counts for the
6-through-21 age group rather than the 3-through-5 age group.

**Pennsylvania**---The state attributed the changes in the educational
environments data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to its new data collection
system.

**Texas**---The state noted that educational environment data will not
be available for children ages 3 through 5 until school year 2000-01.
The state also noted that its definitions do not match those used by the
Federal data collection. Therefore, the figures reported to OSEP and
reflected in the charts for several categories are estimates. The impact
was especially significant for the following categories: (a) special
education outside regular class less than 21 percent of day, (b) special
education outside regular class at least 21 percent of day and no more
than 60 percent of day, and (c) special education outside regular class
more than 60 percent of day. Likewise, the Texas definition of
self-contained includes those students receiving 50 percent or more of
their school day in special education settings outside of the regular
classroom. The Federal definition for category c uses 60 percent as the
cutoff. Therefore, those students in Texas receiving more than 50
percent through 60 percent of their instructional day in special
education are included in category c for Federal reporting purposes even
though, if data were available, they could be reported in category b.
The state is revising the data collection to capture specific elements
as required by OSEP definitions for future collections.

Tables AC1-AC3: Personnel

**Arizona**---The state attributed the increase in state education
agency (SEA) supervisors/administrators to a misinterpretation of the
category in previous years.

**Arkansas**---The state attributed the variation between the 1998-99
and the 1999-2000 data to errors in the reporting of noncertified
diagnostic and evaluation staff.

**Illinois**---The state did not collect personnel data by ages served
and therefore was able to report only the number of teaching personnel
serving early childhood or preschool students. All other personnel,
including those who may be serving children ages 3 through 5, are
reported as serving students ages 6 through 21. The state also does not
collect full-time equivalency (FTE) data for home-hospital personnel. As
a result, these personnel are not included in the data.

**Nebraska**---The state attributed the variations in the number of
supervisors/\
administrators from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to a change in the data
collection methodology. Prior to this year, FTEs were not used to report
supervisors and administrators.

**New Mexico**---The state attributed the large variations in the
personnel table from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to a change in the data
collection methodology. Prior to 1999-2000, the state's data collection
used a paper and pencil format and allowed "estimates" of FTE for
certain staff. The state now collects its data electronically and does
not allow estimates.

**North Carolina**---The state noted that seven charter schools failed
to submit data and therefore are not included in the personnel counts.

**Ohio**---The state attributed the changes in the number of diagnostic
and evaluation staff, interpreters, speech pathologists, as well as in
total demand to hiring increases within the categories and more accurate
reporting. In the past, Ohio reported speech pathologists in two
separate categories. This year, all speech-language pathologists are
reported within the speech pathologists category. The state also
attributed the increase in total personnel to increased hiring within
the personnel categories teachers, teacher assistants, other
professional staff, and nonprofessional staff. The latter two
categories, which represent 1,000 positions, were not reported before
this year.

**Pennsylvania**---The state attributed the variations in the personnel
data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to a change in data collection
procedures. In 1999-2000, the personnel data were collected for the
first time in an aggregate manner.

**Texas**---The state attributed the variations in personnel from
1998-99 to 1999-2000 to a decision for the 1999-2000 data collection to
report school social workers, diagnostic and evaluation staff, and
counselors as fully certified when certification cannot be determined
through the state Board Education Certification (SBEC). In 1998-99,
certification for the above three roles was determined by matching with
the SBEC database.

**Utah**---The state attributed the increase from 1998-99 to 1999-2000
in the number of interpreters to an increase in hiring for that
category. In addition, the state noted that it does not have a
certification program for aides.

**Wisconsin**---The state attributed the increase in the number of fully
certified diagnostic and evaluation staff to districts incorrectly
reporting program support teachers as teachers last year. This year,
they are correctly included as diagnostic and evaluation staff,
resulting in an increase in this category. The decrease in the not fully
certified diagnostic and evaluation staff category was the result of
continuing license checks.

Tables AD1 - AD4: Exiting

**Bureau of Indian Affairs**---The Bureau believes that some of the
students ages 14 and 15 years old who were reported as graduated with a
diploma may not have graduated from high school, but rather they
graduated from middle school or junior high school. BIA has noted this
mistake and will inform the local district to correct this problem in
future submissions.

**Connecticut**---The state attributed the increases in the number of
students no longer receiving special education and the decreases in
dropouts to a change in the data collection methodology.

**Illinois**---The state reported that it is still having problems
collecting and reporting exiting data. The state attributed the
differences in the data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to problems with the
data collection system.

**Georgia**---The state indicated that the increases in total exits from
1998-99 to 1999-2000 were the result of its new web-based data system.
Georgia believes that the data are now more reliable. The state also
noted that the special education population was increasing at a
significant rate, and the changes in the data reflect this growth.

**Missouri**---The state noted that all of the increases in the moved,
known to be continuing and dropped out categories are attributed to the
Missouri Department of Corrections (MDC) exiting report. The state
indicated that the MDC's exiting data fluctuate from year to year.

**New York**---The state reported that the increase in the number of
students exiting with a diploma suggests that more and more students
with disabilities are participating in the state assessments, which they
are required to pass to graduate.

**Ohio**---The state suspects that the number of students reported in
the reached maximum age category is inflated for 1999-2000. Ohio will
address the discrepancies in the 2000-01 data.

**Pennsylvania**---The state attributed the changes in the exiting data
from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to its new data collection system.

**Texas**---Each fall, the state collects exiting data for the previous
year. Data reported for school year 1999-2000 are actually for students
exiting in 1998-99.

**Washington**---The state's exiting data are for school year 1998-99.

Tables AE1-AE4: Discipline

**Arizona**---The state attributed the increase in the number of
students reported in the category removed by a hearing officer to a
change in collection methodology. The decrease in removal by school
personnel and in weapons offenses is being attributed to the state's
"zero tolerance" policy.

**Arkansas**---The state noted that the increase in the number of
short-term suspensions and in the unduplicated count of children subject
to unilateral removal are attributed to this being a new data
collection. This was only the second year that the districts were
required to report discipline data, and the data manager believes some
of the information may be incorrect.

**Bureau of Indian Affairs**---The Bureau noted that the race/ethnicity
data do not match the computed totals. The Bureau further noted that it
is unable to correct the error and attributed the year-to-year
differences to the newness of the collection and to problems collecting
the data at the district level.

**California**---The state noted that the variation from the previous
year in the unduplicated count of children subject to unilateral removal
was due to an error in reporting last year's data.

**Delaware**---The state noted that variations in all the discipline
data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 are the result of incomplete data
reported for 1998-99.

**Kentucky**---The state attributed the changes in the discipline data
from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to the new data collection system. The state
further noted that reporting discipline data remains problematic for
Kentucky because reporting covers the entire year, and the same student
may have multiple incidents to be reported. Kentucky does not have an
individual student record system.

**Louisiana**---The state was unable to report an unduplicated count of
children subject to unilateral removal for drug or weapon offenses.

**Massachusetts**---The state attributed year-to-year changes in the
discipline data to a new data system and more accurate reporting in
1999-2000.

**Missouri**---The state indicated that variations in the discipline
data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 are the result of reporting some
categories for the first time. In 1998-99, disability by condition and
race/ethnicity were optional categories in the discipline collection,
and Missouri did not report them.

**New Mexico**---The state noted that the discipline data are still
collected on a paper and pencil form because the state has not had
enough time to incorporate them into the unified data collection system.
This was the second year that the state provided discipline data, and
this year, there was wider participation than in 1998-99. The collection
has not had enough time to establish itself; therefore, significant
changes are expected.

**Ohio**---The state indicated that increases from the previous year in
the number of children subject to unilateral removal for drug and weapon
offenses might be a result of a major emphasis by the state on safe and
drug-free schools. Student codes of conduct and state law leave little
discretion regarding the consequences for certain types of behavior.

**Oklahoma**---The state reported that the changes in the discipline
data from the previous year are the result of more accurate reporting in
1999-2000.

**Pennsylvania**---The state noted that collecting the discipline data
has been problematic. The data are hard to collect at the district level
because of the state's collection methodology. In addition, there are
conflicting definitions used at the state and district levels. The state
will address the problem with more data collection training at the state
and local levels.

**Tennessee**---The state attributed the variations in the discipline
data from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 to a change in its data collection
methodology. The 1998-99 data were collected by way of a separate
survey. This year's data are collected as part of the special education
reporting system.

**Wisconsin**---The state was unable to report an unduplicated count of
children subject to unilateral removal for drug and weapon offenses.

Table AH1: Counts of Infants and Toddlers Served

**Illinois**---The state reported that the increase in the child count
from 1999-2000 to 2000-01 is a continued result of massive Child Find
efforts mandated by the state courts. Further, the state also began
allowing children to remain eligible until age 3 regardless of their
progress.

Tables AH7: Early Intervention Service Settings

**Colorado**---The state of Colorado attributes the increase in the
number of children served in the home setting category to a change in
focus to concentrate on getting children out of center-based programs
and providing more services in natural environments. One of the larger
counties in the state transformed its entire project from center based
(programs for developmental delay) to focus on providing services in
natural environments.

**Connecticut**---The state reports that the decrease in the number of
children served in the programs for typically developing children
setting is a result of training staff on the definition of the category.

**Illinois**---The state reports that its increased child count resulted
in more children served in all settings categories from 1998-99 to
1999-2000. This is more apparent for the home settings category as a
result of an emphasis on providing services in natural environments.

**Indiana**---The state reports that the change in the number of
children served in different settings, in particular the 71% increase in
the home setting, reflects the shift toward providing services in
natural environments.

**New York**---The increase in the number of children served in the
service provider location setting is primarily the result of guidance
given to counties regarding how to code specific settings in the state's
data collection program.

**Puerto Rico**---The decrease in the service provider location category
(59.3%) is the result of the late receipt of settings data for children
served by the Department of Education. The data were not received from
the Puerto Rico Department of Education until after the February 1,
2001, date of submission, for a total of 205 children. The state did not
submit revised data for this count.

**Texas**---The state reports that the increase in the number of
children served in the other settings category is due to the incorrect
classification of some children in 1998-99. In the first year after the
family child care category was dropped from the Federal reporting
requirements, programs may have reported children receiving care in the
family child care setting as receiving services in home-based rather
than the other settings category. The state is now correctly reporting
these children.

Table AH12: Early Intervention Program Exiting

**Alabama**---The state reports that the 75% decrease in the attempts to
contact unsuccessful category is a result of the state's changing the
way the exit data for this category are collected. In 1998-99, two of
the state's exiting reasons were combined to construct the Federal
attempts to contact unsuccessful exit category. For 1999-2000, these
categories are no longer combined, and the state is now correctly
reporting in this category.

**Connecticut**---The state reports that the increase in the number of
children exiting under the categories Part B eligibility not determined,
withdrawal by parent, and attempts to contact unsuccessful, as well as
the decreases in the number who exit to other programs and exit with no
referral are a result of improving the state's data system. The state
also began running reports showing each program where data were missing.
This also helped to improve data accuracy.

**Georgia**---The state explains that the increase in the number of
infants and toddlers exiting is the result of improvements to the data
collection procedures. Georgia is now able to accurately report exit
data. In the previous year (1998-99), the state of Georgia was unable to
accurately report exit data and as a result underreported the number
exiting.

**Illinois**---The large increase in the Part B eligibility exiting
category was a result of the state's implementing a policy allowing
children to remain eligible until age 3 regardless of progress. The
increase in the total number of children exiting is related to increases
in Child Find efforts and the corresponding increased child count.

**Indiana**---The state reported that the increase in the total number
of children exiting is due to increased enrollment. The state noted that
some other changes (completion of IFSP, withdrawn by parent, attempts to
contact unsuccessful) should be expected if the state is beginning to
reach children whose need for services is less severe.

**Oklahoma**---The state attributes the increase in the number of
children exiting under the Part B eligible category, and the decreases
in the number of children exiting with no referral and with Part B
eligibility not determined, to its creation of a new database and
training emphasis on the accurate reporting of data.

**Texas**---The state reports that the increases in the categories exit
with no referral and deceased are correct. Though the increase in the
number deceased seems large (125 in 1998-99 and 166 in 1999-2000), in
1997-98 there were 143 deceased, suggesting some variation across years.
In addition to the year-to-year variation, the state also believes that
some of the reported increase in deaths is due to an increased number of
medically fragile infants entering into services as a result of efforts
on the part of programs to link with neonatal intensive care units.

The state explains the decline in the number of children withdrawn by
parent as the result of changes in how the state classifies children who
moved within the state. In 1998-99, children who exited for this reason
were included in the withdrawal by parent category. In 1999-2000, these
children were removed from the exit number, since they were not really
exiting Part C services.

**Wisconsin**---The state reports that the increase in the number of
children exiting under the Part B eligible category reflects better
reporting as well as significant increases in the number of children
served in the 1999-2000 child count. Wisconsin's data require local
programs to update the information on the children when they exit. With
prodding from state staff, the local programs are more consistently
reporting the changes.

In addition, the state also indicated that in 1999-2000 its reporting
system did not include all the exit reasons used in the Federal report.
The system has since been updated to include all of the Federal exit
reasons.

Table AH10: Early Intervention Services

**Alabama**---The state reports that the 1998-99 count of other services
incorrectly included service coordination. To correct this, a statement
was placed on the bottom of the form explaining which services were
included in "other." As a result, in 1999-2000, service coordination was
no longer included in the "other" count. This resulted in the extreme
difference in the numbers across the years.

**Illinois**---The state reports that the increase in the number of
services provided is the direct result of the increased child count.

**Indiana**---The state reports that the increases in speech language
pathology and audiology services are due to continuing outreach efforts
and implementation of universal newborn hearing screening. The majority
of the increase in assistive technology was for speech and
hearing-related equipment. The decrease in transportation services is
the result of a change in the location of services to the child's home.

**New Mexico**---The state reports that the increase in the other early
intervention service category is consistent with the increase in the
number of children served and with providers becoming more proficient
with data entry into the FIT database.

**Puerto Rico**---The state reported increases in several service
categories and offers the following as explanations:

1.  The increase in special instruction is a result of the state's
    changing how it classifies instructions to families. Instructions to
    families were being provided; however, they were counted under
    family training. The state has changed the classification and now
    counts instructions to families under the special instruction
    service category.

2.  The state explains that the increase in the number of audiology
    services is a result of the state's failing to include
    audiology-related services, such as fitting/adjustments of
    earphones, in previous counts.

**Wisconsin**---The state suggests that the decrease in the
transportation service category is the result of more children receiving
services in the home.

Table AH4: Early Intervention Personnel Employed

**Illinois**---The state reports that in 1998-99, special educators were
incorrectly reported under the orientation/mobility personnel category.
In the same year, the service coordinators were counted as other
professional staff. These errors were corrected for the 1999-2000
reporting year.