IDEA National Assessment 

Implementation Study 

Final Report 

July 2011 

M.C. Bradley, Abt Associates 

Tamara Daley, Westat 

Marjorie Levin, Abt Associates 

Fran O’Reilly, Abt Associates 

Amanda Parsad, Abt Associates 

Anne Robertson, Abt Associates 

Alan Werner, Abt Associates 

Lauren Angelo 

Project Officer 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCEE 2011-4027 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

John Q. Easton 

Director 

July 2011 

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Institute of Education Sciences, under contract no. ED-04-CO-0015/0009 with Abt Associates. The 

project officer is Lauren Angelo in the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should read: Bradley, M. C., Daley, 

T., Levin, M., O’Reilly, R., Parsad, A., Robertson, A., and Werner, A. (2011). IDEA National 

Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of 

Education. 

IES evaluation reports present objective information on the conditions of implementation and impacts 

of the programs being evaluated. IES evaluation reports do not include conclusions or 

recommendations or views with regard to actions policymakers or practitioners should take in light of 

the findings in the report. 

To order copies of this report: 

•	 Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. 

Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. 

•	 Call in your request toll free to 1-877-4ED-Pubs. If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 800-437-0833. 

•	 Fax your request to 703-605-6794 or order online at www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available on the IES website at http://ncee.ed.gov. 

Alternate Formats 

Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, call the Alternate Format Center at 202-205-8113. 
iii 

 

 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank Abt Associates Inc. staff members, Cristofer Price and Ricky Takai, 

for their careful review of the draft document. The editing and production staff included Suzanne 

Erfurth, Jan Nicholson, Stefanie Falzone and Missy Robinson. We are also indebted to the members 

of our technical working group—Diana Allen, Mary Brownell, Mary-Beth Bruder, Pia Durkin, MaryBeth Fafard, Douglas Fuchs and Patricia Snyder—who have provided valuable insights and guidance 

on survey development and early versions for the report. Margaret McLaughlin, Beth Rous, Sharon 

Walsh, Russell Gersten, Marshall Peter and Richard Zeller served as consultants on the project and 

offered valuable advice at various points in the analysis and reporting of results. 

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the policies or opinions of the 

U.S. Department of Education. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors and not 

the Department of Education or any consultants or members of the technical working group. 
iv 

 

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest 

The research team for this study consists of key staff from Abt Associates and Westat. The 

organizations and the key staff members do not have financial interests that could be affected by 

findings from the study. None of the members of the Technical Working Group, convened by the 

research team to provide advice and guidance, have financial interests that could be affected by 

findings from the study. 
Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ xxiii
 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. xxiii
 

The Scope of Early Intervention and Special Education in the U.S. ...................................... xxiv
 

Methods and Report Contents .................................................................................................. xxv
 

Providing Services to Young Children .................................................................................... xxv
 

Identification of Students Needing Special Education ............................................................. xxx
 

Efforts to Promote Positive Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth with 

Disabilities ............................................................................................................................ xxxvi
 

Promoting Parent Participation and Dispute Resolution ........................................................... xlv
 

References ................................................................................................................................. lvii
 

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Key Areas of the IDEA-NAIS in This Report ............................................................................. 2
 

The Scope of Special Education in the U.S. ................................................................................ 4
 

Methods and Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 5
 

Contents of Report ....................................................................................................................... 6
 

Chapter 2: Providing Services to Young Children with Disabilities ......................................... 9
 

Components of Early Intervention Service Delivery ................................................................... 9
 

Findings on Components of Part C Early Intervention Program Service Delivery ................... 12
 

Coordination between IDEA Part C Early Intervention Programs and IDEA Part B 

Special Education Programs for Preschool-Age Children and Transitions from Part C 

Programs to Part B Programs..................................................................................................... 25
 

Findings on Coordination between IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program and IDEA 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Lead Agencies and Transition from
 

IDEA Part C Program to IDEA Part B Program ........................................................................ 27
 

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 33
 

Chapter 3: Identification of Students: Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS), Response to Intervention (RtI), and State and Local Policies for 

Specific Learning Disability (SLD) ......................................................................... 35
 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) ........................................................................ 35
 

Findings Related to CEIS........................................................................................................... 36
 

Response to Intervention (RtI) ................................................................................................... 47
 

Findings on Response to Intervention ........................................................................................ 48
 

State and Local Policies for Eligibility for Specific Learning Disability .................................. 59
 

Findings on State and Local Policies for Eligibility for Specific Learning Disability ............... 59
 

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 64
 

Chapter 4: Efforts to Promote Positive Outcomes for Children and Youth with 

Disabilities ................................................................................................................. 67
 

Establishing and Maintaining Developmental and Academic Standards for Children and 

Youth with Disabilities .............................................................................................................. 67
 

Findings on Developmental and Academic Standards ............................................................... 70
 

Qualified Staff............................................................................................................................ 81
 

v 
Findings on Qualified Staff ....................................................................................................... 85
 

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 102
 

Chapter 5: Promoting Parent Participation and Dispute Resolution ....................................105
 

Promoting Parent Participation ................................................................................................ 105
 

Findings on Activities to Promote Parent Participation .......................................................... 108
 

Dispute Resolution .................................................................................................................. 111
 

Findings on Implementing Dispute Resolution Procedures .................................................... 117
 

Topics of Disputes................................................................................................................... 123
 

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 125
 

References .................................................................................................................................. 127
 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix ............................................................................................... A-1
 

Appendix B: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 1 ...................................................................B-1
 

Appendix C: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 2 .................................................................. C-1
 

Appendix D: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 3 .................................................................. D-1
 

Appendix E: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 4 ...................................................................E-1
 

Appendix F: The Congruence among Different Data Sources on the Incidence of 

Dispute Resolution Events ......................................................................................F-1
 

Appendix G: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 5 .................................................................. G-1
 

vi 
List of Exhibits 

Exhibit ES.1: Funding Source That Provides the Largest Proportion of Funding for Early 

Intervention Services across States (Fiscal Year 2009) .................................................................... xxvii 

Exhibit ES.2: State-Reported Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers 

with Disabilities (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ................................................. xxviii 

Exhibit ES.3: Most Frequent Referral Sources for Part C Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) ... xxviii 

Exhibit ES.4: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School 

Level (School Year 2008–2009) ..................................................................................................... xxxiii 

Exhibit ES.5: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Areas by School Level (School 

Year 2008–2009)............................................................................................................................. xxxiii 

Exhibit ES.6: Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–2009)......................... xxxiv
 

Exhibit ES.7: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–2009) ..................................... xxxvi 

Exhibit ES.8: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009)................................... xxxviii 

Exhibit ES.9: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................... xl 

Exhibit ES.10: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification 

(School Year 2008–2009)...................................................................................................................... xl 

Exhibit ES.11: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Identified as Highly Qualified Special 

Education Teachers .............................................................................................................................. xli 

Exhibit ES.12: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely 

Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years among 

Districts with Shortages (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009) ............................ xlii 

Exhibit ES.13: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special 

Educators, Qualified Preschool Special Education Staff, and Highly Qualified Teachers ................ xliv 

Exhibit ES.14: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Highly Qualified 

Special Education Teachers (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ........................................... xlv 

Exhibit ES.15: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool Providers, and School 

Districts to Promote the Participation of Parents of Children and Youth with Disabilities (Fiscal 

Year 2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) ........................................................................................... xlvi 

Exhibit ES.16: Sample Flowchart of Dispute Resolution Process ................................................... xlviii
 

Exhibit ES.17: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Events per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part C Early 

Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Method (School Years 2003– 

2004 through 2007–2008) ...................................................................................................................... li 

Exhibit ES.18: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Events per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities Receiving Services 

vii 
under Part B Special Education Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Event (2003– 

2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) ............................................................................................. liii 

Exhibit ES.19: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) ........................................................................................................................................... liv 

Exhibit ES.20: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving 

Services under the Part B Special Education Program by Dispute Resolution Method (2003– 

2004 and 2007–2008 School Year) ....................................................................................................... lv 

Exhibit 1.1: Number and Percentage of Children and Youth Identified for Early Intervention 

and Special Education Services in 50 States and D.C. (2007)............................................................... 5
 

Exhibit 2.1: State Lead Agency for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 

2009) .................................................................................................................................................... 13
 

Exhibit 2.2: Average Percentage of Birth through 2-Year-Old Population Identified for 

Services by Type of Part C Early Intervention Program Lead Agency (Fall 2007) ............................ 13
 

Exhibit 2.3: Funding Sources Supporting Part C Early Intervention Program Services as 

Required by IFSPs (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................ 15
 

Exhibit 2.4: Percentage of Part C Early Intervention Services Supported by IDEA Part C Funds 

across States (Fiscal Year 2009) .......................................................................................................... 16
 

Exhibit 2.5: State Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention 

Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) .................................................................................................. 16
 

Exhibit 2.6: State Identification Percentages (Fall 2007) by Family Cost Participation Policy
 

Status for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009)......................................... 17
 

Exhibit 2.7: Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program
 

Services in States by Type of Part C Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................ 17
 

Exhibit 2.8: State Agency Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities and to Support the Identification of Preschool-Age Children in Need of Special 

Education Services (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ................................................. 18
 

Exhibit 2.9: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by Part C Early Intervention Program
 

State Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................. 20
 

Exhibit 2.10: Family Involvement in the Part C Early Intervention Program System by Level 

and Type (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................................ 21
 

Exhibit 2.11: Entities Responsible for the Provision of Part C Early Intervention Program
 

Services (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................................. 22
 

Exhibit 2.12: Models of Ongoing Service Coordination (Fiscal Year 2009)....................................... 23
 

Exhibit 2.13: Minimum Education Qualifications of Service Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) ......... 24
 

Exhibit 2.14: Frequency of Interaction between Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B 

Preschool-Age Special Education Coordinators, among States with Different Part C Early
 

Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators 

(Fiscal Year 2009)................................................................................................................................ 28
 

viii 
Exhibit 2.15: Topics Regularly Addressed during State Part C Early Intervention Program and 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators’ Collaboration (Fiscal Year 

2009) ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
 

Exhibit 2.16: Areas Addressed in State-Level Part C Early Intervention Program Interagency
 

Agreements with Other Agencies (Fiscal Year 2009) .......................................................................... 30
 

Exhibit 2.17: Activities Supporting Transition of Children with Disabilities from Part C Early
 

Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or 

School Year 2008–2009)...................................................................................................................... 31
 

Exhibit 2.18: States Reporting Number of Different Activities to Support Transition of 

Toddlers with Disabilities from Part C Early Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age 

Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or School Year 2008–2009) ....................................... 32
 

Exhibit 2.19: Issues Affecting Decision Not to Use Part C Option (Fiscal Year 2009)....................... 33
 

Exhibit 3.1: Status of Definitions for Significant Disproportionality (School Year 2008–2009)........ 37
 

Exhibit 3.2: Percentage of Districts Having Significant Disproportionality in the Identification 

of Students by State Definition (School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................. 40
 

Exhibit 3.3: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS during the Current 

School Year as a Result of Significant Disproportionality, as Reported by SEAs (School Year 

2008–2009) ........................................................................................................................................... 41
 

Exhibit 3.4: Percentage of Districts Required by SEA to Provide CEIS Due to Significant 

Disproportionality among States Requiring at Least One District to Provide CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) ........................................................................................................................................... 41
 

Exhibit 3.5: Target Schools for CEIS Activities or Resources among Districts Required to 

Provide CEIS (School Year 2008–2009) ............................................................................................. 42
 

Exhibit 3.6: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS as 

Reported by Districts (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................. 43
 

Exhibit 3.7: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Funds to Provide CEIS—Proportion of 

Funds Used (School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................. 43
 

Exhibit 3.8: Distribution of CEIS by School Level for Districts Providing CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) ........................................................................................................................................... 44
 

Exhibit 3.9: Percentage of CEIS-Mandatory and CEIS-Voluntary Districts Using Part B 

Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS Activities (School Year 2008–2009).................. 45
 

Exhibit 3.10: Special Education Evaluation and Eligibility in Kindergarten through Grade 3 by 

District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
 

Exhibit 3.11: Activities Conducted by SEAs Related to RtI (School Year 2008–2009)...................... 49
 

Exhibit 3.12: Activities Conducted by State Agencies to Support the Implementation of RtI for
 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2008–2009)............................................................................. 50
 

Exhibit 3.13: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
 

ix 
Exhibit 3.14: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School 

Level (School Year 2008–2009).......................................................................................................... 51
 

Exhibit 3.15: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI by School Level 

(School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................................................................... 52
 

Exhibit 3.16: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level (School Year 

2008–2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 53
 

Exhibit 3.17: Percentage of Districts Using RtI in Various Combinations of Subject Areas by
 

School Level (School Year 2008–2009).............................................................................................. 54
 

Exhibit 3.18: Percentage of Districts Providing RtI Support to Schools and Information to 

Families among Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–2009) .......................................................... 55
 

Exhibit 3.19: Percentage of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated and Results for 

Part B Special Education Program Services During the 2007–2008 School Year by Use of RtI 

(School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................................................................... 56
 

Exhibit 3.20: Leadership of RtI Implementation in Districts, among Districts Using RtI (School
 

Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................................. 57
 

Exhibit 3.21: Distribution of Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–2009)...... 58
 

Exhibit 3.22: Percentage of Students in Specific Learning Disability Category by State 

Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) ........................................................................... 60
 

Exhibit 3.23: SEA Use of Discrepancy Model to Determine Eligibility for Special Education 

for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (School Year 2008–2009) ..................................................... 61
 

Exhibit 3.24: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility in the Category of SLD for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–
 

2009) .................................................................................................................................................... 62
 

Exhibit 3.25: Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated, and Results by 

Use of Types of Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009)............................................................... 63
 

Exhibit 3.26: Pairwise Comparison of Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were 

Evaluated and Results for Part B Special Education Program Services by Use of Types of 

Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) ......................................................................................... 64
 

Exhibit 4.1: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ......................................... 72
 

Exhibit 4.2: State Agency Involved in the Release of Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) ................................................................................................................ 73
 

Exhibit 4.3: State Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) ......... 74
 

Exhibit 4.4: Requirements for Use of Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and 

Children and Youth (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................... 76
 

Exhibit 4.5: Target Audience for State Agency Training or Professional Development on 

Alignment of Early Learning Guidelines and Early Intervention Services, for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) ............................................................................................... 78
 

Exhibit 4.6: Topics Covered by Professional Development on Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2008 or 2009) ................................................................................ 78
 

x 
Exhibit 4.7: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009)...................................................... 79
 

Exhibit 4.8: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Children and Youth (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009)............................................................. 79
 

Exhibit 4.9: Percentage of States Providing Training or Professional Development on 

Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and Children and Youth Targeting Specific 

Audiences (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ....................................................................... 80
 

Exhibit 4.10: District Policies on Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 2007–2008 and 2008–
 

2009) ..................................................................................................................................................... 81
 

Exhibit 4.11: Percentage of Certified Related Service Professionals Serving School-Age 

Children and Youth by Profession (Fall 2006)..................................................................................... 86
 

Exhibit 4.12: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program
 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) .................................................................................................. 87
 

Exhibit 4.13: Agency Responsible for Licensing/Certification of Special Educators by IDEA 

Program Early Intervention Special Educators, Preschool Special Education Teachers and 

Special Education Teachers (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) .................................... 88
 

Exhibit 4.14: State Certification/Licensure Requirements for Preschool Special Education Staff 

(School Year 2008–2009)..................................................................................................................... 88
 

Exhibit 4.15: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification 

(School Year 2008–2009)..................................................................................................................... 89
 

Exhibit 4.16: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers ....... 90
 

Exhibit 4.17: Summary of Praxis Series Tests Used by States for Certification, Licensure or 

Highly Qualified Status in Selected Subject Matter Areas ................................................................... 92
 

Exhibit 4.18: Elements Required in HOUSSE Certification for Current Special Education 

Teachers in Elementary, Middle and High Schools (School Year 2008–2009)................................... 94
 

Exhibit 4.19: National Estimates of the Percentage of Funded Full-Time Equivalent Vacancies 

or Departures (School Year 2008–2009).............................................................................................. 95
 

Exhibit 4.20: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely 

Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years (School Years 

2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009) ............................................................................................ 97
 

Exhibit 4.21: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special Educators, 

Qualified Preschool Special Education Staff and Highly Qualified Teachers (Fiscal Years 2008 

and 2009, School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) .......................................................................... 99
 

Exhibit 4.22: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That Are Highly Qualified (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–
 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................... 100
 

Exhibit 4.23: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................... 101
 

Exhibit 4.24: Pay Incentives Used by Districts to Retain Current Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................... 102
 

xi 
Exhibit 5.1: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool-Age Program Staff, and LEAs 

to Promote the Participation of Parents of Children and Youth with IFSPs/IEPs (Fiscal Year 

2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) .................................................................................................... 109
 

Exhibit 5.2: Methods of Program Collaboration with Federally Funded Parent Training and 

Information Centers (PTIs) in States Aware of PTI in Their State (Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008–
 

2009 School Year) ............................................................................................................................. 110
 

Exhibit 5.3: Topics Addressed in District Offerings to Parents of Children and Youth with 

IFSPs/IEPs (2008–2009 School Year) ............................................................................................... 111
 

Exhibit 5.4: Illustration of How ADR, Mediation, and Due Process Hearings May Interact in 

Resolving Disputes ............................................................................................................................ 113
 

Exhibit 5.5: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention (Fiscal Year 2008) ............................................................... 118
 

Exhibit 5.6: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention by Lead Agency Type (Fiscal Year 2008) ........................... 118
 

Exhibit 5.7: Number of State Programs Reporting No Dispute Events for Part C Early
 

Intervention and Part B Special Education Programs during Fiscal Year 2008 or the 2007–2008 

School Year........................................................................................................................................ 119
 

Exhibit 5.8: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events
 

per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part C Early
 

Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 through 

2007–2008 School Years) .................................................................................................................. 120
 

Exhibit 5.9: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events
 

per 10,000 Children and Youth with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part B in the 50 

States by Dispute Resolution Event (2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) ....................... 122
 

Exhibit 5.10: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) ......................................................................................................................................... 123
 

Exhibit 5.11: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving Services 

under Part B Programs by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School 

Year) .................................................................................................................................................. 124
 

Exhibit A.1: Number of Districts in the Population, Frame and Sample ........................................... A-4
 

Exhibit A.2: Urbanicity Classification for S1 Districts ..................................................................... A-5
 

Exhibit A.3: Urbanicity Classification for S2 Districts ..................................................................... A-5
 

Exhibit A.4: Region Classification .................................................................................................... A-5
 

Exhibit A.5: Region and Urbanicity Classification for S1 Districts .................................................. A-5
 

Exhibit A.6: Region and Urbanicity Classification for S2 Districts .................................................. A-6
 

Exhibit A.7: Number of Districts Needed from Each Stratum within the S1 Sampling Frame ......... A-7
 

Exhibit A.8: Number of Districts Needed from Each Remaining Stratum within the S1 

Sampling Frame ................................................................................................................................. A-7
 

xii 
Exhibit A.9: Number of Districts Available and Number Sampled from Each Stratum within 

the S1 Sampling Frame ...................................................................................................................... A-8
 

Exhibit A.10: Number of Districts Needed from Each Stratum within the S2 Sampling Frame .......A-8
 

Exhibit A.11: Number of Districts Available and Number Sampled from Each Stratum within 

the S2 Sampling Frame ...................................................................................................................... A-9
 

Exhibit B.1: Number and Percentage of Children and Youth Identified for Early Intervention 

and Special Education Services in 50 States and D.C. (2007) ........................................................... B-1
 

Exhibit C.1: State Lead Agency for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................... C-1
 

Exhibit C.2: Average Percentage of Birth through 2-Year-Old Population Identified for 

Services by Type of Part C Early Intervention Program Lead Agency (Fall 2007) ........................... C-2
 

Exhibit C.3: Funding Sources Supporting Part C Early Intervention Program Services as 

Required by IFSPs (Fiscal Year 2009) ............................................................................................... C-3
 

Exhibit C.4: Percentage of Part C Early Intervention Services Supported by IDEA Part C 

Funds across States (Fiscal Year 2009).............................................................................................. C-4
 

Exhibit C.5: State Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention 

Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009)................................................................................................. C-4
 

Exhibit C.6: State Identification Percentages (Fall 2007) by Family Cost Participation Policy 

Status for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) ....................................... C-5
 

Exhibit C.7: Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program
 

Services in States by Type of Part C Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) .............................. C-5
 

Exhibit C.8: State Agency Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities and to Support the Identification of Preschool-Age Children in Need of Special 

Education Services (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ................................................ C-6
 

Exhibit C.9: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by Part C Early Intervention Program
 

State Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) ............................................................................................... C-7
 

Exhibit C.10: Family Involvement in the Part C Early Intervention Program System by Level 

and Type (Fiscal Year 2009) .............................................................................................................. C-8
 

Exhibit C.11: Entities Responsible for the Provision of Part C Early Intervention Program
 

Services (Fiscal Year 2009)................................................................................................................ C-9
 

Exhibit C.12: Models of Ongoing Service Coordination (Fiscal Year 2009) .................................. C-10
 

Exhibit C.13: Minimum Education Qualifications of Service Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) ..... C-10
 

Exhibit C.14: Frequency of Interaction between Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B 

Preschool-Age Special Education Coordinators, among States with Different Part C Early
 

Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators 

(Fiscal Year 2009)............................................................................................................................ C-11
 

Exhibit C.15: Topics Regularly Addressed during State Part C Early Intervention Program and 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators’ Collaboration (Fiscal Year 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. C-12
 

xiii 
Exhibit C.16: Areas Addressed in State-Level Part C Early Intervention Program Interagency 

Agreements with Other Agencies (Fiscal Year 2009) ..................................................................... C-13
 

Exhibit C.17: Activities Supporting Transitions of Children with Disabilities from Part C Early 

Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or 

School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................. C-14
 

Exhibit C.18: States Reporting Number of Different Activities to Support Transition of 

Toddlers with Disabilities from Part C Early Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age 

Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or School Year 2008–2009)................................... C-15
 

Exhibit C.19: Issues Affecting Decision Not to Use Part C Option (Fiscal Year 2009).................. C-16
 

Exhibit C.20: Average Number of Changes in Lead Agency (1991 through 2008)........................ C-16
 

Exhibit C.21: Number of Changes in Lead Agency (1991 through 2008) ...................................... C-17
 

Exhibit C.22: Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

by Type of Part C Early Intervention Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) ........................... C-18
 

Exhibit C.23: Activities to Support the Identification of Infants, Toddlers and Preschool 

Children in Need of Special Education Services by Part C Early Intervention Program and Part 

B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Agencies (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 

2008–2009) ...................................................................................................................................... C-19
 

Exhibit C.24: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by States for Part C Early Intervention 

Program Agencies by Type of Part C Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) .......................... C-20
 

Exhibit C.25: Responsibilities under Part C Early Intervention Program by Responsible Agent 

(Fiscal Year 2009)............................................................................................................................ C-21
 

Exhibit C.26: Agency Typically Responsible for Providing Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program Services at the Local Level (School Year 2008–2009).................................... C-22
 

Exhibit C.27: Additional Qualifications of Part C Early Intervention Program Service 

Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009)...................................................................................................... C-23
 

Exhibit C.28: Areas Addressed among States with State-Level Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program Interagency Agreements (School Year 2008–2009) ........................................ C-24
 

Exhibit C.29: Use of Part C Early Intervention Program Funding (Part C Option) to Provide 

Services until Children Enter Kindergarten (Fiscal Year 2009) ...................................................... C-25
 

Exhibit D.1: Status of Definitions for Significant Disproportionality (School Year 2008–2009) ..... D-1
 

Exhibit D.2: Percentage of Districts Having Significant Disproportionality in the Identification 

of Students by State Definition (School Year 2008–2009)................................................................ D-2
 

Exhibit D.3: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS during the Current 

School Year as a Result of Significant Disproportionality, as Reported by SEAs (School Year 

2008–2009) ........................................................................................................................................ D-3
 

Exhibit D.4: Percentage of Districts Required by SEA to Provide CEIS Due to Significant 

Disproportionality among States Requiring at Least One District to Provide CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) ........................................................................................................................................ D-4
 

Exhibit D.5: Target Schools for CEIS Activities or Resources among Districts Required to 

Provide CEIS (School Year 2008–2009)........................................................................................... D-4
 

xiv 
Exhibit D.6: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS as 

Reported by Districts (School Year 2008–2009) ...............................................................................D-5
 

Exhibit D.7: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Funds to Provide CEIS—Proportion of 

Funds Used (School Year 2008–2009)............................................................................................... D-5
 

Exhibit D.8: Distribution of CEIS by School Level for Districts Providing CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) ......................................................................................................................................... D-6
 

Exhibit D.9: Percentage of CEIS-Mandatory and CEIS-Voluntary Districts Using Part B 

Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS Activities (School Year 2008–2009)................D-7
 

Exhibit D.10: Special Education Evaluation and Eligibility in Kindergarten through Grade 3 by 

District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................... D-8
 

Exhibit D.11: Activities Conducted by SEAs Related to RtI (School Year 2008–2009)...................D-9
 

Exhibit D.12: Activities Conducted by State Agencies to Support the Implementation of RtI for
 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2008–2009).........................................................................D-10
 

Exhibit D.13: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. D-11
 

Exhibit D.14: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School
 

Level (School Year 2008–2009) ...................................................................................................... D-12
 

Exhibit D.15: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI by School Level 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................. D-13
 

Exhibit D.16: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level (School 

Year 2008–2009).............................................................................................................................. D-14
 

Exhibit D.17: Percentage of Districts Using RtI in Various Combinations of Subject Areas by
 

School Level (School Year 2008–2009) ..........................................................................................D-15
 

Exhibit D.18: Percentage of Districts Providing RtI Support to Schools and Information to 

Families among Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–2009).......................................................D-16
 

Exhibit D.19: Percentage of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated and Results for 

Part B Special Education Program Services During the 2007–2008 School Year by Use of RtI 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................. D-17
 

Exhibit D.20: Leadership of RtI Implementation in Districts, among Districts Using RtI 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................. D-18
 

Exhibit D.21: Distribution of Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. D-19
 

Exhibit D.22: Percentage of Students in Specific Learning Disability Category by State 

Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007)........................................................................D-20
 

Exhibit D.23: SEA Use of Discrepancy Model to Determine Eligibility for Special Education 

for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (School Year 2008–2009)..................................................D-21
 

Exhibit D.24: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility in the Category of SLD for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–
 

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. D-22
 

xv 
xvi 

Exhibit D.25: Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated, and Results by 

Use of Types of Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) ........................................................... D-23

Exhibit D.26: Pairwise Comparison of Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were 

Evaluated and Results for Part B Special Education Program Services by Use of Types of 

Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) ..................................................................................... D-24

Exhibit D.27: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS During the Current 

School Year as a Result of Significant Disproportionality, as Reported by SEAs by Region 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-25

Exhibit D.28: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by Region 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-26

Exhibit D.29: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by Urbanicity 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-27

Exhibit D.30: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by District 

Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) ............................................................................................. D-28

Exhibit D.31: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That 

Provide CEIS Either Due to Requirements or on a Voluntary Basis by Region (School Year 

2008–2009) ...................................................................................................................................... D-29

Exhibit D.32: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That 

Provide CEIS Either Due to Requirements or on a Voluntary Basis by Urbanicity (School Year 

2008–2009) ...................................................................................................................................... D-30

Exhibit D.33: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That 

Provide CEIS Either Due to Requirements or on a Voluntary Basis by District Enrollment 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-31

Exhibit D.34: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B 

Funding by Region (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................ D-32

Exhibit D.35: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B 

Funding by Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) ........................................................................... D-33

Exhibit D.36: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B 

Funding by District Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) ............................................................. D-34

Exhibit D.37: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Region (School 

Year 2008–2009) ............................................................................................................................. D-35

Exhibit D.38: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Urbanicity 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-36

Exhibit D.39: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by District Size 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................ D-36

Exhibit D.40: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One 

Classroom by School Level and Region (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................ D-37

Exhibit D.41: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One 

Classroom by School Level and Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) .......................................... D-38

Exhibit D.42: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One 

Classroom by School Level and District Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) ............................ D-39
xvii 

Exhibit D.43: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by Region 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................. D-40

Exhibit D.44: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by 

Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) .............................................................................................. D-41

Exhibit D.45: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by District 

Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) .............................................................................................. D-42

Exhibit D.46: Percentage of Students in the Autism Disability Category by State Definition and 

Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) ................................................................................................ D-43

Exhibit D.47: Percentage of Students in the Mental Retardation Disability Category by State 

Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) ........................................................................ D-44

Exhibit D.48: Percentage of Students in the Emotional Disturbance Disability Category by 

State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) ............................................................... D-47

Exhibit D.49: Percentage of Students in the Speech or Language Impairment Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) .......................................... D-49

Exhibit D.50: Percentage of Students in the Other Health Impairment Disability Category by 

State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) ............................................................... D-50

Exhibit D.51: Percentage of Grade 1–4 Students in the Developmental Delay Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) .......................................... D-51

Exhibit D.52: Percentage of Students in the Visual Impairment including Blindness Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) .......................................... D-53

Exhibit E.1: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ........................................ E-2

Exhibit E.2: State Agency Involved in the Release of Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) ............................................................................................................... E-3

Exhibit E.3: State Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) ....... E-4

Exhibit E.4: Requirements for Use of Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and 

Children and Youth (School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................................. E-5

Exhibit E.5: Target Audience for State Agency Training or Professional Development on 

Alignment of Early Learning Guidelines and Early Intervention Services, for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) .............................................................................................. E-6

Exhibit E.6: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2008 or 2009) ............................................................................... E-7

Exhibit E.7: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) .................................................... E-8

Exhibit E.8: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Children and Youth (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) ........................................................... E-9

Exhibit E.9: Percentage of States Providing Training or Professional Development on 

Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and Children and Youth Targeting Specific 

Audiences (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ................................................................... E-10
xviii 

Exhibit E.10: District Policies on Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 2007–2008 and 2008–

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. E-11

Exhibit E.11: Percentage of Certified Related Service Professionals Serving School-Age 

Children and Youth by Profession (Fall 2006) ................................................................................. E-12

Exhibit E.12: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) ............................................................................................... E-13

Exhibit E.13: Agency Responsible for Licensing/Certification of Special Educators by IDEA 

Program Early Intervention Special Educators, Preschool Special Education Teachers, and 

Special Education Teachers (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ................................. E-14

Exhibit E.14: State Certification/Licensure Requirements for Preschool Special Education Staff 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................. E-15

Exhibit E.15: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................. E-16

Exhibit E.16: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers .... E-17

Exhibit E.17: Summary of Praxis Series Tests Used by States for Certification, Licensure, or 

Highly Qualified Status in Selected Subject-Matter Areas ............................................................... E-18

Exhibit E.18: Elements Required in HOUSSE Certification for Current Special Education 

Teachers in Elementary, Middle and High Schools (School Year 2008–2009) ............................... E-20

Exhibit E.19: National Estimates of the Percentage of Funded Full-Time Equivalent Vacancies 

or Departures (School Year 2008–2009) .......................................................................................... E-21

Exhibit E.20: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely 

Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years (School Years 

2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) .......................................................................................... E-22

Exhibit E.21: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special Educators, 

Qualified Preschool Special Education Staff and Highly Qualified Teachers (Fiscal Years 2008 

and 2009, School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ...................................................................... E-23

Exhibit E.22: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That Are Highly Qualified (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–

2009) ................................................................................................................................................. E-25

Exhibit E.23: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................. E-27

Exhibit E.24: Pay Incentives Used by Districts to Retain Current Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................. E-29

Exhibit E.25: Combination of Agencies Releasing Early Learning Guidelines Describing 

Expectations for Young Children’s Learning and Environment (Fiscal Year 2009) ........................ E-30

Exhibit E.26: State Early Learning Guidelines or Standards for Infants and Toddlers or 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) ...................................... E-31

Exhibit E.27: Among States Providing Early Learning Guidelines, Percentage That Have 

Formal Written Guidance Regarding the Development and Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) ........................................................................................... E-32
xix 

Exhibit E.28: Among States Providing Standards-Based IEPs, Percent That Have Formal 

Policies in Place Regarding the Development and Use of Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 

2008–2009) ....................................................................................................................................... E-32

Exhibit E.29: Teachers Employed (FTE) to Provide Special Education to Children under IDEA 

by Age Group, Qualification Status, and State (Fall 2006) .............................................................. E-33

Exhibit E.30: Qualified Paraprofessionals Employed (FTE) to Provide Special Education and 

Related Services to Children under IDEA by Age Group, Qualification Status and State (Fall 

2006) ................................................................................................................................................. E-35

Exhibit E.31: Age Ranges for Which Special Educator Certification or Credential Is Applicable 

in the State (Fiscal Year 2009) ......................................................................................................... E-37

Exhibit E.32: HOUSSE Subject-Matter Requirements for Current Special Education Teachers 

in Middle Schools (School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................................. E-38

Exhibit E.33: HOUSSE Subject-Matter Requirements for Current Special Education Teachers 

in High Schools (School Year 2008–2009) ...................................................................................... E-39

Exhibit E.34: Pay Incentives Districts Used to Retain Current Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009)................................................................................................................. E-40

Exhibit E.35: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced 

Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years by Region (School Years 

2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ......................................................................................... E-41

Exhibit E.36: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced 

Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years by Urbanicity (School Years 

2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ......................................................................................... E-42

Exhibit E.37: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced 

Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years by District Size (School 

Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ............................................................................... E-43

Exhibit E.38: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That are Highly Qualified by Region (School Years 2007–2008 

and 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................................ E-45

Exhibit E.39: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That are Highly Qualified by Urbanicity (School Years 2007–2008 

and 2008–2009) ................................................................................................................................ E-48

Exhibit E.40: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That Are Highly Qualified by District Enrollment (School Years 

2007–2008 and 2008–2009) ............................................................................................................. E-50

Exhibit E.41: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by 

Region (School Year 2008–2009) .................................................................................................... E-53

Exhibit E.42: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by 

Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) .............................................................................................. E-56

Exhibit E.43: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by 

District Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................. E-58
xx 

Exhibit E.44: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education 

Teachers by Region (School Year 2008–2009) ................................................................................ E-60

Exhibit E.45: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education 

Teachers by Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) ........................................................................... E-62

Exhibit E.46: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education 

Teachers by District Size (School Year 2008–2009) ........................................................................ E-64

Exhibit F.1: Crosswalk of Common Terms for Dispute Resolution Events ....................................... F-2

Exhibit G.1: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool-Age Program Staff, and LEAs 

to Promote the Participation of Parents of Children and Youth with IFSPs/IEPs (Fiscal Year 

2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) .................................................................................................... G-2

Exhibit G.2: Methods of Program Collaboration with Federally Funded Parent Training and 

Information Centers (PTIs) in States Aware of PTI in their State (Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008–

2009 School Year) ............................................................................................................................. G-3

Exhibit G.3: Topics Addressed in District Offerings to Parents of Children and Youth with 

IFSPs/IEPs (2008–2009 School Year) ............................................................................................... G-4

Exhibit G.4: Illustration of How ADR, Mediation, and Due Process Hearings May Interact in 

Resolving Disputes ............................................................................................................................ G-5

Exhibit G.5: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention (Fiscal Year 2008) ............................................................... G-5

Exhibit G.6: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention by Lead Agency Type (Fiscal Year 2008) ........................... G-6

Exhibit G.7: Number of State Programs Reporting No Dispute Events for Part C Early 

Intervention and Part B Special Education Programs During Fiscal Year 2008 or the 2007–

2008 School Year ............................................................................................................................... G-7

Exhibit G.8: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events 

per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part C Early 

Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 through 

2007–2008 School Years) .................................................................................................................. G-8

Exhibit G.9: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events 

per 10,000 Children and Youth with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part B in the 50 

States by Dispute Resolution Event (2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) ....................... G-9

Exhibit G.10: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) ....................................................................................................................................... G-10

Exhibit G.11: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving Services 

under Part B Programs by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School 

Years) ............................................................................................................................................... G-11

Exhibit G.12: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events 

per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Age Birth through Two Receiving Services in 

Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States and Washington D.C. by Dispute 

Resolution Procedure (2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) ........................................... G-12
xxi 

Exhibit G.13: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities for Infants and Toddlers Age 

Birth through 2 Receiving Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States 

(Fiscal Year 2008) ............................................................................................................................ G-13

Exhibit G.14: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Age Birth through 2 Receiving 

Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States and Washington, D.C. (Fiscal 

Year 2008) ........................................................................................................................................ G-14

Exhibit G.15: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities Ages 3 through 

21 Receiving Services in the Part B Special Education Programs in the 50 States and D.C. 

(2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) ............................................................................... G-15

Exhibit G.16: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities for Preschooland School-Age Children Ages 3 through 21 Receiving Services in the Part B Special 

Education Programs in the 50 States (2007–2008 School Year) ...................................................... G-16

Exhibit G.17: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities for Preschooland School-Age Children Ages 3 through 21 Receiving Services in Part B Special Education 

Programs in the 50 States and D.C. (2007–2008 School Year)........................................................ G-17

Exhibit G.18: Topics of Dispute Resolutions at the State Level for Infants and Toddlers 

Receiving Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs by Dispute Resolution Procedure 

(Fiscal Year 2008) ............................................................................................................................ G-18

Exhibit G.19: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Preschool- and School-Age Children 

Receiving Services in Part B Special Education Programs by Dispute Resolution Procedure in 

the 50 States and D.C. (2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School Years) ................................................. G-19

 

 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is the most recent 

reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), federal legislation 

specifically focused on the education of children with disabilities. The purposes of IDEA are: to 

ensure that all children receive a free and appropriate public education; to ensure that the rights of 

children with disabilities and their parents are protected; to assist states, localities, educational service 

agencies and federal agencies in providing an education for all children with disabilities; to assist 

states in the implementation of an interagency system of early intervention services for infants and 

toddlers with disabilities and their families; to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary 

tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities and, lastly, to assess, and ensure the 

effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with disabilities [P.L. 108-446 § 601(d)]. 

Section 664(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 requires that 

the Secretary of Education delegate to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) responsibility for 

conducting an assessment of national activities under the law, known as the National Assessment of 

IDEA. The goals of the National Assessment of IDEA are: to determine the effectiveness of IDEA in 

achieving its purposes; to provide timely information to the President, Congress, the States, local 

educational agencies and the public on how to implement this title more effectively; and to provide 

the President and Congress with information that will be useful in developing legislation to achieve 

the purposes of this title more effectively. IES initiated studies in three broad areas that will 

contribute to the National Assessment of IDEA: (1) studies of the characteristics of children and 

youth identified for services under IDEA; (2) studies of the implementation of IDEA programs; and 

(3) studies of the effectiveness of IDEA-related services and strategies. The Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS) is one study of 

the implementation of IDEA programs that contributes to the overall National Assessment of IDEA. 

IES initiated a design study advised by practitioners, researchers and evaluation experts to develop 

research questions and approaches to address the goals for the National Assessment of IDEA (Fiore et 

al. 2007). The design study prioritized areas for inclusion in the IDEA-NAIS. Ultimately, IES 

identified four focal areas: services to young children with disabilities; identification of children and 

youth with disabilities; efforts to promote positive developmental and educational outcomes for 

children and youth with disabilities; and dispute resolution. The IDEA-NAIS collected information to 

answer four broad research questions: 

•	 What are the IDEA Part C early intervention service delivery models for infants and 

toddlers and how are IDEA Part C programs coordinated with IDEA Part B special 

education programs for preschool-age children, specifically in the support of children 

who may transition across programs? 

•	 How are state agencies and school districts implementing the IDEA provisions to prevent 

inappropriate identification? 

xxiii 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 How are state early intervention agencies, state educational agencies (SEAs) and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) implementing measures to improve child and youth 

outcomes through developmental and academic standards and qualified staff? 

•	 To what extent do state agencies and school districts engage in dispute resolution with 

parents and guardians, and how has the incidence of disputes changed since the 2003– 

2004 school year? 

Within each area, the IDEA-NAIS focuses on the implementation of select provisions of IDEA that 

were introduced or revised in the 2004 reauthorization of the law and complements the work of the 

other National Assessment of IDEA studies.1

 The IDEA-NAIS also examines key IDEA provisions 

that were introduced prior to the 2004 authorization but were not included in earlier national studies. 

The executive summary highlights key findings of the IDEA-NAIS related to each of the four 

research questions. For a fuller description of findings, please see the full report. 

The Scope of Early Intervention and Special Education in the U.S. 

IDEA authorizes the Secretary of Education to provide grants to states to assist them in the provision 

of special education and related services to children with disabilities. The IDEA Part C program 

supports early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and, at 

state discretion those at risk for developmental delays and disabilities, from birth through age 2. The 

IDEA Part B 619 program supports special education and related services to preschool-age children 

with disabilities (ages 3 through 5) and the Part B 611 program provides funds to support the 

provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children and youth with disabilities ages 

6 through 17, and ages 3 through 5 and 18 through 21 if those ages are included in the mandatory age 

range for the provision of FAPE under state law. 

Nearly seven million children with disabilities from birth through age 21 receive services under 

IDEA. Services through the Part C early intervention program were provided to 316,730 infants and 

toddlers birth through age 2 in 2007. Part B special education program services were provided to 

700,166 children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and 5,905,854 students with disabilities ages 6 

through 21.2 

1	 See http:/ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities.asp for a description and status of the other 

National Assessment of IDEA studies. 

2	 Number of infants and toddlers served under the Part C early intervention program is from Table C1 

Number and Percentage of Population Served (Ages Birth Through 2), Part C, by State: 1998 Through 

2007 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xls, retrieved July 19, 2009). 

Number of preschool-age children served under the Part B special education program is from Table B2B 

Number and Prevalence Rate of Children Served in the 50 States and D.C. (including BIE schools) under 

IDEA, Part B Ages 3-21 and Ages 3-5 by Age, 1998 Through 2007 available from the Data Accountability 

Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B2B.xls, retrieved July 19, 2009). 

Number of children and youth ages 6 through 21 served under the Part B special education program is from 

Table B2B Number and Prevalence Rate of Children Served in the 50 States and D.C. (including BIE 

xxiv 
 

Methods and Report Contents 

The IDEA-NAIS is a descriptive study of the implementation of IDEA as reported by state 

educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) leadership. The IDEA-NAIS provides 

a comprehensive national picture of the state and local implementation of IDEA for children and 

youth ages birth through age 21. Findings are based primarily on survey data from 50 states and the 

District of Columbia and a nationally representative sample of 1,200 school districts. Three state-level 

mail surveys collected data from: (1) state Part C program coordinators who are responsible for early 

intervention programs serving infants and toddlers; (2) state Part B program coordinators who oversee 

programs for preschool-age children with disabilities; and (3) state Part B program coordinators who 

oversee programs providing special education services to children and youth with disabilities. The 

fourth survey was a web-based survey that collected data from local special education administrators 

at the district level. The state agency surveys had a 100 percent response rate and the district survey 

achieved a 96 percent response rate. The IDEA-NAIS also collected extant data for two purposes: (1) 

to reduce duplication of reporting and (2) to complement survey data by adding more information for 

the reader. 

The surveys were fielded in January and February of 2009 and requested data about policies and 

practices that were in place for that year (fiscal year 2009 for the Part C program or the 2008–2009 

school year for the Part B program). Federal appropriations to states for early intervention and special 

education have been between $11 and $12 billion since 2004 (U. S. Department of Education 2008).3 

Providing Services to Young Children 

The state-administered services now referred to as the IDEA Part C early intervention program for 

infants and toddlers were first authorized in 1986 as Part H of the Education of the Handicapped Act 

Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-457). Part H established the first national program of federal grants to 

states to develop and implement a statewide system of services for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families, in response to what Congress saw as an urgent and substantial need to 

serve this population. Since the creation of Part H in 1986, the core policies of the Part C program 

have changed little. The program’s initial mandate remains the same: that states make available to 

infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, early intervention services that are familyfocused, multidisciplinary and provided through strong collaborative interagency efforts. The current 

legislative requirements specify that services are to be provided to infants and toddlers from birth 

through 2 years of age who need early intervention services because they are experiencing 

developmental delay, or have a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of 

resulting in developmental delay. This service provision may include, at a state’s discretion, infants 

and toddlers considered at risk for developmental delay. 

schools) under IDEA, Part B Ages 3-21 and Ages 3-5 by Age, 1998 Through 2007 (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B2B.xls, retrieved July 19, 2009). 

3 After data collection was completed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 

111-5) appropriated new funding for programs under IDEA which nearly doubled the federal investment in 

early intervention and special education to provide an opportunity for states and LEAs to implement 

innovative strategies to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. The 

data provided in this report describe state and district policies prior to the receipt of ARRA funds. 

xxv 
 

For toddlers with disabilities who are eligible for special education and related services at age 3, 

children and families must make a transition from receipt of Part C early intervention program 

services to receipt of Part B preschool-age special education program services. From the initial Part H 

legislation in 1986 (P.L. 99-457), there has been consistent federal acknowledgement of the 

importance of making the transition from the Part C program to the Part B program as smooth as 

possible for both children and families. With the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, changes were 

made concerning the transition from the Part C program. These included a requirement for the LEA, 

at a parent’s request, to invite a Part C program representative to the initial Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) meeting for a child who is transitioning from the Part C program to the Part B program 

and a Part C Option that gives states the flexibility, with a parent’s consent, to continue to serve 

children from age 3 until entrance into kindergarten in the early intervention, or Part C program. 

Implementation of the IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers 

The IDEA-NAIS represents the first comprehensive investigation of early intervention 

implementation by IDEA Part C program state agencies. As such, key roles and responsibilities of 

state agencies in providing Part C program services were investigated including: state lead agency, 

funding and funding sources; outreach activities and referral sources; family participation; 

involvement of local agencies in service delivery; and service provision and coordination. 

What are the Part C early intervention program administrative, funding and service 

delivery models? 

Health and human services agencies lead Part C early intervention efforts in most states. 

Beginning with the 1986 Part H legislation, each governor has had the discretion to designate a state 

agency to lead early intervention efforts. Most states (37) have designated health or human services 

agencies as the lead agency for Part C early intervention program services, with 11 states placing 

responsibility for the Part C programs in state education agencies and 2 states sharing responsibility 

for Part C program services across the health/human services and education agencies. 

Across states, the most common source providing the largest share of funding for Part C early 

intervention services is state early intervention funds. The Part C statute permits the state lead 

agency that administers the Part C program to establish a “system of payments” for early intervention 

services. The system of payments may include funds from a range of federal, state, local and private 

sources, including public and private insurance coverage and sliding scale-based parent fees (20 

U.S.C. § 1431). IDEA Part C program funds are meant to be used only as the “payor of last resort,” 

meaning Part C funds may not be used to satisfy a financial commitment for services that would have 

been paid for from another public or private source (20 U.S.C. § 1440). Twenty-three states identified 

state early intervention funds as the source providing the largest share of funding for Part C program 

services (see Exhibit ES.1). Other common sources providing the largest share of funding include 

Medicaid/Title XIX (8 states) and IDEA Part C program funds (8 states). 

Twenty-seven states have a family cost participation (FCP) policy. The system of payments set up 

by state Part C program agencies may include, at a state’s discretion, payments made by participating 

families commonly known as family cost participation. This term refers to state policies and 

procedures specifying families’ contribution to the cost of Part C program services, either indirectly 

by using a family’s private health insurance coverage or directly by charging the family a fee. IDEA 

xxvi 
xxvii 

specifies that family cost participation must be based on a family’s ability to pay [20 U.S.C. § 1432 

(4)(B)]. As of early 2009, 27 state Part C program agencies had an FCP policy. Of the 27 states with 

an FCP policy, 12 include both private insurance and family fees, 10 include only private insurance 

and 5 include family fees only. 

Exhibit ES.1: Funding Source That Provides the Largest Proportion of Funding for Early 

Intervention Services across States (Fiscal Year 2009) 

State early 

intervention funds, 

23 states (45% of 

states)

IDEA, Part C, 8 

states (16% of 

states)

Medicaid/Title XIX, 

8 states (16% of 

states)

Local municipality 

or county funds, 4 

states (8% of 

states)

IDEA, Part B, 1 

state (2% of 

states)

Private insurance, 

1 state (2% of 

states)

Other, 6 states 

(12% of states)

N = 51.

The most common Part C early intervention outreach activity across state agencies is the 

development/dissemination of written material for pediatricians and other health care 

providers for infants and toddlers. As part of the statutory requirements for implementing Part C 

programs, states must conduct public awareness or outreach activities and accept referrals from 

families and other knowledgeable sources. Conducting outreach activities to identify young children 

with disabilities has been integral to Part C program services since the 1986 reauthorization. The 

development/dissemination of written materials to pediatricians and other health care providers was 

reported across 47 states (Exhibit ES.2). Two other common activities include the 

development/dissemination of web-based information and other electronic materials (45 states) and 

written materials for child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities (43 states). 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit ES.2: State-Reported Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers 

with Disabilities (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) 

Part C Program 

Type of Activity N % 

Development/dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health 

care providers 47 94.00 

Web-based information and other electronic materials 45 90.00 

Development/dissemination of written materials for child care centers, nursery 

schools and other facilities 43 86.00 

Outreach to referral sources 41 82.00 

Workshops for pediatricians and other health care providers 26 52.00 

Workshops for staff from child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities 26 52.00 

Outreach through radio, TV, newspapers and other print media 24 48.00 

Other 8 16.00 

N = 50. 

Families and primary health care providers are the most frequent referral sources for early 

intervention services for infants and toddlers across states. Twenty-eight states reported families 

to be the most frequent referral source for Part C early intervention programs and 20 states reported 

primary health care providers to be the most frequent referral source. Almost all states (49 and 48 

respectively) include families and primary health care providers as one of their three most frequent 

referral sources (Exhibit ES.3). 

Exhibit ES.3: Most Frequent Referral Sources for Part C Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Referral Source 

States Reporting as 

Most Frequent 

Referral Source 

States Reporting as 

One of Three Most 

Frequent Referral 

Sources 

N % N % 

Families 

Primary health care providers 

Health department 

Other 

Private agency 

Local school district 

Social service agencies (e.g., Head Start) 

Regional agencies (e.g., service centers) 

28 56.00 

20 40.00 

1 2.00 

1 2.00 10 

0 0.00 

0 0.00 

0 0.00 

0 0.00 

49 98.00 

48 96.00 

10 20.00 

20.00 

2 4.00 

5 10.00 

21 42.00 

4 8.00 

For most frequent referral source, N = 50; for second-most frequent referral source, N = 50; for third-most frequent referral 

source, N = 49. 

xxviii 
 

Transitions from the Part C Early Intervention Program and to the Part B Preschool-Age 

Special Education Program 

For toddlers with disabilities who are eligible for special education and related services at age 3, 

children and families must make a transition from receipt of Part C program early intervention 

services to receipt of Part B program services. Because the Part C programs and Part B programs are 

typically administered by different state agencies and have different program requirements, the 

transition from the Part C program likely involves a number of changes for the children and their 

families, including a different state lead agency, different service staff, often different service delivery 

settings, and possibly different services or similar services with a different purpose or scope. As 

mentioned above, the importance of facilitating this transition for both children and families has been 

consistently acknowledged in federal law since the reauthorization of Part H in 1986. The Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) funds multiple technical assistance centers that focus on 

providing support and guidance to states with the goal of improving the transition experience for 

children and families. 

Given the importance of the transition process from the Part C program to the Part B program, the 

IDEA-NAIS focused on ways in which the state agencies work collaboratively and how the state 

agencies support children who transition from one program to the other. 

How are the Part C early intervention program lead agencies coordinated with the Part B 

special education program lead agencies, specifically in the support of children who may 

transition across programs? 

Most Part C early intervention program and preschool-age special education program 

coordinators meet at least monthly; in almost all states transitions are regularly addressed 

during the Part C program/Part B preschool-age program coordinator meetings. Early 

intervention and preschool-age special education services are led by different state coordinators in 46 

states and, thus, collaboration and communication across programs are necessary. Among the 46 

states with separate leadership, 67 percent of the early intervention coordinators reported meeting 

with the preschool-age special education coordinators at least monthly and the remaining 33 percent 

of the Part C program coordinators reported meeting more than six times a year but not monthly. 

Ninety-eight percent of the Part C program coordinators in states with separate leadership indicated 

that the topic of “transitions” was regularly addressed in these meetings—the most prevalent topic. 

Part C early intervention and Part B preschool-age special education state agencies provide 

technical assistance to local providers on transitions. Part C early intervention program and Part B 

preschool-age special education program state agencies support the transition of children with 

disabilities from receiving Part C program services to receiving preschool-age Part B program 

services in multiple ways. Most often, this support reportedly entails providing technical assistance to 

local providers on transition (conducted in 50 states by the Part C early intervention program agency 

and conducted in 50 states by the Part B preschool-age special education program agency); 

developing transition policies (in 48 and 46 states respectively); and developing and disseminating 

materials for parents on the transition from the Part C program to the Part B program (in 41 and 36 

states respectively). Almost all Part C and Part B state agencies conduct multiple activities to support 

the transition of children with disabilities from the Part C program. Forty-four early intervention 

xxix 
 

 

program coordinators and 44 preschool-age special education program coordinators reported 

conducting three or more activities to support transitions. 

No state reported implementing the Part C Option. This option permits the Part C program agency 

to continue serving children from age 3 until entrance into kindergarten. In all states, preschool-age 

children with disabilities are served by the Part B program. Insufficient funds was the most 

commonly cited reason states reported for not implementing the Part C Option (41 states). 

Identification of Students Needing Special Education 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA introduced several interrelated changes related to the identification 

of children with disabilities. These changes focus on two broad areas. First, the 2004 reauthorization 

attempts to address overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority students in special education 

(“disproportionality”) by allowing districts to use some of their IDEA Part B funds to develop and 

implement Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) for students who are not yet identified as 

needing special education but who need additional support to succeed in a general education 

environment. Second, the 2004 legislation introduced changes in the identification of students in the 

disability category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD). Response to Intervention (RtI) is linked 

both to CEIS and to changes in eligibility criteria for students with SLD; CEIS funds can be used to 

implement an RtI process and data from the RtI process can be used as one component of the 

eligibility determinations. 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) is a provision introduced to IDEA in 2004 that allows 

districts to use up to 15 percent of their Part B funds to develop and provide services for children who 

are not yet identified as in need of special education and related services but who need additional 

academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. While generally 

optional for districts, the provision of CEIS is required if an LEA is identified by the state as having a 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in: the identification of children with 

disabilities; the identification of children with disabilities in a particular impairment category; the 

placement of children in particular educational settings; and/or the incidence, duration and type of 

disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. In the case of a determination of 

significant disproportionality, these coordinated early intervening services must serve particularly, but 

not exclusively, students in racial and ethnic groups that are significantly overidentified. CEIS are 

designed as services for students in kindergarten through 12th grade, with a particular emphasis on 

students in kindergarten through 3rd grade (Office of Special Education Programs 2008). OSEP 

guidance and federal regulations indicate IDEA funds may be used to supplement, not supplant, any 

federal funds used to support CEIS which includes Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

funds for school improvement activities [Office of Special Education Programs 2008; 34 C.F.R. § 

300.202(a)(3), 300.226(e)]. 

Given the new opportunity or requirement for districts to support students prior to special education 

identification with IDEA funds, the IDEA-NAIS focused on the implementation of this support. 

xxx 
How are state agencies and school districts implementing Coordinated Early Intervening 

Services (CEIS)? 

In 3 percent of districts, CEIS is required due to significant disproportionality. Overall, 2.9 

percent of districts nationally were required to use CEIS during the 2008–2009 school year as a result 

of significant disproportionality in at least one area. Just over 2 (2.3) percent of districts were required 

to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality in identification and under 1 percent of districts 

were required to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality in placement (0.7 percent) or 

discipline (0.3 percent). 

Eleven percent of districts are voluntarily implementing CEIS. LEAs that are not identified as 

having significant disproportionality may choose to use up to 15 percent of their Part B funds to 

develop and provide CEIS for children who are not yet identified as being in need of special 

education services. Most districts (85 percent) reported neither being required nor volunteering to use 

Part B funds for CEIS, whereas 11 percent of districts nationally were not required but voluntarily 

used a portion of their Part B funds to implement CEIS in the 2008–2009 school year. Among 

districts that are voluntarily using some portion of Part B program funds for CEIS, 7 percent spent 

less than 1 percent of funds; 39 percent of districts spent 1–5 percent of funds; 23 percent spent 6–10 

percent of funds, and 31 percent spent 11 percent or more of their Part B program funds. 

CEIS is commonly used for literacy instruction. Activities districts may conduct as part of CEIS 

include professional development for teachers and other school staff designed to enable them to 

deliver scientifically based academic or behavioral interventions [34 C.F.R. § 300.226(b)]. This 

includes, for example, instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional software and providing 

educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports. Eighty-two percent of districts 

mandated to provide CEIS and 84 percent of districts electing to provide CEIS use Part B funds to 

provide direct instruction, evaluation or supplies related to literacy instruction, a prevalent use by 

districts. Other CEIS activities commonly supported by Part B funds include, for example: response 

to intervention (82 percent of CEIS-mandated districts and 67 percent of CEIS-voluntary districts); 

behavioral interventions (63 percent of CEIS-mandated districts and 60 percent of CEIS-voluntary 

districts); math instruction (63 percent of CEIS-mandated districts and 49 percent of CEIS-voluntary 

districts); adaptive and instructional software (55 percent of CEIS-mandated districts and 41 percent 

of CEIS-voluntary districts); educational evaluations (43 percent of CEIS-mandated districts and 46 

percent of CEIS-voluntary districts); and behavioral evaluations (47 percent of CEIS-mandated 

districts and 37 percent of CEIS-voluntary districts). 

CEIS is commonly implemented at the elementary school level. In districts providing CEIS, 93 

percent of districts provide CEIS at the elementary school level, whether required or electing to 

provide CEIS. Of districts required to provide CEIS, 56 percent do so at the middle school and 41 

percent do so at the high school level. Of districts electing to provide CEIS, 41 percent do so at the 

middle school level and 33 percent do so at the high school level. 

Response to Intervention (RtI) and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Eligibility 

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a term used to describe a range of practices for monitoring progress 

in the academic and behavioral domains and for providing interventions in these areas. RtI occurs 

within the general education setting in collaboration with the activities of other experts such as special 

xxxi 
educators and school psychologists. The national Learning Disabilities Summit (2001) highlighted 

RtI as a promising method for specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification. Then, in 2002, the 

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education recommended early intervention, 

curriculum-based measurement (CBM), and a change in criteria for SLD identification (U. S. 

Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 2002). 

The 2004 IDEA amendments incorporated RtI into the regulations in two ways. First, the 

amendments allowed RtI to be used as one component of eligibility determination for specific 

learning disabilities. Second, they identified educational and behavioral evaluations and services and 

supports as possible means for implementing CEIS. Guidance from the Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) explicitly links CEIS and RtI by sanctioning the use of CEIS funds to support RtI 

as long CEIS funds are used for services to nondisabled students in need of additional academic or 

behavioral support and supplement, not supplant, other funds used to implement RtI (OSEP 2008). 

OSEP has supported the implementation of RtI by funding a number of related national centers 

focused on progress monitoring, response to intervention, response to intervention in early childhood, 

positive behavior interventions, and learning disabilities. 

Due to the attention to, and support for, response to intervention as a method of providing services 

and a source of information for the identification of students in the category of SLD, the IDEA-NAIS 

focused on the implementation of RtI and the use of RtI data in SLD identification. 

Are state agencies and school districts implementing the IDEA provisions to prevent 

inappropriate identification including Response to Intervention (RtI), and what types of 

data are used to determine specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility? 

State agencies support the implementation of RtI. In all but two states, there is a state-level RtI 

task force, commission or internal working group according to special education coordinators. Other 

commonly reported state activities and resources include: the provision of training on RtI by 

consultants or contractors (40 states), the issuance of RtI guidelines (39 states) and the provision of 

RtI information on SEA websites (39 states). 

Most school districts are implementing RtI. To describe the extent of RtI practices in use across 

school districts in the U.S., the IDEA-NAIS district survey asked whether RtI is being used in at least 

one school in the district. Seventy-one percent of districts nationally reported using RtI. 

Nationally, RtI is common in elementary schools. RtI is used in 61 percent of all elementary 

schools, 45 percent of middle schools and 29 percent of high schools. 

At each school level, districts largely implement RtI in all or none of the schools in the district. 

For example, at the elementary school level, 58 percent of districts are implementing RtI in all district 

schools, 34 percent of districts are implementing RtI in no schools, and 9 percent of districts are 

implementing RtI in some of their schools (Exhibit ES.4). 

RtI is often implemented as a partnership between the general and special education staffs. 

Nationally, 75 percent of districts reported that RtI implementation was led jointly by general and 

special educators. Eighteen percent of districts reported that RtI was led by general educators and 8 

percent reported that special education staff led RtI. 

xxxii 
 

Exhibit ES.4: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School 

Level (School Year 2008–2009) 

For elementary schools, N = 1,139; for middle schools, N = 1,135; for high schools, N = 1,132; for other schools, N = 1,135. 

Nationally, across school districts, RtI is common in reading/language arts. Seventy percent of 

districts reported using RtI in reading/language arts in elementary schools, 48 percent reported using 

RtI in reading/language arts in middle schools, and 31 percent reported using RtI in reading/language 

arts in high schools (Exhibit ES.5). 

Exhibit ES.5: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Areas by School Level (School Year 

2008–2009) 

School Level 

Reading/ 

language arts 

% 

Math 

% 

Subject Areas 

Behavior 

% 

Writing 

% 

Other 

% 

Elementary school 70.12 47.06 36.37 27.47 1.57 

Middle school 47.62 38.10 32.56 21.52 1.40 

High school 30.51 28.06 18.50 16.94 1.65 

Other school 8.47 6.26 7.77 3.36 0.76 

For elementary schools, N = 1,082; for middle schools, N = 880; for high schools, N = 914; for other schools, N = 393. 

District general funds are commonly used to support RtI. District respondents who reported 

district use of RtI during the 2008–2009 school year listed each source used to fund training and 

implementation of RtI; if more than one source was selected, they indicated the one funding source 

that provides the most support for the implementation of RtI. Nationally, among districts where RtI 

was being used, 80 percent indicated that general funds are used to support RtI; 46 percent reported 

xxxiii 
 

 

 

using Title I funds and 41 percent reported using some type of IDEA funds, with 13 percent of 

districts reporting using IDEA Coordinated Early Intervening Services funds4

 (Exhibit ES.6). Among 

districts implementing RtI, about half (48 percent) indicated that district general funds provide the 

most support for RtI implementation. 

Exhibit ES.6: Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts Where 

Source Is Providing 

the Most Support 

Districts with Any 

Funding Used 

Source of Funding % % 

District general funds 79.70 48.08 

Combined Title I funds 45.83 19.36 

No Child Left Behind (or ESEA) Title I-A 

School-wide or Targeted Assistance funds 44.40 17.43 

NCLB Title I-B Reading First funds 9.08 1.92 

Combined IDEA funds 40.56 21.91 

IDEA Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(EIS) funds a 12.79 6.92 

IDEA Part B flow-through funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 19.88 6.86 

IDEA district discretionary funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 7.09 2.26 

IDEA state discretionary funds 5.99 1.71 

Other sources 30.00 10.56 

NCLB Title II-A funds 19.46 5.08 

NCLB Title III funds 3.32 0.00 

NCLB Title V grants for innovation 1.60 

State Improvement Grant (SIG) or State 

Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) 8.92 4.15 

Other 10.14 5.19 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality.
 

For identified at least one source, N = 857. 

a

 Although the survey used the term “Early Intervening Services” (EIS), the current terminology is “Coordinated Early
 

Intervention Services” (CEIS). 

xxxiv 

4 

 The survey did not provide definitions for writing or reading/language arts. 
State criteria for SLD vary from the federal eligibility requirements in 18 states. States have 

discretion in developing eligibility criteria for SLD and state criteria may differ from federal 

eligibility requirements. The study team reviewed state definitions and eligibility criteria found in 

state laws and regulations pertaining to SLD and compared these with the federal definition and 

eligibility criteria. For the majority of states (33), there is no difference between the state and federal 

eligibility requirements. Other states differ from the federal definition of SLD in a variety of ways, 

including: the state uses a specified statistical level of discrepancy between achievement and 

performance to assess eligibility for SLD (15 states); the state specifies a number of data collection 

points and length of time per intervention prior to eligibility determination (3 states); the state 

specifies the types of professionals who are qualified to complete evaluations (2 states); or the state 

includes additional categories of disability, such as Attention Deficit Disorder, not included in the 

federal definition (2 states). 

Most states permit the use of RtI data or an alternative method as well as a discrepancy model 

in the identification of students in the category of specific learning disabilities. When surveyed 

about the determination of eligibility for SLD, most SEAs (37) reported allowing the use of an IQachievement discrepancy model as well as the inclusion of RtI data or an alternative method in 

determining eligibility. Additionally, 6 states permit the discrepancy model and require the inclusion 

of RtI data and 7 states use RtI data or an alternative method and disallow the use of the discrepancy 

model. 

About half of districts incorporate data from the RtI process and also use a discrepancy model 

in determining special education eligibility for SLD. Fifty-three percent of districts use both RtI 

data and discrepancy data; 35 percent of districts use discrepancy model data without use of RtI data; 

and 12 percent of districts use RtI without use of discrepancy model data in determining special 

education eligibility for SLD (Exhibit ES.7). 

xxxv 
Exhibit ES.7: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–2009) 

Types of Data % 

Use of both RtI data and discrepancy data 

Data and other information from the RtI process; data based on cognitive and 

academic assessments that demonstrate a discrepancy between expected 

and actual performance; as well as data from other, research-based
 

procedures 

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data based on 

cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a discrepancy 

between expected and actual performance 

Use of discrepancy data without RtI 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a 

discrepancy between expected and actual performance only 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a 

discrepancy between expected and actual performance as well as data from 

other, research-based procedures 

Use of RtI data without discrepancy data 

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data from other, 

research-based procedures 

Data and other information from the RtI process only 

Other 

Data from other, research-based procedures only 

52.81 

30.49

22.32 

34.70 

22.13

12.57 

12.05 

9.01

3.04 

0.45 

N = 1,107. 

Efforts to Promote Positive Educational Outcomes for Children and 

Youth with Disabilities 

The 2004 IDEA legislation strengthened ongoing efforts to promote positive educational outcomes 

for children and youth with disabilities. The IDEA-NAIS examined two specific aspects of IDEA 

geared to this goal of improving outcomes: (1) establishing and maintaining developmental and 

academic standards for children and youth with disabilities and (2) qualified personnel. 

Academic Standards 

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 focused on providing access to a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities (P.L. 94-142). When first enacted 

in 1986, the IDEA Part C early intervention program and the IDEA Part B special education program 

focused on states making available, respectively, appropriate early intervention services, and special 

education and related services. Reauthorizations of IDEA Part B have followed the emphasis on the 

need for improved outcomes found in general education specific legislation by expanding the focus 

from access to FAPE to access to the general education curriculum and to improving the performance 

of children and youth with disabilities with respect to academic standards. Similarly, reauthorizations 

of IDEA Part C have added provisions requiring that individual outcomes for infants and toddlers be 

xxxvi 
 

 

measurable. The 2004 IDEA legislation also requires states to report annually on their progress on 

specific goals, including child outcomes under the Part C and Part B programs. 

The inclusion of state academic standards, services, supports or specialized instruction to enable a 

child or youth to make progress in the standards-based general education curriculum in the 

development of an IEP for students with disabilities results in a “standards-based IEP” (National 

Center on Educational Outcomes 2009). Given the increased IDEA focus on constructing goals 

related to state standards and providing related services to enable students to make progress in a 

standards-based general education curriculum, the IDEA-NAIS assessed the provision of mandatory 

or suggested standards-based individualized family service plans (IFSPs)/IEPs as a means for states to 

meet this focus.5 

How are state agencies and school districts implementing measures to improve child and 

youth outcomes through developmental and academic standards? 

More than half the states have early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers and nearly all 

states have early learning standards for preschool children. The IDEA-NAIS assessed the 

presence and components of state early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers and early learning 

standards for preschool-age children. The IDEA-NAIS defined early learning guidelines as guidelines 

that describe expectations for young children’s learning and development which were not specific to 

children with disabilities. Early learning standards were defined as describing expectations for all 

children’s learning and development prior to kindergarten, whether or not the child had a disability. 

Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators indicated that their state has early learning 

guidelines for infants and toddlers, while 48 Part B preschool-age special education program 

coordinators reported their state has early learning standards for preschool-age children (Exhibit 

ES.8). The particular developmental areas in which states have developed standards for 

infants/toddlers and preschool-age children are shown in Exhibit ES.8. 

Few states provide a mandated or suggested standards-based IFSP for infants and toddlers and 

their families. Among the 32 states whose Part C early intervention program coordinator indicated 

the state had early learning guidelines, 5 have a mandated or suggested standards-based IFSP for 

fiscal year 2009. Two of the 5 states with a mandated or suggested standards-based IFSP have formal 

policies in place regarding the alignment of the provision of Part C program services with the early 

learning guidelines. 

About half of the states provide a mandated or suggested standards-based IEP for preschoolage children and children and youth. Twenty-seven states have a mandated or suggested standardsbased IEP for children and youth and 23 states have the same for preschool-age children with 

disabilities. Fifteen of the 276

 states with a mandated or suggested standards-based IEP for children 

and youth have formal written policies regarding the development and use of standards-based IEPs 

while 10 of the 23 states with a mandated or suggested IEP for preschool-age children with 

5 IDEA does not require a standards-based IFSP or IEP. 

6 One of the 27 Part B school-age special education program coordinators who reported their SEA had 

provide a mandated or suggested standards-based IEP did not answer the IDEA-NAIS item regarding the 

provision of formal written policy. 

xxxvii 
 

 

disabilities have formal written policies regarding the development and use of standards-based IEPs 

for preschool-age children with disabilities. 

Exhibit ES.8: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) 

For Infants and 

Toddlers Birth 

through Age 2 

For Preschool-Age 

Children 

Yes Yes 

N % N % 

State has early learning guidelines/ standards 

Among states with guidelines, domains covered: 

Social/emotional

Communication/language

Physical/health 

Cognitive 

Approaches to learning 

Other 

32 62.75 

31 100.00

31 100.00

30 96.77 

30 96.77 

26 83.87 

5 16.13 

48 94.12 

46 95.83 

44 91.67 

44 91.67 

40 83.33 

37 77.08 

22 45.83 

For Part C early intervention program respondents regarding states having early learning guidelines, N = 51; for domains 

covered, N = 31. 

For Part B preschool-age special education program respondents, regarding states having early learning standards, N = 51; 

for domains covered, N = 48. 

Qualified Staff 

To promote positive outcomes IDEA provides requirements for qualified staff. The 2004 IDEA 

legislation requires that Part C early intervention program personnel including special educators be 

“appropriately and adequately prepared and trained” to provide services [20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(9)]. 

Similarly, IDEA requires that paraprofessionals and assistants across age groups be “appropriately 

trained and supervised in accordance with State law, regulations, or written policy” to assist in the 

provision of services [20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(9)]. Each state determines the particular requirements for 

certification, licensing, or registration of professional personnel providing early intervention services 

as well as for all paraprofessionals and assistants. 

IDEA requires that all public elementary and secondary special education teachers be “highly 

qualified” as special education teachers. The IDEA 2004 definition of “highly qualified special 

education teachers” is aligned with ESEA's highly qualified requirements. Designation of a new 

special education teacher as a highly qualified special education teacher requires individuals to meet 

the ESEA requirements. The ESEA requires highly qualified teachers to: (1) have a bachelor’s 

degree, (2) have full state certification or licensure, and (3) demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for 

the subjects they teach. All veteran special education teachers who taught core academic subjects 

were required under the 2004 IDEA legislation either to: 1) pass a rigorous state academic test in 

subjects taught, 2) complete an undergraduate academic major in subjects taught, 3) complete a 

graduate degree in subjects taught, 4) complete coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic 

xxxviii 
 

 

 

 

 

major, advance certification, or credentialing, or 5) complete a state’s High Objective Uniform State 

Standards of Evaluation (HOUSSE) procedures. Federal requirements regarding the Part B program 

related service providers stipulate that qualified staff will meet qualifications consistent with stateapproved or state-recognized certification, licensure, registration or comparable requirements for their 

specific discipline. 

To provide a national picture of the implementation of early intervention and special education staff 

requirements across states, the IDEA-NAIS examined: the percentage of qualified staff in the Part B 

program personnel (teachers, related service providers and paraprofessionals)7

; Part C program 

licensing and regulations required for qualified personnel; and Part B program licensing and 

regulations for new and veteran teachers and other personnel. 

How are states and school districts implementing measures to improve child and youth 

outcomes through highly qualified staff? 

Nationally, almost 90 percent of special education teachers for preschool-age children with 

disabilities and school-age children and youth with disabilities are highly qualified. However, 

there is substantial variation across states in the percentage of qualified teachers. The Data 

Accountability Center (DAC) provides data from Fall 20068

 which demonstrate that nationally, 88 

percent of special education teachers for preschool-age children with disabilities and 89 percent of 

special education teachers for school-age children and youth with disabilities met the highly qualified 

teacher provisions of IDEA and ESEA. States ranged in the percentage of highly qualified special 

education teachers for preschool-age children from a low of 56 percent to a high of 100 percent. For 

special education teachers for school-age children and youth, states ranged from a low of 46 percent 

to a high of 100 percent. 

Nationally, over 80 percent of paraprofessionals are qualified while there is substantial 

variation across states in the percentage of qualified paraprofessionals. The Data Accountability 

Center personnel data indicate that nationally, 84 percent of paraprofessionals for preschool-age 

children with disabilities are qualified and 87 percent of paraprofessionals for school-age children and 

youth with disabilities are qualified. States range in the percentage of qualified paraprofessionals for 

preschool-age children from a low of 3 percent to a high of 100 percent. The state-level percentage of 

qualified paraprofessionals providing services to school-age children and youth ranges from a low of 

1 percent to a high of 100 percent. 

Across most states, Part C early intervention program special educators and preschool special 

education staff can qualify for licensure or certification in various ways. In many states, multiple 

options are available for obtaining state licensure or certification for Part C program special 

7 Part C early intervention program personnel data are not presented for two reasons: (1) data are no longer 

collected and the most recent data available are from 2002; and (2) the available data do not enable 

reporting of the percent qualified. 

8 The IDEA-NAIS did not collect data on the number of qualified personnel as these data are publicly 

available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC). The most recent data available from the DAC 

regarding personnel qualifications were from Fall 2006 which are reported here although 2006 is not one of 

the focal years of the IDEA-NAIS. The Part C program data are not reported as the most recent data are 

from Fall 2002 and report only the number of personnel, not the number of qualified personnel. 

xxxix 
educators. In most states (42), Part C program special educators can qualify for licensing/certification 

through an undergraduate or graduate degree program (Exhibit ES.9). In half the states (25), passing 

an exam/proficiency test also would qualify for Part C program licensing/certification. States vary in 

the certification type required of preschool special education staff, which may include teachers and 

related service personnel, with many states allowing multiple approaches. An undergraduate or 

graduate degree program is required to meet state certification/licensure requirements for preschool 

special education staff (i.e., teachers, related service personnel and paraprofessionals) in 45 states and 

is optional in an additional 2 states. In more than half the states (35), passing an exam/proficiency test 

is required (Exhibit ES.10). 

Exhibit ES.9: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

Requirements N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree program 

Exam/proficiency test 

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 

Portfolio

Other

None of the above 

42 

25 

14 

13

8

0 

84.00 

50.00 

28.00 

26.00 

16.00 

0.00 

N = 50. 

Exhibit ES.10: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Methods 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

States States States 

N % N % N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree program 

Exam/proficiency test 

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 

Portfolio

Other 

45 90.00 

35 70.00 

12 24.00 

6 12.00

8 16.00

2 4.00 

3 6.00 

5 10.00 

5 10.00

2 4.00

3 6.00 

12 24.00 

33 66.00 

39 78.00 

40 80.00 

N = 50. 

To qualify as a highly qualified special education teacher, most states permit the demonstration 

of subject-matter competency through the successful completion of a subject-matter test, 

typically a Praxis Series Test, or through a degree in the content area. ESEA requires general 

education teachers to have a degree, certification or license, and demonstrate subject-matter 

competency to be “highly qualified” teachers. A review of state regulations for a highly qualified 

determination for new special education teachers revealed eight ways states permit the demonstration 

of subject-matter competency (Exhibit ES.11). The most common option is for an individual to pass a 

xl 
 

 

state-specified subject-matter content test (40 states). Degrees in the content area are accepted as 

demonstration of subject-matter competency in 32 states. Credit hours equal to a major are accepted 

as demonstration of subject-matter competency in 31 states. Forty states have regulations which 

indicate individuals could demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a specific content test 

and use at least one of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Praxis Series: Teacher Licensure and 

Certification as a state-specified subject-matter content test. Regulations in 12 states indicate a nonPraxis series test could be used to demonstrate subject-matter competency. 

Exhibit ES.11: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Identified as Highly Qualified Special 

Education Teachers 

Overall 

Total 

N States % 

Specific state content test 40 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, 

NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, 

WV, WI, WY 

78.43 

Undergraduate major in 

content area 

32 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, 

KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, 

PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY 

62.75 

Credit hours equal to major 31 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DC, HI, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, 

ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, 

OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA 

60.78 

Graduate degree in content 

area 

25 AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DC, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, 

MN, NE, NV, NM, NY, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA 

49.02 

Professional educator 

certificate 

10 AL, FL, GA, IL, MD, MT, NV, NM, NY, TX 19.61 

National board certification 16 AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, ID, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NJ, 

NM, OR, UT 

31.37 

HOUSSE is an option 17 AZ, CO, CT, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MO, MT, NE, NV, 

NJ, NY, OK, VA, WV 

33.33 

Other 5 CA, CO, MT, VT, WY 9.80 

N = 51. 

Districts report difficulty finding qualified secondary school special education applicants 

particularly in mathematics. Nationally, LEAs reported that approximately 5 percent of preschoolage and school-age special education teacher full-time positions were left vacant in the 2008–2009 

school year. About half of the district Part B special education administrators (51 percent) reported 

their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified special education applicants over the past three 

years (Exhibit ES.12). Among the districts indicating that qualified applicants were difficult to find, 

more than half reported having difficulty finding qualified special education teachers who serve 

children in high school (58 percent of districts with shortages). At the high school level, among 

districts with shortages, qualified mathematics and science special education teachers were reported 

as difficult for districts to find (49 percent and 38 percent respectively). Qualified special education 

teachers who serve children in middle school were reported as difficult to find in about half of the 

districts reporting difficulty (49 percent of districts with shortages). 

xli 
 

Finding qualified teachers to work with children and youth with emotional disturbances/ 

behavioral disorders and autism is also difficult for districts. Among the districts indicating that 

qualified applicants were difficult to find, more than half reported difficulty in finding qualified 

teachers who primarily serve children with emotional disturbance/behavior disorders (55 percent; 

Exhibit ES.12). Teachers for other disability categories were also reported to be hard to find for some 

districts, particularly teachers who serve students with autism (46 percent of districts with shortages). 

Exhibit ES.12: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely 

Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years among Districts 

with Shortages (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009) 

Districts 

% 

Special education teachers who serve children in: 

High school 58.34 

Middle school 49.16 

Elementary school 39.10 

Preschool 24.32 

Vocational or alternative school 11.78 

Secondary school special education teachers of: 

Mathematics 48.70 

Science 37.68 

English/language arts 27.23 

Social studies (including history, civics, geography and economics) 19.78 

Other subjects 7.36 

Special Education teachers who primarily serve children with: 

Emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 54.65 

Autism 46.12 

Mental retardation 29.27 

Learning disabilities 28.91 

Other low-incidence disabilities (e.g., other health impairments, orthopedic 

impairments, multiple disabilities) 

28.23 

Sensory impairments (hearing/vision) 27.00 

Developmental delays 22.41 

Other 9.23 

For experiencing difficulty in finding qualified applicants, N = 1,148. For particular types of teachers, N = 725, except for 

secondary school special education teachers of social studies and other subjects where N = 724. 

xlii 
States reported using various strategies to increase the number of qualified special educators, 

qualified preschool special education staff, and highly qualified special education teachers. A 

common strategy employed by states to increase the number of qualified special educators, qualified 

preschool special education staff, and highly qualified special education teachers is collaboration with 

universities to create programs and curricula to ensure that graduates meet standards (31, 27, and 33 

states respectively; Exhibit ES.13). In addition to collaborating with universities, common strategies 

for increasing the number of highly qualified special education teachers include: the provision of 

alternative routes to certification for persons with a bachelor’s degree (31 states), alternative routes 

for those with a content certification or a special education degree (36 states) and the provision of 

funding for teacher participation in professional development (26 states; Exhibit ES.13). 

A common strategy reported by districts to increase the proportion of highly qualified special 

education teachers in their district was the provision of time or funding for teacher 

participation in professional development. The provision of time or funding for teacher 

participation in professional development opportunities was made by about three quarters (76 

percent) of districts that routinely experience difficulty finding qualified applicants and by about half 

(51 percent) of districts without difficulty. No other activity was conducted by more than a quarter of 

school districts (Exhibit ES.14). 

xliii 
 

 

 

Exhibit ES.13: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special 

Educators, Qualified Preschool Special Education Staff, and Highly Qualified Teachers 

Qualified Special 

Educators 

(FY 2008 and 

2009) 

Preschool 

Special 

Education Staff 

(SY 2007–2008 

and 2008–2009) 

Highly Qualified 

Special 

Education 

Teacher 

(SY 2007–2008 

and 2008–2009) 

N % N % N % 

Collaborate with universities to create 

programs and curricula to ensure that 

graduates meet standards 

Provide alternative routes to certification in 

special education for persons with a 

bachelor’s degree 

31 62.00 27 52.94 33 64.71 

13 26.00 18 35.29 31 60.78 

Provide funding for teachers to participate in 

professional development opportunities 

Provide alternative routes to certification in 

special education for persons with content 

area certification/a special education degree 

11 22.00 16 31.37 26 50.98 

9 18.00 22 41.18 36 70.59 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for 

certifications tests/licensure exams 1 2.00 3 5.88 10 19.61 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams

Provide free or subsidized training for highly 

qualified secondary school teachers to 

obtain special education credentials 

1 2.00 1 1.96 15 29.41 

Provide free or subsidized training for special 

education teachers to obtain content area 

credentials 

— — — — 7 13.73 

— — — — 13 25.49 

Other 10 20.00 6 11.76 8 15.69

None of the above 9 18.00 11 21.57 2 3.92 

For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, 

N = 51. 

xliv 
 

Exhibit ES.14: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Highly Qualified 

Special Education Teachers (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts 

That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding 

Qualified Applicants 

Among Districts 

That Routinely Had 

NO Difficulty 

Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Strategy % % % 

Provide time or funding for teachers to 

participate in professional development 

opportunities 

63.62 76.08 50.65 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 18.85 24.76 12.71 

Provide free or subsidized training for 

special education teachers to obtain 

content area credentials 

14.21 15.28 13.09 

Provide free or subsidized training for 

highly qualified secondary school 

teachers to obtain special education 

credentials 

10.19 14.21 6.01 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for 

certification tests/licensure exams 6.34 7.73 4.89 

Other 1.72 2.06 1.35 

None of the above 30.74 18.03 43.96 

For among all districts, N = 1,135 except for other, N = 1,137; for districts having difficulty, N = 717, except for other, 

N = 718; for districts having no difficulty, N = 419. 

Promoting Parent Participation and Dispute Resolution 

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) established rights and 

protections for parents and children under federal law regarding special education and related 

services. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA (P.L. 108-446) continues to promote and strengthen 

parents’ participation in their child’s early intervention and special education. The 2004 IDEA 

legislation also continues to delineate and protect the rights of children and youth with disabilities, 

including the right to register complaints and resolve disputes, as well as the procedures that must be 

in place to protect and discharge that right. 

Promoting Parent Participation 

IDEA provides resources and mandates to increase communication between parents and the agencies 

providing early intervention, special education or related services, while also supporting parent 

involvement in their child’s early intervention and special education program. For example, IDEA 

legislation requires the participation of a parent or other responsible adult in a number of activities 

related to the education of their children with disabilities. For example, parents are members of the 

teams which develop individualized family service plans (IFSPs) for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families (20 U.S.C.§1436(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. §303.343), or if their child is older, 

the team which develops the individualized education program (IEP) for children and youth with 

disabilities [20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)]. 

xlv 
The 2004 IDEA reauthorization continues prior legislation’s emphasis on developing partnerships 

with parents. Technical assistance is provided to states to develop partnerships with parents through 

four types of organizations: Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs), Community Parent 

Resource Centers (CPRCs), regional technical assistance centers (RPTACs) and the Center for 

Appropriate Dispute Resolution (CADRE). For example, the PTIs are required to provide training and 

information activities to assist parents of a child with disabilities including: having a constructive 

relationship with staff providing services; being involved in planning and decision making regarding 

their child; advocating for high quality special education and related services; knowing their rights, 

protections and responsibilities; and developing the skills necessary to participate in planning and 

decision making (P.L. 108-446 § 671). Given the continued emphasis on parent participation in the 

early intervention and special education of their child with disabilities, the IDEA-NAIS assessed how 

state and district programs promote parent participation. 

How do state and district special education programs promote parent participation? 

Most states provide support to provider agencies and school districts focused on parent 

participation for children and youth with disabilities. In most states, workshops or professional 

development on increasing parent involvement are provided to early intervention providers (31 

states), preschool providers (36 states) and school districts (39 states; Exhibit ES.15). Another 

common activity is the provision of technical assistance related to promoting parent involvement (in 

28 states to early intervention providers, in 35 states to preschool providers, and in 46 states to school 

districts). 

Exhibit ES.15: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool Providers, and School 

Districts to Promote the Participation of Parents of Children and Youth with Disabilities (Fiscal 

Year 2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) 

Agency Supports 

Early Intervention 

Providers 

Preschool-Age 

Program Staff LEA Staff 

Yes Yes Yes 

N % N % N % 

Workshops or professional 

development on increasing 

parent involvement 

Technical assistance related 

to promoting parent 

involvement 

31 62.00 36 70.59 39 78.00 

28 56.00 35 68.63 46 92.00 

Written guidelines related to 

parent involvement 

Funds to provider agencies 

to help parents participate in 

IEP/IFSP meetings 

26 52.00 14 27.45 24 48.00 

21 42.00 8 15.69 9 18.00 

Other activity 5 10.00 9 17.65 7 14.00 

None of the above 7 14.00 3 5.88 2 4.00 

For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, 

N = 50. 

xlvi 
 

More than half of all school districts make written materials available and less than half offer 

workshops or discussion/support groups to parents of children and youth with disabilities. At 

the local level, school districts utilize outreach activities and strategies to support parents and promote 

parent participation in their child’s education including making written material available and 

offering workshops or discussion/support groups. Common topics of the written materials for parents 

across districts include understanding the law and parent rights under IDEA (86 percent of districts), 

understanding their child’s disability (69 percent), and participating in state- or district-wide 

assessment (67 percent). Common topics of workshops or discussion/support groups include using 

interventions for children with behavioral challenges (38 percent of districts), understanding their 

child’s disability (37 percent) and using strategies for making a successful transition from preschool 

to school (34 percent). 

Dispute Resolution 

Parents and children have rights and protections under federal IDEA law regarding the provision of 

early intervention and special education and related services. Disputes may arise from disagreements 

regarding the early intervention, education and related services designed for, or delivered to, children 

with disabilities. A dispute may involve any number of topics, including issues relating to 

identification, evaluation, educational placement or provision of appropriate early intervention 

services or a free appropriate public education (FAPE). States have latitude in the development of 

their dispute resolution system as the federal law defines the minimum requirements. The particular 

path a dispute takes from disagreement to resolution may vary due to differences in state law or 

choices that disputants make. 

Both IDEA Parts C and B identify three mechanisms for dispute resolution: state complaints, due 

process hearings, and mediation. First, a parent (or any other individual or organization) may file a 

written complaint with the state agency alleging a violation of IDEA and the state agency must issue a 

written decision, generally within 60 days. Second, a due process hearing may be requested. IDEA 

2004 added a resolution process when a due process hearing is requested, providing the parties an 

opportunity to resolve the dispute in a pre-hearing meeting. Third, mediation can be requested to 

resolve a dispute (independent and regardless of whether a state complaint or due process hearing 

request is filed). A much simplified flowchart illustrating the due process hearing and mediation 

procedures under Part B is shown in Exhibit ES.16.9

 The exhibit illustrates various dispute resolution 

options along with some pathways that might be followed; however, the figure is a simplified 

representation of a process that is highly variable. 

xlvii 

9 Adapted from Mediation and Resolution Session Flow Chart, in Preparing for Special Education 

Mediation and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families and Advocates. The Advocacy Institute and The 

Children’s Law Clinic at Duke University School of Law (November 2009). 
Parent-School Dispute

Mediation

Request due 

process 

hearing

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Resolution 

meeting

Waive resolution 

meeting

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Due process hearing

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs)

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Parent-School Dispute

Mediation

Request due 

process 

hearing

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Resolution 

meeting

Waive resolution 

meeting

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Due process hearing

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs)

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Exhibit ES.16: Sample Flowchart of Dispute Resolution Process 

Parent-School Dispute 

Mediation 

Request due 

process 

hearing 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Resolution 

meeting 

Waive resolution 

meeting 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Due process hearing 

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs) 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Adapted from Mediation and Resolution Session Flow Chart, in Preparing for Special Education Mediation
 

and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families and Advocates. The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s 

Law Clinic at Duke University School of Law (November 2009). 
 

There is not a prescribed or predictable order in which these strategies and procedures occur. 

However, in general, parents and providers or schools tend to use less adversarial strategies, including 

mediation, to resolve disagreements before moving to more adversarial procedures such as due 

process hearings (U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] 2003). 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies 

A diverse range of early conflict resolution strategies are used to resolve disputes or conflicts between 

parents and early intervention or school personnel (Henderson 2008). Sometimes referred to as 

alternative dispute resolution strategies (ADRs), they may be any process used to resolve a dispute 

without a hearing. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA encourages two specific dispute resolution 

methods which may be classified as ADR methods: mediation and resolution meetings, which are 

discussed separately. 

xlviii 
 

Mediation 

Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process that is used to allow parents and early intervention 

providers or school district personnel to resolve disputes in a less adversarial and contentious forum 

than a due process hearing (34 C.F.R. § 300.506). Mediation involves a trained, impartial professional 

who facilitates discussions and communication between parents and early intervention or school 

personnel to identify concerns, clarify positions, and generally help the parties to express and 

understand each other’s views. The goal of the mediation is to reach a mutually agreed upon solution 

which best serves the educational needs of the child. The end result of a successful mediation is a 

legally binding mediation agreement. IDEA 2004 legislation included a requirement that mediation be 

available to resolve any special education dispute, not only those in which a hearing is requested as 

specified in IDEA 1997. 

Resolution Meeting 

Resolution meetings are a dispute procedure added in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. The purpose 

of the meeting is for parents to discuss a due process complaint and supporting facts so that the 

service provider has the opportunity to resolve the dispute. Upon the request for a Part B program due 

process hearing, IDEA 2004 legislation requires school districts to hold a resolution meeting with the 

parents, relevant members of the IEP team (e.g., special education teacher, classroom teacher) and a 

representative of the school district authorized to make decisions (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(B); 34 C.F.R. 

§300.510). A resolution meeting gives parents and the school district a chance to work together to 

avoid a due process hearing. 

Due Process Hearing 

Parents and agencies have the option to request a due process hearing [20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and § 

1415(f)]. A due process hearing is a court-like hearing with a focus on evaluating and resolving the 

dispute. Part B program due process hearings are quasi-legal procedures in which parents and school 

personnel present arguments and evidence to an impartial hearing officer, administrative law judge or 

panel of judges (34 C.F.R. § 300.511). With some exceptions, the due process hearing must be 

requested within two years of when “the parent or agency knew or should have known about the 

alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint” [20 U.S.C. §1415 (f)(3)(C)]. In due process 

hearings, attorneys often represent the parents and the school district, which can make hearings very 

costly to the parents as well as the school district or state (Office of Special Education Programs 

[OSEP] 2006). The 2004 IDEA legislation made two important changes regarding due process 

hearings. First, the 2004 IDEA reauthorization includes a required resolution session unless the 

parents and district waive the meeting or agree to mediation [20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)]. Second, 

there are now timeframes for specific actions related to the due process hearing [20 U.S.C. § 1415 

(f)(1)(B)(iv)]. 

Expedited Due Process Hearing 

Expedited due process hearings may be requested by parents or school districts on the placement or 

discipline of preschool- or school-age children or youth with a disability (34 C.F.R. 300.532). The 

expedited due process hearing is similar to a due process hearing but on a shorter timeframe. 

Signed Written Complaints to States 

In addition to having the option to request a due process hearing, parents and other individuals or 

organizations also have the right to file a signed written complaint that alleges that a public or private 

agency has violated a requirement of IDEA (34 C.F.R. § 300.151-153 and 34 C.F.R. § 303.510-512). 

xlix 
 

Signed written complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged violation (34 C.F.R. § 

300.153). The responsible agency (Part C program lead agency or SEA) is required to conduct an 

investigation and issue a letter of findings within 60 days of the signed written complaint being 

received unless exceptional circumstances exist (34 C.F.R. § 300.152). If the issue(s) contained in the 

signed written complaint is also the subject of a due process hearing, the part of the signed written 

complaint that is being addressed in the hearing is set aside until the due process hearing has been 

completed (34 C.F.R. § 300.152). 

The federal government supports technical assistance regarding conflict resolution options through 

the OSEP-funded Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), which 

operates as the National Center on Dispute Resolution in the United States. CADRE’s goal of 

increasing collaboration between families and providers through more cooperative processes is 

supported by activities including: maintenance of an on-line national resource related to dispute 

resolution; provision of customized training; and support of peer-to-peer dialogue (CADRE n.d.). The 

IDEA-NAIS collected information regarding the systems used to implement dispute resolution 

procedures as well as the number and topics of various dispute resolution procedures. 

How frequent are dispute resolution events and how has the number changed over time? 

There were seven or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 infants and toddlers 

receiving services under the Part C early intervention program annually for the 2003–2004 

through 2007–2008 school years. The IDEA-NAIS uses data from CADRE and the Data 

Accountability Center on the number of dispute resolution events for a five-year period spanning 

2003 through 2008.10 The number of dispute resolution events and number of disputes per 10,000 

infants and toddlers receiving services through the Part C program are presented in Exhibit ES.17. To 

place the number of dispute events in perspective, 316,730 infants and toddlers were served by the 

Part C programs in 2007. 

The number of requests for due process hearings far exceeded the number of due process 

hearings completed under Part C. For the Part C early intervention program, the frequency of due 

process hearing requests was higher than the frequency of dispute resolution hearings that were 

completed across each year from 2003–2004 through 2007–2008. For example, in 2003–2004 there 

were 6.85 hearings requested and 0.48 hearings completed per 10,000 infants and toddlers served. 

These data suggest that the majority of hearing requests do not result in an actual hearing. 

From 2003–2004 to 2007–2008, there was an increase in mediations conducted and a decrease in 

due process hearings requested under Part C. The number of mediations conducted for each 

10,000 infants and toddlers served grew from 1.77 in 2003–2004 to 2.62 in 2007–2008, a relative 

increase of over 50 percent. Across the same years, the number of due process hearings requested for 

each 10,000 infants and toddlers served decreased by almost half, from 6.85 to 3.51. 

10 Results are from APR/SPP data available from CADRE for the school years of 2003–2004 to 2005–2006 

and from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) for school years 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. These data 

are publicly-available. Data from Washington D.C. are not included in the summary tables because they 

were considered outliers. 

l 
li 

Exhibit ES.17: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Infants 

Disabilities Receiving Services under Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution M

2003–2004 through 2007–2008) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

To

eve

Signed written complaints 173 6.37 171 6.09 172 5.84 162 6.07 18

Due process hearings requested 186 6.85 200 7.13 135 5.07 110 4.12 1

Due process hearings completed 13 0.48 24 0.85 17 0.64 14 0.52 

Resolution meetings held — — 1 0.21 0 0.00 2 0.58 

Mediations held 48 1.77 57 2.03 70 2.38 75 2.81 8

For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004-2005, N = 50. For 2005-2006, for signed written complaints and mediations held, N = 50; for due process hearings requested, N = 48; for due process hearings comp

meetings, N = 45. For 2006-2007, for signed written complaints, due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations held, N = 49; for resolu

For 2007–2008, for due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 49; for signed written complaints, N = 49; fo

13.
There were 23 or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 preschool- and school-age 

children and youth served for the 2003–2004 through 2007–2008 school years. The number of 

dispute resolution events and number of disputes per 10,000 individuals receiving services through 

Part B programs are presented in Exhibit ES.18. 

The number of requests for due process hearings far exceeded the number of due process 

hearings completed under Part B. Similar to the Part C early intervention program, across each year 

from 2003–2004 through 2007–2008, the number of requests for due process hearings exceeded the 

number of due process hearings completed. For example, there were 21.74 hearing requests per 

10,000 preschool- and school-age children served in 2003–2004 and 3.36 hearings completed per 

10,000 preschool- and school-age children served in 2003–2004. These data suggest that the majority 

of hearing requests do not result in an actual hearing. 

From 2003–2004 to 2007–2008, there was a decrease in due process hearings completed under 

Part B. For preschool- and school-age children, the frequency of most types of dispute resolution 

events has remained relatively stable from the 2003–2004 through the 2007–2008 school year, with 

the exception of due process hearings completed (Exhibit ES.18). While the frequency of due process 

hearing requests remained relatively stable (22 requests per 10,000 children and youth served in 

2003–2004 to 21 requests per 10,000 children and youth served in 2007–2008), the number of due 

process hearings completed for each 10,000 children and youth served decreased by more than half, 

from 3.36 in 2003–2004 to 1.61 in 2007–2008. 

lii 
liii 

Exhibit ES.18: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Prescho

Children with Disabilities Receiving Services under Part B Special Education Programs in the 50 States by Dispute 

(2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Signed written complaints 5916 8.94 6094 9.09 5798 8.65 5220 8.11 

Due process hearings requested 14392 21.74 15496 23.12 14583 21.77 13828 20.71 

Due process hearings completed 2223 3.36 2215 3.30 1718 2.56 1370 2.05 

Resolution meetings held 9073 13.65 Mediations held 5924 8.95 6382 9.52 3651 6.06 5377 8.05 

For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004-2005, N = 50. For 2005-2006, N = 50 except for mediations held, N = 49. For 2006-2007, for due process hearings, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 50; for signed written complaints and resolution meetin

For 2007–2008, N = 50. 
What issues are involved in disputes? 

For infants and toddlers and their families, the most common reason for dispute resolution 

events was early intervention services as set forth in the IFSP and for preschool- and school-age 

children with disabilities, the most common reasons for disputes were educational placement 

and student’s educational program as set forth in the IEP. Fifty-two percent of due process 

hearing requests and 71 percent of mediations held in fiscal year 2008 involved early intervention 

services as set forth in the IFSP for infants and toddlers served by the Part C early intervention 

programs (Exhibit ES.19). The two most common topics for disagreements for children and youth 

receiving services in the Part B special education program across the two dispute resolution 

procedures in the 2003–2004 and the 2007–2008 school years were educational placement and the 

student’s educational program (i.e., goals, objectives, services, supports) as set forth in the IEP 

(Exhibit ES.20). 

Exhibit ES.19: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) 

Due Process 

Hearings 

Requested 

%

Mediations 

Held 

% 

Early intervention services, as set forth in the IFSP 51.72 70.83 

Environment/setting 0.00 8.33 

Family cost, including the use of private insurance 3.45 8.33 

Evaluation for early intervention services 0.00 4.17 

Transition 0.00 4.17 

Eligibility for early intervention services 3.45 0.00 

Procedural safeguards 3.45 0.00 

For due process hearings requested, N = 8. 

For mediations held, N = 10. 

. 

liv 
Exhibit ES.20: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving Services 

under the Part B Special Education Program by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 and 

2007–2008 School Year) 

Due Process Hearings 

Completed Mediations Held 

2003–2004 2007–2008 2003–2004 2007–2008 

% % % % 

Educational placement 

Student’s educational program, as set 

forth in the IEP 

Related services 

Eligibility of students for special 

education services 

Evaluation of students for special 

education services 

Tuition reimbursement 

Discipline 

Procedural safeguards 

30.83 49.32

27.85 49.32

7.77 27.56

5.24 16.55

11.62 31.91

13.36 23.89

2.56 12.12

3.58 11.95

35.34 38.72 

30.37 36.66 

15.68 17.47 

12.05 6.36 

12.26 20.24 

5.17 9.80 

5.46 8.16 

4.19 2.99 

For due process hearings completed in 2003–2004, N = 42; in 2007–2008, N = 34. 

For mediations held in 2003–2004, N = 37; in 2007–2008, N = 36. 

lv 

 

References 

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) (n.d.) Brochure. Retrieved 

January 26, 2010. http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/index.cfm 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 200 et seq. 

Fiore, T.A., Daley, T.C., Lee, H., Carlson, E., Munk, T.E., O’Reilly, F., Price, C., and McLaughlin, 

M.J. (2007). Design of the National Assessment of Progress under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act: Final Report of Design Options. Rockville, MD: 

Westat. 

Henderson, K. (2008, May). Optional IDEA Alternative Dispute Resolution. InForum. Alexandria, 

VA: Project Forum. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) 

and Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). 

Improving America’s School Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-327. 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 

2647,20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq. 

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2009). FAQ: Standards for Students with Disabilities— 

NCEO Topic Area. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from 

www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Standards/StandardsFAQ.htm. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Procedural Safeguards: Due Process Hearings. 

Retrieved January 25, 2010 from 

http:/idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C16%2C. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2008). Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) under 

Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Guidance document). 

Retrieved May 14, 2009 from www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis-guidance.doc. 

The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s Law Clinic, Duke University School of Law. (2009). 

Preparing for Special Education Mediation and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families 

and Advocates. Washington D.C. and Raleigh, NC.: Authors. 

The Learning Disabilities Summit (2001). Building a Foundation for the Future: White Papers. 

Retrieved March 2, 2010 from http:/ldsummit.air.org 

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Education Department Budget by Major Program (1980-

2009). Retrieved March 9, 2010 from 

www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf. 

lvii 
U. S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A 

New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (September 2003). Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes 

Are Generally Low and States Are Using Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve 

Conflicts (GAO-03-897). Washington, DC: Author. 

lviii 
 

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

This report presents findings from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 

National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS). The IDEA-NAIS was designed to provide 

a national picture of state agency and school district implementation of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is the most recent 

reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal legislation specifically 

focused on the education of children with disabilities. The purposes of IDEA are: to ensure that all 

children receive a free and appropriate public education; to ensure that the rights of children with 

disabilities and their parents are protected; to assist states, localities, educational service agencies and 

federal agencies in providing an education for all children with disabilities; to assist states in the 

implementation of an interagency system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families; to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to 

improve educational results for children with disabilities; and lastly, to assess and ensure the 

effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities [P.L. 108-446 § 601(d)]. 

Section 664(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 requires that 

the Secretary of Education delegate to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) responsibility for 

conducting an assessment of national activities under the law, known as the National Assessment of 

IDEA. The goals of the National Assessment of IDEA are: to determine the effectiveness of IDEA in 

achieving its purposes; to provide timely information to the President, Congress, the States, local 

educational agencies and the public on how to implement this title more effectively; and to provide 

the President and Congress with information that will be useful in developing legislation to achieve 

the purposes of this title more effectively. IES initiated studies in three broad areas that will 

contribute to the National Assessment of IDEA: (1) studies of the characteristics of children and 

youth identified for services under IDEA; (2) studies of the implementation of IDEA; and (3) studies 

of the effectiveness of IDEA-related services and strategies.11 The IDEA-NAIS is one study of the 

implementation of IDEA programs that contributes to the overall National Assessment of IDEA. 

IES initiated a design study advised by practitioners, researchers and evaluation experts to develop 

research questions and approaches to address the goals for the IDEA National Assessment (Fiore et 

al. 2007). The design study prioritized areas for inclusion in the IDEA-NAIS. Ultimately, IES 

identified four focal areas: services to young children with disabilities; identification of children and 

youth with disabilities; efforts to promote positive developmental and educational outcomes for 

children and youth with disabilities; and dispute resolution. Specifically, the IDEA-NAIS collected 

information to answer four broad research questions: 

•	 What are the Part C early intervention program service delivery models for infants and 

toddlers and how are Part C programs coordinated with Part B special education 

programs for preschool-age children, specifically in the support of children who may 

transition across programs? 

11	 http:/ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities.asp 

1 
•	 How are state agencies and school districts implementing IDEA provisions to prevent 

inappropriate identification? 

•	 How are state early intervention agencies, state educational agencies (SEAs) and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) implementing measures to improve child and youth 

outcomes through developmental and academic standards and qualified staff? 

•	 To what extent do state agencies and school districts engage in dispute resolution with 

parents and guardians, and how has the incidence of disputes changed since the 2003– 

2004 school year? 

Within each area, the IDEA-NAIS focuses on the implementation of select provisions of IDEA that 

were introduced or revised in the 2004 reauthorization of the law and complements the work of the 

other National Assessment of IDEA studies. The chapter focused specifically on services provided to 

young children with disabilities and their families also examines key IDEA provisions that were 

introduced prior to the 2004 reauthorization because these provisions were not included in earlier 

national studies. This chapter provides the first broad description of the state-level implementation of 

services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. 

Key Areas of the IDEA-NAIS in This Report 

This report includes findings from the IDEA-NAIS for the major research questions, each in a 

subsequent chapter. The chapters address: services for infants and toddlers with disabilities; 

identification of children and youth with disabilities; efforts to promote positive developmental and 

educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities; and efforts to promote parent 

participation and dispute resolution. The findings are based on data from surveys of SEAs and LEAs 

newly developed for the IDEA-NAIS and on extant sources. 

Providing Services to Young Children with Disabilities 

Services to infants and young children with disabilities are provided under two parts of IDEA. The 

IDEA Part C early intervention program serves children from birth through age 2 (Infant and Toddler 

Grant program). The IDEA Part B special education program includes the 619 program that serves 

children ages 3 through 5 (Preschool Grant program) and the 611 program that serves children and 

youth ages 6 through 17, and ages 3 through 5 and 18 through 21 if those ages are included in the 

mandatory age range for the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under state law 

(Grants to States program). 

The IDEA-NAIS focuses on two general aspects of the IDEA Part C early intervention program: (1) 

state-level service delivery models and (2) coordination and support for the transition between 

systems of service under the IDEA Part C program and the IDEA Part B special education program 

for preschool-age children. These aspects of implementation were included in the IDEA-NAIS 

because no previous comprehensive study of Part C program state-level implementation had been 

conducted. The IDEA-NAIS also addresses changes in the 2004 IDEA statute affecting the Part C 

program including shifting the monitoring focus from compliance with procedures to reporting on 

performance, discussed in Chapter 4; the authority to extend services provided under Part C to 

children after their third birthday, discussed in Chapter 2; and efforts to promote parent participation 

and dispute resolution, discussed in Chapter 5. 

2 
The Part C early intervention program is a national program through which the federal government 

issues formula grants to states to develop and implement statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, 

multidisciplinary, interagency systems of services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and, at 

state discretion, those at risk for developmental delays and disabilities and their families. The IDEANAIS investigated the key roles of the lead agencies that are responsible for the Part C program 

within each state. The Part C program and Part B preschool-age special education program are 

typically administered by different state agencies and have different eligibility, service, funding and 

program requirements. The IDEA statute requires a seamless transition from the Part C program to 

the Part B program and requires, for example, transition planning and the involvement of all the 

relevant parties (including parents and staff from both programs) in the transition process when 

children in the Part C program are potentially eligible for services under the IDEA Part B program. 

Identification of Children with Disabilities 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA introduced several interrelated changes tied to the appropriate 

identification of children with disabilities. As these provisions were first introduced in IDEA 2004, 

currently available data on policies and practices related to the use of Coordinated Early Intervening 

Services (CEIS) are limited and information on the use of Response to Intervention (RtI) nationally is 

incomplete. The IDEA-NAIS addresses these issues. 

The interrelated changes focus on two broad areas. First, the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA attempts 

to address overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority students in special education 

(“disproportionality”) by allowing districts to use some of their IDEA Part B funds to develop and 

implement Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) for students who are not yet identified as 

needing special education and related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral 

support to succeed in a general education environment. Districts identified as having significant 

disproportionality related to the identification, placement or discipline of children with disabilities are 

required to use some of their Part B funds to provide CEIS. Second, the 2004 reauthorization of the 

law introduced changes in the identification of students in the disability category of Specific Learning 

Disability (SLD). Additionally, IDEA includes the concept Response to Intervention (RtI) to describe 

a range of practices for monitoring progress and providing intervention in the academic and 

behavioral domains. RtI is linked to both CEIS and changes in eligibility criteria: CEIS funds can be 

used to implement an RtI process for students who are not currently identified as needing special 

education and related services; and data from the RtI process can now be used as one component of 

eligibility determinations for students with SLD. 

Efforts to Promote Positive Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA includes efforts to promote positive outcomes for children and 

youth with disabilities. The IDEA-NAIS examined two specific aspects of IDEA geared to this goal: 

(1) establishing and maintaining developmental and academic standards for children and youth with 

disabilities and (2) qualified personnel. 

The original predecessor to the IDEA, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 

focused on providing access to FAPE for children with disabilities. The most recent reauthorization of 

IDEA in 2004 emphasized the need for improved outcomes found in legislation specific to general 

education by expanding the focus from access to FAPE to access to a quality education and 

3 
 

improving the performance of children and youth with disabilities. The chapter focuses on positive 

outcomes for children and youth with disabilities through the use of standards, standards-based 

individual family service plans (IFSPs) and individual education programs (IEPs). For school-age 

children, the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA strengthened the focus on academic outcomes and the 

alignment with standards by specifically stating that states must have performance goals and 

indicators in place that are the same as those used as the state’s objectives for progress by children in 

its definition of adequate yearly progress (34 C.F.R. § 300.157). 

The second effort to promote positive educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities 

examined in the IDEA-NAIS is requirements included in IDEA regarding qualified staff. The 2004 

amendments revised the personnel requirements for the Part C program. In addition, there were 

changes related to preschool and elementary and secondary school staff. Specifically, all elementary 

and secondary school special education teachers are required to meet the same standards as 

elementary and secondary school general education teachers, in alignment with the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(P.L. 107-110). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA requires that all public elementary and secondary 

special education teachers be “highly qualified” as special education teachers [20 U.S.C. § 1401(10), 

1412(A)(14)(C)]. The definition of “highly qualified” for purposes of Part B of IDEA is aligned with 

the ESEA 2001 highly qualified requirements [20 U.S.C. § 7801(23)]. The 2004 IDEA legislation 

stipulates that non-teaching professionals may not have a waiver for any requirement for emergency, 

temporary or provisional reasons [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14)(B)(ii)]. 

Promoting Parental Participation and Dispute Resolution 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA continues to support parents’ participation in their child’s receipt 

of early intervention services or special education and related services and to delineate procedural 

safeguards for parents and youth regarding the provision of early intervention, education and related 

services. IDEA cites decades of research illustrating that one way to improve educational efficiency is 

by “strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families [of children and 

youth with disabilities] have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children 

at school and at home” [20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(5)(B)]. The findings and purposes under IDEA Part B 

emphasize that “parents and schools should be given expanded opportunities to resolve their 

disagreements in positive and constructive ways” [20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(8)]. 

The IDEA-NAIS examines efforts by states and districts to promote parents’ participation in their 

child’s early intervention and education. The study also examines trends in the use of dispute 

resolution procedures to resolve disagreements between parents and public agencies or early 

intervention service programs or providers and the specific topics of disputes. 

The Scope of Special Education in the U.S. 

IDEA authorizes the Secretary of Education to provide grants to states to assist them in the provision 

of special education and related services to children with disabilities. The Part C program of IDEA 

supports early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and, at 

state discretion, those at risk for developmental delays and disabilities, from birth through age 2. The 

Part B 619 program supports special education and related services to preschool-age children with 

disabilities (ages 3 through 5) and the Part B 611 program provides funds to support the provision of 

4 
 

FAPE for children and youth with disabilities ages 6 through 17, and ages 3 through 5 and 18 through 

21 if those ages are included in the mandatory age range for the provision of FAPE under state law. 

Nearly seven million children and youth with disabilities from birth through age 21 receive services 

under IDEA. Part C early intervention program services were provided to 316,730 infants and 

toddlers birth through age 2, or 2.49 percent of the birth through age 2 U.S. population in 2007 (see 

Exhibit 1.1). Part B special education program services were provided to 700,166 children with 

disabilities ages 3 through 5 (or 5.73 percent of the 3- through 5-year-old population) and 5,905,854 

students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 (or 13.33 percent of the population enrolled in public 

schools in grades 1 through 12). 

Exhibit 1.1: Number and Percentage of Children and Youth Identified for Early Intervention and 

Special Education Services in 50 States and D.C. (2007) 

Birth–2 Years 3–5 Years 6–21 Years 

Number % Number % Number % 

316,730 2.49 700,166 5.73 5,904,854 13.33 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of infants and toddlers age 2 years or less receiving services under the Part C early 

intervention program in 2007 was 2.49 (or 316,730 infants and toddlers). The percentage of preschool-age children 

receiving services under the Part B special education program in 2007 was 5.73 (or 700,166 children). The percentage of 

school-age children receiving services under the Part B special education program in 2007 was 13.33 (or 5,904,854 children 

and youth). 

N = 51. 

Methods and Data Collection 

The IDEA-NAIS was designed to provide a national picture of state agency and school district 

implementation of IDEA across the Part C early intervention and Part B special education programs. 

Three state-level mail surveys collected data from: (1) state Part C program coordinators who are 

responsible for early intervention programs serving infants and toddlers; (2) state Part B program 

coordinators who oversee programs for preschool-age children with disabilities; and (3) state Part B 

program coordinators who oversee programs providing special education services to children and 

youth with disabilities.12 The fourth survey was a web-based survey that collected data from local 

special education, or Part B program, administrators in a nationally representative sample of 1,200 

school districts. 

The surveys were fielded in January and February of 2009 and requested data about policies and 

practices that were in place for that year (fiscal year 2009 for the Part C program or the 2008–2009 

school year for the Part B program), although some items asked about earlier years. For example, 

items focusing on issues for which cumulative data would not be available until the end of the school 

year, such as dispute resolution events or professional development offerings, referenced the prior 

completed year or years. 

12 In some states the Part B program coordinator for school-age children is also the Part B program 

coordinator for preschool-age children, and in some states the coordinators are different officials. When 

presenting findings, this report specifies the relevant student age group. 

5 
Federal appropriations to states for early intervention and special education have been between $11 

and $12 billion since 2004 (U.S. Department of Education 2008). States received approximately $12 

billion to support IDEA in fiscal year 2008, one of the focal years of the IDEA-NAIS (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009b). Specifically, the federal government provided $435,635,802 to 

support the Part C early intervention program, $374,099,280 to support the Part B 619 program and 

$10,947,511,571 to support the Part B 611 program. After data collection was completed, the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) appropriated new funding 

for programs under Parts B and C of IDEA which nearly doubled the federal investment in special 

education. Specifically, $11.3 billion became available under Part B 611 grants to states; $400 million 

became available under Part B 619 grants; and $500 million became available under Part C grants 

(U.S. Department of Education 2009a). The funds are to provide an opportunity for states, LEAs and 

early intervention providers to implement innovative strategies to improve outcomes for infants, 

toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. The data provided in this report describe state and 

district policies prior to the receipt of ARRA funds. 

The state surveys had a 100 percent response rate and the district survey achieved a 96 percent 

response rate. The IDEA-NAIS also incorporates extant data for two purposes: (1) to reduce 

duplication of reporting and (2) to support efforts to report survey data in a manner which is 

meaningful for the reader. For example, the study team reviewed SEA agency websites to gather 

information on highly qualified teacher requirements and state disability definitions and eligibility 

criteria. 

The report presents descriptive analyses of the implementation of IDEA provisions that were either 

introduced in IDEA 2004 or for which there was limited available information. The entire population 

of state coordinators was surveyed; thus state data are presented without any statistical tests or 

estimations. A sample of 1,200 school districts was used to estimate the population of public school 

districts in the United States; thus an estimate (usually a percentage) and the associated standard error 

are reported for district findings. When the report compares districts, the p-value associated with the 

test statistic for the comparison is reported; only when the p-value is less than or equal to .05 are the 

findings reported as statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons are reported only in those analyses 

for which the overall statistical test was significant. The report presents both statistically significant 

and non-statistically significant findings. Appendix A includes additional technical information on the 

survey approach, sampling, weighting, response rates and analytic approach. 

Contents of Report 

The report contains four additional chapters and seven appendices. Each chapter focuses on one of the 

overarching research questions and addresses: services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and 

their families; the identification of children with disabilities; efforts to promote positive outcomes for 

children and youth with disabilities; and efforts to promote parent participation and dispute 

resolution. Each chapter follows a similar format, beginning with background on the topic being 

discussed, the federal response and guidance on the topic, relevant IDEA requirements and a 

presentation of findings. 

Chapter 2 focuses on Part C program (or early intervention) services that are provided to infants and 

toddlers (from birth through age 2) with disabilities, and, at the state’s discretion, those who are at 

risk, and their families. The chapter examines the approaches states are taking to provide early 

6 
 

intervention services and efforts to coordinate the Part C programs and Part B programs for 

preschool-age children. 

Chapter 3 focuses on the identification of students for special education. The chapter examines issues 

related to disproportionality and provisions, such as CEIS and RtI, designed to address identification 

and eligibility issues such as significant disproportionality. 

Chapter 4 addresses the shift from access to education to improving outcomes for all children and 

youth with disabilities. This chapter addresses the focus on academic standards and quality personnel. 

Chapter 5 focuses on state and district efforts to promote parent participation as well as the use of 

dispute resolution procedures and the topics of dispute resolution procedures. 

The appendices contain fully sourced versions of exhibits found in the report chapters, as well as 

additional exhibits that present supplemental information for each topic. 

7 

 

 

Chapter 2: Providing Services to Young Children 

with Disabilities 

This chapter focuses on services provided to the youngest children with disabilities, specifically on 

the Part C early intervention program services for infants and toddlers (birth through age 2) with 

disabilities, or at risk, and their families and on the coordination of early intervention programs and 

Part B special education programs for preschool-age children. The Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Improvement Act National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS) findings 

presented here concern two general aspects of current Part C program services. First, findings related 

to the delivery of Part C program early intervention services are presented. These were included as 

part of the IDEA-NAIS because no previous comprehensive study of Part C program state-level 

implementation had been conducted. Second, the study team presents findings related to the 

coordination between the Part C program and the Part B preschool-age special education program, 

emphasizing how the programs support children with disabilities and their families who transition 

from Part C to Part B services. The importance of making the transition from Part C program early 

intervention services to Part B program special education services for preschool-age children as 

smooth as possible for both children and families has been consistently acknowledged in federal law 

since the enactment of both programs in 1986. 

To provide background for the IDEA-NAIS Part C early intervention program findings, this chapter 

summarizes the history of the relevant Part C legislation and the current context, including sources of 

technical assistance and accountability requirements. In reporting some of the findings presented 

below, services provided under the Part C early intervention program are compared with those 

provided under the Part B preschool-age special education program, to highlight differences and 

similarities in approaches used when serving infants and toddlers with disabilities as opposed to 

preschool-age children with disabilities. 

Fully sourced versions of Exhibits 2.1 through 2.19 are found in Appendix C as Exhibits C.1 through 

C.19. Additional supplemental tables related to the Part C program are found in Appendix C, Exhibits 

C.20 through C.29. 

Components of Early Intervention Service Delivery 

The state-administered services now referred to as the Part C program were first authorized in 1986 as 

Part H of the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-457). Part H 

established the first national program of federal grants to states to develop and implement a statewide 

system of services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families in response to what 

Congress saw as an “urgent and substantial need” to serve this population. Another factor shaping the 

legislation at this time was research findings that had increased public awareness of the possibility of 

developing successful intervention approaches for supporting infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and their families (H.R. Rep. No. 99-860 1986). 

The goals of the Part C early intervention program evolved from the initial Part H legislation through 

subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA (1991, 1997 and 2004) and currently include: to enhance the 

development of infants and toddlers with disabilities; to reduce the need for and costs of special 

9 
 

 

 

 

education after infants and toddlers with disabilities reach school age; to maximize the potential for 

independence of individuals with disabilities; to enhance the capacity of families to meet the needs of 

infants and toddlers with disabilities; and to enhance society’s ability to identify, evaluate and meet 

the needs of the nation’s children (20 U.S.C. § 1431). 

The Part C grants initially established by Part H assisted states “to develop and implement a 

statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system that provides early 

intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families” (P.L. 99-457). The 

national plan described in Part H was informed by experience gained in multiple state and local 

programs that had served infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The federal 

government provided support to 24 local demonstration programs in 1968 with the aim that programs 

would both provide special education and related services to young children with disabilities (ages 

birth through grade 3) and develop model practices which could be replicated (The National Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center [NECTAC] 2010). By 1974 the federal government was 

providing support for some state-level activities (Hebbeler, Smith and Black 1991). 

Since the creation of Part H in 1986, the core policies of the Part C early intervention program 

services have changed little. The program’s initial mandate remains the same: that states make 

available to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families early intervention services that are 

family-focused, multidisciplinary and provided through strong collaborative interagency efforts. 

Reauthorizations in 1991, 1997 and 2004 continued these services through Part C of the law. The core 

elements of the Part C program include: 

•	 Services are to be provided to infants and toddlers from birth through 2 years of age who 

need early intervention services because they are experiencing developmental delays, or 

have a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in 

developmental delay. This service provision may include, at a state’s discretion, those 

considered at risk for developmental delay; 

•	 Children referred to the Part C program have available a multidisciplinary evaluation of 

the child’s level of functioning in five developmental domains: cognition, 

communication, physical (including vision and hearing), social/emotional and adaptive 

functioning; 

•	 All infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families receive service coordination 

and other early intervention services that are designed to meet the unique developmental 

needs of those children and families; 

•	 Each governor designates a state lead agency to serve as the single line of authority for 

the program; 

•	 Each state establishes a state Interagency Coordinating Council13; and 

13	 The 2004 legislation continues the requirement for a governor appointed Interagency Coordinating Council 

(ICC) which advises the lead agency with respect to identification of sources for supports, including fiscal 

support; assignment of fiscal responsibility; promotion of interagency agreements; preparation of 

applications and amendments; transition of toddlers with disabilities to age-appropriate services; and 

preparation of the annual report on the program status [20 U.S.C. § 1441(2)(e)(1)]. 

10 
 

 

 

 

•	 States must have a statewide system that includes public awareness and referral 

components (20 U.S.C. § 1435). 

Federal support and guidance for the implementation of services to infants and toddlers is provided to 

Part C early intervention program agencies through a variety of vehicles including multiple centers 

funded by the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The National Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) provides wide-ranging support to state agencies that 

administer the Part C program and Part B preschool-age special education program through assistance 

and support from a specified contact person, as well as through publications, webinars and conference 

calls, conferences, on-line discussion groups and weekly e-notes on timely and relevant news topics. 

Other currently active centers that often work in collaboration with NECTAC and provide technical 

assistance on specific content areas include: Tots N Tech: Using Assistive Technology with Infants 

and Toddlers; the National Early Childhood Transition Center (NECTC); the Data Accountability 

Center (DAC); the Center for Early Literacy Learning (CELL); and the Early Childhood Outcomes 

Center (ECO), which assists states in implementing high-quality child and family outcomes 

measurement systems for children and families receiving services under the Part C early intervention 

and Part B preschool-age special education programs. While NECTAC focuses on the technical 

assistance needs of programs serving children with disabilities from birth through age 5 and their 

families, the Regional Resource Centers Program’s mission is to assist Part C program state lead 

agencies and SEAs in their work across a broad age range of both children and youth with disabilities 

(birth through age 21), by means of consultation, information services, training and product 

development. 

The 2004 IDEA legislation requires states to submit a state performance plan (SPP) and annual 

performance report (APR) that include specific indicators and targets related to their implementation 

of IDEA. These documents provide a monitoring system for the implementation of IDEA and allow 

the federal government and public to assess how well a state is meeting the requirements and 

purposes of the Part C early intervention program. The U. S. Department of Education (ED) uses the 

APR to make an annual determination as to whether a state meets the requirements of IDEA. ED 

must require a state to take action if ED determines that the state needs assistance for two or more 

consecutive years, needs intervention for three or more consecutive years or needs substantial 

intervention in any year [20 U.S.C. § 1416(e)]. 

There are 14 required indicators associated with the monitoring of the Part C early intervention 

program services (Office of Special Education Programs n.d.). Examples of the indicators14 include: 

the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities who receive timely evaluations and 

assessments and initial individualized family service plan (IFSP15) meetings (Indicator 7); the 

percentage who receive services listed on IFSPs in a timely manner (Indicator 1); the percentage who 

receive services in the home or in community-based settings (Indicator 2); the percentages who 

14 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820-0578cmeataleexp113012.pdf for 

the full text of the Part C indicators. 

15	 The Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is developed by a group of individuals involved in the 

child’s evaluation, service provision and service coordination, and family members. An IFSP includes a 

statement of the child’s present level of functioning in each of the five developmental areas, expected 

outcomes and criteria, and procedures and timelines to assess progress as well as a statement of the services 

needed and environment in which services will be provided [20 U.S.C. § 1477(d)]. 

11 
 

 

demonstrate improvement in child and family outcomes (Indicators 3 and 4); and the percentage who 

receive timely planning to support their transition to preschool, and other appropriate community 

services, by their third birthday (Indicator 8) (20 U.S.C. § 1416 (a)(3)(B) and § 1442). 

As part of the first comprehensive examination of Part C early intervention program service delivery, 

the IDEA-NAIS investigated the key roles and responsibilities of states in providing Part C program 

services, including: state lead agency, referral sources, outreach activities, funding, family 

participation, involvement of local agencies in service delivery and service coordination. 

Findings on Components of Part C Early Intervention Program 

Service Delivery 

In Most States, Departments of Health and Human Services Lead Part C Early Intervention 

Program Services 

Beginning with the 1986 Part H legislation, each governor has had the discretion to designate a state 

agency to lead early intervention efforts. Most states (37) have designated health or human services 

agencies as the lead agency for Part C early intervention program services, with 11 states placing 

responsibility for the Part C programs in SEAs and 2 states sharing responsibility for Part C program 

services across the health/human services and education agencies (Exhibit 2.1).16 This is in contrast to 

Part B programs for preschool-age children, which are overseen in each state by SEAs (Lazara, 

Danaher, Kraus & Goode 2009). Part C program agency leadership has been stable in most states, 

with 38 states reporting no change in lead agency since 1991 (Appendix C, Exhibits C.20 and C.21). 

Because of the possibility that the type of lead agency might be related to the number of infants and 

toddlers identified for early intervention services in a state, the study team examined the average 

percentage of infants and toddlers (birth through age 2) identified for Part C early intervention 

program services across lead agency type (Exhibit 2.2). The percentage of infants and toddlers 

identified for services was 2.83 percent across states in which Part C program services are led by 

health/human services and 2.13 percent for education-led states. This descriptive presentation of 

identification percentages by lead agency does not signify a causal relationship between agency type 

and identification for services. 

16 Note that states administer health-related programs, policies, and services either as separate state-level 

agencies or within an umbrella human services agency. 

12 
 

 

 

 

Exhibit 2.1: State Lead Agency for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 

2009) 

States 

Lead Agency N % 

Department of Health/Human Services 37 74.00 

Department of Education 11 22.00 

Co-lead agencies 2 4.00 

Total 50 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-seven states (74 percent) reported that the Department of Health/Human Services is the state 

agency designated as the lead agency for the Part C early intervention program service system. 

N = 50. 

Exhibit 2.2: Average Percentage of Birth through 2-Year-Old Population Identified for Services 

by Type of Part C Early Intervention Program Lead Agency (Fall 2007) 

States with Type of Part C Program Lead Agency 

Health/human 

services Education Co-lead 

Average % identified 

Percentage of state population ages birth 

through 2 years old identified for Part C 

early intervention services in Fall 2007 

2.83 2.13 2.81 

EXHIBIT READS: States with a health or human services agency as the Part C early intervention program lead agency on 

average had 2.83 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years identified for early intervention services. 

States with an education agency as the Part C program lead agency on average had 2.13 percent of their infants and toddlers 

ages birth through 2 years identified for early intervention services. States with both an education and a health/human 

services agency co-leading Part C program services had 2.81 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years 

identified for early intervention services. 

Total N = 50. For health/human services lead agencies, N = 37; for education lead agencies, N = 11; for co-lead agencies, 

N = 2. 

Funding of the Part C Early Intervention Program Services: A System of Payments 

The Part C statute does not require that states provide early intervention services free of charge, but 

permits the state lead agency that administers the Part C early intervention program to establish a 

“system of payments” for early intervention services. The system of payments may include funds 

from a range of federal, state, local and private sources, including public and private insurance 

coverage and sliding scale-based parent fees (20 U.S.C. § 1431). IDEA Part C early intervention 

program services are not an entitlement. Part C funds are meant to be used only as the “payor of last 

resort,” meaning Part C funds may not be used to satisfy a financial commitment for services that 

would have been paid for from another public or private source (20 U.S.C. § 1440). With the 

exception of specified Part C functions (implementation of the Child Find requirements, evaluation 

13 
 

 

and assessments, service coordination, and administrative and coordinative activities including 

procedural safeguards), Part C services may be provided at a cost to parents (34 C.F.R. §303.51).17 

The most common source identified by Part C early intervention program respondents (45 percent) as 

providing the largest share of funding for Part C program services was state early intervention funds 

(Exhibit 2.3). When asked to identify the three largest funding sources in their state, 88 percent of the 

respondents included IDEA Part C funds, 78 percent included Medicaid/Title XIX and 73 percent 

included state early intervention funds. Across the 37 Part C program respondents that indicated the 

percentage of early intervention services funding that came from IDEA Part C for fiscal year 2009, 

the mean percentage was 21 (Exhibit 2.4). 

17	 If a state has in effect a state law requiring the provision of a free appropriate public education to children 

with disabilities from birth, the state may not charge parents for any services required under that law that 

are provided to children eligible under this part and their families. 

14 
15 

23 

20 17 

14 

11.76 

0.00 

Exhibit 2.3: Funding Sources Supporting Part C Early Intervention Program Services as Required by IFSPs (Fiscal Funding Source 

States Reporting as 

Providing Largest 

Share of Funding 

States Reporting as 

Providing SecondLargest Share of 

Funding 

States Reporting as 

Providing ThirdLargest Share of 

Funding 

N % N % N % 

State early intervention funds 45.10 8 15.69 6 11.76 

IDEA, Part C 8 15.69 39.22 33.33 

Medicaid/Title XIX 8 15.69 18 35.29 27.45 

Local municipality or county funds 4 7.84 1 1.96 2 3.92 

IDEA, Part B 1 1.96 0 0.00 2 3.92 

Private insurance 1 1.96 2 3.92 6 Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN)/Title V 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.92 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 0 0.00 1 1.96 1 1.96 

Family fees/co-payments/sliding fee 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Other 6 11.76 0 0.00 0 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-three Part C early intervention program agencies (45 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the largesupport Part C program services. Eight Part C program agencies (16 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the second largest sh

program services. Six Part C program agencies (12 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the third-largest share of funding to su

services. Thirty-seven states (73 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing one of the three largest shares of funding supporting Part For largest share of funding, N = 51; for second-largest share of funding, N = 50; for third-largest share of funding, N = 50. 
 

 

Exhibit 2.4: Percentage of Part C Early Intervention Services Supported by IDEA Part C Funds 

across States (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Range per State 

Mean Median Min Max 

Percentage supported by IDEA Part C 

funds 21.43 22.00 0 75 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of states’ early intervention services provided by the Part C program and 

supported by Part C program funds is 21. The median percentage of early intervention services provided and supported by 

Part C program funds is 22. The percentage of early intervention services provided by Part C program and supported by Part 

C program funds ranged from 0 to 75. 

N = 37. 

The system of payments set up by state Part C early intervention program agencies may include, at a 

state’s discretion, payments made by participating families commonly known as family cost 

participation (FCP). This term refers to state policies and procedures specifying families’ contribution 

to the cost of Part C early intervention program services, either indirectly by using a family’s private 

health insurance coverage or directly by charging the family a fee. IDEA specifies that family cost 

participation must be based on a family’s ability to pay [20 U.S.C. § 1432 (4)(B)]. As of early 2009, 

27 state Part C early intervention program agencies had an FCP policy (Exhibit 2.5). Of the 27 states 

with an FCP policy, 12 include both private insurance and family fees, 10 include only private 

insurance and 5 include family fees only. 

Exhibit 2.5: State Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Services (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

FCP Policy 

There is an FCP policy in the state 

Among states with an FCP policy, the FCP policy requires: 

Both private insurance and family fees 

Private insurance only 

Family fees only 

N 

27

12 

10 

5 

% 

52.94 

44.44 

37.04 

18.52 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-seven Part C early intervention program agencies (53 percent) reported having a family cost 

participation (FCP) policy. Among states with an FCP policy, the FCP policies of 12 Part C program agencies (44 percent) 

require contributions from both private insurance and family fees. 

For FCP policy in the state, N = 51; for FCP policy requirements, N = 27. 

In an exploratory analysis, the study team compared the average percentage of infants and toddlers 

identified for early intervention services in states with and without an FCP policy. The analysis was 

conducted to explore the primary motivation for the FCP policy—that additional resources could 

permit more infants and toddlers to participate in the Part C program system. Across states with an 

FCP policy, the average percentage of children identified as in need of Part C program services is 

2.42, while it is 2.93 percent across states without an FCP policy (Exhibit 2.6). This descriptive 

presentation of identification percentages by FCP policy does not signify a causal relationship. 

16 
Exhibit 2.6: State Identification Percentages (Fall 2007) by Family Cost Participation Policy 

Status for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) 

17 

 

 

 

 

States with 

an FCP Policy 

States without 

an FCP Policy 

Average % Average % 

Percentage of state population ages birth through 2 years 

identified for Part C services in Fall 2007 2.42 2.93 

EXHIBIT READS: Part C early intervention program agencies with an FCP policy identify, on average, 2.42 percent of 

their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years for early intervention services. Part C program agencies without an FCP 

policy identify, on average, 2.93 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years for early intervention 

services. 

Total N = 51. For states with an FCP policy, N = 27; for states without an FCP policy, N = 24. 

The study team examined the percentage of states with FCP policies across type of Part C early 

intervention program lead agency (i.e., health and/or human services or education). Among states 

with a Part C early intervention program system led by a health and/or human services agency, 59 

percent have an FCP policy. Among states with education-led Part C program agencies, 36 percent 

have an FCP policy (Exhibit 2.7). 

Exhibit 2.7: Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Services in States by Type of Part C Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) 

FCP Policy 

Type of Part C Program Lead Agency 

Health/human services Education Co-lead 

N % N % N % 

State has an FCP 

policy 

State has no FCP 

policy 

22 59.46

15 40.54

4 36.36

7 63.63

0 

2 

0.00 

100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Among states that have a health/human service agency as the Part C early intervention program lead 

agency, 59 percent have an FCP policy. Among states that have an education agency as the Part C program lead agency, 36 

percent have an FCP policy. Neither of the states with education and health/human services agencies co-leading the Part C 

programs has an FCP policy. 

Total N = 50. For health/human service lead agencies, N = 37; for education lead agencies, N = 11; for co-lead agencies, 

N = 2. 

Most Frequent Part C Early Intervention Program Outreach Activity: Written Materials for 

Health Care Providers 

Conducting public awareness activities or outreach to identify young children with disabilities has 

been a requirement in IDEA since the 1986 reauthorization. The outreach activity conducted by most 

state Part C early intervention program agencies (47) to support the identification of children birth 

through age 2 in need of early intervention services is development and/or dissemination of written 

materials for pediatricians and other health care providers (Exhibit 2.8). Twenty-eight SEAs use this 

activity to support the identification of preschool-age children in need of special education services 

(Exhibit 2.8). The most common outreach activity is the development/dissemination of written 
 

materials for pediatricians and other health care providers, regardless of the lead agency type 

(Appendix C, Exhibit C.22). 

Exhibit 2.8: State Agency Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities and to Support the Identification of Preschool-Age Children in Need of Special 

Education Services (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) 

Type of Activity 

Infants and Toddlers 

Preschool-Age 

Children 

Yes Yes 

N % N % 

Development/dissemination of written materials 

for pediatricians and other health care providers 47 94.00 28 54.90 

Web-based information and other electronic 

materials 45 90.00 36 70.59 

Development/dissemination of written materials 

for child care centers, nursery schools and other 

facilities 

43 86.00 25 49.02 

Outreach to referral sources 41 82.00 21 41.18 

Workshops for pediatricians and other health care 

providers 26 52.00 11 21.57 

Workshops for staff from child care centers, 

nursery schools and other facilities 26 52.00 18 35.29 

Outreach through radio, TV, newspapers and 

other print media 24 48.00 18 35.29 

Other 8 16.00 5 9.80

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-seven Part C program state agencies (94 percent) reported that the development/dissemination of 

written materials for pediatricians and other health care providers is one of the activities used to support the identification of 

infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years for Part C program services. Twenty-eight Part B preschool-age special 

education program agencies (55 percent) reported the same activity to support the identification of preschool-age children in 

need of special education services. 

For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B respondents, N = 51. 

For each outreach activity in the IDEA-NAIS survey, more states reported conducting that activity to 

support the identification of infants and toddlers than the identification of preschool-age children. 

However, it is important to note that a number of state Part B preschool-age program coordinators 

reported in open-ended responses that outreach was considered a local rather than a state activity. 

States reported engaging in multiple outreach activities. In 47 states, three or more activities were 

reported to support the identification of infants and toddlers and, in 31 states, three or more activities 

were reported to support the identification of preschool-age children (Appendix C, Exhibit C.23). 

Families and Health Care Providers Are Most Frequent Source for Part C Early Intervention 

Program Referrals 

The 2004 IDEA reauthorization requires states to have statewide systems that include outreach to 

potential referral sources (20 U.S.C. § 1435). The IDEA-NAIS findings present the first national data 

on the sources of referrals to Part C early intervention program services. Twenty-eight Part C 

18 
19 

program state coordinators reported families to be the most frequent referral source for the Part C 

early intervention program and families are included in the top three most frequent Part C early 

intervention program referral sources in 49 states (Exhibit 2.9). Twenty Part C program state 

coordinators reported primary health care providers to be the most frequent referral source and 48 

states include primary health care providers among the top three most frequent referral sources. The 

pattern of top referral sources is the same irrespective of the type of Part C program lead agency (e.g., 

health and/or human services or education; see Exhibit C.24 in Appendix C). State Part C 

coordinators also reported other referral sources among the top three most frequent referral sources: 

social service agencies (e.g., Head Start) in 21 states and the health department in 10 states (Exhibit 

2.9). Among the 10 states that responded “other” as one of the top sources, hospitals were most 

frequently listed. 

Most Common Type of Family Participation Differs across State, Regional and Local Levels 

Families participate in Part C early intervention program systems in multiple ways at state, regional 

and local levels (Exhibit 2.10). At the state and regional levels, parents most commonly participate by 

serving on committees or task forces (other than serving on the Interagency Coordinating Council 

(ICC), which is required). At the state level, parents participate on committees or task forces in 43 

states and, at the regional level, parents participate on committees or tasks forces in 23 states. At the 

local level, there are several common ways that parents participate. 

Local Agencies and Programs Are Frequent Providers of Part C Early Intervention Program 

Services 

State coordinators reported that local agencies play a large role in delivering Part C early intervention 

program services. While Part C program services are administered at the state level by a lead state 

agency, states use a variety of models to deliver services at the local level (Exhibit 2.11). Local 

private agencies and programs are the most commonly reported providers of services, across a variety 

of specific Part C program services. In 38 states, coordinators reported local agencies contracted 

through the state have responsibility for overseeing/coordinating evaluation/eligibility or performing 

initial service coordination, and, in from 40 to 42 states, for taking on other Part C program 

responsibilities (Exhibit 2.11). See Appendix C for additional data on organizational models used by 

Part C program services (Appendix C, Exhibit C.25) and Part B program services (Appendix C, 

Exhibit C.26). 
20 

56.00 40.00

2.00

26 19 

52.00 4.00 

0.00 18.00 

Exhibit 2.9: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by Part C Early Intervention Program State Coordinators (FiReferral Source 

States Reporting 

as Most Frequent 

Referral Source 

States Reporting 

as Second-Most 

Frequent Referral 

Source 

States Reporting 

as Third-Most 

Frequent Referral 

Source 

N % N % N % 

Families Primary health care providers Health department Private agency Local school district 

Social service agencies (e.g., Head Start) Regional agencies (e.g., service centers) Other 

28 20 

1 

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

1 2.00 

38.00 

0 

1 2.00 0 0.00 1 2.00 0 0.00 

3 6.00 

2 4.00 2 

9 

1 2.00 

5 10.00 

20 40.00 

4 8.00 

6 12.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-eight Part C early intervention program agencies (56 percent) reported that families are the most frequent referral source fForty-nine Part C program agencies (98 percent) ranked families as one of the three most frequent referral sources. For most frequent referral source, N = 50; for second-most frequent referral source, N = 50; for third-most frequent referral source, N = 49. 
21 

Exhibit 2.10: Family Involvement in the Part C Early Intervention Program System by Level and Type (Fiscal Year 2Type of Involvement

State Region 

Yes Yes 

N % N % 

Participating on committees/task forces (other than Interagency Coordinating Council or ICC) 43 84.31 23 45.10 

Developing policies and procedures 38 74.51 12 23.53 

Providing training to other families 31 60.78 19 37.25 

Providing training to Part C early intervention personnel 31 60.78 19 37.25 

State monitoring 24 47.06 7 13.73 

Involved in procedural safeguard systems 13 25.49 7 13.73 

Employed as Part C early intervention personnel 11 21.57 14 27.45 

Other activity 4 7.84 3 5.88 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-three states (84 percent) reported families participate in state-level committees/task forces. Twenty-three states (45 percent) in regional committees/task forces. Twenty-six states (51 percent) reported families participate in local-level committees/task forces. N = 51. 
22 

16 40 14 

Exhibit 2.11: Entities Responsible for the Provision of Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 200Part C Program Services 

Entity Responsible For Part C Program Services 

State-level 

staff employed 

by lead agency 

State-level 

staff employed 

at agency 

other than lead 

agency 

Local private 

agencies/ 

programs 

Individual 

service 

providers 

N % N % N % N % 

Oversees or coordinates direct services Performs initial service coordination Oversees or coordinates evaluations/eligibility Responsible for intake Performs evaluations/eligibility 

Provides direct services 

18 16 

16

13 

9 

35.39 31.37 

31.37 

31.37 

25.49 

17.65 

6 11.76 

5 9.80 

6 11.76 

3 5.88 5 9.80 9 17.65 

38 74.51 

42 82.35 

41 80.39 

78.43 

40 78.43 

42 82.35 

19 37.

14 27.

14 27.

27.

27 52.

35 68.

EXHIBIT READS: Oversight or coordination of direct services is provided by state-level staff employed at the Part C early intervention program lead agencies (35 percent). State-level staff employed at an agency other than the lead agency provides oversight and coordination of direct services in six P

percent). Local private agencies or programs provide oversight or coordination of direct services in 38 Part C program agencies (75 percent). Nineteen 

have oversight or coordination of direct services provided by individual service providers (37 percent). Two Part C program agencies (4 percent) use ooversight or coordination of direct services. For oversees or coordinates direct services, oversees or coordinates evaluations/eligibility and responsible for intake, N = 51; for performs initial servi

direct services, N = 50; for performs evaluations/eligibility, N = 49. 
23 

Service Coordinator Role Varies across States 

In Part C early intervention programs, service coordinators organize necessary evaluations and 

assessments, facilitate the initial individualized family service plan (IFSP) meeting and subsequent 

reviews, and assist the family in obtaining services. Part C program coordinators reported three 

different approaches to ongoing service coordination (“ongoing” meaning service coordination 

provided after the development of the initial IFSP). In 22 states, a dedicated model of service 

coordination is used, meaning an individual provides only service coordination and no other Part C 

program services, and in 9 states, a blended or dual model is used in which the same individual 

provides both service coordination and other Part C program services. In 20 states, coordinators 

reported Part C programs using a combination approach in which both dedicated and blended models 

of service coordination are used (Exhibit 2.12; also see Exhibit C.12 in Appendix C). 

Exhibit 2.12: Models of Ongoing Service Coordination (Fiscal Year 2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-two Part C program agencies (43 percent) use a dedicated model of service coordination. 

N = 51. 
24 

Most Part C Early Intervention Program Service Coordinator Positions Require a College 

Education 

IDEA specifies that service coordinators must have demonstrated knowledge and understanding about 

infants and toddlers eligible under IDEA Part C and about the nature and scope of services available 

under the state’s early intervention program and the system of payments (20 U.S.C. 1432). State 

policies specify qualifications including education (34 C.F.R. §303.22). With regard to the minimal 

education required for the position of service coordinator, a bachelor’s degree is the minimal 

requirement in 26 states, an associate’s degree in 6 states and a high school diploma in 5 states. 

Thirteen Part C early intervention program agencies reported “other” minimal educational 

requirements for service coordinators, which typically referred to relevant knowledge and life 

experience (Exhibit 2.13; also see Exhibit C.13 in Appendix C). Additional findings related to service 

coordinator qualifications can be found in Appendix C, Exhibit C.27. 

Exhibit 2.13: Minimum Education Qualifications of Service Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Associate's Degree, 

6 states 

12%

High School 

Diploma, 5 states 

10%

Bachelor's Degree, 

26 states 

52%

Other, 13 states 

26%

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-six states (52 percent) require a bachelor’s degree as the minimum education qualification for 

Part C early intervention program service coordinators. 

N = 50. 
 

25 

 

 

Coordination between IDEA Part C Early Intervention Programs and 

IDEA Part B Special Education Programs for Preschool-Age 

Children and Transitions from Part C Programs to Part B Programs 

This section focuses on the second general topic addressed in this chapter, the coordination between 

the state agencies leading the IDEA Part C early intervention program and the IDEA Part B 

preschool-age special education program, particularly concerning the transition from one service 

system to another. For toddlers with disabilities who are eligible for special education and related 

services at age 3, children and families must make a transition from receipt of Part C program 

services to receipt of Part B program services. Because the Part C programs and Part B programs are 

typically administered by different state agencies and have different program requirements, the 

transition from Part C programs likely involves a number of changes for the children and their 

families, including a different state lead agency, different service staff, often different service delivery 

settings and possibly different services or similar services with a different purpose and scope. In 

numerous articles, early childhood special education experts have emphasized the importance of a 

smooth transition from Part C program services to Part B program services and the need for 

communication and collaboration among all parties involved in the transition process (e.g., Rice and 

O’Brien 1990; Rosenkoetter, Hains and Fowler 1994). 

Parents of children with disabilities have also expressed their concerns about the transition process, 

with some of the parents testifying to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions. In their testimony, some parents expressed the desire to retain Part C early intervention 

program services until their children reached school age (S. Rep. No. 185 2003). 

From the initial Part H legislation in 1986 (P.L. 99-457), there has been consistent federal 

acknowledgement of the importance of making the transition from the Part C early intervention 

program to the Part B special education program as smooth as possible for both children and families. 

Part H (now Part C) laid the foundation for subsequent regulations concerning transition with its 

emphasis on the importance of planning ahead for a smooth transition process and of involving all the 

parties, namely the parents, Part C program agency, and the LEA that would provide services under 

IDEA Part B once the child turns 3 years old. In addition, both Parts B and C, through IDEA section 

612(a)(9) and IDEA section 637(a)(9), jointly require a smooth transition to ensure that a child who 

had received services through the Part C program and is eligible as a child with a disability under the 

Part B special education program, has an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. Part 

H also included other specific requirements, such as requiring the establishment of state Interagency 

Coordinating Councils (ICCs18), which provide advice and assistance to SEAs regarding the transition 

of toddlers with disabilities to preschool and other appropriate services [20 U.S.C. § 1443 (e)(1)(C)]. 

Subsequently, the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA required each state to describe “the policies and 

procedures to be used to ensure a smooth transition for children receiving early intervention services” 

18 The governor appoints individuals to the ICC, which provides advice and assistance to the Part C early 

intervention program lead agency including “the identification of the sources of fiscal and other support for 

services for early intervention programs, assignment of financial responsibility to the appropriate agency, 

and the promotion of interagency agreements” as well as in the “preparation of applications and 

amendments” to interagency agreements. The ICC also prepares and submits an annual report to state and 

federal governments regarding the status of Part C programs (20 U.S.C. § 1443). 
 

 

26 

 

[P.L. 105-17 § 637(a)(8)(A)]. This reauthorization included new requirements for the establishment 

of a transition plan that laid out the steps for transferring the child and family from Part C early 

intervention program services to Part B special education program services and including families in 

the transition plan. The legislation also required the LEA to participate in the transition conference, 

which is a meeting with parents and Part C program staff to plan for the transition that must be held 

before the transitioning child, who has been receiving services under the Part C program and who is 

potentially eligible for services under the Part B program, turns age 3 [P.L. 105-17 § 612(9)]. 

With the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, additional changes were made concerning the transition from 

the early intervention system (Part C) to special education services for preschool-age children (Part 

B). These included changes in the statutory language to both Parts C and B19 relevant to transition, 

including the addition of a requirement for the LEA, at a parent’s request, to invite a Part C program 

representative to the initial IEP (individualized education program) meeting for a child who is 

transitioning from the Part C program to the Part B program. 

The 2004 reauthorization also included a new Part C Option that gives states the flexibility, with a 

parent’s consent, to continue to serve children from age 3 until entrance into kindergarten in the early 

intervention, or Part C program, system [20 U.S.C. § 1435 (c)]. The policies regarding this Part C 

Option require that it be implemented jointly by the lead agency that administers the Part C program 

and the SEA that administers the Part B program. The children eligible for this option must have 

participated in the Part C program and be eligible for Part B program services. Further, Part C 

program services for children over age 3 must include an educational component that promotes 

school readiness. States may use Part C program funds to implement the Part C Option. 

Prior to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, federal support for the transition process had been 

provided through OSEP-sponsored technical assistance centers, beginning with the Technical 

Assistance Development System (TADS) from 1984 to 1987. This was followed by the National 

Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NECTAS) from 1987 to 2001 and, most recently, by 

the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC), starting in 2001 and 

continuing to the present, which provides technical assistance to all 50 states and 10 jurisdictions in 

the United States with the goal of strengthening service systems to ensure infants, toddlers and 

children through age 5 “receive and benefit from high quality, culturally appropriate, family-centered 

supports and services” (NECTAC n.d.). Currently, the National Early Childhood Transition Center 

(NECTC) also provides support for the transition process by conducting research on the factors that 

influence the transition process for children with disabilities and their families and provides 

professional development and technical assistance directed at improving the transition experience for 

children and families through dissemination of curricula, strategies and tools (NECTC 2009). 

Under IDEA sections 616 and 642, the U. S. Department of Education (ED) requires that state 

agencies report in their Annual Performance Report (APR) on a number of indicators that are relevant 

to the transition process. Part C early intervention program agencies are required to report on the 

percentage of all children exiting the Part C program who received timely transition planning to 

support the children’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third 

19 The changes in Part C in the 2004 reauthorization are only statutory, because, although Part C regulations 

were proposed in 2007, they have not yet been finalized and were withdrawn during the IDEA-NAIS data 

collection period. 
 

27 

 

birthday (indicators 8A, 8B and 8C20). Such planning includes the development of individualized 

family service plans (IFSPs) that include or describe appropriate transition steps and services, 

notification of the LEA that the child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for the Part B special 

education program and a timely transition conference if the child is potentially eligible for services 

under the Part B program (20 U.S.C. § 1416(a)(3)(B) and §1442). States are required to report in the 

Part B APR on the percentage of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, the percentage of children 

referred by Part C and found eligible for Part B, and the percentage of children referred by Part C 

who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday (Indicator 12).21 

Given the importance of the transition process from Part C early intervention program services to Part 

B special education program services for preschool-age children, the IDEA-NAIS focused on ways in 

which the Part C programs and Part B state agencies work collaboratively and how the programs 

support children who transition from receipt of Part C program services to Part B program services. 

Findings on Coordination between IDEA Part C Early Intervention 

Program and IDEA Part B Preschool-Age Special Education 

Program Lead Agencies and Transition from IDEA Part C Program 

to IDEA Part B Program 

This section reports on how state agencies support eligible children and their families in the transition 

from receipt of Part C early intervention program services to receipt of Part B preschool-age special 

education program services. The IDEA-NAIS also focuses on the collaboration between the early 

intervention and special education agencies serving preschool-age children, the role of state-level 

interagency agreements and the types of technical assistance that state agencies provide local agencies 

on the transition process. 

Most Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program 

Coordinators Report Meeting at Least Monthly and Addressing Transitions in These Meetings 

Early intervention and preschool-age special education program services are led by different state 

coordinators in 46 states and collaboration and communication between the two programs in those 

states is necessary. Among states with separate leadership, 67 percent of the early intervention 

coordinators reported meeting with the preschool-age special education coordinators at least monthly, 

and 33 percent of the early intervention coordinators reported meeting more than six times a year but 

not monthly (Exhibit 2.14). Concerning topics addressed in these meetings, 98 percent of early 

intervention coordinators (in states with separate leadership) indicated “transitions” was a topic 

discussed—the most prevalently reported topic (Exhibit 2.15). 

20 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820-0578cmeatableexp113012.pdf 

for the indicator language. 

21	 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29­

09.pdf for the indicator language. 
Exhibit 2.14: Frequency of Interaction between Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B 

Preschool-Age Special Education Coordinators, among States with Different Part C Early 

Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators 

(Fiscal Year 2009) 

28 

N

States 

% State 

Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do 

not include Part B 

46 90.20 — 

Level of interaction between Part C program coordinator and Part B preschool-age program 

agency in states where Part C program coordinator is not responsible for the Part B preschoolage program: 

Work closely (at least monthly) 30 66.70 AK, AL, AZ, CA, CT, 

DC, DE, FL, HI, ID, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, MA, MI, MO, 

NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, 

NY, OK, OR, VA, VT, 

WI, WV, WY 

Moderate amount of contact (more than six 

times per year) 

15 33.30 AR, CO, GA, LA, MS, 

MT, NJ, NV, OH, RI, SC, 

SD, TX, UT, WA 

Rarely have contact (once or twice a year) 0 0.00 — 

Total 45 100.00 — 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-six Part C early intervention agencies (90 percent) reported the Part C program coordinator has 

responsibilities that do not include the Part B preschool-age special education program. Among the 46 Part C program 

agencies in which the Part C program state coordinator is not also responsible for Part B program services, 30 Part C 

program coordinators (67 percent) reported the Part C program and Part B program coordinators work together on at least a 

monthly basis. 

For Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do not include Part B programs for preschool-age children, N = 51; for level 

of interaction, N = 45. 
29 

 

Exhibit 2.15: Topics Regularly Addressed during State Part C Early Intervention Program and 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators’ Collaboration (Fiscal Year 

2009) 

N

States 

%
 

Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do not include Part C AND 46 90.20 Part B 

Topics regularly addressed during state Part C program and Part B program coordinators’ 

collaboration in states where Part C program coordinator is NOT responsible for Part B 

preschool-age program 

Transitions 45 97.83

Data sharing 43 93.48 

Training/professional development 37 80.43 

Child Find 31 67.39 

Annual Performance Reports required under IDEA 29 63.04 

State Performance Plans required under IDEA 22 47.83 

Disputes 9 19.57 

Other 9 19.57 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-six Part C early intervention program agencies (90 percent) reported the Part C program 

coordinator does not have responsibility for Part B preschool-age special education program services. Among the 46 Part C 

program agencies in which the Part C program coordinator is not responsible for Part B program services, 45 Part C 

program agencies (98 percent) reported the topic of transitions is regularly addressed in collaboration between Part C 

program and Part B program coordinators. 

For Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do not include Part C and Part B N = 51; for topics addressed during 

meetings, N = 46. 

Agreements Made by Part C Early Intervention Programs and Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Programs with Other Agencies Frequently Address Transition from Part C Program 

to Part B Program 

States work to facilitate the transition of children with disabilities and their families from receipt of 

Part C early intervention program services to receipt of Part B preschool-age special education 

program services through several vehicles, including policies addressed in state-level interagency 

agreements and technical assistance provided to local programs. The goal of state-level interagency 

agreements is to ensure that relevant state agencies (which may include, for example, the departments 

of public health, human services, education, or children, youth and families) cooperate in serving 

young children with disabilities. States vary in how their interagency agreements are specifically 

formulated, but a consistent goal across state agreements is to provide effective and efficient services 

with minimal duplication of services for young children with disabilities and their families (NECTAC 

2009). Interagency agreements may include information relating to philosophy, identification of the 

agency responsible for services, fiscal responsibility, maintenance of efforts, data collection and 

sharing of information, procedures for dispute resolutions, procedural safeguards, staff training and 

standards for certification and the timeframe and evaluation of the agreement (Harbin and VanHorn 

1991). 
30 

Transition to preschool is the area most commonly addressed in state-level interagency agreements as 

reported by Part C early intervention program coordinators (addressed in 82 percent of interagency 

agreements; Exhibit 2.16). Part B special education program coordinator responses to questions 

regarding topics addressed in state-level agreements concerning the provision of preschool services to 

children with disabilities are presented in Exhibit C.28 in Appendix C. 

Exhibit 2.16: Areas Addressed in State-Level Part C Early Intervention Program Interagency 

Agreements with Other Agencies (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

Areas Addressed N % 

Transition to preschool 41 82.00 

Professional development and/or training 32 64.00 

Evaluation/eligibility/assessment 31 62.00 

Cost or resource sharing 31 62.00 

Data sharing 31 62.00 

Responsibility for direct services 27 54.00 

Other 5 10.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-one Part C early intervention program agencies (82 percent) reported transition to preschool as 

one of the areas addressed by state-level Part C program interagency agreements. 

N = 50. 

Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program 

Agencies Provide Technical Assistance to Local Providers on Transition and Developing 

Transition Policies 

Part C early intervention program agencies and Part B preschool-age special education program 

agencies support the transition of children with disabilities from receiving Part C program services to 

receiving preschool-age Part B program services in multiple ways, most often by providing technical 

assistance to local providers on transition (conducted in 50 states both for Part C early intervention 

program agencies and for Part B preschool-age special education program agencies; Exhibit 2.17), 

developing transition policies (conducted in 46 and 48 states respectively) and developing and 

disseminating materials for parents on the transition from Part C program to the Part B program 

(conducted in 41 and 36 states respectively). 
31 

 

Exhibit 2.17: Activities Supporting Transition of Children with Disabilities from Part C Early 

Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or 

School Year 2008–2009) 

Activities 

Part C Early 

Intervention 

Program 

Part B PreschoolAge Special 

Education Program 

N % N % 

Provided technical assistance to local providers on 

transition 

Developed policies on transition from Part C to 

Part B 

Developed/disseminated materials for parents on 

transition from Part C to Part B 

Developed/maintained an electronic database of 

individual child records to allow children to be 

followed from Part C to Part B 

Part B preschool funds can be used to provide Free, 

Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children 

before their third birthday 

Part C funds can be used to provide FAPE for 

children past their third birthday 

Other 

50 98.04 

48 94.12 

41 80.39 

25 49.02 

— — 

12 23.53 

5 9.80

50 98.04 

46 90.20 

36 70.59 

28 54.90 

27 52.94 

— — 

6 11.76

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty Part C early intervention program agencies (98 percent) reported providing technical assistance to 

local providers on transitions. Fifty Part B preschool-age special education program agencies (98 percent) reported 

providing technical assistance to local providers on transition. 

Part C respondents, N = 51. Part B respondents, N = 51. 

Almost all Part C and Part B state agencies conduct multiple activities to support the transition of 

children with disabilities from the Part C early intervention program. Forty-four early intervention 

program coordinators and 44 preschool-age special education program coordinators reported 

conducting three or more activities to support transition (Exhibit 2.18). 
32 

 

Exhibit 2.18: States Reporting Number of Different Activities to Support Transition of Toddlers 

with Disabilities from Part C Early Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or School Year 2008–2009) 

Number of Different Support Activities Engaged by 

States 

Part C Program 

N % 

Part B Program 

N % 

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 

6

14 

16 

8 

5

1

1.96 

11.76

27.45 

31.37 

15.69 

9.80

1.96

0 

7

8

22

9

4

1

0.00 

13.73

15.69 

43.14 

17.65 

7.84 

1.96 

EXHIBIT READS: One Part C early intervention program agency (2 percent) reported conducting only one activity to 

support the transitions of toddlers with disabilities from Part C program to Part B preschool-age special education program 

services. No Part B program agencies reported conducting only one activity to support the transition of toddlers with 

disabilities from Part C program to Part B program services. 

Part C respondents, N = 51. Part B respondents, N = 51. 

Funding Is the Most Frequently Reported Reason for No States Executing the Part C Option 

A key addition in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA concerning the transition from the Part C 

program is referred to as the “Part C Option.” This option gives states the flexibility, with a parent’s 

consent, to continue providing Part C early intervention program services to an eligible child after the 

child turns 3, specifically until the child is eligible for public school, typically at age 5 [P.L. 108-446 

§ 638; 20 U.S.C. § 1435(c)]. 

At the time the IDEA-NAIS survey data were collected in January and February 2009, no state had 

implemented the Part C Option, although seven states reported the option was under consideration 

(Appendix C, Exhibit C.29). 

Among reasons states reported for not implementing the Part C Option, insufficient funding was the 

most frequently reported (41 states; Exhibit 2.19). Of the 12 states that reported “Other” in response 

to this question, 4 of those Part C early intervention program coordinators reported concern in their 

state about duplication of services for preschool-age children (3- through 5-year-olds). 
33 

 

Exhibit 2.19: Issues Affecting Decision Not to Use Part C Option (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

N % 

During FY2009, state did not use the Part C option 51 100.00 

Issues Affecting Decision in Fiscal Year 2009 

Insufficient funding 41 83.67 

Insufficient provider capacity 20 40.82 

Insufficient lead agency staffing 16 32.65 

Part C lead agency is not able to promote school readiness as required 4 8.16 

Insufficient interagency coordination at the state level 1 2.04 

Insufficient interagency coordination at the local level 1 2.04 

Other 12 24.49 

None of the above 5 10.20 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-one Part C early intervention program agencies (100 percent) reported not using the Part C Option. 

Forty-one Part C program agencies (84 percent) reported insufficient funding as one of the issues affecting their decisions 

not to use the Part C Option. 

For did not use Part C option, N = 51; for issues affecting decision, N = 49. 

Summary 

This chapter presented data on state implementation of early intervention services for children from 

birth through age 2 and their families. Findings related to Part B preschool-age special education 

program services, which are services that focus on children with disabilities ages 3 through 5, were 

presented in conjunction with Part C early intervention program services when relevant. Specifically, 

this chapter presented IDEA-NAIS findings related to state-level Part C program service systems, as 

well as information about the coordination of the Part C program and the Part B program and the 

transition between the two. The findings on Part C program services represent the first comprehensive 

look at their state-level implementation. 

States have discretion in how to organize early intervention services for younger children. For Part C 

early intervention program services, two types of state agencies have lead responsibility, with the 

most common being state departments of health and/or human services. Funding sources for Part C 

program services also vary across states. The three sources providing the highest portion of funds are 

state early intervention funds, IDEA Part C funds and Medicaid/Title XIX. Although Part C program 

services are administered by state-level agencies, most states contract with local private agencies and 

programs for service delivery. 

Although Part C early intervention program services and Part B preschool-age special education 

program services are led by different coordinators in 46 states, the two programs collaborate. In 67 

percent of states with separate Part C program and Part B program leadership, the two state 

coordinators meet at least monthly. States work to facilitate the transition of children with disabilities 

and their families from Part C program services to Part B program services through several vehicles. 

Part C program agencies reported that transition was the topic addressed most frequently in Part C 
34 

program agreements with other agencies serving young children with disabilities. Part C program 

agencies also reported supporting transitions from the Part C program by providing technical 

assistance on transition to local providers/agencies (in 98 percent of the states), developing policies 

for transition (in 94 percent of the states) and developing and disseminating materials for parents on 

transition (in 80 percent of the states). 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA introduced the Part C Option that allows states to extend Part C 

early intervention program services to eligible children and their families through age 5. As of early 

2009, no state had elected to implement the Part C Option, although seven states reported the option 

was under consideration. The most common reason identified for not implementing the Part C Option 

was insufficient funding. 
35 

Chapter 3: Identification of Students: Coordinated 

Early Intervening Services (CEIS), 

Response to Intervention (RtI), and 

State and Local Policies for Specific 

Learning Disability (SLD) 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA introduced several interrelated changes related to the identification 

of children with disabilities. These changes focus on two broad areas. First, the 2004 reauthorization 

attempts to address overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority students in special education 

(“disproportionality”) by allowing districts to use some of their Part B special education funds to 

develop and implement Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) for students who are not yet 

identified as needing special education and related services but who need additional academic or 

behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Districts identified as having 

significant disproportionality related to identification, placement or discipline of children with 

disabilities are required to use some of their IDEA Part B funds to provide CEIS. Other districts may, 

but are not required to, use some of their IDEA Part B funds for CEIS. Second, the 2004 legislation 

introduced changes in the identification of students in the disability category of Specific Learning 

Disability (SLD). Response to Intervention (RtI) is linked both to CEIS and to changes in eligibility 

criteria for students with SLD; CEIS funds can be used to implement an RtI process and data from the 

RtI process can now be used as one component of eligibility determinations for students with SLD. 

Because the above provisions of IDEA were first introduced in 2004, currently available data on 

policies and practices related to the use of CEIS are limited and information on the use of RtI 

nationally is incomplete. Systematic data were collected on definitions and policies related to CEIS at 

the state level; the overall use of Part B program funds to provide CEIS; and activities and policies at 

the district level among districts using some portion of their Part B special education program funds 

to implement CEIS. Similar data were collected on RtI, specifically: SEA and LEA activities related 

to RtI; the extent to which RtI is being implemented nationally, including the school levels and 

content areas; and how RtI is funded. In addition, the IDEA-NAIS obtained information on different 

state eligibility requirements for SLD and the use of RtI for identification of children with SLD. 

Appendix D includes fully sourced versions of Exhibits 3. 1 through 3.26, labeled Exhibit D.1 

through D.26. Additional supplemental tables begin with Exhibit D.27 and continue through Exhibit 

D.52. 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA added a new provision, Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS), also known as Early Intervening Services (EIS), that allows districts to use up to 15 percent 

of Part B funds to develop and provide CEIS for children who are not yet identified as in need of 

special education and related services (34 C.F.R. § 300.226). CEIS are designed for students in 

kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on kindergarten through grade 3) who are 

not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional 

academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. 
 

36 

 

While generally optional, the provision of CEIS is required if an LEA is identified by the state as 

having significant disproportionality22 in: the identification of children with disabilities; the 

identification of children with disabilities in a particular impairment category; the placement of 

children in particular educational settings; or the incidence, duration and type of disciplinary actions, 

including suspensions and expulsions (34 C.F.R. § 300.646). In the case of a determination of 

significant disproportionality, these coordinated early intervening services must serve, but not 

exclusively, students in those racial/ethnic groups that are significantly overidentified. 

For LEAs identified with significant disproportionality in any one of these areas, 15 percent of the 

LEA’s Part B funds must be used to provide CEIS to students in that LEA. Furthermore, any LEA 

that implements CEIS is required to report to the state on the number of children receiving CEIS and 

the number of those children who subsequently received special education and related services under 

the Part B 611 program during the two-year period following receipt of these services (34 C.F.R. § 

300.226). 

The federal government has also addressed disproportionality through the avenues of monitoring and 

compliance. Before 2004, states were already reporting on disproportionate representation as part of 

their Biennial Performance Report/Annual Performance Report; with the IDEA 2004 reauthorization, 

states began reporting on three indicators with a focus on disproportionate representation (Indicators 

4b, 9 and 1023) in their State Performance Plans (SPPs) [34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)]. For SPP reporting, 

the emphasis is on disproportionate representation of students that is a result of inappropriate 

identification, and states are required to conduct a review of LEAs’ policies, procedures and practices 

for those LEAs identified with disproportionate representation. 

Findings Related to CEIS 

With the introduction of CEIS, the federal government is expanding the way in which districts and 

SEAs must address significant disproportionality. The IDEA-NAIS was designed to provide 

information on SEA definitions of significant disproportionality, the number of districts identified 

with significant disproportionality and CEIS activities supported by Part B funds. 

Significant disproportionality is currently based on a determination by the SEA. The Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) has provided some guidance on the definition of significant 

disproportionality, noting that SEAs must make the determination based on an analysis of quantitative 

information and that the determination of significant disproportionality should be based only on 

quantitative methods and in no way reflect a subjective judgment as to whether or not a district is 

following appropriate referral procedures [34 C.F.R. § 300.646(b)]. Each SEA must develop its own 

definition of significant disproportionality and collect annual data from LEAs. Decisions about which 

statistical method, and whether a single measure or multiple measures are used, are left to the SEA. 

However, the technical assistance OSEP provided stressed use of risk ratios, including weighted risk 

ratios (Westat 2007). 

22 The term significant disproportionality is defined by each state. Generally, significant disproportionality 

means that a racial/ethnic group is disproportionally represented in special education disability and 

education environment categories to a degree determined “significant” by the state. 

23 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29­

09.pdf for the indicator language. 
37 

 

 

In May 2007 the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) surveyed 

state special education directors and found that 28 states had finalized procedures used to determine 

SLD (Burdette 2007). IDEA-NAIS updates this information.24 For the 2008–2009 school year, 46 

SEAs reported that their definition was finalized (Exhibit 3.1). However, 17 SEAs reported that 

modifications or revisions were planned for the following year.25 

Exhibit 3.1: Status of Definitions for Significant Disproportionality (School Year 2008–2009) 

As of 2008– 2009, state’s 

definitions of significant 

disproportionality are: N 

States 

% States Responding Yes 

Finalized and no changes are 

anticipated 

29 56.86 AL, AR, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, 

KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, ND, NE, NJ, NM, 

NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, UT, VT, WY 

Finalized but modifications or 

revisions are planned for the 

coming year 

17 33.33 CO, DC, FL, IA, MA, MI, MN, MT, NC, OK, 

SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI, WV 

Under development 5 9.80 AK, CA, IL, ME, NH 

Total 51 100.00 — 

EXHIBIT READS: The definitions of significant disproportionality are finalized with no anticipated changes in 29 (57 

percent) SEAs. 

N = 51. 

Definitions of Significant Disproportionality and Disproportionality Vary by State 

States are required to base the determination of significant disproportionality on quantitative data, but 

decisions about which statistical method or methods are used are left to the states. SEAs may 

incorporate a number of factors into their definition that can affect the number of districts identified 

as significantly disproportionate. For example, SEAs may differ on the magnitude of the difference 

between the proportion of a particular racial or ethnic group identified as in need of special education 

and the proportion in the general population required to be considered “significantly 

disproportionate.” SEAs can also vary in the number of years of data they use to develop a rolling 

average of the proportion of children identified as in need of special education. For example, if a 

district has a high proportion of minority students identified in one year but a much lower number in 

24	 The NASDSE survey differed slightly from the IDEA-NAIS survey. NASDSE provided four options for a 

response to a survey item regarding the status of a state’s definition of “significant disproportionality”: 1) 

Our state’s definition of “significant disproportionality” is complete; 2) Our state’s definition of 

“significant disproportionality” is developed, but is in the process of being approved at the state level; 3) 

Our state’s definition of “significant disproportionality” is in the process of being developed; 4) Our state 

has not yet defined “significant disproportionality.” In contrast, the IDEA-NAIS survey offered three 

choices: 1) Our state’s definition of significant disproportionality is finalized and no changes are 

anticipated in the coming year; 2) Our state’s definition of significant disproportionality is finalized but we 

are planning modifications or revisions in the coming year; 3) Our state’s definition of significant 

disproportionality is in the process of being developed. 

25	 Because the NASDSE report from 2007 does not list the states by their response, it is not possible to 

comment on whether the same 28 states responded affirmatively to both the NASDSE and IDEA-NAIS 

surveys regarding the status of their progress. 
 

38 

 

 

 

the year before or after, the SEA’s choice about whether to use one or more years of data to calculate 

the average for a district could determine whether the district in question is identified as having 

significant disproportionality for that year. A “minimum cell size” identifies the smallest number of 

allowable students in an analysis category for that individual category to be evaluated, and if there are 

not at least that many students, the district would be exempt from analysis in that category and so 

would not even be assessed for disproportionality in that category. For example, if a district has a 

population of ethnic or racial minorities smaller than the minimum cell size, the district may never be 

examined for disproportionality, even if its relatively small minority population is overrepresented in 

special education classes. 

Through definitions provided by IDEA-NAIS respondents and searches on the Internet in April 2009, 

definitions for significant disproportionality clearly tied to the CEIS regulations were obtained for a 

total of 34 states.26 In each state for which a definition was available, the study team presents the 

percentage of districts that were reported as having significant disproportionality in the area of 

identification for the 2008–2009 school year in Exhibit 3.2.27 States are grouped according to whether 

they used a single risk ratio28 method, a single weighted risk ratio method or mixed methods. Cell size 

requirements are excluded from these categories due to incomplete and ambiguous data on this 

component. In addition, for this table, definitions that did not explicitly note the use of multiple years 

of data are indicated as using only one year. 

In Exhibit 3.2, the percentage of districts identified within a state for the 2008–2009 school year is a 

determination made during the previous school year. The IDEA-NAIS survey requested current 

(2008–2009) definitions. The study team is aware that these definitions are permitted by OSEP to 

26	 Six other respondents provided hard copies or links to specific documents where a definition could be 

found. The remainder provided links to their State Department of Education homepage, to the State 

Department Special Education page, or to a State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 

(SPP/APR). For any state that did not provide an attachment or specific document, searches for the terms 

“disproportionality,” “EIS” and “CEIS” and variations on these terms were conducted at the location 

provided, such as the state department website or the SPP. However, for states that provided a definition— 

no matter how minimal—no additional search was completed. In some cases, the SPP or APR report 

referenced Indicators 9 and 10 of the SPP without any specific mention of CEIS or significant 

disproportionality. Indicators 9 and 10, as required by 34 C.F.R. §300.600(d)(3), are focused on 

“disproportionate representation that is the result of inappropriate identification.” While SEAs are 

permitted to use the same or similar definitions for both “disproportionate representation” and “significant 

disproportionality” in identification, definitions that did not explicitly note this or which did not incorporate 

CEIS or significant disproportionality were excluded from the summary in this section. Two of the 34 

states incorrectly required disproportionality in all three areas combined instead of in each area separately. 

The remaining 32 of the 34 states have developed a definition for significant disproportionality in 

identification. 

27	 Identification was chosen as the category to include in this analysis because relatively few states had 

developed definitions of “disproportionality” in the other two areas. 

28	 A risk ratio is a comparison of risk of different ethnic groups, and addresses the question, “What is a 

specific racial/ethnic group’s risk of receiving special education and related services for a particular 

disability as compared to the risk for all other students in that district?” (Bollmer, Bethel, Garrison-Mogren 

and Brauen 2007). For example, a risk ratio of 2 can be interpreted to mean that Hispanic students in a 

particular district are twice as likely to receive special education services as the non-Hispanic students in 

that district. A common variation on the risk ratio is the weighted risk ratio, which allows for comparisons 

of risk ratios across districts within a state because it adjusts for variability in the racial/ethnic composition 

of the comparison group. 
39 

change from year to year (Office of Special Education Programs 2008). The study team does not have 

confirmation that these definitions were used to determine the data that appear in Exhibit 3.2. 

There is variability across states in the methods used to determine significant disproportionality (15 

categories represented; Exhibit 3.2). Additionally, there is variability in the percentage of districts that 

are identified as having significant disproportionality even if they use similar methods. For example, 

four SEAs use a single year of data, the risk ratio and a cutoff below 3.5 percent. Fifty-five percent of 

districts in one SEA were identified as having significant disproportionality using this definition. 

However, another SEA used the same definition and did not identify any of its districts as having 

significant disproportionality. Given the many differences documented above in how SEAs make the 

determination of district-level disproportionality, it is difficult to know how much of the variation in 

significant disproportionality across states arises from real differences in disproportionality and how 

much arises from differences in measurement or statistical criteria. 
40 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3.2: Percentage of Districts Having Significant Disproportionality in the Identification 

of Students by State Definition (School Year 2008–2009) 

Percentage of Districts in State 

Statistical Approach and Years of Data Mean Median Range 

Single method: risk ratio 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use 1 year of data (4 states) 13.96 0.51 0.00 – 54.81 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use 1 year of data (3 states) 4.39 0.00 0.00 – 13.16 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use more than 1 year of data (2 states) 34.06 34.06 13.02 – 55.10 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use more than 1 year of data (2 

states) 2.49 2.49 0.00 – 4.98 

Single method: weighted risk ratio 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use 1 year of data (1 state) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use 1 year of data (4 states) 0.09 0.00 0.00 – 0.35 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use more than 1 year of data (1 state) — — — 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use more than 1 year of data (4 

states) 5.77 4.79 0.00 – 13.51 

Multiple methods 

Weighted risk ratio + risk ratio and use 1 year of data (2 states) 8.46 8.46 1.93 – 15.00 

Weighted risk ratio + risk ratio and use more than 1 year of data (2 

states) 0.48 0.48 0.00 – 0.96 

Weighted risk ratio + other and use 1 year of data (2 states) 1.37 1.37 0.00 – 2.75 

Weighted risk ratio + other and use more than 1 year of data (1 state) 6.97 6.97 6.97 

Alternate risk ratio + other and use 1 year of data (1 state) 12.27 12.27 12.27 

Risk ratio + other and use more than 1 year of data (1 state) 2.61 2.61 2.61 

Other method (2 states) 4.44 4.44 0.55 – 8.33 

EXHIBIT READS: Among states using a risk ratio to identify districts as having significant disproportionality in 

identification, with a cutoff value of less than 3.5 and incorporating one year of data, the mean percentage of districts 

identified as having significant disproportionality in the area of identification is 13.96. The median percentage of districts 

identified is 0.51. The percentage of districts identified ranges from zero to 54.81 percent. 

N = 32. 

CEIS Required in Three Percent of Districts Due to Significant Disproportionality 

Overall, based on SEA reports, 2.9 percent of districts nationally were required to use CEIS during 

the 2008–2009 school year as a result of significant disproportionality in at least one area (Exhibit 

3.3). The percentage of districts required to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality in 

identification was 2.3; due to placement, 0.7; and due to discipline, 0.3. Appendix D, Exhibit D.27, 

presents the number and percentage of districts required to use CEIS by region. 
41 

 

 

Exhibit 3.3: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS during the Current 

School Year as a Result of Significant Disproportionality, as Reported by SEAs (School Year 

2008–2009) 

Area of Significant Disproportionality: 

Overall 

LEAs Required to Use CEIS 

Percentage of 

Number of districts districts 

463 2.86 

Identification 368 2.31 

Placement 106 0.66 

Discipline 54 0.34 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts nationwide, 3 percent are required to use CEIS as a result of significant 

disproportionality in any area. 

For overall, N = 51; for specific areas, N = 50. 

Twenty-two SEAs reported that no districts were required to provide CEIS in 2008–2009 due to 

significant disproportionality. Among 29 SEAs that reported at least one LEA was required to do so, 

there was variability in the percentage of districts required to use CEIS. Values ranged from less than 

1 percent of districts to 56 percent, with a mean of 10 percent of districts required to use CEIS 

(Exhibit 3.4). It is important to note that reports of the percentage of districts required to use CEIS 

may not be directly comparable across states due to differences in state definitions of significant 

disproportionality, as indicated above, and other factors. 

Exhibit 3.4: Percentage of Districts Required by SEA to Provide CEIS Due to Significant 

Disproportionality among States Requiring at Least One District to Provide CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) 

Mean Median Range

Percentage of districts within SEA 10.43 4.67 0.35 – 55.77 

EXHIBIT READS: Part B program coordinators reporting at least one disproportionate district required a mean of 11 

percent of districts to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality. The median percentage of districts required to 

provide CEIS in these states is 5 percent. The percentage of districts required to provide CEIS in these states ranges from 

less than 1 to 56 percent. 

N = 29. 

Eighty-Two Percent of LEAs Required to Implement CEIS Target All Schools 

The regulations of the 2004 IDEA legislation and subsequent guidance documents from OSEP 

describe the activities that may be supported with CEIS funds but do not prescribe how the funds may 

or must be distributed once a district is identified as having significant disproportionality (34 C.F.R. § 

300.226; Office of Special Education Programs 2007a, 2008). 

Eighty-two percent of districts required to implement CEIS focus on all schools in the district, 

regardless of whether the individual schools show significant disproportionality (Exhibit 3.5; 

Appendix D, Exhibit D.5). Eleven percent of districts required to implement CEIS targeted only 

schools with evidence of significant disproportionality. An additional 7 percent distributed activities 

or resources in some other way. Examples of these “other” ways of using CEIS activities or resources 
42 

included: providing the services to all elementary schools and Positive Behavioral Interventions and 

Supports (PBIS) schools; targeting middle schools and the high school; using the funds to pay for 

partial salaries for a psychologist, teacher assistant and teacher at one PK-2 school; and targeting 

resources to schools that either have discipline difficulties or are in need of improvement for 

academics. 

Exhibit 3.5: Target Schools for CEIS Activities or Resources among Districts Required to 

Provide CEIS (School Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Eleven percent of districts required to provide CEIS target CEIS activities or resources only to schools 

with evidence of significant disproportionality. 

N = 89. 

Eleven Percent of Districts Voluntarily Provide CEIS with Part B Special Education Program 

Funds 

LEAs that are not identified as having significant disproportionality may choose to use up to 15 

percent of their Part B funds to develop and provide CEIS for children who are not yet identified as 

being in need of special education or related services. Most districts (85 percent) reported neither 

being required nor volunteering to use Part B funds for CEIS, whereas 11 percent of districts 

nationally were not required but voluntarily used a portion of their Part B funds to implement CEIS in 

the 2008–2009 school year (Exhibit 3.6). In Appendix D, Exhibits D.28-D.30 present the use of Part 

B funds to provide CEIS by region (Exhibit D.28), urbanicity (Exhibit D.29) and district size (Exhibit 

D.30). 
43 

Exhibit 3.6: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS as 

Reported by Districts (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts 

Use of Part B Program Funds to Provide CEIS % 

District is required to use 15 percent of Part B funds for CEIS 4.48 

District is not required but elects to use any portion of Part B funds 10.91 

District does not use any Part B funds for CEIS 84.61 

EXHIBIT READS: Four percent of districts are required to use 15 percent of Part B special education program funds to 

support CEIS. Eleven percent of all districts are not required to use Part B program funds to provide CEIS but elected to do 

so. Eighty-five percent of all districts are neither required nor elected to support CEIS with Part B program funds. 

N = 1,142. 

Among districts that are voluntarily using some portion of Part B special education funds for CEIS, 7 

percent spent less than 1 percent of funds; 39 percent of districts spent 1–5 percent of funds; 23 

percent spent 6–10 percent of funds, and 31 percent spent 11 percent or more of their Part B funds 

(Exhibit 3.7; Appendix D, Exhibit D.7). 

Exhibit 3.7: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Funds to Provide CEIS—Proportion of 

Funds Used (School Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 7 percent of districts using Part B funds to provide CEIS allocate less than 1 percent of 

their Part B program funds to CEIS activities. 

N = 155. 
44 

Types of Schools and Activities Supported through CEIS by Part B Special Education Program 

Funds 

As mentioned above, CEIS is defined as services for students in kindergarten through 12th grade, 

with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through 3rd grade (Office of Special Education 

Programs 2008). OSEP guidance and federal regulations indicate IDEA funds may be used to 

supplement, not supplant, any federal funds used to support CEIS which includes ESEA funds for 

school improvement activities [Office of Special Education Programs 2008; 34 C.F.R. § 

300.202(a)(3), 300.226(e)]. 

CEIS Is Commonly Implemented at the Elementary School Level 

The particular school levels for which CEIS activities were used can be seen in Exhibit 3.8 (Appendix 

D, Exhibit D.8). These data are presented separately for districts required to provide CEIS and those 

voluntarily providing CEIS. In districts providing CEIS, 93 percent of districts do so at the 

elementary school level, whether required or electing to provide CEIS. In districts required to provide 

CEIS, 56 percent do so at the middle school and 41 percent do so at the high school level. In districts 

electing to provide CEIS, 41 percent do so at the middle school level and 33 percent do so at the high 

school level. Appendix D also includes the distribution of CEIS by school level by region (Exhibit 

D.31), urbanicity (Exhibit D.32) and district size (Exhibit D.33). 

Exhibit 3.8: Distribution of CEIS by School Level for Districts Providing CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 93 percent of districts mandated to provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary 

schools. Ninety-three percent of districts electing to provide CEIS conduct CEIS in elementary schools. 

Mandatory: For elementary schools, N = 86; for middle schools, N = 61; for high schools, N = 51; for other schools, N = 10. 

Voluntary: For elementary schools, N = 160; for middle schools, N = 88; for high schools, N = 68; for other schools, N = 14. 
45 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common CEIS Areas Are Literacy and RtI 

Activities districts may conduct as part of CEIS include professional development for teachers and 

other school staff designed to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic or behavioral 

interventions [34 C.F.R. § 300.226(b)]. This includes, for example, instruction on the use of adaptive 

and instructional software and providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and 

supports. The activities for which Part B funds were used to provide CEIS among districts using 

CEIS are presented in Exhibit 3.9. The percentage of districts required to provide CEIS and that use 

Part B funds for professional development, instruction or evaluation or to purchase supplies in the 

area of literacy instruction is 82. The percentage of districts electing to provide CEIS and that support 

these same activities with Part B funds is 84. Of note, districts required or electing to provide CEIS 

use Part B funds to support RtI activities (82 percent and 67 percent respectively). Appendix D 

presents the types of CEIS activities supported by Part B funding by region (Exhibit D.34), urbanicity 

(Exhibit D.35) and district size (Exhibit D.36). 

Exhibit 3.9: Percentage of CEIS-Mandatory and CEIS-Voluntary Districts Using Part B Special 

Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS Activities (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts Mandated to 

Provide CEIS 

Districts Voluntarily 

Providing CEIS 

Use Part B 

program 

funds

Use Part B 

program 

funds Type of Activity Supported by Part B 

Program Funds 

Unknown Unknown 

% % % % 

Literacy instruction 81.79  84.33 2.59 

Response to Intervention (RtI) 81.65 6.52 67.07 1.52 

Behavioral interventions 63.36 7.49 60.11 1.68 

Math instruction 63.22 1.02 48.63 1.95 

Adaptive and instructional software 55.02 4.02 41.43 2.33 

Educational evaluations 43.00 4.75 46.30 3.81 

Behavioral evaluations 47.47 7.92 36.51 4.79 

Other instruction 17.79 17.30 21.23 18.14 

Other 14.06 26.93 10.76 22.01 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-two percent of districts mandated to provide CEIS reported using Part B funds to provide literacy 

instruction. No districts mandated to provide CEIS reported they did not know if they used Part B funds to provide literacy 

instruction. Eighty-four percent of districts voluntarily providing CEIS reported using Part B funds to provide literacy 

instruction. Three percent of districts voluntarily providing CEIS did not know if they used Part B funds to provide literacy 

instruction. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

For districts mandated to provide CEIS, N = 90 for literacy instruction, behavior interventions, math instruction, and other 

instruction; N = 89 for RtI, adaptive and instructional software; educational evaluations and behavioral evaluations; N = 88 

for other. 

For districts electing to provide CEIS, N = 166 for literacy instruction, RtI, behavioral interventions, math instruction, 

adaptive and instructional software and educational evaluations; N = 164 for behavioral evaluations and other instructions; 

N = 161 for other. 
 

46 

 

 

Exploration of Relationship between CEIS and Eligibility for Grades K–3 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services are intended to serve children who are not yet identified for 

special education and to provide supports in the general education classroom they may not otherwise 

receive (34 C.F.R. § 300.226). It is the intention of CEIS to intervene early to reduce the number of 

students identified as eligible for special education and related services. This exploratory analysis was 

intended to examine the relationship between the use of CEIS and special education eligibility and is 

based on district reports of the number of students evaluated for special education eligibility and the 

number of students found eligible, by grade, during the 2007–2008 school year. Districts that reported 

implementing CEIS during the 2008–2009 school year, whether due to significant disproportionality 

or not, were compared in three areas to districts that did not report implementing CEIS: (1) the 

percentage of all students in grades K–3 who were evaluated for special education eligibility in 2007– 

2008, (2) the percentage of all district students in grades K–3 determined to be eligible for special 

education in these grades and (3) the percentage of evaluated students determined to be eligible for 

special education in these grades.29 

There were no significant differences between districts using CEIS and districts not using CEIS in the 

percentage of all students evaluated (p = 0.10) or the percentage of evaluated students that were 

determined to be eligible (p = 0.27). Districts that reported the use of CEIS exhibited a statistically 

significant lower percentage of all students in grades K–3 who were determined to be eligible for 

special education (M = 2.12) than districts that did not use CEIS (M = 2.58, p = 0.04; Exhibit 3.10). 

29	 The analyses include a subsample of districts with children with speech and language impairment in the 

answer to the survey question about number of students who were evaluated and eligible. A portion of 

school districts did not include children in the category of speech and language impairment in the counts 

reported by the district. 
47 

Exhibit 3.10: Special Education Evaluation and Eligibility in Kindergarten through Grade 3 by 

District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) (School Year 2008–

2009) 

Districts Using 

CEIS (Either 

Voluntary or 

Mandatory) 

Districts not 

Using CEIS 

Difference

(Districts Using CEIS –

Districts not Using 

CEIS) 

% % 

Percentage 

points 

difference p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated for special education 

eligibility 

Percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for 

special education 

3.16 3.57 0.41 0.103 

Percentage of evaluated 

students determined to be 

eligible for special education 

2.12 2.58 0.46 0.036* 

67.12 72.39 5.28 0.267 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of all students (grades K–3) evaluated in 2007–2008 was 3.16 for districts using CEIS in 

2008–2009 and it was 3.57 for districts not using CEIS. The difference between the two sets of districts is 0.41 percentage 

points, with a probability value of 0.103. 

* P-value is significant at the .05 level. 

N = 626. 

These exploratory analyses are strictly descriptive and do not imply any causal relationship between 

the use of CEIS and the area described above. There are potentially many important unmeasured 

factors that may explain the differences in the percentage of students that were evaluated and found 

eligible that these analyses do not include. 

Response to Intervention (RtI) 

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a term used to describe a range of practices for monitoring progress 

in the academic and behavioral domains and for providing interventions in these areas. RtI is closely 

related to the process of identifying, assessing and monitoring the amelioration of students for whom 

the school has academic or behavioral concerns (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh and Parrish 2009). RtI 

occurs within the general education setting in collaboration with other experts such as special 

educators and school psychologists. RtI begins with universal screening, the goal of which is to 

identify the students most likely to experience academic difficulties. This is accompanied by 

monitoring student progress in key academic areas using measures that must be valid, reliable and 

efficient. Universal screening in conjunction with ongoing progress monitoring is intended to provide 

information about which students may benefit from more intensive instruction. Students who do not 

show improvement, or “responsiveness,” to these subsequent interventions are considered to be at risk 

and possibly in need of special education services (Hoover, Baca, Wexler-Love and Saenz 2008). 

The national Learning Disabilities Summit (2001) highlighted RtI as a promising method for specific 

learning disabilities (SLD) identification. Then, in 2002, the President’s Commission on Excellence 
48 

in Special Education recommended intervening early, curriculum-based measurement and a change in 

criteria for SLD identification (U. S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services 2002). The 2004 IDEA amendments incorporated RtI into the regulations in 

two ways. First, the amendments allowed RtI to be used as one component of eligibility determination 

for specific learning disabilities. Second, the 2004 IDEA legislation permits LEAs to use some of 

their Part B special education funds to provide educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and 

supports, including the use of scientifically based literacy instruction, as possible means for 

implementing CEIS (34 C.F.R. § 300.226). 

OSEP guidance explicitly linked CEIS and RtI by sanctioning the use of CEIS funds to support RtI 

“as long as the CEIS funds are used for services to nondisabled students in need of additional 

academic or behavioral support and supplement, not supplant, other funds used to implement RtI” 

(Office of Special Education Programs 2008). The federal government has supported the 

implementation of RtI through funding a number of related national centers, such as the National 

Research Center on Learning Disabilities (funded in 2001); the Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports (funded in 2003); the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring 

(funded in 2003); the National Center for Response to Intervention (funded in 2007); and the Center 

for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (funded in 2008). 

Systematic information about RtI implementation among states and districts is essential to understand 

the current implementation of IDEA. Data presented in the following section describe state and 

district activities related to RtI implementation, leadership of RtI efforts and funding of RtI training 

and implementation, providing the most complete picture of RtI implementation in the U.S. available 

to date. Exploratory descriptive analyses, which do not address causal relationships, are presented 

regarding the use of RtI and special education eligibility. 

Findings on Response to Intervention 

Most SEAs Conduct State-Level Activities Related to RtI, While Fewer Agencies Conduct 

State-Level Activities Specifically to Support RtI for Preschool-Age Children 

This section reports on accounts of current activities to support RtI implementation collected from 

special education directors of services for preschool-age children and services for children and youth. 

To guide these informants’ responses, the study team defined RtI as: 

a multi-step approach to providing early and progressively intensive intervention and 

monitoring within the general education setting. In principle, RtI begins with research-based 

instruction and behavioral support provided to students in the general education classroom, 

followed by screening of all students to identify those who may need systematic progress 

monitoring, intervention, or support. Students who are not responding to the general 

education curriculum and instruction are provided with increasingly intense interventions 

through a “tiered” system, and they are frequently monitored to assess their progress and 

inform the choice of future interventions, including possibly special education for students 

determined to have a disability. 

All but two Part B special education program coordinators reported that they have a state-level RtI 

task force, commission or internal working group. Other commonly endorsed activities and resources 
49 

include: trainings on RtI by consultant or contractors (40 states); guidelines on RtI (39 states); 

information on RtI on an SEA website (39 states); trainings on RtI by SEA staff (37 states); and 

technical assistance to schools interested in RtI (37 states). A full list of activities and service is 

provided in Exhibit 3.11. 

Exhibit 3.11: Activities Conducted by SEAs Related to RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

Type of Activity N 

States 

% 

Has a state-level RtI task force, commission, or internal working group 

Has organized trainings on RtI conducted by consultants or contractors 

Has issued guidelines on RtI 

Has RtI information available on the SEA website 

Staff conduct trainings on RtI 

Staff provide technical assistance to LEAs and schools that are investigating 

or implementing RtI 

Has provided resources to school districts to explore the use of RtI 

Arranges technical assistance from consultants or contractors for LEAs and 

schools that are investigating or implementing RtI 

Has an outside advisory group related to RtI 

Has a dedicated full-time position related to RtI 

Other 

49 

40 

39 

39 

37 

37 

36 

34 

29 

20 

1 

96.08 

78.43 

76.47 

76.47 

72.55 

72.55

70.59 

66.67

56.86 

39.22 

1.96 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-nine SEAs (96 percent) have a state-level RtI task force, commission, or internal working group. 

N = 51. 

Additionally, preschool-age special education coordinators in 32 states (63 percent) reported no 

current RtI-related initiatives specifically for preschool-age children (Exhibit 3.12). Seven states (14 

percent) offer RtI training by consultants or provide technical assistance on the implementation of RtI 

for preschool children to local providers. Six states support a state-level RtI task force, commission or 

internal working group specifically for preschool-age children. Six states arrange technical assistance 

from consultants or contractors for local providers who are either investigating or implementing RtI 

for preschool-age children. Five states have implemented pilot projects related to RtI for preschoolage children. 
50 

 

 

Exhibit 3.12: Activities Conducted by State Agencies to Support the Implementation of RtI for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2008–2009) 

Type of Activity N 

States 

% 

Has no current initiatives 

Organized trainings on RtI for preschool children conducted by consultants or 

contractors 

Staff provide technical assistance to local providers that are investigating or 

implementing RtI for preschool children 

Supports state-level RtI task force, commission, or internal working group 

specifically for preschool children 

Arranges technical assistance from consultants or contractors for local 

providers that are investigating or implementing RtI for preschool children 

Has a pilot initiative for limited number of preschools 

Initiative to support statewide implementation of RtI for preschool children 

Staff conduct trainings on RtI for preschool children 

Information on RtI for preschool children is available on agency website 

Provides resources (e.g., grants or RFPs) for preschool providers to explore 

the use of RtI (e.g., to identify model RtI programs; to assist in 

implementation) 

State guidelines on RtI for preschool children exist 

Other 

32 

7 

7 

6 

6 

5 

5 

5 

4 

3 

3 

4 

62.75 

13.73

13.73

11.76

11.76

9.80 

9.80 

9.80 

7.84 

5.88 

5.88 

7.84 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part B special education program for preschool-age children agencies (63 percent) have no 

current initiative to support RtI implementation for preschool-age children. 

N = 51. 

The Majority of Districts Are Implementing RtI 

To describe the extent of RtI practices in use across schools nationally, the IDEA-NAIS survey asked 

whether RtI is used in at least one school in the district. Data from a nationally representative sample 

of school districts are provided in Exhibit 3.13. The table shows that a majority of districts (71 

percent) reported using RtI, based on the definition of RtI above.30,31 Appendix D presents the 

percentage of districts using RtI by region (Exhibit D.37), urbanicity (Exhibit D.38), and district size 

(Exhibit D.39). 

30	 Note that this condition—implementing RtI in at least one classroom in the district or in a school— 

constitutes “using RtI” in the context of this report. 

31	 The study team notes that items in the IDEA-NAIS asking respondents about the use of RtI define RtI as 

comprising several listed components. It is not possible to know whether respondents endorsed the use of 

RtI in their district on the basis of just one component of this definition, more than one, or all. It is also 

important to clarify that the instructions provided were not intended to equate Reading First with RtI; 

rather, the instructions give districts permission to count Reading First schools if they consider Reading 

First schools to be an implementation of RtI. Not all, but some Reading First programs use components of 

RtI. 
51 

 

 

Exhibit 3.13: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008– 

2009) 

Yes No 

Implementation % % 

RtI is being used in the district 70.53 29.47 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-one percent of districts use RtI. 

N = 1,148. 

At Each School Level, Districts Largely Implement RtI in All or None of the Schools in the 

District. 

As reported by the district respondents, 58 percent of districts are implementing RtI in all elementary 

schools within the district, 31 percent of districts are implementing RtI in all middle schools, and 25 

percent of districts are implementing RtI in all high schools. Districts tend to implement RtI in all or 

none of their district schools. For example, in addition to the 58 percent of districts implementing RtI 

in all elementary schools (as mentioned above), 34 percent of districts are implementing RtI in no 

elementary schools, and 9 percent of districts are implementing RtI in some of their elementary 

schools (Exhibit 3.14, Appendix D, Exhibit D.14). 

Exhibit 3.14: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School 

Level (School Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-four percent of districts reported using RtI in no elementary schools. Four percent of districts 

reported using RtI in at least one but less than half of elementary schools. Five percent of districts reported using RtI in half 

or more but not all elementary schools. Fifty-eight percent of districts reported using RtI in all elementary schools. 

For elementary schools, N = 1,139; for middle schools, N = 1,135; for high schools, N = 1,132; for other schools, N = 1,135. 
 

52 

 

Nationally, RtI Is Implemented in 61 Percent of Elementary Schools 

When examining RtI at each public school level, an estimated 61 percent of elementary schools, 45 

percent of middle schools, and 29 percent of high schools nationally used RtI during the 2008–2009 

school year as reported by the district respondent (Exhibit 3.15, Appendix D, Exhibit D.15 and also 

by region in Exhibit D.40, urbanicity in Exhibit D.41 and district size Exhibit D.42). 

Exhibit 3.15: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI by School Level 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 61 percent of public elementary schools used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year. 

For elementary schools, N = 1,080; for middle schools, N = 880; for high schools, N = 914; for other schools, N = 405. 

Across School Districts, RtI Is Being Used in Multiple Subject Areas 

Across the U.S., RtI is being used in various subject areas, particularly in reading/language arts 

(Exhibit 3.16). For example, at the elementary school level, 70 percent of districts reported using RtI 

in reading/language arts, 47 percent reported using RtI in math, 36 percent reported using RtI in 

behavior and 27 percent reported using RtI in writing.32 Appendix D includes the percentage of 

districts using RtI by subject area, school level, region (Exhibit D.43), urbanicity (Exhibit D.44) and 

district size (Exhibit D.45). 

32 The survey did not provide specific definitions for subject areas. 
53 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3.16: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level (School Year 

2008–2009) 

Subject Areas 

Reading/ 

language 

arts Math Behavior Writing Other 

School Level % % % % % 

Elementary schools 70.12 47.06 36.37 27.47 1.57 

Middle schools 47.62 38.10 32.56 21.52 1.40 

High schools 30.51 28.06 18.50 16.94 1.65 

Other schools 8.47 6.26 7.77 3.36 0.76 

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts with elementary schools, 70 percent reported RtI was being used in reading/language arts, 

47 percent reported that RtI was being used in math, 36 percent reported that RtI was being used in behavior, 27 percent 

reported that RtI was being used in writing and 2 percent indicated that RtI was being used in other areas. 

For elementary schools, N = 1,082; for middle schools, N = 880; for high schools, N = 914; for other schools, N = 393. 

Lastly, the study team presents the percentage of districts nationally using RtI in various subject 

combinations, by school level, in Exhibit 3.17. For example, in districts where RtI is being used in 

elementary schools, it is being used in reading/language arts only in 23 percent of districts. RtI is 

being used in reading plus at least one other subject area in the remaining 77 percent of districts. A 

common configuration is the use of RtI in reading, math, behavior and writing (in districts where RtI 

is being used in elementary schools, 28 percent of districts implement this combination in elementary 

schools; 33 percent in middle schools; 31 percent in high schools). 
 

54 

 

Exhibit 3.17: Percentage of Districts Using RtI in Various Combinations of Subject Areas by 

School Level (School Year 2008–2009) 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools High Schools Other Schools 

% % % % 

RtI in reading/language arts only 22.96 13.50 7.90 14.76 

RtI in reading and math 16.22 15.88 16.30 14.36 

RtI in reading and behavior 6.94 5.85 4.74 4.90 

RtI in reading and writing 1.33  0.50 0.00 

RtI in reading, math and behavior 14.44 18.28 9.69 8.56 

RtI in reading, math and writing 6.86 5.14 13.65 

RtI in reading, behavior and 

writing 1.23 1.77 0.73 0.00 

RtI in reading, math, behavior 

and writing 27.77 32.77 31.02 30.99 

All other combinations 2.25 6.18 15.47 22.25 

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts using RtI in elementary schools, 23 percent of districts reported using RtI in reading only in 

elementary schools. Of districts where middle schools used RtI, 14 percent of districts reported using RtI in reading only in 

middle schools. Of districts where high schools use RtI, 8 percent of districts reported using RtI in reading only in high 

schools. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

For elementary schools, N = 823; for middle schools, N = 481; for high schools, N = 383; for other schools, N = 89. 

Schools and Parents Receive Information and Support from Districts Regarding RtI 

The sections above presented estimates of RtI use by school levels and subject areas. Below, the 

study team reports on district supports to schools that are implementing RtI. Specifically, 32 percent 

of districts implementing RtI reported providing support to schools through training, technical 

assistance, and funding to their schools (Exhibit 3.18). The percentage of districts that reported 

providing information to parents on understanding IDEA requirements relevant to RtI or 

understanding how RtI is being implemented in the district is 73. The percentage of districts that 

reported doing both of these activities related to RtI is 26. 
55 

Exhibit 3.18: Percentage of Districts Providing RtI Support to Schools and Information to 

Families among Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

% 

Support to schools through training, technical assistance and funding 

Information provided to parents on understanding IDEA requirements relevant to RtI 

or understanding how RtI is being implemented in the district 

Both provided support to schools and provided information to parents 

32.40 

73.04 

25.89 

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts providing support to schools, 32 percent provide support through training, technical 

assistance and funding. 

N = 862. 

Exploration of Relationship between RtI and Eligibility for Special Education in Grades K–3 

As described above in reference to CEIS, the use of RtI may be associated with special education 

eligibility. With the provision of services to students in the regular education setting, the number of 

students who are referred for evaluation and found eligible for special education is expected to 

decrease over time. Historically, the process of providing intervention in the general education 

classroom as a way to identify and provide needed supports prior to making a referral for special 

education has been called pre-referral intervention, although there are many names for the practice 

(Rosenfield and Gravois 1996). Data collected through the RtI process and the use of increasingly 

intensive tiers of intervention prior to a referral may serve as a filter such that only students who are 

truly in need of services are evaluated. Therefore, a higher percentage of the children are referred than 

may ultimately be found eligible (Fuchs et al. 2003). 

In an exploratory analysis similar to that reported above on CEIS, the study team examined the use of 

RtI in conjunction with: (1) the percentage of all students in grades K–3 who were evaluated for 

special education eligibility in 2007–2008, (2) the percentage of all district students in grades K–3 

determined to be eligible for special education in these grades and (3) the percentage of evaluated 

students determined to be eligible for special education in these grades.33 There were no significant 

differences between districts reporting the use of RtI in at least one school and those that did not use 

RtI during the 2008–2009 school year and identification in the 2007–2008 school year (Exhibit 3.19). 

Note again that these results are descriptive only and do not indicate the presence or absence of a 

causal relationship between the use of RtI and the proportion of students identified as being in need of 

special education. 

 

33 As noted in the discussion of CEIS, the analyses include a subsample of districts that included children 

with speech and language impairment when answering the survey question about number of students who 

were evaluated and eligible. In addition, data indicating eligibility are based on the 2007–2008 school year, 

whereas data indicating use of RtI are based on reported use during the subsequent (2008–2009) school 

year. 
56 

 

 

Exhibit 3.19: Percentage of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated and Results for 

Part B Special Education Program Services During the 2007–2008 School Year by Use of RtI 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts 

Using RtI at 

the 

Elementary 

School Level 

Districts 

with no 

Elementary 

School 

Using RtI 

Difference 

(Districts Using RtI at the 

Elementary School Level – 

Districts with no Elementary 

School Using RtI) 

% % 

Percentage 

points 

difference p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated for special education 

eligibility 

Percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for special 

education 

3.37 3.78 -0.41 0.154 

Percentage of evaluated students 

determined to be eligible for special 

education 

2.41 2.62 -0.21 0.327 

71.52 69.42 2.10 0.499 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of elementary school children in school districts using RtI at the elementary school level 

that were newly evaluated during the 2007–2008 school year is 3. Districts with no elementary schools using RtI evaluated 4 

percent of all students. The difference in the percentage of students evaluated between districts using RtI at the one 

elementary school level and districts with no elementary schools using RtI is -0.41 percentage points. 

N = 632. 

RtI Leadership: A Partnership between the General Education and Special Education Staffs 

Although RtI has gained attention with its inclusion in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, proponents 

of RtI have frequently emphasized that it is most appropriately conceptualized as either a general 

education initiative or as a partnership between general and special educators (Elliott and Morrison 

2008; Mellard and Johnson 2008; Bender and Shores 2007). Nationally, 75 percent of districts 

reported that RtI is led by a team of both general and special educators, while 18 percent indicated 

general educators lead RtI implementation and approximately 8 percent indicated that implementation 

is led by special educators (Exhibit 3.20; Appendix D, Exhibit D.20). 
57 

Exhibit 3.20: Leadership of RtI Implementation in Districts, among Districts Using RtI (School 

Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts using RtI, in an estimated 18 percent RtI implementation is led by general educators. 

N = 867. 

RtI Funded by Multiple Sources 

As discussed above, the 2004 IDEA legislation allows districts to spend up to 15 percent of their Part 

B special education funds to provide coordinated early intervening services, including RtI. IDEA 

funds are by no means the only way that RtI can be funded. Guidance from ED indicates districts may 

use ESEA Title I and Title III funds in addition to IDEA funds to support RtI implementation (U. S. 

Department of Education n.d.). Some states also provide guidance to their districts on the issue of 

other potential funding sources to support RtI implementation. 

Districts using RtI during the 2008–2009 school year reported using a variety of funding sources 

(Exhibit 3.21). Commonly reported sources are: district general funds (80 percent of districts), Title I 

funds (46 percent of districts) and IDEA funds (41 percent of districts). 

Common sources identified as providing the most support for RtI within districts are district general 

funds (48 percent of districts), IDEA sources (22 percent of districts), and Title I funds (19 percent of 

districts). Included among IDEA sources are CEIS funds, which were reported used for RtI by 13 

percent of districts and identified as providing the greatest source of support for RtI by 7 percent of 

districts (Exhibit 3.21). 
 

58 

 

Exhibit 3.21: Distribution of Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts Where 

Source Is Providing 

the Most Support 

Districts with Any 

Funding Used 

Source of Funding % % 

District general funds 79.70 48.08 

Combined Title I funds 45.83 19.36 

No Child Left Behind (or ESEA) Title I-A 

School-wide or Targeted Assistance funds 

44.40 17.43 

NCLB Title I-B Reading First funds 9.08 1.92 

Combined IDEA funds 40.56 21.91 

IDEA Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS) fundsa 

12.79 6.92 

IDEA Part B flow-through funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 19.88 6.86 

IDEA district discretionary funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 7.09 2.26 

IDEA state discretionary funds 5.99 1.71 

Other sources 30.00 10.56 

NCLB Title II-A funds 19.46 5.08 

NCLB Title III funds 3.32 0.00 

NCLB Title V grants for innovation 1.60 

State Improvement Grant (SIG) or State 

Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) 8.92 4.15 

Other 10.14 5.19 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts that implemented RtI, 80 percent used district general funds to fund RtI training and 

implementation; 48 percent of districts used district general funds to provide the most support for RtI. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality.
 

For identified at least one source, N = 857. 

a

Although the survey used the term “Early Intervening Services” (EIS), the current terminology is “Coordinated Early
 

Intervention Services” (CEIS). 
 

59 

State and Local Policies for Eligibility for Specific Learning 

Disability 

From 1995 through 2004, about 4 percent of students ages 6–21 received special education services 

as the result of being identified in the category of specific learning disability (SLD) (Office of Special 

Education Programs 2009). As a proportion of all students served under IDEA, the percentage 

identified with SLD was 46 percent in 2004 (Office of Special Education Programs 2009). 

Historically, a larger percentage of older students (i.e., grades 5–8 or 9–12) are identified with SLD 

than younger students (grades 1–4), suggesting a potential lag in the identification of students with 

disabilities (Blackorby et al. 2010). Congress addressed this criticism of the prevailing approach to 

identification of students in the category of SLD in the 2004 legislation, that is, that the prevailing 

approach led to late identification of SLD because students were required to fail for long periods of 

time before demonstrating sufficiently large deficits in academic achievement to satisfy this 

requirement and begin receiving special education services. 

The 2004 IDEA regulations state that the SEA “shall not require the use of a severe discrepancy 

between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning 

disability” [34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(1)] and that a state “must permit the use of a process based on the 

child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention” [34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(2)]. Therefore, 

RtI may be used as one component of eligibility determination for specific learning disability. 

These revisions, as summarized by Zirkle (2006), include changing the use of a severe discrepancy 

from mandatory to non-mandatory and allowing the use of RtI for determining eligibility for specific 

learning disability.34 These revisions to IDEA were a focus of specific questions of the IDEA-NAIS 

and are addressed in sections below. 

Findings on State and Local Policies for Eligibility for Specific 

Learning Disability 

State Criteria for SLD Vary from the Federal Eligibility Criteria in 18 States 

States have discretion in developing eligibility criteria for SLD and so may differ from federal 

eligibility requirements. To provide descriptive information about state criteria for SLD and how they 

may differ from federal eligibility requirements, the study team reviewed the regulations from each 

state and extracted information on criteria for SLD. Specifically, the study team first reviewed the 

Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) pertaining to disability definitions and eligibility criteria for 

SLD (34 C.F.R. § 300). It should be noted that all of the disability categories (e.g., autism, mental 

retardation) reviewed in the IDEA-NAIS use a common set of federal eligibility criteria (34 C.F.R. § 

300.306) to determine eligibility, except for the SLD category, which has an additional set of federal 

eligibility criteria specified (34 C.F.R. § 300.307–300.311).35 Next, the study team reviewed state 

definitions and eligibility criteria found in state laws and regulations pertaining to SLD and compared 

these with the federal definition and eligibility criteria. 

34 Zirkle (2006) summarizes regulations found in 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 et seq. 

35 Data on other disability categories appear in Appendix D, Exhibits D.46–D.52. 
 

60 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the majority of states (33 states), there is no difference noted between the state and federal 

eligibility requirements (Exhibit 3.22). States with differences from the federal definition were further 

reviewed and criteria that varied across states were identified. The criteria are presented below with 

the states that include the criteria. Of note, states may include more than one of these criteria, so the 

groups of states are not mutually exclusive. The criteria include: (1) whether the state specifies the 

types of qualified professionals to complete evaluations; (2) the specified level of discrepancy 

between achievement and performance among states using the discrepancy method; and (3) whether 

the state specifies number of data collection points and length of time per intervention prior to 

eligibility determination. The average percentage of students identified in the SLD category in states 

that employ the federal eligibility criteria is 6.09 while the average percentages across states that 

include differences from the federal eligibility criteria range from 3.99 to 5.91. Of note is the range in 

percentages across states that include the same criterion. For example, in the three states that include 

the criterion “state specifies the number of data collection points and length of time per intervention 

prior to eligibility determination,” the identification percentages range from 3.57 to 5.24. 

Exhibit 3.22: Percentage of Students in Specific Learning Disability Category by State 

Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Percentage of Students with SLD 

Difference from Federal Eligibility 

Criteria States 

Mean 

(%) 

Median 

(%) 

Range 

(%) 

State specifies types of qualified 

professionals who are to complete 

evaluation (n=2) 

GA, IN 4.95 4.95 3.57 – 6.32 

When using the discrepancy method, 

state specifies required discrepancy 

between achievement and expected 

levels of performance as: 

1 – 1.3 Standard Deviations (n = 5) AL, ID, MS, NE, NC 5.02 5.43 3.79 – 5.67 

1.5 Standard Deviations (n = 6) HI, MO, OK, TN, VT, WY 5.91 5.32 5.24 – 7.96 

≥ 1.75 Standard Deviations (n = 4) MN, MT, WV, WI 5.26 5.45 4.10 – 6.04 

State includes additional categories of 

disability not included in federal definition 

(e.g., Attention Deficit Disorder) (n=2) 

GA, LA 3.99 3.99 3.57 – 4.40 

State specifies number of data collection 

points and length of time per intervention 

prior to eligibility determination (n=3) 

GA, MN, TN 4.30 4.10 3.57 – 5.24 

No difference from federal eligibility 

criteria (n= 33) 

AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, 

DC, FL, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, 

MA, ME, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NM, 

NY,ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, 

SD, TX, UT, VA, WA 

6.09 6.06 2.30 – 8.47 

National state-level average (n=51) 5.82 5.64 2.30 – 8.47 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of children diagnosed with SLD in states specifying professionals who can 

conduct evaluations is 4.95. The median is 4.95 percent and the range is from 3.75 to 6.32 percent. 

N = 51. 
 

61 

Most States Permit the Use of RtI Data or an Alternative Method as well as a Discrepancy 

Model in the Identification of Students in the Category of Specific Learning Disability 

When surveyed about the determination of eligibility for SLD, most SEAs (37) reported allowing the 

use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy model as well as the inclusion of RtI data or an alternative 

method in determining eligibility. Additionally 6 states permit the discrepancy model and require the 

inclusion of RtI data and 7 states use RtI data or an alternative method and disallow the use of the 

discrepancy model. 

Exhibit 3.23: SEA Use of Discrepancy Model to Determine Eligibility for Special Education for 

Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (School Year 2008–2009) 

State Policy N 

States 

% States Responding Yes 

Allows discrepancy model 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and RtI data may be used in 

determining eligibility 

26 50.98 AK, AL, AZ, CA, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, 

MT, ND, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, SC, 

SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WY 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and an alternative method 

(not specifically RtI) may be used to determine 

eligibility 

11 21.57 AR, HI, ID, KS, MA, MI, MS, NH, OH, 

OR, WA 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and RtI data are explicitly
 

required in determining eligibility 

6 11.76 DC, FL, GA, IL, NC, NM 

Does not allow discrepancy model 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is prohibited and RtI data are explicitly 

required in determining eligibility 

6 11.76 CO, CT, DE, IA, LA, WV 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is prohibited and an alternative method 

(not specifically RtI) is used to determine 

eligibility 

1 1.96 IN 

Other 1 1.96 RI 

Total 51 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-six SEAs (51 percent) allow the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy model and allow RtI 

data to be used in determining eligibility. 

N = 51. 

LEAs Use RtI Data and Discrepancy Models for Determination of SLD Eligibility 

Based on state policy decisions, districts may use three data sources for determination of SLD among 

elementary students: data and other information from the RtI process, data based on assessments that 

demonstrate a discrepancy between expected and actual performance and data from other researchbased procedures (34 C.F.R. § 300.307). Fifty-three percent of districts use a discrepancy model in 

determining special education eligibility for SLD and also incorporate data from the RtI process; 35 

percent of districts use discrepancy model data without use of RtI data; and 12 percent of districts use 

RtI data without use of discrepancy model data for the determination of eligibility in the category of 

SLD (Exhibit 3.24). 
62 

 

 

Exhibit 3.24: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility in the Category of SLD for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–2009) 

Types of Data 

Districts 

% 

Use of both RtI data and discrepancy data 

Data and other information from the RtI process; data based on cognitive and 

academic assessments that demonstrate a discrepancy between expected and 

actual performance; as well as data from other, research-based procedures 

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data based on cognitive 

and academic assessments that demonstrate a discrepancy between expected and 

actual performance 

Use of discrepancy data without RtI data 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a 

discrepancy between expected and actual performance only 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a 

discrepancy between expected and actual performance as well as data from other, 

research-based procedures 

Use of RtI data without discrepancy data 

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data from other, 

research-based procedures 

Data and other information from the RtI process only 

Other 

Data from other, research-based procedures only 

52.81 

30.49 

22.32 

34.70 

22.13

12.57 

12.05 

9.01

3.04 

0.45 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of districts that use both RtI data and discrepancy data to determine SLD eligibility for 

elementary school students is 53. 

N = 1,107. 

Exploration of a Relationship between Data Used to Determine SLD and Special Education 

Eligibility 

Parallel to the analyses presented in the previous two sections for districts implementing and not 

implementing CEIS and RtI, the study team conducted exploratory analyses examining the use of RtI 

data in the determination of eligibility under the category of SLD and general eligibility for special 

education. The analyses presented examine SLD determination methods and eligibility for special 

education in any disability category.36 To conduct these analyses, the study team categorized districts 

into one of three groups: those that reported use of RtI data without discrepancy data, those that use 

discrepancy data without RtI data, and districts that use both RtI data and discrepancy data in the 

process of determining eligibility for SLD. 

36	 Analyses specific to SLD eligibility are desirable but these data are not available. As students identified in 

the SLD category comprise approximately half of the group of students with disabilities, the investigation 

of the association between the use of SLD identification procedures and general identification percentages 

was conducted. 
 

63 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistical analyses for these three comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference among 

districts that use RtI data, districts that use discrepancy data, and districts that use RtI data and 

discrepancy data in the percentage of all students determined to be eligible for special education 

(p = 0.01). No statistically significant difference was observed in the percentage of all students 

evaluated for special education (p = 0.05) or in the percentage of evaluated students who were 

determined to be eligible for special education (p = 0.84; Exhibit 3.25). Pairwise comparisons were 

conducted for the one significant comparison, with the Benjamini-Hochberg (1995) correction for the 

use of multiple tests. 

Exhibit 3.25: Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated, and Results by 

Use of Types of Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts That 

Use RtI Data 

without 

Discrepancy 

Data 

Districts That 

Use 

Discrepancy 

Data without RtI 

Data 

Districts That Use 

Both RtI Data and 

Discrepancy Data 

Overall 

ANOVA 

% % % p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated for special 

education eligibility 

2.96 3.96 3.38 0.051 

Percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for 

special education 

1.97 2.81 2.43 0.010* 

Percentage of evaluated 

students determined to be 

eligible for special education 

66.57 70.90 71.83 0.837 

EXHIBIT READS: In districts that use RtI data without discrepancy data, 2.96 percent of all students were evaluated; in 

districts that use discrepancy data without RtI data, 3.96 percent of students were evaluated and 3.38 percent of all students 

were evaluated in districts that use both discrepancy and RtI data. The overall ANOVA p-value is 0.051. 

* P-value is significant at the .05 level. 

N = 626. 

Districts that use RtI data only were observed to have a significantly lower percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for special education (M = 1.97) than districts that use discrepancy data 

without the use of RtI data (M = 2.81, p = 0.002; Exhibit 3.26)—a statistically significant difference 

both before and after adjustments for multiple comparisons.37 

37	 Results from these exploratory analyses are strictly descriptive and do not imply any causal relationship 

between RtI and/or discrepancy data and the areas described above. There are potentially many important 

unmeasured factors that may cause differences in the percentage of students that were evaluated and found 

eligible that are not controlled for in these analyses. In addition, data indicating eligibility are based on the 

2007–2008 school year, whereas data indicating use of RtI in the process of eligibility are based on 

reported use during the subsequent (2008–2009) school year. 
64 

Exhibit 3.26: Pairwise Comparison of Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were 

Evaluated and Results for Part B Special Education Program Services by Use of Types of 

Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts That Use RtI 

Data without 

Discrepancy Data vs. 

Districts That Use 

Discrepancy Data 

without RtI Data a 

Districts That Use RtI 

Data without 

Discrepancy Data vs. 

Districts That Use 

Both RtI data and 

Discrepancy Data a 

Districts That Use 

Discrepancy Data 

without RtI Data vs. 

Districts That Use Both 

RtI Data and 

Discrepancy Data a 

Percentage 

points 

difference p-value 

Percentage 

points 

difference p-value 

Percentage 

points 

difference p-value 

Percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for 

special education

-0.84 0.002* -0.46 0.056 0.38 0.087 

EXHIBIT READS: The difference, in percentage points, of elementary school children found eligible for Part B special 

education program services in districts using RtI data without discrepancy data and districts using discrepancy data without 

RtI data is –0.84. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.002). 

* P-value is significant at the .05 level. 

N = 626. 

Summary 

This chapter presented data and information on state and local policies related to changes in the area 

of identification of children with disabilities in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. The information in 

the chapter provides the first nationally representative data in a number of important areas, including 

how states and districts are addressing issues of racial and ethnic disproportionality through use of a 

new mechanism—Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)—as well as how widely Response 

to Intervention (RtI) is being used in the U.S. and for what grades and subjects, and other related 

aspects of implementation. This chapter also provides information on state and local actions related to 

changes in criteria for determining specific learning disability (SLD). 

States are continuing to refine and revise their definitions of significant disproportionality. Twentytwo states anticipated changes to these definitions in the upcoming year and many states—including 

some with finalized definitions—appear to have an incomplete process for evaluating whether a 

district exhibits significant disproportionality across all areas. For example, not all states provided a 

definition for identification of significant disproportionality in the areas of placement and discipline. 

Definitions vary across states on the factors used to determine district significant disproportionality in 

a given year. 

While states reported that approximately 3 percent of school districts are required to implement CEIS 

due to significant disproportionality, district reports revealed that approximately 11 percent of 

districts are voluntarily using some portion of their Part B special education program funds for CEIS, 

with approximately 46 percent of these districts spending 5 percent or less of Part B program funds 

for this purpose. Districts reported the use of CEIS across school levels, but predominantly at the 

elementary school level (93 percent of district implementing CEIS do so at the elementary level). 
65 

Response to Intervention (RtI) was introduced in the 2004 IDEA legislation, both in the context of 

CEIS and as a method of informing the identification of students in the category of SLD. All states 

reported state-level initiatives for RtI for school-age children and youth and 71 percent of districts 

reported that RtI is being used. Use of RtI is particularly prominent at the elementary level. RtI 

receives support from general education; it is led by staff from both general and special education in 

approximately three quarters of districts nationally and the primary source of funding for RtI comes 

from district general funds for 48 percent of districts implementing RtI. 

A third area of identification of students for which the IDEA-NAIS provides information is the area 

of policies and practices related to eligibility under the category of SLD. Based on IDEA-NAIS data, 

most states (37) reported that they allow the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy model as well as 

the inclusion of RtI data. At the district level, 53 percent of districts use both RtI and discrepancy data 

in eligibility determination for SLD. 

67 

Chapter 4: Efforts to Promote Positive Outcomes 

for Children and Youth with Disabilities 

This chapter focuses on efforts to promote positive outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. 

The IDEA-NAIS examined two specific aspects of IDEA geared to this goal: (1) establishing and 

maintaining academic standards for children and youth with disabilities and (2) qualified personnel. 

The report first reviews relevant federal legislation and technical assistance to provide a context for 

the findings related to establishing and maintaining developmental and academic standards for 

children and youth with disabilities ages birth through 21 years and defining and supporting qualified 

personnel. 

Exhibits 4.1 through 4.24 each have a fully sourced version in Appendix E (Exhibits E.1 through 

E.24). Supplemental exhibits related to the chapter are found in Exhibits E.25 through E.34. 

Establishing and Maintaining Developmental and Academic 

Standards for Children and Youth with Disabilities 

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 focused on providing access to a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities (P.L. 94-142). When first enacted 

in 1986, the IDEA Part C early intervention program and the IDEA Part B special education program 

focused on states making available, respectively, appropriate early intervention services, and special 

education and related services. Reauthorizations of IDEA Part B have followed the emphasis on the 

need for improved outcomes found in general education specific legislation by expanding the focus 

from access to FAPE to access to the general education curriculum and to improving the performance 

of children and youth with disabilities with respect to academic standards. Similarly, reauthorizations 

of IDEA Part C have added provisions requiring that individual outcomes for infants and toddlers be 

measurable. The 2004 IDEA legislation also requires states to report annually on their progress on 

specific goals, including child outcomes under the Part C early intervention and Part B special 

education programs. Below, the study team discusses federal guidance on the development and use of 

standards for infants and toddlers and preschool-age children with disabilities served by the IDEA 

Part C program and the IDEA Part B program and then for school-age children and youth with 

disabilities served by the IDEA Part B program. 

Federal Support and Guidance Related to Developmental and Academic Standards for Infants 

and Toddlers with Disabilities Served by the IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program and 

Children with Disabilities Ages Three through Five Served by the IDEA Part B Special 

Education Program 

In the 1990s, GOALS 2000 provided a framework for the identification of standards to measure 

progress, with the first goal of focusing on school readiness, stipulating that by 2000 “all children in 

America will start school ready to learn” (P.L. 103-227, §102). The legislation delineates objectives 

related to this goal, including the receipt of “nutrition, physical activity, experiences, and health care 

needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain the mental alertness 

necessary to be prepared to learn” [P.L. 103-227 § 102(1)(B)]. The 1997 IDEA Part C legislation 

built on both prior IDEA legislation and GOALS 2000 by requiring in the individualized family 

service plan (IFSP) for infants and toddlers with disabilities a statement of present physical, 
 

 

68 

cognitive, communication, social or emotional and adaptive developmental levels as well as the 

expected major outcomes for the infant or toddler and family [P.L. 105-17 § 636 (d)]. The 1997 

reauthorization of the IDEA Part B special education program changed the individualized education 

program (IEP) content requirements to include a statement of measurable annual goals, including 

benchmarks or short-term objectives; and a statement of how progress would be measured and 

reported to parents [P.L. 105-17 § 614(d)(A)]. 

The Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) early childhood initiative was introduced in 2002 with the goal 

of ensuring that young children are equipped with the skills they need to start school ready to learn 

(Good Start, Grow Smart Interagency Workgroup 2006). This federal initiative involved various 

agencies (e.g., IDEA Part C early intervention program, IDEA Part B program for children ages 3 

through 5, Child Care Development Fund, Head Start, Early Head Start and Title I Preschool) in order 

to promote a common message and encourage states to develop voluntary early learning guidelines 

for infants, toddlers and children ages birth through 5 years that align with K through 12 standards. 

The 2004 IDEA legislation added a new requirement that IFSPs include measurable results or 

outcomes expected for the infant or toddler and family including pre-literacy and language skills, as 

developmentally appropriate, as well as criteria, procedures and timelines to measure progress 

towards those results or outcomes [20 U.S.C. § 1436 (d)]. The 2004 IDEA Part B legislation changed 

the required components from the 1997 IDEA legislation by requiring a description of the child’s 

present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and requiring measurable 

academic and functional goals for preschool children [20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) and (II)]. 

Federal Activity Related to Developing Academic Standards for School-Age Children and 

Youth Served by the IDEA Part B Special Education Program 

GOALS 2000 included the objective that all students would demonstrate competency in subject 

matter (e.g., English, mathematics, science, etc.) [P.L. 103-227 § 102(3) (A)]. The 1994 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the Improving 

America’s School Act (IASA), required states to develop challenging content and student 

performance standards [P.L. 103-327 § 1111(b)(1)]. Additionally, states were required to assess 

students annually and report results—including a comparison between students with disabilities and 

students without disabilities [P.L. 103-327 § 1111(b)(3)(I)]. The Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17) continued the initial emphasis on equal access to 

education while focusing on improving the educational outcomes of children with disabilities under 

the IDEA Part B special education program. Specifically, the 1997 IDEA Part B legislation stated 

students with disabilities were required to have access to the general education curriculum and were 

to participate in state and local assessments with accommodations and/or alternate assessments if 

needed. 

The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind, mandates that states hold 

individual schools accountable for ensuring that all students reach proficiency on state standards in 

reading, math, and science by 2014 (34 C.F.R. § 200.15). The ESEA further requires statewide 

systems of accountability based on challenging academic standards and assessment systems with 

content aligned to those standards. States are required to report to the public on student performance 

on state assessments by subgroups, one of which is students with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 6304 and § 

6311). 
 

 

69 

The 2004 IDEA Part B legislation specifically refers to the 2001 ESEA legislation. For school-age 

children and youth with disabilities, the 2004 IDEA legislation demonstrates its strengthened focus on 

academic outcomes and the alignment with standards by specifying that each state must have 

performance goals and indicators for children and youth with disabilities that are the same as those 

used as the objectives for progress in the state’s definition of adequate yearly progress (34 C.F.R. § 

300.157). Additionally, the 2004 IDEA legislation requires that all children with disabilities 

participate in all general state and district-wide assessment programs, including assessments as 

required in the 2001 ESEA legislation [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(16)].38 The 2004 IDEA legislation also 

specified the required elements of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The 2004 IDEA 

legislation changed the required components from the 1997 IDEA legislation by requiring that the 

IEP include a description of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional 

performance and requiring measurable academic and functional goals and benchmarks or short-term 

objectives only for children who take alternative assessments aligned to alternate achievement 

standards [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d) (1) (A)(i) (I) and (II)]. 

Federal Technical Assistance and Monitoring Related to Standards for Children and Youth 

with Disabilities 

The federal government provides technical assistance related to promoting positive outcomes for 

children and youth with disabilities. The 2004 IDEA legislation also requires states to report annually 

on their progress on specific IDEA goals, including child outcomes under the Part C early 

intervention and Part B special education programs. 

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funds a number of national technical assistance 

centers to support the implementation of IDEA and to promote emphasis on positive outcomes for 

children and youth with disabilities. Technical assistance centers focused on outcomes have included 

the National Center on Accelerating Student Learning, funded from 2000 to 2005; the National 

Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, funded from 1999 to 2004; the Access Center, active 

from 2003 to 2008; and the Early Childhood Outcomes Center, which operated in its first funding 

cycle from 2003 to 2008. Currently OSEP funds the National Center on Educational Outcomes for 

students with disabilities, which examines policies and practices related to including students with 

disabilities in state and local accountability systems (funded since 1990) and the Early Childhood 

Outcomes Center, intended to provide national leadership in helping states implement high quality 

outcome systems for early intervention and early childhood special education programs (funded for a 

second cycle in 2008). 

The 2004 IDEA includes increased accountability efforts related to child and student outcomes. 

According to the statute and regulations, the primary focus of federal and state monitoring activities is 

on “improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities” and 

ensuring that states meet the program requirements, with a particular emphasis on requirements that 

38 Specific requirements for the guidelines are not provided in the federal legislation. States are provided 

flexibility to adopt alternative academic achievement standards for students with the most severe cognitive 

disabilities and modified academic achievement standards for students unlikely to achieve grade-level 

proficiency. The IEP must include a statement of any accommodations that are necessary for the child to 

participate in the regular assessment. If the IEP team determines that the child must take an alternate 

assessment, a statement of why the child cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the particular 

alternate assessment selected is appropriate [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)]. 
 

 

70 

 

are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities [20 U.S.C. § 

1416 (a)(2)]. Similarly, under Part C, the primary focus of federal and state monitoring must be on 

improving early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and ensuring that states meet the program requirements, with a particular emphasis on the 

requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention results for infants and 

toddlers with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1416(a)(2) and § 1442). 

In order to implement the new accountability mechanism in the 2004 IDEA reauthorization, the 

statute and regulations require states to submit State Performance Plans (SPPs) once every six years 

and Annual Performance Reports (APRs) for the Part C early intervention program and the Part B 

special education program. The SPP includes baseline data and rigorous annual state targets for the 

life of the SPP for a set of required indicators. The statute also requires states to submit and make 

publicly available their APR on state progress toward meeting these targets and the performance of 

their LEAs or early intervention service programs in meeting state targets under the SPP/APR (20 

U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) and § 1442). 

In accordance with the 2004 IDEA reauthorization, the U.S. Department of Education issues annual 

determinations to each state regarding state progress in meeting IDEA requirements both under Part B 

and Part C. States may be identified as meeting the requirements and purposes, needing assistance in 

implementing requirements, needing intervention in implementing requirements, or needing 

substantial intervention in implementing requirements of Part B and Part C [20 U.S.C. § 1416 (d) (2) 

(A)]. The statute also includes required and optional sanctions and enforcement mechanisms based on 

the state’s determination status [20 U.S.C. § 1416 (e)]. 

Five indicators39 in the Part C and Part B SPP/APRs are related specifically to the promotion of 

positive outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. The Part C Indicator 3 

requires states to report the percentage of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved 

(1) positive social-emotional skills, (2) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and (3) use of 

appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. The Part B Indicators 1 and 2 require the reporting of the 

percentage of youth with IEPs graduating from high school (Indicator 1) and dropping out of high 

school (Indicator 2). The Part B Indicator 3 requires a report of the participation and performance of 

children with disabilities on statewide assessments. The Part B Indicator 7 requires states to report on 

the percentage of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved (1) positive socialemotional skills, (2) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and (3) use of appropriate behaviors 

to meet their needs. 

Findings on Developmental and Academic Standards 

The IDEA-NAIS collected data from state Part C early intervention program coordinators, Part B 

preschool-age and Part B special education program coordinators for children and youth, as well as 

Part B special education program administrators in LEAs, to determine how state developmental and 

academic standards were being used in early intervention and special education programs and the 

39 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820-0578cmeataleexp113012.pdf for 

the full text of the Part C indicators. For the full text of Part B indicators, please see 

http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29-09.pdf. 
 

71 

 

types of supports provided to personnel regarding the implementation and alignment of IEP goals 

with state standards. 

More than Half of States Have Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Nearly 

All States Have Early Learning Standards for Preschool-Age Children 

The IDEA-NAIS assessed the presence and components of early learning guidelines for infants and 

toddlers and early learning standards for preschool-age children. The IDEA-NAIS provided 

definitions of early learning guidelines and early learning standards which were not specific to 

children with disabilities. The IDEA-NAIS defined early learning guidelines as guidelines that 

describe expectations for young children’s learning and development. Early learning standards were 

defined as describing expectations for children’s learning and development prior to kindergarten. 

More than half of states have early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers according to Part C 

early intervention program coordinators, and almost all states have early learning standards for 

preschool-age children according to Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators. 

Specifically, 32 Part C program coordinators indicated that their state has early learning guidelines for 

infants and toddlers, while 48 Part B program coordinators reported their state has early learning 

standards for preschool-age children (Exhibit 4.1). The agency most often named as being involved in 

releasing early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers is the education agency (23 of 32 states; 

Exhibit 4.2). The SEA and at least one other agency were reported to be involved in the release of 

early learning guidelines in 13 states (see Appendix E, Exhibit E.25).40 

40 The IDEA-NAIS did not ask Part B program coordinators what agency was involved in the release of early 

learning standards. 
72 

 

 

Exhibit 4.1: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for 

Preschool-Age Children (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) 

For Infants and 

Toddlers Birth 

through Age 2 

For Preschool-Age 

Children 

Yes Yes 

N % N % 

State has early learning guidelines/standards 

Among states with guidelines, domains covered: 

Social/emotional

Communication/language

Physical/health 

Cognitive 

Approaches to learning 

Other 

32 62.75 

31 100.00

31 100.00 

30 96.77 

30 96.77 

83.87 

5 16.13 

48 94.12 

46 95.83 

44 91.67 

44 91.67 

40 83.33 

37 77.08 

22 45.83 

26 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators reported their state has early learning 

guidelines for infants and toddlers. Among states with early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers ages birth through 

age 2, 31 Part C program coordinators (100 percent) reported the early learning guidelines cover the social/emotional 

domain. 

For Part C respondent regarding states having early learning guidelines, N = 51; for domains covered, N = 31. 

For Part B respondents, regarding states having early learning standards, N = 51; for domains covered, N = 48. 
73 

Exhibit 4.2: State Agency Involved in the Release of Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N

Yes 

% 

State has general early learning guidelines 32 62.75 

Among states with early learning guidelines, the agency or agencies that released the early 

learning guidelines: 

Education 23 74.19

Child care 14 45.16 

Human services 9 29.03 

Head Start/Early Head Start 8 25.81 

Health 5 16.13 

Social services 5 16.13 

Developmental disabilities 2 6.45 

Mental health 1 3.23 

Other 5 16.13 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators (63 percent) reported their state has general 

early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years. Among states with early learning guidelines, 23 

Part C program coordinators (74 percent) reported the education agency is involved in the release of early learning 

guidelines. 

For early learning guidelines, N = 51; for agency releasing early learning guidelines, N = 31. 

Five Domains Are Commonly Addressed in Early Learning Guideline/Standards 

The IDEA-NAIS focused on five content domains in either early learning guidelines or early learning 

standards: (1) physical/health; (2) cognitive; (3) approaches to learning; (4) social/emotional; and (5) 

communication/language. Respondents could also indicate other content domains addressed by the 

early learning guidelines or early learning standards in their state. 

Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators reported their state has early learning 

guidelines for infants and toddlers (Exhibit 4.1). Thirty-one of these Part C program coordinators 

reported that the social/emotional and communication/language domains are included their state’s 

early learning guidelines. Thirty Part C program coordinators reported the inclusion of the 

physical/health and cognitive domains, with fewer Part C program coordinators (26) reporting the 

inclusion of approaches to learning. Twenty-five Part C program coordinators reported the inclusion 

of all five domains in their state’s early learning guidelines (Appendix E, Exhibit E.26). 

Forty-eight Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators reported their state has early 

learning standards for preschool-age children (Exhibit 4.1). Forty-six of these Part B preschool-age 

special education program coordinators reported that the social/emotional domain is included in their 

state’s early learning standards. Forty-four of these Part B preschool-age special education program 

coordinators reported the communication/language and physical/health domains are addressed in their 

state’s early learning standards. Twenty-two Part B preschool-age special education program 

coordinators indicated their state’s early learning standards address an additional domain (other). 
74 

Eleven of these Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators reported their state also 

has early learning standards in math and science. 

Mandated or Suggested Standards-Based IEPs Are More Common in Special Education than 

Early Intervention 

The inclusion of measurable goals related to early learning guidelines, early learning standards, or 

regular K–12 education standards in IFSPs/IEPs represents a departure from the traditional approach 

in special education, which starts with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the child, unrelated 

to a specific academic area (Ahearn 2006). The federal legislation does not use or define the term 

“standards-based IFSP/IEP”; however, it is used in practice. The National Center on Educational 

Outcomes provides two definitions: (1) an IEP developed with the state content standards in mind or 

(2) an IEP which defines services, supports or specialized instruction a child or youth requires to 

make progress in the standards-based general education curriculum (National Center on Educational 

Outcomes 2009). The 2004 IDEA legislation requires the federal government to provide IFSP and 

IEP models but does not specify whether states or districts need to provide mandatory or suggested 

standards-based IFSPs/IEPs [20 U.S.C. § 1417(a)(e)]. Given the increased focus on writing goals 

related to states’ standards and providing related services to enable students to make progress in a 

standards-based general education curriculum, the IDEA-NAIS assessed the provision of mandatory 

or suggested IFSPs/IEPs. 

Among the 32 states whose Part C early intervention program coordinator indicated the state has early 

learning guidelines, 5 had a mandated or suggested standards-based IFSP for infants and toddlers for 

fiscal year 2009 (Exhibit 4.3). Two of the five states with a mandated or suggested standards-based 

IFSP had formal policies in place regarding the alignment of the provision of Part C program services 

with the early learning guidelines (see Appendix E, Exhibit E.27). 

Exhibit 4.3: State Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N

States 

% 

State has general early learning guidelines 32 62.75 

Among states with early learning guidelines, state guidance regarding standards-based IFSPs 

State provides neither a mandated nor suggested IFSP 27 84.38 

State provides either a mandated or suggested IFSP 5 15.62 

Total 32 100.00

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators (63 percent) reported that their state has early 

learning guidelines. In states with early learning guidelines, 27 Part C program coordinators (85 percent) have neither a 

mandated nor a suggested standards-based IFSP for infants and toddlers ages birth through age 2. 

For early learning guidelines, N = 51; for provision of standards-based IFSP, N = 32. 

For preschool-age children with disabilities, 23 states had a mandated or suggested IEP for the 2008– 

2009 school year (Exhibit 4.4). Ten of the 23 Part B preschool-age special education program 

coordinators in states with a mandated or suggested IEP reported their state also had formal written 

policies regarding the development and use of standards-based IEPs for preschool-age children with 

disabilities (Appendix E, Exhibit E.28). Twenty-seven states had a mandated or suggested standards­
 

75 

based IEPs for children and youth for the 2008–2009 school year (Exhibit 4.4). Fifteen of the 2741 

Part B special education program coordinators who reported the provision of a mandated or suggested 

standards-based IEP reported their state had formal written policies regarding the development and 

use of standards-based IEPs (Appendix E, Exhibit E.28). 

41	 One of the 27 state Part B special education program coordinators who reported their SEA had provided a 

mandated or suggested standards-based IEP did not answer the NAIS item regarding the provision of 

formal written policy. 
76 

Exhibit 4.4: Requirements for Use of Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and Children and Youth (S2009) 

Preschool-Age Children Children a

States States 

N % States responding yes N % Sta

SEA provides neither a mandated nor suggested IEP 

28 54.90 AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, 

FL, GA, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA 

23 46.00 AR

KSMTNYWA

SEA provides a suggested IEP 17 33.33 AK, CO, ID, IL, IN, KY, 

LA, NE, NM, NY, OH, RI, SC, VA, VT, WI, WV 

19 38.00 AL

IN, NDTX

SEA provides a mandated IEP 6 11.76 AL, AZ, HI, IA, MA, WY 7 14.00 HI, 

TN 

SEA provides both a mandated and suggested 

IEP 

0 0.00 1 2.00 AK 

Total 51 100.00 50 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-eight Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (55 percent) reported that their state provides neither a 

IEP for preschool-age children. Twenty-three SEAs (46 percent) reported that they provide neither a mandated nor suggested IEP for children and you

For Part B preschool-age respondents, N = 51; for Part B respondents, N = 50. 
77 

Training and Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for Children and Youth Is 

Offered by More States than Training on Standards-Based IEPs/IFSPs for Preschool-Age 

Children and Infants and Toddlers 

Training on standards-based IFSPs is provided in eight states for personnel working with infants and 

toddlers. In 16 states, training on the development of standards-based IEPs for preschool-age children 

with disabilities is provided. Training on standards-based IEPs for children and youth is provided in 

36 states. 

The most common topics across states in the training or professional development provided on the 

development of standards-based IFSPs for infants and toddlers and IEPs for preschool-age children 

are linking assessment to instruction (addressed by 100 percent of the states that provide training or 

professional development on standards-based IFSPs for infants and toddlers and in 88 percent of the 

states that provide training or professional development on standards-based IEPs for preschool-age 

children; Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7) and assessment of child performance/skills (addressed by 75 percent of 

the states that provide training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs for infants and 

toddlers and 88 percent of the states that provide training or professional development on standardsbased IEPs for preschool-age children; Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). The most common topics across states 

that provide training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs for 

children and youth are assessment of student performance (addressed by 86 percent of the SEAs that 

provide training or professional development on standards-based IEPs; Exhibit 4.8) and assessment of 

children’s current skills (addressed by 86 percent of the SEAs that provide training or professional 

development on standards-based IEPs; Exhibit 4.8). 

All eight states that provide training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs target 

Part C early intervention program providers, while seven of those states also target Part C program 

service coordinators and administrators (Exhibit 4.5). The most common audience among staff 

targeted for the training or professional development offered by states on the development of 

standards-based IEPs for children and youth is special education staff. Special education staff is 

targeted in 45 states (88 percent) that provide training on standards-based IEPs for preschool-age 

children and in all 36 states (100 percent) that provide training or professional development on 

standards-based IEPs for children and youth (Exhibit 4.9, Appendix E, Exhibit E.9). 
78 

Exhibit 4.5: Target Audience for State Agency Training or Professional Development on 

Alignment of Early Learning Guidelines and Early Intervention Services, for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) 

States 

N %

State agency provided any training/professional development 8 25.00 

Among states that provided training/professional development, target audience: 

Part C early intervention providers 8 100.00 

Service coordinators 7 87.50 

Administrators 7 87.50

Other 3 37.50 

EXHIBIT READS: Among 32 states that have early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers, eight Part C early 

intervention program coordinators (25 percent) reported the state provide training or professional development on the 

alignment of early learning guidelines and the provision of Part C program services. Among states that have early learning 

guidelines for infants and toddlers and provide training or professional development related to the early learning guidelines, 

eight Part C program coordinators (100 percent) indicated states target Part C program providers for training and 

professional development. 

For provision of training/professional development, N = 32; for target audience, N = 8. 

Exhibit 4.6: Topics Covered by Professional Development on Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2008 or 2009) 

N

States 

% 

State provided training or professional development on standards-based 

IFSPs 8 25.00

Among states providing training or professional development related to standards-based 

IFSPs, covered topics were: 

Linking assessment to instruction 8 100.00 

Assessment of student/child current performance/skills 6 75.00 

Developing standards-based goals 3 37.50 

Other 3 37.50 

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 32 states with early learning guidelines, eight Part C early intervention program coordinators 

(25 percent) reported their state provides training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs. Among the eight 

Part C program coordinators reporting their state provides training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs, 

eight (100 percent) reported the professional development addresses linking assessment to instruction as a covered topic. 

For provision of training/professional development, N = 32; for topics covered, N = 8. 
79 

Exhibit 4.7: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) 

N

States 

%
 

State provided training or professional development on standards-based IEPs 16 31.37 

Among states providing training or professional development related to standards-based IEPs, 

covered topics were: 

Linking assessment to instruction 14 87.50 

Assessment of children’s current skills 14 87.50 

Developing standards-based goals for cognitive skills 11 68.75 

Developing standards-based goals for social/emotional learning 11 68.75 

Developing standards-based goals for communication, learning skills 11 68.75 

Developing standards-based goals for physical/health 10 62.50 

Developing standards-based goals for approaches to learning 10 62.50 

Other 4 25.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 16 states (32 percent) reported to provide training or professional development on standardsbased IEPs for the preschool-age population, 14 (88 percent) Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators 

indicated the state professional development covers the topic of linking assessment to instruction. 

For providing training or professional development, N = 51; for topics covered, N = 16. 

Exhibit 4.8: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Children and Youth (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) 

N

States 

%
 

SEA provided training or professional development on standards-based IEPs 36 70.59 

Among SEAs providing training or professional development related to standards-based IEPs, 

covered topics were: 

Assessment of student’s current performance 31 86.11 

Use of instructional strategies, supports, and accommodations necessary for 

students with disabilities to achieve standards-based goals 31 86.11 

Developing standards-based goals for academic content areas 30 83.33 

Use of testing accommodations 29 80.56 

Developing standards-based goals for academic achievement 28 77.78 

Other 1 2.78 

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 36 SEAs (71 percent) reported by the Part B special education program coordinator to 

provide training or professional development on standards-based IEPs for children and youth, 31 (86 percent) were reported 

to cover the topic of assessment of student’s current performance. 

For provision of training or professional development, N = 51; for topics covered, N = 36. 
Exhibit 4.9: Percentage of States Providing Training or Professional Development on 

Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and Children and Youth Targeting Specific 

Audiences (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-eight percent of Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators reported their state 

provides special education staff with training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs. All 

Part B special education program coordinators reported their SEA provides training or professional development on the 

development of standards-based IEPs to special education staff. 

For Part B preschool-age special education program respondents, regarding provision of professional development or 

training, N = 51; for the specific audience targeted, N = 16. 

For Part B special education program respondents, regarding provision of professional development or training, N = 51; for 

the specific audience targeted, N = 36. 

80 
81 

More than One Third of Districts Provide Policies or Training on the Development of 

Standards-Based IEPs 

School districts may provide policy and training or professional development on the development of 

standards-based IEPs. More than a third of districts (39 percent) have such policies (Exhibit 4.10). 

Nearly all (89 percent) of districts with formal written policies provide some training or professional 

development on the development of standards-based IEPs. 

Exhibit 4.10: District Policies on Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 2007–2008 and 2008– 

2009) 

Districts 

% 

District has formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based 

IEPs 38.74

Among districts with formal written policies regarding the development of standardsbased IEPs, district personnel received some training or professional development on 

the development of standards-based IEPs 

89.14 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of district Part B special education program administrators who reported having formal 

written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs is 39. The percentage of district Part B program 

administrators who reported having formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs and also 

provide training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs is 89. 

For districts having formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs, N = 1,145. For training or 

professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs, N = 512. 

Qualified Staff 

The 2004 IDEA reauthorization states that supporting high quality, intensive pre-service preparation 

and professional development for all staff who work with children with disabilities is required to 

ensure that such staff have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement 

and functional performance of children with disabilities [P.L. 108-446 § 601(c)(E)]. The second 

component of positive educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities examined in the 

IDEA-NAIS is new requirements included in the 2004 Amendments to IDEA related to qualified 

staff. 

The provision of early intervention services and special education and related services to infants and 

toddlers and children and youth with disabilities involves a range of staff. Below, the study team 

discusses requirements for staff in the Part C early intervention program and the Part B special 

education programs. 

Federal Requirements Related to IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program Qualified Personnel 

The IDEA legislation requires early intervention services be provided by “qualified personnel” and 

includes a non-exhaustive list of the types of personnel that may provide Part C early intervention 

program services. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization added the following additional examples to the list 

of qualified personnel: “registered dietitians” as opposed to “nutritionists,” and vision specialists. 

Other qualified personnel identified in the list include: special educators, audiologists, therapists 
82 

specializing in speech-language, occupational, physical, or family therapy, psychologists, social 

workers, vision specialists, nurses, pediatricians and other physicians and orientation and mobility 

specialists. 

The IDEA Part C early intervention program legislation requires that personnel be “appropriately and 

adequately prepared and trained” to provide Part C program services [20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(9)]. States 

are required to have “qualifications that are consistent with any State-approved or recognized 

certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the area in which 

such personnel are providing early intervention services” for professional personnel. The 2004 

reauthorization removed the requirement that each state ensure that such qualified personnel 

providing Part C program services meet the “highest” state licensure for such personnel. Each state 

determines the particular requirements for certification, licensing or registration for professional 

personnel providing early intervention services. Additionally, states using paraprofessionals and 

assistants must allow for paraprofessionals and assistants who are “appropriately trained and 

supervised in accordance with State law, regulations, or written policy” to assist in the provision of 

services [20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(9)]. There is no federal requirement that Part C program personnel— 

including Part C program special educators—have a college degree, unlike the requirement for Part B 

program special education teachers. 

Federal Requirements Related to Part B Special Education Program Qualified Staff 

Four categories of staff are involved in the provision of preschool and elementary and secondary 

school education services: special education teachers, related service personnel, paraprofessionals and 

assistants [P.L. 108-446 § 612(a)(14)]. Preschool teachers working in elementary or secondary school 

settings must meet highly qualified criteria. Preschool teachers working in settings that are not in 

elementary or secondary schools do not need to meet the highly qualified criteria. This section first 

addresses the development of standards for qualified special education teachers and then the 

development of standards for qualified related personnel including paraprofessionals and assistants. 

Requirements for Special Education Teachers 

Part B special education program education services are provided by special education teachers. The 

requirements an individual special education teacher in an elementary or secondary school must meet 

to be determined qualified changed from the 1997 IDEA legislation to the 2004 IDEA legislation to 

reflect similar changes for general education teachers. The 1997 IDEA legislation required all 

preschool, elementary and secondary special education and related services personnel, including 

teachers be “appropriately and adequately prepared and trained” [P.L. 105-17 § 612(a)(15)(A)]. States 

were required to establish and maintain standards which were “consistent with any State-approved or 

State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to 

the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related 

services” [P.L. 105-17 § 612(a)(15)(A)(B)(i)]. States were able to adopt a policy providing a threeyear timeframe for the most qualified individuals making “satisfactory progress” toward meeting the 

state requirements in geographic areas with shortages [P.L. 105-17 § 612(a)(15)(C)]. 

The 2004 IDEA legislation includes more specific language and requirements than the 1997 IDEA 

legislation. First, qualifications for preschool, elementary and secondary special education teachers 

must include “content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities” [20 U.S.C. § 

1412(a)(14)(A)]. Second, special education teachers in elementary and secondary schools are required 
 

 

83 

 

to meet the ESEA definition of “highly qualified” as provided in 20 U.S.C. § 6319(a)(2) with slight 

modifications [20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(14)(C)]. Specifically, IDEA requires that all special education 

teachers in public elementary and secondary schools and related programs (such as early childhood or 

preschool programs under the management of an LEA) be “highly qualified” special education 

teachers. The 2004 legislation uses the ESEA definition of “highly qualified” (34 C.F.R. § 300.18(a); 

34 C.F.R. § 200.56) but includes a number of modifications for special education teachers. Both the 

IDEA and ESEA regulations state that a teacher who is highly qualified under IDEA shall be 

considered highly qualified for purposes of the ESEA [34 C.F.R. § 200.56(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.18(g)]. 

The ESEA requires that to be “highly qualified” a teacher must: (1) have a bachelor’s degree, (2) 

have full state certification or licensure and (3) demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for the subjects 

they teach. Middle and high school teachers are able to demonstrate competency in their subject in 

any one of six ways: (1) having a major in the subject, (2) earning credits equal to a major in the 

subject, (3) passing the state content test, (4) meeting a state’s High Objective Uniform State 

Standards of Evaluation42 (HOUSSE) requirements, if a current teacher, (5) earning an advanced 

certificate in the subject from the state, or (6) having a graduate degree in the subject (34 C.F.R. § 

200.56). States have discretion in certification or licensing requirements and the particular subjectmatter test and required scores. States have received federal guidance on the requirements for new 

special education teachers [34 C.F.R. §300.18(a) through (d) and (g)(2)]; however, states vary in the 

credentials they require, the specific tests teachers are required to pass, and, in cases where states 

require the same test, in minimum passing scores. 

Similar to the ESEA, the 2004 IDEA legislation included separate requirements for new and veteran 

special education teachers. Designation of a new elementary or secondary school special education 

teacher as a highly qualified special education teacher requires individuals to meet the ESEA 

requirements with several exceptions. As is the case under the ESEA, the IDEA requires that special 

education teachers have full state certification as a special education teacher or must have passed the 

state special education teacher licensing examination. They may not have any element of the 

certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary or provisional basis [20 

U.S.C. § 1401(10)(B)(11)]. The first distinction from the ESEA rules is that elementary, middle and 

secondary special education teachers teaching core academic subjects exclusively to students who are 

assessed against alternate academic achievement standards may meet either the highly qualified 

teacher requirements for the appropriate grade span they are teaching (elementary, middle or 

secondary) or the highly qualified teacher requirements for the grade span in which their students are 

assessed [34 C.F.R. § 300.18 (c)]. For example, a secondary school special education teacher whose 

students are all assessed at the elementary level may be deemed highly qualified by meeting the 

requirements for either elementary or secondary school. Another modification of the ESEA rules is 

that new special education teachers teaching more than one core academic area may be deemed 

highly qualified if they meet the highly qualified requirements for one core academic area and meet 

the HOUSSE requirements for the other area(s) within two years [34 C.F.R. § 300.18(d)]. Finally, ED 

has clarified that states may develop separate HOUSSE standards for special education teachers and 

may include single HOUSSE evaluations that cover multiple subjects [34 C.F.R. § 300.18(e)]. 

42 ESEA allows states to develop an additional way for current teachers to demonstrate subject-matter 

competency and meet highly qualified teacher requirements known as HOUSSE. Demonstration of 

competency may consist of a combination of teaching experience, professional development and 

knowledge in the subject garnered over time in the profession [20 U.S.C §7801 (23)]. 
 

84 

By the 2005–2006 school year, all veteran special education teachers (usually defined as teaching 

special education one or more years) who taught core academic subjects were required under the 2004 

IDEA legislation either to: 1) pass a rigorous state academic test in subjects taught, 2) complete an 

undergraduate academic major in subjects taught, 3) complete a graduate degree in subjects taught, 4) 

complete coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, advance certification or 

credentialing, or 5) complete a state’s HOUSSE procedures (34 C.F.R. § 300.18). States have 

flexibility in developing their HOUSSE requirements provided that the requirements: address both 

grade-appropriate academic subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills; are aligned with 

challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards; provide objective, 

coherent information about a teacher’s attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects 

in which the teacher teaches; are applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and 

teaching in the same grade level throughout the states; and take into consideration the time the teacher 

has been teaching in the academic subject [ESEA § 9101 (23)(c)(ii)]. 

Requirements for Related Service Providers, Paraprofessionals and Assistants 

Federal requirements regarding Part B special education related service providers stipulate that 

qualified staff must meet qualifications consistent with state-approved or state-recognized 

certification, licensure, registration or comparable requirements for their specific discipline [P.L. 105­

17 § 612(a)(15)(B)(i)]. The 2004 legislation added language that the related service provider may not 

have a waiver for any requirement for emergency, temporary or provisional reasons [20 U.S.C. § 

1412(a)(14)(B)(ii)]. States must allow paraprofessionals and assistants, when “appropriately trained 

and supervised, in accordance with State law, regulations or written policy” to assist in the provision 

of services to preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities [20 U.S.C. § 

1412(a)(14)(B)(iii)]. 

Federal Technical Assistance and Monitoring Related to Qualified Staff 

OSEP currently funds a number of technical assistance centers to promote the emphasis on qualified 

staff. These centers include the National Center to Improve Recruitment and Retention of Qualified 

Personnel for Children with Disabilities, which was established in 2008; the National Center to 

Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development, which was established in 

2007; and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, which was jointly funded by the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and OSEP in 2005. Under IDEA Part D, 

OSEP also provides funds to assist SEAs in reforming and improving their systems for personnel 

preparation and professional development in early intervention and educational and transition 

services, in order to improve results for children with disabilities. This includes State Professional 

Development Grants (SPDGs) and State Improvement Grants (SIGs). 

States are required to report the total number of personnel by job category and the number of 

personnel who are “qualified” to the Data Accountability Center (DAC). States report separately for 

the Part C early intervention program and the Part B special education program. The most recent 

available Part C program data are from 2002—predating the 2004 IDEA reauthorization which is the 

focus of the IDEA-NAIS—and do not report on qualified personnel; those earlier data are not 

included in this report. The Part B program data are from 2006 and are included in this report. 
 

85 

 

 

 

Findings on Qualified Staff 

This section examines activities of early intervention and special education agencies and LEAs with 

regard to qualified staff. The study team uses the term “staff” to be fully inclusive of teachers, 

professionals in other fields, paraprofessionals and assistants. The term “personnel” is used for the 

Part C early intervention program staff, as federal legislation does not differentiate between teachers, 

related service providers or paraprofessionals. The term “teacher” is used for individuals providing 

instruction in the public elementary and secondary schools—or those individuals who are required to 

be determined as “highly qualified teachers.” This includes early childhood and preschool teachers in 

states that provide early childhood or preschool programs as part of the state’s elementary and 

secondary school system (34 C.F.R. § 300.18; Office of Special Education Programs 2007b). The 

IDEA-NAIS data collection included items for the Part C program coordinator which asked about 

“special educators” to represent Part C program educators, a particular category of Part C program 

personnel [20 U.S.C. § 1432(4)(F)]. 

First, the study team presents findings related to the percentage of qualified staff—specifically, 

special education program staff (teachers, related service providers, and paraprofessionals).43 Second, 

the study team presents IDEA-NAIS data regarding early intervention program licensing and 

regulations required for qualified personnel, then the special education program licensing and 

regulations for teachers and other personnel. Third, the study team discusses the findings related both 

to new and veteran special education teachers working in the Part B program. The final section 

presents district findings regarding positions which are difficult to fill with qualified staff and the 

strategies or incentives districts use to fill those positions. 

Nationally, almost 90 Percent of Special Education Teachers for Preschool-Age Children with 

Disabilities and School-Age Children and Youth with Disabilities Are Highly Qualified and over 

80 Percent of Paraprofessionals Are Qualified. However, There Is Substantial Variation across 

States in the Percentage of Both Qualified Teachers and Qualified Paraprofessionals. 

Fall 200644 state data indicate that 88 percent of special education teachers for preschool-age children 

and 89 percent of special education teachers for school-age children meet the highly qualified teacher 

provisions of IDEA and ESEA (Appendix E, Exhibit E.29). States range in the percentage of highly 

qualified special education teachers for preschool-age children from a low of 56 percent of teachers in 

the state to a high of 100 percent of teachers in the state. For special education teachers for school-age 

children, states range from a low of 46 percent of teachers in the state to a high of 100 percent of 

teachers in the state (Appendix E, Exhibit E.29). 

National data from Fall 2006 regarding the percentage of paraprofessionals who are qualified indicate 

that 84 percent of paraprofessionals for preschool-age children are qualified and 87 percent of 

paraprofessionals for school-age children are qualified (Appendix E, Exhibit E.30). States range in 

43	 Part C program staff data are not presented for two reasons: (1) data are no longer collected and the most 

recent data available are from 2002; and (2) the data do not enable reporting of the percentage qualified. 

44	 The IDEA-NAIS did not collect data on the number of qualified personnel as these data are publicly 

available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC). The most recent data available from the DAC 

regarding personnel qualifications are from Fall 2006, which are reported here although that is not one of 

the focal years of the IDEA-NAIS. The Part C program data are not reported as the most recent data are 

from Fall 2002 and report only the number of personnel, not the number of qualified personnel. 
86 

the percentage of qualified paraprofessionals for preschool-age children from a low of 3 percent in the 

state to a high of 100 percent in the state (Appendix E, Exhibit E.30). The percentage of qualified 

paraprofessionals providing services to school-age children and youth ranges from a low of 1 percent 

in the state to a high of 100 percent in the state (Appendix E, Exhibit E.30). 

Data from each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. regarding the number of related service 

providers and number of certified related service providers in the fall of 2006 are available from the 

Data Accountability Center (Exhibit 4.11). Nationally, the percentage of certified related service 

providers across 11 certified categories ranges from a low of 85 percent of interpreters to a high of 98 

percent of psychologists. States vary in the percentage of certified related service providers for each 

category. 

Exhibit 4.11: Percentage of Certified Related Service Professionals Serving School-Age 

Children and Youth by Profession (Fall 2006) 

Average Minimum Maximum 

Psychologists 97.99 89.55 100.00

Counselors and rehabilitation 96.70 76.67 100.00 

Medical/nursing staff 96.09 56.36 100.00 

Social workers 95.89 60.00 100.00 

Physical education teachers and recreation and therapeutic 

recreation specialists 95.05 57.89 100.00 

Speech-language pathologists 94.35 0.00 100.00 

Occupational therapists 93.86 0.00 100.00 

Audiologists 93.32 0.00 100.00

Physical therapists 92.53 0.00 100.00 

Orientation and mobility specialists 91.01 0.00 100.00 

Interpreters 84.96 0.00 100.00

EXHIBIT READS: Nationally, 98 percent of psychologists providing services to school-age children and youth served by 

the Part B school-age special education program are certified. States range in the percentage of certified psychologists from 

a low of 90 to a high of 100. 

For psychologists, counselors and rehabilitation, social workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists and interpreters, 

N = 51. 

For physical education teachers and recreation and therapeutic recreation specialists, speech-language pathologists and 

audiologists, N = 49. 

For medical/nursing staff, N=47. 

For orientation and mobility specialists, N = 46. 

Part C Early Intervention Program Special Educators Are Licensed by the SEA in 37 States 

and May Meet Licensing Requirements in Various Ways 

Although the Part C early intervention program lead agency may be a non-education agency, in most 

states the SEA was reported as having responsibility for overseeing licensing and certification of 

special educators. The SEA is responsible for licensing Part C program special educators in 37 states 

(Appendix E, Exhibit E.13). 
 

87 

Part C early intervention program special educators are required to be licensed or certified by the state 

to be qualified personnel [20 U.S.C. § 1435(a)(9)]. In many states, multiple options are available for 

obtaining state licensure or certification for Part C program special educators. In most states (42), 

early intervention program special educators can qualify for licensing/certification through an 

undergraduate or graduate degree program (Exhibit 4.12). In one-half of the states (25), passing an 

exam/proficiency test also qualifies for Part C program licensing/certification. The age ranges of 

students for which special educator certification or credential is applicable varies across states, and is 

provided in Appendix E, Exhibit E.31. 

Exhibit 4.12: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

Requirements N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree program 42 84.00 

Exam/proficiency test 25 50.00 

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 14 28.00 

Portfolio 13 26.00 

Other 8 16.00 

EXHIBIT READS: An undergraduate or graduate degree program is a requirement for Part C early intervention program 

special educators in 42 states (84 percent). 

N = 50. 

It Is Most Common for SEAs to License and Certify Special Education Teachers for PreschoolAge and School-Age Children 

The SEA is responsible for licensing preschool-age special education teachers in 46 states and schoolage elementary and secondary school special education teachers in 43 states (Exhibit 4.13). States 

vary in the certification type required of preschool special education staff, which may include 

teachers and related service personnel, with many states allowing multiple approaches. The most 

common type of required certification is the early childhood special education certification (24 states, 

Exhibit 4.14). Twelve states each require an early childhood special certification or a blended early 

childhood and special education certification. An undergraduate or graduate degree program is 

required to meet state certification/licensure requirements for preschool special education staff (i.e., 

teachers, related service personnel, and paraprofessionals) in 45 states and is optional in an additional 

2 states. In more than half the states (35), passing an exam/proficiency test is required (Exhibit 4.15). 
88 

 

Exhibit 4.13: Agency Responsible for Licensing/Certification of Special Educators by IDEA 

Program Early Intervention Special Educators, Preschool Special Education Teachers and 

Special Education Teachers (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 2008–2009) 

Early 

Intervention 

Special 

Educators 

Preschool 

Special 

Education 

Teachers 

Special 

Education 

Teachers 

States States States 

N % N % N % 

SEA 

Part C lead agency 

State licensing and certification agency that is 

not part of the SEA (or the Part C lead agency) 

Other 

37 72.54 

16 31.37 

5 9.80 

3 5.88 

46 90.20 

— — 

4 7.84 

1 1.96 

43 84.31 

— — 

7 13.73 

1 1.96 

EXHIBIT READS: Licensing and certification for Part C program special educators is overseen by the SEA in 37 states (73 

percent). SEAs oversee licensing and certification of preschool special education teachers in 46 states (90 percent) and for 

elementary and secondary school special education teachers in 43 states (84 percent). 

For Part C respondents, N = 51; for Part B preschool-age respondents, N = 51; for Part B respondents, N = 51. 

Exhibit 4.14: State Certification/Licensure Requirements for Preschool Special Education Staff 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

States 

Requirements N % 

Early childhood special education certification 

Blended early childhood/early childhood special education 

certification 

Special education certification 

General early childhood certification plus preschool special 

education add-on or endorsement 

Special education certification plus preschool special education 

add-on or endorsement 

General early childhood certification (including special education 

requirements) 

General early childhood certification (no special education 

requirements) 

Other 

No certification/licensure required 

Total 

24 

12

12 

11

9 

4 

2 

9 

0 

51 

47.06 

23.53 

23.53 

21.57 

17.65 

7.84 

3.92 

17.65 

0.00 

— 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-four Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (47 percent) reported state 

certification/licensure requirements for preschool special education staff include an early childhood special education 

certification. 

N = 51. 
89 

 

Exhibit 4.15: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Methods 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

States States States 

N % N % N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree 

program 

Exam/proficiency test 

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 

Portfolio

Other 

45 90.00 

35 70.00 

12 24.00 

6 12.00

8 16.00

2 4.00 

3 6.00 

5 10.00 

5 10.00

2 4.00

3 6.00 

12 24.00 

33 66.00 

39 78.00 

40 80.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-five Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (90 percent) reported that their 

state requires an undergraduate or graduate degree program for certification of preschool special education staff. Two Part B 

preschool-age program coordinators (4 percent) reported that in their state an undergraduate or graduate degree program is 

an option requirement for certification of preschool special education staff. Three Part B preschool-age program 

coordinators (6 percent) reported that an undergraduate or graduate degree programs is neither required nor an optional 

requirement for certification of preschool special education staff. 

N = 50. 

New Teacher Requirements for Special Education Teachers Vary among States 

The 2004 Amendments to IDEA include requirements for new public school teachers to be 

designated highly qualified special education teachers. The 2004 IDEA legislation does not 

differentiate between preschool teachers who are employed by the public school system and 

elementary and secondary school teachers employed by the public school system. The 2004 IDEA 

legislation uses the ESEA definition of “highly qualified” (34 C.F.R. § 300.18(a); 34 C.F.R. § 

200.56), which has three requirements: (1) a bachelor’s degree, (2) full state certification or licensure 

and (3) demonstration of subject-matter knowledge for the subjects they teach. States have discretion 

in certification or licensure requirements, the particular subject-matter test required and minimum 

passing scores. The IDEA-NAIS data collection did not include items specific to new teachers as 

other data sources—state websites and regulations—provided state-by-state information on 

requirements. 

A review of state regulations for a highly qualified determination for new special education teachers 

revealed a number of ways in which states permit the demonstration of subject-matter competency 

(Exhibit 4.16). The most common option permitted across states is for an individual to pass a statespecified subject-matter content test (40 states or 78 percent of states). Degrees in the content area are 

accepted as demonstration of subject-matter competency by 32 states or 63 percent of states. Credit 

hours equal to a major are accepted as demonstration of subject-matter competence in 31 states or 61 

percent of states. Forty states have regulations which indicate individuals could demonstrate subjectmatter competency by passing a specific content test including the Educational Testing Service (ETS) 

Praxis Series: Teacher Licensure and Certification or a non-Praxis series test could be used to 

demonstrate subject-matter competency (e.g., the Georgia Assessments for the Certification of 

Educators, or GACE). 
90 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4.16: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers 

Overall 

Total 

N States % 

Specific state content test 40 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, 

NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, 

WV, WI, WY 

78.43 

Undergraduate major in 

content area 

32 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, 

KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, 

PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY 

62.75 

Credit hours equal to major 31 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DC, HI, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, 

ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, 

OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA 

60.78 

Graduate degree in content 

area 

25 AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DC, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, 

MN, NE, NV, NM, NY, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA 

49.02 

Professional educator 

certificate 

10 AL, FL, GA, IL, MD, MT, NV, NM, NY, TX 19.61 

National board certification 16 AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, ID, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NJ, 

NM, OR, UT 

31.37 

HOUSSE is an option 17 AZ, CO, CT, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MO, MT, NE, NV, 

NJ, NY, OK, VA, WV 

33.33 

Other 5 CA, CO, MT, VT, WY 9.80 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty (78 percent) states accept a passing grade on a specific state content test as demonstration of 

subject-matter competence. 

N = 51. 

Systematic examination of the Praxis state-specific websites demonstrated that 40 states use at least 

one Educational Testing Service (ETS) Praxis Series: Teacher Licensure and Certification in either 

the licensing certification or highly qualified determination processes.45 Each year, state agencies that 

use a Praxis test report to ETS on their testing policies. To explore the variation in minimum passing 

score on comparable tests, the study team examined the ETS-compiled state information on statespecific web pages. The compiled information does not include the distinction between tests which 

are specific for special education teachers and tests which are specific for general education teachers 

for all states. Therefore, these data could include state required scores for general education teachers, 

special education teachers, or both general and special education teachers 

A review of the Praxis website in September 2009 identified 40 states using 63 tests in the areas of 

elementary education, special education and secondary school English. The particular tests required 

by states for certification differ as do the minimum passing scores. State-specific web pages hosted by 

Praxis for 38 states permit at least one of eleven Praxis tests for certification and/or determination of 

highly qualified status in elementary education (Exhibit 4.17). For example, 35 Praxis-provided state 

testing requirement pages reported the state accepts one specific test of mathematics content and 

45 See http:/www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgnextoid= 

48c05ee3d74f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&WT.ac=Praxis+Brochure+and+Front+Door. 
 

91 

 

knowledge test for elementary education certification. The Mathematics Content Knowledge test has a 

minimum possible score of 100 and a maximum possible score of 200; the minimum passing score on 

the test across states has a range of 33 points. Test requirement pages for 24 states indicated at least 

one of two tests of content knowledge are accepted for elementary school special education 

certification or highly qualified status. The tests have a minimum possible score of 100 and a 

maximum possible score of 200; there is a 16-point spread on the minimum passing score for one test 

(Elementary Education: Content Knowledge) across states, a 26-point spread on the minimum passing 

score for the second test (Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge) across states, 

and some states require additional tests. 

State-specific test requirements provided by Praxis indicate that 37 states46 require one of four tests 

for certification or highly qualified status in English at the secondary school level (Exhibit 4.17). The 

most common test among states that use the Praxis tests for secondary school English is English 

Language, Literature and Composition: Content Knowledge (34 of 37 states). The test has a 

minimum possible score of 100 and a maximum possible score of 200; the minimum passing score on 

the test has a range of 30 points across states. 

Options for Veteran Special Education Teachers to Meet Highly Qualified Status 

High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) requirements are another way that 

states can designate highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. HOUSSE 

requirements are provided as an option by states under the 2004 Amendments to IDEA so that veteran 

teachers can demonstrate competency in each subject they teach (34 C.F.R. § 300.18). New 

elementary and secondary school special education teachers who teach more than one core academic 

subject may use HOUSSE to attain the highly qualified determination in the additional core subject 

areas in some states. 

Most states used HOUSSE subject-matter requirements for veteran special education teachers at all 

school levels for the 2008–2009 school year. As reported by the state respondents, 41 states use 

HOUSSE requirements for elementary school teachers, 44 states for middle school teachers and 45 

states for high school teachers (Exhibit 4.18; Appendix E, Exhibits E.18, E.32 and E.33, 

respectively). Across all three school levels, the most common HOUSSE requirement is classroom 

experience (elementary schools 32 percent, middle schools 34 percent and high schools 36 percent; 

Exhibit 4.18, Appendix E, Exhibits E.18, E.32 and E.33, respectively). 

46	 From Exhibit 4.18, there are 34 states which accept the English Language, Literature and Composition: 

Content Knowledge test for either certification or highly qualified status. Three other states (IN, ME, RI) 

accept the Middle School English Language Arts test for either certification or highly qualified status. 
92 

Exhibit 4.17: Summary of Praxis Series Tests Used by States for Certification, Licensure or Highly Qualified Status 

Matter Areas 

Subject-Matter Area 

Number of 

States States Praxis Test Number and Name 

Minimum P

Min Max M

Elementary education 35 AL, AK, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, 

ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY 

0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge (Graphing calculator required) 

123 156 13

Elementary education 23 AL, AK, CO, DE, DC, ID, IA, KY, 

LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, NH, NJ, OH, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WI 

0014 Elementary Education: Content Knowledge (Calculator Allowed) 

137 153 14

Elementary education 22 CT, DC, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, 

ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge 

136 162 15

Elementary education 18 AK, CT, HI, IN, IA, KS, MS, MO, 

NE, NV, NC, ND, PA, SC, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0011 Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 

150 168 15

Elementary education 15 HI, ID, KY, LA, ME, MN, MS, NV, 

ND, OH, RI, SC, TN, UT, WV 

0522 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6 

152 169 16

Elementary education 15 AR, HI, ID, KY, LA, MN, MS, MO, 

OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0523 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 5 – 9 

152 168 15

Elementary education 9 CT, DC, HI, MD, NV, NC, RI, SC, 

UT 

0012 Elementary Education: Content Area Exercises (Calculator prohibited) 

135 150 14

Elementary education 9 AR, HI, LA, ME, MN, OH, SD, TN, 

UT 

0521 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Early Childhood 

155 172 16

Elementary education 6 IN, NV, NJ, NC, OH, SC 0200 

Introduction to the Teaching of Reading 

510 560 54

Elementary education 3 AK, TN, WV 0432 

General Science: Content Knowledge, Part 2 (Calculators Prohibited) 

136 149 14
Subject-Matter Area 

Number of 

States States Praxis Test Number and Name 

Minimum P

Min Max M

Elementary education – 

specifically special education 

4 MS, NC, PA, RI 0511 

Fundamental Subjects 

142 160 15

Secondary: English 34 AL, AK, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, 

ID, IL, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY 

0041 English Language, Literature and Composition: Content Knowledge 

142 172 15

Secondary: English 31 AL, AK, CT, DE, HI, IN, KS, KY, 

LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WY 

0049 Middle School English Language Arts 

145 165 15

Secondary: English 9 AK, AR, CT, KY, NV, OR, SC, UT, 

VT 

0042 English Language, Literature and Composition: Essays 

145 160 15

Secondary: English 9 AR, DC, HI, LA, MD, NV, NC, TN, 

UT 

0043 

English Language, Literature and Composition: Pedagogy 

130 155 14

93 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighteen states use scores from Praxis test 0011 (Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment) for certification

of highly qualified status. The minimum passing score among the states is 150. The maximum passing score is 168. The mean passing score is 159.50159. The modal passing score is 164. N = 43. 
94 

Exhibit 4.18: Elements Required in HOUSSE Certification for Current Special Education 

Teachers in Elementary, Middle and High Schools (School Year 2008–2009) 

EXHIBIT READS: Among SEAs reported to allow HOUSSE by the Part B program coordinator, 32 percent require 

classroom experience for elementary school teachers, 34 percent require classroom experience for middle school teachers 

and 36 percent require classroom experience for high school teachers. 

For use of HOUSSE certification, N = 51. For specific elements used in elementary schools, N = 41. For specific elements 

used in middle schools, N = 44. For specific elements used in high schools, N = 45. 
95 

HOUSSE requirements may also include optional elements. For example, more than 50 percent of 

states provide elementary school special education teachers the option of meeting HOUSSE 

requirements through national board certification (32 states), completion of professional development 

(27 states) and/or content area test scores (24 states; Appendix E, Exhibit E.18). Secondary school 

teachers may also meet HOUSSE requirements through optional elements (Appendix E, Exhibits 

E.32 and E.33). Among states using HOUSSE for current middle school special education teachers, 

the most common optional element is national board certification (31 states) followed by completion 

of professional development including additional coursework (27 states; Appendix E, Exhibit E.32). 

The most common optional element for states which allow HOUSSE for current high school special 

education teachers is national board certification (31 states) followed by completion of professional 

development including additional coursework (28 states; Appendix E, Exhibit E.33). 

District special education directors reported on the funded full-time-equivalent (FTE) special 

education positions which were either left vacant (or filled by a long-term substitute) in the 2008–

2009 school year or had staff leave the position or the district (departures). Nationally, 5 percent of 

funded FTE positions for special education teachers of preschool-age children were vacant in the 

2008–2009 school year (Exhibit 4.19). Eleven percent of funded FTE positions for preschool special 

education teachers had the staff person leave either special education or the district. Five percent of 

funded FTEs of special education teachers for school-age children and youth FTEs were left vacant in 

the 2008–2009 school year. Thirteen percent of funded FTE positions for school-age special 

education teachers had the staff person leave either special education or the district. 

Exhibit 4.19: National Estimates of the Percentage of Funded Full-Time Equivalent Vacancies 

or Departures (School Year 2008–2009) 

Special Education 

Teachers for PreschoolAge Children 

Special Education 

Teachers for SchoolAge Children 

Implementation Vacancies Departures Vacancies Departures 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) positions 5.29 10.94 5.21 12.53 

EXHIBIT READS: Of the 829 Districts that reported the number of FTE funded positions and number of FTE positions left 

vacant for ages 3 through 5, the average percentage of funded positions that were vacant is 5 percent. 

Special education teachers for preschool-age, vacancies N = 829; departures N = 816. 

Special education teachers for school-age, vacancies N = 1,092; departures N = 1,076. 

Districts Have Difficulty Finding Qualified Secondary School Special Education Applicants 

Particularly in Mathematics 

About half of the district Part B special education program administrators (51 percent; Exhibit 4.20; 

Appendix E, Exhibit E.20) reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified special 

education applicants over the past three years. This is consistent with previous research (McLeskey, 

Tyler and Flippin 2004). Among the districts indicating that qualified applicants have been difficult to 

find, more than half reported having difficulty over the prior three school years finding qualified 

special education teachers who serve children in high school (58 percent; Exhibit 4.20; Appendix E, 

Exhibit E.20). At the high school level, qualified mathematics and science special education teachers 
96 

were reported as difficult for districts to find (mathematics 49 percent; science 38 percent of districts 

with shortages). Qualified special education teachers who serve children in middle school were 

reported as difficult to find in just under half the districts with shortages (49 percent of districts with 

shortages). 

Finding Qualified Teachers to Work with Children and Youth with Emotional Disturbances or 

Behavioral Disorders Is Also Difficult for Districts 

Also among the districts indicating that qualified applicants have been difficult to find, more than half 

reported difficulty in finding qualified teachers who primarily serve children with emotional 

disturbance/behavior disorders (55 percent of districts with shortages; Exhibit 4.20, Appendix E, 

Exhibit E.20). Teachers for other disability categories were also reported to be hard to find in some 

districts, particularly teachers who serve students with autism (46 percent of districts with shortages). 

Appendix E includes types of special education teachers districts routinely have difficulty finding 

qualified applicants by region (Exhibit E.35), urbanicity (Exhibit E.36) and district size (Exhibit 

E.37). 
97 

Exhibit 4.20: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely Experienced Difficulty Finding 

over the Past Three Years (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009) 

Special education teachers who serve children in: 

Special education teachers who primarily serve children with: 

Secondaeducatio

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts reported by Part B special education program administrator as having difficulty finding qualified applicants, 58 p

finding high school special education teachers. For experiencing difficulty in finding qualified applicants, N = 1,148. For particular types of teachers, N = 725, except for secondary school special ed

studies and other subjects, N = 724 . 
98 

States Use Various Strategies to Increase the Number of Qualified Special Educators, 

Qualified Preschool Special Education Staff and Highly Qualified Teachers 

States vary somewhat in the strategies used in a two-year period to increase the number of qualified 

special educators for the Part C early intervention program (fiscal years 2008 and 2009) or the 

number of qualified preschool special education staff (2007–2008 and 2008–2009 school years) and 

highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers (2007–2008 and 2008–2009 

school years). The most common strategy employed by states is collaboration with universities to 

create programs and curricula to ensure that graduates meet standards. This strategy was reported in 

31 states to increase the number of qualified special educators, in 27 states to increase the number of 

qualified preschool special education staff and in 33 states to increase the proportion of highly 

qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers (Exhibit 4.21). Other common 

strategies are the provision of alternative routes to certification for persons with a bachelor’s degree 

(reported in 13 states to increase the number of qualified special educators, in 18 to increase the 

number of qualified preschool special education staff, and in 31 to increase the proportion of highly 

qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers) and alternative routes to certification 

in special education for those with a content area certification or a special education degree (in 9 

states to increase the number of qualified special educators, in 22 to increase the number of qualified 

preschool special education staff, and in 36 to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary 

and secondary special education teachers). 

Districts Use Financial and Non-Financial Incentives to Increase Their Proportion of Highly 

Qualified Special Education Teachers 

The IDEA-NAIS asked district administrators about district efforts to increase the proportion of 

currently employed special education teachers that are qualified, the recruitment of qualified staff, 

and the use of pay incentives for staff retention. Most district special education administrators (64 

percent) indicated that they provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional 

development opportunities to increase the proportion of currently employed special education 

teachers that are highly qualified (Exhibit 4.22). Appendix E includes the strategies used to increase 

the number of qualified special educators, qualified preschool special education staff, and highly 

qualified teachers by region (Exhibit E.38), urbanicity (Exhibit E.39) and district size (Exhibit E.40). 

Another way to increase numbers of highly qualified special education teachers is to recruit qualified 

staff. A frequently reported recruitment strategy is the use of mentoring or induction programs (33 

percent of all districts; 47 percent of districts with difficulty finding qualified applicants; Exhibit 

4.23). Strategies used to recruit special education teachers are reported by region (Appendix E, 

Exhibit E.41), urbanicity (Appendix E, Exhibit E.42) and district size (Appendix E, Exhibit E.43). A 

third approach to increasing the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special 

education teachers is via pay incentives for staff retention (Exhibit 4.24). Pay incentives are used for 

staff who have attained National Board for Professional Teacher Standards certification (16 percent of 

all districts; 21 percent of districts with difficulty finding qualified applicants). Nationally, 20 percent 

of districts reported using at least one of the financial incentives for retention purposes (Appendix E, 

Exhibit E.34). Incentives used to retain current special education teachers are reported by region 

(Appendix E, Exhibit E.44), urbanicity (Appendix E, Exhibit E.45) and district size (Appendix E, 

Exhibit E.46).
Exhibit 4.21: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special Educators, Qualified Preschoo

Staff and Highly Qualified Teachers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

99 

Strategy 

Qualified Special 

Educators 

(Fiscal Years 2008 and 

2009) 

Preschool Special 

Education Staff 

 (School Years 2007–2008 

and 2008–2009) 

Hig

E

(Sch

States States 

N % N % 

Collaborate with universities to create programs and curricula to ensure that graduates meet standards 31 62.00 27 52.94 

Provide alternative routes to certification in special education for persons with a bachelor’s degree 13 26.00 18 35.29 

Provide funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities Provide alternative routes to certification in special education 

for persons with content area certification/a special education degree 

11 22.00 16 31.37 

9 18.00 22 41.18 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certifications 

tests/licensure exams 1 2.00 3 5.88 Pay fees for tests/licensure exams Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified 

secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

1 2.00 1 1.96 

— — — — 

Provide free or subsidized training for special education 

teachers to obtain content area credentials — — — — 

Other 10 20.00 6 11.76 None of the above 9 18.00 11 21.57 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-one Part C early intervention program coordinators (62 percent) reported that in their state, collaboration with universities t

curricula to ensure graduates meet state standards is a strategy used to increase the number of qualified early intervention special educators. Twenty-sespecial education program coordinators (53 percent) reported their state collaborates with universities to create programs and curricula to ensure that gfor qualified preschool special education staff. Thirty-three Part B special education program coordinators (65 percent) reported their state collaborateprograms and curricula to ensure that graduates meet state standards for highly qualified special education teachers. For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, N = 51. 
 

 

Exhibit 4.22: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed 

Special Education Teachers That Are Highly Qualified (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008– 

2009) 

Strategy 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That 

Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding 

Qualified Applicants 

Among Districts That 

Routinely Had NO 

Difficulty Finding 

Qualified Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% % % 

Provide time or funding for 

teachers to participate in 

professional development 

opportunities 

63.62 76.08 50.65 

Pay fees for tests/licensure 

exams 

18.85 24.76 12.71 

Provide free or subsidized 

training for special education 

teachers to obtain content area 

credentials 

14.21 15.28 13.09 

Provide free or subsidized 

training for highly qualified 

secondary school teachers to 

obtain special education 

credentials 

10.19 14.21 6.01 

Pay for tutoring to prepare 

teachers for certification 

tests/licensure exams 

6.34 7.73 4.89 

Other 1.72 2.06 1.35 

None of the above 30.74 18.03 43.96 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-four percent of district special education administrators reported their district provides time or 

funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities as a strategy to increase the proportion of 

highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Seventy-six percent of district special education 

administrators who reported that their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or 

funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified 

elementary and secondary special education teachers. Fifty-one percent of district special education administrators who 

reported that their district routinely had no difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for 

teachers to participate in professional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary 

and secondary special education teachers. 

For among all districts, N = 1,135 except for other, N = 1,137. 

For districts having difficulty, N = 717, except for other, N = 718. 

For districts having no difficulty, N = 419. 

100 
101 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4.23: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Among All 

Districts 

Among Districts 

That Routinely 

Had Difficulty 

Finding 

Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Districts 

That Routinely 

Had NO 

Difficulty 

Finding 

Qualified 

Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

Support/Incentive % % % 

Mentoring or induction programs 33.49 46.61 19.83 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step 

of the salary schedule 6.10 9.47 2.59 

Bonus supplement to regular 

compensation 4.20 6.37 1.94 

Signing bonus 4.17 6.02 2.25 

Permanent salary augmentation or 

adjustment to normal base salary 3.92 4.87 2.92 

Payoff of student loans 1.62 2.75 0.44 

Relocation assistance 1.05 1.62 0.46 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new 

teacher referrals 0.20 0.39 0.00 

Other 3.98 6.24 1.64 

None of the above 57.13 40.89 74.04 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-three percent of district special education administrators reported their state using mentoring or 

induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Forty-seven percent of district special education 

administrators who reported their districts had difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or 

induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Twenty percent of district special education 

administrators who reported their districts experienced no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring 

or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. 

For among all districts, N = 1,145. 

For among districts routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 724. 

For among districts having no difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 421. 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4.24: Pay Incentives Used by Districts to Retain Current Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts 

That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding 

Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Districts 

That Routinely Had 

NO difficulty 

Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% % % 

Attained National Board for 

Professional Teaching 

Standards certification 

16.00 20.62 11.16 

Teach students with certain 

disabilities 3.26 4.59 1.89 

Demonstrate excellence in 

teaching 3.14 2.79 3.50 

Teach certain academic 

subjects 2.39 3.32 1.43 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 1.62 2.46 0.70 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixteen percent of district special education administrators reported their district offers pay incentives 

for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification to retain current special education teachers. 

Twenty-one percent of district special education administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty in finding 

qualified applicants reported offering pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 

certification. Eleven percent of district special education administrators who reported their district routinely had no difficulty 

in finding qualified applicants reported the district offered pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards certification. 

For among all districts, N = 1,142 expect for demonstrate excellence in teaching, N = 1,143. 

For among districts having difficulty findings qualified applicants, N = 723, except for teach students with certain 

disabilities, N = 722. 

For among districts not having difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 419, except for attained National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards certification, N = 418. 

Summary 

The 2004 IDEA legislation built on prior special education (1997 Amendments to IDEA, P.L. 105­

17) and general education (GOALS 2000, P.L. 103-227; IASA, P.L. 103-327; NCLB, P.L. 107-110) 

legislation to ensure that children and youth with disabilities both have equal access to education and 

receive a quality education. Children and youth with disabilities are expected to achieve high 

standards, have access to the same curriculum and participate in statewide accountability systems. 

This chapter presented findings on efforts by states and districts to ensure children and youth with 

disabilities are given access to high standards and qualified personnel. 

The 2004 IDEA legislation requires measurable goals related to academic readiness or achievement. 

States provide standards, professional development and training and guidance to assist the IFSP/IEP 

team in writing documents which expect, and assist, children and youth with disabilities to achieve 

high standards. Thirty-two states have early learning guidelines which describe expectations for 

102 
 

103 

infants’ and toddlers’ learning and development. Forty-eight states have early learning standards 

which describe expectations for children’s learning and development prior to kindergarten. 

Early learning guidelines, early learning standards and K–12 education standards are used to develop 

standards-based IFSPs/IEPs for children or youth with disabilities. Five states provide mandated or 

suggested standards-based IFSPs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Twenty-three states 

provide mandated or suggested standards-based IEPs to ensure preschool-age children with 

disabilities achieve high standards. Twenty-seven states had a mandated or suggested standards-based 

IEP for school districts for the 2008–2009 school year. 

Training and professional development on standards-based IFSPs/IEPs are most frequently provided 

for those developing IEPs for older children and youth. Eight states provide training or professional 

development on the alignment of state guidelines and early intervention services. Sixteen states 

provide training or professional development related to standards-based IEPs for preschool-age 

children. Thirty-six SEAs provide training or professional development for standards-based IEPs for 

children and youth. At the district level, more than a third of the special education administrators 

reported having formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs. 

The 2004 IDEA amendments also expanded definitions for qualified staff. State data for Fall 2006 

indicate that most preschool, elementary and secondary school special education teachers meet the 

highly qualified teacher provisions of IDEA. The specific requirements for licensing or certification 

vary by state; however, there are common elements which are frequently associated with education. 

In most states (42), early intervention special educators qualify for licensing/certification through an 

undergraduate or graduate degree program. In 45 states, an undergraduate or graduate degree was 

required for certification of preschool special education staff. ESEA, and thus IDEA, requires that 

new elementary and secondary school teachers have a bachelor’s degree. States also may vary in the 

credentials they require, the specific tests teachers are required to pass and, in cases where states 

require the same test, in minimum passing scores. 

States and districts reported some difficulties in hiring highly qualified staff, with 5 percent of funded 

FTEs of special education teachers for preschool-age children and school-age children and youth left 

vacant in the 2008–2009 school year. More than half of the district special education administrators 

(51 percent) reported routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. 

Among districts reporting difficulty in hiring, 58 percent of districts reported problems hiring high 

school teachers and 49 percent reported difficulty hiring middle school teachers. Thirty-nine percent 

of districts reporting challenges in hiring reported difficulty hiring elementary school teachers. The 

most common strategy employed by states to increase the number of qualified special educators (31 

states), the number of qualified preschool special education staff (27 states) and the proportion of 

highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers (33 states) was to collaborate 

with universities. To increase their proportion of currently employed highly qualified special 

education teachers, most districts (64 percent) provide time or funding for teachers to participate in 

professional development opportunities. To recruit these teachers, 33 percent districts use mentoring 

or induction programs and, to retain these teachers, about 16 percent of districts provide a pay 

incentive for staff who have attained National Board for Professional Teacher Standards certification. 

105 

Chapter 5: Promoting Parent Participation and 

Dispute Resolution 

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) established rights and 

protections for parents and children under federal law regarding the provision of special education 

and related services. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA (P.L. 108-446) continues to promote and 

strengthen parents’ participation in their child’s early intervention and special education. The 2004 

IDEA legislation also continues to delineate and protect the rights of children and youth with 

disabilities, including the right to register complaints and resolve disputes, as well as the procedures 

that must be in place to protect and discharge that right. 

IDEA cites decades of research illustrating that one way to improve educational efficiency may be by 

“strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families [of children and youth 

with disabilities] have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at 

school and at home” [20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(5)B)] and emphasizes that “parents and schools should be 

given expanded opportunities to resolve their disagreements in positive and constructive ways” [20 

U.S.C. § 1400(c)(8)]. This emphasis on the important role of parents extends to the Part C early 

intervention program as illustrated in the section of the law stating that Congress finds there is an 

urgent and substantial need “to enhance the capacity of families to meet the special needs of their 

infants and toddlers with disabilities” (20 U.S.C. § 1431). 

The emphasis on protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their parents is not new, nor is 

the emphasis on providing educators and parents the tools needed to improve the educational results 

of children with disabilities [P.L. 108-446 § 601(c) and § 601(d)]. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization 

strengthened existing federal regulations concerning procedural safeguards and continued the 

facilitation of less adversarial method of dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation, rather than 

engagement in procedures such as impartial due process hearings which tend to be time-consuming 

and costly and may cause further damage to the relationship between parents and school personnel 

(Yell 2006; The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s Law Clinic 2009). 

The chapter is comprised of two sections—one focusing on parent participation and a second 

focusing on dispute resolution. Each section follows a similar format, beginning with the important 

issues in the topic being discussed, federal support and guidance on the topic, federal technical 

assistance and monitoring related to the topic and a presentation of findings related to the topic. 

Exhibits in the chapter (Exhibit 5.1 through Exhibit 5.12) have fully sourced versions which appear in 

Appendix G as Exhibit G.1 through Exhibit G.12. Supplemental tables for the chapter are found in 

Appendix G as Exhibit G.13 through Exhibit G. 20. 

Promoting Parent Participation 

The 2004 IDEA legislation continues to promote parents’ participation in the education of their 

children and youth with disabilities. More than 30 years of research suggests that children perform 

better in school when their parents are involved in their education, including understanding their 

child’s needs, supporting their education and having the opportunity to participate in decisions 
affecting their child’s education, especially for parents of youth with disabilities (Cotton and 

Wikelund 2001). Studies report children and youth of parents who are involved in their education are 

more likely to have: higher academic achievement, greater participation in higher-level programs, 

better attendance, higher graduation rates, increased enrollment in postsecondary education, more 

positive attitudes towards school and better behavior in and out of school (Henderson and Mapp 

2002; Blank, Melaville and Shah 2003). In addition, research has demonstrated that the earlier this 

involvement takes place, the greater the benefits for the child and the family (Bailey et al. 1998; 

Dunst 2002). 

Research also suggests that family involvement in students’ education benefits students with 

disabilities. The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) produced the first compelling 

evidence for a relationship between parental involvement and student outcomes—youth with 

disabilities in grades 7 through 12 whose parents are more involved in their education miss fewer 

days of school and are less likely to fail courses than youth whose parents are less involved (Wagner 

et al. 1993). The second National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2) found that parents’ 

activities in support of their child’s education are positively correlated with achievement and other 

outcomes—youth whose families are more involved are closer to grade level in reading, tended to 

receive better grades, and have higher rates of involvement in organized groups with friends 

(Newman 2005). Blackorby et al. (2005) report similar findings for elementary school children. 

Parent participation includes becoming educated and being actively involved in the decision-making 

process for matters related to education and services children receive. Education for parents of 

children or youth with disabilities may focus on understanding the child’s disability, learning about 

IDEA or understanding their legal rights. The study team specifically focused on parent participation 

as it relates to the provision of training and education to assist parents in participating in and 

advocating for their child’s early intervention and education by working with early intervention, 

special education and related service providers. 

IDEA provides resources and mandates to increase communication between parents and the agencies 

providing early intervention, special education or related services while also supporting parent 

involvement in both the system and their child’s early intervention and education process. For 

example, IDEA legislation requires the participation of a parent or other responsible adult in a 

number of activities related to the education of their children with disabilities. Parents are members of 

the teams which develop individualized family service plans (IFSPs) for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families under the Part C program (20 U.S.C. § 1436(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. §303.343), 

or if their child is older, the team which develops the individualized education program (IEP) for 

children and youth with disabilities under the Part B program [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(B)]. The 

process of developing either the IFSP or IEP requires consideration of parent concerns [20 U.S.C. 

§1414(d)(3)(A) and § 1436(d)(2)]. Parents must be notified of the IFSP/IEP meeting with sufficient 

time to enable them to attend the meeting. IFSP/IEP meetings are to be scheduled at a mutually 

agreed upon time and in a mutually convenient location. 

Parents must be members of statewide advisory bodies under both Part C and Part B. IDEA Part C 

eligibility requires that the membership of the state interagency coordinating council (ICC) include 

parents of children with disabilities under age 12 (20 percent) and at least one parent of a child with 

disabilities age 6 or younger. To meet eligibility criteria for the Part B program, states are required to 

include parents of children with disabilities on their state advisory panels who, along with individuals 

106 
107 

with disabilities, are required to be the majority of the advisory panel [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(21)(B) 

and (C)]. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization built upon the requirement by specifying the advisory panel 

should include parents of children with disabilities ranging in age from birth through 26 years. 

IDEA requires that informed written consent be provided before the initial evaluation of the child for 

eligibility for special education and related services [20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)]. The Part C early 

intervention program requires that family-directed assessments be offered to families as part of the 

evaluation and assessment process. These assessments are to be designed to determine the resources, 

priorities and concerns of the family and to identify the supports and services necessary to enhance 

the family’s capacity to meet the developmental needs of their child [34 C.F.R. 303.322(d)]. Parents 

of infants and toddlers may accept or refuse specific services for their infant or toddler, self or another 

family member without losing the other early intervention services in the IFSP they want for their 

child or family [P.L. 108-446 § 639(a)(3)]. 

IDEA includes guidance, support and technical assistance to help parents achieve these goals. 

Specifically, there are two federally funded organizations which assist parents—the Parent Training 

and Information Centers (PTIC) and Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRC). Federal technical 

assistance is provided to states, districts and parents of children with disabilities through Parent 

Training and Information Centers (PTIs), Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs), and 

technical assistance centers including the regional technical assistance centers (RPTACs) and the 

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution (CADRE). The State Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (SPP/APR) monitors efforts to promote parent participation. 

Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) were initially funded in 1976; today, there is at least 

one PTI in every state. Each PTI provides training and information to address the needs of parents 

living its geographic service area, including, for example: helping parents understand their child’s or 

youth’s disability; educating parents about available services and programs; and supporting parental 

involvement in the decision-making regarding the education of their child (Technical Assistance 

Alliance for Parent Centers 2008). The PTIs provide advocacy, educational and training opportunities 

for parents with the goal of assisting parents of children and youth with disabilities to understand the 

IDEA procedural safeguards including the use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as 

mediation (P.L. 108-446 § 671). 

Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs), originally established in the 1990 reauthorization of 

IDEA (P.L. 103-336), are located in over 20 states with the specific purpose of meeting the needs of 

underrepresented parents—including low-income parents, parents of children with limited English 

proficiency and parents with disabilities. The goal of the CPRC is to provide parents with the 

information and training needed to participate effectively in helping their child with a disability. 

CPRCs focus on families who may be isolated from other sources of information and support (P.L. 

108-446 § 672). The nature and function of the CPRC has not changed from the 1997 reauthorization, 

with the exception of specifying the goal of helping the parent of a child with a disability meet 

academic achievement goals—a reflection of the increased emphasis the 2004 IDEA reauthorization 

placed on the quality and progress of the education and services children and youth with disabilities 

are receiving. 

In addition to the state centers, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funds one national 

center and six regional parent technical assistance (RPTAC) centers—all of which were first funded 
 

 

 

 

in 1984 (Pacer Center 2010). These seven centers are known as the Technical Assistance Alliance for 

Parent Centers (or the Alliance). The Alliance facilitates a unified technical assistance system to assist 

and coordinate PTIs and CPRCs in building their content knowledge and expertise in regular and 

special education laws, policies and practices (20 U.S.C. § 1473). Areas of technical assistance 

provided by the national and regional centers include: dissemination of scientifically based research 

and information; reaching underserved populations, including parents of low-income and limited 

English proficiency (LEP) children with disabilities; and promotion of alternative methods of dispute 

resolution, including mediation. 

In addition to the parent centers, OSEP funds the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in 

Special Education (CADRE), a national resource for dispute resolution in special education 

established in 1998 which “works to increase the nation’s capacity to effectively resolve special 

education disputes, reducing the use of expensive adversarial processes” (Center for Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution in Special Education [CADRE] 2010). More details about CADRE can be found 

later in this chapter. 

The 2004 IDEA reauthorization accountability mechanism is comprised of the State Performance 

Plan (SPP) and the Annual Performance Report (APR). The Part C early intervention program and the 

Part B special education program each have an APR indicator specifically related to monitoring 

parent involvement. The Part C program Indicator 447 requires reporting on the percentage of families 

participating in the Part C program who report that early intervention services have helped the family: 

(a) know their rights; (b) effectively communicate their children's needs; and (c) help their children 

develop and learn. The Part B Indicator 8 measures the percentage of parents with a child receiving 

special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of 

improving services and results for children with disabilities.48 

Findings on Activities to Promote Parent Participation 

Most States Provide Support to Provider Agencies and School Districts Focused on Parent 

Participation for Children and Youth with Disabilities 

States implement various strategies to support provider agencies and school districts to promote the 

participation of parents and families of children with IFSPs or IEPs. Across state early intervention 

and special education programs, the majority reported that the program provides workshops or 

professional development on increasing parent involvement to early intervention providers (31 

states), preschool-age special education staff (36 states), and LEAs (39 states) (Exhibit 5.1). In the 

majority of states, the program provides technical assistance related to promoting parent involvement 

to early intervention providers (28 states), preschool-age special education staff (35 states), and LEAs 

(46 states). Another common activity is the provision of written guidance related to parent 

involvement to early intervention providers (26 states), preschool-age program staff (14 states) and 

LEAs (24 states). 

47 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820-0578cmeataleexp113012.pdf for 

the full text of the Part C indicators. For the full text of Part B indicators, please see 

http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29-09.pdf. 

48	 For the full text of Part B indicators, please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2­

1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29-09.pdf. 

108 
109 

 

Exhibit 5.1: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool-Age Program Staff, and LEAs 

to Promote the Participation of Parents of Children and Youth with IFSPs/IEPs (Fiscal Year 

2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) 

Agency Supports 

Early Intervention 

Providers 

Preschool-Age 

Program Staff LEA Staff 

Yes Yes Yes 

N % N % N % 

Workshops or professional 

development on increasing 

parent involvement 

Technical assistance related 

to promoting parent 

involvement 

31 62.00 36 70.59 39 78.00 

28 56.00 35 68.63 46 92.00 

Written guidelines related to 

parent involvement 

Funds to provider agencies 

to help parents participate in 

IEP/IFSP meetings 

26 52.00 14 27.45 24 48.00 

21 42.00 8 15.69 9 18.00 

Other activity 5 10.00 9 17.65 7 14.00 

None of the above 7 14.00 3 5.88 2 4.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-two percent of Part C (or 31) programs provide workshops or professional development on 

increasing parental involvement to early intervention providers; 71 percent provide the workshops to preschool-age program 

staff; and 78 percent provide workshops to LEAs. 

For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, 

N = 50. 

The Majority of Early Intervention and Special Education Programs Collaborate with Parent 

Training and Information Centers (PTIs) 

All states have at least one federally funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) to provide 

training and information to parents of children with disabilities with the goal of helping them to 

become effective advocates (Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers 2009). PTIs provide 

resources (e.g., training, workshops, or written materials) to parents of children and youth with 

disabilities. The most common form of collaboration between PTIs and state early intervention 

programs (32 programs), preschool-age special education programs (38 programs) and special 

education programs (41 programs) is dissemination of information regarding each other’s services 

(Exhibit 5.2). 
Exhibit 5.2: Methods of Program Collaboration with Federally Funded Parent Training and 

Information Centers (PTIs) in States Aware of PTI in Their State (Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008– 

2009 School Year) 

State Early Preschool-Age 

Intervention Special Education Special Education 

Programs Programs Programs 

Yes Yes Yes 

N % N % N % 

In programs that reported awareness of a PTI in their state, types of collaboration between program and 

PTI: 

Dissemination of information regarding 32 72.73 38 77.55 41 80.39each other’s services 

Family/parent outreach efforts 27 61.36 21 42.86 3466.67 

Development of training/guidance 22 50.00 24 48.98 40 78.43 materials 

Development or delivery of professional 17 38.64 28 57.14 36 70.59 development 

Delivery of technical assistance 16 36.36 23 46.94 38 74.51 

Promotion of alternative dispute 6 13.64 12 24.49 28 54.90 resolution models 

Other activity 10 22.73 8 16.33 16 31.37 

None of the above 5 11.36 2 4.08 0 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Among Part C early intervention program coordinators who were aware of their state Parent Training and Information 

Center (PTI), 73 percent (32) collaborate on the dissemination of information regarding each other’s services. Among Part B preschool-age 

special education program coordinators who were aware of their state PTI, 78 percent (38) collaborated on the dissemination of information 

regarding each other’s services. Among Part B special education program coordinators who were aware of their state PTI, 80 percent (41) 

collaborate on the dissemination of information regarding each other’s services. 

For Part C respondents, N = 44; for Part B 619 respondents, N = 49; for Part B respondents, N = 51. 

More than Half of All School Districts Make Written Materials Available and Less than Half 

Offer Workshops or Discussion/Support Groups to Parents of Children and Youth with 

Disabilities 

At the local level, school districts use outreach activities and strategies to support parents and 

promote parent participation in their child’s education including making written materials available to 

parents and offering workshops or discussion/support groups on specific topics for parents of children 

and youth with disabilities (Exhibit 5.3). 

Common topics of the written materials for parents across districts include understanding IDEA and 

their legal rights (86 percent of districts); understanding their child’s disability (69 percent); 

assessment participation (67 percent); strategies for the transition from preschool to school (58 

percent); and using interventions for children with behavioral challenges (58 percent). Common 

topics of workshops or discussion/support groups provided to parents by districts are using 

interventions for children with behavioral challenges (38 percent of districts), workshops or 

discussion/support groups on understanding their children’s disabilities (37 percent of districts) and 

strategies to make a successful transition from preschool to school (34 percent). 

110 
111 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 5.3: Topics Addressed in District Offerings to Parents of Children and Youth with 

IFSPs/IEPs (2008–2009 School Year) 

Made Written 

Materials 

Available AND 

offered 

Workshops or 

Discussion/ 

Support Groups 

Offered 

Workshops or 

Discussion/ 

Support Groups 

Made Written 

Materials 

Available 

Topics % % % 

Understanding the law and their 

legal rights under IDEA 85.80 25.18 20.38 

Understanding their child’s disability 69.23 37.10 24.37 

Participating in state- or district-wide 

assessments 67.11 22.39 16.10 

Using strategies for making a 

successful transition from preschool 

to school 

58.38 34.11 23.95 

Using interventions for children with 

behavioral challenges 57.50 37.56 23.93 

Using alternate dispute resolution 

procedures 44.54 10.94 7.02 

Developing and implementing a 

standards-based IEP 42.43 17.89 10.84 

EXHIBIT READS: On the topic of understanding the law and their legal rights under IDEA, 86 percent of districts make 

written materials available, 25 percent offer workshops or discussion or support groups, and 20 percent do both. 

N = 1,140. 

Dispute Resolution 

Parents and children have rights and protections under federal IDEA law regarding the provision of 

early intervention services and special education and related services. Since 1975 when the Education 

for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) was first enacted, federal law has provided 

rights and protections for children and parents regarding special education and related services. The 

2004 IDEA reauthorization identifies a purpose of the law to give parents and schools “expanded 

opportunities to resolve their disagreements in positive and constructive ways” [20 U.S.C. § 

1400(c)(8)]. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization continues to protect the rights of children and youth with 

disabilities and their parents, and these are included throughout IDEA particularly in the sections 

related to Procedural Safeguards [20 U.S.C. § 1415 and 1439]. 

Disputes may arise from disagreements regarding the early intervention services and special 

education and related services designed for, or delivered to, children with disabilities. A dispute may 

involve any number of topics, including issues relating to the identification, evaluation, educational 

placement or provision of appropriate early intervention services or a free appropriate public 

education (FAPE). 
States have some latitude in the development of their dispute resolution system as the federal law 

defines the minimum requirements. The particular path a dispute takes from disagreement to 

resolution may vary due to whether the dispute is under Part C or Part B of IDEA, differences in state 

law or choices that disputants make. 

Both Parts C and B identify three mechanisms for dispute resolution: state complaints, due process 

hearings and mediation. First, a parent (or any other individual or organization) may file a written 

complaint with the state agency alleging a violation of IDEA and the state agency must issue a written 

decision, generally within 60 days. Second, a parent may request a due process hearing. IDEA 2004 

legislation added a resolution process when parents request a due process hearing, providing the 

parties an opportunity for a pre-hearing meeting to resolve the dispute. Under Part C, a state may 

choose to use its Part B procedures or use a more simplified Part C due process hearing procedure. 

Third, a parent may request mediation to resolve a dispute (independent and regardless of whether a 

state complaint or due process hearing request is filed). Regardless of which path a parent may take, 

the timelines for state complaints and due process hearings must be followed, unless a specific 

extension is granted. 

A much simplified flowchart illustrating the due process hearing and mediation procedures under Part 

B is shown in Exhibit 5.4. The exhibit illustrates various dispute resolution options along with some 

pathways that may be followed; however, the exhibit is a simplified representation of a process that is 

highly variable. For example, states and districts may differ on the particular steps taken to address a 

dispute; and states, districts and cases may differ on the particular order in which steps to address a 

dispute are taken. 

While IDEA specifies three dispute resolution procedures, there are many paths that a parent may 

follow when faced with a disagreement, and local programs or school districts and parents may begin 

with a less adversarial strategy such as a conversation outside of the IFSP or IEP meeting or bringing 

a facilitator to an IFSP or IEP meeting to discuss the disputed issues. If these discussions do not result 

in an agreement, then the issue may move to procedures such as mediation or a request for a due 

process hearing. There is not a prescribed or predictable order in which these strategies and 

procedures occur but, in general, parents and providers or schools tend to use less adversarial 

strategies including mediation to resolve disagreements before moving to procedures such as due 

process hearings (U. S. General Accounting Office 2003). 

112 
113 

 

 

 

Exhibit 5.4: Illustration of How ADR, Mediation, and Due Process Hearings May Interact in 

Resolving Disputes 

Parent-School Dispute 

Mediation 

Request due 

process 

hearing 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Resolution 

meeting 

Waive resolution 

meeting 

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs) 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Due process hearing 

Adapted from Mediation and Resolution Session Flow Chart, in Preparing for Special Education Mediation 

and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families and Advocates. The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s 

Law Clinic at Duke University School of Law (November 2009). 

Congress added mediation in 1997 and resolution meetings in 2004, thus encouraging use of less 

adversarial methods of dispute resolution rather than procedures such as due process hearings, which 

tend to be time consuming and costly and may damage relationships between parents and school 

personnel. 

Since 1986, IDEA legislation has included dispute resolution procedures related to infants and 

toddlers with disabilities and their families who are receiving early intervention services through the 

Part C early intervention program (20 U.S.C. § 1439). Part C program state lead agencies are 

permitted either to follow Part C program mediation and due process procedures or to adopt 

applicable Part B due process hearing and mediation procedures (34 C.F.R. § 303.420). 

Part C includes separate provisions for the “timely administrative resolution of complaints by 

parents” [P.L. 108-446 § 639 (a)(1)]. The rights provided to infants and toddlers and their parents 

include: confidentiality; acceptance or declination of any service without jeopardizing other early 

intervention services; access to records related to assessment, screening, eligibility determinations and 

the development and implementation of the IFSP; the assignment of a surrogate for the parent in 
 

cases when the parents are not known or cannot be found or the infant or toddler is a ward of the 

state; written prior notice to parents, in their native language when possible, of proposals, changes, or 

refusals to initiate actions related to identification, evaluation, placement or provision of appropriate 

early intervention services; and use of mediation [P.L. 108-446 § 639(a)]. 

The procedural safeguards established for children and youth receiving services under Part B special 

education are “to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural 

safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education” [20 U.S.C. § 1415(a)]. 

Included are: the opportunity to review all records relating to their child and to participate in meetings 

regarding identification, evaluation and educational placement of the child; the opportunity to obtain 

an independent educational evaluation of their child; protections of the rights of the child when the 

parents are not known, including the assignment of a surrogate; receipt of written notice in the 

parents’ native language of proposals, including refusals, related to the initiation or change of the 

identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child; and specific dispute resolution 

procedures including due process hearings and mediation [20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)]. 

Specific dispute resolution procedures under Part B for children and youth with disabilities and their 

parents are also described in the 2004 IDEA legislation (20 U.S.C. § 1415) and its implementing 

regulations. Key changes and additional refinements to the existing statutes brought by the 2004 

IDEA Part B legislation regarding due process procedures are specific to the procedure and addressed 

in the next section with the definition of the procedure. 

Specific Strategies to Resolve Disagreements in State Systems Meeting IDEA Part B Federal 

Requirements 

This section describes the various strategies that may be used to resolve disagreements. Dispute 

resolution procedures such as due process hearings and potential resulting litigation can become very 

adversarial and damage relationships between parents and school districts (Reiman et al. 2007, 

Mueller 2009). In addition, they can be very costly and time-consuming. Costs increase as more 

adversarial procedures are required; for example, one source reported that that the average costs for 

mediation and due process cases were between $8,000 and $12,000 per case, compared with $95,000 

per case for litigation (Daggett 2004). In addition, the average time period from filing for a due 

process hearing to adjudication is estimated at about four months, but some cases that go on to be 

appealed through the civil court system can take years (Crabtree n.d.). 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies 

A diverse range of early conflict resolution strategies are used to resolve disputes or conflicts between 

parents and early intervention or school personnel (Henderson 2008). Sometimes referred to as 

“alternative dispute resolution strategies” (ADRs), they are both preventative and responsive in nature 

(Reiman et al. 2007). An ADR may be any process used to resolve a dispute outside of the courtroom. 

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA encourages two specific ADR methods: mediation under Parts B 

and C and resolution meetings under Part B, which are discussed separately. The specific ADRs 

offered by an LEA or state lead agency will vary, but mediation is always available. If Part B due 

process hearing procedures are used then resolution meetings must be available once a due process 

hearing is requested. 

114 
115 

Parents and schools involved in ADR may develop stronger communication and relationships in 

addition to addressing their disagreement. Parent and teacher education and training related to 

problem-solving and conflict resolution may lead to enhanced capacity to resolve disagreements. The 

goal is to resolve the issue in a less adversarial and collaborative manner. Examples of ADRs include: 

parent-to-parent assistance, facilitated IEP meetings where a neutral third party facilitates the IEP 

meeting (Pagano 2008), or conciliation in which a neutral third party might participate in telephone 

calls and meetings with each party over a period of time to work out a mutually acceptable resolution 

(Beekman 2000). 

Mediation. Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process that is used to allow parents, early 

intervention and special education providers and school district personnel to resolve disputes in a 

forum less adversarial and contentious than a due process hearing (34 C.F.R. § 300.506). Initially 

adopted by a few states in 1975, Congress added formal mediation in the 1997 IDEA reauthorization 

in recognition of the need for additional and less adversarial dispute resolution approaches to resolve 

differences between parents and agencies. Mediation involves a trained, impartial professional who 

facilitates discussions and communication between parents and early intervention or school personnel 

in efforts to identify concerns, clarify positions, and generally help the parties to express and 

understand each other’s views. The goal of the mediation is to reach a mutually agreed-upon solution 

which best serves the educational needs of the child. The end result of a successful mediation is a 

legally binding mediation agreement. IDEA 2004 added a requirement that the mediation agreement 

is enforceable in state or district court [20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(F) and § 1439(a)(8)]. Another change 

in the 2004 IDEA legislation is that mediation is to be available to resolve any special education 

dispute, not just those in which a hearing is requested as was the case in the 1997 IDEA law. 

Resolution Meeting. Resolution meetings are a new dispute process procedure added in the 2004 

reauthorization of IDEA Part B. A resolution meeting gives parents and the school district a chance to 

work together to avoid a due process hearing. Upon the request for a Part B program due process 

hearing, the 2004 IDEA legislation requires school districts to hold a resolution meeting with the 

parents, relevant members of the IEP team (e.g., special education teacher, classroom teacher) and a 

representative of the school district authorized to make decisions (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(B); 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.510). The purpose of the meeting is for the parents to discuss the due process complaint and 

supporting facts so that the LEA has the opportunity to resolve the dispute. The mandatory resolution 

meeting must be held within 15 days of the time that a parent files a due process complaint and prior 

to the initiation of a due process hearing. A resolution meeting may be waived if both the parents and 

the school district agree in writing or if they engage in mediation. School districts may not bring an 

attorney unless the parents bring one. If a written settlement agreement is reached in the resolution 

meeting it may be voided by a party within three business days [20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(1)(B)(iv)]. The 

time sensitive requirements of the resolution meeting and other formal procedural safeguards are 

intended to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible to avoid adversely affecting a child’s 

educational program by unnecessary delays (Pagano 2008). Resolution meetings, unlike mediations, 

are not confidential. 

Due Process Hearing 

Parents and agencies (under certain circumstances) have the option to request a due process hearing, 

the most adversarial of the due process procedures [20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and § 1415(f)]. A due 

process hearing is an administrative hearing with a focus on evaluating and resolving the dispute. 
 

 

Part B special education program due process hearings are quasi-legal procedures in which parents 

and school personnel present arguments and evidence to an impartial hearing officer (34 C.F.R. 

§300.511). Only issues raised in the filed due process complaint may be addressed in the hearing 

without agreement by both parties [20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(3)(B)]. The due process hearing must be 

requested within two years of the date when “the parent or agency knew or should have known about 

the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint” [20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(3)(C)]. There are two 

exceptions to the timeline: (1) the LEA specifically misrepresents resolution of the problem or (2) the 

LEA withholds information from the parent required by law to be provided to the parent [20 U.S.C. § 

1415 (f)(3)(D)]. The person(s) who hears the argument cannot be employed by the public agency that 

is involved in the education or care of the child or have a conflict of interest in the case [20 U.S.C. § 

1415 (f)(3)(A)]. The hearing officer must possess knowledge of IDEA and standard legal practice 

related to hearings and must be able to render and write appropriate decisions in accordance with 

standard legal practice [20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(A)]. Hearing decisions may be appealed in an impartial 

review by the SEA if the hearing is conducted by the LEA or by the court [20 U.S.C. § 1415 (g) and 

(i)]. In due process hearings, attorneys often represent the parents and the school district, which can 

make them very costly to the parents as well as the school district or state (Office of Special 

Education Programs 2006). 

IDEA Part B identifies a number of due process hearing rights, including, for example, the right of 

each party to present evidence and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The hearing officer 

makes a determination based on substantive grounds of whether the child received FAPE (34 C.F.R. 

300.513). A final due process decision must be issued within 45 days of the expiration of the 30-day 

resolution period or within the adjusted time periods described in 34 C.F.R. §300.510(c). The 

timeline may be extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. Requests for due 

process hearings may also be withdrawn if a resolution or settlement is reached prior to the date of the 

hearing (Office of Special Education Programs 2006). 

The 2004 IDEA Part B legislation made two important changes regarding due process hearings. First, 

the 2004 IDEA reauthorization requires a resolution meeting—or preliminary meeting—unless the 

parents and the school district waive the meeting or agree to mediation [20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)]. 

Second, there are now timeframes for specific actions related to the due process hearing—for 

example, if a written settlement agreement is reached in the resolution meeting it may be voided by a 

party within three business days [20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(1)(B)(iv)]. 

Expedited Due Process Hearing 

Expedited due process hearings may be requested by parents or school districts on the placement or 

disciplinary decision regarding a child or youth with a disability served under IDEA Part B (34 

C.F.R. § 300.532). The expedited due process hearing is similar to a due process hearing but on a 

shorter timeframe. Parents may request expedited hearings for disagreements regarding a change in 

placement for a child or youth who violates a code of student conduct or the results of a manifestation 

determination (e.g., decision as to whether the child or youth’s misconduct was a manifestation of the 

student’s disability). Under IDEA, school districts can also request an expedited due process hearing 

if they believe that the current placement of the student is substantially likely to result in injury to the 

child or youth or others (34 C.F.R. § 300.532). If an expedited due process hearing is requested, the 

hearing must occur within 20 school days of the request being filed, with the hearing officer making a 

determination within 10 school days after the hearing [34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)]. 

116 
 

 

 

 

117 

 

 

Signed Written Complaints to States 

In addition to having the option to request a due process hearing, parents and other individuals or 

organizations also have the right to file a signed written complaint that alleges that a public or private 

agency has violated a requirement of IDEA (34 C.F.R. § 300.151-153 and 34 C.F.R. § 303.510-512). 

Signed written complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged violation (34 C.F.R. § 

300.153). Under Part B and C, the responsible agency (Part C program lead agency or SEA) is 

required to conduct an investigation, if the state agency determines that an investigation is necessary; 

review all relevant information; and issue a letter of findings within 60 days of the signed written 

complaint being received unless exceptional circumstances exist [34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) and (b) and 

§ 303.512(a)]. If the issue(s) contained in the signed written complaint is also the subject of a due 

process hearing, the part of the signed written complaint that is being addressed in the hearing is set 

aside until the due process hearing has been completed [34 C.F.R. § 300.152 and § 303.512(c)]. 

OSEP funds the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), which 

operates as the National Center on Dispute Resolution in the United States. CADRE supports the 50 

states, Bureau of Indian Affairs and other U.S.-affiliated entities in the use of conflict resolution 

options. CADRE works with state and local agencies providing early intervention or special 

education services as well as parent centers, families and educators with the goals of increasing 

collaboration between families and providers and the use of less adversarial processes. These goals 

are supported by activities including: maintenance of an on-line national resource related to dispute 

resolution, provision of customized training, and support of peer-to-peer dialogue (CADRE n.d.). 

The SPP and APR, discussed earlier, continue to require the collection and reporting of state data on 

the implementation of these dispute resolution procedures. The Part C early intervention program, as 

well as the Part B special education program, have four indicators related to these dispute resolution 

procedures: (1) percentage of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 

the applicable timeline (Indicator 10 and Indicator 16 respectively); (2) percentage of due process 

hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the applicable timeline (Indicator 11 and Indicator 

17 respectively); (3) percentage of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved 

through resolution session settlement agreements (Indicator 12 under Part C which is applicable if 

Part B due process procedures are adopted and Indicator 18 respectively); and (4) percentage of 

mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements (Indicator 13 and Indicator 19 respectively; 20 

U.S.C. § 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442).49 

Findings on Implementing Dispute Resolution Procedures 

The Majority of Part C Early Intervention Programs Use Part C Program Regulations to 

Resolve Disputes 

The state Part C early intervention and Part B special education programs must implement a statewide 

mechanism through which disputes are resolved (P.L. 108-446 § 615). State Part C programs may 

choose to use a state system designed to meet federal regulations regarding procedural safeguards for 

their Part C program or to use a state system designed to meet the federal requirements regarding 

49 Please see http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820-0578cmeataleexp113012.pdf for 

the full text of the Part C indicators. For the full text of Part B indicators, please see 

http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29-09.pdf. 
procedural safeguards for the Part B program. Most state Part C programs (34 states or 67 percent) 

report using Part C program-specific regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention 

matters (Exhibit 5.5). Seventeen Part C programs report that their regulations are adopted or modified 

from the state system designed to meet federal requirements for the Part B program. Most Part C 

programs led by a department of health/human services use their own regulations (29 states or 78 

percent, Exhibit 5.6). In contrast, most Part C programs with a department of education as the lead 

agency adopted the regulations used in the Part B program (6 states or 55 percent). 

Exhibit 5.5: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention (Fiscal Year 2008) 

Yes 

Source of Regulations for Part C Programs N % 

Its own regulations 

Regulations either adopted or modified from the Part B special education 

program 

Total 

34 

17

51

66.67 

33.33 

100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-seven percent of Part C programs (34) use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to 

early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities. 

N = 51. 

Exhibit 5.6: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention by Lead Agency Type (Fiscal Year 2008) 

Source of Regulations for Part 

C Program 

Department of 

Health/Human 

Services 

(n = 37) 

Department of 

Education 

(n = 11) 

Co-Led Agencies 

(n = 2) 

N % N % N % 

Its own regulations 

Regulations adopted from Part B 

special education program 

Regulations modified from Part B 

special education program 

29 78.38 

4 10.81 

4 10.81 

4 36.36 

6 54.55 

1 9.09 

0 0.00 

2 100.00 

0 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-eight percent of Part C early intervention programs led by a state health/human services agency 

use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. Thirty-six percent of Part C programs led 

by an SEA use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. Two Part C programs co-led 

by a health/human services and an education agency use regulations adopted from the state Part B special education program 

to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. 

N = 50. One Part C program coordinator did not provide the name of the Part C program lead agency in one state, which was 

reported to use its own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. 

The IDEA-NAIS uses data collected by CADRE and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) on the 

number of dispute resolution events for state early intervention and special education programs. In 

this section we report the number of dispute resolution events for infants and toddlers age birth 

through 2 (Part C program) and children and youth ages 3 through 21 years (Part B program). 

118 
119 

 

Overall, dispute resolution events were reported by some Part C early intervention and Part B special 

education programs during 2008 (fiscal year 2008 and the 2007–2008 school year respectively).50 

Twenty-nine Part C state programs and two Part B state programs reported that they did not hold any 

dispute resolution events (Exhibit 5.7). 

Exhibit 5.7: Number of State Programs Reporting No Dispute Events for Part C Early 

Intervention and Part B Special Education Programs during Fiscal Year 2008 or the 2007–2008 

School Year 

Part C Programs Part B Programs 

States 29 2

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-nine Part C programs reported no dispute resolution events for fiscal year 2008. Two Part B 

programs reported no dispute events for the 2007–2008 school year. 

For Part C, N = 45; for Part B, N = 46. 

In the sections that follow, the study team presents a comprehensive picture of the total number of 

dispute resolution events and number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 infants and toddlers 

with disabilities or children and youth with disabilities for a five-year period spanning 2003 through 

2008.51 Data from Washington D.C. are not included in the summary tables because the data were 

unlikely enough to be considered outliers. Results for the 50 states and Washington D.C. can be found 

in Appendix G (Exhibits G.15 and G.16). 

There were seven or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 infants and toddlers 

receiving services under the Part C early intervention program for the 2003–2004 through 

2007–2008 school years. The IDEA-NAIS uses data from CADRE and the Data Accountability 

Center on the number of dispute resolution events for a five-year period spanning 2003 through 2008. 

The number of dispute resolution events and number of disputes per 10,000 infants and toddlers 

receiving services through the Part C program are presented in Exhibit 5.8. 

50	 Part C data from IDEA-NAIS are for the fiscal year while Part C data from CADRE or DAC are for school 

years. 

51	 Results are from APR/SPP data that are publicly available from CADRE for the school years of 2003–2004 

to 2005–2006 and from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) for school years 2006–2007 and 2007– 

2008. The IDEA-NAIS collected counts of dispute resolution events for fiscal year 2007 (Part C programs) 

and the 2007–2008 school year (Part B programs) which are presented in Appendix Exhibits G.17 and G.18 

and Exhibits G.19 and G.20 respectively. The IDEA-NAIS used the dispute resolution procedure 

terminology from the Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act 1997 (SLIIDEA) conducted by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of 

Education in 2006. The CADRE and DAC data are based on the APR/SPP reporting requirements and use 

slightly different terms than those used in SLIIDEA and IDEA-NAIS. Appendix F describes the 

congruence between different data sources on the incidence of dispute resolution events and includes a 

crosswalk of terminology 
120 

Exhibit 5.8: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Infants anDisabilities Receiving Services under Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution M

through 2007–2008 School Years) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

To

eve

Signed written complaints 173 6.37 171 6.09 172 5.84 162 6.07 18

Due process hearings requested 186 6.85 200 7.13 135 5.07 110 4.12 1

Due process hearings completed 13 0.48 24 0.85 17 0.64 14 0.52 

Resolution meetings held — — 1 0.21 0 0.00 2 0.58 

Mediations held 48 1.77 57 2.03 70 2.38 75 2.81 8

EXHIBIT READS: In the 2003–2004 school year, the Part C early intervention programs of the 50 states had 173 signed written complaints filed, or 6

complaints per 10,000 infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services. For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004–2005, N = 50. For 2005–2006, for signed written complaints and mediations held, N = 50; for due process hearings requested, N = 48; for due process hearings comp

meetings, N = 45. For 2006–2007, for signed written complaints, due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations held, N = 49; for resolFor 2007–2008, for due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 49; for signed written complaints, N = 49; foN = 13.
The number of requests for due process hearings exceeded the number of due process hearings 

completed under Part C. For the Part C early intervention program, the frequency of due process 

hearing requests was higher than the frequency of dispute resolution hearings that were completed 

across each year from 2003–2004 through 2007–2008. For example, in 2003–2004 there were 6.85 

hearings requested and 0.48 hearings completed per 10,000 infants and toddlers served. These data 

suggest that the majority of hearing requests do not result in an actual hearing. 

From 2003–2004 to 2007–2008, there was an increase in mediations conducted and a decrease in 

due process hearings requested under Part C. The number of mediations conducted for each 

10,000 infants and toddlers served grew from 1.77 in 2003–2004 to 2.62 in 2007–2008, a relative 

increase of over 50 percent. Across the same years, the number of due process hearing requests for 

each 10,000 infants and toddlers served decreased by almost half from 6.85 to 3.51. 

There were 23 or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 preschool- and school-age 

children and youth served for the 2003–2004 through 2007–2008 school years. The number of 

dispute resolution events and number of disputes per 10,000 individuals receiving services through 

Part B programs are presented in Exhibit 5.9. 

The number of requests for due process hearings far exceeded the number of due process 

hearings completed under Part B. Similar to the Part C program, across each year from 2003–2004 

through 2007–2008, the number of requests for due process hearings exceeded the number of due 

process hearings completed. For example, there were 21.74 hearing requests per 10,000 preschooland school-age children served in 2003–2004 and 3.36 hearings completed per 10,000 preschool- and 

school-age children served in 2003–2004. These data suggest that the majority of hearing requests do 

not result in an actual hearing. 

From 2003–2004 to 2007–2008, there was a decrease in due process hearings completed under 

Part B. For preschool- and school-age children, the frequency of most types of dispute resolution 

events remained relatively stable from the 2003–2004 through the 2007–2008 school year, with the 

exception of due process hearings (Exhibit 5.10). While the frequency of due process hearing requests 

remained relatively stable (22 requests per 10,000 children and youth served in 2003–2004 to 21 

requests per 10,000 children and youth served in 2007–2008), the number of due process hearings 

completed for each 10,000 children and youth served decreased by more than half, from 3.36 in 

2003–2004 to 1.61 in 2007–2008. 

121 
122 

Exhibit 5.9: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Children and YoutReceiving Services under Part B in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Event (2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Year

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 20

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Events 

per 10,000 

served 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Total 

events 

Signed written complaints 5916 8.94 6094 9.09 5798 8.65 5220 8.11 5497 

Due process hearings 

requested 

14392 21.74 15496 23.12 14583 21.77 13828 20.71 13894 

Due process hearings 

completed 

2223 3.36 2215 3.30 1718 2.56 1370 2.05 1064 

Resolution meetings held — — — — 3678 5.49 9073 13.65 8090 

Mediations held 5924 8.95 6382 9.52 3651 6.06 5377 8.05 4989 

EXHIBIT READS: In the 2003–2004 school year 5,916 signed written complaints were filed for preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities signed written complaints were filed per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth served under preschool-age and school-age Part B programs in th

For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004–2005, N = 50. For 2005–2006, N = 50 except for mediations held, N = 49. For 2006–2007, for due process hearings, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 50; for signed written complaints and resolution meetings, N = 4

For 2007–2008, N = 50.
 

 

Topics of Disputes 

Disagreements between parents of children and youth with disabilities and service providers can 

occur for a variety of reasons. Below, the issues identified as part of dispute resolution events are 

presented for the three key dispute resolution procedures that are included in the SLIIDEA, the 

IDEA-NAIS and the SPP/APR data: (1) due process hearings requested (early intervention); (2) due 

process hearings completed (special education); and (3) mediations held (early intervention and 

special education). Since topic data are not required in the SPP/APR, this section contains data from 

the SLIIDEA and the IDEA-NAIS. 

Early Intervention Services as Set Forth in the IFSP Is the Most Common Reason for Due 

Process Hearing Requests and Mediations in Part C Programs in Fiscal Year 2008 

The topics involved in Part C early intervention program disputes were not included in SLIIDEA, so 

information on the topics involved in Part C program disputes is only available for fiscal year 2008. 

This information is available for the eight Part C programs that reported on topics involved in due 

process hearing requests and the ten Part C programs that reported on topics involved in mediations. 

The most common reason for both dispute resolution events is early intervention services as set forth 

in the IFSP (Exhibit 5.10). Fifty-two percent of due process hearing requests and 71 percent of 

mediations in fiscal year 2008 involved this topic. 

Exhibit 5.10: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) 

Due Process 

Hearings 

Requested 

Mediations 

Held 

% % 

Early intervention services, as set forth in the IFSP 51.72 70.83 

Environment/setting 0.00 8.33 

Family cost, including the use of private insurance 3.45 8.33 

Evaluation for early intervention services 0.00 4.17 

Transition 0.00 4.17 

Eligibility for early intervention services 3.45 0.00 

Procedural safeguards 3.45 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from eight Part C early intervention programs that reported on the topics of due process 

hearings requested indicated that 52 percent of due process hearings requested concerned the issue of early intervention 

services as set forth in the IFSP. For the ten Part C programs that reported on the topics of mediations held, the results 

indicate that 71 percent of mediations held concerned the issue of early intervention services, as set forth in the IFSP. 

For due process hearings requested, N = 8. 

For mediations held, N = 10. 

123 
124 

 

 

Educational Placement and Student’s Educational Program as Set Forth in the IEP Are the 

Two Most Common Topics for Due Process Hearings Completed and Mediations in Special 

Education Programs in the 2003–2004 and the 2007–2008 School Years 

The two most common topics for disagreements for children and youth receiving services in the Part 

B special education program across both dispute resolution procedures in the 2003–2004 and the 

2007–2008 school years are educational placement and educational program (i.e., goals, objectives, 

services, supports) as set forth in the IEP (Exhibit 5.12). 

As reported earlier, from the 2003–2004 through the 2007–2008 school years, the frequency of due 

process hearings completed decreased (Exhibit 5.10). The percentage of due process hearings 

completed that concerned any one topic increased over the same period (Exhibit 5.11). For example, 

the child’s educational placement was a topic in 31 percent of due process hearings completed in the 

2003–2004 school year and 49 percent of due process hearings completed in the 2007–2008 school 

year. 

Exhibit 5.11: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving Services 

under Part B Programs by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School Year) 

Due Process Hearings 

Completed Mediations Held 

2003–2004 2007–2008 2003–2004 2007–2008 

% % % % 

Educational placement 30.83 49.32 35.34 38.72 

Student’s educational program, as set forth in the 

IEP 

27.85 49.32 30.37 36.66 

Related services 7.77 27.56 15.68 17.47 

Eligibility of students for special education services 5.24 16.55 12.05 6.36 

Evaluation of students for special education 

services 

11.62 31.91 12.26 20.24 

Tuition reimbursement 13.36 23.89 5.17 9.80 

Discipline 2.56 12.12 5.46 8.16 

Procedural safeguards 3.58 11.95 4.19 2.99 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from 42 SEAs that reported on topics of due process hearings completed indicate that in 

the 2003–2004 school year, 31 percent of due process hearings completed concerned the issue of educational placement. 

SEAs that reported on the topic of due process hearings completed in the 2007–2008 school year indicated 49 percent 

concerned educational placement. Survey results from 37 SEAs that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that 

in the 2003–2004 school year, 35 percent of mediations held concerned the issue of educational placement. Survey results 

from 36 SEAs that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that in the 2007–2008 school year, 39 percent of 

mediations held concerned the issue of educational placement. 

For due process hearings completed in 2003–2004, N = 42; in 2007–2008, N = 34. 

For mediations held in 2003–2004, N = 37; in 2007–2008, N = 36. 

The percentage of due process hearings completed that concerned students’ educational program as 

set forth in the IEP, related services, eligibility for special education services and each of the 

remaining topics shown in Exhibit 5.12 also increased from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008. The largest 

increases in due process hearings completed for specific topics include: the child’s educational 
125 

program as set forth in the IEP (a 22 percentage point increase), related services (a 20 percentage 

point increase), evaluation of students for special education services (a 20 percentage point increase) 

and educational placement (a 19 percentage point increase). These increases may indicate an increase 

in the complexity of the due process hearings completed and/or in the reporting procedures for topics. 

The SLIIDEA and IDEA-NAIS data collection allowed agencies to report multiple topics for each 

dispute resolution event so it is possible that the total number of topics for each event increased as the 

disputes became more complicated over time and concerned more issues. 

Summary 

The chapter focused on two closely related areas: (1) state and local efforts to promote parent 

participation and (2) dispute resolution procedures used to resolve disagreements between parents of 

children with disabilities and provider agencies and educators. 

Across state early intervention and special education programs, the majority reported that the program 

provides workshops/professional development or technical assistance to early intervention providers 

(31 and 28 states respectively), preschool-age special education staff (36 and 35 states), and LEAs 

related to promoting and/or increasing parent participation (39 and 46 states). Most programs also 

collaborate with the federally funded PTIs to disseminate information regarding each other’s services 

(32 state early intervention programs, 38 preschool-age special education programs, and 41 special 

education programs). Most Part C early intervention programs (34 programs) reported using Part C 

program regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention matters. Twelve Part C programs 

reported that their dispute regulations are adopted from Part B programs and five Part C programs 

reported that they use regulations that have been modified from the Part B program regulations. 

Twenty-nine Part C early intervention programs reported that they did not conduct any dispute 

resolution procedures in fiscal year 2008. From 2003–2004 through 2007–2008 annually, there were 

seven or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 infants and toddlers receiving services 

under the Part C early intervention program. The frequency of due process hearing requests was 

higher than the frequency of dispute resolution hearings that were completed across each of these 

years. These data suggest that the majority of hearing requests do not result in an actual hearing. 

Across these years, there was an increase in mediations and a decrease in due process hearing 

requests. 

There were 23 or fewer dispute resolution events for every 10,000 children and youth served in 

special education for the 2003–2004 through 2007–2008 school years. Similar to the Part C program, 

across these years, the number of requests for due process hearings exceeded the number of due 

process hearings completed. These data again suggest that the majority of hearing requests do not 

result in an actual hearing. While the frequency of due process hearing requests remained relatively 

stable, the number of due process hearing completed for each 10,000 children and youth served 

decreased by more than half from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008. 

Early intervention services as set forth in the IFSP is the most common reason for dispute resolution 

procedures reported in the Part C early intervention program. Fifty-two percent of due process 

hearing requests and 71 percent of mediations held in fiscal year 2008 concerned this topic. 

Educational placement and educational program (i.e., goals, objectives, services, supports) as set forth 
126 

in the IEP are the two most common topics of disagreement between parents of children and youth 

with disabilities receiving services in the Part B special education program across dispute resolution 

procedures in the 2003–2004 and the 2007–2008 school years (due process hearings completed and 

mediations held). 
References 

Ahearn, E. (2006). Standards-based IEPs: Implementation in Selected States. Arlington, VA: 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. 

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (2007). Alaska Special Education 

Handbook. Retrieved March 2010 from http:/www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/sped/Handbook.html. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5. 

Bailey, D., McWilliams, R., Darkes, L., Hebbeler, L., Simeonsson, R., Spiker, D., and Wagner, M. 

(1998). Family Outcomes in Early Intervention: A Framework for Program Evaluation and 

Efficiency Research. Exceptional Children, 64, 313–328. 

Beekman, L. (2000). Mediation and Options to Resolve Problems Underlying Disputes. Handout 

from a presentation delivered at the ALLIANCE National Conference in Washington, D.C., 

January 2000. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from 

http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/beekmn.cfm. 

Bender, W.N., and Shores, C. (2007). Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Council for Exceptional Children and Corwin Press. 

Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False-Discovery Rate: A Practical and 

Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society, Series B 

(Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. 

Blackorby, J., Schiller, E., Mallik, S., Hebbeler, K., Huang, T., Javitz, H., Marder, C., Nagle, K., 

Shaver D., Wagner, M., and Williamson, C. (2010). Patterns in the Identification of and 

Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NCEE 2010-4005). Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, E., Levine, P., Newman, L., Marder, C., and Sumi, 

C. (2005). Engagement, Academics, Social Adjustment and Independence: The Achievements 

of Elementary and Middle School Students with Disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI 

International. 

Blank, M.J., Melaville, A., and Shah, B.P. (2003). Making the Difference: Research and Practice in 

Community Schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for 

Educational Leadership. 

Bollmer, J., Bethel, J., Garrison-Mogren, R., and Brauen, M. (2007). Using the Risk Ratio to Assess 

Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education at the School-District Level. The 

Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 186–198. 

Burdette, P. (2007). State Definitions of Significant Disproportionality. Alexandria, VA: Project 

Forum at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. 

127 
 

128 

 

 

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). (n.d.) Brochure. 

Retrieved January 26, 2010 from http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/cadrebrochure.cfm. 

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). (2010) About CADRE. 

Retrieved January 26, 2010 from http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/about.cfm. 

Cotton, K. and Wikelund, K. (2001). Parent Involvement in Education. NWREL School Improvement 

Research Series 6. 

Crabtree, R.K. (n.d.). Due Process Hearings. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from 

http:/school.familyeducation.com/special-education/ada/38427.html?detoured=1. 

Daggett, L.M. (2004). Special Education Attorney’s Fees: Of Buckhannon, the IDEA Reauthorization 

Bills, and the IDEA as Civil Rights Statute. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 8, 

1–53. 

Dunst, C.J. (2002). Family-Centered Practices: Birth through High School. Journal of Special 

Education, 36(3), 139–147. 

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Pub. L. No. 94-142. 

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. Pub. L. No. 99-457. 

Educational Testing Service. (2009). Understanding your PraxisTM Scores (2009-2010). Retrieved 

March 1, 2010 from http:/www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/uyps_web.pdf. 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 200 et seq. 

Elliott, J., and Morrison, D. (2008). Response to Intervention Blueprints: District Level Edition. 

Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. 

Fiore, T.A., Daley, T.C., Lee, H., Carlson, E., Munk, T.E., O’Reilly, F., Price, C., and McLaughlin, 

M.J. (2007). Design of the National Assessment of Progress under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act: Final Report of Design Options. Rockville, MD: 

Westat. 

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., and Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: 

Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. Learning 

Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171. 

Good Start, Grow Smart Interagency Workgroup (2006). Good Start, Grow Smart: A Guide to Good 

Start, Grow Smart and Other Federal Early Learning Initiatives. Washington, DC: U. S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Child Care Bureau. Retrieved August 14, 2009, 

from http:/www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/initiatives/gsgs/fedpubs/interagency1.htm. 

H.R. Rep. No. 99-860, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1986). 
 

Harbin, G.L., and van Horn, J. (1991). Elements for Inclusion in Interagency Agreements. Policy 

Alert (P.L. 99-457 Part H). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Carolina Policy 

Studies Program. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from 

www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/intercoord/ElementsforIncl.pdf. 

Harr-Robins, J.J., Shambaugh, L.S., and Parrish, T. (2009). The Status of State-Level Response to 

Intervention Policies and Procedures in the West Region States and Five Other States (Issues 

& Answers Report) (REL 2009–No. 077). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from 

http:/ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=175. 

Hebbeler, K., Smith, B.J., and Black, T. (1991). Federal Early Childhood Special Education Policy: A 

Model for the Improvement of Services for Children with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 

58(2), 104–112. 

Henderson, A., and Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family and 

Community Connections on Student Achievement. Austin, Texas: National Center of Family 

& Community Connections with Schools: Southwest Educational Development Lab. 

Henderson, K. (2008). Optional IDEA Alternative Dispute Resolution. inForum. Alexandria, VA: 

Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). 

Hoover, J.J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E., and Saenz, L. (2008). National Implementation of Response 

to Intervention (RTI) Research Summary. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from 

http:/www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/NationalImplementationofRTI-ResearchSummary.pdf. 

Improving America’s School Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–327. 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 

2647, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq. 

Küpper, L., and Rebhorn, T. (2007). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Training Curriculum. Module 

2: Overview of Key Changes in IDEA 2004. Washington D.C.: National Dissemination 

Center for Children with Disabilities. 

Lazara, A., Danaher, J., Kraus, R., and Goode, S. (Eds.) (2009, revised April). Section 619 Profile 

(16th ed.) Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute 

and The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved February 2010 

from http:/nectac.org/%7Epdfs/pubs/sec619_2008-09.pdf. 

Learning Disabilities Summit. (2001). Building a Foundation for the Future: White Papers. Retrieved 

March 2, 2010 from http:/ldsummit.air.org. 

129 
130 

 

 

Mackey Andrews, S.D., and Taylor, A. (2007). To Fee or Not To Fee: That Is the Question! 

(NECTAC Notes No. 22). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child 

Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. 

McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., and Flippin, S. (2004). The Supply and Demand for Special Education 

Teachers: A Review of Research Regarding the Chronic Shortage of Special Education 

Teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5–21. 

Mellard, D.F., and Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementing Response to 

Intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Mueller, T.G. (2009) IEP Facilitation: A Promising Approach to Resolving Conflicts between 

Families and Schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 (3), 60–67. 

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2009). FAQ: Standards for Students with Disabilities— 

NCEO Topic Area. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from 

www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Standards/StandardsFAQ.htm. 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (n.d.). NECTAC: The National Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved March 2010 from http:/www.nectac.org/. 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2009). Interagency Agreements. Retrieved 

December 10, 2009 from http:/www.nectac.org/topics/intercoord/interagree.asp. 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2010). History of OSEP-Funded Early 

Childhood Projects. Retrieved February 2010 from www.nectac.org/ 

ecprojects/history.asp. 

National Early Childhood Transition Center. (2009). NECTC: Home. Retrieved March 2010 from 

http:/www.hdi.uky.edu/SF/NECTC/Home.aspx . 

Newman, L. (2005). Family involvement in the educational development of youth with disabilities. A 

Special Topic Report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). 

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Procedural Safeguards: Due Process Hearings. 

Retrieved January 25, 2010 from 

http:/idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C16%2C. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007a). Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in 

Special Education (Guidance document). Retrieved June 4, 2009 from 

www.state.nj.us/education/specialed/memos/042407disproportionality.pdf. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007b). Questions and Answers on Highly Qualified 

Teachers Serving Children With Disabilities. Retrieved March 2010 from 

http:/idea.ed.gov/object/fileDownload/model/QaCorner/field/PdfFile/primary_key/2. 
Office of Special Education Programs. (2008). Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) under 

Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Guidance document). 

Retrieved May 14, 2009 from www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis-guidance.doc. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2009). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation 

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006. Washington, DC: Author. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (n.d.) Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual 

Performance Report (APR): Part C Indicator Measurement Table. Retrieved February 2010 

from http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2010/b2-1820­

0578cmeatableexp113012.pdf. 

Pacer Center (n.d.). A History of the Parent Center Movement: Improving Outcomes for Children 

with Disabilities. Retrieved May 18, 2010 from http:/www.pacer.org/international/usa/ 

pchistory.asp. 

Pagano, L. (2008). Options for Dispute Resolution (Module 18). Building the Legacy: Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004 training curriculum. Washington, DC: 

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). 

Reiman, J., Beck, L., Peter, M., Zeller, D., Moses, P., and Engiles, A. (2007, April). Initial Review of 

Research Literature on Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Special Education. 

Eugene, OR: CADRE. 

Rice, M.L., and O’Brien, M. (1990). Transitions: Times of Change and Accommodation. Topics in 

Early Childhood Special Education, 9(4), 1–14. 

Rosenfield, S.A., and Gravois, T.A. (1996). Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaboration for 

Change. New York: Guilford. 

Rosenkoetter, S.E., Hains, A. H., and Fowler, S.A. (1994). Bridging Early Services for Children With 

Special Needs and Their Families: A Practical Guide for Transition Planning. Baltimore, 

MD: Brookes. 

S. Rep. No. 185, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., (2003). 

Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers. (2009). Parent Center Directory/Parent Center 

List. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http:/www.taalliance.org/ptidirectory. 

Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers. (2008). Parent-Professional Collaborative 

Activities. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http:/www.taalliance.org/resources/ 

parentprocoll.asp. 

The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s Law Clinic, Duke University School of Law. (2009). 

Preparing for Special Education Mediation and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families 

and Advocates. Washington D.C. and Raleigh, NC.: Authors. 

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-227. 

131 
132 

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Education Department Budget by Major Program (1980-

2009). Retrieved March 9, 2010 from 

www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Implementing RtI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds: Key 

Issues for Decision Makers. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from 

http:/www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/rtifiles/rti.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: IDEA 

Recovery Funds for Services to Children and Youths with Disabilities. Retrieved September 

2009, from http:/www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/idea.html. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). Department of Education: Special Education Grants to 

States, Special Education—Preschool Grants and Grants for Infants and Families. Retrieved 

October 30, 2009 from www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/10stbyprogram.pdf. 

U. S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A 

New Era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003). Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes Are 

Generally Low and States Are Using Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts 

(GAO-03-897). Washington, DC: Author. 

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J. Cameto, R., Hebbeler, K., and Newman, L. (1993). What Makes a 

Difference? Influences on Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities. Report from the 

National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI 

International. 

Westat. (2007, July). Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education: A 

Technical Assistance Guide. Retrieved November 2009 from 

http:/www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf. 

Yell, M.L. (2006). The Law and Special Education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 

Education, Inc. 

Zirkle, P.A. (2006). SLD Eligibility: A Users’ Guide to the New Regulations. Lawrence, KS: National 

Research Center on Learning. 
 

 

 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix 

Introduction 

This appendix describes the study team’s study design and sampling and analysis plans used in 

assessing state and local implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement 

Act (IDEA). 

Study Design 

The IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS) is a descriptive study based 

primarily on four surveys that provide a comprehensive national picture of the state and local 

implementation of IDEA for children ages birth to 21 years with a focus on the changes resulting 

from the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. The core tasks for the study were to: (1) develop and field a 

one-time set of surveys of state and local special education administrators and state early intervention 

administrators, (2) collect relevant extant data from sources including state websites and national 

databases; and (3) provide analyses of survey responses (e.g., means) to describe how states and 

school districts are implementing IDEA. 

Three state-level surveys were fielded to collect data from: (1) state Part B school-age special 

education (Part B 611) program coordinators responsible for programs providing special education 

services to children and youth; (2) state Part B preschool-age (Part B 619) program coordinators52 

who oversee preschool programs for children with disabilities (ages 3 to 5 years old), and (3) state 

Part C early intervention program coordinators who are responsible for early intervention programs 

serving infants and toddlers (ages birth to 2 years old). A fourth survey was fielded at the district level 

to collect data from local Part B program administrators. Questionnaires requested data about policies 

and practices in place for the 2008–2009 school year. The study team also included, where 

appropriate, relevant items from surveys of state and local administrators that were conducted for 

earlier studies, such as those completed for the National Assessment of the 1997 Amendments to 

IDEA (e.g., Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA—SLIIDEA), to examine 

changes over time in IDEA implementation. The state questionnaires were fielded as mail surveys. 

The district-level questionnaire was administered as a web-based survey. 

Below, the study team describes the target population for each of the three state-level surveys and the 

sampling design for the sample of local educational agency (LEA) administrators who received the 

district-level survey. 

Sampling: State-Level Surveys 

State Part B Special Education Program Coordinators Survey 

Implementation questions spanning all four of the major topic areas for the implementation study 

require state-level data on special education programs, policies and services in order to provide a 

52	 Note that in some states, the Part B preschool-age and school-age coordinators are the same person and in 

other states, they are different people. 

A-1 
comprehensive picture of how state education agencies are implementing IDEA, with a particular 

focus on changes resulting from the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. State special education directors 

are the most appropriate respondents for the majority of items addressed in this survey, given their 

experience, knowledge and daily responsibility for the oversight of special education services in the 

state (Schiller et al. 2006). Part B program coordinators from all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia were surveyed for this questionnaire; there are no sampling considerations. 

State Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinator Survey 

The preschool program administrator, commonly referred to as the Part B 619 program coordinator, is 

the most appropriate respondent from which to obtain information on the study topics as they relate to 

preschool special education programs, policies and practices. In most states, there is an administrator 

specifically for preschool programs serving children with disabilities. This may not be the same 

official responsible for programs for school-age students with disabilities referenced above; the Part B 

preschool-age program coordinator may be located in a separate agency (e.g., early care) or office 

from the State Part B program coordinator. This survey was administered to a census of state Part B 

preschool-age program coordinators; there are no sampling considerations. 

State Part C Early Intervention Program Coordinator Survey 

State level information about Part C programs for infants, toddlers and their families was gathered 

through a survey of State Part C program coordinators. The survey addressed the organization and 

structure of Part C program in each state, as well as policies and procedures related to eligibility and 

identification, coordination with the Part B preschool-age program, funding and financing, staffing 

and personnel requirements, early learning standards, family involvement and disputes and mediation. 

The Part C program coordinator at the lead agency for each state’s Part C program is the respondent 

most knowledgeable about these topics and about how IDEA is being implemented for this 

population of children. Similar to the other state-level surveys, the study team administered the Part C 

program survey to the census of state Part C program coordinators; there are no sampling 

considerations for this survey. 

Sampling: District-Level Survey 

Implementation questions spanning all of the implementation study areas require data on district 

special education policies and practices. Our experience collecting data on local special education 

issues suggests that the local Part B program administrator is the most appropriate respondent for the 

majority of items to be addressed due to their expertise and role in the district. Unlike the state 

surveys for which the study team surveyed the population of respondents, the study team 

administered the district survey to a sample of 1,200 local school districts, selected in accordance 

with the sampling plan provided below. 

It was not feasible for burden and cost reasons to survey the full population of over 18,250 school 

districts in the United States (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics 

2008). Thus, a stratified sample of school districts was drawn as discussed below. The sample of 

districts for IDEA-NAIS was chosen with two goals in mind: (1) to be nationally representative so as 

to enable a national description of IDEA implementation; and (2) to have sufficient overlap with the 

Year 4 SLIIDEA respondents to allow for longitudinal analyses. To meet these two goals, a sample of 

A-2 
400 districts (S1 districts) was selected from the 849 districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA 

district survey. Additionally, an independent sample of 800 additional districts (S2 districts) was 

selected from the 2006–2007 national population of school districts. This approach yielded a total 

sample of 1,200 school districts. The expected precision (95 percent confidence interval) of an 

estimated proportion for the sample of 1,200 LEAs with an 80 percent response rate is plus or minus 

3.9 percentage points. See Attachment A.1 for the calculation of minimum detectable effects for 

district-level proportions using the IDEA-NAIS district sample. 

The sampling frame and sampling method for the two components of the district sample are described 

below. 

The Sampling Frame of Districts 

The Sampling Frame of Districts for the S1 Sample. The sampling frame of districts for the S1 

sample consists of the 849 districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA district survey for the 

2004–2005 school year. 

The Sampling Frame of Districts for the S2 Sample. The sampling frame of districts for the S2 

sample was created from the 2006–2007 Common Core of Data (CCD) available from the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The most recent school year for which the CCD is available 

is 2006–2007. A preliminary list of potential districts consisted of all district-level records (n=18,250) 

in the 2006–2007 CCD. For reasons described below, we omitted 5,475 of the records from the 

preliminary list from the final sampling frame. 

Deletions from the Preliminary List to Create the S2 Sampling Frame. Districts in the preliminary 

sampling frame list were omitted for the following reasons: 

•	 The target population for this study is districts from the 50 U.S. states and the District of 

Columbia. Districts that did not meet this criteria, for example districts in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, were removed from the list (n=15). This exclusion also 

makes the sampling frame for IDEA-NAIS similar to the sampling frame used for 

SLIIDEA. 

•	 Education agencies that had closed or were not yet opened at the time of the reference 

year were removed from the list (n=683). These districts no longer exist or are not 

currently providing services to children with disabilities. 

•	 Districts where the number of schools (variable name sch06) is 0 or -2 (data not expected 

or collected) or the number of students (variable name member06) is 0 or -1 (data 

missing) or -2 (data not expected or collected) were removed from the list (n=2,164). 

Districts that had 0 schools do not serve any children with disabilities. Districts with 

number of students missing were excluded because the number of districts to be sampled 

from each of the region-by-urbanicity strata was determined by allocation proportional to 

the number of students within each district; when this data are missing we cannot do this. 

•	 Districts that have a grade span listed in the CCD as UGUG (ungraded, students in 

classes or programs without standard grade) or NN (data not expected or collected) were 

removed from the list (n=1,812). These districts serve very specialized populations (e.g., 

incarcerated youth) and are not eligible for this study. 

A-3 
 

 

 

•	 Agencies that are regional, state, federal or other (non-local) were removed from the list, 

based on the NCES classification in the CCD data set (n=3,961). This exclusion makes 

the sampling frame for IDEA-NAIS similar to the sampling frame used for SLIIDEA. 

•	 Districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA district survey sample were removed 

from the list for the S2 sampling frame as they were included in the S1 sampling frame 

(n=849). 

•	 After deletions from the preliminary S2 sampling frame, the final S2 sampling frame 

included 12,775 districts. 

Exhibit A.1 shows the total number of districts in the target population, sampling frame, and sample. 

The sample of S1 districts was selected to be representative of the U.S. population of public school 

districts that was in existence at the time of the SLIIDEA study. The sample of S2 districts was 

selected to be representative of the U.S. population of public school districts that currently exists, 

excluding the 843 districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA survey. The combined group of S1 

and S2 districts was weighted to be representative of the current U.S. population of public school 

districts. 

Exhibit A.1: Number of Districts in the Population, Frame and Sample 

S1 & S2 Districts 

S1 Districts S2 Districts Combined 

Target population 13,318 12,744 13,587 

Sampling frame 843 a 12,775 b 13,618 b 

Selected sample 400 800 1,200 

a There were six fewer districts in the S1 sampling frame than the 849 districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA 

survey because these districts no longer met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the current study. 

b The sampling frame for the S2 districts appears larger than the target population because in the CCD data set from which 

the sampling frame was derived, the New York City school district appeared as 32 separate districts. The target population 

for the combined sample of S1 and S2 districts is the current total number of U.S. districts that meet eligibility criteria, 

which is 12,744 + 843 = 13,587. 

Region and Urbanicity Classifications 

The population of school districts in both sampling frames was stratified by four Census regions and 

three categories of urbanicity creating 12 strata for sample selection. Urbanicity was defined 

according to the metro status code variable on the corresponding CCD data sets (see Exhibits A.2 and 

A.3 respectively). Region was defined according to the four Census regions (see Exhibit A.4). These 

strata are used for face validity, rather than to produce estimates for subgroup analyses. For a sample 

to have face validity as being nationally representative, the sample should be guaranteed to include 

districts from all four major regions of the country and should be guaranteed to include urban, 

suburban and rural districts. Exhibits A.5 and A.6 show the distribution of districts across the 12 

strata in the S1 (Exhibit A.5) and S2 (Exhibit A.6) sampling frames. 

A-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit A.2: Urbanicity Classification for S1 Districts 

Classification 

NCES classification of the agency's service area relative to a Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (CCD variable name MSC97) 

Urban 1 = Primarily serves a principal city of a MSA 

Suburban 2 = Serves a MSA but not primarily its principal city 

Rural 3 = Does not serve a MSA, 

Exhibit A.3: Urbanicity Classification for S2 Districts 

Classification 

NCES classification of the agency's service area relative to a Core Based 

Statistical Area (CCD variable name MSC06) 

Urban 1 = Primarily serves a principal city of a CBSA 

Suburban 2 = Serves a CBSA but not primarily its principal city 

Rural 3 = Does not serve a CBSA 

Exhibit A.4: Region Classification 

Classification State Abbreviation 

West HI, WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, CA, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM, AK 

Northeast NY, VT, ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NJ, PA 

South TX, OK, AR, LA, KY, TN, MS, AL, WV, VA, MD, DC, DE, NC, SC, GA, FL 

Midwest ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH 

Exhibit A.5: Region and Urbanicity Classification for S1 Districts 

REGMETRO Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 

1 NE Urb 23 2.73 23 2.73 

2 NE Sub 113 13.40 136 16.13 

3 NE Rur 19 2.25 155 18.39 

4 SO Urb 51 6.05 206 24.44 

5 SO Sub 120 14.23 326 38.67 

6 SO Rur 99 11.74 425 50.42 

7 MW Urb 34 4.03 459 54.45 

8 MW Sub 125 14.83 584 69.28 

9 MW Rur 67 7.95 651 77.22 

10 WE Urb 36 4.27 687 81.49 

11 WE Sub 121 14.35 808 95.85 

12 WE Rur 35 4.15 843 100.00 

A-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit A.6: Region and Urbanicity Classification for S2 Districts 

REGMETRO Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 

1 NE Urb 78 0.61 78 0.61 

2 NE Sub 1792 14.06 1870 14.67 

3 NE Rur 837 6.57 2707 21.24 

4 SO Urb 207 1.62 2914 22.87 

5 SO Sub 945 7.42 3859 30.28 

6 SO Rur 1742 13.67 5601 43.95 

7 MW Urb 157 1.23 5758 45.18 

8 MW Sub 1886 14.80 7644 59.98 

9 MW Rur 2617 20.54 10261 80.52 

10 WE Urb 231 1.81 10492 82.33 

11 WE Sub 1020 8.00 11512 90.33 

12 WE Rur 1232 9.67 12744 100.00 

Sampling Method 

We selected a stratified systematic sample of 400 districts from the S1 sampling frame and 800 

districts from the S2 sampling frame. The number of districts sampled from each of the 12 region-byurbanicity strata was determined by allocation proportional to the number of students within each 

stratum. Prior to sampling, districts were sorted by size within each stratum. Systematic sampling 

after sorting by size increases the likelihood of having a wide distribution of district sizes in the 

selected sample. 

Exhibits A.7–A.9 show the number of districts needed from each stratum within the S1 sampling 

frame. There were four strata (1, Northeastern urban; 4, Southern urban; 7, Midwestern urban; 10, 

Western urban) that had fewer districts available than the number of districts we needed to sample. 

We took all available districts from these strata. This gave us a total of 144 districts (23 + 51 + 34 + 

36); we then took the remaining 256 (400 – 144) districts needed from the remaining 8 strata to get 

the sample of 400 S1 districts. The number of districts needed from the remaining strata is shown in 

Exhibit A.8. The number of districts available and the number sampled from each stratum within the 

S1 sampling frame are summarized in Exhibit A.9. 

Exhibit A.10 shows the number of districts needed from each stratum within the S2 sampling frame. 

Exhibit A.11 shows the number of districts selected from each stratum within the S2 sampling frame. 

A-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c 

Exhibit A.7: Number of Districts Needed from Each Stratum within the S1 Sampling Frame 

Obs Yr4_strata Stuenrlb Totenr

c Stuenrl/Totenr Ssized NeedTote 

1 1 NE Urb 550688 6943002 0.0793 31.7262 32 <== only 23 districts are 

available in this stratum 

2 2 NE Sub 329573 6943002 0.0475 18.9873 19 

3 3 NE Rur 20610 6943002 0.0030 1.1874 1 

4 4 SO Urb 977885 6943002 0.1408 56.3379 56 <== only 51 districts are 

available in this stratum 

5 5 SO Sub 964325 6943002 0.1389 55.5567 56 

6 6 SO Rur 281138 6943002 0.0405 16.1969 16 

7 7 MW Urb 981405 6943002 0.1414 56.5407 57 <== only 34 districts are 

available in this stratum 

8 8 MW Sub 468289 6943002 0.0674 26.9791 27 

9 9 MW Rur 114225 6943002 0.0165 6.5807 7 

10 10 WE Urb 1123902 6943002 0.1619 64.7502 65 <== only 36 districts are 

available in this stratum 

11 11 WE Sub 1035150 6943002 0.1491 59.6370 60 

12 12 WE Rur 95812 6943002 0.0138 5.5199 6 

Total 6943002 1 

a	 Yr4_strat = region-by-urbanicity stratum. 

b	 Stuenrl = number of students enrolled in each stratum. 

c Totenr = sum of stuenrl across the 12 strata. 

d Ssize = 400*(stuenrl/totenr). 

e	 NeedTot = total number of districts to be sampled in each stratum (round(ssize)). 

Exhibit A.8: Number of Districts Needed from Each Remaining Stratum within the S1 Sampling Frame 

Obs Yr4_strata Stuenrlb Totenr

c Stuenrl/Totenr Ssized NeedTote 

1 2 NE Sub 329573 3309122 0.0996 25.4964 25 

2 3 NE Rur 20610 3309122 0.0062 1.5944 2 

3 5 SO Sub 964325 3309122 0.2914 74.6020 75 

4 6 SO Rur 281138 3309122 0.0850 21.7494 22 

5 8 MW Sub 468289 3309122 0.1415 36.2277 36 

6 9 MW Rur 114225 3309122 0.0345 8.8367 9 

7 11 WE Sub 1035150 3309122 0.3128 80.0812 80 

8 12 WE Rur 95812 3309122 0.0290 7.4122 7 

Total 3309122 1 

a	 Yr4_strat = region-by-urbanicity stratum. 

b	 Stuenrl = number of students enrolled in each stratum. 

Totenr = sum of stuenrl across the 8 strata. 

d Ssize = 400*(stuenrl/totenr). 

e	 NeedTot = total number of districts to be sampled in each stratum (round(ssize)). 

A-7 
c 

Exhibit A.9: Number of Districts Available and Number Sampled from Each Stratum within the S1 

Sampling Frame 

Obs 	 Yr4_strata TotDistlb NeedTote 

1 NE Urb 23 23 

2 NE Sub 113 25 

3 NE Rur 19 2 

4 SO Urb 51 51 

5 SO Sub 120 75 

6 SO Rur 99 22 

7 MW Urb 34 34 

8 MW Sub 125 36 

9 MW Rur 67 9 

10 WE Urb 36 36 

11 WE Sub 121 80 

12 WE Rur 35 7 

a	 Yr4_strat = region-by-urbanicity stratum. 

b	 TotDist = total number of districts in stratum. 

c	 NeedTot = total number of districts to be sampled in each stratum. 

Exhibit A.10: Number of Districts Needed from Each Stratum within the S2 Sampling Frame 

Obs Regmetroa Stuenrlb c Totenr Stuenrl/Totenr Ssized NeedTote 

1 1 NE Urb 1699036 40833846 0.0416 33.287 33 

2 2 NE Sub 4547575 40833846 0.1114 89.094 89 

3 3 NE Rur 774662 40833846 0.0190 15.177 15 

4 4 SO Urb 5974744 40833846 0.1463 117.055 117 

5 5 SO Sub 6155120 40833846 0.1507 120.589 121 

6 6 SO Rur 3439885 40833846 0.0842 67.393 67 

7 7 MW Urb 1935772 40833846 0.0474 37.925 38 

8 8 MW Sub 4758521 40833846 0.1165 93.227 93 

9 9 MW Rur 2386703 40833846 0.0584 46.759 47 

10 10 WE Urb 3866564 40833846 0.0947 75.752 76 

11 11 WE Sub 4266198 40833846 0.1045 83.582 84 

12 12 WE Rur 1029066 40833846 0.0252 20.161 20 

Total 40833846	 1 

a	 Regmetro = region-by-urbanicity stratum. 

b	 Stuenrl = number of students enrolled in each stratum. 

Totenr = sum of stuenrl across the 8 strata. 

d Ssize = 400*(stuenrl/totenr). 

e	 NeedTot = total number of districts to be sampled in each stratum (round(ssize)). 

A-8 
 

c 

Exhibit A.11: Number of Districts Available and Number Sampled from Each Stratum within the S2 

Sampling Frame 

Obs Regmetroa TotDistlb NeedTote 

1 NE Urb 78 33 

2 NE Sub 1792 89 

3 NE Rur 837 15 

4 SO Urb 207 117 

5 SO Sub 945 121 

6 SO Rur 1742 67 

7 MW Urb 157 38 

8 MW Sub 1886 93 

9 MW Rur 2617 47 

10 WE Urb 231 76 

11 WE Sub 1020 84 

12 WE Rur 1232 20 

a Regmetro = region-by-urbanicity stratum. 

b TotDist = total number of districts in stratum. 

NeedTot = total number of districts to be sampled in each stratum. 

Base Sampling Weights 

The sampling weights assigned to responding school districts in the survey must be in accordance 

with the sampling design used for the selection of school districts. As stated earlier, for sample 

selection, 12 strata were created for both components of the district sample (S1 and S2). Thus, 

weights were determined for each district within a stratum. 

Base Weights for the S1 districts 

For the 400 school districts sampled from the 843 districts that responded to the Year 4 SLIIDEA 

district survey, two sets of sampling weights were constructed. The first set of weights reflects the 

sampling of 400 school districts from 843 school districts. Let this weight be denoted by ws1h, it was 

calculated as follows: 

Let Ns1h be the number of responding school districts in the Year 4 SLIIDEA survey in stratum h 

(h=1,2,3, ..., 12). Hence 843

S1 sample in stratum h be 

ܰ ൌ

ns1h . Then 

∑௛ୀ

ଵଶ

ଵ

ݓ௦ଵ௛ ൌ

over the 400 school districts, they sum

ܰ௦ଵ௛

 to 84

ൌ

3 (the target pop

ே

௡

ೞభ೓

 and let the number of school districts selected in the 

ೞభ೓

 (h=1,2,3,...., 12). If these weights are aggregated 

ulation of S1 districts). 

Analysis Variable: Ws1h Sampling Weight 

N Sum 

400 843.0000000 

The second set of weights for the 400 sampled school districts is based on the overall probability of 

selection of the 400 school districts. The overall probability is the product of the probability of being 

selected for the SLIIDEA sample and the conditional probability of being selected in the IDEA-NAIS 

sample given selection for the SLIIDEA sample. The inverse of this overall probability is the overall 

weight. This was calculated as the product of the final weights assigned to these districts in SLIIDEA 

Year 4 (wfs1h) and the first set of weights (ws1h) determined above. Let this second set of weights be 

denoted by wos1h, calculated as follows: wos1h = wfs1h ws1h. If these weights are aggregated over the 400 

school districts, they sum to 13,318 (the target population of SLIIDEA districts). 

A-9 
Analysis Variable: Wos1h 

N Sum 

400 13318.01 

Base Weights for the S2 Districts 

The 800 school districts selected from the current school district population, minus the respondents to 

the Year 4 SLIIDEA survey, were assigned sampling weights based on the population and sample 

size in each stratum. Let this weight for a school district in a stratum be denoted by ws2h; it was 

calculated as follows: 

Let the current population of school districts be Ns2. Let the number of school districts in the 

population in stratum h be Ns2h. The sampling frame for the selection 

stratum h from the current population will contain 

before sampling, the number of respondents to the Year 4 SLIIDEA was 

population. Let the number of districts sampled in stratum 

ܰ௦ଶ௛

∗ ൌ ܰ௦ଶ௛ െ ܰ௦ଵ௛

of a sample of school districts in 

݊௦ଶ௛

∗

 school districts. That is, 

subtracted from the current 

target populat

ൌ ݓ

h be The sampling weight for the 

sam

௦ଶ௛

pled scho

ே

௡

∗

l districts from the current population after the exclusions described above will be 

∗

ೞమ೓

o

ೞమ೓

. If these weights are aggregated over the 800 school districts, they sum to 12,744 (the 

ion of S2 districts). 

Analysis Variable: Ws2h Sample Weights of 52 Districts 

N Sum 

800 12744.00 

Combining the Base Weights for the S1 and S2 Districts 

The study will produce two estimates from the same population parameter because two samples were 

drawn: S1 which consists of 400 districts and overlaps with the SLIIDEA sample and S2 which 

consists of 800 districts and does not overlap with the SLIIDEA sample. Standard practice combines 

the S1 estimate and the S2 estimate into a single population parameter estimate using appropriate 

weights. The weights are determined to minimize the variance of the overall estimate. One method to 

minimize the variance of the overall estimate is to weight the individual estimates inversely to their 

variances. In the absence of variances, the sample size is used to approximate the determination of 

weights. In this case, we have a population estimate based on an estimate from a sample of 400 and 

on an estimate from 800. Using the ratio of sample size of each estimator to the total sample size, we 

get weighting factors of 0.25 (400/1200) and 0.75 (800/1200). These were modified to 0.20 and 0.80 

to further reduce some of the large weights assigned to respondents in the sample of 400, which 

further reduces the effect of unequal weights on the variance of the overall estimate. 

As stated earlier, the weights wos1h assigned to the 400 school districts provide a population estimate 

for the SLIIDEA districts (population N=13,318). The weights ws2h assigned to the 800 school 

districts (these sum to 12,744) and the conditional weights ws1h assigned to 400 school districts (these 

sum to 843) together provide a population estimate for the current target population (N=13,587). 

Therefore, we needed to combine these weights into a single set of weights for estimating the current 

population parameters. The weights were combined as follows: we took 20 percent of the weights 

wos1h and 80 percent of the weights ws1h and ws2h. Thus, if the district was an S1 district a single set of ∗ ∗ weights ݓ௦ଵ௛ based on the two sets of weights (wos1h, ws1h) was constructed as follows: ݓ௦ଵ௛ = 0.2 ∗ ∗ ∗ ݓ௢௦ଵ௛ + 0.8 ݓ௦ଵ௛. If the district was an S2 district then that district was given a weight of ݓ௦ଶ௛ = 0.8 

A-10 
 

∗ ݓ . The multipliers (0.2 and 0.8) were selected to minimize the variability within weights without ௦ଶ௛

distorting the new weights too much. 

The new combined weight, denoted whj, is formed: 

∗ ݓ ௝௛ൌ ݓ௦ଵ௛ if S1 district, and

∗ ݓ ௝௛ൌ ݓ if S2 district ௦ଶ௛

The sum of these combined weights was 13,533 and the current population number of districts is 

13,587. Hence, these new weights were adjusted within the 12 region-by-urbanicity categories so that 

the sum of the weights is equal to the current target population of school districts as follows: 

௝௛ݓ Let

௔ௗ௝ be the new weight for the j

th district in the hth stratum after the adjustment. And let ݓ ௝௛be 

the weight before adjustment. Let nh be the population number of school districts in the hth stratum. 

Let mh be the number of school districts in the sample. Then the new adjusted weight for the j

th 

district in the hth stratum is calculated as: 

௝௛ݓ

௔ௗ௝ ൌ ݓ ௝௛ൈ	 ௡೓

∑೘

ೕసభ

೓ ௪೓ೕ
 

Variable Label N Sum 

Wjh Final combined weight 1200 13533.20 

Whj_adj Final adjusted combined weight – base weights 1200 13587.00 

Reweighting District Base Weights for Non-Response 

The previous section describes how the initial sample of districts was weighted to represent the target 

population. Here we discuss adjustments to the weights to account for districts that did not to respond 

to the district survey. 

To account for unit non-response, weighting-class adjustments were made to the sampling weights 

(Lohr 1999). Weighting classes (strata) were formed from two variables (region and urbanicity) with 

known values for all districts in the sample. This method assumes that respondents and nonrespondents are similar within weighting classes. Within weighting classes, the sampling weights of 

responder districts are inflated to represent the non-responder districts. This method assumes a 

missing-at-random (MAR) non-response mechanism, which implies that the probability of response 

depends on region and urbanicity and is not related to characteristics of interest in the survey. This 

means we are assuming that the responding and non-responding school districts are similar within a 

weighting class and therefore we expect some reduction in bias if we use responding school districts 

to represent non-responding school districts. Fortunately, with our high percentage response rate, 

even if this assumption of MAR is not strictly true, the potential for non-response bias is low. See 

Attachment A.2 for the mathematical proof of why the potential for bias is small if response rate is 

high. 

Twelve weighting classes were formed by crossing four levels of region (Northeast, South, Midwest 

and West) by three levels of urbanicity (urban, suburban and rural). Within each class, the weights of 

A-11 
	 	

	 	 	 	

 

 

 

responder districts were inflated by a factor equal to the inverse of the estimated probability of 

response within each class. The probability of response within each class is estimated by:

∅෡ ൌ ௦௨௠ ௢௙ ௪௘௜௚௛௧௦ ௙௢௥	௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௘௡௧௦	௜௡ ௖௟௔௦௦ ௖

௖ ௦௨௠ ௢௙ ௪௘௜௚௛௧௦ ௙௢௥	௦௘௟௘௖௧௘ௗ ௦௔௠௣௟௘ ௜௡ ௖௟௔௦௦ ௖
 

ଵ The inflation factor is equal to ∅෡೎

. 

Let wic = the sampling weight of responder district i in weighting class c. And let ݓ = ௖௜෥the inflated 

weight of responder district i in weighting class c. Then 

1

ൈ௜௖ ݓ ൌ෥௜௖ ݓ

∅෡௖

The sum of the inflated weights, ݓ௖௜෥, over all responding districts is equal to the number of districts in 

the target population. 

Response Rate 

Out of the 1,200 districts surveyed, 1,165 submitted surveys. Districts that completed 50 percent or 

more of the survey questions were classified as responders. Given that 1,148 districts completed 50 

percent or more of the survey questions, the response rate was 96 percent. 

Cumulative 

Frequency 

Cumulative 

Indistresp Percent a InDistSampb Frequency Percent 

. 1 52 4.33 52 4.33 

1 1 1148 95.67 1200 100.00 

a Indistresp = 1 if district responded to survey.
 

b InDistSamp = 1 if district was in the IDEA-NAIS survey sample.
 

Re-Weighting the New Sample 

As described above, weighting-class adjustments were made to the sampling weights to account for 

the reduction in our sample size. 

Original Sample of 1200 and Sum of Base Weight 

Variable Label Sum 

_FREQ_ 1200.00 

Wgt1200 Final adjusted combined weight – base weights 13587.00 

Respondent Sample of 1148 and Sum of Base Weights 

A-12 

Variable Label Sum 

_FREQ_ 1148.00

Wgt1148 Final adjusted combined weight – base weights 13013.44 
 

 

 

 

 

Sum Weight for 1200 to Derive Actual Sum Within Weighting Class 

Obs Regmetroa _FREQ_ Wgt1200 

1 NE Urb 56 101.00 

2 NE Sub 114 1905.00 

3 NE Rur 17 856.00 

4 SO Urb 168 258.00 

5 SO Sub 196 1065.00 

6 SO Rur 89 1841.00 

7 MW Urb 72 191.00 

8 MW Sub 129 2011.00 

9 MW Rur 56 2684.00 

10 WE Urb 111 261.41 

11 WE Sub 165 1146.59 

12 WE Rur 27 1267.00 

Sum Weight for Respondent Sample (n=1148) to Derive Actual Sum Within Weighting Class 

Obs Regmetroa _FREQ_ Wgt1200 

1 NE Urb 52 93.22 

2 NE Sub 110 1840.89 

3 NE Rur 17 856.00 

4 SO Urb 161 247.20 

5 SO Sub 194 1052.27 

6 SO Rur 88 1820.58 

7 MW Urb 69 184.34 

8 MW Sub 120 1859.27 

9 MW Rur 54 2595.97 

10 WE Urb 103 244.18 

11 WE Sub 155 1052.83 

12 WE Rur 25 1166.68 

Merge and Calculate Correction Factor 

Obs Regmetroa _TYPE_ _FREQ_ Wgt1200 Wgt1148 Correctn 

1 NE Urb 0 52 101.00 93.22 1.08350 

2 NE Sub 0 110 1905.00 1840.89 1.03482 

3 NE Rur 0 17 856.00 856.00 1.00000 

4 SO Urb 0 161 258.00 247.20 1.04370 

5 SO Sub 0 194 1065.00 1052.27 1.01209 

6 SO Rur 0 88 1841.00 1820.58 1.01121 

7 MW Urb 0 69 191.00 184.34 1.03616 

8 MW Sub 0 120 2011.00 1859.27 1.08161 

9 MW Rur 0 54 2684.00 2595.97 1.03391 

10 WE Urb 0 103 261.41 244.18 1.07053 

11 WE Sub 0 155 1146.59 1052.83 1.08906 

12 WE Rur 0 25 1267.00 1166.68 1.08599 

FinSmpWgt = Whj_adj*(correctn) [Correction Factor] 

Variable Label N N Miss Sum 

Whj_adj Final adjusted combined weight – base weights 1200 0 13587.00 

FinSmpWgt Final district sample weight 1148 52 13587.00 

A-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Re-Weighting 

Obs Regmetro N_Samp SumPop N_Resp SumOrig Corec Factr SumNew 

1 NE Urb 56 101.00 52 93.22 1.08350 101.00 

2 NE Sub 114 1905.00 110 1840.89 1.03482 1905.00 

3 NE Rur 17 856.00 17 856.00 1.00000 856.00 

4 SO Urb 168 258.00 161 247.20 1.04370 258.00 

5 SO Sub 196 1065.00 194 1052.27 1.01209 1065.00 

6 SO Rur 89 1841.00 88 1820.58 1.01121 1841.00 

7 MW Urb 72 191.00 69 184.34 1.03616 191.00 

8 MW Sub 129 2011.00 120 1859.27 1.08161 2011.00 

9 MW Rur 56 2684.00 54 2595.97 1.03391 2684.00 

10 WE Urb 111 261.41 103 244.18 1.07053 261.41 

11 WE Sub 165 1146.59 155 1052.83 1.08906 1146.59 

12 WE Rur 27 1267.00 25 1166.68 1.08599 1267.00 

Total 1200 13587.00 1148 13013.44 1.04936 13587.00 

Analytic Approach 

This section describes our approach to empirical analyses of data for IDEA-NAIS. The types of data 

collected through the surveys and extant data as discussed earlier primarily provide descriptive 

information on the processes and strategies in place at the state and district levels regarding the 

implementation of IDEA in the four broad areas targeted for this study: (1) Part C program service 

delivery systems and coordination with the Part B preschool-age program; (2) identification of 

children for early intervention and special education; (3) academic standards and personnel 

qualifications; and (4) dispute resolution and mediation. 

Most of the research questions were directly addressed through the use of simple descriptive statistics, 

such as means and percentages, as well as cross-tabulations to illustrate the distribution of policies 

and procedures across states and districts with varying characteristics. We also had the opportunity to 

examine several outcomes (e.g., incidence of disputes) and to contrast outcomes across populations 

and time frames. Because we addressed the same topics on each of the surveys, we were also able to 

make comparisons across IDEA program components. Our general approach to the analytic methods 

used and the methodological issues associated with the required analyses are described below. The 

discussion focuses on methodological issues as they relate to: 

Type of inference (simple descriptive, change over time, differences among groups); 

Unit of analysis (state, district); 

Time frame covered by analysis (single time-point, longitudinal); and
 

Missing data (survey non-response, item non-response)
 

In the course of conducting the analyses to answer the research questions, practically every 

combination of these four topics came into play for both the state- and district-level data. As is 

evident from examples, the analysis methods we describe below cut across all research questions. We 

discuss in turn our approach to each type of analysis. 

A-14 
 

Descriptive Analyses: Single Time Point 

State-Level Data 

The state-level surveys (Part C program, Part B preschool-age program and Part B school-age 

program) were administered to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As anticipated, there was no 

survey non-response and the questionnaire responses represent a census of the states rather than a 

sample of states. 

State-level analyses are generally presented in the form “the percentage of states that....” Consider, for 

example, the survey item we included on the state Part B program administrator survey: 

1. What best describes the status of your state’s progress in defining significant 

disproportionality? Select one. 

a. Our state’s definition of significant disproportionality for 2008-09 is finalized 

and no changes are anticipated ................................................................................... 

b.	 Our state’s definition of significant disproportionality for 2008-09 is finalized 

but we are planning modifications or revisions in the coming year ........................... 

c. Our state’s definition of significant disproportionality for 2008-09 is in the 

process of being developed ......................................................................................... 

Since there are no missing data, the calculation of the percentage of states reporting that their 

definition of disproportionality for the 2008–2009 school year is finalized with no changes anticipated 

(response option a) is simply 100 multiplied by the number of states that selected response option a, 

divided by 51. We represent this calculation algebraically as: 

100 ∗ ∑ఱభ

ହଵ

௑

where X = 1 if the state’s response is a and X = 0 if the state’s response is not a, and Σ51 represents 

summation over the 51 responses (50 states and the District of Columbia). 

Since the data are a census rather than a sample, there is no need for calculation of standard errors or 

confidence intervals as these are statistical concepts that apply to sample data. It is common to present 

the standard error of an estimate or a 95 percent confidence interval around an estimate, but in this 

case, the percentage calculated is not an estimate but is the true population value. Although there is no 

survey non-response, in some instances there is item non-response, in which a survey respondent(s) 

skipped a particular item. We treated this by indicating in the tables the number of missing responses. 

Additionally, we decreased the denominator by the number of missing responses. This means that the 

summation represents the number of states responding to the item. 

District-Level Data 

Unlike state-level data where we have a census of respondents, we collected data for a sample of 

school districts. That is, the district Part B school-age special education program administrator survey 

was administered to a nationally representative sample of school districts. The analyses described 

above for states are not fully applicable to the district-level data because we used estimates to 

represent all school districts in the nation; therefore, different analytic techniques were required. 

A-15 
In reporting our analysis results for school districts, we often make statements that begin with, “the 

percentage of districts that ....” We designed our analysis such that the interpretation of “percentage of 

districts” corresponds to the percentage of all school districts in the country, not just the school 

districts that happen to be in the sample. In order to calculate statistics that are nationally 

representative, the sampling design must be taken into account. We provide the calculation algorithm 

below. Note that if the survey item is dichotomous (0/1), then the process described below to estimate 

a mean actually results in the estimation of a proportion. Multiplying the proportion by 100 will give 

a percentage. 

Let: 

yhi =be the response on a survey item for district i in stratum h, 

ܲ

w

ത

hi =the sampling weights for district i in stratum h, 

ܻത

= the estimator of the population percentage, 

ܻ෠

= the estimator of the population mean, 

෡ܯ

= the estimator of the population total, 

= the estimator of the number of elements (districts) in the population, 

h = 1, ..., L enumerate the strata (for the current design, L=12), 

i = 1, ..., nh , enumerate the sampled districts in stratum h, note that the districts are the 

primary sampling units (PSUs), and nh is the number of sampled districts in stratum h. 

Then: 

 

 

ܻ෠ ൌ ∑௛ୀ

௅

ଵ ∑௜ୀ

௡೓

ݕ௜௛

෡ܯ

௛௜

௅

෠

ത

ൌ ∑ ∑

ଵ

௜ୀ

௡

௛ୀଵ

ൌ

೓

ݓ

ܲ

ଵ

෠

ெ ,

௜௛ݓ

ܻ ௒

ൌ 100

෡

∗

The estimator given above for 

ܻത

 is known as a combined ratio estimator. We note that the sum of the 

sample weights, , is an estimate of the number of school districts in the population. When we know 

the true population value of M, as we do in the current 

ܻത

example where we know the number of 

districts in each stratu

෡ܯ

m, we also have the option of using a separate ratio estimator. The separate 

ratio estimator is defined as: 

ܻത ൌ ∑ಽ

೓సభ ெ೓

ೊ෡

ಾ෢

೓

௦ ெ

೓

A-16 
where, ܯ ൌ ∑௅ is the sum of the known school district sizes and L is the number of strata. 

The separate ratio esti

௛ܯ ୀଵ௛

mator estimates the ratio within each stratum and then forms a weighted 

average of these separate estimates into a single estimate of the population ratio, while the combined 

ratio estimator is a ratio estimate pooled over all strata. In cases where there is a lot of variation 

among strata means, the separate ratio estimator is frequently chosen as it takes advantage of the extra 

efficiency provided by the stratification and provides a more precise estimate. Determination of 

whether we use the combined ratio estimator or the separate ratio estimator is made based on the 

amount of variation among strata means. When the stratum-by-stratum ratio estimates are nearly 

equal we used the combined ratio estimator. When they are very different we used the separate ratio 

estimator. 

Statistical Software for Calculating Parameter Estimates and Standard Errors. The estimator of the 

population mean, shown above, is easily calculated in statistical software packages that are designed 

for analysis of complex survey data including the estimation of mean and variance. We used the 

variance estimates to produce standard errors and 95 percent confidence intervals around the 

estimates of the population means for the district-level data. 

Analyses of Differences among Groups 

The main purpose of the study is to track progress of state and district implementation of the major 

program components under IDEA. However, not all states or districts are similar in how they choose 

to implement early intervention and special education services to children with disabilities. Thus, the 

study also examined differences among groups on selected policies and practices. Additionally, 

because identical items are asked across surveys, we were able to compare responses across system 

components using the techniques described in this section. 

State-Level Data 

One question of interest asks “How does the incidence of disputes between special education 

personnel and parents/guardians regarding special education services vary with the use of mediation 

by states?” The response to this question required classification of states into groups defined on the 

basis of how often they use mediation, and comparison of dispute rates between those groups. The 

comparisons involved showing the mean, median, minimum, and maximum for each group. As 

discussed in previously described analysis approaches, since the state data represent a census rather 

than a sample of states, the summary tables do not include standard errors, confidence intervals or pvalues. Any differences observed between groups represent true differences. 

District-Level Data 

We also compared outcomes among groups of districts in the nationally representative district 

sample—for example, if a research question requiring this type of analysis asks, “How do the rates of 

identification for special education vary according to use of different early intervening strategies?” 

This analysis involved the classification of districts into mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories 

based on disbursement of early intervening service (EIS) activities and resources. We conducted an 

overall ANOVA to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between group 

means. For group differences with a significant F-statistic for the ANOVA, we report all possible 

pairwise comparisons. 

A-17 
 

Missing Data 

There are two types of missing data that can arise in a survey, even after repeated attempts to collect 

data: (1) unit non-response, and (2) item non-response. Unit non-response occurs when an entire data 

instrument is not received. Unit non-response does not apply to the state surveys, as all states 

responded to the surveys. For the district survey, sampling weights were adjusted to account for unit 

non-response, such that the adjusted weights sum to population totals within sampling strata as 

described in the previous section. Item non-response is the situation where a questionnaire is filled 

out and returned, but one or more specific items on the questionnaire was left blank. When the 

amount of missing data on an item is modest, we calculate statistics on only the non-missing items, 

which is equivalent to an assumption that the item is missing completely at random. When an item 

has a lot of missing values, more than 30 percent missing, we assumed that the item was faulty and 

did not report results for that item (this never occurred in our data). The amount of missing data on 

each item is available in all reports. 

A-18 
References 

Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 

Lohr, S.L. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing 

Company. 

Rosner, B. (1986). Fundamentals of Biostatistics (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Duxbury Press. 

Schiller, E., Fritts, J., Bobronnikov, E., Fiore, T., O’Reilly, F., and St. Pierre, R. (2006). Volume I: 

The SLIIDEA Sourcebook Report (1999–2000, 2002–2003, 2003–2004, and 2004–2005 School 

Years). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Common Core of 

Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from 

http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. 

A-19 
 

 

 

Attachment A.1: Calculation of Minimum Detectable Effects for 

District-Level Proportions Using the IDEA National Implementation 

Study (IDEA-NAIS) District Sample 

Let P represent the population proportion of some characteristic of interest associated with school 

districts. We want to estimate P. Assume that we select a simple random sample of n school districts. 

Let the sample proportion based on n districts be p. The standard error (standard deviation) of p is 

given by 

ටሺேି௡ሻ ௣ሺଵି௣ሻ S.E. (p) = 

ேିଵ ௡

where 

N is the population size of school districts. 

Assuming that the sample proportion p has a normal distribution with P as the mean and S.E. (p) as 

the standard deviation, a 95 percent confidence interval for is given by 

P ± 1.96 S.E. (P) 

Since we do not have a simple random sample, we assume a design effect of 1.6. This is the ratio of 

the variance of p under the sampling design used for the survey to the variance under simple random 

sampling. The effective s

݊∗

ample size is 

If we have a sam

ൌ ௡

ଵ.଺ .

ple of 1,200 school districts and we have a response rate of 80 percent, then we have 

960 districts in the sam

∗

ple. The effective sample size is 

ଽ଺଴ .

Let p = 0.5. 

݊ ൌ

ଵ.଺

ൌ 600

The variance of p = 

ଵଷ,ଽ଼଼ି଺଴଴

ଵଷ,ଽ଼଼ିଵ . ଴.ହሺଵି଴.

 

଺଴଴

ହሻ

= (0.95718) 0.25/600 = 0.000399. 

Therefore, S.E. (p) = 0.019975, assuming that the population of school districts is 13,988. The 95 

p

percent confidence interval for P is 0.50 ± 1.96 x 0.019975 which is 

0.50 ± 0.0391. 

In percentages, a 95 percent confidence interval for the population percentage P in this case is 

50 ± 3.9 percentage points. 

A-20 
Attachment A.2: Mathematical Proof of Why the Potential for Bias 

Is Small if the Response Rate Is High 

Assume that we are estimating a population proportion of some yes/no characteristic of interest 

relating to school districts. We can think of the population of school districts as being divided into 

two strata. The first stratum would consist of school districts that respond to a survey and the second 

stratum consists of school districts that do not respond even after several attempts to obtain data. Let 

the number of school districts in the population be N. Let the number of school districts in stratum of 

respondents be Nr and the number of school districts in the stratum of non-respondents be Nm (m for 

missing data). We have: 

ܰൌܰ௥ ൅ ܰ௠

The overall population proportion of interest can be written as a weighted average of the proportion 

among respondents and the population proportion among non-respondents. Let P be the overall 

proportion, 

ܲ ൌ

P

ே

r the proporti

ೝ௉

on among respondents and Pm. The overall proportion can be written as: 

ೝାே೘௉

ே

೘

If we select a sample of n school districts and we get responses from nr school districts, data are 

missing for the remaining nm school districts because they did not respond to the survey. The sample 

proportion can only be computed from the responding school districts. Let this proportion be pr. 

The bias in the sample proportion pr because of not having any data from the non-responding school 

districts is:

ܤሺ݌௥ሻ ൌ ܧሺ݌௥ሻ െ ܲ

The bias in the estimate is the difference between the expected value of the estimate and population 

proportion. The expected value is the average of sample proportions of all possible samples that we 

can draw from the population of respondents. We have 

Therefore, the bias in the esti

ܧሺ݌௥ሻ ൌ ܲ௥

݌ሺܤ

mate is 

That is, the bi

௥ሻ

as is the difference between the 

ൌ ܲ௥ െ ܲ

proportion among the respondents minus the overall 

proportion. This can be written as: 

ேೝ௉ೝାே೘௉೘

Alternatively

ܤሺ݌௥ሻ ൌ ܲ௥ െ	 ே

݌ሺܤ

, this can be written as: 

௥ሻ ൌ ே௉ೝି	ேೝ௉ೝ	ି	ே೘௉೘

ே

A-21 
Since we have ܰൌܰ ൅	ܰ௠, we can write B(pr) as ௥

The bias in the esti

ܤሺ݌௥ሻ ൌ	

ே೘

m

ே

ate be

ሺܲ௥ െ	 ௠

cause of non-response is s

ܲ ሻ

mall if either (1) ೘ which is the non-response 

rate is small or (2) the difference between the proportion among respondents an

ே

d the proportion 

among non-respondents is small. 

ே

If we have a high response rate then ே

ே

೘ is small. Therefore, the bias is not likely to be large as the 

difference gets multiplied by a small number. 

A-22 
 

c 

Appendix B: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 1 

Exhibit B.1: Number and Percentage of Children and Youth Identified for Early Intervention 

and Special Education Services in 50 States and D.C. (2007) 

Birth–2 Years 3–5 Years 6–21 Years 

Number %a Number %b Number %c 

316,730 2.49 700,166 5.73 5,904,854 13.33 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of infants and toddlers ages 2 years or less receiving services under the Part C early 

intervention program in 2007 was 2.49 (or 316,730 infants and toddlers). The percentage of preschool-age children 

receiving services under the Part B special education program in 2007 was 5.73 (or 700,166 children). The percentage of 

school-age children receiving services under the Part B special education program in 2007 was 13.33 (or 5,904,854 children 

and youth). 

N = 51. 

Data Accountability Center (DAC) data provide the counts for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. National Vital 

Statistics System (NVSS) data provide the number of births for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Common Core of 

Data (CCD) data provide the enrollment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

a The number of infants and toddlers identified is the count of children identified for services under IDEA at a single time 

point between October 1 and December 1 of 2007. The percentage is based on the count divided by the NVSS proxy for the 

number of infants and toddlers in the population – the sum of the number of births in 2007 and the two prior years (2006 and 

2005). 

b The number of preschool-age children identified is the count of children identified for services under IDEA at a single 

time point between October 1 and December 1 of 2007. The percentage is based on the count divided by the NVSS proxy 

for the number of preschool-age children in the population which is the sum of the number of births in 2004, 2003, and 

2002. 

The number of school-age children identified is the count of children identified for services under IDEA at a single time 

point between October 1 and December 1 of 2007. Students attending Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools are not 

represented in the count of children identified for services under IDEA. The percentage is based on the count divided by the 

total enrollment in grades levels one through twelve from the Common Core of Data (CCD) which may not include all 

children ages 6 – 21 years. 

SOURCES: The data in column 1 are from Table C1 Number and Percentage of Population Served (Ages Birth Through 2), 

Part C, by State: 1998 through 2007 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xls, retrieved July 19, 2009). The data used in as denominators for 

columns 2 and 4 are from the National Vital Statistics System 

(http:/205.207.175.93/vitalstats/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx?IF_ActivePathName=P/Births/Data%20Files%20 

(login%20required), retrieved June 15, 2009). The data in columns 3 and 5 are from Table B2B Number and Prevalence 

Rate of Children Served in the 50 States and D.C. (including BIE schools) under IDEA, Part B Ages 3–21 and Ages 3–5 by 

Age, 1998 Through 2007 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B2B.xls, retrieved July 19, 2009). The data used in calculating column 6 is 

from the NCES Common Core of Data Build-A-Table (CCD; http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 

B-1 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 2 

Exhibit C.1: State Lead Agency for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 

2009) 

States 

Lead Agency N % 

Department of Health/Human Services 37 74.00 

Department of Education 11 22.00 

Co-lead agencies a 2 4.00 

Total b 50 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-seven states (74 percent) reported that the Department of Health/Human Services is the state
 

agency designated as the lead agency for the Part C program service system.
 

N = 50. 

a Co-lead agencies lead Part C program service systems jointly; the department of education leads with the human services
 

agency in one state and with the health and human services agency in the second. 

b Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 1. 

C-1 
Exhibit C.2: Average Percentage of Birth through 2-Year-Old Population Identified for Services 

by Type of Part C Early Intervention Program Lead Agency (Fall 2007) 

States with Type of Part C Program Lead Agency 

Health/human 

services Education Co-lead 

Average % identified a 

Percentage of state population ages birth 

through 2 years old identified for Part C 

early intervention services in Fall 2007 

2.83 2.13 2.81 

EXHIBIT READS: States with a health or human services agency as the Part C early intervention program lead agency on 

average had 2.83 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years identified for early intervention services. 

States with an education agency as the Part C program lead agency on average had 2.13 percent of their infants and toddlers 

ages birth through 2 years identified for early intervention services. States with both an education and a health/human 

services agency co-leading Part C program services had 2.81 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years 

identified for early intervention services. 

Total N = 50. For health/human services lead agencies, N = 37; for education lead agencies, N = 11; for co-lead agencies, 

N = 2. 

a The percentage of infants and toddlers (birth through 2 years) identified for services was calculated by dividing the 

number of infants and toddlers identified for services under IDEA from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) by the total 

population of infants and toddlers as indicated by an National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) constructed population proxy 

multiplied by 100. The number of infants and toddlers identified is the count of children identified for services under IDEA 

at a single time point between October 1 and December 1 of 2007. This annual count includes both children newly identified 

in the year and children identified in earlier years who continue to receive services under IDEA. The NVSS number of 

infants and toddlers in the population is the sum of the number of births in 2007 and the two prior years (2006 and 2005) – a 

proxy for the number of infants and toddlers in the population. The average percentage is the mean percentage over all states 

with each type of Part C program lead agency. 

NOTE: Number of states that answered the survey question: 50. Number of states that did not answer the survey question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 1. Table C2 Number and Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Served in the 50 

States and D.C. under IDEA, Part C Ages 0 – 2 by Age, 1998 through 2007, available from the Data Accountability Center 

(DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C2.xls, retrieved May 12, 2009). Number of births reported by state 

from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS; 

http:/205.207.175.93/vitalstats/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx?IF_ActivePathName=P/Births/Data%20Files%20 

(login%20required), retrieved June 15, 2009). 

C-2 
C-3 

23 

15.69 39.22 33.33 

15.69 35.29 27.45 

7.84 1.96 3.92 

1.96 0.00 3.92 

1.96 3.92 11.76 

0.00 0.00 3.92 

0.00 1.96 1.96 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 

Exhibit C.3: Funding Sources Supporting Part C Early Intervention Program Services as Required by IFSPs (Fisca

Funding Source 

States Reporting as 

Providing Largest 

Share of Funding 

States Reporting as 

Providing SecondLargest Share of 

Funding 

States Reporting as 

Providing ThirdLargest Share of 

Funding 

N % N % N % 

State early intervention funds 45.10 8 15.69 6 11.76 

IDEA, Part C 8 20 17 

Medicaid/Title XIX 8 18 14 

Local municipality or county funds 4 1 2 

IDEA, Part B 1 0 2 

Private insurance 1 2 6 Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN)/Title V 0 0 2 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 0 1 1 

Family fees/co-payments/sliding fee 0 0 0 Other a 6 11.76 0 0.00 0 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-three Part C early intervention program agencies (45 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the largesupport Part C program services. Eight Part C program agencies (16 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the second largest sh

program services. Six Part C program agencies (12 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing the third-largest share of funding to su

services. Thirty-seven states (73 percent) reported state early intervention funds as providing one of the three largest shares of funding supporting Part For largest share of funding, N = 51; for second-largest share of funding, N = 50; for third-largest share of funding, N = 50. 

a States reporting “other” indicated sources including: TANF, general state funds, state categorical aid, state special education and general education fu

and state special education excess cost fund. NOTE: Total number of Part C program agencies that answered the question for largest funding source: 51. For the second-largest funding source the C program agency did not provide a rank of 2 to this question. For the third-largest funding source the total n=50 because one Part C program agency 

this question. Number of Part C program agencies that did not answer any part of the question: 0. SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 20. 
 

Exhibit C.4: Percentage of Part C Early Intervention Services Supported by IDEA Part C Funds 

across States (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Range per State 

Mean Median Min Max 

Percentage supported by IDEA Part C 

funds 21.43 22.00 0 75 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of states’ early intervention services provided by the Part C program and 

supported by Part C funds is 21. The median percentage of early intervention services provided and supported by Part C 

funds is 22. The percentage of early intervention services provided by Part C program and supported by Part C funds ranged 

from 0 to 75. 

N = 37. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 21. 

Exhibit C.5: State Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Services (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

FCP Policy 

There is an FCP policy in the state 

Among states with an FCP policy, the FCP policy requires: 

Both private insurance and family fees 

Private insurance only 

Family fees only 

N 

27

12 

10 

5 

% 

52.94 

44.44 

37.04 

18.52 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-seven Part C early intervention program agencies (53 percent) reported having a family cost 

participation (FCP) policy. Among states with an FCP policy, the policies of 12 Part C program agencies (44 percent) 

require contributions from both private insurance and family fees. 

For FCP policy in the state, N = 51; for FCP policy requirements, N = 27. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 22, 23. 

C-4 
 

C-5 

 

 

 

Exhibit C.6: State Identification Percentages (Fall 2007) by Family Cost Participation Policy 

Status for Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States with 

an FCP Policy 

States without 

an FCP Policy 

Average % Average % 

Percentage of state population ages birth through 2 years 

identified for Part C services in Fall 2007a 2.42 2.93 

EXHIBIT READS: Part C early intervention program agencies with an FCP policy identify, on average, 2.42 percent of 

their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years for early intervention services. Part C program agencies without an FCP 

policy identify, on average, 2.93 percent of their infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years for early intervention 

services. 

Total N = 51. For states with an FCP policy, N = 27; for states without an FCP policy, N = 24. 

a

 The percentage of infants and toddlers (birth through 2 years) identified for services was calculated by dividing the 

number of infants and toddlers identified for services under IDEA (DAC) by the total population of infants and toddlers as 

indicated by an NVSS-constructed population proxy multiplied by 100. The number of infants and toddlers identified is the 

count of children identified for services under IDEA at a single time point between October 1 and December 1 of 2007. This 

annual count includes both children newly identified in the year represented by the count and children identified in earlier 

years who continue to receive services under IDEA. The NVSS number of infants and toddlers in the population is the sum 

of the number of births in 2007 and the two prior years (2006 and 2005) – a proxy for the population of infants and toddlers 

in the population. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 22. The number of infants and toddlers identified for each state is from Table 

C2 Number and Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Served in the 50 States and DC under IDEA, Part C Ages 0 – 2 by Age, 

1998 Through 2007 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C2.xls, retrieved May 12, 2009). Number of births reported by state from the 

National Vital Statistics System (NVSS; http:/205.207.175.93/vitalstats/ReportFol 

Exhibit C.7: Family Cost Participation (FCP) Policy for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Services in States by Type of Part C Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) 

FCP Policy 

Type of Part C Program Lead Agency 

Health/human services Education Co-lead 

N % N % N % 

State has an FCP 

policy 

State has no FCP 

policy 

22 59.46 

15 40.54

4 36.36 

7 63.63

0 

2 

0.00 

100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Among states that have a health/human service agency as the Part C early intervention program lead 

agency, 59 percent have a family cost participation (FCP) policy. Among states that have an education agency as the Part C 

program lead agency, 36 percent have an FCP policy. Neither of the states with education and health/human services 

agencies co-leading the Part C programs has an FCP policy. 

Total N = 50. For health/human service lead agencies, N = 37; for education lead agencies, N = 11; for co-lead agencies, 

N = 2. 

NOTE: Number of states that answered both questions: 50. Number of states that did not answer either question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 1, 22. 
C-6 

Exhibit C.8: State Agency Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and to Su

Identification of Preschool-Age Children in Need of Special Education Services (Fiscal Year 2009 and School Year 

Part B Pres

Part C Early Intervention Program Educa

Yes Yes 

Type of Activity N % Missing Total a N % 

Development/dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health care providers 47 94.00 1 50 28 54.90 

Web-based information and other electronic materials 45 90.00 1 50 36 70.59 

Development/dissemination of written materials for child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities 43 86.00 1 50 25 49.02 

Outreach to referral sources 41 82.00 1 50 21 41.18 

Workshops for pediatricians and other health care providers 26 52.00 1 50 11 21.57 

Workshops for staff from child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities 26 52.00 1 50 18 35.29 

Outreach through radio, TV, newspapers and other print media 24 48.00 1 50 18 35.29 

Other 8 16.00 1 50 5 9.80 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-seven Part C program state agencies (94 percent) reported that the development/dissemination of written materials for pediaproviders is one of the activities used to support the identification of infants and toddlers agesd birth through 2 years for Part C program services. Tweage special education program agencies (55 percent) reported the same activity to support the identification of preschool-age children in need of speciaFor Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B respondents, N = 51. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 25; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 16. 
C-7 

56.00 38.00 4.00 

26 19 

Exhibit C.9: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by Part C Early Intervention Program State Coordinators (FiReferral Source 

States Reporting 

as Most Frequent 

Referral Source 

States Reporting 

as Second-Most 

Frequent Referral 

Source 

States Reporting 

as Third-Most 

Frequent Referral 

Source 

N % N % N % 

Families Primary health care providers Health department Private agency Local school district Social service agencies (e.g., Head Start) Regional agencies (e.g., service centers) Other 

28 20 40.00 

1 2.00 

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

1 2.00 

52.00 

0 0.00 

1 2.00 0 0.00 1 2.00 0 0.00 

3 6.00 

2 2 4.00 

9 18.00 

1 2.00 5 10.00 

20 40.00 

4 8.00 

6 12.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-eight Part C early intervention program agencies (56 percent) reported that families are the most frequent referral source fForty-nine Part C program agencies (98 percent) ranked families as one of the three most frequent referral sources.For most frequent referral source, N = 50; for second-most frequent referral source, N = 50; for third-most frequent referral source, N = 49. 

NOTE: Number of Part C program agencies that answered the question: 50. For the third most frequent referral source the total n=49 because one Part provide a rank of 3 to this question. Number of Part C program agencies that did not answer the question: 1.SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 24. 
C-8 

Exhibit C.10: Family Involvement in the Part C Early Intervention Program System by Level and Type (Fiscal Year 2

State Region 

Yes Yes Yes 

Type of Involvement: N % Missing Totala N % Missing Totala N % 

Participating on committees/task forces (other than Interagency 

Coordinating Council (ICC)) 

43 84.31 0 51 23 45.10 0 51 26 50.9

Developing policies and procedures 38 74.51 0 51 12 23.53 0 51 15 29.4

Providing training to other families 31 60.78 0 51 19 37.25 0 51 26 50.9

Providing training to Part C early intervention personnel 31 60.78 0 51 19 37.25 0 51 25 49.0

State monitoring 24 47.06 0 51 7 13.73 0 51 8 15.6Involved in procedural safeguard systems 13 25.49 0 51 7 13.73 0 51 5 9.8

Employed as Part C early intervention personnel 11 21.57 0 51 14 27.45 0 51 27 52.9

Other activity 4 7.84 0 51 3 5.88 0 51 3 5.8

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-three states (84 percent) reported families participate in state level committees/task forces. Twenty-three states (45 percent) in regional committees/task forces. Twenty-six states (51 percent) reported families participate in local-level committees/task forces. N = 51.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 49. 
C-9 

Exhibit C.11: Entities Responsible for the Provision of Part C Early Intervention Program Services (Fiscal Year 200

Entity Responsible For Part C Program Services 

State-level staff 

employed at 

agency other 

than lead 

agency 

State-level staff 

employed by 

lead agency 

Local private 

agencies/ 

programs 

Individual 

service 

providers

Services 

Other 

N % N % N % N % N % 

Oversees or coordinates direct services 18 35.39 6 11.76 38 74.51 19 37.25 2 3.92 Performs initial service coordination 16 31.37 5 9.80 42 82.35 14 27.45 1 1.96 Oversees or coordinates evaluations/eligibility 16 31.37 6 11.76 41 80.39 14 27.45 1 1.96 Responsible for intake 16 31.37 3 5.88 40 78.43 14 27.45 1 1.96 Performs evaluations/eligibility 13 25.49 5 9.80 40 78.43 27 52.94 3 5.88 Provides direct services 9 17.65 9 17.65 42 82.35 35 68.63 3 5.88 

EXHIBIT READS: Oversight or coordination of direct services is provided by state-level staff employed at the Part C early intervention program lead agencies (35 percent). State-level staff employed at an agency other than the lead agency provides oversight and coordination of direct services in six P

percent). Local private agencies or programs provide oversight or coordination of direct services in 38 Part C program agencies (75 percent). Nineteen 

have oversight or coordination of direct services provided by individual service providers (37 percent). Two Part C program agencies (4 percent) use ooversight or coordination of direct services. For oversees or coordinates direct services, oversees or coordinates evaluations/eligibility and responsible for intake, N = 51; for performs initial servi

direct services, N = 50; for performs evaluations/eligibility, N = 49.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Missing indicates the number of Part C program agencies that did not indicate at least one entity had the responsibility.b Total indicates the number of Part C program agencies that identified at least one entity as having the responsibility. NOTE: Total number of Part C program agencies that answered the question: 51. Number of Part C program agencies that did not answer any part of t

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 7. 
C-10 

Exhibit C.12: Models of Ongoing Service Coordination (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Model N 

Yes 

% 

States Responding 

Yes 

Dedicated: individual provides only service coordination 

and does not provide other Part C early intervention 

services 

22 43.14 CA, CO, DC, DE, FL, IL, 

IN, KY, LA, ME, MS, 

NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, 

OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, 

WV 

Both dedicated and blended models are used in the 

state 

20 39.22 AL, AR, AZ, GA, HI, IA, 

ID, KS, MD, MI, MN, 

MO, NH, NM, RI, TX, 

UT, VA, VT, WI 

Blended (dual) role: individual provides service 

coordination and other EIS 

9 17.65 AK, CT, MA, MT, NV, 

OR, SC, WA, WY 

Total a 51 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-two Part C program agencies (43 percent) use a dedicated model of service coordination. 

N = 51. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 8. 

Exhibit C.13: Minimum Education Qualifications of Service Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N

Bachelor’s degree 26 

Yes 

%

52.00 

Other 13 26.00

Associate’s degree 6 12.00 

High school diploma 5 10.00 

Total a 50 100.00

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-six states (52 percent) require a bachelor’s degree as the minimum education qualification for 

Part C early intervention program service coordinators. 

N = 50. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 9. 
C-11 

Exhibit C.14: Frequency of Interaction between Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B 

Preschool-Age Special Education Coordinators, among States with Different Part C Early 

Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators 

(Fiscal Year 2009) 

N

States 

% State 

Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do 

not include Part B 

46 90.20 — 

Level of interaction between Part C PROGRAM coordinator and Part B PROGRAM agency in 

states where Part C PROGRAM coordinator is NOT responsible for the Part B PROGRAM: 

Work closely (at least monthly) 30 66.70 AK, AL, AZ, CA, CT, 

DC, DE, FL, HI, ID, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, MA, MI, MO, 

NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, 

NY, OK, OR, VA, VT, 

WI, WV, WY 

Moderate amount of contact (more than six 

times per year) 

15 33.30 AR, CO, GA, LA, MS, 

MT, NJ, NV, OH, RI, SC, 

SD, TX, UT, WA 

Rarely have contact (once or twice a year) 0 0.00 — 

Total a 45 100.00 — 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-six Part C early intervention program coordinators (90 percent) reported the Part C program 

coordinator has responsibilities that do not include the Part B preschool-age special education program. Among the 46 Part 

C program agencies in which the Part C program state coordinator is not also responsible for Part B program services, 30 

Part C program coordinators (67 percent) reported the Part C and Part B program coordinators work together on at least a 

monthly basis. 

For Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do not include Part B programs for preschool-age children, N = 51; for level 

of interaction, N = 45. 

Only those Part C program coordinators not responsible for Part B preschool-age program services responded to this 

question. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators that answered the question. Number of Part C program 

coordinators that did not answer the question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 4, 5. 
C-12 

 

 

Exhibit C.15: Topics Regularly Addressed during State Part C Early Intervention Program and 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Coordinators’ Collaboration (Fiscal Year 

2009) 

N

States 

Missing Total a % 

Part C coordinator has responsibilities that 

do not include Part C AND Part B 619 46 90.20 0 51

Topics regularly addressed during State Part C Program and Part B program coordinators’ 

collaboration in states where Part C program coordinator is NOT responsible for Part B 

program 

Transitions 45 97.83 0 46

Data sharing 43 93.48 0 46 

Training/professional development 37 80.43 0 46 

Child Find 31 67.39 0 46 

Annual Performance Reports required under 

IDEA 29 63.04 0 46 

State Performance Plans required under 

IDEA 22 47.83 0 46 

Disputes 9 19.57 0 46

Other 9 19.57 0 46

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-six Part C early intervention program agencies (90 percent) reported the Part C program 

coordinator does not have responsibility for Part B preschool-age special education program services. Among the 46 Part C 

program agencies in which the Part C program coordinator is not responsible for Part B program services, 45 Part C 

program agencies (98 percent) reported the topic of transitions is regularly addressed in collaboration between Part C and 

Part B program coordinators. 

For Part C coordinator has responsibilities that do not include Part C and Part B, N = 51; for topics addressed during 

meetings, N = 46. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program agencies that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 4, 6. 
Exhibit C.16: Areas Addressed in State-Level Part C Early Intervention Program Interagency 

Agreements with Other Agencies (Fiscal Year 2009) 

C-13 

Areas Addressed N 

States 

Missing Totala % 

Transition to preschool 41 82.00 1 50
 

Professional development and/or training 32 64.00 1 50
 

Evaluation/eligibility/assessment 31 62.00 1 50

Cost or resource sharing 31 62.00 1 50
 

Data sharing 31 62.00 1 50
 

Responsibility for direct services 27 54.00 1 50

Other 5 10.00 1 50

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-one Part C early intervention program agencies (82 percent) reported transition to preschool as 

one of the areas addressed by state-level Part C program interagency agreements.
 

N = 50. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program agencies that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 29. 
C-14 

 

c 

Exhibit C.17: Activities Supporting Transitions of Children with Disabilities from Part C Early 

Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or 

School Year 2008–2009) 

Activities 

Early Intervention Part C 

Program a Preschool-Age Part B Special Education Program b 

N % Missing Totalc N % Missing Totalc 

Provided technical assistance to local 

providers on transition 

Developed policies on transition from 

Part C to Part B 

Developed/disseminated materials for 

parents on transition from Part C to 

Part B 

Developed/maintained an electronic 

database of individual child records to 

allow children to be followed from Part 

C to Part B 

Part B preschool funds can be used to 

provide Free, Appropriate Public 

Education (FAPE) to children before 

their third birthday 

Part C funds can be used to provide 

FAPE for children past their third 

birthday 

Other 

50 98.04 0 51

48 94.12 0 51

41 80.39 0 51

25 49.02 0 51

d d d d 

12 23.53 0 51 

5 9.80 0 51

50 98.04 0 51 

46 90.20 0 51 

36 70.59 0 51 

28 54.90 0 51 

27 52.94 0 51 

d d d d 

6 11.76 0 51 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty Part C early intervention program agencies (98.04 percent) reported providing technical assistance 

to local providers on transitions. Fifty Part B preschool-age special education program agencies (98 percent) reported 

providing technical assistance to local providers on transition. 

Part C respondents, N = 51. Part B respondents, N = 51. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Part C program system reporting on supports provided in fiscal year 2009. 

b Part B 619 program agency reporting on supports provided in school year 2008–2009. 

Total refers to the number of Part C program agencies or Part B preschool-age program agencies that answered the 

question.
 

d Although this survey item was included for both Part C and Part B preschool-age program coordinators, data from the 

source expected to have the most familiarity with the content are reported.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 34; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 12. 
 

C-15 

c 

Exhibit C.18: States Reporting Number of Different Activities to Support Transition of Toddlers 

with Disabilities from Part C Early Intervention Program to Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program (Fiscal Year 2009 or School Year 2008–2009) 

Number of 

Different Support 

Activities c 

Engaged by States 

Part C Program a Part B Program b 

N % Missing Total d N % Missing Total d 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1 1.96 0 51 

6 11.76 0 51 

14 27.45 0 51 

16 31.37 0 51 

8 15.69 0 51 

5 9.80 0 51 

1 1.96 0 51 

0 0.00 0 51 

7 13.73 0 51 

8 15.69 0 51 

22 43.14 0 51 

9 17.65 0 51 

4 7.84 0 51 

1 1.96 0 51 

EXHIBIT READS: One Part C early intervention program agency (2 percent) reported conducting only one activity to 

support the transition of toddlers with disabilities from Part C program to Part B preschool-age special education program 

services. No Part B program agencies reported conducting only one activity to support the transition of toddlers with 

disabilities from Part C program to Part B program services. 

Part C respondents, N = 51. Part B respondents, N = 51. 

a Part C early intervention program system reporting on supports provided in fiscal year 2009. 

b Part B preschool-age special education program agency reporting on supports provided in school year 2008–2009. 

The support activities are listed in Exhibit 2.17. 

d Total refers to the number of Part C program agencies or Part B program agencies that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 34; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 12. 
C-16 

Exhibit C.19: Issues Affecting Decision Not to Use Part C Option (Fiscal Year 2009) 

States 

N % Missing Totala 

During FY2009, state did not use the Part C Option 51 100.00 0 51 

Issues Affecting Decision in Fiscal Year 2009 

Insufficient funding 41 83.67 2 49 

Insufficient provider capacity 20 40.82 2 49 

Insufficient lead agency staffing 16 32.65 2 49 

Part C lead agency is not able to promote school 

readiness as required 

4 8.16 2 49 

Insufficient interagency coordination at the state level 1 2.04 2 49 

Insufficient interagency coordination at the local level 1 2.04 2 49 

Other 12 24.49 2 49 

None of the above 5 10.20 2 49 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-one Part C early intervention program agencies (100 percent) reported not using the Part C Option. 

Forty-one Part C program agencies (84 percent) reported insufficient funding as one of the issues affecting their decisions 

not to use the Part C Option. 

For did not use Part C option, N = 51; for issues affecting decision, N = 49. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program agencies that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 31, 32. 

Exhibit C.20: Average Number of Changes in Lead Agency (1991 through 2008) 

Range 

Mean Median Min Max Missing Total a 

Number of times lead agency has 

changed 0.47 0.00 0 4 0 51 

EXHIBIT READS: During the period of 1991 through 2008 the lead agency for Part C early intervention program systems 

changed between 0 and 4 times and averaged less than one change in the timeframe. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 2.
 
C-17 

 

Exhibit C.21: Number of Changes in Lead Agency (1991 through 2008) 

Yes 

Number of Changes N % 

No change (0) 38 74.51 

Once 7 13.73 

Twice 2 3.92 

Three times 3 5.88 

Four times 1 1.96 

Total a 51 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-eight states (75 percent) experienced no change in the Part C early intervention program lead
 

agency between 1991 and 2008. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 2. 
C-18 

Exhibit C.22: Activities to Support the Identification of Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities by Type of Part C EarProgram Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Health/Human Services 

(n = 37) 

Education 

(n = 11) 

Yes Yes Yes 

Type of Activity N % Missing Totala N % Missing Totala N % 

Development/dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health care providers 

34 91.89 0 37 10 100.00 1 10 2 100

Web-based information and other electronic materials 32 86.49 0 37 10 100.00 1 10 2 100Outreach to referral sources 31 83.78 0 37 7 70.00 1 10 2 100

Development/dissemination of written materials for child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities 

30 81.08 0 37 10 100.00 1 10 2 100

Development/dissemination of workshops for pediatricians and other health care providers 19 51.35 0 37 4 40.00 1 10 2 100

Development/dissemination of workshops for child care centers, nursery schools and other facilities 

18 48.65 0 37 5 50.00 1 10 2 100

Outreach through radio, TV, newspapers and other print media 14 37.84 0 37 8 80.00 1 10 2 100

Other 6 16.22 0 37 0 0.00 1 10 1 50EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-four Part C early intervention program agencies led by health/human service agencies (92 percent) support the identificatiothrough the development and dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health care providers. One hundred percent of Part C progr

agencies (10 Part C program agencies) develop and disseminate written materials for pediatricians and other health care providers to support the identi

toddlers. One hundred percent of Part C program agencies co-led by education and health/human services agencies (2 Part C program agencies) develomaterials for pediatricians and other health care providers to support the identification of infants and toddlers. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Total refers to the number of states that answered the item about activities (Item 25). One state did not answer the question about lead agency (Item 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 1, 25. 
C-19 

Exhibit C.23: Activities to Support the Identification of Infants, Toddlers and Preschool Children in Need of Speciaby Part C Early Intervention Program and Part B Preschool-Age Special Education Program Agencies (Fiscal Year 2008–2009) 

Part B Pres

Part C Early Intervention Program Educa

Yes Yes 

Number of Different Outreach Activities Conducted by States N % Missing Total a N % 

0 0 0.00 1 50 4 7.84 1 0 0.00 1 50 7 13.73 

2 3 6.00 1 50 9 17.65 

3 8 16.00 1 50 8 15.69 

4 5 10.00 1 50 2 3.92 

5 7 14.00 1 50 7 13.73 

6 4 8.00 1 50 6 11.76 

7 12 24.00 1 50 5 9.8 

8 10 20.00 1 50 3 5.88 

9 1 2.00 1 50 0 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: No Part C early intervention program agencies (0 percent) reported conducting no outreach activities. Four Part B preschool-age s

agencies (8 percent) reported conducting no outreach activities. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 25; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 16. 
C-20 

Exhibit C.24: Most Frequent Referral Sources Reported by States for Part C Early Intervention Program Agencies b

Program Lead Agency (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Health/Human Services 

(n = 37) 

Education 

(n = 11) 

Yes Yes Yes 

Referral Source N % Missing Totala N % Missing Totala N % 

Families 21 58.33 1 37 5 45.45 0 11 2 100.

Primary health care providers 14 38.89 1 37 5 45.45 0 11 0 0.Private agency 0 0.00 1 37 0 0.00 0 11 0 0.

Local school district 0 0.00 1 37 0 0.00 0 11 0 0.

Health department 0 0.00 1 37 1 9.09 0 11 0 0.

Social services agency 0 0.00 1 37 0 0.00 0 11 0 0.0

Regional agencies 0 0.00 1 37 0 0.00 0 11 0 0.0

Other 1 2.78 1 37 0 0.00 0 2 0 0.

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-one Part C early intervention program agencies led by health/human service agencies (59 percent) identified families as threferrals. Five Part C program agencies led by education agencies (46 percent) identified the most frequent referral source as families. Two Part C proeducation and health/human service agencies identified families as their most frequent source of referrals (100 percent). Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Total refers to the number of states that answered the item about activities (Item 24). One state did not answer the question about lead agency (Item 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 1, 24. 
C-21 

Exhibit C.25: Responsibilities under Part C Early Intervention Program by Responsible Agent (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Area of Responsibility 

Oversee or 

Perform coordinate Perform initial Provide Oversee or 

Responsible evaluation/ evaluation/ service direct coordinate 

for intake eligibility eligibility coordination services direct service

Agency N % N % N % N % N % N % 

State level staff employed by lead agency: Housed at lead agency 5 9.80 4 7.84 4 7.84 4 7.84 1 1.96 6 11.7

Housed at regional 8 15.69 8 15.69 8 15.69 8 15.69 7 13.73 10 19.6

agency Housed at local 5 9.80 4 7.84 5 9.80 5 9.80 4 7.84 5 9.8

agency Local private agencies/programs Contracted through 33 64.71 30 58.82 34 66.67 34 66.67 30 58.82 31 60.7state agency 

Contracted through 8 15.69 10 19.61 6 11.76 7 13.73 12 23.53 8 15.6

regional agency Contracted through 8 15.69 9 17.65 7 13.73 7 13.73 11 21.57 9 17.6

other local entity Individual service providers contracted with: State level 1 1.96 9 17.65 2 3.92 2 3.92 14 27.45 5 9.8Regional public 4 7.84 6 11.76 2 3.92 4 7.84 9 17.65 4 7.8

Regional private 2 3.92 3 5.88 1 1.96 1 1.96 3 5.88 2 3.9

Local public 11 21.57 15 29.41 9 17.65 8 15.69 14 27.45 10 19.6

Local private 9 17.65 16 31.37 8 15.69 8 15.69 16 31.37 9 17.6

Other agency 1 1.96 3 5.88 1 1.96 1 1.96 3 5.88 2 3.9

EXHIBIT READS: Five Part C early intervention program agencies (10 percent) reported that state-level staff housed at the lead agency is responsible 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire– Item 7.
C-22 

 

Exhibit C.26: Agency Typically Responsible for Providing Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program Services at the Local Level (School Year 2008–2009) 

Yes 

Agency Type N % 

Local school districts or county offices of education provide services 33 64.71 

Services are provided by three entities: local school districts or county offices of 

education, private programs contracted with the state and non-education public 

agencies. 

5 9.80 

Local school districts or county office of education AND a non-education public 

agency provide services 

4 7.84 

Local school districts or county office of education AND other (not listed) provide 

services 

4 7.84 

Local school districts or county offices of education AND private programs 

contract with the state to provide services 

3 5.88 

Services are provided by three entities: local school districts or county offices of 

education, private programs contracted with the state and other (not listed). 

1 1.96 

A non-education public agency provides services 1 1.96 

Total a 51 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: For the 2008–2009 school year, 33 Part B preschool-age special education program systems (65 percent) 

reported local school districts or county offices of education are responsible for providing preschool special education and 

related services. Five Part B program systems (10 percent) reported that local school districts or county offices of education, 

private programs that contracted with the state and non-education public agencies provide preschool special education and 

related services. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0. 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 8. 
C-23 

 

Exhibit C.27: Additional Qualifications of Part C Early Intervention Program Service 

Coordinators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Yes 

Qualifications N % Missing Total a 

Must complete mandatory early intervention training 38 76.00 1 50 

Must be certified/credentialed by the state as a service 

coordinator 13 26.00 1 50 

Other 6 12.00 1 50 

No additional qualifications required 5 10.00 1 50 

Must be licensed social workers 0 0.00 1 50 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-eight Part C early intervention program agencies (76 percent) require service coordinators to 

complete mandatory early intervention training. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 10. 
C-24 

 

Exhibit C.28: Areas Addressed among States with State-Level Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program Interagency Agreements (School Year 2008–2009) 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education 

Program a 

Yes

Missing Total b N % 

State has a state-level interagency 

agreement addressing provision of 

preschool services to children with 

disabilities 

44 88.00 1 50 

Areas addressed by state-level interagency agreements in states with state-level interagency 

agreements: 

Transition to preschool 40 93.02 1 43 

Evaluation/eligibility/assessment 36 83.72 1 43 

Cost or resource sharing 30 69.77 1 43 

Professional development and/or training 30 69.77 1 43 

Responsibility for direct services 28 65.12 1 43 

Data sharing 26 60.47 1 43 

Other 6 13.95 1 43

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-four Part B preschool-age special education program agencies (88 percent) reported having a 

state-level interagency agreement that addresses the provision of services to preschool-age children with disabilities. Forty 

Part B program agencies (93 percent) required the state-level interagency agreement to address transition to preschool. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Among states with a state-level interagency agreement, areas addressed by Part B preschool-age special education
 

program agency.
 

b Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 3, 5.
 
C-25 

Exhibit C.29: Use of Part C Early Intervention Program Funding (Part C Option) to Provide 

Services until Children Enter Kindergarten (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Yes 

State Uses Part C Option N % States Responding Yes 

No 44 86.27 AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, 

CT, FL, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, 

KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, 

MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, 

NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, 

OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, 

TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, 

WY 

No, but it is under consideration 7 13.73 DC, DE, GA, MS, NM, 

SD, VT 

Yes 0 0.00 — 

Total a 51 100.00 — 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-seven percent (44) of Part C early intervention program agencies reported their state does not use
 

the Part C Option to provide services to toddlers until the child enters kindergarten.
 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 31. 

 

Appendix D: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 3 

Exhibit D.1: Status of Definitions for Significant Disproportionality (School Year 2008–2009) 

As of 2008– 2009, state’s 

definitions of significant 

disproportionality are: N 

States 

% States Responding Yes 

Finalized and no changes are 

anticipated 

29 56.86 AL, AR, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, 

KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, ND, NE, NJ, NM, 

NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, UT, VT, WY 

Finalized but modifications or 

revisions are planned for the 

coming year 

17 33.33 CO, DC, FL, IA, MA, MI, MN, MT, NC, OK, 

SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI, WV 

Under development 5 9.80 AK, CA, IL, ME, NH 

Total a 51 100.00 — 

EXHIBIT READS: The definitions of significant disproportionality are finalized with no anticipated changes in 29 SEAs 

(57 percent). 

N = 51. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B school-age special education program coordinators who answered the question. 

Number of Part B school-age special education program coordinators who did not answer the question: 0.
 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 1. 

D-1 
Exhibit D.2: Percentage of Districts Having Significant Disproportionality in the Identification 

of Students by State Definition (School Year 2008–2009) 

Statistical Approach and Years of Data 

Percentage of Districts in State 

Mean Median Range 

Single method: risk ratio 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use 1 year of data (4 states) 13.96 0.51 0.00 – 54.81 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use 1 year of data (3 states) 4.39 0.00 0.00 – 13.16 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use more than 1 year of data (2 

states) 34.06 34.06 13.02 – 55.10 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use more than 1 year of data 

(2 states) 2.49 2.49 0.00 – 4.98 

Single method: weighted risk ratio 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use 1 year of data (1 state) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use 1 year of data (4 states) 0.09 0.00 0.00 – 0.35 

Cutoff value of < 3.5 and use more than 1 year of data (1 

state) 

a a a 

Cutoff value of 3.5 or greater and use more than 1 year of data 

(4 states) 5.77 4.79 0.00 – 13.51 

Multiple methods 

Weighted risk ratio + risk ratio and use 1 year of data (2 

states) 8.46 8.46 1.93 – 15.00 

Weighted risk ratio + risk ratio and use more than 1 year of 

data (2 states) 

Weighted risk ratio + other b

 and use 1 year of data (2 states) 

Weighted risk ratio + other c

 and use more than 1 year of data 

(1 state) 

Alternate risk ratio + other d

 and use 1 year of data (1 state) e Risk ratio + other and use more than 1 year of data (1 state) 

0.48 

1.37 

6.97

12.27 12.27 

2.61 

0.48 

1.37 

6.97 

2.61 

0.00 – 0.96 

0.00 – 2.75 

6.97 

12.27 

2.61 

Other method (2 states) 4.44 4.44 0.55 – 8.33 

EXHIBIT READS: Among states using a risk ratio alone to identify districts as having significant disproportionality in 

identification, with a cutoff value of less than 3.5 and incorporating one year of data, the mean percentage of districts 

identified as having significant disproportionality in the area of identification is 13.96. The median percentage of districts 

identified is 0.51. The percentage of districts identified ranged from zero to 54.81 percent. 

N = 32. 

In March–April of 2009, “current” definitions for significant disproportionality in the area of identification were obtained 

from 34 states. Two states are excluded from this table because their definition was not specific to identification. The 

percentage of districts identified was calculated as the number of districts states reported as having significant 

disproportionality in identification in the current (2008–2009 school year) divided by the number of districts in the state in 

the 2007–2008 school year from the Common Core of Data. 

a Nebraska uses this method but is excluded from the analysis because data for the percentage of districts identified as 

having significant disproportionality in the area of identification were missing. 

b “Other” method: 1) a “risk gap” 2) more than 20 percent difference in the identified special education population from 

the overall district population by race/ethnicity category. 

c “Other” method: Risk levels for a racial group that are 1 percent or higher than the state risk for white students. 

d “Other” method: Disproportionality exists when a group is represented at a disproportionate rate higher than the group’s 

representation in the population; all groups should be represented in proportion to the make-up of the population being 

considered. 

e “Other” method: A measure of impact comparing expected vs. observed numbers of students identified as eligible for 

special education. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 4a. Definitions were either provided by respondents or obtained from the State 

Education Agency website. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school year is from Common Core of 

Data, Build-A-Table (http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 

D-2 
 

 

 c 

Exhibit D.3: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS during the Current 

School Year as a Result of Significant Disproportionality, as Reported by SEAs (School Year 

2008–2009) 

LEAs Required to Use CEIS 

Area of Significant Disproportionality: 

Number of 

districts a Percentage of 

districts b

 Total 

Overall 463 2.86 51 c 

Identification 368 2.31 50 d 

Placement 106 0.66 50 d 

Discipline 54 0.34 50 d 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts nationwide, 2.86 percent are required to use CEIS as a result of significant 

disproportionality in any area. 

For overall, N = 51; for specific areas, N = 50. 

The percentage of districts required to use CEIS was calculated as the sum of the number of districts reported by the states 

as being required to provide CEIS in the current (2008–2009) school year divided by the number of districts in the country 

in the 2007–2008 school year from the Common Core of Data multiplied by 100. 

Districts may have significant disproportionality in multiple areas, thus counts in the separate areas will not necessarily sum 

to the whole. 

a Total number of districts required to use CEIS across reporting SEAs. 

b The denominator for this column is the total number of districts across reporting SEAs in school year 2007–2008. 

Total refers to the number of SEAs that responded to the question. 

d Total refers to the number of SEAs identifying the area of significant disproportionality among (Item 4) among SEAs 

reporting that at least one district was required to use CEIS in the 2008–2009 school year (Item 3). One SEA did not indicate 

the area in which districts had been identified as having significant disproportionality. 

NOTE: One state did not identify the number of LEAs required to use CEIS by area of significant disproportionality. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Items 3, 4; total number of school districts with enrollment for 2007–2008 from 

Common Core of Data Build-A-Table (http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 

D-3 
Exhibit D.4: Percentage of Districts Required by SEA to Provide CEIS Due to Significant 

Disproportionality among States Requiring at Least One District to Provide CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) 

Mean Median Range

Percentage of districts within SEA 10.43 4.67 0.35 – 55.77 

EXHIBIT READS: Part B program coordinators reporting at least one disproportionate district required a mean of 10.43 

percent of districts to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality. The median percentage of districts required to 

provide CEIS in these states is 4.67 percent. The percentage of districts required to provide CEIS in these states ranges from 

0.35 to 55.77 percent. 

N = 29. 

The percentage of districts with an SEA required to provide CEIS due to significant disproportionality was calculated as the 

number of districts the Part B school-age special education program coordinators reported were required to provide CEIS in 

the 2008–2009 school year due to significant disproportionality divided by the number of districts in the SEA in the 2007– 

2008 school year as reported in the Common Core of Data multiplied by 100. 

NOTE: Total number of SEAs reporting at least one district was required to provide CEIS due to significant 

disproportionality: 29. Twenty-two SEAs reported no districts had been identified as having significant disproportionality 

for any reason and are not included in this table. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 3. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school year is from 

Common Core of Data, Build-A-Table (http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 

Exhibit D.5: Target Schools for CEIS Activities or Resources among Districts Required to 

Provide CEIS (School Year 2008–2009) 

%

Yes 

(SE) 

Target only schools with evidence of significant disproportionality 11.27 4.98 

Focus on all schools, regardless of whether they show significant disproportionality 81.62 6.41 

Other 7.10 4.47 

EXHIBIT READS: Eleven percent of districts required to provide CEIS target CEIS activities or resources only to schools 

with evidence of significant disproportionality.
 

N = 89. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of districts using CEIS responding to this question: 89. Number of districts using CEIS that did not answer
 

the question: 1. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 3.
 

D-4 
 

 

 

Exhibit D.6: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Program Funds to Provide CEIS as 

Reported by Districts (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts 

Use of Part B Program Funds to Provide CEIS % (SE) 

District is required to use 15 percent of Part B funds for CEIS 4.48 0.69 

District is not required but elects to use any portion of Part B funds 10.91 1.66 

District does not use any Part B funds for CEIS 84.61 1.74 

EXHIBIT READS: Four percent of districts are required to use 15 percent of Part B special education program funds to 

support CEIS. Eleven percent of all districts are not required to use Part B program funds to provide CEIS but elected to do 

so; 85 percent of all districts are neither required nor elected to support CEIS with Part B funds. 

N = 1,142. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 1,142. Number of 

districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 6. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4. 

Exhibit D.7: Voluntary Use of Part B Special Education Funds to Provide CEIS—Proportion of 

Funds Used (School Year 2008–2009) 

Percent of Part B Program Funds Allocated to CEIS %a (SE) 

Less than 1 percent 6.85 2.63 

1–5 percent 39.40 7.27 

6–10 percent 23.04 6.00 

11 percent or more 30.70 10.54 

An estimated 7 percent of districts using Part B funds to provide CEIS allocate less than 1 percent of their Part B program 

funds to CEIS activities. 

N = 155. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Percentage is among districts that voluntarily provide CEIS. 

NOTE: Number of districts voluntarily providing CEIS that answered the question: 155. Number of districts voluntarily
 

providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 11. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 4, 5.
 

D-5 
Exhibit D.8: Distribution of CEIS by School Level for Districts Providing CEIS (School Year 

2008–2009) 

 

 

 

Mandatory Providers of CEIS 

Yes 

Voluntary Providers of CEIS 

Yes 

Elementary schools a

Middle schools 

% 

92.59 

55.69 

(SE) 

4.64 

7.91 

% 

92.64 

40.93 

(SE) 

3.76 

7.85 

High schools 

Other schools 

41.15 

8.76

6.29 

4.76

32.79 

8.72 

7.17 

3.14 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 93 percent of districts mandated to provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary
 

schools. Ninety-three percent of districts electing to provide CEIS conduct CEIS in elementary schools. 

Mandatory: For elementary schools, N = 86; for middle schools, N = 61; for high schools, N = 51; for other schools, N = 10. 

Voluntary: For elementary schools, N = 160; for middle schools, N = 88; for high schools, N = 68; for other schools, N = 14. 

Percentage is among districts that provide CEIS. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a	 Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. 

High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. 

Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

NOTE: Number of districts providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 0. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 6. 

D-6 
D-7 

Exhibit D.9: Percentage of CEIS-Mandatory and CEIS-Voluntary Districts Using Part B Special Education Program FunActivities (School Year 2008–2009) Type of Activity Supported by Part B Program Funds 

Districts Mandated to Provide CEIS Districts Voluntaril

Use Part B 

program 

funds Unknown Missing Total 

Use Part B 

program 

funds Unknown 

% (SE) % (SE) N N % (SE) % (S

Literacy instruction 81.79 6.34   0 90 84.33 3.73 2.59 1.

Response to Intervention (RtI) 81.65 5.82 6.52 4.43 1 89 67.07 10.18 1.52 1.

Behavioral interventions 63.36 7.12 7.49 4.66 0 90 60.11 8.83 1.68 1.

Math instruction 63.22 7.75 1.02 0.61 0 90 48.63 8.57 1.95 1.

Adaptive and instructional software 55.02 7.71 4.02 3.46 1 89 41.43 7.87 2.33 1.

Educational evaluations 43.00 7.16 4.75 3.60 1 89 46.30 7.68 3.81 3.

Behavioral evaluations 47.47 7.06 7.92 4.77 1 89 36.51 7.04 4.79 3.

Other instruction 17.79 6.00 17.30 5.87 0 90 21.23 5.46 18.14 5.

Other 14.06 5.62 26.93 7.18 2 88 10.76 3.42 22.01 6.

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-two percent of districts mandated to provide CEIS reported using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or 

mandated to provide CEIS reported they did not know if they used Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Eighty-voluntarily providing CEIS reported using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Three percent of districts volunt

know if they used Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. For districts mandated to provide CEIS, N = 90 for literacy instruction, behavior interventions, math instruction, and other instruction; N = 89 for RtI, adap

educational evaluations and behavioral evaluations; N = 88 for other. For districts electing to provide CEIS, N = 166 for literacy instruction, RtI, behavioral interventions, math instruction, adaptive and instructional software a

N = 164 for behavioral evaluations and other instructions; N = 161 for other. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 7, 8. 
D-8 

Exhibit D.10: Special Education Evaluation and Eligibility in Kindergarten through Grade 3 by 

District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) (School Year 2008–

2009) 

Districts Using 

CEIS (Either 

Voluntary or 

Mandatory) 

Difference

(Districts Using CEIS –

Districts not Using 

CEIS) 

Districts not 

Using CEIS 

Percentage 

points 

difference 

% (SE) a (SE) % a (SE) p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated 

Percentage of all students found 

eligible 

Percentage of newly evaluated 

students found eligible 

3.16

2.12 

67.12

 0.19 

0.19 

 4.35 

3.57 

2.58 

72.39 

0.16 

0.10 

1.88 

0.41 (0.25) 

0.46 (0.22) 

5.28 (4.75) 

0.103 

0.036* 

0.267 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of all students (grades K–3) evaluated in 2007–2008 was 3.16 for districts using CEIS 

and it was 3.57 for districts not using CEIS. The difference between the two sets of districts is 0.41 percentage points, with a 

probability value of 0.103. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

Data are limited to a subsample of districts that included children with speech and language impairment when answering the 

survey question about number of students who were evaluated and eligible. 

Data indicating eligibility are based on the 2007–2008 school year. Data indicating use of CEIS are based on use during the 

2008–2009 school year. 

a The percentages were calculated as follows. Percentage of all students evaluated: number of students indicated by district 

to be evaluated in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 2007–2008 school 

year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of all students found eligible: number of students indicated 

by district to be found eligible in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 

2007–2008 school year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of newly evaluated students found 

eligible: number of students indicated by district to be found eligible as indicated by the district divided by the percent of all 

students evaluated as indicated by the districted multiplied by 100. 

* P-value is significant at the .05 level. 

NOTE: Total N for this subsample was 626. Enrollment data for one district was missing from the Common Core of Data 

for the 2007–2008 school year. For that district, the enrollment for the 2006–2007 school year was used. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 20. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school 

year is from Common Core of Data, Build-A-Table (CCD; http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
D-9 

Exhibit D.11: Activities Conducted by SEAs Related to RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

Type of Activity N 

States 

Missing Total a % 

Has a state-level RtI task force, commission, or internal 

working group 49 96.08 0 51

Has organized trainings on RtI conducted by consultants or 

contractors 40 78.43 0 51

Has issued guidelines on RtI 39 76.47 0 51
 

Has RtI information available on the SEA website 39 76.47 0 51
 

Staff conduct trainings on RtI 37 72.55 0 51
 

Staff provide technical assistance to LEAs and schools that 

are investigating or implementing RtI
 37 72.55 0 51

Has provided resources to school districts to explore the use 

of RtI 36 70.59 0 51

Arranges technical assistance from consultants or 

contractors for LEAs and schools that are investigating or 

implementing RtI 

34 66.67 0 51
 

Has an outside advisory group related to RtI 29 56.86 0 51
 

Has a dedicated full-time position related to RtI 20 39.22 0 51
 

Other 1 1.96 0 51
 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-nine SEAs (96 percent) have a state-level RtI task force, commission, or internal working group. 

N = 51. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B school-age special education program coordinators who answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 8. 
 

Exhibit D.12: Activities Conducted by State Agencies to Support the Implementation of RtI for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2008–2009) 

States 

Type of Activity N % Missing Total a 

Has no current initiatives 32 62.75 0 51 

Organized trainings on RtI for preschool children 

conducted by consultants or contractors 7 13.73 0 51 

Staff provide technical assistance to local providers that 

are investigating or implementing RtI for preschool 

children 

7 13.73 0 51 

Supports state-level RtI task force, commission, or 

internal working group specifically for preschool children 6 11.76 0 51 

Arranges technical assistance from consultants or 

contractors for local providers that are investigating or 

implementing RtI for preschool children 

6 11.76 0 51 

Has a pilot initiative for limited number of preschools 5 9.80 0 51 

Initiative to support statewide implementation of RtI for 

preschool children 5 9.80 0 51 

Staff conduct trainings on RtI for preschool children 5 9.80 0 51 

Information on RtI for preschool children is available on 

agency website 4 7.84 0 51 

Provides resources (e.g., grants or RFPs) for preschool 

providers to explore the use of RtI (e.g., to identify model 

RtI programs; to assist in implementation) 

3 5.88 0 51 

State guidelines on RtI for preschool children exist 3 5.88 0 51 

Other 4 7.84 0 51 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part B special education program for preschool-age children agencies (63 percent) have no 

current initiative to support RtI implementation for preschool-age children. 

N = 51. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to all Part B preschool-age special education program agencies that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Part B 619 Questionnaire – Item 17. 

D-10 
D-11 

 

Exhibit D.13: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008– 

2009) 

Yes No 

Implementation % (SE) % (SE) 

RtI is being used in the district 70.53 2.34 29.47 2.34 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-one percent of districts use RtI.
 

N = 1,148. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of districts responding to the question: 1,148. Number of districts that did not answer the question: 0. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 9.
 
D-12 

Exhibit D.14: Percentage of Districts Using RtI at Various Proportions of Schools by School Level (School Year 20

Percent of Districts 

Using RtI in at least 

one but less than 

half of schools 

Using RtI in half or 

more but not all 

schools 

Not using RtI in 

any school 

Using RtI in all 

schools 

School Level a Mis

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

Elementary schools 33.75 2.79 3.79 0.52 4.53 0.95 57.93 2.41 

Middle schools 67.06 2.08 0.75 0.18 1.72 0.37 30.47 2.05 

High schools 72.89 2.00 0.60 0.17 1.29 0.47 25.22 1.95 

Other schools 93.75 1.09 0.10 0.04 0.46 0.23 5.69 1.06 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-four percent of districts reported using RtI in no elementary schools. Four percent of districts reported using RtI in at least o

elementary schools. Five percent of districts reported using RtI in half or more but not all elementary schools. Fifty-eight percent of districts reported u

schools. For elementary schools, N = 1,139; for middle schools, N = 1,135; for high schools, N = 1,132; for other schools, N = 1,135. Percentage is among districts that use RtI and had one or more schools at the levels indicated. Districts with only one school are excluded from analys

Categories are not mutually exclusive. a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.  High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

b Total refers to the number of districts that responded to the questions. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 9, 15. 
D-13 

Exhibit D.15: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI by School Level 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

School Level a % (SE) Missing 

Elementary schools 60.76 2.45 9 

Middle schools 44.74 2.37 12 

High schools 29.28 2.00 16 

Other schools 13.80 2.56 10 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 61 percent of public elementary schools used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year. 

For elementary schools, N = 1,080; for middle schools, N = 880; for high schools, N = 914; for other schools, N = 405. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. 

High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. 

Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

NOTE: Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,080 districts provided responses to this question. 

Of the 892 districts that had one or more middle schools, 880 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 930 

districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 415 districts that had 

one or more other schools, 405 districts provided responses to this question. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 15. 
D-14 

 

 

 

 

c 

Exhibit D.16: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level (School Year 

2008–2009) 

School 

Level a 

Subject Areas 

Reading/ 

language arts Math Behavior Writing Other Total 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) N 

Elementary 

schools 70.12 2.45 47.06 2.50 36.37 2.41 27.47 2.23 1.57 0.36 1082b 

Middle 

schools 47.62 2.75 38.10 2.64 32.56 2.57 21.52 2.25 1.40 0.43 880c 

High schools 30.51 2.37 28.06 2.30 18.50 1.93 16.94 1.97 1.65 0.47 914d 

Other schools 8.47 1.76 6.26 1.26 7.77 2.43 3.36 1.00 0.76 0.25 393e 

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts with elementary schools, 70 percent reported RtI is being used in reading/language arts, 47 

percent reported that RtI is being used in math, 36 percent reported that RtI is being used in behavior, 27 percent reported 

that RtI is being used in writing and 2 percent indicated that RtI is being used in other areas. 

For elementary schools, N = 1,082; for middle schools, N = 880; for high schools, N = 914; for other schools, N = 393. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. 

High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. 

Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

b Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,082 districts provided responses to this question. 

Of the 892 districts that had one or more middle schools, 880 districts provided responses to this question. 

d Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. 

e Of the 415 districts that had one or more other schools, 393 districts provided responses to this question. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 16. 
D-15 

Exhibit D.17: Percentage of Districts Using RtI in Various Combinations of Subject Areas by School Level (School 

Elementary Schools a Middle Schools b Schools c High 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

RtI in reading only 22.96 2.39 13.50 2.61 7.90 2.21 1

RtI in reading and math 16.22 1.97 15.88 2.42 16.30 2.60 1

RtI in reading and behavior 6.94 1.38 5.85 1.63 4.74 1.89 RtI in reading and writing 1.33 0.46   0.50 0.33 

RtI in reading, math and behavior 14.44 2.05 18.28 2.77 9.69 1.87 

RtI in reading, math and writing 6.86 1.45 5.14 1.42 13.65 3.21 

RtI in reading, behavior and writing 1.23 0.44 1.77 0.79 0.73 0.49 

RtI in reading, math, behavior and writing 27.77 2.72 32.77 3.47 31.02 4.02 3All other combinations 2.25 0.52 6.18 1.57 15.47 3.17 2

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts using RtI in elementary schools, 23 percent of districts reported using RtI in reading only in elementary schools. Of diused RtI, 14 percent of districts reported using RtI in reading only in middle schools. Of districts where high schools use RtI, 8 percent of districts rep

only in high schools. For elementary schools, N = 823; for middle schools, N = 481; for high schools, N = 383; for other schools, N = 89. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculate

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. b Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. c High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. d Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded.  Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

NOTE: Number of districts with elementary schools reporting on subject area in which RtI was used in the 2008–2009 school year: 823. 

Number of districts with middle schools reporting on subject area in which RtI was used in the 2008–2009 school year: 481. Number of districts with high schools reporting on subject area in which RtI was used in the 2008–2009 school year: 383. Number of districts with other schools reporting on subject area in which RtI was used in the 2008–2009 school year: 89. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 16. 
D-16 

 

Exhibit D.18: Percentage of Districts Providing RtI Support to Schools and Information to 

Families among Districts Using RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

% (SE) 

Support to schools through training, technical assistance and funding 32.40 2.22 

Information provided to parents on understanding IDEA requirements relevant to 

RtI or understanding how RtI is being implemented in the district 73.04 2.57 

Both provided support to schools and provided information to parents 25.89 2.08 

EXHIBIT READS: Of districts providing support to schools, 32 percent provide support through training, technical 

assistance and funding.
 

N = 862. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

Only districts that indicated use of RtI in at least one school are included.
 

NOTE: Number of districts providing RtI which answered the items: 862. Number of districts providing RtI which did not 

answer the items: 6.
 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 11, 14. 
D-17 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit D.19: Percentage of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated and Results for 

Part B Special Education Program Services During the 2007–2008 School Year by Use of RtI 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts Using 

RtI at the 

Elementary 

School Level 

Districts with No 

Elementary 

School Using RtI 

Difference 

(Districts Using RtI at the 

Elementary School Level – 

Districts with No Elementary 

School Using RtI) 

% a (SE) % a (SE) 

Percentage 

points 

difference (SE) p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated 

Percentage of all students 

found eligible 

Percentage of students 

newly evaluated found 

eligible 

3.37 (0.14) 

2.41 (0.11)

71.52 (2.27)

3.78 (0.25) 

2.62 (0.19) 

69.42 (2.14) 

-0.41 (0.29) 0.154 

-0.21 (0.22) 0.327 

2.10 (3.10) 0.499 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of elementary school children in school districts using RtI at the elementary school level 

that were newly evaluated during the 2007–2008 school year is three. Districts with no elementary schools using RtI 

evaluated four percent of all students. The difference in the percentage of students evaluated between districts using RtI at 

the one elementary school level and districts with no elementary schools using RtI is -0.41 percentage points. 

N = 632. 

Data are limited to a subsample of districts that included children with speech and language impairment when answering the 

survey question about number of students who were evaluated and eligible 

Data indicating eligibility are based on the 2007–2008 school year. Data indicating use of RtI data are based on use during 

the 2008–2009 school year. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a The percentages were calculated as follows. Percentage of all students evaluated: number of students indicated by district 

to be evaluated in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 2007–2008 school 

year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of all students found eligible: number of students indicated 

by district to be found eligible in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 

2007–2008 school year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of newly evaluated students found 

eligible: number of students indicated by district to be found eligible as indicated by the district divided by the percent of all 

students evaluated as indicated by the districted multiplied by 100. 

NOTE: Total N for this subsample was 632. Enrollment data for one district was missing from the Common Core of Data 

for the 2007–2008 school year. For that district, the enrollment for the 2006–2007 school year was used. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 9, 20. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school year 

is from Common Core of Data, Build-A-Table (CCD; http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
D-18 

Exhibit D.20: Leadership of RtI Implementation in Districts, among Districts Using RtI (School 

Year 2008–2009) 

Yes 

Leadership of RtI Implementation % a (SE) 

RtI implementation in the district is led by general educators 17.67 2.13 

RtI implementation in the district is led by special educators 7.51 2.05 

RtI implementation in the district is led by a team of both general and 

special educators 

Total b

74.81

100.00 

2.69 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts using RtI, in an estimated 18 percent RtI implementation is led by general educators. 

N = 867. 

a Percentage is among districts that use RtI.
 

b Of 868 districts that reported that RtI was being used in at least one school, 867 provided responses to this question.
 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 10. 
D-19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit D.21: Distribution of Funding Sources for District Use of RtI (School Year 2008–2009) 

Source of Funding 

Districts with Any 

Funding Used b 

% (SE) 

Districts Where 

Source Is Providing 

the Most Support c 

% (SE) 

District general funds 79.70 1.98 48.08 2.82 

Combined Title I funds 45.83 2.79 19.36 2.15 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB or ESEA) Title I-A 

School-wide or Targeted Assistance funds 44.40 2.78 17.43 2.09 

NCLB Title I-B Reading First funds 9.08 1.52 1.92 0.62 

Combined IDEA funds 40.56 2.60 21.91 2.21 

IDEA Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS) fundsa 12.79 1.58 6.92 1.16 

IDEA Part B flow-through funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 19.88 1.93 6.86 1.28 

IDEA district discretionary funds, other than 

funds used for CEIS 7.09 1.26 2.26 0.83 

IDEA state discretionary funds 5.99 1.20 1.71 0.73 

Other sources 30.00 2.40 10.56 1.58 

NCLB Title II-A funds 19.46 1.93 5.08 1.01 

NCLB Title III funds 3.32 0.84 0.0 0.0 

NCLB Title V grants for innovation 1.60 0.68  

State Improvement Grant (SIG) or State 

Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) 8.92 1.52 4.15 1.25 

Other 10.14 1.53 5.19 1.22 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts that implemented RtI, 80 percent use district general funds to fund RtI training and 

implementation; 48 percent of districts use district general funds to provide the most support for RtI. 

For identified at least one source, N = 857. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Although the survey used the term “Early Intervening Services” (EIS), the current terminology is “Coordinated Early 

Intervention Services” (CEIS). 

b At least one funding source was identified by 857 of the 868 districts that reported using RtI. Districts were instructed to 

check all that applied. 

The primary funding source was identified by 858 of the 868 districts that reported using RtI. Two districts checked 

Other, but did not enter a valid response. Districts were instructed to check one. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 12, 13. 

c 
 

D-20 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit D.22: Percentage of Students in Specific Learning Disability Category by State 

Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Percentage of Students with SLD 

Difference from Federal Eligibility 

Criteria States 

Mean 

(%) 

Median 

(%) 

Range 

(%) 

State specifies types of qualified 

professionals who are to complete 

evaluation (n=2) 

GA, IN 4.95 4.95 3.57 – 6.32 

When using the discrepancy method, 

state specifies required discrepancy 

between achievement and expected 

levels of performance as: 

1 – 1.3 Standard Deviations (n = 5) AL, ID, MS, NE, NC 5.02 5.43 3.79 – 5.67 

1.5 Standard Deviations (n = 6) HI, MO, OK, TN, VT a

, WY 5.91 5.32 5.24 – 7.96 

≥ 1.75 Standard Deviations (n = 4) MN, MT, WV, WI 5.26 5.45 4.10 – 6.04 

State includes additional categories of 

disability not included in federal definition 

(e.g., Attention Deficit Disorder) (n=2) 

GA, LA 3.99 3.99 3.57 – 4.40 

State specifies number of data collection 

points and length of time per intervention 

prior to eligibility determination (n=3) 

GA, MN, TN 4.30 4.10 3.57 – 5.24 

No difference from federal eligibility 

criteria (n= 33) 

AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, 

DC, FL, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, 

MD, ME, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NM, 

NY,ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, 

SD, TX, UT, VA, WA 

6.09 6.06 2.30 – 8.47 

National state-level average (n=51) 5.82 5.64 2.30 – 8.47 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of children diagnosed with SLD in states specifying professionals who can 

conduct evaluations is 4.95. The median is 4.95 percent and the range is from 3.75 to 6.32 percent. 

N = 51. 

The percentage of students in the Specific Learning Disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 6 

through 21 years in the Specific Learning Disability category for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in grades 

1 through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. 

a

 Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not 

include the number of children identified with Specific Learning Disabilities living in Vermont. 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of 6- through 21-year-olds in a particular disability category is from Table 1-3, Students ages 3 

through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state: Fall 2007, from the Data Accountability Center 

(DAC, www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2009). Grade 1 through 12 enrollment for 

each state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD: http:/nces.ed.gov/bat/, retrieved 

November 20, 2009). 
D-21 

Exhibit D.23: SEA Use of Discrepancy Model to Determine Eligibility for Special Education for 

Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (School Year 2008–2009) 

State Policy N 

States 

% States Responding Yes 

Allows discrepancy model 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and RtI data may be used in 

determining eligibility 

26 50.98 AK, AL, AZ, CA, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, 

MT, ND, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, SC, 

SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WY 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and an alternative method 

(not specifically RtI) may be used to determine 

eligibility 

11 21.57 AR, HI, ID, KS, MA, MI, MS, NH, OH, 

OR, WA 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is permitted and RtI data are explicitly
 

required in determining eligibility 

6 11.76 DC, FL, GA, IL, NC, NM 

Does not allow discrepancy model 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is prohibited and RtI data are explicitly 

required in determining eligibility 

6 11.76 CO, CT, DE, IA, LA, WV 

The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy 

model is prohibited and an alternative method 

(not specifically RtI) is used to determine 

eligibility 

1 1.96 IN 

Other 1 1.96 RI 

Total a 51 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-six SEAs (51 percent) allow the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy model and allow RtI 

data to be used in determining eligibility.
 

N = 51. 

a Total refers to the number of SEAs that answered the question. Number of SEAs that did not answer the question: 0. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 11. 
D-22 

Exhibit D.24: Percentage of Districts Using Various Types of Data in Determining Special 

Education Eligibility in the Category of SLD for Elementary Students (School Year 2008–2009) 

Types of Data % 

Districts 

(SE) 

Use of both RtI data and discrepancy data 52.81 2.49 

Data and other information from the RtI process; data based on 

cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a discrepancy 

between expected and actual performance; as well as data from 

other, research-based procedures
 

30.49 2.06

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data 

based on cognitive and academic assessments that demonstrate a 

discrepancy between expected and actual performance 

22.32 2.00 

Use of discrepancy data without RtI data 34.70 2.51 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that 

demonstrate a discrepancy between expected and actual 

performance only 

22.13 2.42 

Data based on cognitive and academic assessments that 

demonstrate a discrepancy between expected and actual 

performance as well as data from other, research-based procedures 

12.57 1.53 

Use of RtI data without discrepancy data 12.05 1.52 

Data and other information from the RtI process as well as data from 

other, research-based procedures 9.01 1.37

Data and other information from the RtI process only 3.04 0.73 

Other 

Data from other, research-based procedures only 0.45 0.18 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of districts that use both RtI data and discrepancy data to determine SLD eligibility for 

elementary school students is 53. 

N = 1,107. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Total number of districts responding to the question: 1107. Number of districts using RtI that did not answer the 

question: 41. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 19. 
 

D-23 

 

 

 

Exhibit D.25: Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were Evaluated, and Results by 

Use of Types of Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts That Use 

RtI data without 

Discrepancy 

Dataa 

Districts That 

Use Discrepancy 

Data without RtI 

Data a 

Districts That Use 

Both RtI data and 

Discrepancy Data a Overall 

ANOVA 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) p-value 

Percentage of all students 

evaluated for special 

education eligibility b 

Percentage of all students 

found eligible b 

Percentage of evaluated 

students determined to be 

eligible for special 

education b 

2.96 0.45 

1.97 0.20 

66.57 8.98 

3.96 0.23

2.81 0.18

70.90 1.96

3.38 0.14 

2.43 0.12 

71.83 2.31 

0.051 

0.010* 

0.837 

EXHIBIT READS: In districts that use RtI data without discrepancy data, 2.96 percent of all students are evaluated; in 

districts that use discrepancy data without RtI data, 3.96 percent of students are evaluated, and 3.38 percent of all students 

are evaluated in districts that use both discrepancy and RtI data. The overall ANOVA p-value is 0.051. 

N = 626. 

Data are limited to a subsample of districts that included children with speech and language impairment when answering the 

survey question about number of students who were evaluated and eligible. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a

 The percentages were calculated as followed. Percentage of all students evaluated: number of students indicated by district 

to be evaluated in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 2007–2008 school 

year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of all students found eligible: number of students indicated 

by district to be found eligible in K–3 in the 2007–2008 school year divided by the grade K–3 district enrollment for the 

2007–2008 school year from the Common Core Data multiplied by 100. Percentage of newly evaluated students found 

eligible: number of students indicated by district to be found eligible as indicated by the district divided by the percent of all 

students evaluated as indicated by the districted multiplied by 100. 

Enrollment data for one district was missing from the Common Core of Data for the 2007–2008 school year. For that 

district, the enrollment for the 2006–2007 school year was used. 

* P-value is significant at the .05 level. 

a Data indicating use of RtI data are based on use during the 2008–2009 school year. 

b Data indicating eligibility are based on the 2007–2008 school year. 

NOTE: Total N for this subsample was 626. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 19, 20. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school year 

is from Common Core of Data, Build-A-Table (CCD; http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
D-24 

 

Exhibit D.26: Pairwise Comparison of Percentages of All Students in Grades K–3 That Were 

Evaluated and Results for Part B Special Education Program Services by Use of Types of 

Evaluation Data (School Year 2008–2009) 

Districts That Use RtI 

Data without 

Discrepancy Data vs. 

Districts That Use 

Discrepancy Data 

without RtI Data a 

Districts That Use RtI 

Data without 

Discrepancy Data vs. 

Districts That Use 

Both RtI data and 

Discrepancy Data a 

Districts That Use 

Discrepancy Data 

without RtI Data vs. 

Districts That Use Both 

RtI Data and 

Discrepancy Data a 

Percentage 

points 

difference 

(SE) p-value 

Percentage 

points 

difference 

(SE) p-value 

Percentage 

points 

difference 

(SE) p-value 

Percentage of all students 

determined to be eligible for 

special education b -0.84 (0.27) 0.002* -0.46 (0.23) 0.056 0.38 (0.22) 0.087 

EXHIBIT READS: The difference, in percentage points, of elementary school children found eligible for Part B special 

education program services in districts using RtI data without discrepancy data and districts using discrepancy data without 

RtI data is –0.84. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.002). 

N = 626. 

Data are limited to a subsample of districts that included children with speech and language impairment when answering the 

survey question about number of students who were evaluated and eligible 

*P-value is significant both before and after the Benjamini-Hochberg (1995) adjustment for multiple comparison. 

a Data indicating use of RtI data are based on use during the 2008–2009 school year. 

b Data indicating eligibility are based on the 2007–2008 school year. 

NOTE: Total N for this subsample was 626.
 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 19, 20. The number of districts in each state for the 2007–2008 school year 

is from Common Core of Data, Build-A-Table (CCD; http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
D-25 

Exhibit D.27: Number and Percentage of Districts Required to Use CEIS During the Current School Year as a Result of SigReported by SEAs by Region (School Year 2008–2009) 

LEAs Required to Use CEIS 

Northeast South Midwest 

Area of Significant 

Disproportionality: 

Number 

of 

districts a

Percentage 

of districts b Total 

Number 

of 

districts a

Percentage 

of districts b Total 

Number 

of 

districts a

Percentage 

of districts b Total 

N

dis

Overallc

Identificationd

Placementd

Disciplined

85 62 24 24 

2.42 1.77 0.68 0.68 

9 9 9 9 

292 230 

77 21 

7.98 6.28 2.10 0.57 

17 171717

72 62 

5 9 

1.23 1.11

0.09 0.16

12 11

1111

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts in the Northeast, 2 percent are required to use CEIS as a result of significant disproportionality in any area. Among districts 

use CEIS as a result of significant disproportionality in any area. Among districts in the Midwest, 1 percent are required to use CEIS as a result of significant disdistricts in the West, less than 1 percent are required to use CEIS as a result of significant disproportionality in any area. The percentage of districts required to use CEIS was calculated as the sum of the number of districts reported by the states as required to provide CEIS in the cu

by the number of districts in the country in the 2007–2008 school year from the Common Core of Data multiplied by 100. Districts may have significant disproportionality in multiple areas, thus counts in the separate areas will not necessarily sum to the whole. 

a Total number of districts required to use CEIS across reporting SEA. b The denominator for this column is the total number of districts across reporting SEAs in school year 2007–2008. c Total refers to the number of SEAs that responded to the question. d Total refers to the number of SEAs identifying the area of significant disproportionality among (Item 4) among SEAs reporting that at least one district was req

school year (Item 3). One SEA did not indicate the area in which districts had been identified as having significant disproportionality. NOTE: One state did not identify the number of LEAs required to use CEIS by area of significant disproportionality. SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Items 3, 4. Total Number of School Districts with Enrollment for 2007–2008 from Common Core of Data Build-A-Tabl

November 20, 2009). Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data file Ccdagn97.sd2 

CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. Classification was based on 

the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
D-26 

Exhibit D.28: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by Region 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Northeastern 

Districts 

Southern 

Districts 

Midwestern 

Districts 

Western 

Districts Use of Part B Funds to 

Provide CEIS % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

District is required to use 15 

percent Part B funds for CEIS 3.08 1.22 12.83 2.45 2.10 0.74 0.39 0.34 

District is not required but 

elects to use some portion of 

Part B funds 

10.32 3.00 15.10 2.23 12.14 3.96 4.27 1.13 

District does not use any Part B 

funds for CEIS 86.60 3.20 72.07 3.07 85.76 3.96 95.35 1.17 

EXHIBIT READS: Three percent of Northeastern districts are required to use 15 percent of Part B funds to support CEIS. 

Ten percent of Northeastern districts which are not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS elected to support CEIS 

with Part B funds. Eighty-seven percent of Northeastern districts did not use any Part B funds to support CEIS. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of Northeastern districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 179. 

Number of Northeastern districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 0. Number of 

Southern districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 443. Number of Southern 

districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 0. Number of Midwestern districts not 

required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 241. Number of Midwestern districts not required to 

use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 2. Number of Western districts not required to use Part B funds 

to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 279. Number of Western districts not required to use Part B funds to provide 

CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 4. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education 

Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data file Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and 

ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. 

Classification was based on the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from 

http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
D-27 

Exhibit D.29: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by Urbanicity 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Suburban 

Districts 

Rural 

Districts 

Use of Part B Funds to Provide CEIS 

Urban Districts 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

District is required to use 15 percent Part 

B funds for CEIS 11.02 1.57 4.09 0.90 4.04 1.12 

District is not required but elects to use 

any portion of Part B funds 16.81 1.98 11.58 1.49 9.57 3.11 

District does not use any Part B funds for 

CEIS 72.17 2.25 84.32 1.68 86.38 3.21 

EXHIBIT READS: Eleven percent of urban districts are required to use 15 percent of Part B funds to support CEIS. 

Seventeen percent of urban districts which are not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS, elected to support CEIS 

with Part B program funds. Seventy-two percent of urban districts did not use any Part B funds to support CEIS. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of urban districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 370. Number 

of urban districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 0. Number of suburban 

districts not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 580. Number of suburban districts not 

required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 6. Number of rural districts not required to use Part 

B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 192. Number of rural districts not required to use Part B funds to provide 

CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 0. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education 

Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data file Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and 

ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. 
D-28 

Exhibit D.30: District Implementation of Coordinated Early Intervening Services by District 

Enrollment (School Year 2008–2009) 

District 

Enrollment

Between 

1,000 and 

10,000 

District 

Enrollment 

Less than 

1,000 

District 

Enrollment 

Greater than 

10,000 

Use of Part B Funds to Provide CEIS % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

District is required to use 15 percent Part B 

funds for CEIS 

2.16 0.76 5.59 1.21 13.70 2.73 

District is not required but elects to use any 

portion of Part B funds 

6.67 3.01 14.02 1.90 19.56 3.29 

District does not use any Part B funds for 

CEIS 

91.16 3.05 80.38 2.17 66.74 4.06 

EXHIBIT READS: Two percent of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 are required to use 15 percent of Part B funds to 

support CEIS. Six percent of districts with enrollments between 1,000 and 10,000 are required to use 15 percent of Part B 

funds to support CEIS. Fourteen percent of districts with enrollments greater than 10,000 are required to use 15 percent of 

Part B funds. Seven percent of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 which are not required to use Part B funds to provide 

CEIS elected to support CEIS with Part B funds. Ninety-one percent of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 did not use 

any Part B funds to support CEIS. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

NOTE: Number of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded 

to Item 4: 295. Number of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did 

not answer Item 4: 2. Number of districts with enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 required to use Part B funds to provide 

CEIS that responded to Item 4: 575. Number of districts with enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 not required to use Part 

B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 3. Number of districts with enrollment greater than 10,000 not required 

to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that responded to Item 4: 272. Number of districts with enrollment greater than 10,000 

not required to use Part B funds to provide CEIS that did not answer Item 4: 1. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4. 
D-29 

Exhibit D.31: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That Provide CEIS Either Duon a Voluntary Basis by Region (School Year 2008–2009) 

Northeastern Districts Southern Districts Midwestern Districts 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

Elementary schools a 88.07 11.94 94.60 3.31 91.52 4.61 9

Middle schools 59.84 15.10 45.65 6.19 36.41 12.98 4

High schools 43.80 15.08 31.07 5.13 38.05 13.22 2

Other schools 14.19 7.44 9.89 4.01 4.98 3.56 

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 88 percent of Northeastern districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. An estimated 9

districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. An estimated 92 percent of Midwestern districts that provide CEIS conduct 

schools. An estimated 99 percent of Western districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. Percentage is among districts that provide CEIS. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculate

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.  High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. NOTE: Number of Northeastern districts providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 0. Number of Southern districts providing CEIS that did no

Number of Midwestern districts providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 2. Number of Western districts providing CEIS that did not answer tSOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 6. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) UnivCcdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nceClassification was based on the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.
D-30 

Exhibit D.32: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That Provide CEIS Either Duon a Voluntary Basis by Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) 

Urban Districts Suburban Districts R

% (SE) % (SE) % 

Elementary schools a 96.79 1.95 93.79 3.08 90.3

Middle schools 62.88 4.83 56.33 5.81 29.1

High schools 54.08 4.95 44.99 5.86 20.2

Other schools 8.80 2.60 9.29 3.59 8.1

EXHIBIT READS: An estimated 97 percent of urban districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. An estimated 94 perc

provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. An estimated 90 percent of rural districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elPercentage is among districts that provide CEIS. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculate

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.  High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. NOTE: Number of urban districts providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 0. Number of suburban districts providing CEIS that did not answerural districts providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 6. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) U

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.g
D-31 

Exhibit D.33: School Levels at Which CEIS Activities Are Conducted, among Districts That 

Provide CEIS Either Due to Requirements or on a Voluntary Basis by District Enrollment 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

District Enrollment 

Less than 1,000 

District Enrollment 

between 1,000 and 

10,000 

District Enrollment 

Greater than 10,000 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

Elementary schools a 100.00 0.00 87.62 4.94 100.00 0.00 

Middle schools 18.20 11.78 51.58 6.66 71.51 4.57 

High schools 12.05 10.47 38.85 6.40 65.85 4.83 

Other schools 0.00 0.00 12.80 3.86 8.26 2.61 

EXHIBIT READS: Among school districts with enrollment less than 1,000, 100 percent of districts that provide CEIS 

conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. Among school districts with enrollments between 1,000 and 10,000, 88 

percent of districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. In districts with enrollments greater 

than 10,000, 100 percent of districts that provide CEIS conduct CEIS activities in elementary schools. 

Percentage is among districts that provide CEIS. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a

 Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. 

 High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. 

 Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

NOTE: Number of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 2. Number of 

districts with enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 3. Number of districts 

with enrollment greater than 10,000 providing CEIS that did not answer the question: 1. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 6. 
D-32 

Exhibit D.34: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B Funding by Region (School Year 2008–2

Type of Activity Supported by Part 

B Funds 

Northeastern Districts Southern Districts Midwestern Districts 

Use Part B 

funds Unknown Missing Total 

Use Part B 

funds Unknown Missing Total 

Use Part B 

funds Unknown Missing Total 

U

% a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % 

Literacy instruction 89.9 6.01 0 0 35 75.79 5.66 2.34 2.34 0 148 92.58 3.99   0 52 69.5Response to Intervention (RtI) 72.04 13.98 4.86 4.38 0 35 74.29 5.57 4.87 3.24 0 148 66.76 19.65   1 51 72.Behavioral interventions 86.97 7.46 0 0 35 57.76 6.4 7.66 3.89 0 148 52.63 16.08 0 0 52 51.3

Math instruction 55.93 15.17   0 35 57.15 6.36 3.72 2.48 0 148 44.47 14.75   0 52 59.

Adaptive and 

instructional software 

38.11 9.2 1.47 0.81 0 35 47.42 6.39 5.7 3.33 0 148 47.5 16.67   1 51 41.4

Educational evaluations 43.98 9.41   0 35 39.1 5.82 4.16 2.56 0 148 50.1 15.7   1 51 67

Behavioral evaluations 46.5 9.24 0 0 35 37.26 6.04 7.94 3.95 1 147 38.45 13.75   1 51 42.

Other instruction 28.68 8.98 23.14 13.44 0 35 15.33 3.94 17.64 4.49 1 147 22.05 10.41 17.21 9.53 1 51 18

Other 13.45 7.04 30.19 14.16 0 35 11.66 4.18 21.76 4.99 3 145 12.4 5.71 21.6 10.91 4 48  

EXHIBIT READS: Ninety percent of Northeastern districts providing CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Zero percent o

provided CEIS using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Seventy-six percent of Southern districts providing CEIS use Part B fund

and/or other school staff. Two percent of Southern districts did not know if they provided CEIS using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other schoodistricts providing CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Three percent of Midwestern districts did not know if they providinstruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Seventy percent of Western districts providing CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other scdid not know if they provided CEIS using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Percentage is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, and districts that 

provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

b Number is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, and districts that di

provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 7, 8. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey D

variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. Classification was based on the C

States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
D-33 

Exhibit D.35: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B Funding by Urbanicity (School Year 200Type of Activity Supported by Part 

B Funds 

Urban Districts Suburban Districts 

Use 

Part B Funds Unknown Missing Total 

Use 

Part B Funds Unknown Missing Total 

Use 

Part B Funds 

% a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE) 

Literacy instruction Response to 

Intervention (RtI) 

83.58 3.91 0 0 113 83.52 4.19   0 110 83.67 5.90 

Behavioral interventions 

78.27 4.07 1.74 1.23 1 112 81.67 4.15   0 110 58.68 15.29 

74.49 4.55 1.44 1.01 0 113 68.86 5.19   0 110 49.52 12.63 

Math instruction Adaptive and 

instructional software 

57.68 4.94 2.36 1.37 0 113 57.25 5.88 0.95 0.72 0 110 47.08 13.26 

Educational 

evaluations 

52.15 4.84 2.57 1.41 1 112 53.30 5.94 1.22 0.78 0 110 35.37 11.59 

Behavioral evaluations 

52.09 4.97 1.46 1.02 1 112 62.01 5.58 1.62 0.99 0 110 26.13 9.19 

51.09 4.95 0.76 0.76 2 111 51.61 5.91 0.95 0.73 1 109 24.44 9.22 

Other instruction 18.81 4.00 20.59 4.10 0 113 28.88 5.39 17.50 4.48 2 108 11.53 6.66 

Other 12.17 3.41 24.30 4.18 5 108 16.21 4.63 25.73 5.36 1 109 6.93 4.01 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-four percent of urban districts providing CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Zero p

provided CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Eighty-four percent of suburban districts providing CEIS use Part 

teachers and/or other school staff. Two percent of suburban districts did not know if they provided CEIS using Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers 

percent of rural districts providing CEIS use Part B funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Two percent of rural districts did not knfunds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated from unweigPercentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Percentage is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, or distr

used to provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

b Number is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, or district

used to provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 7, 8. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Unive

(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. 
D-34 

Exhibit D.36: Type of Activities Implemented as Part of CEIS and Supported by Part B Funding by District Enrollment (School 

District Enrollment between 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 1,000 and 10,000 District 

Type of Activity Supported by Part B Funds 

Use Part B funds Unknown Missing Total Use Part B funds Unknown Missing Total Use Part B funds 

% a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE) % a (SE) N b N b % a (SE

Literacy instruction 80.57 8.18 6.8 5.09 0 26 83.87 4.07   0 131 88.43 3.

Response to Intervention (RtI) 46.99 20.65 7.34 5.13 0 26 80.07 5.35 0.14 0.14 0 131 81.48 3.

Behavioral interventions 20.81 12.78 11.01 6.04 0 26 76.27 4.65   0 131 74.64 7.

Math instruction 36.25 16.21 3.67 3.76 0 26 57.86 6.63   0 131 64.26 5.Adaptive and instructional software 32.02 17.23 7.34 5.13 0 26 51.25 5.56 0.21 0.21 0 131 46.18 7.

Educational evaluations 37.28 16.47 11.76 10.53 0 26 47.47 4.69 0.78 0.55 0 131 52.24 7

Behavioral evaluations 18.89 12.39 19.1 12.45 0 26 44.66 5.53 0.66 0.54 1 130 60.04 7.

Other instruction   20.63 12.88 0 26 21.06 4.28 17.47 5.16 2 129 33.6 5.

Other   20.31 12.83 0 26 15.16 4.18 25.63 5.96 2 129 13.14 4.EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-one percent of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 use Part B funds to provide CEIS-funded literacy instruction to teachers and/or othwith enrollment less than 1,000 did not know if they used CEIS-funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Eighty-four percent of distr

10,000 use CEIS-funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Zero percent of districts with enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 did no

literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff. Eighty-eight percent of districts with enrollment greater than 10,000 use CEIS-funds to provide literacy instr

Zero percent of districts with enrollment greater than 10,000 did not know if they used CEIS-funds to provide literacy instruction to teachers and/or other school staff

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated from unweigPercentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Percentage is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, and di

were used to provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

b Number is among districts providing CEIS, which includes districts that did not know if professional development activities used Part B funds for CEIS, and distr

used to provide instruction, evaluation, or materials for CEIS. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 1, 4, 7, 8. 
D-35 

Exhibit D.37: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Region (School Year 2008–2009) 

Northeastern Districts Southern Districts Midwestern Districts 

Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Implementation % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % 

RtI is being used in the district 67.57 4.67 32.43 4.67 78.36 3.08 21.64 3.08 71.30 4.76 28.70 4.76 63.0

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of Northeastern districts using RtI in at least one school is 68. The percentage of Northeastern districts not using RtI is districts using RtI in at least one school is 78. The percentage of Southern districts not using RtI is 22. The percentage of Midwestern districts using RtI in apercentage of Midwestern districts not using RtI is 29. The percentage of Western districts using RtI in at least one school is 63. The percentage of Western 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated froNOTE: Number of districts responding to the question: 1,148. Number of districts that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 9. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Surve

(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubage

on the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.
D-36 

Exhibit D.38: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Urbanicity (School Year 2008–2009) 

Urban Districts Suburban Districts 

Yes No Yes No Y

Implementation % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % 

RtI is being used in the district 78.51 2.23 21.49 2.23 71.71 2.20 28.29 2.20 68.48 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of urban districts using RtI is 79. The percentage of urban districts not using RtI is 21. The percentage of suburban distrpercentage of suburban districts not using RtI is 28. The percentage of urban districts using RtI is 68. The percentage of urban districts not using RtI is 32. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

NOTE: Number of districts responding to the question: 1,148. Number of districts that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 9. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Univ

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/c

Exhibit D.39: National Estimates of the Percentage of Districts Using RtI by District Size (School Year 2008–2009) Implementation 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 

District Enrollment between 

1,000 and 10,000 District Enroll

Yes No Yes No Yes 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (S

RtI is being used in the district 61.98 4.09 38.02 4.09 77.31 2.77 22.69 2.77 83.94 3.2

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-two percent of districts with enrollments of less than 1,000 use RtI. Thirty-eight percent of districts with enrollments of less than seven percent of districts with enrollments between 1,000 and 10,000 reported using RtI. Eighty-four percent of districts with enrollments over 10,000 use Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated froNOTE: Number of districts responding to the question: 1,148. Number of districts that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 9. 
D-37 

Exhibit D.40: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One Classroom by School Level an2008–2009) 

School Level a

Northeastern Districts Southern Districts Midwestern Districts 

% (SE) Missing % (SE) Missing % (SE) Missing 

Elementary schools 61.70 4.20 2 65.27 3.84 1 66.41 6.89 1 61

Middle schools 40.31 5.04 2 45.49 4.95 5 55.97 6.38 0 44

High schools 29.94 3.79 3 27.20 3.87 4 31.22 4.48 1 27

Other schools 21.56 7.20 1 12.92 4.34 2 0.00 0.00 1 11

EXHIBIT READS: The estimated percentage of Northeastern public elementary schools that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 62. The estimat

elementary schools that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 65. The estimated percentage of Midwestern public elementary schools that used RtI 

is 66. The estimated percentage of Western public elementary schools that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 61. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.  High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. NOTE: Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,080 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 892 districts that had one 

districts provided responses to this question. Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 

other schools, 405 districts provided responses to this question. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 15. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Surv

(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubage

on the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.
D-38 

Exhibit D.41: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One Classroom by School Level an2008–2009) 

School Level a 

Urban Districts Suburban Districts R

% (SE) Missing % (SE) Missing % 

Elementary schools 61.70 4.20 2 66.41 6.89 1 65.27 

Middle schools 40.31 5.04 2 55.97 6.38 0 45.49 

High schools 29.94 3.79 3 31.22 4.48 1 27.20 

Other schools 21.56 7.20 1 0.00 0.00 1 12.92 

EXHIBIT READS: The estimated percentage of urban public elementary schools that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 62. The estimated perc

elementary schools that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 66. The estimated percentage of rural public elementary schools that used RtI during 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

NOTE: Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,080 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 892 districts that had one 

districts provided responses to this question. Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 

other schools, 405 districts provided responses to this question. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 15. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe S(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.a
D-39 

Exhibit D.42: National Estimates of the Percentage of Schools Using RtI in at Least One Classroom by School Level an

(School Year 2008–2009) 

School Level a 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 District Enrollment between 1,000 

and 10,000 

District En

% (SE) Missing % (SE) Missing % 

Elementary schools Middle schools High schools Other schools 

55.28 4.82 2 

36.91 6.28 2 

29.16 4.49 3 

24.19 8.34 1 

67.36 3.02 2 

48.40 3.42 5 

29.02 2.64 5 

6.61 2.56 3 

55.52 

42.74 

29.74 

14.84 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of public elementary schools in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school yea

elementary schools in districts with enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 67. The percentage of public e

enrollment greater than 10,000 that used RtI during the 2008–2009 school year is 56. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

NOTE: Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,080 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 892 districts that had one 

districts provided responses to this question. Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. Of the 

other schools, 405 districts provided responses to this question. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 15. 
D-40 

Exhibit D.43: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by Region (School Year 2008–2009) 

School Level a

Subject Areas 

Reading/language 

arts Math Behavior Writing 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % 

Northeastern Districts

Elementary schools 66.84 4.93 49.29 5.33 42.29 5.41 30.21 4.39 1.

Middle schools 39.34 6.24 28.99 5.76 33.35 6.01 25.74 5.61  High schools 26.41 5.19 25.23 5.14 21.65 4.55 16.84 4.25 2.Other schools 12.36 9.63 2.86 1.57 2.05 1.42    

Southern Districts 

Elementary schools 76.92 3.19 61.87 3.54 39.82 3.42 31.19 3.31 2.

Middle schools 60.29 3.89 51.38 3.96 35.73 3.74 24.62 3.28 2.High schools 42.35 3.63 39.95 3.61 23.19 2.91 20.69 2.89 3.Other schools 14.79 3.64 10.66 2.59 10.12 2.51 5.45 2.20 1.

Midwestern Districts 

Elementary schools 70.73 4.94 40.66 4.79 35.36 4.64 25.07 4.34 0.Middle schools 44.73 5.23 35.93 4.99 33.47 4.87 18.76 3.99 0.High schools 23.57 3.84 20.03 3.53 16.14 3.33 12.52 2.96 0.Other schools 0.67 0.68 0.67 0.68 2.00 1.17 0.67 0.68 0.

Western Districts 

Elementary schools 63.67 5.58 38.26 5.70 27.28 5.02 24.45 5.36 1.

Middle schools 42.98 6.56 31.97 6.33 25.06 6.24 17.84 5.87 1.High schools 33.46 7.35 32.45 7.58 12.42 5.26 22.80 7.42  Other schools 3.98 1.21 4.70 1.83 9.92 7.38 2.85 1.04 0.

EXHIBIT READS: Of Northeastern districts where one or more elementary schools use RtI, 67 percent reported that, in elementary schools, RtI is being used in reareported that RtI is being used in math, 43 percent reported that RtI is being used in behavior, 30 percent reported that RtI is being used in writing and 2 percent indiareas. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated from unweiga Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9. 

 High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

b Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,082 districts provided responses to this question. c Of the 892 districts that had one or more middle schools, 880 districts provided responses to this question. d Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. e Of the 415 districts that had one or more other schools, 393 districts provided responses to this question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 16. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data 

08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. ClassificatRegions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
D-41 

Exhibit D.44: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by Urbanicity (School Year 2008–200

School Level a 

Subject Areas 

Reading/language 

arts Math Behavior Writing 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % 

Urban Districts 

Elementary schools 78.53 2.30 54.49 2.74 48.90 2.76 31.42 2.62 5.61 

Middle schools 49.52 2.81 40.90 2.73 34.99 2.70 17.55 2.05 2.97 High schools 40.96 2.85 33.12 2.68 27.73 2.60 15.87 2.05 3.17 Other schools 16.75 2.63 14.71 2.48 15.16 2.59 8.65 2.07 2.66 

Suburban Districts 

Elementary schools 71.75 2.26 47.56 2.48 38.78 2.37 29.70 2.31 2.05 

Middle schools 47.66 2.78 36.09 2.61 32.12 2.60 20.86 2.25 1.43 High schools 32.69 2.62 29.51 2.56 20.08 2.17 17.94 2.17 1.63 Other schools 7.63 2.38 7.06 2.00 5.25 1.55 2.36 1.02  

Rural Districts 

Elementary schools 67.46 4.63 45.63 4.62 32.43 4.45 24.79 4.10 0.58 

Middle schools 47.16 5.77 40.12 5.57 32.62 5.36 23.21 4.77 1.02 High schools 27.26 4.12 26.14 4.01 15.94 3.34 16.20 3.46 1.46 Other schools 6.00 3.21 2.21 1.94 7.21 5.33 2.21 1.94  EXHIBIT READS: Of urban districts with elementary schools, 79 percent reported using RtI in reading/language arts, 54 percent reported using RtI in matbehavior, 31 percent reported using RtI in writing and 6 percent indicated using RtI in other areas. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.

High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12. Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

b Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,082 districts provided responses to this question.c Of the 892 districts that had one or more middle schools, 880 districts provided responses to this question. d Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. e Of the 415 districts that had one or more other schools, 393 districts provided responses to this question.  Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 16. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe S

(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.a
D-42 

Exhibit D.45: Percentage of Districts Using RtI by Subject Area and School Level by District Enrollment (School Year 2School Level a

Subject Areas 

Reading/language 

arts Math Behavior Writing 

% (SE) % (SE) % (SE) % (SE) 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000

Elementary schools 59.32 4.40 38.80 4.29 23.94 3.94 25.12 3.98 Middle schools 37.36 6.63 31.16 6.36 20.94 5.79 20.52 5.78 High schools 25.68 4.29 27.75 4.45 10.76 2.90 17.23 3.78 1Other schools 12.19 4.35 6.51 3.54 1.40 1.07 4.55 3.33 0

District Enrollment Between 1,000 and 10,000

Elementary schools 78.68 2.79 53.72 3.24 45.41 3.22 29.27 2.74 2

Middle schools 51.10 3.45 40.27 3.30 36.43 3.27 21.88 2.67 1High schools 32.32 3.03 27.55 2.75 22.17 2.70 16.31 2.34 1Other schools 4.13 1.78 3.10 1.15 8.41 4.23 1.12 0.49 0

District Enrollment Greater than 10,000

Elementary schools 82.84 3.34 56.01 4.16 56.87 4.23 30.77 3.50 4

Middle schools 49.34 3.95 40.51 3.78 35.01 3.54 21.52 3.11 2

High schools 41.84 3.87 33.29 3.57 31.25 3.56 19.89 3.11 2

Other schools 15.60 2.74 14.71 2.68 14.48 2.73 8.01 2.08 2EXHIBIT READS: Of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 with elementary schools; 59 percent reported RtI is being used in reading/language arts; 39 used in math; 24 percent reported that RtI is being used in behavior; and 25 percent reported that RtI is being used in writing. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculated fro

a Elementary schools: lowest grade is 3 or lower, highest grade is grade 8 or lower. 

 Middle schools: lowest grade is between 4 and 7, highest grade is between 4 and 9.  High schools: lowest grade is 7 or higher, highest grade is 12.  Other schools are all other grade configurations, including schools that are completely ungraded. 

b Of the 1,089 districts that had one or more elementary schools, 1,082 districts provided responses to this question. c Of the 892 districts that had one or more middle schools, 880 districts provided responses to this question. d Of the 930 districts that had one or more high schools, 914 districts provided responses to this question. e Of the 415 districts that had one or more other schools, 393 districts provided responses to this question.  Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 16. 
 

 

 

 

Exhibit D.46: Percentage of Students in the Autism Disability Category by State Definition and 

Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Percentage of Students in the 

Autism Category 

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

% 

State includes more characteristics to 

demonstrate autism eligibility than what is 

required by federal law/regulation c

 (n=11)a 

DE, FL, NE, NC, SC, 

SD, TN, VA, WV, WI, 

WY 

14.43 14.42 12.61 – 16.87 

State includes fewer characteristics to 

demonstrate autism eligibility than what is 

required by federal law/regulation c 

(n=2) a 

MI, MN 13.86 13.86 13.74 – 13.98 

State specifies a selection of sources or types 

of data to be used in evaluation (e.g., ASD 

Rating Scale) (n=5) a 

AL, DE, ID, ME, OR 13.29 13.31 9.68 – 16.97 

State specifies types of qualified professionals 

who are to complete evaluation (e.g., 

physicians trained in neuro-developmental 

assessment) (n=10)a 

AL, AK, DE, ID, MI, 

MN, NJ, SC, WV, WY 

14.20 14.20 9.68 – 19.11 

No difference (n=32) AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, 

DC, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, 

KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, 

MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, 

NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, 

PA, RI, TX, UT, VTb 

, 

WA 

13.62 13.44 10.11 – 19.16 

National state-level average (n=50b

) 13.84 13.76 9.68 – 19.16 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of children in the Autism disability category in states with more eligibility 

characteristics is 14.43. 

The percentage of students in the Autism disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 6 through 21 

years in the Autism category for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in grades 1 through 12 for the state 

(school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in the column labeled “Mean” is the mean percentage for 

states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one 

row. 

b

 Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not 

include the number of children identified with Autism living in Vermont. 

c The federal law/regulation requires the presence of three characteristics: impairments in social interaction, impairments in 

communication and adverse effect on educational performance. States may require more characteristics than the federal 

law/regulations (e.g., require impairments in cognitive processing, sensory processing, or repertoire of behaviors). States 

may require fewer characteristics than the federal law/regulations (e.g., require impairments in social interaction and either 

communication or repertoire of activities/behaviors). 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of 6- through 21-year-olds with a diagnosis of autism is from Table 1-3 Students ages 6 through 21 

served under IDEA, Part B, by Disability Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2009). Grades 1–12 enrollment for each state is from 

the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 

2009). 

D-43 
D-44 

Exhibit D.47: Percentage of Students in the Mental Retardation Disability Category by State Definition and Eligibili(Fall 2007) 

Percentage o

Mental Reta

Mean Med

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States % % 

State considers both IQ and adaptive behavior in definition and eligibility requirements State eligibility criteria include general intellectual functioning in the range of 2.0 to 

3.0 standard deviations below the mean (e.g., I.Q. of 56 to 70) OR general intellectual functioning in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 standard deviations below the mean 

(e.g., I.Q. of 71 to 80) with significant adaptive behavior AND/OR academic deficiencies occurring in 1 or more areas as observed in the school and/or the community. (n=1) a 

NE 1.91 1.

State considers cognitive functioning in definition and eligibility requirements 

State eligibility criteria include scores on both verbal and nonverbal scales on an 

individually administered intelligence test are at least 2.0 standard deviations below 

the mean. (n=1) a 

SC 1.63 1.

State eligibility criteria include standardized reading and arithmetic scores MI approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles. (n=1) a 

1.50 1.

State eligibility criteria include an individual measure of cognitive/intellectual functioning (e.g., IQ test) is at least 2.0 standard deviations below the mean/70 or below OR if the child has been documented as having a cognitive disability in the past, and the condition is expected to last indefinitely, an individual measure of intelligence score between 1.0 and 2.0 standard deviations below the mean. (n=1) a 

WI 1.31 1.

State eligibility criteria include an individual measure of cognitive/intellectual 

functioning (e.g., IQ test) is at least 2.0 standard deviations below the mean/70 or below. (n=27) a 

AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, DE, 

FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KY, MI, 

MN, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NC, 

OH, OK, OR, SD, TX, VA, 

WV, WY 

1.26 1.

State eligibility criteria include an individual measure of cognitive/intellectual 

functioning (e.g., IQ test) is at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean. (n=1) a 

VT b b 

State eligibility criteria include achievement scores at least one standard deviation 

below the mean/77 or below. (n=1) a 

AL 1.05 1.

State eligibility criteria include scores on measures of language, reading, and math 

are 2.0 standard deviations below the mean. (n=2) a 

CO, WI 0.88 0.
D-45 

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States 

Percentage o

Mental Reta

Mean 

% 

Med

% 

State eligibility criteria includes documentation on an individually administered test or 

assessment that the child’s academic or pre academic skills are coexistent with the 

child’s deficits in intellectual functioning. (n=1) a 

WY 0.72 0.

State considers adaptive behavior in definition and eligibility requirements State eligibility criteria includes one domain on an adaptive behavior scale is at least 2.0 standard deviations below the mean/70 or below OR two domains on an adaptive behavior scale is at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean. (n=1) a 

NC 1.67 1.

State eligibility criteria include composite scores at least two standard deviations 

below the mean on a comprehensive standardized adaptive behavior measure. (n=1) a 

VA 1.00 1.

State eligibility criteria includes an adaptive behavior scale is at least 2.0 standard 

deviations below the mean/70 or below. (n=3) a 

AL, AZ, KY 1.60 1.

State eligibility criteria includes a standard score of at least 2.0 standard deviations 

below the mean on standardized or nationally normed measures of adaptive behavior, as measured by comprehensive, individual assessments that include interviews of the parents, tests, and observations of the child in adaptive behavior relevant to the child's age. (n=1) a 

WI 1.31 1.

State eligibility criteria includes a composite score on a nationally normed, technically 

adequate measure of adaptive behavior is at or below the 15th percentile. (n=1). a 

MN 1.16 1.

State eligibility criteria includes documentation of needs and level of support required 

in at least four of the seven adaptive behavior domains across multiple environments: a) daily living and independent living skills; b) social and interpersonal 

skills; c) communication skills; d) academic skills; e) recreation and leisure skills; f) community and participation skills; g) work and work-related skills. (n=1) a 

MN 1.16 1.

State eligibility criteria include a composite score on an individual standardized 

adaptive behavior instrument which measures 2.0 standard deviations or more below the mean. (n=1) a 

MN 1.16 1.

State eligibility criteria includes documentation on standardized adaptive behavior 

measurements that include information gathered from parents and school staff attesting that the child’s deficits in adaptive behavior is coexistent with the child’s deficits in intellectual functioning. (n=1) a 

WY 0.72 0.
D-46 

Percentage o

Mental Reta

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States 

Mean 

% 

Med

% 

Other state definition and eligibility requirements State eligibility criteria include one or more individually administered achievement test results are significantly subaverage OR developmental skills assessment results are significantly subaverage. (n=1) a 

SC 1.63 1.

State specifies types of qualified professionals who are to complete evaluation (e.g., 

psychologist, psychiatrist). a (n=9) 

AK, GA, ID, MI, NJ, NV, 

OH, VA, WV 

1.29 1.

State eligibility criteria include levels of cognitive development and adaptive behavior in home, school and community settings that are below age expectations with respect to the use of symbols for the interpretation of information and the solution of problems. (n=1) a 

NJ 0.51 0.

No difference (n=20) CA, CT, DC, IL, IA, KS, 

LA, ME, MD, MA, MS, NH, 

NM, NY, ND, PA, RI, TN, 

UT, WA 

0.97 0.

National state-level average (n=50) b 1.16 1.

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Mental Retardation disability category in states whose eligibility criteria include general inrange of 2.0 to 3.0 standard deviations below the mean (e.g., I.Q. of 56 to 70) OR general intellectual functioning in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 standard de

(e.g., I.Q. of 71 to 80) with significant adaptive behavior AND/OR academic deficiencies occurring in 1 or more areas as observed in the school and/oThe percentage of students in the Mental Retardation disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 6 through 21 years in the Ment

state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in grades 1 through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in 

is the mean percentage for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one row. b Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not include the number of childr

Retardation living in Vermont. NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. SOURCE: The number of 6- through 21-year-olds with a diagnosis of Mental Retardation is from Table 1-3 Students ages 6 through 21 served under 

Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2

enrollment for each state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retri
D-47 

Exhibit D.48: Percentage of Students in the Emotional Disturbance Disability Category by State Definition and Elig

(Fall 2007) 

Percentage o

Emotional Dis

Mean 

% 

Me

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria 

State eligibility criteria require that emotional disturbance characteristics must be present/exhibited for a specified period of time (i.e., 3, 4, or 6, months). (n=6) a

States 

FL, ID, MN, NV, SC, SD 1.02 0

State specifies including information on the child's in-depth social history. (n=1) a MO 0.95 0

State requires that characteristics must be exhibited in two or more settings, some states specified settings such as school, home, and community. (n=10) a

AL, CO, FL, ID, KY, LA, 

MN, MO, MT, WV 

0.92 0

State specifies that a child, despite the implementation of one or more instructional 

and/or behavioral interventions within regular education, continues to exhibit behavioral and emotional responses in school that are so different from appropriate age, cultural, or ethnic norms that the responses adversely affect the child's academic, social, or vocational performance and/or his/her presence continues to be detrimental to the education of others. (n=8) a

CO, FL, KY, LA, NV, TN, 

WV, WY 

0.82 0

State specifies that specifically prescribed and consistently employed interventions 

have not resulted in significant improvement in the student's problem behavior. A certified staff member such as a special education teacher, guidance counselor or certified school psychologist, a licensed school psychologist, or a licensed psychoeducational specialist with expertise in behavior management has provided consultation to the classroom teacher(s) or other appropriate staff members for a minimum of four weeks through the development of a written behavioral intervention plan. (n=1) a

SC 0.66 0

State eligibility criteria include student rating is within the highest level of significance on a valid and reliable problem behavior rating scale (or similarly named subscale) by both a certified teacher and another adult knowledgeable of the student. (n=1) a

SC 0.66 0

State eligibility criteria include student rating is within the highest level of significance on a valid and reliable personality measure (if the administration of a personality measure has been deemed developmentally appropriate), or there exists a significant discrepancy between the observed behavior and the student's performance on the personality measure. (n=1) a

SC 0.66 0
D-48 

Percentage o

Emotional Dis

Mean 

% 

Me

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria 

State eligibility criteria include a student's performance falls two standard deviations 

or more below the mean in emotional functions, as measured in school, home, and 

community on nationally normed technically adequate measures . (n=1)a 

States 

TN 0.43 0

State specifies that more than one knowledgeable observer has evidenced emotional 

disturbance characteristics. (n=2)a 

ID, WV 0.68 0

State specifies types of qualified professionals who are to be part of the evaluation 

team (e.g., psychologist, psychiatrist). (n=7) a 

AL, AK, AR, ID, NV, NJ, 

SC 

0.54 0

State eligibility criteria include standard scores (total or composite) on two out of 

three of the same norm-referenced behavior rating scale must be at least two 

standard deviations above or below the mean. (n=1) a 

AL 0.24 0

No difference (n=33) AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, GA, 

HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, MD, 

ME, MI, MS, NC, ND, NE, 

NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, 

PA, RI, TX, UT, VA, VT b, 

WA, WI 

1.15 1

National state-level average (n=50) b 1.02 0

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Emotional Disturbance disability category in states whose eligibility criteria require that em

characteristics must be present/exhibited for a specified period of time (i.e., 3, 4, or 6 months) is 1.02. The percentage of students in the Emotional Disturbance disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 6 through 21 years in the Ecategory for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in grades 1 through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The nu

labeled “Mean” is the mean percentage for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria shown are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one row. b Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not include the number of childr

Disturbance living in Vermont. NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. SOURCE: The number of 6 through 21 year olds with a diagnosis of Emotional Disturbance is from Table 1-3 Students ages 6 through 21 served unde

Disability Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved Novem

enrollment for each state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved Novembe
D-49 

Exhibit D.49: Percentage of Students in the Speech or Language Impairment Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States 

Percentage of Students in
 

Speech or Language Impairment 

Category
 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

% 

State specifies medical or speech or language 

specialist (n = 14) a AK, CA, DE, GA, ID, MN, 

MT, NV, NJ, SC, SD, VT b

, WV, WY 

2.71 2.30 1.48 – 4.58 

c State includes criteria for all four categories 

listed in the federal definition (n = 11) a AL, FL, ID, MN, MO, NC, 

OR, SC, SD, VT b, WV, 

WY 

3.06 3.06 2.04 – 4.58 

State includes criteria for at least one but not 

all four categories listed in the federal 

definition (n = 4) a 

AR, MT, TN, WI 2.81 2.86 2.47 – 3.03 

State specifies, for at least one of the four 

categories, a difference between 1 and 1.99 

SD (n = 11) a 

FL, HI, ID, MO, MT, NJ, 

SC, SD, WV, WI, WY 

3.07 3.22 0.43 – 4.58 

State specifies for at least one of the four 

categories, a difference of 2 or more SD (n = 

3) a 

AL, MN, VT b 2.22 2.22 2.20 – 2.25 

State provides non-standardized test 

benchmarks for at least one of the four federal 

categories (n = 14) a 

CA, FL, ID, MN, MO, MT, 

NC, OR, SD, TN, VT b

, 

WV, WI, WY 

3.00 3.03 2.04 – 4.58 

State requires more than one assessment 

(standardized or benchmark) for at least one 

of the four federal categories (n = 9) a 

HI, ID, MI, MN, NJ, NC, 

VT b

, WV, WI 

2.64 2.54 0.43 – 4.58 

No differences (n = 27) AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD,
 

MA, MS, NE, NH, NM, 

NY, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, 

TX, UT, VA, WA 

2.62 2.41 0.43 – 4.58 

National state-level average (n = 50) b 2.68 2.47 0.43 – 4.58 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Speech or Language Impairment disability category in states that 

specify a medical or speech or language specialist may make the diagnosis is 2.71. 

The percentage of students in the Speech or Language Impairment disability category was calculated as the number of 

students ages 6 through 21 years in the Mental Retardation category for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in 

grades 1 through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in the column labeled 

“Mean” is the mean percentage for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one 

row. 

b

 Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not 

include the number of children identified with Speech or Language Impairment living in Vermont. 

c The federal definition includes four categories: (1) communication disorder, (2) articulation, (3) language impairment and 

(4) voice impairment. 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of 6 through 21 year olds with a diagnosis of autism is from Table 1-3 Students ages 6 through 21 

served under IDEA, Part B, by Disability Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2009). Grades 1–12 enrollment for each state is from 

the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 

2009). 
D-50 

 

 

Exhibit D.50: Percentage of Students in the Other Health Impairment Disability Category by 

State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Difference from Federal Eligibility 

Criteria 

State expands federal list of chronic or 

acute health problems—for example, 

specifically mentions cancer, Fetal 

Alcohol Syndrome, tuberculosis and other 

communicable infectious diseases, or 

HIV/AIDS (n = 6) a 

Percentage of Students in 

Other Health Impairment 

Category 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

States % 

CA, CO, FL, ID, UT, 

WI 

0.87 0.84 0.00 – 1.88 

State includes specific symptoms or 

behaviors related to ADD/ADHD (n = 2) a 

DE, VA 2.11 2.11 1.81 – 2.40 

No difference (n = 43) a AL, AK, AZ, AR, CT, 

DC, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, 

KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, 

MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, 

MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, 

NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, 

OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, 

SD, TN, TX, VT b

, WA, 

WV, WY 

1.63 1.58 0.12 – 3.22 

National state-level average (n = 50) b 1.55 1.55 0.00 – 3.22 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Other Health Impairment disability category in states that 

expand the federal list of chronic or acute health problems—for example, specifically mentions cancer, Fetal Alcohol 

Syndrome, tuberculosis and other communicable infectious diseases, or HIV/AIDS—is 0.87. 

The percentage of students in the Other Health Impairment disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 

6 through 21 years in the Mental Retardation category for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in grades 1 

through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in the column labeled “Mean” is the 

mean percentage for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one 

row. 

b

 Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not 

include the number of children identified with Other Health Impairment living in Vermont. 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of 6 through 21 year olds with a diagnosis of Other Health Impairment is from Table 1-3 Students 

ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by Disability Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data Accountability 

Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2009). Grades 1–12 enrollment for 

each state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved 

November 20, 2009). 
D-51 

Exhibit D.51: Percentage of Grade 1–4 Students in the Developmental Delay Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria 

State does not use developmental delay category 

or does not use it for students over age 6 (n = 17) 

Percentage of Students in
 

Developmental Delay
 

Category
 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

States % 

AZ, AR, CA, 

CO, FL, IA, IN, 

MT, NV, NH, 

NJ, NY, OH, 

OR, RI, SD, TX 

State specifies different age range categories 

(n = 12) a 

HI, KY, LA, MI, 

MO, NC, NV, 

SD, UT, VA, 

WA, WV 

1.72 1.94 0.00 – 4.32 

A child age 3 through 8 (n = 4) HI, KY, LA, WA
 2.84 2.51 2.01 – 4.32 

A child age 3 through 7 (n = 2) NC, UT
 1.76 1.76 1.37 – 2.15 

A child age 3 through 5 (n = 3) MO, SD, WV 0.10 0.10 0.00 – 0.20 

A child age 2 by Sept 30th through 5 VA 1.87 1.87 1.87 

(n = 1) 

A child through 7 years of age (n = 1) MI 0.30 0.30 0.30 

State includes measurement criteria for 

standardized tests (n = 20). a AL, DE, FL, GA, 

HI, ID, IN, KY, 

ME, MO, NV, 

NM, NC, OK, 

SC, SD, UT, 

WA, WV, WY 

1.44 1.21 0.00 – 4.32 

The standard score in one developmental 

domain must be at least 2.0 standard 

deviations below the mean or the standard 

scores on two or more developmental 

domains must be at least 1.5 standard 

deviations below the mean (n = 15) a 

AL, DE, FL,GA, 

ID, IN, KY, ME, 

MO, NV, NC, 

SC, SD, UT, 

WA
 

1.33 1.05 0.03 – 4.32 

A child who is functioning at lower than 75% of 

the normal rate of development in two or more 

areas of development (n = 1) a 

WV 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State includes criteria percentage below 

chronological age or delay for standardized 

tests (n = 5) a 

AL, DE, FL, 

NM, NC
 

1.35 1.21 0.07 – 2.91 

Exclusion criteria (n = 4) a AL,GA, ID, WY 0.98 1.00 0.06 – 1.87 

State requires evidence that disability is not 

caused by visual/hearing impairment (n = 2) a 

AL, WY 0.55 0.55 0.06 – 1.05 

State criteria include exclusion factors such as 

environmental/economic/cultural factors as 

primary causes for disability (n = 2)a 

GA, ID 1.41 1.41 0.95 – 1.87 
D-52 

 

 

 

Percentage of Students in 

Developmental Delay 

Category 

Difference from Federal Eligibility Criteria States 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

% 

No difference (n = 23) AK, AR, AZ, 

CA, CO, CT, 

DC, IA, IL, MD, 

MN, MS, MT, 

NH, NJ, NY, 

ND, OH, OR, 

PA, RI, TX, 

WI 

0.70 0.15 0.00 – 2.69 

National state-level average (n = 50) b 1.31 1.16 0.00 – 4.32 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Developmental Delay disability category in states that specify 

different age range categories is 1.72. 

The percentage of students in the Developmental Delay disability category was calculated as the number of students ages 6 

through 9 years in the Developmental Delay category for a state divided by the total enrollment in grades 1 through 4 for the 

state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in the column labeled “Mean” is the mean percentage 

for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one 

row. 

b Table DG74, Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age Tables does not include the number of children identified 

with Developmental Delays ages 6 through 9 living in Tennessee. 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of students in grades 1 through 4 with a diagnosis of Developmental Delay is from Table DG74 

Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age Tables from the EdFacts Initiative Data System (EdFacts; retrieved October 

9, 2009). Grades 1–4 enrollment for each state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment 

(CCD; http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
Exhibit D.52: Percentage of Students in the Visual Impairment including Blindness Disability 

Category by State Definition and Eligibility Requirements (Fall 2007) 

D-53 

 

 

Percentage of Students in the 

Visual Impairment Including 

Blindness Category 

Difference from Federal Eligibility 

Criteria

Mean 

% 

Median

% 

Range 

States % 

State includes criteria for visual acuity 

requirements for visual impairment 

(n = 20) a 

AK, AR, CO, DE, FL, 

GA, ID, KY, MI, MN, 

MO, MTb, NV, OH, 

OK, OR, SC, VTb

, WV, 

WI 

0.05 0.05 0.03 – 0.10 

Visual acuity of 20/70 or less in better 

eye after correction (n = 15)a 

AK, AR, CO, FL, ID, 

KY, MI, MTb

, OH, OK, 

OR, SC, VT b

, WV, WI 

0.06 0.05 0.03 – 0.10 

Visual acuity of 20/200 or less in 

better eye after correction (n = 3)a 

DE, GA, NV 0.04 0.04 0.04 – 0.05 

State includes criteria for visual acuity 

requirements for blindness (n = 6)a DE, HI, MO, SDb

, TN, 

WY 

0.06 0.06 0.04 – 0.08 

Visual acuity between 20/70 and 

20/200 in better eye after correction 

for partially sighted (n = 1)a 

DE 0.04 0.04 0.04 

Visual acuity of 20/200 or less in 

better eye after correction (n = 6)a DE, HI, MO, SC, SDb 

, 

TN, WY 

0.06 0.06 0.04 – 0.08 

State includes criteria for visual acuity 

requirements for partially sighted (n = 7)a 

DE, GA, HI, NV, SDb , 

TN, WY 

0.05 0.04 0.04 – 0.08 

Visual acuity of 20/70 or less in better 

eye after correction for partial 

blindness (n = 2)a 

NV, SDb

 0.04 0.04 0.04 

Visual acuity of 20/50 or less in better 

eye after correction (n = 2)a 

TN, WY 0.08 0.08 0.07 – 0.08 

Visual acuity of 20/70 to 20/200 in the 

better eye and with best correction, or 

less (n = 3)a 

DE, GA, HI 0.04 0.04 0.04 – 0.05 

State includes criteria for visual field 

acuity (n = 21)a 

AK, AR, CO, DE, GA, 

HI, ID, KY, MI, MN, 

MO, MTb

, NV, OK, 

OR, SC, TN, VTb

, WV, 

WI, WY 

0.06 0.05 0.03 – 0.10 

Visual field acuity of less than 20 

degrees (n = 3)a 

AR, DE, HI 0.04 0.04 0.04 – 0.05 

Visual field acuity of 20 degrees or 

less (n = 17)a 

AK, CO, GA, ID, KY, 

MI, MN, MO, MTb

, NV, 

OH, OK, SC, TN, VTb 

, 

WV, WY 

0.06 0.06 0.03 – 0.10 
D-54 

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Students in the 

Visual Impairment Including 

Blindness Category 

Difference from Federal Eligibility 

Criteria States 

Mean 

% 

Median 

% 

Range 

% 

No difference (n = 25) b AL, AZ, CA, CT, DC, 

IAb

, IL, IN, KS, LA, 

MA, MD, MS, NE, NH, 

NJ, NM, NY, ND, PA, 

RIb

, TX, UT, VA, WA 

0.06 0.06 0.03 – 0.09 

National state-level average (n = 46) b 0.06 0.06 0.03 – 0.10 

EXHIBIT READS: The mean percentage of students in the Visual Impairment including Blindness disability category in 

states that include criteria for visual acuity requirements for visual impairment is 0.05. 

The percentage of students in the Visual Impairment including Blindness disability category was calculated as the number of 

students ages 6 through 21 years in the Visual Impairments category for a state (Fall 2007) divided by the total enrollment in 

grades 1 through 12 for the state (school year 2007–2008) multiplied by 100. The number shown in the column labeled 

“Mean” is the mean percentage for states in the row. 

a The differences from federal eligibility criteria are not mutually exclusive. Therefore some states appear in more than one 

row. 

b

 Table 1-3, Students ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state, Fall 2007 does not 

include the number of children identified with Visual Impairments including Blindness living in Iowa, Montana, Rhode 

Island, South Dakota, or Vermont. 

NOTE: States may differ from the federal criteria in one or more ways as categories are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: The number of 6 through 21 year olds with a diagnosis of Visual Impairment including Blindness is from Table 

1-3 Students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by Disability Category and State: Fall 2007 from the Data 

Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.xls, retrieved November 16, 2009). Grades 1–12 

enrollment for the state is from the Common Core of Data Build-A-Table state total enrollment (CCD; 

http/nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/, retrieved November 20, 2009). 
Appendix E: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 4 

E-1 
Exhibit E.1: State Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and Standards for Preschool-Age Children (F

School Year 2008–2009) 

E-2 

For Infants and Toddlers Birth through Age 2a For Preschool-Age C

Yes Yes 

N % Missing Total c N % Mis

State has early learning guidelines/standards 32 62.75 0 51 48 94.12 

Among states with guidelines, domains covered: Social/emotional 31 100.00 1 31 46 95.83 

Communication/language 31 100.00 1 31 44 91.67 

Physical/health 30 96.77 1 31 44 91.67 

Cognitive 30 96.77 1 31 40 83.33 

Approaches to learning 26 83.87 1 31 37 77.08 

Other 5 16.13 1 31 22 45.83 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators reported their state has early learning guidelines for infants and toddler

learning guidelines for infants and toddlers ages birth to 3 years, 31 Part C program coordinators (100 percent) reported the early learning guidelines c

domain. For Part C respondent regarding states having early learning guidelines, N = 51; for domains covered, N = 31. For Part B respondents, regarding states having early learning standards, N = 51; for domains covered, N = 48. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers in fiscal year 2009. b Early learning standards for preschool-age children in school year 2008–2009. c Total refers to the number of coordinators who answered the question. One Part C program coordinator indicated their state had early learning guid

information on the specific domains the covered in the early learning guidelines. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 37; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 19, 20.
Exhibit E.2: State Agency Involved in the Release of Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N

Yes 

Missing Total a % 

State has general early learning guidelines 32 62.75 0 51 

Among states with early learning guidelines, the agency that released the early learning 

guidelines is: 

Education 23 74.19 1 31 

Child care 14 45.16 1 31 

Human services 9 29.03 1 31 

Head Start/Early Head Start 8 25.81 1 31 

Health 5 16.13 1 31 

Social services 5 16.13 1 31 

Developmental disabilities 2 6.45 1 31 

Mental health 1 3.23 1 31 

Other 5 16.13 1 31 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators (63 percent) reported their state has general 

early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years. Among states with early learning guidelines, 23 

Part C program coordinators (74 percent) reported the education agency is involved in the release of early learning 

guidelines. 

For early learning guidelines, N = 51; for agency releasing early learning guidelines, N = 31. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators who answered the question. One Part C program coordinator 

indicated the state had early learning guidelines but did not provide information on the agency involved in the release of 

early learning guidelines. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 36. 

E-3 
E-4 

Exhibit E.3: State Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N 

States 

Missing Total a % 

State has general early learning guidelines 32 62.75 0 51 

Among states with early learning guidelines, the state guidance regarding standards-based 

IFSPs is: 

State provides neither a mandated nor suggested 

IFSP 27 84.38 — — 

State provides either a mandated or suggested 

IFSP 5 15.62 — — 

Total a 32 100.00 — —

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two Part C early intervention program coordinators (63 percent) reported that their state has early 

learning guidelines. In states with early learning guidelines, 27 Part C program coordinators (85 percent) have neither a 

mandated nor a suggested standards-based IFSP for infants and toddlers ages birth through age 2. 

For early learning guidelines, N = 51; for provision of standards-based IFSP, N = 32. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 38, 39. 
Exhibit E.4: Requirements for Use of Standards-Based IEPs for Preschool-Age Children and Children and Youth (S

2009) 

E-5 

Preschool-Age Children Children a

States States 

N % States responding yes N % Sta

SEA provides neither a mandated nor suggested IEP 

28 54.90 AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, 

FL, GA, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA 

23 46.00 AR

KSMTNYWA

SEA provides a suggested IEP 17 33.33 AK, CO, ID, IL, IN, KY, 

LA, NE, NM, NY, OH, RI, SC, VA, VT, WI, WV 

19 38.00 AL

IN, NDTX

SEA provides a mandated IEP 6 11.76 AL, AZ, HI, IA, MA, WY 7 14.00 HI, 

TN 

SEA provides both a mandated and suggested 

IEP 

0 0.00 1 2.00 AK 

Total 51 100.00 50 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-eight Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (55 percent) reported that their state provides neither a 

IEP for preschool-age children. Twenty-three SEAs (46 percent) reported that they provides neither a mandated nor suggested IEP for children and yo

For Part B preschool-age respondents, N = 51; for Part B respondents, N = 50. 

a Alaska indicated they provide both a mandated and a suggested IEP. A review of the Alaska Special Education Handbook (Alaska Department of E

Development 2007) suggests there is a mandated IEP, but districts are able to develop their own IEP form provided it addresses the required compone

approved by the Department (Part IV § 6). 

b Total refers to the number of coordinators who answered the questions. 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 21, 22; State Part B Questionnaire – Items 22, 23. 
E-6 

Exhibit E.5: Target Audience for State Agency Training or Professional Development on 

Alignment of Early Learning Guidelines and Early Intervention Services, for Infants and 

Toddlers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) 

N

States 

Missing Total a % 

State agency provided any training/professional 

development b 8 25.00 0 

Among states that provided training/professional development, target audience: 

Part C early intervention providers 8 100.00 0 

Service coordinators 7 87.50 0 

Administrators 7 87.50 0 

Other 3 37.50 0 

32

8 

8 

8 

8 

EXHIBIT READS: Among 32 states that have early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers, eight Part C early 

intervention program coordinators (25 percent) reported the state provides training or professional development on the 

alignment of early learning guidelines and the provision of Part C program services. Among states that have early learning 

guidelines for infants and toddlers and provide training or professional development related to the early learning guidelines, 

eight Part C program coordinators (100 percent) indicated states target Part C program providers for training and 

professional development. 

For provision of training/professional development, N = 32; for target audience, N = 8. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators who answered the question. 

b The 32 states that have general early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers were asked whether the state agency 

provided any training/professional development, and about the target audience. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 41, 42. 
Exhibit E.6: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2008 or 2009) 

N

States 

Missing Total a % 

State provided training or professional 

development on standards-based IFSPs b 8 25.00 0 32

Among states providing training or professional development related to standards-based 

IFSPs, covered topics were: 

Linking assessment to instruction 8 100.00 0 8 

Assessment of student/child current 

performance/skills 6 75.00 0 8 

Developing standards-based goals 3 37.50 0 8 

Other 3 37.50 0 8

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 32 states with early learning guidelines, eight Part C early intervention program coordinators 

(25 percent) reported their state provides training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs. Among the eight 

Part C program coordinators reporting their state provides training or professional development on standards-based IFSPs, 

eight (100 percent) reported the professional development addresses linking assessment to instruction as a covered topic. 

For provision of training/professional development, N = 32; for topics covered, N = 8. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators who answered the question. 

b The 32 states that have general early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers where asked whether the state agency 

provided any training/professional development and about the topics covered. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 41, 43. 

E-7 
Exhibit E.7: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Preschool-Age Children (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) 

N

States 

Missing Total % b 

State provided training or professional 

development on standards-based IEPs 16 31.37 0 51

Among states providing training or professional development related to standards-based IEPs, 

covered topics were: 

Linking assessment to instruction 14 87.50 0 16 

Assessment of children’s current skills 14 87.50 0 16 

Developing standards-based goals for cognitive 

skills 11 68.75 0 16 

Developing standards-based goals for 

social/emotional learning 11 68.75 0 16 

Developing standards-based goals for 

communication, learning skills 11 68.75 0 16 

Developing standards-based goals for 

physical/health 10 62.50 0 16 

Developing standards-based goals for approaches 

to learning 10 62.50 0 16 

Other 4 25.00 0 16

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 16 states (32 percent) reported to provide training or professional development on standardsbased IEPs for the preschool-age population, 14 (88 percent) Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators 

indicated that state professional development covers the topic of linking assessment to instruction. 

For providing training or professional development, N = 51; for topics covered, N = 16.
 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators who answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 24, 26. 

E-8 
Exhibit E.8: Topics Covered by the Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for 

Children and Youth (School Year 2007–2008 or 2008–2009) 

N

States 

Missing Total % a 

SEA provided training or professional development 

on standards-based IEPs 36 70.59 0 51

Among SEAs providing training or professional development related to standards-based IEPs , 

covered topics were: 

Assessment of student’s current performance 31 86.11 0 36 

Use of instructional strategies, supports, and 

accommodations necessary for students with 

disabilities to achieve standards-based goals 

31 86.11 0 36 

Developing standards-based goals for academic 

content areas 30 83.33 0 36 

Use of testing accommodations 29 80.56 0 36 

Developing standards-based goals for academic 

achievement 28 77.78 0 36 

Other 1 2.78 0 36

EXHIBIT READS: Among the 36 SEAs (71 percent) reported by the Part B special education program coordinator to 

provide training or professional development on standards-based IEPs for children and youth, 31 (86 percent) were reported 

to cover the topic of assessment of student’s current performance. 

For provision of training or professional development, N = 51; for topics covered, N = 36. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B program coordinators who answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 28. 

E-9 
Exhibit E.9: Percentage of States Providing Training or Professional Development on Standards-Based IEPs for Pr

and Children and Youth Targeting Specific Audiences (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-10 

Part B Preschool-Age Special Education 

Program 

Part B School-Age S

Progr

Yes Yes 

N % Missing Total a N % 

State agency provided any training/professional development 16 31.37 0 51 36 70.59 

Among SEAs that provided training, target 

audience: Special education staff 14 87.50 0 16 36 100.00 

Speech and language therapists 10 62.50 0 16 18 50.00 

School administrative officials 9 56.25 0 16 28 77.78 

Paraprofessionals or instructional learning assistants 5 31.25 0 16 7 19.44 

School psychologists 5 31.25 0 16 13 36.11 

General education staff 4 25.00 0 16 16 44.44 

Principals 3 18.75 0 16 22 61.11 Reading specialists 1 6.25 0 16 7 19.44 

Math specialists 1 6.25 0 16 5 13.89 

School counselors 1 6.25 0 16 9 25.00 

School or district nurse 0 0.00 0 16 5 13.89 

Other 5 31.25 0 16 9 25.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two percent of Part B preschool special education coordinators (16) reported providing training or professional developmen

standard-based IEPs to special education staff. Seventy-one percent of Part B school-age special education coordinators (36) reported providing trainin

development on the development of standard-based IEPs to special education staff. For Part B program respondents, regarding provision of professional development or training, N = 51; for the specific audience targeted, N = 16. For Part B program respondents, regarding provision of professional development or training, N = 51; for the specific audience targeted, N = 36. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Other responses included: parents, community organizations, physical or occupational therapists, state or district test or accountability staff, district sp

administrators, and open audience. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 24, 25; State Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 27.
E-11 

Exhibit E.10: District Policies on Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 2007–2008 and 2008– 

2009) 

Districts 

% SE Missing Total a 

District has formal written policies regarding the 

development of standards-based IEPs 38.74 2.24 3 1145 

Among districts with formal written policies regarding the 

development of standards-based IEPs, district personnel 

received some training or professional development on 

the development of standards-based IEPs 

89.14 2.48 0 512 

EXHIBIT READS: The percentage of district Part B special education program administrators who reported having formal 

written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs is 39. The percentage of district Part B program 

administrators who reported having formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs and also 

provide training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs is 89. 

For districts having formal written policies regarding the development of standards-based IEPs, N = 1,145. For training or 

professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs, N = 512. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Total refers to the number of district Part B school-age special education program administrators who answered the 

question. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 24, 25. 
E-12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit E.11: Percentage of Certified Related Service Professionals Serving School-Age 

Children and Youth by Profession (Fall 2006) 

Average Minimum Maximum Total a 

Psychologists 97.99 89.55 100.00 50 

Counselors and Rehabilitation 96.70 76.67 100.00 50 

Medical/Nursing Staff 96.09 56.36 100.00 47 

Social workers 95.89 60.00 100.00 50 

Physical education teachers and recreation and 

therapeutic recreation specialists 95.05 57.89 100.00 49 

Speech-language pathologists 94.35 0.00 100.00 49 

Occupational therapists 93.86 0.00 100.00 50 

Audiologists 93.32 0.00 100.00 49 

Physical therapists 92.53 0.00 100.00 50 

Orientation and Mobility Specialists 91.01 0.00 100.00 46 

Interpreters 84.96 0.00 100.00 50 

EXHIBIT READS: Nationally, 98 percent of psychologists providing services to school-age children and youth served by 

the Part B school-age special education program are certified. States range in the percentage of certified psychologists from 

a low of 90 to a high of 100. 

For psychologists, counselors and rehabilitation, social workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists and interpreters, 

N = 51. 

For physical education teachers and recreation and therapeutic recreation specialists, speech-language pathologists and 

audiologists, N = 49. 

For medical/nursing staff, N=47. 

For orientation and mobility specialists, N = 46. 

Percentage certified for each state was calculated as the number of certified personnel in a particular category (e.g., 

psychologists) divided by the number of personnel in the same category (e.g., psychologists) multiplied by 100. The national 

data were calculated as the average of the percentage for all states with data. 

a Total refers to the number of states reporting data. 

SOURCE: Table 3-5 Personnel employed (FTE) to provide special education and related services to children and students 

ages 3 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, by personnel type, certification status and state, available from the Data 

Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_3-5.xls, retrieved March 3, 2010). 
E-13 

Exhibit E.12: Certification/Licensure Requirements for Part C Early Intervention Program 

Special Educators (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Requirements 

States 

Missing Total a N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree program 42 84.00 1 50
 

Exam/proficiency test 25 50.00 1 50
 

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 14 28.00 1 50
 

Portfolio 13 26.00 1 50
 

Other 8 16.00 1 50
 

EXHIBIT READS: An undergraduate or graduate degree program is a requirement for Part C early intervention program 

special educators in 42 states (84 percent). 

N = 50. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories were not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C program coordinators who answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 46. 
Exhibit E.13: Agency Responsible for Licensing/Certification of Special Educators by IDEA Program Early Interven

Educators, Preschool Special Education Teachers, and Special Education Teachers (Fiscal Year 2009 and School 

E-14 

Early Intervention Special 

Educators a 

Preschool Special Education 

Teachers b Special Ed

Yes Yes Yes 

N % Missing Total c N 

% Missing Total c N % 

37 d SEA 72.54 0 51 46 90.20 0 51 43 84.3

Part C lead agency 16 31.37 0 51 — — — — — — 

State licensing and certification agency that is not part of the SEA (or the Part C lead agency) 

5 9.80 0 51 4 7.84 0 51 7 13.7

Other 3 5.88 0 51 1 1.96 0 51 1 1.9

EXHIBIT READS: Licensing and certification for Part C program special educators is overseen by the SEA in 37 states (73 percent). SEAs oversee li

preschool special education teachers in 46 states (90 percent) and for elementary and secondary school special education teachers in 43 states (84 perc

For Part C respondents, N = 51; for Part B preschool-age respondents, N = 51; for Part B respondents, N = 51. Categories are not mutually exclusive. a Part C program agency responsibilities in fiscal year 2009. b Part B preschool-age special education program and Part B school-age special education program agency responsibilities in school year 2008–2009c Total refers to the number of coordinators who answered the question. d For 25 of the 37 states in which the SEA oversees licensing/certification for Part C special educators, the SEA is not the lead or co-lead Part C agen

the SEA is the lead Part C agency, and for 2 of the 37 states, the SEA is a co-lead agency.

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 1, 45; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 27; State Part B Questionnaire – Item 14. 
Exhibit E.14: State Certification/Licensure Requirements for Preschool Special Education Staff 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

States 

Requirements N % 

Early childhood special education certification 24 47.06 

Blended early childhood/early childhood special education 

certification 12 23.53 

Special education certification 12 23.53 

General early childhood certification plus preschool special 

education add-on or endorsement 11 21.57 

Special education certification plus preschool special education 

add-on or endorsement 9 17.65 

General early childhood certification (including special education 

requirements) 4 7.84 

General early childhood certification (no special education 

requirements) 2 3.92 

Other 9 17.65 

No certification/licensure required 

Total a

0 

51 

0.00 

— 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-four Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (47 percent) reported state 

certification/licensure requirements for preschool special education staff include an early childhood special education 

certification. 

N = 51. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators who answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 28. 

E-15 
E-16 

Exhibit E.15: Ways in Which Preschool Special Education Staff Qualify for Certification (School Year 2008–2009) 

Methods 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

States States States 

N % N % N % 

Undergraduate or graduate degree program 45 90.00 2 4.00 3 6.00 5Exam/proficiency test 35 70.00 3 6.00 12 24.00 5

Coursework (not leading to a degree) 12 24.00 5 10.00 33 66.00 5Portfolio 6 12.00 5 10.00 39 78.00 5

Other 8 16.00 2 4.00 40 80.00 5

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-five Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators (90 percent) reported that their state requires an undergradprogram for certification of preschool special education staff. Two Part B coordinators (4 percent) reported that in their state an undergraduate or grad

option requirement for certification of preschool special education staff. Three Part B coordinators (6 percent) reported that an undergraduate or graduneither required nor an optional requirement for certification of preschool special education staff. N = 50. 

a Total refers to the number of Part B program coordinators who answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 29. 
 

 

Exhibit E.16: State Options for New Elementary or Secondary Teachers to Demonstrate 

Subject-Matter Competency for Identification as Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers 

Overall 

Total 

N States % 

Specific state content test 40 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, 

IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, 

NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, 

WV, WI, WY 

78.43 

Undergraduate major in 

content area 

32 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, 

KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, 

PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY 

62.75 

Credit hours equal to major 31 AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DC, HI, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, 

ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, 

OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA 

60.78 

Graduate degree in content 

area 

25 AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DC, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, 

MN, NE, NV, NM, NY, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA 

49.02 

Professional educator 

certificate 

10 AL, FL, GA, IL, MD, MT, NV, NM, NY, TX 19.61 

National board certification 16 AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, ID, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NJ, 

NM, OR, UT 

31.37 

HOUSSE is an option 17 AZ, CO, CT, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MO, MT, NE, NV, 

NJ, NY, OK, VA, WV 

33.33 

Other 5 CA, CO, MT, VT, WY 9.80 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty (78 percent) states accept an passing grade on a specific state content test as demonstration of 

subject-matter competence. 

N = 51. 

NOTE: Other included: completion of a preparation program, completing a certain number of credit hours in particular
 

subjects, a multi-dimensional test, an endorsement, or completing an approved university subject-matter program. 

SOURCE: Individual state regulations related to highly qualified status for teachers. 

E-17 
Exhibit E.17: Summary of Praxis Series Tests Used by States for Certification, Licensure, or Highly Qualified Statu

Matter Areas 

Subject-Matter Area 

Number of 

States States Praxis Test Number and Name 

Minimum P

Min Max M

Elementary education 35 AL, AK, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, 

ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY 

0061 Mathematics: Content Knowledge (Graphing calculator required) 

123 156 13

Elementary education 23 AL, AK, CO, DE, DC, ID, IA, KY, 

LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, NH, NJ, OH, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WI 

0014 Elementary Education: Content Knowledge (Calculator Allowed) 

137 153 14

Elementary education 22 CT, DC, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, 

ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge 

136 162 15

Elementary education 18 AK, CT, HI, IN, IA, KS, MS, MO, 

NE, NV, NC, ND, PA, SC, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0011 Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 

150 168 15

Elementary education 15 HI, ID, KY, LA, ME, MN, MS, NV, 

ND, OH, RI, SC, TN, UT, WV 

0522 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6 

152 169 16

Elementary education 15 AR, HI, ID, KY, LA, MN, MS, MO, 

OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY 

0523 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 5 – 9 

152 168 15

Elementary education 9 CT, DC, HI, MD, NV, NC, RI, SC, 

UT 

0012 Elementary Education: Content Area Exercises (Calculator prohibited) 

135 150 14

Elementary education 9 AR, HI, LA, ME, MN, OH, SD, TN, 

UT 

0521 Principles of Learning and Teaching: Early Childhood 

155 172 16

Elementary education 6 IN, NV, NJ, NC, OH, SC 0200 

Introduction to the Teaching of Reading 

510 560 54

Elementary education 3 AK, TN, WV 0432 

General Science: Content Knowledge, Part 2 (Calculators Prohibited) 

136 149 14

E-18 
Subject-Matter Area 

Number of 

States States Praxis Test Number and Name 

Minimum P

Min Max M

Elementary education – 

specifically special education 

4 MS, NC, PA, RI 0511 

Fundamental Subjects 

142 160 15

Secondary: English 34 AL, AK, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, 

ID, IL, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY 

0041 English Language, Literature and 

Composition: Content Knowledge 

142 172 15

Secondary: English 31 AL, AK, CT, DE, HI, IN, KS, KY, 

LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WY 

0049 Middle School English Language Arts 

145 165 15

Secondary: English 9 AK, AR, CT, KY, NV, OR, SC, UT, 

VT 

0042 English Language, Literature and 

Composition: Essays 

145 160 15

Secondary: English 9 AR, DC, HI, LA, MD, NV, NC, TN, 

UT 

0043 English Language, Literature and 

Composition: Pedagogy 

130 155 14

E-19 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighteen states use scores from Praxis test 0011 (Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment) for certificationof highly qualified status. The minimum passing score among the states is 150. The maximum passing score is 168. The mean passing score is 159.50159. The modal passing score is 164. N = 43. SOURCE: State-specific websites for Praxis Series (http:/www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgnextoid= 8c05ee3d74f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&WT.ac=Praxis+Brochure+and+Front+Door) retrieved September 3, 2009. 
Exhibit E.18: Elements Required in HOUSSE Certification for Current Special Education Teachers in Elementary, M

Schools (School Year 2008–2009) 

E-20 

Yes Total a 

N % N % 

HOUSSE for teachers at elementary level 41 80.39 51 100.00 

If HOUSSE is an option, method: 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

N % N % N % 

Classroom experience 13 31.71 18 43.90 10 24.39 

Performance evaluation 9 21.95 7 17.07 25 60.98 

Content area test scores 9 21.95 24 58.54 8 19.51 Completion of professional development, including additional 

coursework 

8 19.51 27 65.85 6 14.63 

Student achievement data 2 4.88 7 17.07 32 78.05 

Portfolio 1 2.44 9 21.95 31 75.61 

National board certification 0 0.00 32 78.05 9 21.95 

Other 5 12.20 14 34.15 22 53.66 

EXHIBIT READS: Among SEAs reported to allow HOUSSE by the Part B program coordinator, 32 percent require classroom experience for elemenpercent require classroom experience for middle school teachers and 36 percent require classroom experience for high school teachers.

For use of HOUSSE certification, N = 51. For specific elements used in elementary schools, N = 41. For specific elements used in middle schools, N = 

used in high schools, N = 45. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0. b Total refers to the number of states with HOUSSE as an option at the elementary school level that answered the question. Number of states with HO

not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 16. 
E-21 

Exhibit E.19: National Estimates of the Percentage of Funded Full-Time Equivalent Vacancies or Departures (Sch

Special Education Teachers for Preschool-Age Special Education Teachers f

Children Children 

a b a 

Vacancies Departures Vacancies 

Implementation N % (SE) N % (SE) N % (SE) N 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) 829 5.29 1.37 816 10.94 1.65 1092 5.21 1.05 1076 

positions 

EXHIBIT READS: Of the 829 Districts that reported the number of FTE funded positions and number of FTE positions left vacant for ages 3 through 

funded positions that were vacant is 5 percent.

Special education teachers for preschool-age, vacancies N = 829; departures N = 816. 

Special education teachers for school-age, vacancies N = 1,092; departures N = 1,076. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculate

a The percentage of funded positions left vacant or filled by a full-time substitute was calculated as the number of FTEs reported as vacant divided by 

which was then multiplied by 100. 

b The percentage of funded positions which were left vacant due to teachers leaving special education or the district was calculated as the number of 

leaving special education or the district divided by the number of funded FTEs which was then multiplied by 100. 

NOTE: Number of districts responding to the question: 1,148. Number of districts that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 29, 30 and 31. 
 

Exhibit E.20: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Routinely 

Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants over the Past Three Years (School Years 

2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

%

Districts 

Missing Total a (SE) 

Special education teachers who serve children in: 

High school 58.34 2.96 0 725 

Middle school 49.16 3.03 0 725 

Elementary school 39.10 2.98 0 725 

Preschool 24.32 2.59 0 725 

Vocational or alternative school 11.78 1.85 0 725 

Special education teachers who primarily serve children with: 

Emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 54.65 3.04 0 725 

Autism 46.12 3.04 0 725 

Mental retardation 29.27 2.81 0 725 

Learning disabilities 28.91 2.80 0 725 

Other low-incidence disabilities (e.g., other health 

impairments, orthopedic impairments, multiple 

disabilities) 

28.23 2.66 0 725 

Sensory impairments (hearing/vision) 27.00 2.52 0 725 

Developmental delays 22.41 2.57 0 725 

Other 9.23 1.86 0 725 

Secondary school special education teachers of: 

Mathematics 48.70 3.01 0 725 

Science 37.68 2.68 0 725 

English/language arts 27.23 2.81 0 725 

Social studies (including history, civics, geography 

and economics) 19.78 2.23 1 724

Other subjects 7.36 1.59 1 724
 

EXHIBIT READS: Among districts reported by Part B special education program administrators as having difficulty 

finding qualified applicants, 58 percent reported difficulty finding high school special education teachers. 

For experiencing difficulty in finding qualified applicants, N = 1,148. For particular types of teachers, N = 725, except for 

secondary school special education teachers of social studies and other subjects, N = 724. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Total reported for the first row is among all 1,148 districts that responded to the survey, and refers to the number of 

districts responding to the question. Total reported for all other rows is among the 725 districts that reported routinely 

having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years, and refers to the number of districts that answered the 

question. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 26. 

E-22 
Exhibit E.21: Strategies Used by States to Increase the Number of Qualified Special Educators, Qualified Preschoo

Staff and Highly Qualified Teachers (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-23 

Qualified Special Educators 

(Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) 

Preschool Special Education Staff 

 (School Years 2007–2008 and 

2008–2009) 

Highly Quali

(School Y

2

States States States 

Strategy N % Missing Total a N % Missing Total a N % 

Collaborate with universities to create programs and curricula to ensure that graduates meet standards 

31 62.00 1 50 27 52.94 0 51 33 64.7

Provide alternative routes to certification in special education for persons with a bachelor’s degree 

13 26.00 1 50 18 35.29 0 51 31 60.7

Provide funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

11 22.00 1 50 16 31.37 0 51 26 50.9

Provide alternative routes to certification in special education for persons with content area certification/a special education degree 

9 18.00 1 50 22 41.18 0 51 36 70.5

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certifications tests/licensure 1 2.00 1 50 3 5.88 0 51 10 19.6

exams Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 1 2.00 1 50 1 1.96 0 51 15 29.4

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

— — — — — — — — 7 13.7

Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

— — — — — — — — 13 25.4
Strategy 

Qualified Special Educators 

(Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) 

Preschool Special Education Staff 

 (School Years 2007–2008 and 

2008–2009) 

Highly Quali

(School Y

2

States 

Missing Total a N % 

States 

Missing Total a N % 

States 

N % 

Other None of the above 

10 20.00 1 50 

9 18.00 1 50 

6 11.76 0 51 

11 21.57 0 51 

8 15.6

2 3.9

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-one Part C early intervention program coordinators (62 percent) reported that in their state collaboration with universities to curricula to ensure graduates meet state standards is a strategy used to increase the number of qualified early intervention special educators. Twenty-sespecial education program coordinators (53 percent) reported their state collaborates with universities to create programs and curricula to ensure that gfor qualified preschool special education staff. Thirty-three Part B special education program coordinators (65 percent) reported their state collaborateprograms and curricula to ensure that graduates meet state standards for highly qualified special education teachers. For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, N = 51. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of coordinators who answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 48; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 30; State Part B Questionnaire – Item 15. 

E-24 
Exhibit E.22: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed Special Education Tea

Qualified (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-25 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Distric

NO Difficult

A

Yes Yes Yes 

Strategy % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

63.62 2.34 12 1136 76.08 2.33 8 717 50.65 3.77 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 

18.85 1.74 12 1136 24.76 2.48 8 717 12.71 2.33 

Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

14.21 1.51 12 1136 15.28 1.95 8 717 13.09 2.30 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

10.19 1.24 12 1136 14.21 1.99 8 717 6.01 1.44 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 

6.34 1.11 12 1136 7.73 1.5 8 717 4.89 1.63 

Other 1.72 0.49 11 1137 2.06 0.79 7 718 1.35 0.58 

None of the above 30.74 2.30 12 1136 18.03 2.19 8 717 43.96 3.76 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-four percent of district special education administrators reported their district provides time or funding for teachers to particidevelopment opportunities as a strategy to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Seventy-si

education administrators who reported that their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for teaprofessional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Fifty-one p

education administrators who reported that their district routinely had no difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for 

professional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. 

For among all districts, N = 1,135 except for other, N = 1,137. For districts having difficulty, N = 717, except for other, N = 718. 

For districts having no difficulty, N = 419. 
Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the questib Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past tnumber of districts that answered the question. c Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over 

refers to the number of districts that answered the question. SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 33. 

E-26 
Exhibit E.23: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers (School Year 2008–2009) 

E-27 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely 

Had Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Distr

Had NO D

Qualifi

Yes Yes Yes 

Strategy % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) 

Mentoring or induction programs 

33.49 2.05 3 1145 46.61 2.97 1 724 19.83 2.40 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 

6.10 0.98 3 1145 9.47 1.74 1 724 2.59 0.77 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 4.20 0.72 3 1145 6.37 1.25 1 724 1.94 0.66 

Signing bonus 4.17 0.89 3 1145 6.02 1.42 1 724 2.25 1.04 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 

3.92 0.78 3 1145 4.87 1.15 1 724 2.92 1.04 

Payoff of student loans 1.62 0.62 3 1145 2.75 1.17 1 724 0.44 0.33 

Relocation assistance 1.05 0.27 3 1145 1.62 0.43 1 724 0.46 0.33 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0.20 0.11 3 1145 0.39 0.22 1 724 0.00 0.00 

Other 3.98 0.77 3 1145 6.24 1.34 1 724 1.64 0.69 

None of the above 57.13 2.26 3 1145 40.89 3.03 1 724 74.04 2.78 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-three percent of district special education administrators reported their state using mentoring or induction programs as a str

education teachers. Forty-seven percent of district special education administrators who reported their districts had difficulty in finding qualified appli

mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Twenty percent of district special education administrators who reexperienced no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teach

For among all districts, N = 1,145. For among districts routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 724. For among districts having no difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 421.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated 
c 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the questib Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past t

number of districts that answered the question.

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district did not routinely have difficulty finding qualified applicants over 

refers to the number of districts that answered the question. SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 27. 

E-28 
Exhibit E.24: Pay Incentives Used by Districts to Retain Current Special Education Teachers (School Year 2008–20

E-29 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely 

Had Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Distr

Had NO D

Qualifi

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 

16.00 1.40 6 1142 20.62 2.08 2 723 11.16 1.80 

Teach students with certain disabilities 3.26 0.56 6 1142 4.59 0.96 3 722 1.89 0.55 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 3.14 0.85 5 1143 2.79 0.97 2 723 3.50 1.44 

Teach certain academic subjects 2.39 0.55 5 1143 3.32 0.97 2 723 1.43 0.52 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 1.62 0.47 6 1142 2.46 0.85 2 723 0.70 0.36 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixteen percent of district special education administrators reported their district offers pay incentives for attaining National Board 

Standards certification to retain current special education teachers. Twenty-one percent of district special education administrators who reported their difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported offering pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification

special education administrators who reported their district routinely had no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported the district offered pay iNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. For among all districts, N = 1,142 expect for demonstrate excellence in teaching, N = 1,143. For among districts having difficulty findings qualified applicants, N = 723, except for teach students with certain disabilities, N = 722. 

For among districts not having difficulty finding qualified applicants, N = 419, except for attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standard

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the questib Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past t

number of districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over 

refers to the number of districts that answered the question. SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 28. 

c 
Exhibit E.25: Combination of Agencies Releasing Early Learning Guidelines Describing 

Expectations for Young Children’s Learning and Environment (Fiscal Year 2009) 

N 

Yes 

Missing Total a % 

State has general early learning guidelines 32 62.75 0 

Among states with early learning guidelines, early learning guidelines were released by: 

Education only 10 31.25 1 

Child care only 5 15.63 1 

Human services only 1 3.13 1 

Education and Head Start/Early Head Start 1 3.13 1 

Education and social services 1 3.13 1 

Education, Head Start/Early Head Start, and child 

care 

1 3.13 1 

Education, social services and child care 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services and other 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services and child care 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services and Head Start/Early 

Head Start 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services, health and child care 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services, health, Head 

Start/Early Head Start and child care 1 3.13 1 

Education, health, social services, Head Start/Early 

Head Start and developmental disabilities 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services, Head Start/ Early 

Head Start, developmental disabilities, child care 

and other 

1 3.13 1 

Education, human services, health, social services, 

Head Start/Early Head Start, child care and other 1 3.13 1 

Education, human services, health, mental health, 

social services, Head Start/Early Head Start and 

child care 

1 3.13 1 

Other 2 6.25 1 

51 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31

EXHIBIT READS: Among states with early learning guidelines, 10 states (31 percent) reported that these guidelines are 

released by a state educational agency only.
 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 36. 

E-30 
E-31 

Exhibit E.26: State Early Learning Guidelines or Standards for Infants and Toddlers or Preschool-Age Children (FisSchool Year 2008–2009) 

For infants and Toddlers Birth through Age 2a For Preschool-Age C

Yes Yes 

N % Missing Total c N % Mis

State has early learning 32 62.75 0 51 48 94.12 guidelines/standards Among states with guidelines, domains covered: All five domains 25 80.65 1 31 34 70.83 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-two states (63 percent) reported having early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers birth through age 2. Among states (81 percent) reported covering all 5 domains by these guidelines. a Early learning guidelines for infants and toddlers in FY 2009. b Early learning standards for preschool-age children in SY 2008–2009. c Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 37; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 19, 20. 
 

Exhibit E.27: Among States Providing Early Learning Guidelines, Percentage That Have 

Formal Written Guidance Regarding the Development and Use of Standards-Based IFSPs for 

Infants and Toddlers (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Yes 

N % Missing Total b 

State agency has formal policies in place 2 6.25 0 32 

EXHIBIT READS: Two of the 32 states (6 percent) with early learning guidelines provide formal policy regarding the 

development and use of standards-based IFSPs. 

a State guidance for IFSPs in FY 2009. 

b Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 35, 40. 

Exhibit E.28: Among States Providing Standards-Based IEPs, Percent That Have Formal 

Policies in Place Regarding the Development and Use of Standards-Based IEPs (School Year 

2008–2009) 

Part B Preschool-Age 

Special Education Program a 

Part B School-Age 

Special Education Program a 

N % Missing Total b N % Missing Total b 

10 43.48 0 23 15 57.69 1 26 

EXHIBIT READS: Among states providing standards-based IEPs, 10 states (43 percent) have formal policies in place 

regarding the development and use of standards-based IEPs. 

a State guidance for IEPs in SY 2008–2009. 

b Total refers to the number of states that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 21, 22, 23; State Part B Questionnaire – Items 22, 23, 24. 

E-32 
E-33 

Exhibit E.29: Teachers Employed (FTE) to Provide Special Education to Children under IDEA 

by Age Group, Qualification Status, and State (Fall 2006) 

State 

Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program 

Part B School-Age Special 

Education Program 

FTE 

teachers 

% highly 

qualified a 

FTE 

teachers 

% highly 

qualified a 

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas 

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia 

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois 

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky 

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts 

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

289

80

654

554 

2022

283

31

115

768 

1392

734

411

141

1384 

605

478

451

399 

661

319

607

1220 

954

383

0

822

95

219

376

21 

1555 

91.70

97.50

80.28

77.80 

90.55

83.04

100.00

98.26

73.57 

65.00

77.93

82.24

82.98

99.86 

100.00

100.00

87.80

97.74 

80.48

100.00

86.16

95.33 

98.01

96.87

c 

97.08

97.89

88.13

69.68

100.00 

97.94 

5,600 

990 

5,976 

3,803 

32,169 

4,765 

4,892 

1,465 

b 

17,155 

15,376 

1,813 

1,105 

19,902 

7,032 

5,761 

3,890 

6,569 94.63 

6,350 

2,818 

8,171 

8,630 

12,991 

8,476 

1,124

9,155 

826 

2,320 

2,586 

2,656 

19,062 

87.68 

85.35 

86.08 

91.74 

89.89 

89.09 

100.00 

50.38 

c 

45.93 

88.51 

75.34 

89.41 

99.64 

96.00 

100.00 

79.10 

66.28 

91.31 

76.77 

88.44 

97.57 

93.71 

75.89

97.75 

97.82 

95.09 

85.34 

100.00 

96.00 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c 

State 

Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program 

Part B School-Age Special 

Education Program 

FTE 

teachers 

% highly 

qualified a 

FTE 

teachers 

% highly 

qualified a 

New Mexico 183 91.80 2,433 86.60 

New York 4371 89.84 39,888 85.75 

North Carolina 872 95.18 10,264 96.06 

North Dakota 84 88.10 825 96.00 

Ohio 1580 100.00 19,431 96.30

Oklahoma 0 c 7,948 75.08 

Oregon 170 94.71 3,422 89.22

Pennsylvania 1488 95.70 20,304 92.21

Rhode Island 115 81.74 1,876 83.48 

South Carolina 550 94.73 6,112 92.69 

South Dakota 108 94.44 915 79.67 

Tennessee 709 55.99 6,070 87.68

Texas 3163 97.66 22,628 95.84

Utah 210 88.57 2,509 77.64

Vermont 118 94.92 1,058 92.72

Virginia 739 99.32 13,322 83.88

Washington 557 97.13 5,195 96.63

West Virginia 273 81.68 2,818 88.93 

Wisconsin 704 97.59 7,836 95.90

Wyoming 127 57.48 440 81.36

U. S. Average 669.49 87.91 8,023 88.74 

EXHIBIT READS: Ninety-two percent of Part B preschool-age special education program FTE special education teachers 

in Alabama were reported to be highly qualified. 

a The percentage of highly qualified was calculated as the number of highly qualified divided by the number of FTE. 

b Data were not available. 

The percentage cannot be calculated as the state either reported 0 FTE or data were not available. 

SOURCE. The data in column 2, and for calculations in column 3, are from Table 3-1 Teachers employed (FTE) to provide 

special education and related services to children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: 

Fall 2006 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC). The data in column 4, and for calculations in column 5, are 

from Table 3-2 Teachers employed (FTE) to provide special education and related services to students ages 6 through 21 

under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and state: Fall 2006 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC). 

These data are publicly available. 

E-34 
E-35 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit E.30: Qualified Paraprofessionals Employed (FTE) to Provide Special Education and 

Related Services to Children under IDEA by Age Group, Qualification Status and State (Fall 

2006) 

State 

Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program 

Paraprofessionals 

Part B School-Age Special 

Education Program 

Paraprofessionals 

Total 

employed 

(FTE) % qualified a 

Total 

employed 

(FTE) % qualified a 

Alabama

Alaska 

Arizona

Arkansas 

California

Colorado

Connecticut 

Delaware

District of Columbia 

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois 

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky 

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts 

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

400 91.75 

b c 

1054 73.43 

771 43.19 

3450 91.77 

266 100.00 

b c

 0 c

1296 38.27 

1326 46.08 

734 100.00 

447 93.96 

329 100.00 

b c

 638 100.00 

2064 100.00 

781 100.00 

694 91.79 

849 96.11 

24 100.00 

548 91.79 

1778 33.01 

906 99.01 

1 100.00 

0 c

 725 100.00 

122 100.00 

200 100.00 

327 38.23 

1288 100.00 

1799 100.00 

4380 86.35 

b c 

7680 75.53 

2324 79.91 

43730 79.17 

5469 100.00 

8538 100.00 

1003 44.87 

b c 

12800 43.93 

11626 100.00 

1799 91.16 

2261 100.00 

 31296 100.00 

8181 100.00 

5251 100.00 

9588 100.00 

5008 95.13 

5669 93.37 

3861 98.63 

7185 82.98 

12671 14.60 

8992 96.41 

9994 100.00 

1670 100.00 

7604 100.00 

1064 100.00 

3174 100.00 

1796 30.07 

5484 100.00 

1644 89.78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c 

State 

Part B Preschool-Age Special 

Education Program 

Paraprofessionals 

Part B School-Age Special 

Education Program 

Paraprofessionals 

Total 

employed 

(FTE) % qualified a 

Total 

employed 

(FTE) % qualified a 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee

Texas 

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia 

Wisconsin

Wyoming

U. S. Average 

22 31.82 

3932 60.35 

1269 98.50 

b c

 439 99.54 

460 88.48 

339 100.00 

964 74.69 

b c 

593 98.15 

0 c

 573 97.73 

2987 95.85 

386 2.85 

187 98.40 

1610 100.00 

556 100.00 

243 98.77 

84 98.81 

19 26.32 

83.69 

2908 95.80 

30422 90.07 

7404 97.61 

1407 92.89 

1586 100.00 

2751 87.35 

5668 100.00 

16069 84.84 

b c 

4213 96.30 

1495 100.00 

5760 97.07 

12427 97.92 

3283 1.13 

3104 96.62 

11808 100.00 

5967 100.00 

1513 95.64 

5684 99.00 

1049 64.25 

87.42 

EXHIBIT READS: The state of Alabama had 400 paraprofessional FTEs to provide Part B preschool-age special education 

program services to children ages 3–5, of which 92 percent were qualified. Alabama had 4,380 paraprofessional FTEs to 

provide Part B school-age special education program services to children and youth ages 6–21, of which 86 percent were 

qualified. 

a The percentage of qualified was calculated as the number of qualified divided by the number of FTE. 

b Data were not available. 

The percentage cannot be calculated as the state either reported 0 FTE or data were not available. 

SOURCE. The data in column 2, and for calculations in column 3, are from Table 3-3 Paraprofessionals employed (FTE) to 

provide special education and related services to children ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, by qualification status and 

state: Fall 2006 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_3-3.xls, 

retrieved March 3, 2010). The data in column 4, and for calculations in column 5, are from Table 3-4 Paraprofessionals 

employed (FTE) to provide special education and related services to children ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, by 

qualification status and state: Fall 2006 available from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; 

https:/www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_3-4.xls, retrieved March 3, 2010). These data are publicly available. 

E-36 
E-37 

 

Exhibit E.31: Age Ranges for Which Special Educator Certification or Credential Is Applicable 

in the State (Fiscal Year 2009) 

Age Range 

Yes 

N % 

Birth to age 8 14 28.00 

Other 14 28.00

Birth to age 3 13 26.00 

Birth to age 5 9 18.00 

Total a 50 100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirteen states (26 percent) reported that special educator certification or credentials are required for 

infants and toddlers ages birth to 3 years.
 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 1. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 47. 
E-38 

Exhibit E.32: HOUSSE Subject-Matter Requirements for Current Special Education Teachers in Middle Schools (Sc

Yes Total a

N % N % 

HOUSSE for teachers at middle school level 

44 86.27 51 100.00 

If HOUSSE is an option, method: 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

N % N % N % 

Classroom experience 15 34.09 18 40.91 11 25.00 

Performance evaluation 11 25.00 7 15.91 26 59.09 

Completion of professional development, including additional coursework 

11 25.00 27 61.36 6 13.64 

Content area test scores 9 20.45 23 52.27 12 27.27 

Student achievement data 3 6.82 8 18.18 33 75.00 

Portfolio 2 4.55 9 20.45 33 75.00 

National board certification 0 0.00 31 70.45 13 29.55 

Other 4 9.09 15 34.09 25 56.82 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-four states (86 percent) reported current middle school special education teachers could use HOUSSE to meet subject-matte

qualified teacher status. 

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0. b Total refers to the number of states with HOUSSE at the middle school level that answered the question. Number of states with HOUSSE as an opt

that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 17. 
E-39 

Exhibit E.33: HOUSSE Subject-Matter Requirements for Current Special Education Teachers in High Schools (Sch

Yes Total a

N % N % 

HOUSSE for teachers at high school level 45 88.24 51 100.00 

If HOUSSE is an option, method: 

Required Optional Not Applicable 

N % N % N % 

Classroom experience 16 35.56 19 42.22 10 22.22 

Completion of professional development, including additional coursework 

12 26.67 28 62.22 5 11.11 

Performance evaluation 11 24.44 7 15.56 27 60.00 Content area test scores 9 20.00 25 55.56 11 24.44 

Student achievement data 3 6.67 8 17.78 34 75.56 

Portfolio 2 4.44 8 17.78 35 77.78 

National board certification 0 0.00 31 68.89 14 31.11 

Other 3 6.67 13 28.89 29 64.44 

EXHIBIT READS: Forty-five states (88 percent) reported current high school special education teachers may use HOUSSE to meet subject-matter req

qualified teacher status. Sixteen states (36 percent) reported that classroom experience is a required element of HOUSSE for current high school speci

a Total refers to the number of states that answered the question. Number of states that did not answer the question: 0. b Total refers to the number of states with HOUSSE as an option at the high school level that answered the question. Number of states with HOUSSE 

school level that did not answer the question: 0. SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Item 18. 
Exhibit E.34: Pay Incentives Districts Used to Retain Current Special Education Teachers 

(School Year 2008–2009) 

Among All Districts 

Yes 

% (SE) Total a Missing 

Use any incentive 20.47 1.55 1140 8 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty percent of districts reported using at least one type of pay incentives to retain current special 

education teachers. 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing 

and total Ns were calculated from unweighted data. 

a Total refers to the number of districts that answered the question.
 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 28. 

E-40 
Exhibit E.35: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applic

Years by Region (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-41 

Northeastern Districts Southern Districts Midwestern Districts 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Tota

Districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years Special education teachers who serve children in: 

50.87 5.07 0 179 52.39 3.5 0 443 50.07 4.8 0 24

High school 56.17 7.56 0 102 57.82 4.47 0 289 67.59 5.14 0 14

Middle school 33.26 6.8 0 102 51.12 4.48 0 289 55.66 5.60 0 14

Elementary school 30.10 6.52 0 102 42.50 4.49 0 289 37.53 5.52 0 14Preschool 13.41 5.28 0 102 23.38 3.72 0 289 26.64 5.07 0 14

Vocational or alternative school Special Education teachers who primarily serve children with: 

12.00 4.63 0 102 12.38 2.56 0 289 12.64 3.33 0 14

Emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 39.76 7.13 0 102 55.84 4.49 0 289 58.92 5.61 0 14

Autism 39.35 7.16 0 102 48.93 4.45 0 289 44.83 5.64 0 14

Mental retardation 20.09 5.96 0 102 29.35 4.02 0 289 30.64 5.29 0 14

Learning disabilities Other low-incidence disabilities (e.g., other health 

16.60 5.56 0 102 29.15 4.02 0 289 31.40 5.39 0 14

impairments, orthopedic impairments, multiple disabilities) 

16.75 5.39 0 102 31.53 3.97 0 289 29.03 5.03 0 14

Sensory impairments (hearing/vision) 11.45 3.24 0 102 34.82 4.23 0 289 30.89 5.33 0 14

Developmental delays 14.49 5.41 0 102 20.87 3.65 0 289 24.10 4.99 0 14OtherSecondary school special education teachers of: 

4.58 0 102 6.20 1.7 0 289 8.45 3.06 0 14

Mathematics 59.79 7.42 0 102 57.13 4.42 0 289 35.18 5.34 0 14

Science 40.76 5.87 0 102 43.04 4.2 0 289 28.33 4.86 0 14

English/language arts 28.12 7.91 0 102 33.21 4.02 0 289 23.17 4.80 0 14Social Studies (including history, civics, geography and economics) 14.21 3.55 1 101 25.43 3.69 0 289 16.04 4.01 0 14Other subjects 3.91 1.96 1 101 6.85 2.02 0 289 9.85 3.43 0 14

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-one percent of Northeastern districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Fifty-two percent 

difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Fifty percent of Midwestern districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over 

of Western districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from unw

a Total reported for the first row is among all 1,148 districts that responded to the survey, and refers to the number of districts responding to the question. Total r

725 districts that reported routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years, and refers to the number of districts that answered the 

9.38 SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 26. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey D

08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. Classi

Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
Exhibit E.36: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applica

by Urbanicity (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-42 

Urban Districts Suburban Districts 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total a 

Districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years Special education teachers who serve children in: 

80.00 2.16 1 369 53.20 2.37 1 585 45

High school 57.57 2.85 0 294 58.83 3.16 0 338 57

Middle school 49.90 2.97 0 294 48.03 3.15 0 338 50Elementary school 38.51 2.9 0 294 30.33 2.8 0 338 48Preschool 31.15 2.77 0 294 21.20 2.45 0 338 26

Vocational or alternative school Special Education teachers who primarily serve children with: 

16.91 2.21 0 294 12.46 2.09 0 338 9

Emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 63.05 2.94 0 294 56.10 3.17 0 338 51

Autism 59.95 2.88 0 294 47.05 3.18 0 338 42

Mental retardation 26.78 2.59 0 294 27.16 2.72 0 338 32Learning disabilities Other low-incidence disabilities (e.g., other health 

24.72 2.56 0 294 24.05 2.68 0 338 35

impairments, orthopedic impairments, multiple disabilities) 

38.59 2.95 0 294 29.54 2.77 0 338 24

Sensory impairments (hearing/vision) 31.07 2.8 0 294 24.12 2.57 0 338 29Developmental delays 24.06 2.57 0 294 18.20 2.37 0 338 26Other Secondary school special education teachers of: 

9.47 1.78 0 294 8.06 1.67 0 338 10

Mathematics 57.65 2.95 0 294 51.80 3.08 0 338 43

Science 49.37 2.96 0 294 43.00 3.07 0 338 29

English/language arts 33.10 2.79 0 294 23.96 2.56 0 338 29

Social studies (including history, civics, geography and economics) 28.73 2.62 1 293 19.55 2.44 0 338 18Other subjects 7.35 1.52 1 293 6.70 1.52 0 338 8

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty percent of urban districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Fifty-three percent of subur

finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Forty-six percent of rural districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from unw

a Total reported for the first row is among all 1,148 districts that responded to the survey, and refers to the number of districts responding to the question. Total r

725 districts that reported routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years, and refers to the number of districts that answered the 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 26. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Surve

08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. 
Exhibit E.37: Types of Special Education Teachers for Which District Has Experienced Difficulty Finding Qualified Applica

by District Size (School Years 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-43 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 

District Enrollment between 

1,000 and 10,000 District Enrollment Grea

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missin

Districts reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years 

36.30 3.82 0 297 61.37 3.09 1 577 84.33 2.94 1 

Special education teachers who serve children in: High school 51.06 6.00 0 113 61.26 3.60 0 373 65.99 4.10 0 

Middle school 45.40 6.11 0 113 50.40 4.03 0 373 54.56 4.17 0 

Elementary school 40.44 6.25 0 113 37.89 3.79 0 373 41.34 4.15 0 Preschool 28.51 5.92 0 113 19.45 2.73 0 373 37.28 4.05 0 

Vocational or alternative school 11.10 3.81 0 113 11.32 2.21 0 373 16.51 2.61 0 

Special Education teachers who primarily serve children with: Emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 46.02 6.23 0 113 57.67 3.84 0 373 66.08 4.03 0 

Autism 41.25 6.06 0 113 45.43 3.70 0 373 65.61 3.44 0 

Mental retardation 25.70 5.43 0 113 30.82 3.59 0 373 32.38 4.00 0 

Learning disabilities 34.39 5.74 0 113 26.48 3.58 0 373 24.43 3.89 0 

Other low-incidence disabilities (e.g., other health impairments, orthopedic 24.93 5.43 0 113 27.90 3.43 0 373 40.70 4.19 0 

impairments, multiple disabilities) Sensory impairments (hearing/vision) 17.84 4.42 0 113 29.25 3.24 0 373 44.35 4.21 0 

Developmental delays 22.34 5.47 0 113 21.49 3.30 0 373 27.62 3.90 0 Other 11.36 4.24 0 113 7.81 2.14 0 373 10.04 2.22 0 
District Enrollment Less than 1,000 

District Enrollment between 

1,000 and 10,000 District Enrollment Grea

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missin

Secondary school special education teachers of: Mathematics 35.10 5.97 0 113 53.10 3.84 0 373 68.69 4.02 0 

Science 26.80 5.48 0 113 39.72 3.31 0 373 61.83 4.13 0 

English/language arts 21.18 4.98 0 113 30.50 3.90 0 373 28.93 3.83 0 

Social studies (including history, civics, geography and 

economics) 

16.81 4.51 0 113 20.15 2.93 1 372 27.31 3.96 0 

Other subjects 5.86 3.19 0 113 7.81 2.02 1 372 9.72 2.56 0 

E-44 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-six percent of districts with enrollment less than 1,000 reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years

enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 reported having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Eighty-four percent of districts with enrol

having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from unw

a Total reported for the first row is among all 1,148 districts that responded to the survey, and refers to the number of districts responding to the question. Total 

the 725 districts that reported routinely having difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years, and refers to the number of districts that answered 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Item 26. 
Exhibit E.38: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed Special Education Teachers T

Region (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-45 

% 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Dist

NO Diffic

Yes No Yes No Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % (SE

Northeastern Districts 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development 

opportunities 

74.95 4.10 3 176 81.67 5.63 2 100 68.01 5.8

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 6.70 2.36 3 176 7.74 2.96 2 100 5.62 3.6

Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain 

content area credentials 

17.71 3.82 3 176 17.14 4.91 2 100 18.3 5.6

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education 

credentials 

11.10 3.01 3 176 13.87 4.57 2 100 8.24 4.0

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 3.07 1.82 3 176 1.75 1.25 2 100   

Other 0.80 0.60 3 176 0.44 0.25 2 100   

None of the above 21.85 3.79 3 176 16.35 5.50 2 100 27.55 4.8

Southern Districts 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

63.62 3.41 2 441 73.44 3.73 2 287 52.83 5.5

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 33.52 3.23 2 441 40.88 4.31 2 287 25.43 4.8

Provide free or subsidized training for 

special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

14.95 2.33 2 441 17.13 3.06 2 287 12.55 3.5

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

13.44 2.24 2 441 16.76 3.21 2 287 9.79 3.0

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 8.60 1.66 2 441 11.80 2.70 2 287 5.08 1.7

Other 2.42 1.02 2 441 2.98 1.45 2 287   None of the above 25.54 3.14 2 441 13.31 2.63 2 287 38.97 5.4
% 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among Dist

NO Diffic

Yes No Yes No Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % (SE

Midwestern Districts 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development 

opportunities 

63.54 4.72 0 243 80.42 3.72 0 146 46.61 7.8

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 14.72 3.12 0 243 21.48 4.9 0 146 7.93 3.4

Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain 

content area credentials 

11.60 2.52 0 243 10.8 2.87 0 146 12.41 4.1

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education 

credentials 

8.78 2.22 0 243 12.88 3.65 0 146 4.67 2.3

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 3.84 1.52 0 243 6.94 2.89 0 146   

Other 1.87 1.07 0 243 2.3 1.87 0 146   

None of the above 32.45 4.71 0 243 16.22 3.6 0 146 48.72 7.9 

Western Districts 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

51.47 5.57 7 276 65.43 6.07 4 184 36.82 8.4

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 22.1 4.88 7 276 29.26 6.64 4 184 14.6 7 

Provide free or subsidized training for 

special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

14.34 3.63 7 276 19.12 5.56 4 184 9.33 4.6

Provide free or subsidized training for 

highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

7.91 2.42 7 276 13.85 4.55 4 184   

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for 

certification tests/licensure exams 11.81 4 7 276 10.58 4.33 4 184 13.09 6.9

Other 1.57 0.73 6 277 2.26 1.18 3 185   

None of the above 43.45 5.56 7 276 28.9 6.01 4 184 58.73 8.7

E-46 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-five percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators reported their district provides time or funding for teachers to pa

opportunities as a strategy to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Eighty-two percent of Northeaster
administrators who reported that their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for teachers to participate i

opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Sixty-eight percent of Northeastern district Par

reported that their district routinely had no difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for teachers to participate in professional de

proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from unw

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three years, 

that answered the question. 

c Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past thre

districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 26, 33. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Surv

08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. Classi

Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 

E-47 
Exhibit E.39: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed Special Education Teache

Qualified by Urbanicity (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-48 

Among All Districts 

Yes 

% (SE) Missing

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development 61.91 2.65 8 opportunities 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 24.07 2.18 8 Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain 20.52 2.09 8 content area credentials 

Among Districts That Routinely Had Among D

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO Dif

Applicants 

Yes Yes 

 Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Urban Districts 

362 66.69 2.87 6 288 42.93 

362 24.77 2.49 6 288 21.29 

362 22.13 2.40 6 288 14.09 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

16.80 1.99 8 362 19.78 2.39 6 288 4.94 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 

Other 

12.81

3.13 

 1.81 

0.98 

8 

8 

362 14.39 

362 3.92

2.13

 1.22 

 6 

6 

288 6.53 

288 0.00 

None of the above 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams Provide free or subsidized training for 

special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

29.60 

62.36

15.50 

15.86

2.52 

 2.35 

1.48

 1.71 

8 

4 

 4 

4 

362 23.87

Suburban Districts 

582 70.44 

582 22.08 

582 19.55 

 2.64 

2.87

2.32 

2.51

6 

 2 

2 

 2 

288 52.37 

336 53.17 

336 8.02 

336 11.67 

Provide free or subsidized training for 

highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

10.64 1.47 4 582 14.47 2.27 2 336 6.30 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 

Other 

5.13

1.98 

 0.93 

0.62 

4 

3 

582 6.44 

583 1.59 

1.40

0.61

 2 

 1 

336 3.64 

337 2.41 

None of the above 32.32 2.30 4 582 22.24 2.68 2 336 43.77 
E-49 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among D

NO Dif

% 

Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % 

Yes 

(SE) Missing Totalb % 

Yes 

Rural Districts 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities 

64.98 4.23 0 192 84.09 4.2 0 93 49.01 

Pay fees for tests/licensure exams 21.32 3.25 0 192 27.64 4.98 0 93 16.04 

Provide free or subsidized training for special education teachers to obtain content area credentials 

11.94 2.52 0 192 9.26 3.2 0 93 14.17 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified secondary school teachers to obtain special education credentials 

8.99 2.12 0 192 12.77 3.81 0 93 5.83 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification tests/licensure exams 6.68 2.07 0 192 7.72 3.05 0 93 5.81 

Other 1.31 0.81 0 192   0 93  None of the above 29.42 4.16 0 192 12.28 3.97 0 93 43.75 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-two percent of urban district Part B program administrators reported their district provides time or funding for teachers to particip

opportunities as a strategy to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Sixty-seven percent of urban 

administrators who reported that their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for teachers to participopportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers. Forty-three percent of urban district Part B 

reported that their district routinely had no difficulty finding qualified applicants reported providing time or funding for teachers to participate in professionincrease the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special education teachers.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three y

districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the pa

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 26, 33. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Unive

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/c

c 
Exhibit E.40: Strategies Used by Districts to Increase the Proportion of Currently Employed Special Education Teache

Qualified by District Enrollment (School Years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009) 

E-50 

Among Districts That Routinely Had Among Districts T

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO Difficulty Fin

Among All Districts Applicants Applic

Yes Yes Yes 

Strategy % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) M

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in 58.45 4.06 1 296 80.32 4.71 0 113 45.95 5.41 professional development opportunities 

Pay fees for tests/licensure 17.99exams 

 3.05 1 296 29.80 5.67 0 113 11.24 3.24 

Provide free or subsidized 

training for special education 10.82 teachers to obtain content area credentials 

 2.29 1 296 13.39 4.15 0 113 9.34 2.80 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified 

secondary school teachers to 7.72obtain special education credentials 

 2.01 1 296 11.61 4.21 0 113 5.50 2.00 

Pay for tutoring to prepare teachers for certification 5.79tests/licensure exams 

 1.96 1 296 8.64 3.73 0 113 4.16 2.27 

Other 0.99 0.74 1 296   0 113   None of the above 37.12 4.00 1 296 17.73 4.68 0 113 48.20 5.36 
Among Districts That Routinely Had Among Districts T

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO Difficulty Fin

Among All Districts Applicants Applic

Yes Yes Yes 

Strategy % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) M

District Enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in 68.33 2.88 2 576 74.54 3.10 1 372 58.47 5.25 professional development opportunities 

Pay fees for tests/licensure 18.04exams 

 2.07 2 576 20.20 2.69 1 372 14.62 3.38 

Provide free or subsidized 

training for special education 16.63 teachers to obtain content area credentials 

 2.21 2 576 15.21 2.44 1 372 18.89 4.14 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified 

secondary school teachers to 11.62obtain special education credentials 

 1.69 2 576 15.07 2.46 1 372 6.15 1.94 

Pay for tutoring to prepare 

teachers for certification 5.68tests/licensure exams 

 1.24 2 576 5.59 1.38 1 372 5.82 2.30 

Other 2.17 0.71 2 576 1.68 0.70 1 372 2.95 1.48 

None of the above 25.34 2.79 2 576 18.11 2.79 1 372 36.81 5.32 

E-51 
Among Districts That Routinely Had Among Districts T

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO Difficulty Fin

Among All Districts Applicants Applic

Yes Yes Yes 

Strategy % (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) M

District Enrollment Greater than 10,000 

Provide time or funding for teachers to participate in 67.28 3.84 9 264 70.58 3.52 7 232 49.83 6.89 

professional development opportunities 

Pay fees for tests/licensure 31.79exams 

 3.64 9 264 33.59 3.95 7 232 22.28 6.73 

Provide free or subsidized 

training for special education 21.70 teachers to obtain content area credentials 

 2.66 9 264 21.95 3.09 7 232 20.40 2.92 

Provide free or subsidized training for highly qualified 

secondary school teachers to 18.23obtain special education credentials 

 2.34 9 264 18.07 2.72 7 232 19.07 2.97 

Pay for tutoring to prepare 

teachers for certification 15.68tests/licensure exams 

 2.57 9 264 16.70 2.92 7 232 10.31 5.59 

Other 3.84 1.38 8 265 3.64 1.39 6 233   

None of the above 23.07 3.46 9 264 18.57 2.88 7 232 46.85 6.48 

E-52 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-eight percent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 reported their district provides t

participate in professional development opportunities as a strategy to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary special educatiodistrict Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 who reported that their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified a

or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary and secondary spepercent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 who reported that their district routinely had no difficulty findiproviding time or funding for teachers to participate in professional development opportunities to increase the proportion of highly qualified elementary an

teachers.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

districts that answered the question.

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 26, 33. 

c 
Exhibit E.41: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by Region (School Year 2008

E-53 

Among Districts That Routinely Had Among 

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO D

Among All Districts Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Northeastern Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 52.30 5.01 0 179 58.53 7.34 0 102 45.84 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 9.66 2.67 0 179 15.35 4.83 0 102 3.77 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 0.78 0.59 0 179 1.53 1.16 0 102 0 

Signing bonus   0 179   0 102 0 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 0.30 0.13 0 179 0.59 0.26 0 102 0 

Payoff of student loans   0 179   0 102 0 Relocation assistance   0 179   0 102 0 Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0 0 179 0 0 102 0 

Other 5.12 2.15 0 179 8.93 4.09 0 102  

None of the above 43.39 4.99 0 179 33 7.07 0 102 54.16 

Southern Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 30.57 2.96 1 442 42.56 4.23 1 288 17.43 Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 0.92 0.37 1 442 1.67 0.69 1 288  

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 10.15 1.97 1 442 12.52 2.75 1 288 7.55 

Signing bonus 6.07 1.46 1 442 9.69 2.44 1 288 2.10 Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 10.53 2.46 1 442 9.96 2.66 1 288 11.16 

Payoff of student loans 1.99 0.81 1 442 2.46 0.93 1 288  

Relocation assistance 2.94 1.03 1 442 4.18 1.52 1 288 1.58 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals   1 442   1 288 0 

Other 3.88 1.39 1 442 2.65 0.92 1 288 5.24 

None of the above 54.53 3.38 1 442 40.70 4.48 1 288 69.69 
E-54 

Among Districts That Routinely Had Among 

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO D

Among All Districts Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Midwestern Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 26.84 3.50 0 243 41.49 5.17 0 146 12.15 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 6.93 1.81 0 243 10.02 3.15 0 146 3.83 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 2.66 1.41 0 243 5.16 2.77 0 146  

Signing bonus 6.02 2.23 0 243 8.31 3.58 0 146  

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 2.22 1.36 0 243   0 146  

Payoff of student loans 1.90 1.31 0 243 3.79 2.58 0 146 0 

Relocation assistance   0 243   0 146 0 Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0 0 243 0 0 146 0 

Other 3.40 1.04 0 243 6.79 1.98 0 146 0 

None of the above 63.67 4.13 0 243 46.14 5.55 0 146 81.24 

Western Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 28.95 4.53 2 281 47.98 6.84 0 188 8.87 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 6.89 2.33 2 281 11.67 4.37 0 188 1.85 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 3.65 0.93 2 281 6.26 1.72 0 188 0.88 

Signing bonus 2.87 0.88 2 281 3.62 1.26 0 188 2.08 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 3.06 0.76 2 281 5.36 1.43 0 188 0.63 

Payoff of student loans 2.26 1.82 2 281 3.88 3.51 0 188  Relocation assistance 1.53 0.62 2 281 2.47 1.06 0 188  

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0.96 0.58 2 281 1.88 1.13 0 188 0 

Other 3.95 1.93 2 281 6.71 3.67 0 188  

None of the above 63.00 4.86 2 281 40.14 6.85 0 188 87.12 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-two percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators reported their state using mentoring or induction programs as a education teachers. Fifty-nine percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators who reported their districts had difficulty in finding qualified a

mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Forty-six percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators 

experienced no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. 
c 

Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district did not routinely have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 27. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Un

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.g

Classification was based on the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 

E-55 
Exhibit E.42: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by Urbanicity (School Year 2

E-56 

% 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among D

NO Dif

Yes Yes Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % (

Urban Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 

Signing bonus 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary Payoff of student loans Relocation assistance 

54.19 

10.69

9.07

8.50 8.16

2.76 

4.71 

2.70

 1.72 

 1.46 

1.40 

 1.42 

0.81

1.12

 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

 1 

 1 

369 

369 

369 

369 

369 

369 

369 

59.14 

12.76 

10.04 

9.89

8.08 3.21 

5.40 

2.99 

2.08 

1.68

 1.69 

1.59

0.98 

1.35 

0 

0 

 0 

0 

 0 

0 

0 

294 

294 

294 

294 

294 

294 294 

34.38 



5.16 

2.93 

8.50 





Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals   1 369   0 294 0 Other 5.36 1.24 1 369 6.02 1.47 0 294  

None of the above 32.05 2.57 1 369 25.12 2.70 0 294 59.81 

Suburban Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule Bonus supplement to regular compensation Signing bonus 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary Payoff of student loans Relocation assistance 

43.74 

8.804.27

2.11 

3.20

1.14 

0.82 

2.33

 1.44  0.75 

0.55 

 0.81 

0.19 

0.30 

 2 

2 2 

2 

2 

2 2 

584 

584 584 

584 

584 

584 584 

57.90 

11.39 

6.02 

3.15

3.44 

2.14 1.55 

3.14 

2.19

1.30

 0.91 

0.77

0.35 0.55 

1 

 1  1 

1 

 1 

1 1 

337 

337 337 

337 

337 

337 

337 

27.68 

5.85 2.27 

0.94 

2.93 

0 0 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0.40 0.25 2 584 0.74 0.47 1 337 0 

Other 6.37 1.12 2 584 10.47 1.94 1 337 1.73 

None of the above 46.70 2.42 2 584 31.66 2.97 1 337 63.77 
c 

E-57 

Among Districts That Routinely Had Among D

Difficulty Finding Qualified NO Dif

Among All Districts Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % (

Rural Districts 

Mentoring or induction programs 21.54 3.44 0 192 31.80 5.88 0 93 12.97 

Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 3.05 1.45 0 192 6.71 3.17 0 93 0 0 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation 3.55 1.29 0 192 5.97 2.47 0 93  

Signing bonus 5.54 1.74 0 192 8.28 3.07 0 93 3.26 

Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary 4.06 1.41 0 192 5.74 2.47 0 93 2.66 Payoff of student loans 1.93 1.03 0 192 3.32 2.11 0 93  

Relocation assistance   0 192   0 93  

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0 0 192 0 0 93 0 

Other 1.62 0.92 0 192   0 93  

None of the above 69.77 3.87 0 192 54.18 6.12 0 93 82.81 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-four percent of urban district Part B program administrators reported their state using mentoring or induction programs as a strate

teachers. Fifty-nine percent of urban district Part B program administrators who reported their districts had difficulty in finding qualified applicants reporteprograms as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Thirty-four percent of urban district Part B program administrators who reported their districts finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district did not routinely have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question.  Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 27. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/c
E-58 

Exhibit E.43: Supports or Incentives for Recruitment of New Special Education Teachers by District Enrollment (Schoo

Strategy

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants

Among Districts T

NO Difficulty Fi

Appli

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) 

District Enrollment Less than 1,000

Mentoring or induction programs Placement of a teacher on a higher step of the salary schedule 

16.90 

3.67

2.52

 1.35

1 

 1 

296 

296 

29.86

7.94 

 4.95 

3.50 

1 

1 

112

112 

 9.54 

1.25

2.35 

 0.72 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation Signing bonus Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary Payoff of student loans Relocation assistance 

2.52

4.10

3.09

1.53 



 1.08

 1.56

 1.06

1.01 



 1 

 1 

 1 

1 

1 

296 

296 

296 

296

296 

5.77 

7.09

3.09 

4.22



2.87 

 3.34 

1.39 

 2.72 



1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

112 

112

112 

112

112 

0.68

 2.40 

3.09

 0.00 

0.00 

 0.29 

1.57 

 1.46 

0.00 

0.00 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 0.00 0.00 1 296 0.00 0.00 1 112 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.63 0.31 1 296   1 112 0.49 0.32 

None of the above 73.47 3.22 1 296 55.70 6.05 1 112 83.56 3.22 

District Enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 

Mentoring or induction programs Placement of a teacher on a 

45.66 2.93 1 577 52.49 3.67 0 373 34.81 4.75 

higher step of the salary schedule 

7.89 1.52 1 577 10.25 2.20 0 373 4.15 1.59 

Bonus supplement to regular compensation Signing bonus Permanent salary augmentation or adjustment to normal base salary Payoff of student loans Relocation assistance 

4.98

3.07 

4.09

1.64 

1.11 

 1.05 

0.97 

 1.23 

0.83 

0.42

1 

1 

1 

1 

 1 

577 

577 

577 

577

577 

5.91 

4.23

5.16 

1.921.55 

1.36

 1.53 

1.74

 1.27 

0.66 

 0 

0 

 0 

0 

0 

373 

373

373 

373

373 

3.51 

 1.22 

2.39 

 1.19 



1.68 

0.64 

1.47 

0.90 



Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals   1 577   0 373 0.00 0.00 

Other 6.74 1.56 1 577 8.98 2.29 0 373 3.19 1.75 

None of the above 45.80 2.98 1 577 35.91 3.62 0 373 61.52 4.83 
Strategy 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified Applicants 

Among Districts T

NO Difficulty Fi

Appli

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (SE) 

District Enrollment Greater than 10,000 

Mentoring or induction programs Placement of a teacher on a 

higher step of the salary schedule 

67.00 

10.86

3.71

 2.80 

 1 

1 

272 

272 

68.69 

10.20 

3.79 

2.26 

0 

0 

239 

239 

57.90 



13.38 



Bonus supplement to regular compensation 

Signing bonus Permanent salary augmentation 

or adjustment to normal base salary 

Payoff of student loans 

Relocation assistance 

10.8813.00 

8.76

2.16 

7.40 

 1.89 

2.13 

 1.67 

0.74 

1.47

1 

1 

1 

1 

 1 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

10.81 

12.31 

9.07 

2.56

5.89 

2.00

2.49 

1.90

 0.88 

1.73 

 0 

0 

 0 

0 

0 

239 

239 

239 

239

239 

11.25 



7.10 

 0.00 



5.63 



3.01 

0.00 



Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher referrals 1.77 1.31 1 272 2.10 1.55 0 239 0.00 0.00 

Other 8.55 2.74 1 272 8.63 3.09 0 239 8.11 5.11 None of the above 19.30 3.01 1 272 20.26 3.50 0 239 14.13 4.20 

E-59 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventeen percent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 reported their state using mentostrategy to recruit special education teachers. Thirty percent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 who repor

finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or induction programs as a strategy to recruit special education teachers. Ten percent of district Part B 

districts with enrollment less than 1,000 who reported their districts experienced no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported using mentoring or in

recruit special education teachers. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district did not routinely have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Items 26, 27. 

c 
Exhibit E.44: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education Teachers by Region (Sch

E-60 

% 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among 

NO D

Yes No Yes No Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Northeastern Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 8.22 2.43 1 178 11.22 4.23 0 102 5.10 

Teach students with certain disabilities 0.16 0.09 0 179 0.31 0.18 0 102 0 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching   0 179   0 102 0 

Teach certain academic subjects 0.16 0.09 0 179   0 102 0 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 0.21 0.10 1 178 0.42 0.20 0 102 0 

Southern Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards certification 34.17 3.27 3 440 40.05 4.31 2 287 27.83 

Teach students with certain disabilities 8.81 1.71 3 440 10.59 2.52 2 287 6.88 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 6.46 1.79 3 440 5.25 1.94 2 287 7.76 

Teach certain academic subjects 6.52 1.51 3 440 7.39 2.11 2 287 5.57 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 3.52 0.93 3 440 4.09 1.05 2 287 2.91 

Midwestern Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 7.23 1.81 0 243 9.11 2.67 0 146 5.35 

Teach students with certain disabilities 1.26 0.95 0 243 2.51 1.89 0 146 0 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 0.73 0.48 0 243   0 146 0.72 

Teach certain academic subjects 0.24 0.14 0 243   0 146 0 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 0.24 0.11 0 243 0.48 0.23 0 146 0 
%

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among 

NO D

Yes No Yes No Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Western Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 19.15 4.06 2 281 28.21 6.30 0 188 9.35 

Teach students with certain disabilities 3.77 0.99 3 280 5.73 1.68 1 187 1.70 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 6.90 3.63 2 281 6.24 4.13 0 188 7.62 

Teach certain academic subjects 3.91 2.18 2 281 6.79 4.14 0 188  

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 3.41 2.12 2 281 6.26 4.08 0 188  

c 

E-61 

EXHIBIT READS: Eight percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators reported their district offered pay incentives for attaining National 

Standards certification to retain current special education teachers. Eleven percent of Northeastern district Part B program administrators who reported thei

finding qualified applicants reported offering pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Five percent of 

program administrators who reported their district routinely had no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported the district offered pay incentives for 

Professional Teaching Standards certification.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three y

districts that answered the question.

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the pa

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 26, 28. Region is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe 

(retrieved 08/19/1999, variable CCDST97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variableCCDST06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubageon the Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, available from http:/www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf. 
Exhibit E.45: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education Teachers by Urbanicity (S

E-62 

% 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely Had 

Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among 

NO D

Yes No Yes No Yes 

(SE) Missing Totala % (SE) Missing Totalb % 

Urban Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 

Teach students with certain disabilities 

35.70

10.04 

 2.52 

1.57

2 

 2 

368 

368 

35.47

11.01 

 2.8

1.83 

 1 

2 

293 

292 

35.67 

6.35 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 

Teach certain academic subjects 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 

5.31 

6.34 

7.46

1.08

1.21

 1.33 

 1 

 1 

1 

369 

369 

369 

5.56 

7.22 

8.48

1.20 

1.45 

 1.59 

1 

1 

1 

293 

293 

293 

4.40 

2.93 



Suburban Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification Teach students with certain disabilities 

16.00

3.31 

 1.53 

0.59

2 

 2 

584 

584 

20.75

4.14 

 2.29

0.92 

 0 

0 

338 

338 

10.57 

2.36 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching Teach certain academic subjects Teach in hard-to-staff schools 

1.59 

2.06 

1.26 

0.53

0.48

0.36 

 2  2 

3 

584 584 

583

1.87 2.37 

 1.67 

0.75 0.71 

0.58 

0 0 

0 

338 338 338 

1.28 1.70 

0.79 

Rural Districts 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification 

Teach students with certain disabilities 

13.61

2.40 

 2.36 

0.98

2 

 2 

190 

190 

17.31

3.71 

 3.86

1.92 

 1 

1 

92 

92 

10.56 

1.32 

Demonstrate excellence in teaching Teach certain academic subjects Teach in hard-to-staff schools 

4.30 

2.22

1.23 

1.66

 1.04 

0.89 

 2 

2 

2 

190 

190 

190 

3.20 

3.53



2.06 

 2.07 



1 

1 

1 

92 

92 

92 

5.21 





EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-six percent of urban district Part B program administrators reported their district offered pay incentives for attaining National Bo

Standards certification to retain current special education teachers. Thirty-five percent of urban district Part B program administrators who reported their di

finding qualified applicants reported offering pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Thirty-six perce

program administrators who reported their district routinely had no difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported the district offered pay incentives for 

Professional Teaching Standards certification.Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 
a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. 

b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three districts that answered the question. c Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question.  Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: District Questionnaire – Items 26, 28. Urbanicity is based on the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Unive

Ccdagn97.sd2 (retrieved 08/19/1999, variable MSC97) and ag061a.sas7bdat (retrieved on 11/12/2008, variable MSC06) available from http:/nces.ed.gov/c

E-63 
Exhibit E.46: Activities That Result in a Teacher Pay Incentive for Current Special Education Teachers by District Size 

E-64 

Among All Districts 

Among Districts That Routinely 

Had Difficulty Finding Qualified 

Applicants 

Among D

Had NO Diff

Yes Yes Yes 

% (S

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b

District Enrollment Less than 1,000 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching 

Standards certification 

4.93 1.54 2 295 5.73 2.63 0 113 4.47 1

Teach students with certain disabilities 1.32 0.57 2 295   0 113 1.53 0

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 4.13 1.65 2 295 5.16 2.69 0 113 3.54 2

Teach certain academic subjects 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 

1.57

1.39 

 0.93 

0.93 

2 

2 

295 

295 

2.54 



2.36 



0 

0 

113 

113 

1.01 



0



District Enrollment between 1,000 and 10,000 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching 

Standards certification 

23.12 2.31 3 575 25.13 3.17 1 372 19.94 3

Teach students with certain disabilities 4.21 1.00 2 576 5.34 1.55 1 372 2.43 0

Demonstrate excellence in teaching 1.67 0.63 2 576 1.05 0.52 1 372 2.64 1

Teach certain academic subjects 

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 

2.76

0.82

 0.70 

 0.29 

2 

3 

576 

575 

3.38 

1.12 

0.95 

0.43 

1 

1 

372 

372 

1.78 



1


Among Districts That Routinely Among D

Had Difficulty Finding Qualified Had NO Diff

Among All Districts Applicants 

Yes Yes Yes 

% (SE) Missing Total a % (SE) Missing Total b % (S

District Enrollment Greater than 10,000 

Attained National Board for Professional Teaching 46.05

Standards certification 

 4.19 1 272 44.57 4.80 1 238 53.00 7

Teach students with certain 10.73 disabilities 2.11 2 271 12.30 2.48 2 237   

Demonstrate excellence in 6.62 teaching 1.13 1 272 4.52 1.30 1 238 17.98 1

Teach certain academic 5.82 subjects 1.46 1 272 5.54 1.47 1 238 7.41 5

Teach in hard-to-staff schools 9.22 1.78 1 272 9.13 1.87 1 238 8.08 5

c 

E-65 EXHIBIT READS: Five percent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 reported their district offered pay ince

Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification to retain current special education teachers. Six percent of district Part B program administrators in 

1,000 who reported their district routinely had difficulty in finding qualified applicants reported offering pay incentives for attaining National Board for Procertification. Four percent of district Part B program administrators in districts with enrollment less than 1,000 who reported their district routinely had no d

applicants reported the district offered pay incentives for attaining National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers shown for missing and total Ns were calculated from 

a Among all 1,148 district Part B program administrators who responded to the survey, total refers to the number of districts responding to the question. b Among the 725 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely had difficulty finding qualified applicants over the past three 

districts that answered the question. 

Among the 421 district Part B program administrators who reported their district routinely did not have difficulty finding qualified applicants over the p

number of districts that answered the question. 

 Values suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

SOURCE: Questionnaire – Items 26, 28. 

 

Appendix F: The Congruence among Different Data 

Sources on the Incidence of Dispute Resolution 

Events 

The results reported on the incidence of disputes were based on data collected as part of the states’ 

Annual Performance Report (APR). These data were made available to the public from the Data 

Accountability Center (DAC) and Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education 

(CADRE). The IDEA-NAIS surveys also collected data on the incidence of disputes. For Part B 

preschool-age and school-age special education programs the correlation between the 2007–2008 

DAC and IDEA-NAIS derived rates per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children of mediations 

held, due process hearings requested, and due process hearing completed were 0.99, 0.99 and 0.90 

respectively. 

For the Part C early intervention programs, the number of disputes was so low that correlations are 

not particularly informative. However, for the 2007–2008 school year, states reported the same, or 

very similar numbers of mediations held, hearings requested and hearings held to both the IDEANAIS and APR surveys. In a few instances, states failed to report any number to IDEA-NAIS, even 

though they had reported a number on their APR. For mediations held, there was perfect agreement 

for 44 states and for states with discrepant reports, all but one had discrepancies of 3 mediations or 

fewer. California reported 18 mediations to IDEA-NAIS, but 32 to DAC, a discrepancy of 14. For 

hearings requested, one state failed to report a number to IDEA-NAIS, but among those that reported, 

all had either perfect agreement or discrepancies of two or fewer in the counts of hearings requested. 

For hearings held, five states failed to report a number to IDEA-NAIS, but among those that reported, 

all had either perfect agreement or discrepancies of at most one hearing held. 

Thus, while the IDEA-NAIS and DAC data were very similar, the DAC data were more complete 

(i.e., had fewer missing values). We therefore chose to report the DAC data in the main section of the 

report. 

Exhibit F.1 presents terms used in this document and the data element names from CADRE files, 

DAC files, SLIIDEA and IDEA-NAIS. CADRE and DAC both use data, and the same term, for 

individual dispute data elements contained in Table 7 (Number of written, signed complaints initiated 

through dispute resolution procedures for children ages 3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by 

case status and state: 2007–2008) and Table 4 (Number of written, signed complaints initiated 

through dispute resolution procedures for children ages Birth through 2 served under IDEA, Part C, 

by case status and state: 2007–2008). 

F-1 
 

Exhibit F.1: Crosswalk of Common Terms for Dispute Resolution Events 

Term Used in Document 

SPP/APR (DAC) 

Term (element 

number) SLIIDEA Term 

IDEA-NAIS 

Term 

Signed Written Complaints Written Signed 

Complaints Total 

(1) 

a a 

Mediations Held Mediations Total 

(2.1) 

Formal 

Mediations 

Formal 

Mediations 

Due Process Hearings Requested Hearing Requests 

Total (3) 

a

 Impartial Due 

Process Hearing 

Requests 

Due Process Hearings Completed Hearings (fully 

adjudicated) Total 

(3.2) 

Impartial Due 

Process 

Hearings 

Completed 

Impartial Due 

Process 

Hearings 

Completed 

Resolution Meetings Held HR – Resolution 

Sessions Total 

(3.1) 

a a 

Expedited Hearings Requested EHR – Expedited 

Hearings (fully 

adjudicated) Total 

(4.2) 

a a 

a The element was not collected. 

F-2 
Appendix G: Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 5 

G-1 
Exhibit G.1: Supports to Early Intervention Providers, Preschool-Age Program Staff, and LEAs to Promote the Part

Children and Youth with IFSPs/IEPs (Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) 

G-2 

Early Intervention Providers a Preschool-Age Program Staff b LE

Yes Yes Yes 

Agency Supports N % Missing Total d N % Missing Total d N % 

Workshops or professional development on increasing parent involvement 

31 62.00 1 50 36 70.59 0 51 39 78.00 

Technical assistance related to promoting parent involvement 

28 56.00 1 50 35 68.63 0 51 46 92.00 

Written guidelines related to parent involvement 

26 52.00 1 50 14 27.45 0 51 24 48.00 

Funds to provider agencies to help parents participate in IEP/IFSP meetings 

21 42.00 1 50 8 15.69 0 51 9 18.00 

Other activity 5 10.00 1 50 9 17.65 0 51 7 14.00 None of the above 7 14.00 1 50 3 5.88 0 51 2 4.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-two percent of Part C early intervention programs provide workshops or professional development on increasing parental in

intervention providers; 71 percent provide the workshops to preschool-age program staff; and 78 percent provide workshops to LEAs.For Part C respondents, N = 50; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 51; for Part B program respondents, N = 50. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Part C program provided supports in fiscal year 2009. b Part B preschool-age program provided supports in the 2008–2009 school year. c Part B school-age program provided supports in the 2008–2009 school year. d Total refers to the number of Part C programs and Part B preschool-age and school-age programs that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 50; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 31; State Part B Questionnaire – Item 19. 
Exhibit G.2: Methods of Program Collaboration with Federally Funded Parent Training and Information Centers (PT

PTI in their State (Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008–2009 School Year) 

G-3 

Preschool-Age Special Education 

a b 

State Early Intervention Programs Programs Special Edu

Yes Yes Yes 

N % Missing Total d N % Missing Total d N % 

In programs that reported awareness of a PTI in their state, types of collaboration between program and PTI e: 

Dissemination of information regarding each other’s 32 72.73 1 44 38 77.55 0 49 41 80.39 

services Family/Parent outreach 27 61.36 1 44 21 42.86 0 49 34 66.67 

efforts 

Development of training/ 22 50.00 1 44 24 48.98 0 49 40 78.43 

guidance materials 

Development or delivery of 17 38.64 1 44 28 57.14 0 49 36 70.59 professional development 

Delivery of technical 16 36.36 1 44 23 46.94 0 49 38 74.51 

assistance 

Promotion of alternative 6 13.64 1 44 12 24.49 0 49 28 54.90 dispute resolution models 

Other activity 10 22.73 1 44 8 16.33 0 49 16 31.37 

None of the above 5 11.36 1 44 2 4.08 0 49 0 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Among Part C early intervention program coordinators who were aware of their state Parent Training and Information Center (PTI), 73 percent (32) 

of information regarding each other’s services. Among Part B preschool-age special education program coordinators who were aware of their state PTI, 77 percent (38) c

of information regarding each other’s services. Among Part B program coordinators who were aware of their state PTI, 80 percent (41) collaborate on the dissemination other’s services. 

For Part C respondents, N = 44; for Part B preschool-age program respondents, N = 49; for Part B school-age respondents, N = 51. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because response categories are not mutually exclusive. a Type of collaboration by Part C programs reporting a federally funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) in fiscal year 2009. 

b Type of collaboration by Part B preschool-age special education programs reporting a federally funded Parent Training and Information Center (PT

year. 

c Type of collaboration by Part B school-age programs reporting a federally funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) in the 2008–2009 d Total refers to the number of Part C programs, Part B preschool-age or school-age programs that answered the question. e Methods of collaboration were not available for eight states as six Part C coordinators and two Part B preschool-age coordinators reported that their 

These reports could be due to (1) lack of respondent knowledge of the PTI or (2) lack of identification of an organization as the state PTI given the org

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 51, 52; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 32, 33; State Part B Questionnaire – Items 20, 21. 
G-4 

Exhibit G.3: Topics Addressed in District Offerings to Parents of Children and Youth with IFSPs/IEPs (2008–2009 S

M

A

Offered Workshops or 

Discussion/Support 

Groups b

Made Written Materials 

Available a

Topics % (SE) % (SE) 

Understanding the law and their legal rights under IDEA 85.80 1.49 25.18 1.79 

Understanding their child’s disability 69.23 2.38 37.10 2.30 

Participating in state- or district-wide assessments 67.11 2.21 22.39 1.93 

Using strategies for making a successful transition from preschool to school 58.38 2.39 34.11 2.17 

Using interventions for children with behavioral challenges 57.50 2.41 37.56 2.37 

Using alternate dispute resolution procedures 44.54 2.44 10.94 1.46 Developing and implementing a standards-based IEP 42.43 2.46 17.89 1.62 

EXHIBIT READS: On the topic of understanding the law and their legal rights under IDEA, 86 percent of districts make written materials available, 2

discussion or support groups, and 20 percent do both. N = 1,140. Percentages and standard errors are population estimates calculated from weighted data. The numbers reported for missing and total Ns were calculate

a Number of districts responding: 1140 

 Number of districts not responding: 8 

b Number of districts responding: 1140 

 Number of districts not responding: 8 

c Number of districts responding: 1140 

 Number of districts not responding: 8 SOURCE: District Part B Questionnaire – Item 21. 
G-5 

Parent-School Dispute

Mediation

Request due 

process 

hearing

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Resolution 

meeting

Waive resolution 

meeting

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Due process hearing

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs)

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Parent-School Dispute

Mediation

Request due 

process 

hearing

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Resolution 

meeting

Waive resolution 

meeting

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

Due process hearing

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs)

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution

 

 

Exhibit G.4: Illustration of How ADR, Mediation, and Due Process Hearings May Interact in 

Resolving Disputes 

Parent-School Dispute 

Mediation 

Request due 

process 

hearing 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Resolution 

meeting 

Waive resolution 

meeting 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Due process hearing 

Alternative dispute resolution 

strategies (ADRs) 

Reach resolution Do not reach 

resolution 

Adapted from Mediation and Resolution Session Flow Chart, in Preparing for Special Education Mediation
 

and Resolution Sessions: Assions: A Guide for Families and Advocates. The Advocacy Institute and The Children’s
 

Law Clinic at Duke University School of Law (November 2009). 
 

Exhibit G.5: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention (Fiscal Year 2008) 

Yes 

Source of Regulations for Part C Programs 

Its own regulations 

Regulations either adopted or modified from the Part B special education 

program 

Total a 

N 

34 

17

51

% 

66.67 

33.33 

100.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Sixty-seven percent of Part C programs (34) use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to
 

early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities. 

N = 51. 

a

 Total refers to the number of Part C programs that answered the question. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 53. 
G-6 

 

Exhibit G.6: Source of Regulations Used by Part C Early Intervention Programs to Resolve 

Disputes Related to Early Intervention by Lead Agency Type (Fiscal Year 2008) 

Source of Regulations for Part 

C Program 

Department of 

Health/Human 

Services 

(n = 37) 

Department of 

Education 

(n = 11) 

Co-Led Agencies 

(n = 2) 

N % N % N % 

Its own regulations 

Regulations adopted from Part B 

special education program 

Regulations modified from Part B 

special education program 

29 78.38 

4 10.81 

4 10.81 

4 36.36 

6 54.55 

1 9.09 

0 0.00 

2 100.00 

0 0.00 

EXHIBIT READS: Seventy-eight percent of Part C early intervention programs led by a state health or human service 

agency use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. Thirty-six percent of Part C 

programs led by an SEA use their own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. Two Part C 

programs co-led by a health/human services and an education agency use regulations adopted from the state Part B special 

education program to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. 

N = 51. 

NOTE: The Part C program coordinator did not provide the name of the Part C program lead agency in one state which was 

reported to use its own regulations to resolve disputes related to early intervention services. 

States may administer health-related programs, policies and services (including early intervention services) either as 

separate state-level agencies or within an umbrella human services agency. 

Co-lead agencies lead Part C programs jointly; the department of education leads with the human services agency in one 

state and with the health and human services agency in the second. 

Number of Part C program coordinators who indicated the type of regulations used by Part C programs to resolve disputes: 

51. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Item 53. 
G-7 

Exhibit G.7: Number of State Programs Reporting No Dispute Events for Part C Early 

Intervention and Part B Special Education Programs During Fiscal Year 2008 or the 2007–2008 

School Year 

Part C Programs Part B Programs 

States 29 2

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-nine Part C programs reported no dispute resolution events for fiscal year 2008. Two Part B 

programs reported no dispute events for the 2007–2008 school year. 

For Part C, N = 45; for Part B, N = 46. 

a Events conducted in fiscal year 2008. 

b Events conducted in 2007–2008 school year. 

NOTE: Forty-five Part C programs reported on all the items that contributed to this count; 6 had one or more of the items 

missing. Forty-six Part B programs reported on all the items that contributed to this count; 5 had one or more of the items 

missing. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 54, 57, 58; 60; 61, 63; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 35, 39, 40, 43; 

44, 46; State Part B Questionnaire – Items 31, 35, 36, 39; 40, 42. 
G-8 

Exhibit G.8: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Infants and ToddReceiving Services under Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Method (2003–2004 tYears) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Event

per 

10,000 

served 

Signed written 

complaints 50 173 6.37 50 171 6.09 50 172 5.84 49 162 6.07 

Due process hearings 

requested 50 186 6.85 50 200 7.13 48 135 5.07 49 110 4.12 

Due process hearings 

completed 50 13 0.48 50 24 0.85 47 17 0.64 49 14 0.52 

Resolution meetings held 

c c c 50 1 0.21 45 0 0.00 12 2 0.58 

Mediations held 50 48 1.77 50 57 2.03 50 70 2.38 49 75 2.81 

EXHIBIT READS: In the 2003–2004 school year, the Part C early intervention programs of the 50 states had 173 signed written complaints filed, or 6.37 signed 

and toddlers receiving early intervention services. For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004–2005, N = 50. For 2005–2006, for signed written complaints and mediations held, N = 50; for due process hearings requested, N = 48; for due process hearings completed, N = 

For 2006–2007, for signed written complaints, due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations held, N = 49; for resolution meeFor 2007–2008, for due process hearings requested, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 49; for signed written complaints, N = 49; for resolutioState Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) data for the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 school years was taken from the Data Accountability Csurveys asked similar questions regarding the number of dispute resolution events held. Please see Exhibits G.13 and G.14. 

a The number of states reporting a non-missing response for the particular dispute resolution event in the particular year. Only states with non-missing respons

the calculation of the events per 10,000 served. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities was calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., sign

50 states with non-missing values divided by the total number of infants and toddlers age birth through 2 served by Part C programs in the states with non-missi

resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

c The number of resolution meetings was not collected prior to the 2004–2005 school year. 

NOTE: Data are from the 50 states, excluding Washington D.C. due to outlying values. For results including Washington D.C., please see Exhibit G.12. 

SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the SPP/APR data from either CADRE (2003–2004 through 2005–2006 school years; 

http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/aprsppc.cfm; Retrieved December 15, 2009, February 18, 2010, and April 15, 2010) or the Data Accountability Center (20

www.ideadata.org/PartCDispResp.asp; Retrieved December 15, 2009). The number of infants and toddlers ages 3 through 21 served by Part C is from Table C1 

Served (Ages Birth through 2) Part C, by State: 1998 through 2007, from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xl
G-9 

Exhibit G.9: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Children and YouServices under Part B in the 50 States by Dispute Resolution Event (2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Signed written 

complaints 50 5916 8.94 50 6094 9.09 50 5798 8.65 49 5220 c 8.11 

Due process hearings 

requested 50 14392 21.74 50 15496 23.12 50 14583 21.77 50 13828 20.71 

Due process hearings 

completed 50 2223 3.36 50 2215 3.30 50 1718 2.56 50 1370 2.05 

Resolution meetings held c c c c c c 50 3678 5.49 49 9073 13.65 

Mediations held 50 5924 8.95 50 6382 9.52 49 3651 6.06 50 5377 8.05 

EXHIBIT READS: In the 2003–2004 school year 5,916 signed written complaints were filed for preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities 

complaints were filed per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth served under preschool-age and school-age Part B programs in the school year 2For 2003–2004, N = 50. For 2004–2005, N = 50. For 2005–2006, N = 50 except for mediations held, N = 49. For 2006–2007, for due process hearings, due process hearings completed and mediations, N = 50; for signed written complaints and resolution meetings, N = 4For 2007–2008, N = 50. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) data for the 2003–2004, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 school years from the CADRE website. SP2007–2008 school years was taken from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) website. The IDEA-NAIS surveys asked similar questions regarding the number Please see Exhibits G.16 and G.17. 

a The number of states reporting a non-missing response for the particular dispute resolution event in the particular year. Only states with non-missing respons

the calculation of the events per 10,000 served. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities was calculated as the number of dispute re

complaints) summed over all 50 states with non-missing values divided by the total number of children and youth ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs 

the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

c The number of resolution meetings was not collected prior to the 2006–2007 school year. 

NOTE: Data are from 50 states, excluding Washington D.C. Due to outlying values for Washington D.C., those results are reported separately, see Exhibit G.10

Exhibit B.1 (see SOURCE) has a missing count of the number of children served in Fall 2007; therefore, the Fall 2006 number of children served in Vermont w

in Vermont varies slightly from year to year (i.e., 14,010 in 2006, 13,917 in 2005 and 13,894 in 2004). SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the SPP/APR data from either CADRE (2003–2004, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 school ywww.directionservice.org/cadre/statecomprpts.cfm; Retrieved December 9, 2009) or the Data Accountability Center (2006–2007 and 2007–2008 school years; w

Retrieved December 15, 2009). The number of children served by Part B is from Table B-1 Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages 3 – 21), by State: 1

Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B1.xls; Retrieved December 15, 2009). 
G-10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c 

Exhibit G.10: Topics of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Infants and Toddlers Receiving 

Services under the Part C Early Intervention Program by Dispute Resolution Procedure (Fiscal 

Year 2008) 

Due Process 

Hearings 

Requested 

Due Process 

Hearings 

Completed 

Mediations 

Held 

% Totala % Totalb % Totalc 

Early intervention services, as set forth in the 

IFSP 

Environment/setting 

Family cost, including the use of private 

insurance 

Evaluation for early intervention services

Transition 

Eligibility for early intervention services 

Procedural safeguards 

51.72 8 

0.00 8 

3.45 8 

0.00 8 

0.00 8 

3.45 8

3.45 8 

100.00 1

0.00 1 

0.00 1 

0.00 1 

0.00 1 

0.00 1 

0.00 1 

70.83 10 

8.33 10 

8.33 10 

4.17 10 

4.17 10 

0.00 10 

0.00 10 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from eight Part C early intervention programs that reported on the topics of due process 

hearings requested indicated that 52 percent of due process hearings requested concerned the issue of early intervention 

services as set forth in the IFSP. For the ten Part C programs that reported on the topics of mediations held, the results 

indicate that 71 percent of mediations held concerned the issue of early intervention services, as set forth in the IFSP. 

For due process hearings requested, N = 8. 

For mediations held, N = 10. 

The percentage of Part C program dispute resolutions events that concerned each topic is from the IDEA-NAIS Infant and 

Toddler questionnaire. The percentage was calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) due 

to at topic (e.g., early intervention services as set forth in the IFSP) summed over all responding Part C programs divided by 

the total number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) reported in responding Part C programs times 100. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because topics are not mutually exclusive. 

Data are from 50 states, excluding Washington D.C. due to outlying values. For results including Washington D.C., please 

see Exhibit G.18. 

Part C coordinators indicated 38 percent of due process hearings were requested for “other” topics but did not provide the 

particular topic. Part C coordinators reported 4 percent of mediations were related to “other” topics but did not provide the 

particular topic. 

a Total refers to the number of Part C programs that received one or more due process hearing requests and reported on the 

topics of at least one due process hearing requested. 

b Total refers to the number of Part C programs that completed one or more due process hearings and reported on the topics 

of at least one due process hearing completed. 

Total refers to the number of Part C programs that held one or more mediations and reported on the topics of at least one 

mediation. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 54, 55, 58, 59; State Part C Supplemental Questionnaire – Items 1 and 2. 
Exhibit G.11: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Children and Youth Receiving Services under Part B Programs by D

(2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School Years) 

G-11 

Due Process Hearings Completed Me

2003–2004 2007–2008 2003–2004 

% a Totalb % a Total b % a Total

Educational placement 30.83 42 49.32 34 35.34 37 Student’s educational program, as set forth in the IEP 

27.85 42 49.32 34 30.37 37 

Related services 7.77 42 27.56 34 15.68 37 Eligibility of students for special education services 

5.24 42 16.55 34 12.05 37 

Evaluation of students for special education services 

11.62 42 31.91 34 12.26 37 

Tuition reimbursement 13.36 42 23.89 34 5.17 37 Discipline 2.56 42 12.12 34 5.46 37 Procedural safeguards 3.58 42 11.95 34 4.19 37 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from 42 SEAs that reported on topics of due process hearings completed indicated that in the 2003–2004 school year, 31 perc

concerned the issue of educational placement. SEAs that reported on the topic of due process hearings completed in the 2007–2008 school year indicated 49 per

Survey results from 37 SEAs that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that in the 2003–2004 school year, 35 percent of mediations held concerne

Survey results from 36 SEAs that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that in the 2007–2008 school year, 39 percent of mediations held concerne

For due process hearings completed in 2003–2004, N = 42; in 2007–2008, N = 34. For mediations held in 2003–2004, N = 37; in 2007–2008, N = 36. Data are from 50 states, excluding Washington D.C. due to outlying values for Washington D.C. For results including Washington D.C., see Exhibit G.19. 

a The percentage of Part B preschool-age special education and Part B school-age special education program dispute resolution events that concerned each top

and State Part B 619 questionnaires. The percentage was calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) due to the topic summed o

total number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) reported in the responding states times 100. Percentages do not sum to 100 because topics are n

b Total is the number of states reporting topics for the dispute resolution event. The number of states which did not report topics for the dispute resolution even

One of the reporting SEAs did not provide data on this topic. 

SOURCES: State Part B Questionnaire – Items 31, 33, 36, 38; State Part B Supplemental Questionnaire – Items 1 and 2; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item

Supplemental Questionnaire – Items 1 and 2; SLIIDEA Wave 4 State Questionnaire – Items 19, 23, 26, 28. 

c 
G-12 

Exhibit G.12: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution Events per 10,000 Infants and Todd

Birth through Two Receiving Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States and Washington D.C. by Disp(2003–2004 through 2007–2008 School Years) 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served 

Signed written 

complaints 51 173 6.36 51 171 6.09 51 172 5.84 50 162 5.39 

Due process hearings 

requested 51 186 6.84 51 200 7.12 49 135 4.58 50 111 3.69 

Due process hearings 

completed 51 13 0.48 51 24 0.85 48 17 0.58 50 15 0.50 

Resolution meetings held 

c c c 13 1 0.04 46 0 0.00 13 2 0.07 

Mediations held 51 49 1.80 51 57 2.03 51 70 2.38 50 75 2.49 

EXHIBIT READS: 173 signed written complaints were filed in the school year 2003–2004, or 6.36 signed written complaints per 10,000 infants and toddlers se

states and Washington D.C.. Data are from the 50 states and Washington D.C. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) data for the 2003–2004 through 2005–2006 school years was obtained from CADRE. SPP data 

school years was taken from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) website. The IDEA-NAIS surveys asked similar questions regarding the number of dispute 

Exhibits G.13 and G.14. 

a The number of states reporting a non-missing response for the particular dispute resolution event in the particular year. Only states with non-missing respons

the calculation of the events per 10,000 served. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 infant and toddlers with disabilities was calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., signe

states and D.C. with non-missing values divided by the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served by Part C programs in the states and D.Cparticular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

c Data on resolution meetings held was not collected in 2003–2004. 

SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the SPP/APR data from either CADRE (2003–2004 through 2005–2006 school years; 

http:/www.directionservice.org/cadre/aprsppc.cfm; Retrieved December 15, 2009, February 18, 2010 and April 15, 2010) or the Data Accountability Center (20

www.ideadata.org/PartCDispResp.asp; Retrieved December 15, 2009). The number of children ages 3 through 21 served by Part C is from Table C1 Number an

Birth through 2) Part C, by State: 1998 through 2007, from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xls; Retrieved D
G-13 

 

Exhibit G.13: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities for Infants and Toddlers Age 

Birth through 2 Receiving Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States 

(Fiscal Year 2008) 

2008
 

Events 

per 

10,000 

b served 

Total a events 

Due process hearings requested 29 1.08 

Due process hearings completed 1 0.04 

Mediations held 74 2.34 

EXHIBIT READS: Part C early intervention programs in the 50 states received requests for 29 due process hearings (or 1.08 

requests per 10,000 infants and toddlers served). 

a Number of states reporting mediations held in 2008: 50. 

Number of states reporting due process hearing requests in 2008: 49. 

Number of states reporting due process hearings completed in 2008: 46. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 infant and toddlers with disabilities was calculated as the number of 

dispute resolution events (e.g., signed written complaints) summed over states and D.C. with non-missing values divided by 

the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served by Part C programs in the states with non-missing values 

of the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

NOTE: Data are from the 50 states, excluding Washington D.C. due to outlying values. 

SOURCE: The number of specific dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the State Part C Questionnaire – Items 54, 

58; and State Part C Supplemental Questionnaire – Item 1. The number of children ages 3 through 21 served by Part C 

programs is from Table C1 Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages Birth through 2) Part C, by State: 1998 

through 2007, from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xls; retrieved 

December 15, 2009). 
G-14 

Exhibit G.14: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Age Birth through 2 Receiving 

Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs in the 50 States and Washington, D.C. (Fiscal 

Year 2008) 

2008
 

Events 

per 10,000 

b served 

Total a event 

Due process hearings requested 29 1.04 

Due process hearings completed 1 0.04 

Mediations held 74 2.34 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-nine due process hearings were requested in fiscal year 2008. The rate of due process hearings 

requested per 10,000 infants and toddlers was 1.04 in fiscal year 2008. 

a Number of states reporting mediations held in 2008: 51. 

Number of states reporting due process hearing requests in 2008: 50. 

Number of states reporting due process hearings completed in 2008: 46. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 infant and toddlers with disabilities was calculated as the number of 

dispute resolution events (e.g., signed written complaints) summed over states and D.C. with non-missing values divided by 

the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 served by Part C early intervention programs in the states and 

D.C. with non-missing values of the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

NOTE: Data are from the 50 states and Washington D.C. 

SOURCE: The number of specific dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the State Infant and Toddler Questionnaire – 

Items 54, 58; and the State Infant and Toddler Supplemental Questionnaire – Item 1. The number of infants and toddlers 

served by Part C programs is from Table C1 Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages Birth through 2) Part C, by 

State: 1998 through 2007, from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; www.ideadata.org/docs/PartCTrendData/C1.xls; 

retrieved December 15, 2009). 
Exhibit G.15: Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Number of Dispute Resolution Procedures per 10,000 Presch

with Disabilities Ages 3 through 21 Receiving Services in the Part B Special Education Programs in the 50 States and D.C2008 School Years) 

G-15 

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 

n a

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Events 

per 

10,000 

served b a n 

Total 

events 

Event

per 

10,000 

served 

Signed written 

complaints 50 5916 8.93 51 6117 9.11 51 5835 8.69 50 5240 8.1

Due process hearings 

requested 51 17662 26.62 51 19735 29.38 51 17522 26.11 51 16652 24.9

Due process hearings 

completed 51 4794 7.23 51 6052 9.01 51 4163 6.20 51 3263 4.8

Resolution meetings held 

c c c c c c 51 4715 7.03 50 10187 15.3

Mediations held 51 6040 9.10 51 6440 9.59 50 3664 5.46 51 5383 8.0

EXHIBIT READS: In the 2003–2004 school year, 5,916 signed written complaints were filed in the 50 states and D.C. for preschool- and school-age children aschool year had 8.93 signed written complaints filed per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children ages 3 through 21 served in the Part B programs in the 50 st

State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) data for the 2003–2004, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 school years are from the CADRE website

2007–2008 school years was taken from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) website. The IDEA-NAIS surveys asked similar questions regarding the number Please see Exhibits G.16 and G.17. 

a The number of states reporting a non-missing response for the particular dispute resolution event in the particular year. Only states with non-missing respons

the calculation of the events per 10,000 served. 

b The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities was calculated as the number of dispute re

complaints) summed over all 50 states with non-missing values divided by the total number of children and youth ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs 

the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

c The number of resolution meetings and expedited hearing requests was not collected prior to the 2006–2007 school year. 

NOTE: Data are from 50 states and Washington D.C. For Vermont 2007–2008 school year, Table B1 (see SOURCE) has a missing count of the number of child

Fall 2006 number of children served in Vermont was used. The number of children served in Vermont varies slightly from year to year (i.e., 14,010 in 2006, 13,SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the SPP/APR data from either CADRE (2003–2004, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 school y

www.directionservice.org/cadre/statecomprpts.cfm; Retrieved December 9, 2009) or the Data Accountability Center (2006–2007 and 2007–2008 school years; w

Retrieved December 15, 2009). The number of children ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs is from Table B-1 Number and Percent of Population Serv

through 2007, from the Data Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B1.xls; Retrieved December 15, 2009). 
Exhibit G.16: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities for Preschooland School-Age Children Ages 3 through 21 Receiving Services in the Part B Special 

Education Programs in the 50 States (2007–2008 School Year) 

2007–2008
 

Events per 

10,000 a Total events served 

Due process hearings requested 14213 21.51 

Due process hearings completed 714 1.08 

Mediations held 5407 8.18 

EXHIBIT READS: States had 14,213 due process hearings requested in the 2007–2008 school year, or 22 per 10,000 

preschool- and school-age children ages 3 through 21 served in the Part B programs in the 2007–2008 school year. 

Data are from 50 states excluding Washington D.C. due to outlying values for Washington D.C.; those results are reported 

separately. See Appendix A4500_AP2B. For Vermont 2007–2008 school year, Table B1 (see SOURCE) has a missing 

count of the number of children served in Fall 2007; therefore, the Fall 2006 number of children served in Vermont was 

used. The number of children served in Vermont varies slightly from year to year (i.e., 14,010 in 2006, 13,917 in 2005 and 

13,894 in 2004). 

a The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities was 

calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., signed written complaints) summed over all 50 states with nonmissing values divided by the total number of children and youth ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs in the states 

with non-missing values of the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

NOTE: Number of states reporting mediations held: 50. Number of states not reporting mediations held: 0. Number of states 

reporting due process hearings requested: 49. Number of states not reporting due process hearings requested: 1. Number of 

states reporting due process hearings completed: 45. Number of states not reporting due process hearings completed: 5. 

SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the IDEA-NAIS State Part B Questionnaire – Items 

31, 36; State Part B Supplemental Questionnaire – Item 1; IDEA-NAIS State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 35, 40; and 

State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 1 . The number of children ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs is from 

Table B-1 Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages 3 – 21), by State: 1998 through 2007, from the Data 

Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B1.xls; retrieved December 15, 2009). 

G-16 
Exhibit G.17: Number of Dispute Resolution Events and Number of Dispute Resolution 

Procedures per 10,000 Preschool- and School-Age Children with Disabilities for Preschooland School-Age Children Ages 3 through 21 Receiving Services in Part B Special Education 

Programs in the 50 States and D.C. (2007–2008 School Year) 

2007–2008
 

Events per 

10,000 

served a Total events 

Due process hearings requested 14213 21.47 

Due process hearings completed 714 1.08 

Mediations held 5407 8.17 

EXHIBIT READS: States received 14,213 due process hearing requests in the 2007–2008 school year. States received 21.47 

due process hearing requests per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children ages 3 through 21 served in Part B programs in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

Data are from 50 states and Washington D.C. For Vermont 2007–2008 school year, Table B1 (see SOURCE) has a missing 

count of the number of children served in Fall 2007; therefore, the Fall 2006 number of children served in Vermont was 

used. The number of children served in Vermont varies slightly from year to year (i.e., 14,010 in 2006, 13,917 in 2005 and 

13,894 in 2004). 

a The number of dispute resolution events per 10,000 preschool- and school-age children and youth with disabilities was 

calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., signed written complaints) summed over all 50 states with nonmissing values divided by the total number of children and youth ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs in the states 

with non-missing values of the particular dispute resolution event. This number was then multiplied by 10,000. 

NOTE: Number of states reporting due process hearings requested: 50. Number of states not reporting due process hearings 

completed: 1. Number of states reporting mediations held: 51. Number of states not reporting mediations held: 0. Number of 

states reporting due process hearings completed: 46. Number of states not reporting due process hearings completed: 5. 

SOURCE: The number of dispute resolution events (column 1) is from the IDEA-NAIS State Part B Questionnaire – Items 

31, 36; State Part B Supplemental Questionnaire – Item 1; IDEA-NAIS State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 35,40; and 

State Section 619 Questionnaire – Item 1 . The number of children ages 3 through 21 served by Part B programs is from 

Table B-1 Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages 3 – 21), by State: 1998 through 2007, from the Data 

Accountability Center (DAC; https:/www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B1.xls; retrieved December 15, 2009). 

G-17 
 

 

 

Exhibit G.18: Topics of Dispute Resolutions at the State Level for Infants and Toddlers 

Receiving Services in Part C Early Intervention Programs by Dispute Resolution Procedure 

(Fiscal Year 2008) 

Mediations Held 

Due Process 

Hearings 

Requested 

%a

 Total b % a Total b 

Early intervention services, as set forth in the IFSP 

Environment/setting

Family cost, including the use of private insurance 

Evaluation for early intervention services 

Transition

Eligibility for early intervention services 

Procedural safeguards 

70.83 10 

8.33 10

8.33 10 

4.17 10 

4.17 10 

0.00 10 

0.00 10 

51.72 8 

0.00 8

3.45 8 

0.00 8 

0.00 8 

3.45 8 

3.45 8 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from ten states that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that 71 percent of 

mediations held concerned the issue of early intervention services as set forth in the IFSP. Eight Part C programs that 

reported on the topics of due process hearing requests indicated that 52 percent of due process hearing requests concerned 

the issue of early intervention services as set forth in the IFSP. 

a The percentage of Part C program dispute resolutions that concerned each topic is from the IDEA-NAIS Infant and 

Toddler questionnaire. The percentage was calculated as the number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) that 

concerned each topic (e.g., evaluation for early intervention services) summed over all responding Part C programs divided 

by the total number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mediations held) reported in all responding states times 100. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 because topics are not mutually exclusive. 

b Total refers to the number of Part C programs reporting data. 

SOURCE: State Part C Questionnaire – Items 54, 55, 58, 59. 

G-18 
G-19 

Exhibit G.19: Topics of Disputes at the State Level for Preschool- and School-Age Children Receiving Services in Part Programs by Dispute Resolution Procedure in the 50 States and D.C. (2003–2004 and 2007–2008 School Years) 

Mediations Held Due Process Hearings Com

2003–2004 2007–2008 2003–2004 2

% a Total b % a Total b %a Total b % a 

Educational placement 35.34 37 38.72 36 30.83 42 49.32 

Student’s educational program, as set forth in the 

IEP

30.37 37 36.66 36 27.85 42 49.32 

Related services 15.68 37 17.47 36 7.77 42 27.65 

Evaluation of students for special education services 12.26 37 20.24 36 11.62 42 31.91 

Eligibility of students for special education services 12.05 37 6.36 36 5.24 42 16.55 

Discipline 5.46 37 8.16 36 2.56 42 12.12 

Tuition reimbursement 5.17 37 9.80 36 13.36 42 23.89 

Procedural safeguards 4.19 37 2.99 36 3.58 42 11.95 

EXHIBIT READS: Survey results from 37 U. S. states that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that in the 2003–2004 school year, 35 percen

concerned the issue of educational placement. Survey results from 36 U.S. states that reported on the topics of mediations held indicated that in the 2003–20

mediations held concerned the issue of educational placement. 

a The percentage of dispute resolution events that concerned each topic is from the IDEA-NAIS State Part B questionnaires. The percentage was calculated 

resolution events (e.g., mediations held) due to the topic summed over all responding states divided by the total number of dispute resolution events (e.g., mthe responding states times 100. Percentages do not sum to 100 because topics are not mutually exclusive. 

b Total is the number of states reporting topics for the specific dispute resolution procedure and year. The number of states not reporting topics for the spec

procedure equals 51 – the total. Data are from 50 states and Washington D.C.. SOURCE: State Part B Questionnaire – Items 31, 33, 36, 38; State Part B Supplemental Questionnaire – Items 1, 2; State Section 619 Questionnaire – Items 619 Supplemental Questionnaire – Items 1, 2; SLIIDEA Wave 4 State Questionnaire – Items 19, 23, 26, 28.