Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language .........................................................................................................J-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes........................................................................J-4

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers .............................................................................J-10

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................J-11

Authorizing Legislation...........................................................................................................J-12

Appropriations History............................................................................................................J-13

Summary of Request .............................................................................................................J-14

Activities 

State grants:

Grants to States .........................................................................................................J-16

Preschool grants ........................................................................................................J-40

Grants for infants and families ....................................................................................J-53

National activities:

State personnel development .....................................................................................J-63

Technical assistance and dissemination.....................................................................J-70

Personnel preparation ................................................................................................J-81

Parent information centers..........................................................................................J-95

Educational technology, media, and materials..........................................................J-106

Other activities:

Special Olympics education programs......................................................................J-119

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting 2014 allocations and 2015 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Special 

Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, [$12,497,300,000] $12,600,627,000, of which 

[$2,981,201,000] $2,243,808,000 shall become available on July 1, [2014] 2015, and shall 

remain available through September 30, [2015] 2016, and of which [$9,283,383,000]

$10,124,103,000 shall become available on October 1, [2014] 2015, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2015] 2016, for academic year [2014–2015] 2015-2016:

1 Provided, 

That the amount for section 611(b)(2) of the IDEA shall be equal to the lesser of the amount 

available for that activity during fiscal year [2013] 2014, increased by the amount of inflation as 

specified in section 619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA, or the percent change in the funds appropriated 

under section 611(i) of the IDEA after reserving funds described in the 12th proviso, but not less 

than the amount for that activity during fiscal year [2013] 2014:

2 Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall, without regard to section 611(d) of the IDEA, distribute to all other States (as 

that term is defined in section 611(g)(2)), subject to the third proviso, any amount by which a 

State's allocation under section 611(d), from funds appropriated under this heading, is reduced 

under section 612(a)(18)(B), according to the following: 85 percent on the basis of the States' 

relative populations of children aged 3 through 21 who are of the same age as children with 

disabilities for whom the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education 

under this part, and 15 percent to States on the basis of the States' relative populations of those 

children who are living in poverty: 3 Provided further, That the Secretary may not distribute any 

funds under the previous proviso to any State whose reduction in allocation from funds 

appropriated under this heading made funds available for such a distribution:4 Provided further, 

That the States shall allocate such funds distributed under the second proviso to local 

educational agencies in accordance with section 611(f):5 Provided further, That the amount by 

which a State's allocation under section 611(d) of the IDEA is reduced under section 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-2

612(a)(18)(B) and the amounts distributed to States under the previous provisos in fiscal year 

2012 or any subsequent year shall not be considered in calculating the awards under section 

611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or for any subsequent fiscal years:6 Provided further, That the funds 

reserved under 611(c) of the IDEA may be used to provide technical assistance to States to 

improve the capacity of the States to meet the data collection requirements of sections 616 and 

618 and to administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, 

coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA:7

 [Provided further, That funds 

made available for the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 may be used to 

support expenses associated with the Special Olympics National and World Games:]

8

 Provided 

further, That the level of effort a local educational agency must meet under section 

613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA, in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level of effort that 

would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEA's reduced level of 

expenditures:9

 Provided further, That the Secretary may use funds made available for the State 

Personnel Development Grants program under Part D, subpart 1 of IDEA to evaluate program 

performance:10 Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 612(a)(18)(B), in reducing a 

State’s allocation under section 611 for failure to comply with the requirement of section 

612(a)(18)(A), the Secretary may apply that reduction over a period of consecutive fiscal years, 

not to exceed five, until the entire reduction is applied:11 Provided further, That the Secretary 

may, in any fiscal year in which a State’s allocation under section 611 is reduced in accordance 

with section 612(a)(18)(B), reduce the amount a State may reserve under section 611(e)(1) by 

an amount that bears the same relation to the maximum amount described in that paragraph as 

the reduction under section 612(a)(18)(B) bears to the total allocation the State would have 

received in that fiscal year under section 611(d) in the absence of the reduction:12 Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall either reduce the allocation of funds under section 611 for any 

fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the State fails to comply with the requirement of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-3

section 612(a)(18)(A) as authorized by section 612(a)(18)(B), or seek to recover funds under 

section 452 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234a):

13 Provided further, 

That the Secretary may reserve up to $100,000,000 of the funds made available for section 611 

of the IDEA to support (1) competitive grants to States, outlying areas, freely associated States, 

and the Secretary of the Interior to carry out activities identified in their State Systemic 

Improvement Plans to improve results for children with disabilities birth through age 21 under 

Parts B and C of the IDEA; and (2) related activities for carrying out and assessing the 

performance of those grants:14 Provided further, That funds reserved under the preceding 

proviso shall remain available for obligation through September 30, 2016:15 Provided further, 

That each entity that receives a grant under the second preceding proviso may make subgrants, 

contracts, or otherwise distribute those funds on a competitive, targeted, or formula basis to 

public, private, and non-profit entities, including local educational agencies and early 

intervention service providers, to carry out activities authorized under that proviso:16 Provided 

further, That notwithstanding section 611(d)(1) of the IDEA, after reserving funds under the third 

preceding proviso and funds for technical assistance, and for payments to the outlying areas, 

the freely associated States, and the Secretary of the Interior under sections 611(b) and (c) of 

the IDEA, the Secretary shall allocate the remaining amount among the States in accordance 

with section 611(d) of the IDEA.17 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014.)

NOTE

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriation language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...[$12,497,300,000] $12,600,627,000, of 

which [$2,981,201,000] $2,243,808,000 shall 

become available on July 1, [2014] 2015, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

[2015] 2016, and of which [$9,283,383,000]

$10,124,103,000 shall become available on 

October 1, [2014] 2015, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2015] 

2016, for academic year [2014–2015] 2015-

2016:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for a 

portion of the Grants to States program, and 

all of the Preschool Grants, Grants for Infants 

and Families, and Results Driven 

Accountability Incentive Grants programs. 

The language also provides that a portion of 

the Grants to States funds be available in an 

advance appropriation that becomes 

available for obligation on October 1 of the 

fiscal year following the year of the 

appropriation. 

2 Provided, That the amount for section 

611(b)(2) of the IDEA shall be equal to the 

lesser of the amount available for that activity 

during fiscal year [2013] 2014, increased by 

the amount of inflation as specified in section 

619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA, or the percent

change in the funds appropriated under 

section 611(i) of the IDEA after reserving 

funds described in the 12th proviso, but not 

less than the amount for that activity during 

fiscal year [2013] 2014:

This language limits the amount of funds 

required to be transferred to the Department 

of the Interior under the Grants to States 

program to the lesser of an amount equal to 

the amount transferred to the Department of 

the Interior in 2014 plus inflation or the 

percent change in the appropriation for the 

Grants to States program reduced by the 

amount reserved for the Results Driven 

Accountability Incentive Grant program. This 

language also clarifies that in the event of a 

decrease or no change in the appropriation 

for the Grants to States program, the amount 

of funds required to be transferred to the 

Department of the Interior remains level with 

the amount they received under the fiscal 

year 2014 appropriation.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-5

Language Provision Explanation

3 Provided further, That the Secretary shall, 

without regard to section 611(d) of the IDEA, 

distribute to all other States (as that term is 

defined in section 611(g)(2)), subject to the 

third proviso, any amount by which a State’s 

allocation under section 611(d), from funds 

appropriated under this heading, is reduced 

under section 612(a)(18)(B), according to the 

following: 85 percent on the basis of the 

States’ relative populations of children aged 

3 through 21 who are of the same age as 

children with disabilities for whom the State 

ensures the availability of a free appropriate 

public education under this part, and 15 

percent to States on the basis of the States’ 

relative populations of those children who are 

living in poverty:

This language authorizes the Department to 

reallocate funds that are reduced from a 

State’s award as a result of a failure to meet 

the maintenance of financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA and 

requires that those funds be distributed to 

other States on the basis of their relative 

populations of children in the age ranges for 

which a State ensures a free appropriate 

public education and those children living in 

poverty. 

4 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

not distribute any funds under the previous 

proviso to any State whose reduction in 

allocation from funds appropriated under this 

heading made funds available for such a 

distribution:

This language ensures that any State 

receiving a reduction in their section 611 

allocation as a result of not meeting the 

maintenance of financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA 

does not receive funds redistributed as a 

result of another State’s failure to meet those 

same requirements.

5 Provided further, That the States shall 

allocate such funds distributed under the 

second proviso to local educational agencies 

in accordance with section 611(f):

This language requires States to distribute 

the funds received under the second proviso 

to local educational agencies without 

reserving a portion of those funds for Statelevel activities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-6

Language Provision Explanation

6 Provided further, That the amount by which 

a State’s allocation under section 611(d) of 

the IDEA is reduced under section 

612(a)(18)(B) and the amounts distributed to 

States under the previous provisos in fiscal 

year 2012 or any subsequent year shall not 

be considered in calculating the awards 

under section 611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or 

for any subsequent fiscal years:

This language allows the Department to 

calculate a State’s allocation under section 

611(d) in future years without regard to 

reductions in awards made as a result of a 

failure to meet the maintenance of financial 

support requirements in section 612. This 

language mitigates the potential long-term 

impact of one-time reductions in awards.

7 Provided further, That the funds reserved 

under section 611(c) may be used to provide 

technical assistance to States to improve the 

capacity of the States to meet the data 

collection requirements of sections 616 and 

618 and to administer and carry out other 

services and activities to improve data 

collection, coordination, quality, and use 

under Parts B and C of the IDEA:

This language authorizes the Department to 

use funds available under section 611(c) to 

provide technical assistance and support to 

States on a broad range of issues, including 

compliance with applicable privacy laws and 

appropriate coordination and linking of 

information within and across Federal, State 

and local data systems for the unique needs 

of students with disabilities and their families 

and the purposes of the IDEA programs and 

data collections.

8 [Provided further, That funds made 

available for the Special Olympics Sport and 

Empowerment Act of 2004 may be used to 

support expenses associated with the 

Special Olympics National and World 

Games:]

This language authorized funds made 

available for the Special Olympics Sports and 

Empowerment Act of 2004 to be used to 

support expenses associated with Special 

Olympics National and World games; 

however, the Department removed this 

language because these funds are only 

needed to support Project Unify. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-7

Language Provision Explanation

9 Provided further, That the level of effort a 

local educational agency must meet under 

section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA, in the 

year after it fails to maintain effort is the level 

of effort that would have been required in the 

absence of that failure and not the LEA's 

reduced level of expenditures:

This language clarifies that the level of effort

a LEA must meet under maintenance of 

financial support requirements in section 613 

of the IDEA, in the year after it fails to 

maintain effort, is the level of effort that would 

have been required in the absence of that 

failure and not the LEA's reduced level of 

expenditures.

10Provided further, That the Secretary may 

use funds made available for the State 

Personnel Development Grants program 

under Part D, subpart 1 of IDEA to evaluate 

program performance.

This language permits the Secretary to use 

funds authorized for the State Personnel 

Development Grants program under Part D 

of the IDEA to evaluate program 

performance.

11Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 612(a)(18)(B), in reducing a State’s 

allocation under section 611 for failure to 

comply with the requirement of section 

612(a)(18)(A), the Secretary may apply that 

reduction over a period of consecutive fiscal 

years, not to exceed five, until the entire 

reduction is applied:

This language permits the Secretary to 

spread out a reduction from a State’s award 

as a result of a failure to meet the 

maintenance of financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA over 

a maximum of 5 years.

12Provided further, That the Secretary may, 

in any fiscal year in which a State’s allocation 

under section 611 is reduced in accordance 

with section 612(a)(18)(B), reduce the 

amount a State may reserve under section 

611(e)(1) by an amount that bears the same

relation to the maximum amount described in 

that paragraph as the reduction under 

section 612(a)(18)(B) bears to the total 

allocation the State would have received in 

that fiscal year under section 611(d) in the 

absence of the reduction:

This language permits the Secretary to 

reduce the maximum State set-aside for 

State administration by the same percentage 

as the reduction in the State’s overall IDEA 

section 611 grant.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-8

Language Provision Explanation

13 Provided further, That the Secretary shall 

either reduce the allocation of funds under 

section 611 for any fiscal year following the 

fiscal year for which the State fails to comply 

with the requirement of section 612(a)(18)(A) 

as authorized by section 612(a)(18)(B), or 

seek to recover funds under section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act

(20 U.S.C. 1234a):

This language permits the Secretary to: 

(1) seek to recover non-Federal (State) funds 

in the amount of the State’s MOE shortfall 

under the recovery of funds provision in 

section 452 of the General Education 

Provisions Act, or (2) reduce the State’s 

IDEA section 611 grant. 

14 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to $100,000,000 of the funds 

made available for section 611 of the IDEA to 

support (1) competitive grants to States, 

outlying areas, freely associated states, and 

the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 

activities identified in their State Systemic 

Improvement Plans to improve results for 

children with disabilities birth through age 21 

under Parts B and C of the IDEA; and 

(2) related activities for carrying out and 

assessing the performance of such those 

grants:

This language would authorize the Secretary 

to reserve up to $100 million for competitive 

grants to States to carry out State Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIPs) for children birth 

through age 21, and related activities such as 

peer review, technical assistance, and 

evaluation. SSIPs are multi-year plans for 

improving results for infants, toddlers and 

children with disabilities that States must 

submit in accordance with their Part B and 

Part C Annual Performance Reports (APRs). 

SSIPs are currently being developed, and the 

first phase of each SSIP will be submitted in 

fiscal year 2015. For more information, see, 

Notice of Agency Information Collection 

Activities: IDEA Part B State Performance 

Plan and Annual Performance Report, 72 

Fed. Reg. 22,251 (Apr. 15, 2013) and Notice 

Agency Information Collection Activities; 

IDEA Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) 

and Annual Performance Report (APR), 72 

Fed. Reg. 22,253 (Apr. 15, 2013).

15 Provided further, That funds reserved 

under the preceding proviso shall remain 

available for obligation through September 

30, 2016:

This language would permit the funds made 

available under the 13th proviso to remain 

available for 2 years. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-9

Language Provision Explanation

16 Provided further, That each entity that 

receives a grant under the second preceding 

proviso may make subgrants, contracts, or 

otherwise distribute those funds on a 

competitive, targeted, or formula basis to 

public, private, and non-profit entities, 

including local educational agencies and 

early intervention service providers, to carry 

out activities authorized under that proviso:

This language authorizes grantees receiving 

funds under the 12th proviso to subgrant and 

subcontract with public, private, and nonprofit entities, including local educational 

agencies and early intervention service 

providers. 

17 Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 611(d)(1) of the IDEA, after reserving 

funds under the third preceding proviso and 

funds for technical assistance, and for 

payments to the outlying areas, the freely 

associated States, and the Secretary of the 

Interior under sections 611(b) and (c) of the 

IDEA, the Secretary shall allocate the 

remaining amount among the States in 

accordance with section 611(d) of the IDEA.

This language ensures that funds reserved 

under the 12th proviso do not impact the 

allocation of funds under section 611(d) of 

the IDEA. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-10

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................... $12,640,709 $12,497,300 $12,600,627

Discretionar y Across-the-board reduction (P.L. 113-6).................. -25,282 0 0

Total, discretionary appropriation ...................... 12,615,427 0 0

Discretionar y Sequester (P.L. 112-25).......................................... -633,063 0 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation ........ 11,982,364 12,497,300 12,600,627

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year........................ -9,283,383 -9,283,383 -10,124,103

Advance from prior year ........................................ 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383

Total, budget authority.................................... 11,982,346 12,661,256 11,816,587
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-11

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2014................................................................................................ $12,497,300

2015................................................................................................ 12,600,627

Net change...................................................................................... +103,327

Increases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase in funding for Grants to States (IDEA-B-611). $11,472,848 +$100,000

Increase in funding for Grants for Infants and Families (Part C). 438,498 +3,327

Total, increases +103,327
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-12

J-12

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate footnote

2015

Authorized footnote

2015

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611) Indefinite1 $11,472,8482 Indefinite1 $11,572,8482 3

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) Indefinite 353,238 Indefinite 353,238

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C) 04 438,498 04 441,825

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) 04 41,630 04 41,630

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination (IDEA-D-2-663) 04 44,3454 04 44,345

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) 04 83,700 04 83,700

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673) 04 27,411 04 27,411

National acti viti es Technology and media services (IDEA-D-3-674) 04 28,047 04 28,047

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA5 3(a)) 06 7,5837 06 7,583

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total annual appropriation 12,497,300 12,600,627

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 674,541

Portion of request not authorized 100,000

1 Funding for technical assistance on State data collection is limited to $25,000 thousand adjusted for inflation. This amount is estimated to be $31,560

thousand for fiscal year 2014 and $32,288 thousand for fiscal year 2015. 2 Includes $15,000 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. 3 Includes $100,000 thousand for Results Driven Accountability Incentive grants in fiscal year 2015. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2015 through appropriations language. 5 Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004. 6 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2015 through appropriations language. 7 In fiscal year 2014, Special Olympics education programs was funded at $7,583 thousand with funds from Technical assistance and dissemination.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-13

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2006 $12,126,130 $11,813,783 $11,775,107 $11,653,013

(2006 Advance for 2007) (6,204,000) (5,413,000) (5,424,200) (5,424,200)

2007 11,697,502 N/A1 N/A1 11,802,867

(2007 Advance for 2008) (6,215,200) (5,424,200)

2008 11,485,147 12,362,831 12,330,374 11,993,684

(2008 Advance for 2009) (6,215,200) (6,641,982) (5,924,200) (6,856,444)

2009 12,335,943 12,587,9202 12,511,6312 12,579,677

(2009 Advance for 2010) (7,647,444) (8,592,383) (7,647,444) (8,592,383)

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(P.L. 111-5)

0 13,600,000 13,500,000 12,200,000

2010 12,579,677 12,579,677 12,587,8563 12,587,035

(2010 Advance for 2011) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383)

2011 12,846,190 12,564,9534 12,787,0353 12,526,6725

(2011 Advance for 2012) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (16,240)

2012 12,861,351 13,757,8446 12,553,0663 12,640,709

(2012 Advance for 2013) (9,433,103) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (9,283,383)

2013 12,687,307 12,640,709 7 12,770,7097 11,982,364

(2013 Advance for 2014) (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2014 12,657,307 N/A8 12,803,3873 12,497,300

(2014 Advance for 2015) (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2015 12,600,627

(2015 Advance for 2016) (10,124,103)

1

 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate Allowance amounts 

are shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2

 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3

 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5

 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 6

 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill. 7

 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 8

 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.
J-14

Summary of R equ est

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible verison 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Special Education 

1. State grants:

(a) Grants to States (IDEA-B-611)

Annual appropriation 1 D 1,691,483 2,189,465 1,448,745 (740,720) -33.831%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 9,283,383 9,283,383 10,124,103 840,720 9.056%

Subtotal 10,974,866 11,472,848 11,572,848 100,000 0.872%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA-B-619) D 353,238 353,238 353,238 0 0.000%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA-C) D 419,653 438,498 441,825 3,327 0.759%

Subtotal, State grants 11,747,756 12,264,584 12,367,911 103,327 0.842%

2. National activities (IDEA-D):

(a) State personnel development (Subpart 1) D 41,630 41,630 41,630 0 0.000%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) 2 D 44,345 44,345 44,345 0 0.000%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 83,700 83,700 83,700 0 0.000%

(d) Parent information centers (sections 671-673) D 27,411 27,411 27,411 0 0.000%

(e) Educational technology, media, and materials (section 674) D 28,047 28,047 28,047 0 0.000%

Subtotal. National activities 225,133 225,133 225,133 0 0.000%

3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) 2 D 7,583 7,583 7,583 0 0.000%

4. PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (IDEA D-663) D 1,892 0 0 0 ---

Total, Appropriation D 11,982,364 12,497,300 12,600,627 103,327 0.827%

Total, Budget authority D 11,982,364 12,497,300 11,759,907 (737,393) -5.900%

Current 3 2,698,981 3,213,917 2,476,524 (737,393) -22.944%

Prior year's advance 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383 0 0.000%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program; FY= fiscal year

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The 2015 President's Budget includes $100,000 thousand for Results-Driven Accountability Incentive Grants.

2 Funds for Special Olympics Education programs were included in the appropriation for Technical Assistance and Dissemination in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

3 Excludes advance appropriations that become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year. Advance appropriations are $9,283,383 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and $10,124,103 thousand in FY 2015. 

In FY 2015, the amount for advances is increased due to the proposed consolidation of Teacher Quality Partnership State Grants in the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-15

Summary of Request

The Administration is committed to ensuring that all children, including students with disabilities, 

have an equal opportunity to participate in a high quality education; are expected to perform to 

high levels; and to the maximum extent possible, are prepared to lead productive, independent 

lives. The fiscal year 2015 budget request for Special Education of $12.6 billion is aimed at 

making this goal a reality by helping States and school districts improve the results for children 

with disabilities. 

The Administration requests $11.6 billion for the Grants to States program, an increase of 

$100 million from the fiscal year 2014 level, to assist States and schools in covering the excess 

costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 

3 through 21. This request includes $100 million for Results Driven Accountability Incentive 

Grants, which would provide competitive grants to States to identify and implement promising, 

evidence-based reforms that will improve service delivery for children with disabilities while also 

building State and local capacity to continue to improve outcomes for those children in the longterm. The request would provide an average of $1,758 for each of the 6.574 million children 

with disabilities who are estimated to be served in 2015. The Federal contribution toward 

meeting the excess cost of special education and related services would be approximately 

16 percent of the national average per pupil expenditures under this request.

The request of $353.2 million for Preschool Grants is the same as the fiscal year 2014 level

and would provide support to States and schools for providing special education services to 

children ages 3 through 5. The request of $441.8 million for Grants for Infants and Families is 

an increase of $3.3 million from the fiscal year 2014 level. The additional funding for the Grants 

for Infants and Families program would provide additional assistance to States to help them 

implement statewide systems of early intervention services for children from birth through age 2. 

The $225.1 million request for National Activities programs would support a variety of 

technical assistance, dissemination, training, and other activities to help States, local 

educational agencies, parents, and others in improving results for children with disabilities. 

Parent Information Centers and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials, formerly

Technology and Media Services, would be funded at $27.4 million and $28.1 million, 

respectively. The State Personnel Development program would be funded at $41.6 million, 

the Technical Assistance and Dissemination program would be funded at $44.3 million, and 

the Personnel Preparation program would be funded at $83.7 million. For all National 

Activities programs, the 2015 request level is the same as the 2014 funding level.

The Special Olympics Education Programs would be funded at $7.56 million. In fiscal 

year 2014, activities carried out by this program were funded under the Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination program. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-16

Grant s to Stat es

State grants: Grants to States

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, Section 611)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite 1 2

Budget Authority:

BA

2014 2015 Change

Annual appropriation $2,189,465 3 $1,448,745 3 4 -$740,720

Advance for succeeding 

fiscal year 9,283,383 10,124,103 +840,720

Total 11,472,848 3 11,572,848 +100,000

_________________

1 Section 611(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act limits technical assistance activities to 

$25,000 thousand, increased by the amount of inflation from year to year. It is estimated that the maximum amount 

authorized for FY 2015 would be $32,288 thousand. 2 Section 611(b)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that from the funds appropriated for 

Grants to States, 1.226 percent shall be set aside for the Department of the Interior. It is estimated that the maximum 

amount authorized for FY 2015 would be $143,723 thousand. 3 Includes $15,000 thousand for technical assistance activities in FY 2014 and FY 2015.

4 Includes $100,000 thousand for Results Driven Accountability Incentive Grants.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Grants to States program provides formula grants to assist the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Secretary of the Interior, Outlying Areas, and the Freely Associated 

States in meeting the excess costs of providing special education and related services to 

children with disabilities. In order to be eligible for funding, States must serve all children with 

disabilities between the ages of 3 through 21, except that they are not required to serve children 

aged 3 through 5 or 18 through 21 years if services are inconsistent with State law or practice or 

the order of any court. A State that does not provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) 

to children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 cannot receive base payment funds attributable to 

this age group or any funds under the Preschool Grants program.

Funds are allocated among States in accordance with a variety of factors. First, each State is 

allocated an amount equal to the amount that it received for fiscal year 1999. If the total 

program appropriation increases over the prior year, 85 percent of the remaining funds are 

allocated based on the number of children in the general population in the age range for which 

the States guarantee FAPE to children with disabilities. Fifteen percent of the remaining funds 

are allocated based on the number of children living in poverty that are in the age range for 

which the States guarantee FAPE to children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also includes several maximum and 

minimum allocation requirements that are triggered when the amount available for distribution to 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-17

States increases.1

 If the amount available for allocation to States remains the same from one 

year to the next, States receive the same level of funding as in the prior year. If the amount 

available for allocation to States decreases from the prior year, any amount available for 

allocation to States above the 1999 level is allocated based on the relative increases in funding 

that the States received between 1999 and the prior year. If there is a decrease below the 

amount allocated for 1999, each State’s allocation is ratably reduced from the 1999 level.

Most of the Federal funds provided to States must be passed on to LEAs. However, a portion of 

the funds may be used for State-level activities. Any funds not set aside by the State must be 

passed through to LEAs. These sub-State allocations are made in a fashion similar to that used 

to allocate funds among States when the amount available for allocation to States increases.

State Administration – A State may reserve for State administration up to the greater of the 

maximum amount the State could reserve for State administration from fiscal year 2004 funds, 

or $800,000, increased by inflation as reflected by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers. For fiscal year 2015, the latter amount is estimated to be $1,035,095.

Other State Activities – A State may also reserve funds for a variety of other State-level 

activities such as monitoring, enforcement, addressing personnel needs, and providing technical 

assistance to LEAs. One authorized activity involves allocating set-aside funds to support a risk 

pool, or high cost fund, that is used to assist LEAs in meeting the costs of serving high need, 

high-cost children. If a State opts to use State-level funds for a risk pool, it must use 10 percent 

of the funds it reserves for other State-level activities for this purpose. Federal funds set aside 

by a State must be distributed to LEAs or consortia of LEAs to address the needs of specific 

high-cost children.

Starting in 2007, the amount that a State may set aside for other State-level activities is based 

on a percentage of its total allocation for 2006, increased for inflation. The percentage is based 

on whether the State opts to use funds for a risk pool and the amount of funds that the State 

sets aside for administration. If the State opts to use funds for a risk pool and the State sets 

aside $850,000 or less for administration, the percentage is 10.5 percent. If the State opts to 

use funds for a risk pool and the State sets aside more than $850,000 for administration, the 

percentage is 10 percent. If the State opts not to use funds for a risk pool and the State sets 

aside $850,000 or less for administration, the percentage is 9.5 percent. If the State opts not to 

use funds for a risk pool and the State sets aside more than $850,000 for administration, the 

percentage is 9 percent.

Maintenance of Effort – The IDEA also requires each State to maintain its level of State financial 

support for special education and related services from one year to the next. This requirement 

is commonly referred to as the State “maintenance of effort, or MOE.” However, the IDEA 

allows any State that provided 100 percent of the non-Federal costs of special education 

services in the 2003-2004 school year, or any subsequent year, to reduce its level of 

 1 The amount that any single State’s allocation may increase from one year to the next is capped at the amount 

the State received in the prior year multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and the percentage increase in the total 

amount appropriated for Part B of IDEA from the prior year. The maximum amount that any State may receive in any 

single fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the number of children with disabilities ages of 3 through 21 served 

during the 2004-2005 academic year in that State by 40 percent of the annual per pupil expenditure, adjusted by the 

rate of annual change in the sum of 85 percent of the children aged 3 through 21 for whom that State ensures FAPE 

and 15 percent of the children living in poverty. Because there are multiple caps, in any single year, the “effective 

cap” on any single State’s allocation is the lowest cap for that State.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-18

expenditures by up to 50 percent of any increase in its allocation under the Grants to States 

program over the prior year. The Secretary may prohibit a State from exercising this authority if 

it is determined that a State is not adequately carrying out its responsibilities under the IDEA.

The IDEA also contains a local “maintenance of effort” requirement. Under this requirement, 

each LEA must maintain its total expenditures, including State and local contributions, on 

special education from one year to the next. The standard for determining whether this MOE 

requirement has been met is that the LEA actually expends, in total or per capita, an equal or 

greater amount of local, or State and local, funds in each subsequent year. However, in any 

fiscal year that an LEA’s IDEA Part B subgrant allocation exceeds the amount that the LEA 

received in the previous fiscal year, the IDEA also permits certain LEAs to reduce the level of 

support otherwise required by this local maintenance of effort requirement by up to 50 percent 

of any increase in their Part B allocation. LEAs taking advantage of this flexibility must use any 

funds that otherwise would have been used for the education of children with disabilities to 

support activities that are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended. Also, if a State educational agency (SEA) determines that an LEA is not 

meeting all of the requirements of Part B, including meeting targets in the State’s performance 

plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from reducing its level of support.

Early Intervening Services – Certain LEAs may also use up to 15 percent of their allocation, less 

any amount used to reduce that LEA’s maintenance of effort level, for early intervening services. 

Early intervening services generally address the needs of students who require additional 

academic and behavioral supports to succeed, but who are not identified as needing special 

education. If an SEA determines that an LEA has significant disproportionality on the basis of 

race in the identification of children as children with disabilities, in particular disability categories, 

in placement in particular educational settings, or in discipline, the SEA must require the LEA to 

use the full 15 percent for early intervening services.2

The IDEA requires awards to the Freely Associated States of the Pacific Basin (Palau, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to be the same 

amounts that they received from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The IDEA also authorizes the Secretary to set aside a portion of the Grants to States 

appropriation to provide technical assistance to improve the capacity of States to meet data 

collection requirements necessary for the implementation of the program.

This is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. In a typical year, a 

portion of the funds – the forward-funded portion – becomes available for obligation on July 1 of 

the fiscal year of the appropriation and remains available for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year. The remaining funds – the advance appropriation – become available for 

obligation on October 1 of the fiscal year following the year of the appropriations act and remain 

available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion. For fiscal year 

 2 The local maintenance of effort reduction authority (under IDEA, Sec. 613(a)(2)(C)) and the authority to use 

Part B funds for early intervening services (under IDEA, Sec. 613(f)) are interconnected. The decision that an LEA 

makes about the amount of flexibility that it will utilize under one authority directly affects the amount of flexibility that 

may be utilized under the other. Additionally, LEAs that are required to use the full 15 percent for early intervening 

services in the current fiscal year will be ineligible to take advantage of any of the flexibility for local maintenance of 

effort that would otherwise be available under IDEA, Sec. 613(a)(2)(C). For examples illustrating how these 

provisions relate to one another, please refer to the 34 CFR 300, Appendix D. See: 

http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-19

2015, school districts will use both the forward- and advance-funded amounts primarily during 

the 2015-2016 school year.

Both forward-funded and advance funds remain available for obligation at State and local levels 

for an additional year. Hence, States and local educational agencies (LEAs) will have until 

September 30, 2017, to obligate their fiscal year 2015 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)footnote

2010.............................................................................. $11,505,2111

2011................................................................................ 11,465,9601

2012................................................................................ 11,577,8551

2013................................................................................ 10,974,8662

2014................................................................................ 11,472,8483

_________________

1 Includes $25,000 thousand for technical assistance. 2 Includes $23,693 thousand for technical assistance. 3 Includes $15,000 thousand for technical assistance.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.6 billion in fiscal year 2015 for Grants to States to assist in 

covering the excess costs associated with providing special education and related services to 

children with disabilities and improving the quality of those services. The requested level 

includes an increase of $100 million over the fiscal year 2014 level to support new Results 

Driven Accountability (RDA) Incentive Grants.

This request would provide an average of $1,758 per child. This average is based on the 

assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 21 who will be served will remain 

constant at the 2013 level of 6.574 million. The request level would maintain the Federal 

contribution toward offsetting the cost of special education and related services for children with 

disabilities at approximately 16 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE).

From 1975, when the IDEA was enacted, through 2005, the growth in the number of children 

with disabilities served outpaced the growth in the general population ages 3 through 21. 

However, from 2006 to 2009, the count of children with disabilities reported by States decreased 

slightly each year from the prior fiscal year. Fiscal year 2010 represented the first increase in 

this population of students in 5 years, but the population declined again in fiscal year 2011 and 

2012. The child count increased in 2013 by nearly half a percent; however, the Department 

believes the population of children with disabilities will continue to trend downward in future 

years. In the absence of more certain information, we have projected the numbers of children 

with disabilities expected to be served for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 at 6.574 million children, 

the same level as reported by States for fiscal year 2013. 

Prior to the enactment of the IDEA, as many as 1 million children with disabilities were excluded 

from educational services. The IDEA now guarantees that any child who has been identified as 

having a disability will have access to a free appropriate public education. The primary 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-20

challenge of the program now is to improve the quality of the education provided, so that 

children with disabilities can, to the maximum extent possible, participate in the general 

education curriculum, meet the same rigorous standards that have been established for all 

children to help prepare them for college and a career, and be prepared to lead productive, 

independent adult lives.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility

States seeking ESEA flexibility must submit plans to the Department describing how they will 

transition to State college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments capable of 

measuring student academic growth; implement differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support systems that identify and reward high-performing schools, require rigorous interventions 

in the lowest-performing schools, and target meaningful improvement measures to schools with 

the largest achievement gaps; and develop and implement high-quality teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that use multiple valid measures, including data on student 

growth as a significant factor, to determine performance levels. While these reforms support 

efforts to improve outcomes for all students including students with disabilities (SWD), the 

Department required States to include special education stakeholders in the waiver process to 

ensure that the needs of SWD were taken into account across all components of the State’s 

plan. Additionally, SEAs approved for ESEA flexibility committed to eliminating the use of 

alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards beginning no later 

than the 2014-2015 school year. 

All States are eligible to receive ESEA flexibility, and the Department has established a rigorous 

process for reviewing and approving State requests, including expert peer review. As of 

January 2014, 42 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have been approved for 

ESEA flexibility. The Department also approved a separate request for waivers from the CORE 

districts (8 districts) in California. Additionally, 3 States and the Bureau of Indian Education, 

have submitted requests for ESEA flexibility. 35 States were approved to begin implementing in 

the 2012-2013 school year and have been approved through the 2013-2014 school year. The 

waivers may be revoked if Congress reauthorizes the ESEA, but in the continued absence of 

reauthorization these States were permitted to begin seeking extensions in February 2014, 

which would remain in effect through the 2014-2015 school year. The eight States that have 

recently been approved for waivers began implementing in 2013-2014 and will need to apply for 

extensions for the 2015-2016 school year, absent reauthorization.

Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Incentive Grants

In 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) began to develop a new 

accountability system, RDA, that shifts the focus of the Department’s monitoring efforts from 

compliance to improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities under 

Parts B and C of the IDEA (e.g., school readiness, performance on assessments, and 

graduation rates). While the Department recognizes the importance of States’ compliance with 

the statutory requirements of the IDEA, and will continue to ensure that States meet those 

obligations, we believe that focusing our monitoring and technical assistance efforts on highleverage areas of need identified by States will have the greatest impact on improving results for 

children with disabilities, age birth through 21.

In developing RDA, the Department has worked extensively with States and other stakeholders 

to develop fair, results-driven performance measures to guide our work. However, because 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-21

RDA is dependent on States’ evaluating results and thoughtfully modifying or refining their 

support and service delivery systems at the local level, some States may need technical 

assistance in transitioning to this new framework. Therefore, the Department is investing nearly 

$20 million in fiscal year 2014 for technical assistance centers through the IDEA Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination and the Technical Assistance to Improve State Data Capacity 

programs to support States in improving their data quality and to assist them with the 

development of their State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs). In their SSIPs, States 

evaluate their results for children with disabilities, their capacity to improve those results further, 

and the needed steps to improve State support systems and local service delivery systems.

Some of the reforms and improvements identified by States in their SSIPs will require the 

investment of new funds that may not be readily available at the State level. To support the 

activities identified in the SSIPs, and to incentivize States to make bold reforms that will have 

the biggest impact on results for children with disabilities, the Administration is proposing a 

$100 million increase in fiscal year 2015 to support new competitive incentive grants for 

States. These 4-year grants will be used by States to identify and implement promising, 

evidence-based reforms that will improve service delivery for children with disabilities while also 

building State and local capacity to continue to improve outcomes for those children in the longterm. States receiving incentive grants would have a demonstrated commitment to using results 

data in their IDEA-required local determinations, consistent with OSEP’s RDA system, to 

support their efforts to implement evidence-based practices that have a demonstrated positive 

impact on results for children with disabilities. Examples of evidence-based practices include: 

(1) instructional coaching to improve effectiveness of teachers and leaders; (2) high-quality early 

learning programs and services; (3) multi-tiered systems of support; (4) early literacy activities; 

and (5) robust secondary transition systems. States receiving grants would be encouraged to 

coordinate these activities with other improvement initiatives in the State, such as ESEA 

Flexibility, School Improvement Grants, and Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge.

Each State has unique needs and will face different challenges when implementing these 

reforms. Through the SSIPs, States may identify reforms addressing needs of students in 

varying age ranges, in multiple instructional settings, in differing levels of urbanicity, and within 

differing sizes of State populations. As such, the Department would support grants of varying 

sizes depending on these factors. In addition, the Department will give States flexibility on the 

manner in which they implement their plans and focus on how best to improve outcomes for 

children with disabilities. While the actual number and size of grants would be dependent on 

the applications for funding received, the Administration currently anticipates awarding 10 

grants, ranging from $4 million to $14 million, to States focusing on Part B systems, and 15 

grants, ranging from $500,000 to $800,000, to States focusing on reforms in Part C 

systems. Additionally, the Department plans to reserve a portion of RDA funds for rigorous 

formative and summative evaluations of State reforms to learn from improvement efforts and 

build communities of practice across States.

FY 2015 Proposed Appropriation Language 

The Administration proposes new appropriation language for fiscal year 2015 to provide the 

authority to carry out the activities outlined for the RDA Incentive Grants in addition to language 

that would provide the Department additional flexibility in administering State Maintenance of 

Effort (MOE) requirements of the IDEA. The Administration is also continuing to propose 

language requested in previous years regarding State and local MOE requirements, the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-22

technical assistance set-aside under section 616(i) of the IDEA, and the allocation provided to 

the Bureau of Indian Education. 

RDA Incentive Grants

The Administration proposes language that would allow the Secretary to set-aside $100 million 

of the funds appropriated for the Grants to States program to provide competitive grants to 

assist State and local implementation of evidence-based practices identified in their SSIP to 

improve outcomes for children with disabilities. This proposed language would also extend the 

period of availability of these funds through September 30, 2016, and would clarify that such 

funds would not be considered for the purpose of calculating State allocations or administrative 

maximums under section Part B and C of IDEA. 

State Maintenance of Effort

The IDEA requires each State to make available for special education and related services at 

least as much funding as it did in the prior year. If a State fails to maintain its fiscal support for 

special education and related services and does not receive a waiver of the requirement, the 

IDEA directs the Department to reduce that State’s award under the Special Education Grants 

to States program. In 2012, the Department reduced Kansas’s award under this provision and 

has denied the waiver requests of South Carolina and New Mexico. Under IDEA, the 

Department does not have authority to redistribute or otherwise spend any funds made 

available as a result of such a reduction. 

As in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the Administration proposes language that would (a) allow the 

Department to redistribute reductions to other States and (b) mitigate the ongoing impact of a 

reduction on a State’s future year awards. Without the language, any funds reduced from a 

State’s award would revert to Treasury at the end of the period of availability. The proposed 

language would allow the Department to provide these funds to other States who have not had 

their awards reduced as a result of a failure to maintain financial support for special education 

and related services, so that these funds are used to offset the additional costs of providing 

services to students who qualify for services under the IDEA. Additionally, because of the way 

that the formula for determining State allocations operates, a State’s award in any year 

depends, in part, on the amount the State received in the prior year. Without this additional 

language, a reduction in a State’s award taken in any one year could have long-lasting impacts 

on that State’s award, depending on the growth in the Grants to States appropriation and the 

size of the reduction in the individual State’s award.

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration proposes new language that would provide additional 

flexibility in enforcing MOE requirements while protecting the services provided to students with 

disabilities supported with Federal funds. Specifically, the new proposed language would allow 

the Department to: (1) spread out the reductions in awards due to a State’s failure to meet MOE 

over a maximum of 5 years; (2) reduce the maximum State set-aside by the same percentage 

as the reduction in the State’s overall award; and (3) either recover non-Federal (State) funds in 

the amount of the State’s MOE shortfall under the recovery of funds provision in section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), or reduce the State’s IDEA grant. 

Under the IDEA, the Department must reduce a State’s award in one fiscal year, and cannot 

spread the penalty over a number of years. The Department is concerned that, due to the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-23

potential size of future reductions as a percentage of overall State awards, services provided to 

students with disabilities will be adversely affected, particularly those supported with Federal 

funds. By providing the Secretary the authority to spread out the penalty over a maximum of 

5 years, the Department hopes to limit the direct impact on students with disabilities in any given 

year.

Under current law, in a year in which the Secretary has reduced a State’s award due to an MOE 

violation, a State can pass on the entire reduction in its IDEA funding to LEAs. Providing the 

Department the authority to proportionally reduce the maximum available State set-aside by the 

same percentage as the reduction in the overall State award would directly impact State entities 

for failing to maintain financial support. For example, a 30 percent reduction in a State’s award 

would result in a 30 percent reduction in the maximum amount that can be set-aside by the 

State for State-level activities. 

When LEAs have fewer Federal funds available for expenditure, children with disabilities may 

receive reduced services. By exercising the flexibility of either recovering State funds or 

reducing the State’s IDEA grant, the Secretary can mitigate the impact of a reduction in funds 

on services for children with disabilities.

Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort

The IDEA requires LEAs to provide through a combination of local or State support at least the 

same level of special education funding provided in the previous fiscal year. As in fiscal year 

2014, the Administration is proposing language to clarify that the level of effort a LEA must meet 

under maintenance of effort requirements in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level of 

effort that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEAs reduced 

level of expenditures. This language would provide clarity to LEAs and is consistent with State 

MOE statutory language.

Technical Assistance

The IDEA emphasizes improving results for children with disabilities through the collection and 

use of performance data. The law requires each State to develop a State Performance Plan 

that includes measurable and rigorous targets in a number of key monitoring areas: free 

appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment; disproportionate representation 

of children in special education based on race and ethnicity; and State exercise of general 

supervision authority in areas such as child find, monitoring, mediation, and transition. Each 

State has supervisory responsibility over the provision of special education and related services 

to children with disabilities within its jurisdiction, to ensure that the requirements in the IDEA are 

met. State performance data are collected through Annual Performance Reports. 

The IDEA authorizes the Secretary of Education to use a portion of Grants to States funds to 

provide technical assistance to States to improve their capacity to meet these data collection 

requirements. The request includes $15 million for such technical assistance, the same as the 

amount set-aside for this purpose in fiscal year 2014. The request would be used for 

continuation costs for the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Data Systems, which supports States in developing and using their early childhood 

data systems, and the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Data Capacity to 

Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data, which provides technical assistance to States and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-24

local educational agencies on improving their data collection and analytic processes in order to 

promote use of data to drive program improvement. Funds would also support the continuation 

of two multi-year awards the Department plans to make in fiscal year 2014. These proposed 

centers would provide technical assistance to States on (1) reporting accurate financial data and 

(2) improving their data system architecture to ensure IDEA data can be used with other data 

collections to improve results for students with disabilities.

As in fiscal year 2014, the Administration is proposing appropriation language that would 

expand the authority of the Department to administer and carry out other services and activities 

to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA. The 

Department will use this authority to coordinate data collection systems and align them to 

increase State capacity to collect and analyze State level special education data to improve 

results for children with disabilities. In addition, the Department would target awards to provide 

technical assistance to States for the purpose of determining LEA compliance with the 

requirements of IDEA. 

Department of the Interior Set-Aside

As in previous years, the Administration proposes that the fiscal year 2015 budget include 

special appropriation language limiting the amount of funding required to be provided to the 

Department of the Interior (Interior). The special language would limit funding for Interior to the 

prior year’s funding level plus the lesser of inflation or the percentage change in the 

appropriation for the Grants to States program after reserving funds for RDA Incentive grants. 

In the event of a decrease or no change in the appropriation for the Grants to States program or 

deflation, the amount of funds to be transferred to Interior would remain level with the amount 

Interior received in the prior fiscal year. The IDEA requires that 1.226 percent of the funds 

appropriated for Grants to States be provided to Interior for serving Indian children with 

disabilities, regardless of the number of children served by Interior. At the request level, the 

uncapped allocation to Interior would provide an average of approximately $21,625 for each 

child with a disability it serves, which is approximately 12 times the average amount per child 

that States would receive. At the FY 2015 request level with the cap, Interior would receive 

about 8.2 times the average amount per child that States would receive, which translates into an 

average of $14,423 for each child with a disability, or about 129 percent of the national average 

per pupil expenditure (APPE) compared to 16 percent of the APPE for States overall.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-25

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014

footnote

2015

footnote

Program funding:

Formula grants to States $10,817,765 $11,323,218 $11,323,218

MOE Penalties 0 TBD TBD

Formula grants to Outlying Areas 33,919 34,246 34,246

Grants to Freely Associated States 6,579 6,579 6,579

Department of the Interior 92,910 93,805 93,805

RDA Incentive Grants 0 0 100,000

Technical Assistance (TA):

 RTTA-GSEG 2,811 1 0 0

 Early Childhood Data 6,495 2 3 6,496 4 6,494

 Fiscal Data Center 0 TBD TBD

 IDEA Data Management Center 0 TBD TBD

 TA Center on State Data 6,500 5 6,500 6,500

 Subtotal, TA 23,659 6 15,000 7 14,925

Peer review of new Technical 

 Assistance award applications 33 8 0 75

Total program funding 10,974,866 11,472,848 11,572,848

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 6,573,975 6,573,975 9 6,573,975 9

Average Federal share per child 

(whole dollars) $1,674 $1,743 9 $1,758 9 10

Average per pupil expenditure 

(APPE) (whole dollars) $10,812 $11,046 9 $11,152 9 10

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 15% 16% 9 16% 9 10

_________________

1 Race to the Top Assessment-General Supervision Enhancement Grants (RTTA-GSEG) received

$15,000 thousand of FY 2012 carry-over funds in FY 2013. 2 The Department obligated $1,933 thousand of FY 2012 carry-over funds in FY 2013. 3 The Department obligated $6,493 thousand of FY 2012 carry-over funds in FY 2013. 4 The Department plans to obligate $6,496 thousand of FY 2014 carry-over funds in FY 2015. 5 The Department obligated $1,552 thousand of FY 2012 carry-over funds in FY 2013. 6 The Department carried over $15,934 thousand of the FY 2013 multi-year appropriation into FY 2014. 7 The Department plans to carry over $12,206 thousand of the remaining FY 2014 multi-year appropriation into

FY 2015. 8 The Department plans to obligate $33 thousand of FY 2013 funds in FY 2014.

9 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2013. 10 Includes $100,000 thousand for Results Driven Accountability Incentive Grants.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-26

Basis for Leaving Special Education for Youth with Disabilities Ages 14 and Older 1

Basis:

School 

Year

2009-2010

Percent

School 

Year

2009-2010

Number

School 

Year

2010-2011

Percent

School 

Year

2010-2011

Number

School 

Year

2011-2012

Percent

School 

Year

2011-2012

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 37.9% 256,102 39.7% 255,801 39.7% 250,575

Graduating through 

certification 8.9% 60,001 9.2% 58,946 8.5% 53,910

Transferred to 

regular education 9.9% 66,920 9.5% 61,243 10.2% 64,637

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 12.8% 86,327 12.6% 80,927 12.7% 80,427

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 29.6% 199,899 28.2% 181,618 27.9% 175,709

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 0.8% 5,071 0.8% 5,245 ___0.9% 5,565

Total 100.0% 674,320 100.0% 643,780 100.0% 630,823

_________________

Source: Annual data collection from States by OSERS and through the Education Data Exchange Network 

(EDEN)/EDFacts. 1 Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-27

History of Children Served and Program Funding – FYs 1978 through 2015

Fiscal Year

Children 

Served 

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation 

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child 1

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

1978 3,561 $566,030 $159 10%

1979 3,700 804,000 217 13%

1980 3,803 874,500 230 12%

1981 3,941 874,500 222 10%

1982 3,990 931,008 233 10%

1983 4,053 1,017,900 251 10%

1984 4,096 1,068,875 261 9%

1985 4,124 1,135,145 275 9%

1986 4,121 1,163,282 282 8%

1987 4,167 1,338,000 321 9%

1988 4,236 1,431,737 338 9%

1989 4,347 1,475,449 339 8%

1990 4,419 1,542,610 349 8%

1991 4,567 1,854,186 406 9%

1992 4,727 1,976,095 418 8%

1993 4,896 2,052,728 419 8%

1994 5,101 2,149,686 421 8%

1995 5,467 2,322,915 425 8%

1996 5,629 2,323,837 413 7%

1997 5,806 3,107,522 535 9%

1998 5,978 3,807,700 636 11%

1999 6,133 4,310,700 701 11%

2000 6,274 4,989,685 793 12%

2001 6,381 6,339,685 991 14%

2002 6,483 7,528,533 1,159 15%

2003 6,611 8,874,398 1,340 17%

2004 6,723 10,068,106 1,495 18%

2005 6,820 10,589,746 2 1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 2 1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 2 1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 2 1,609 17%

2009 6,599 22,805,211 2 3 3,453 3 33% 3

2010 6,614 11,505,211 2 1,736 16%
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-28

History of Children Served and Program Funding- Continued

Fiscal Year

Children 

Served 

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation 

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child 

1

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

2011 6,558 $11,465,960 2 $1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 2 1,766 16%

2013 6,574 10,974,866 2 1,674 15%

2014 6,574 4 11,472,848 2 4 1,743 4 16% 4

2015 6,574 4 11,572,848 2 4 5 1,758 4 5 16% 4 5

_______________________

1

 The Federal share per child is calculated from IDEA Part B Grants to States funding, excluding amounts available for 

studies and evaluations or technical assistance, as applicable. 2

 Includes $10,000 thousand for technical assistance activities in 2005, $15,000 thousand in 2006 through 2009 and 

2014 through 2015, $25,000 thousand in 2010 through 2012, and $23,693 thousand in 2013. 3 Includes funds available in FY 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). 4 Estimate. 5 Includes $100,000 thousand for RDA incentive Grants.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: Ensure all children with disabilities served under the IDEA have available to them 

a free appropriate public education to help them meet challenging standards and prepare 

them for independent living and postsecondary education and/or competitive 

employment by assisting State and local educational agencies and families. 

Objective: All children with disabilities will meet challenging standards as determined by 

national and State assessments with accommodations as appropriate.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-29

National Assessment of Educational Progress Measures

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic 

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading.1

Year Target Actual

2003 25% 29%

2005 35 33

2007 35 36

2009 37 34

2011 39 32

2013 40 28

2015 40

NOTES: As defined for purposes of NAEP, “students with disabilities” includes any student classified by a school as 

having a disability, including children who receive services under a Section 504 plan. 

These measures include data for “national public” schools only. “National public” is defined as: “public schools only. 

Includes charter schools; excludes Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education 

Activity schools.” 

1 NAEP is a biennial assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments are scheduled for reading in 2012 and 2014.

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic 

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics.1

Year Target Actual

2003 23% 29%

2005 32 31

2007 33 33

2009 35 36

2011 37 35

2013 38 31

2015 38

NOTES: As defined for purposes of NAEP, “students with disabilities” includes any student classified by a school as 

having a disability, including children who receive services under a Section 504 plan. 

These measures include data for “national public” schools only. “National public” is defined as: “public schools only. 

Includes charter schools; excludes Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education 

Activity schools.” 

1 NAEP is a biennial assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments are scheduled for mathematics in 2012 and

2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-30

Additional information: 

Fourth-grade Reading: NAEP defines “Basic” for students participating in the fourth-grade 

reading assessment as follows: “Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be 

able to locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use their understanding of the 

text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion. Students should be able 

to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text.” 

Reading scores, measured every 2 years, decreased and fell short of their targets since 2009 

after moderate increases over the course of the previous 4 years. The data show that the 

majority of students with disabilities do not meet or exceed even the Basic levels of 

achievement at any of the grade levels tested. Likewise, students with disabilities score well 

below other students. On the 2013 fourth-grade reading assessment, only 28 percent of 

students with disabilities scored at or above Basic, while 73 percent of other students scored at 

or above Basic. 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects data on the percentage of students 

with disabilities who are excluded from the NAEP assessments because of their disabilities. 

Exclusion rates are important to keep in mind when considering the performance of students 

with disabilities because increases in performance accompanied by reductions in students with 

disabilities tested might simply reflect higher exclusion rates among lower functioning students. 

Between 1998 (the first year accommodations were permitted) and 2013, the exclusion rate for 

students with disabilities on fourth-grade reading assessments dropped from 42 percent to 

16 percent. In 2010, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) released a policy 

statement setting a goal for no more than 15 percent exclusion of students with disabilities on 

NAEP assessments and began identifying national, State, and districts samples not meeting this 

goal in its reporting. In 2013, 16 States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities 

exceeding 15 percent on the fourth-grade reading assessment, down from 23 States in 2011. It 

should be noted that these percentages only include students with disabilities who have been 

included in the NAEP testing sample. Students in schools specifically for children with 

disabilities are not included in the NAEP sample.

The use of accommodations for students with disabilities, such as testing in small groups and 

extended time, has increased substantially. The share of the overall population that is students 

with disabilities who receive accommodations increased from 2 percent to 5 percent from 2000 

to 2013. Among fourth-grade students with disabilities assessed in reading in 2013, 68 percent 

received accommodations. 

Eighth-grade Mathematics: NAEP defines “Basic” for students participating in the eighth-grade 

mathematics assessment as follows: “Eighth-graders performing at the Basic level should 

complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as diagrams, charts, and 

graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the 

appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including calculators, 

computers, and geometric shapes. Students at this level also should be able to use 

fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving. As they approach 

the Proficient level, students at the Basic level should be able to determine which of the 

available data are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem 

solving. However, these eighth-graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically.” 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-31

NAEP data for mathematics demonstrate slow progress. The performance of students with 

disabilities had improved steadily over baseline years and exceeded the 2009 target. However, 

since 2011, eight grade math scores decreased and did not meet the target. These decreases 

correspond with decreasing rates of exclusion, which could produce a more diverse sample of 

students with disabilities. The NAEP data also show that the majority of students with 

disabilities do not meet or exceed even the Basic levels of achievement at any of the grade 

levels tested. Likewise, students with disabilities score well below other students. On the 2013 

math assessment, only 31 percent of eighth-graders with disabilities scored at or above Basic, 

while 79 percent of other eighth-grade students scored at or above Basic.

The NCES collects data on the percentage of students with disabilities who are excluded from 

the NAEP assessments because of their disabilities. Exclusion rates are important to keep in 

mind when considering the performance of students with disabilities because increases in 

performance accompanied by reductions in students with disabilities tested might simply reflect 

higher exclusion rates among lower functioning students. Between 2000 (the first year 

accommodations were permitted) and 2013, the exclusion rate on eighth-grade mathematics 

assessments dropped from 32 percent to 10 percent. NAGB’s 2010 policy statement regarding 

exclusion of students with disabilities also applied to the mathematics assessment. In 2013, 

only two States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities higher than 15 percent, down 

from 19 States in 2011. It should be noted that these percentages only include students with 

disabilities who have been included in the NAEP testing sample. Students in schools 

specifically for children with disabilities are not included in the NAEP sample.

The use of accommodations for students with disabilities, such as testing in small groups and 

extended time, has increased substantially. For example, whereas less than one quarter of the 

eighth-grade students with disabilities assessed in mathematics in 2000 received 

accommodations, 80 percent received accommodations in 2013. 

Elementary and Secondary Education Measures

The Department has adopted 4 measures for the Special Education Grants to States program 

that are parallel with those used for the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. 

Data on the measures are collected annually through the Education Data Exchange Network 

(EDEN) and made available through EDFacts. Targets are based on a straight-line trajectory 

toward the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal to have all children performing at proficient or 

advanced levels by 2014. States were not required to test students in all grades 3 through 8 in 

2005. However, they were required to test children in grades 3 through 8 in 2006. The targets 

for 2007 were based on the incomplete 2005 tests. Targets for 2008 through 2012 were revised 

based on the more comprehensive 2006 data.

The first two measures focus on the percentages of students with disabilities scoring at the 

proficient or advanced levels in grades 3 through 8 on State reading and mathematics

assessments. The other two measures focus on the differences between the percentages of 

students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on 

State reading and mathematics assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 

3 through 8 scoring at these levels. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-32

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or 

advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 69.4% 43.9%

2011 77.0 44.3

2012 84.7 42.2

2013 92.4

2014 100

2015 100

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or 

advanced levels on State mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 68.9% 46.3%

2011 76.7 45.7

2012 84.4 41.8

2013 92.2

2014 100

2015 100

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 

scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments and the percentage 

of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading 

assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 14.8 28.3

2011 11.1 28.1

2012 7.4 28.1

2013 3.6

2014 0

2015 0
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-33

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 

scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State mathematics assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State 

mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 13.6 25.3

2011 10.2 26.0

2012 6.9 26.4

2013 3.4

2014 0

2015 0

Additional information: States improved their performance with respect to students with 

disabilities on State mathematics and reading assessments between 2008 and 2010. However, 

in 2013, State scores have regressed in both reading and mathematics. The data suggest 

States were making some progress in ensuring that students with disabilities who participate in 

State reading and math assessments were reasonably well-equipped to perform on these 

assessments, but that progress has decreased and is not substantial enough to keep up with 

the increasing targets that would bring all students with disabilities to proficiency by 2014. It 

should also be noted that fewer than half of students with disabilities scored at the proficient or 

advanced levels in reading and math on State assessments (42.2 percent and 41.8 percent, 

respectively). 

The two previous tables indicate that there continue to be significant gaps between the percent 

of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on State assessments in 

reading and math and the percent of all students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels 

(28.1 percentage points and 26.4 percentage points, respectively). The scores among students 

with disabilities over the past few years have increased those gaps. 

Because definitions of proficient and advanced vary across States, the national data presented 

here, which simply aggregates State data, may not give a clear or entirely meaningful picture of 

student achievement. In addition, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may 

take alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, and students 

with disabilities whose disability has precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency may 

take alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. States may 

include scores from these assessments for the purposes of adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

decisions, but only up to a cap of 3 percent of the total population tested, a maximum of 

2 percent from alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards and a 

maximum of 1 percent from alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. 

In 2012, approximately 21 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 and high 

school were tested in math and reading using an alternate assessment (including those based 

on modified achievement standards and alternate achievement standards).
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-34

Objective: Secondary school students will complete high school prepared for postsecondary 

education and/or competitive employment.

Measure: The percentage of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who 

graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma.

Year Target Actual

2010 60.0% 62.6%

2011 61.0 63.6

2012 62.0 63.9

2013 63.0

2014 64.0

2015 65.0

Additional information: From 2008 to 2012, States successfully increased their graduation 

rates among students with disabilities and exceeded the targets for the graduation rate the past 

6 years. However, there have been significant changes to reporting requirements for graduation 

and dropout rates over the last 4 years.

The instructions States received from the Department for calculating and submitting their 

graduation and dropout rates changed substantially in 2009. Previously, States used various 

methods of defining and calculating graduates and dropouts. Beginning in 2009, through their 

Annual Performance Reports (APR), States were asked to report using the calculation and 

timeline required under the 2008 Title I ESEA regulations. The graduation rate under ESEA is a 

cohort rate that defines a graduate as someone who receives a diploma in 4 years and adjusts 

for transfers in and out of the school. Students who receive modified diplomas or GEDs do not 

count as graduates in this calculation. States may receive permission from the Department to 

report data on cohorts of different lengths of time (such as a 5- or 6-year cohort). 

The new graduation rate calculation requires States to track students using a longitudinal data 

system, which not all States have fully implemented. Most States did comply with the new 

requirements for reporting graduation rate data in 2009. Only 9 States reported graduation 

rates using previous methods with data compiled under Section 618 of the IDEA. In the 2010-

11 and 2011-12 school-years, all but 4 States used the new methods for calculating their 

graduation rates. 

For the 2010-11 school-year, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education eliminated the 

State-reported data element "dropout" from the Consolidated State Performance Report for all 

students and subgroups due to substantial concerns with the validity and usability of the data. 

In an attempt to reduce the reporting burden of States, they are no longer required to report this 

data element.

Postsecondary Outcomes

One of the purposes of the IDEA is to help prepare children with disabilities for further 

education, employment, and independent living. The Department recently developed an 

indicator on employment and postsecondary education. This indicator tracks the percentage of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-35

students who are no longer in secondary school that had individualized education programs 

(IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were: a) enrolled in higher education within 

1 year of leaving high school; b) enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 

1 year of leaving high school; or, c) enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary 

education or training program, or competitively employed or in some other form of employment 

within 1 year of leaving high school. Data for this indicator will be collected directly from the 

States on an annual basis. The Department believes that this is a critical indicator for the 

program, since it is a reflection of the ultimate results of efforts to provide special education 

under the Grants to States program. The Department collected baseline data in fall 2011 and 

2012 and identified numerous data quality and collection issues across States. The Department 

is working with States to provide technical assistance to identify improvement activities to 

produce meaningful data on postsecondary outcomes. The Department will not report these 

data or establish a baseline until 2014 when the data are likely to be more reliable. 

Efficiency Measure

In 2012, the Department modified its accountability system to improve efficiencies and balance 

its focus on improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and 

compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. OSEP is

revising its efficiency measure and anticipates it being operational for the FY 2014 data 

collection. In the meantime, OSEP continues to meet its statutory monitoring responsibilities 

through the State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report process, fiscal monitoring, 

and its work with State dispute resolution systems.

Other Performance Information

IDEA National Assessment

Section 664 of the IDEA requires the Department to conduct a national assessment of activities 

carried out with Federal funds. To implement this requirement, funds requested for the Special 

Education Studies and Evaluation program in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) account 

are being used to conduct an independent evaluation of the program. As required by the IDEA, 

the IDEA National Assessment addresses the extent to which States, districts, and schools are 

implementing the IDEA programs and services to promote a free appropriate public education 

for children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment possible and in partnership with 

parents. The National Assessment will also address the effectiveness of the IDEA programs 

and services in promoting the developmental progress and academic achievement of children 

with disabilities. The National Assessment includes the following activities:

Analytic Support. A report published in January 2010, Patterns in the Identification of and 

Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities (Patterns) (see 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104005/index.asp), provided a synthesis of existing evidence and 

new analyses of extant data sources to address research questions for the IDEA National 

Assessment, targeting three topic areas: (1) identification of children for early intervention and 

special education, (2) declassification of children for early intervention and special education 

services, and (3) developmental and academic outcomes for children with disabilities. Among 

the data sources used for the study are the NAEP data from State academic assessments of 

children with disabilities, data submitted by States to the Department pursuant to section 618 of 

the IDEA, population counts by State and year from the NCES Common Core of Data and the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-36

National Vital Statistics System, and data gathered from four national longitudinal studies of 

children with disabilities (National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study, Pre-Elementary 

Education Longitudinal Study, Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study, and National 

Longitudinal Transition Study-2).

From 1997 to 2005, the percent of children aged 6 to 17 served under IDEA increased from 

12.3 to 12.9. The percentage varies by race/ethnicity, with a low of 6.3 percent for Asian 

children served under IDEA up to a high of 16.7 percent for black children. There is also 

variation by State, ranging from 9.9 percent up to 18.6 percent. From 1997 to 2005, the largest 

increases in disability types were autism, a 400 percent increase among children ages 10 to 17 

years, and developmental delay, almost a 2,000 percent increase among children ages 3 to 9 

years. The study cited research on declassification (Holt, McGrath, and Herring 2007) that 

showed almost 50 percent of children eligible in kindergarten were no longer eligible for services 

by third grade. Children with speech/language impairment are the most likely to be declassified 

within 2 years (34 percent). Declassified children had higher literacy and math outcomes than 

children who continued to receive services under IDEA.

The Patterns study confirms data presented above that children with disabilities are performing 

increasingly well on NAEP tests, but that they are still far behind their non-disabled peers. 

Children with disabilities also have a much larger range of performance on the NAEP exam than 

do children without disabilities. State assessment data point to a wide array of outcomes and 

standards for proficiency. In 4th grade math and reading, the percent of children with disabilities 

who scored proficient or above on a State’s assessment ranged from just less than 10 percent 

up to 80 percent. 

Implementation Study. The final report for the IDEA National Assessment Implementation 

Study was published in July 2011. This study collected data from State agencies and school 

districts to address implementation questions for the IDEA National Assessment in four broad 

areas targeted for this study: (1) services to young children with disabilities; (2) identification of 

children and youth with disabilities; (3) efforts to promote positive developmental and 

educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities; and (4) dispute resolution and 

mediation. Data collection included three surveys of State administrators: (1) IDEA Part B 

administrators responsible for programs providing special education services to school-aged 

children with disabilities ages 6-21; (2) IDEA Part B section 619 coordinators who oversee 

preschool programs for children with disabilities ages 3-5; and (3) IDEA Part C coordinators who 

are responsible for early intervention programs serving infants and toddlers. A fourth survey 

collected district level data from a nationally representative sample of local special education 

administrators about preschool and school-age programs for children with disabilities ages 3-21. 

The study specifically focused on implementation related to new or revised provisions from the 

2004 reauthorization of IDEA. One such provision, Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS), allows districts to use up to 15 percent of their Part B funds to provide services to 

children not yet identified as in need of special education. Three percent of districts are 

required to use CEIS due to significant disproportionality and 11 percent of districts are 

voluntarily implementing CEIS. Of the districts that implement CEIS, it is used at the elementary 

school level in 93 percent of districts and focuses on literacy instruction in 84 percent of districts. 

The study found that the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) is also widespread, and is being 

used in 71 percent of districts nationally. Similar to CEIS, RTI is most commonly used in 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-37

elementary schools and in reading/language arts. However, only 41 percent of districts reported 

using IDEA funds for RTI, while 80 percent of districts reported using their own general funds.

The study looked at qualifications and distribution of “highly qualified” special education 

personnel. Almost 90 percent of special education teachers meet their State’s definition of 

highly qualified, but States range from 56 percent to 100 percent. Districts reported difficultly 

finding qualified personnel for secondary schools, particularly those trained in math and working 

with students with emotional disturbances and with autism. The most common method districts 

use to increase the qualifications of their staff, implemented by 64 percent of all districts and 

76 percent of districts facing routine shortages of quality applicants, is to provide professional 

development. No other approach was used by more than 25 percent of districts.

Finally, the study found that dispute resolution events are very infrequent, with 23 or fewer 

events for every 10,000 students served between 2004 and 2008. The number of due process 

hearing requests over that time has been steady at about 21 requests per 10,000 students, but 

the frequency of due process hearings completed has decreased from 3.36 hearings per 10,000 

students in 2004 to 1.61 hearings in 2008.

Impact Evaluation of Response to Intervention Strategies. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a 

multi-step approach to providing early and more 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 "multi-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. The IDEA permits some Part B special education funds to be used for "early 

intervening services" such as RTI and also permits districts to use RTI to inform decisions 

regarding a child's eligibility for special education.

This RTI evaluation is employing a quasi-experimental design to examine the natural variations 

in elementary school reading instruction, intervention, and support in schools that may already 

be implementing RTI in 13 States, to address the following research questions:

• What are the effects on academic achievement of providing intensive secondary reading 

interventions to elementary school children who have been identified as at risk for reading 

difficulties compared with children just above the cut point for providing intervention? 

• How do academic outcomes, including reading achievement and special education 

identification, vary with elementary schools' adoption of Response to Intervention practices 

for early grade reading? 

• How do Response to Intervention practices for early grade reading vary across schools? 

Data collection on RTI implementation and on student outcomes including reading achievement 

and identification for special education occurred during the 2011-12 school year. Due to 

revisions in the evaluation design, the report for this study is scheduled for release in 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-38

Other Studies: The Department sponsored the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 

and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) to provide nationally representative 

information about secondary-school-age youth who were receiving special education services in 

1985 and 2000, respectively. Data collection consisted of telephone interviews or mail surveys 

with youth or the youth’s parents if the youth were not able to respond themselves. The 

National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), in a September 2010 report, 

Comparisons Across Time of the Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities up to 4 Years After High 

School, compared the changes in outcomes among youth in the NLTS and NLTS2 who had 

been out of high school for up to 4 years. The report focused on changes in rates of 

postsecondary education, employment, engagement in either postsecondary education or 

employment, household circumstances and community integration. Researchers also 

compared outcomes of youth with disabilities to the general population and across subgroups 

including disability category, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, high school completion 

status, and length of time since leaving high school.

According to the NCSER report, youth with disabilities were more likely to have enrolled in 

postsecondary education within 4 years of leaving high school in 2005 than in 1990. Almost half 

(46 percent) of all youth with disabilities had spent some time in postsecondary education in 

2005. The rate of youth with disabilities who were currently enrolled in postsecondary education 

and/or employed was 86 percent in 2005, a 21 percentage-point increase over 1990. This 

increase is likely attributable to an increase in youth who were concurrently enrolled in 

postsecondary education and employed, given that rates of engagement in only one of these 

activities did not change significantly over that period of time. The report also illustrated the 

increasingly important connection between high school completion and postsecondary 

outcomes, as high school completers had significant and positive changes between 1990 and 

2005 in a greater number of outcome measures than non-completers. Youth with disabilities 

from low-income households increased their postsecondary enrollment rate by 16 percentage 

points to 35 percent in 2005, but a significant enrollment gap remains between the highest and 

lowest income households. Similarly, in 2005, youth with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary 

education at a rate well below the general population, specifically, 46 percent compared to 

63 percent.

Impacts of School Improvement Status on Students with Disabilities. As part of the IDEA 

National Assessment, IES is studying changes in student outcomes after schools adopt 

programs focused on improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The focus of 

the study is on comparing outcomes for students with disabilities in elementary and middle 

schools identified for improvement with corresponding outcomes in schools not identified for 

improvement but still accountable for the performance of students with disabilities (SWD).

The evaluation relied on existing data and surveys of school principals in 2010 and 2011. Key 

outcomes for this study align with the outcomes identified in section 664 of the IDEA, which 

relate to: academic achievement (including reading and mathematics); participation in the 

general education curriculum; receipt of special education services; receipt of such services in 

the least restrictive appropriate environment; and grade transitions.

The Interim Report on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability 

Systems was released in May 2012. This report presented data on schools in 40 States. For 

these 40 States, 35 percent of public schools have a large enough population of SWD to be 

required to meet SWD subgroup accountability standards for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-39

Nine percent of all public schools in 37 States failed to make AYP in the 2008–09 school year 

because of SWD subgroup performance and other reasons, and 5 percent missed it solely 

because of SWD subgroup performance. Among schools with a large enough population of 

SWD to be required to meet the accountability standards for the duration of the study, 

44 percent were identified for school improvement. By comparison, 24 percent of schools with 

small SWD populations were identified for improvement. Due to data collection issues, the final 

report is now scheduled for release in 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-40

Preschool grants

State grants: Preschool grants

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, Section 619)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$353,238 $353,238 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Preschool Grants program provides formula grants to States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico to make available special education and related services for children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5. In order to be eligible for these grants, States must serve all 

eligible children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 and have an approved application under 

Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A State that does not make a 

free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to all children with disabilities aged 3 

through 5 cannot receive funds under this program or funds attributable to this age range under 

the Grants to States program. Currently, all States are making FAPE available to all children 

aged 3 through 5 with disabilities. 

At their discretion, States may include preschool-aged children who are experiencing 

developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic 

instruments and procedures, who need special education and related services. If consistent 

with State policy, State and local educational agencies also may use funds received under this 

program to provide FAPE to 2-year olds with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year. 

IDEA requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated 

with children who are not disabled and that removal of children with disabilities from the regular 

educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is 

such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot 

be achieved satisfactorily. However, States are not required to provide public preschool 

programs for the general population. For this reason, preschool-aged children with disabilities 

are served in a variety of settings, including public or private preschool programs, regular 

kindergarten, Head Start programs, and childcare facilities.

Funds are distributed to eligible entities through a formula based on general population and 

poverty. Under the formula, each State is first allocated an amount equal to its fiscal year 1997 

allocation. For any year in which the appropriation is greater than the prior year level, 

85 percent of the funds above the fiscal year 1997 level are distributed based on each State’s 

relative percentage of the total number of children aged 3 through 5 in the general population. 

The other 15 percent is distributed based on the relative percentage of children aged 3 

through 5 in each State who are living in poverty. The formula provides several floors and 

ceilings regarding the amount a State can receive in any year. No State can receive less than it 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-41

received in the prior year. In addition, every State must receive an increase equal to the higher 

of: (1) the percent the appropriation grew above the prior year, minus 1.5 percent, or, 

(2) 90 percent of the percentage increase above the prior year. The formula also provides for a 

minimum increase in State allocations of 1/3 of 1 percent of the increase in the appropriation 

over the base year and places a ceiling on how much the allocation to a State may increase, in 

that no State may be allocated an increase above the prior year greater than the percent of 

growth in the appropriation from the prior year plus 1.5 percent. These provisions help ensure 

that every State receives a part of any increase and that there is no radical shift in resources 

among the States. 

States must distribute the bulk of their grant awards to local educational agencies. They may 

retain funds for State-level activities up to an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount they 

received for fiscal year 1997 under the Preschool Grants program, adjusted upward each year 

by the lesser of the rate of increase in the State’s allocation or the rate of inflation. The amount 

that may be used for administration is limited to 20 percent of the amount available to a State for 

State-level activities. These funds may also be used for the administration of the Grants for 

Infants and Families program (Part C). State-level activities include: (1) support services, 

including establishing and implementing a mediation process, which may benefit children with 

disabilities younger than 3 or older than 5, as long as those services also benefit children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5; (2) direct services for children eligible under this program; 

(3) activities at the State and local level to meet the goals established by the State for the 

performance of children with disabilities in the State; and (4) supplements to other funds used to 

develop and implement a statewide coordinated services system designed to improve results for 

children and families, including children with disabilities and their families, but not to exceed 

1 percent of the amount received by the State under this program for a fiscal year. The State 

may also use its set-aside funds to provide early intervention services. These services must 

include an educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates preliteracy, 

language, and numeracy skills. In addition, they must be provided in accordance with the 

Grants for Infants and Families program to children who are eligible for services under the 

Preschool Grants program and who previously received services under Part C until such 

children enter or are eligible to enter kindergarten and, at a State’s discretion, to continue 

service coordination or case management for families who receive services under Part C. 

The number of children served under this program increased from 745,349 in fiscal year 2012 to 

749,971 in fiscal year 2013. The 2013 count is the fourth consecutive increase after steadily 

declining child counts since fiscal year 2007. Despite more children than ever receiving 

services under this program in fiscal year 2013, children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 still 

constitute a smaller percentage of the overall population aged 3 through 5 than every other 

year, except 2009, since fiscal year 2005. The recent reversal of the downward trend in the 

total number of children served makes it difficult to forecast the number of children being served 

in future fiscal years. In the absence of better information, the Department predicts that the 

number of children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 will remain at the 2013 level for fiscal years 

2014 and 2015.

This is a forward funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following 

year. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-42

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 ...................................................................................$374,099

2011 .....................................................................................373,351

2012 .....................................................................................372,646

2013 .....................................................................................353,238

2014 .....................................................................................353,238

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $353.2 million for the Preschool Grants program. The request 

would maintain funding for this program at the fiscal year 2014 level, and provide an average of 

$471 per child, the same amount as fiscal year 2014. These averages are based on the 

assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 5 who will be served will remain 

constant at the 2013 level of 749,971. The Administration believes this request provides an 

appropriate level of resources to support activities for young children with disabilities, given that 

these funds are paired with those available under the Grants to States program under IDEA, 

Part B. 

The Administration is requesting $11.6 billion for the Grants to States program for fiscal 

year 2015, which will provide an average of $1,758 per child. Funding under Preschool Grants 

supplements the funds provided to States under the Grants to States program, which serves 

children with disabilities aged 3 through 21, including all children served under the Preschool 

Grants program. 

The Administration believes high-quality early learning is critical to the future success of all 

children, including children with disabilities, and that improved coordination among State and 

Federal early learning programs will lead to improved services and results. Funding under the 

Preschool Grants program supports early learning programs that provide services needed to 

prepare young children with disabilities to enter school ready to learn. This program also 

supports the inclusion of young children with disabilities in State early learning programs and 

federally funded programs, such as Head Start and child care programs supported under the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Care and Development Block Grants 

(CCDBG). States frequently use the Preschool Grants program State-level set-aside funds to 

ensure that children with disabilities are included in State early learning programs and programs 

operated or supported by other Federal programs. 

The Administration is proposing to increase support for the Federal early learning investment by 

more than $1.3 billion in FY 2015 through the Preschool Development Grants and Preschool for 

All programs, funded in the School Readiness account. Preschool Development Grants provide 

competitive grants to States and local entities to support efforts to: 1) develop infrastructure to 

implement high-quality preschool programs, and 2) scale-up model programs in States with high 

capacity. This effort will improve the capacity of States to meet eligibility requirements for the 

Preschool for All program, which supports universal access to high-quality preschool services 

for children from low- and moderate-income families, including those with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-43

These new investments build upon the work of Part C grants for infants and toddlers as well as 

the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (ELC) to help ensure that children with 

disabilities receive a strong start in life. Since fiscal year 2011, the Department has awarded 

$1 billion in competitive RTT-ELC grants to 20 States for the development of a statewide 

infrastructure of integrated high-quality early learning supports and services for children from 

birth through age 5, with a focus on children with high needs, including those with disabilities. 

Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Incentive Grants

In fiscal year 2015, the Administration is proposing a $100 million increase in funding for the 

Special Education Grants to States program to support new competitive incentive grants for 

States. These 4-year grants will be used by States to identify and implement promising, 

evidence-based reforms that will improve service delivery for children with disabilities served 

under Parts B and C of IDEA while also building State and local capacity to continue to improve 

outcomes for those children in the long-term. States receiving incentive grants would have a 

demonstrated commitment to using results data in their IDEA-required LEA determinations, 

consistent with the Department’s Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) system, to support their 

efforts to implement evidence-based practices that have a demonstrated positive impact on 

results for children with disabilities. For more information on the RDA Incentive Grant proposal, 

refer to the Special Education Grants to States section in this chapter.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Measures 2013 2014 footnote2015 footnote

Children Served 1 749,971 749,971 2 749,971 2

Share per child (whole dollars) $471 $471 2 $471 2

_________________

1 States may, at their discretion, provide Free and Appropriate Public Education to 2-year olds who will turn 3 

during the school year. However, the figures for the number of children served do not include children served by the 

States who are 2 years old at the time of the count, but will turn 3 during the school year. 2 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2013.

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

1977 197 $12,500 $64

1978 201 15,000 81

1979 215 17,500 81

1980 232 25,000 108

1981 237 25,000 105

1982 228 24,000 105

1983 242 25,000 103

1984 243 26,330 108
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-44

History of Children Served and Program Funding - Continued

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

1985 260 $29,000 $112

1986 261 28,710 110

1987 266 180,000 677 1

1988 288 201,054 698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 798 2

1992 398 320,000 804

1993 441 325,773 739

1994 479 339,257 709

1995 522 360,265 689

1996 549 360,409 656

1997 562 360,409 642

1998 572 373,985 654

1999 575 373,985 651

2000 589 390,000 662

2001 599 390,000 652

2002 617 390,000 632

2003 647 387,465 599

2004 680 387,699 571

2005 702 384,597 548

2006 704 380,751 546

2007 714 380,751 533

2008 710 374,099 527

2009 709 774,099 3 1,092 3

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 4 373,351 508

2012 745 4 372,646 500

2013 750 4 353,238 471

2014 750 4 5 353,238 5 471 5

2015 750 4 5 353,238 5 471 5

_________________

1

 The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 changed the Preschool Grants program from a 

grant program, that provided an incentive for States to serve children with disabilities aged 3 through 5, to a formula 

grant program. Funding was increased to support the change in statutory authority. 2 Beginning in fiscal year 1991, the IDEA required that services be made available to all eligible children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5 as a condition for receiving funding for children in this age range under the Grants to 

States program. 3

 These figures include funds provided under the Recovery Act in FY 2009. 4

 Beginning in fiscal year 2011, this table reports the number of children served by the 50 States, District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Prior fiscal years also include the number of children served in the Outlying Areas, 

Freely Associated States, and the Bureau of Indian Education, which do not receive Preschool Grant awards. 5 Estimates.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-45

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To help preschool children with disabilities enter school ready to succeed by 

assisting States in providing special education and related services.

Objective: Preschool children with disabilities will receive special education and related 

services that result in increased skills that enable them to succeed in school. 

Three of the performance measures for the Preschool Grants program look at the percentage 

increase in growth by preschool children with disabilities in specific areas — positive socialemotional skills (including social relationships), acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and 

use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs — as measured from the point of time on 

entering a program to the time the child exits the program. 

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in

positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) who substantially increased their 

rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 80%

2011 80% 79

2012 81 79

2013 82

2014 83

2015 84
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-46

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in

acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early 

literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 77%

2011 80% 79

2012 81 80

2013 82

2014 83

2015 84

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in the

use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs who substantially increased their rate of 

growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 77%

2011 80% 78

2012 81 77

2013 82

2014 83

2015 84

Additional information: Through their Annual Performance Reports (APRs), States report on 

the cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development of children with disabilities served 

through the Preschool Grants program. The Department, with the assistance of its grantee, the 

Early Childhood Outcomes Center, uses these data to assess outcomes for children served 

through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for preschool aged 

children, is a complicated endeavor that requires a significant investment of time and technical 

assistance at both the Federal and State levels to ensure that the data collected are valid, 

reliable, and meaningful.

The Department has been deliberate in developing these measures due to the challenges of 

assessing program performance based on growth in early childhood outcomes, especially for 

children with disabilities. In 2005, States began developing systems for collecting entry and exit 

data on children with disabilities who receive services through the preschool program and 

remain in the program for at least 6 months. The Department has made substantial investments 

in technical assistance to States to improve data quality concerns since 2010 when all States 

were required to report complete entry and exit data for a full cohort of children with disabilities 

aged 3 through 5 for the first time.

The quality of the data States reported in their APRs since February 2011 has demonstrated 

marked improvement, and the sample of States with the highest quality data increased from 36 

to 39 out of 59 States and jurisdictions in the last year. To help determine an appropriate 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-47

baseline for these three measures, a weighted data set was derived from these 39 States, 

excluding from the percentage calculation all States that had high proportions of missing data, 

anomalous outcomes, or were known to have other data quality or collection issues. The 

weighted data showed that, of this smaller sample of States, more than 81 percent of 

preschoolers substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program in 

each measure category: 81 percent in the acquisition and use of knowledge, 80 percent in 

positive social-emotional skills, and 81 percent in the use of appropriate behavior. These 

results represent a slight decrease from the 2012 school year and do not meet the targets set 

for each category; however, this decrease may be attributed to a larger sample and increased 

reporting. The targets for these measures were set based, in part, on the outcomes of this 

sample of States with higher quality data. As States have improved their data collection, the 

number of children served by this program for whom outcome data are reported has increased 

substantially each year. Since outcomes have generally improved as data are reported for 

more children and States are better able to target program improvement, the Department is 

optimistic that, within the next few years, the national data will demonstrate that the children 

served by the program are improving at levels similar to the children in States with the best data 

quality.

States are engaged in implementing quality control systems to identify and improve the 

accuracy of local data, and have indicated that they believe the data will be useful in their 

program improvement efforts. The Department acknowledges that some data quality issues still 

exist, particularly with regards to missing data. The extent of missing data is difficult to 

determine precisely because States do not report on the number of children exiting the 

program. Furthermore, States may be unable to collect exit data for all children (e.g., due to a 

move to another State, withdrawal from the program without prior notice, or death). Through its 

technical assistance investments, the Department continues to work with the States to resolve 

implementation issues, improve the validity and reliability of reported data, and use these data 

to inform program improvements.

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilities (aged 3 through 5) who receive special

education and related services in a regular early learning program at least 80 percent of the 

time.

Additional information: Actual performance in fiscal year 2010, the most recent year for which 

data are available, increased slightly from 51 percent in fiscal year 2009, and exceeded the 

target for this measure for the third year in a row. This measure replaced a previous measure 

on the extent to which children with disabilities receive their special education services in 

regular education settings. The earlier measure did not provide any information on where the 

child spends the bulk of his or her day and the extent to which the child has opportunities to 

interact with nondisabled peers. 

States began using a revised data collection between October 1 and December 1, 2006, 

inclusive. These data were reported and are reflected in the fiscal year 2007 data. Under the 

revised data collection, States must report children under one of two categories. Category A 

includes children attending a regular early learning program, which is defined as a program in 

which at least 50 percent of the children are not disabled. The category has three reporting 

subsets based on the amount of time the child spends in the regular early learning setting: 

(1) at least 80 percent, (2) 40 percent to 79 percent, or (3) less than 40 percent. Category B 

covers children who are not attending a regular early learning program or kindergarten and has 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-48

two reporting options: (1) attending a special education program or (2) not attending a special 

education program (e.g., getting services in the home or a provider’s office). 

In July 2007, the Department published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on a 

proposal to add another reporting category that would disaggregate the data so as to show 

children in programs in which 70 percent or more of the children are not disabled. SEAs and 

other interested parties submitted extensive comments regarding the proposal and the general 

validity and reliability of this measure. States reported that they had a great deal of difficulty 

implementing the new system because they must collect information on where children with 

disabilities spend their day, not just where they receive special education and related services. 

The Department reviewed these comments and revised the data collection forms. One change 

was to eliminate the need for parents to provide information on the percentage of children with 

disabilities in settings where the parent has enrolled or placed the child when the child is not in 

special education. We further simplified the collection and reduced the reporting burden by 

removing the requirement to report the proportion of time that a child spends each week in a 

regular early learning classroom. The revised form only requires the parent to indicate whether 

the child’s usual daily routine includes attending a regular early learning program and, if yes, if it 

is less than or more than 10 hours a week. The revised data collection is designed to obtain 

information on where children receive the majority of their special education services. The first 

collection of preschool settings data using the new form was the 2010-11 school year, with the 

first data reported in the Annual Performance Reports in February 2013. The Department will 

use this data to refine the measure, improve data quality and reporting, and set performance 

targets. The Department will develop a baseline when additional data are reported in 2014. 

The Department is using technical assistance providers such as the National Technical 

Assistance Center to Improve State Data Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data, 

the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, and the Regional Resource Centers 

to assist States in collecting the preschool educational environments data, and is providing 

additional technical assistance through mechanisms such as presentations at the annual State 

data managers’ conference and other meetings and the provision of “Frequently Asked 

Questions” documents and a data dictionary (http://www.ideadata.org/docs/bdatadictionary.pdf).

Measure: The number of States with at least 90 percent of special education teachers of 

children with disabilities aged 3 to 5 who are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching.

Year Target Actual

2010 40 43

2011 41 45

2012 41 44

2013 42

2014 45

2015 46

Additional information: The Department exceeded its target for fiscal years 2010 through

2012, with 2012 being the most recent year for which data are available. As of 2007, 10

additional States have met the 90 percent requirement ensuring their special education teachers 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-49

are fully certified in the areas in which they are teaching. This measure includes the 50 States, 

D.C., Puerto Rico, the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian Education. 

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has made a number of investments 

designed to assist States in preparing a sufficient number of qualified preschool special 

education personnel. In 2012, the Department established an Early Childhood Personnel 

Center to improve professional development for personnel working with children with disabilities 

birth through age 5 and their families. This Center helps to address State-identified needs for 

highly qualified personnel in special education, related services, early intervention, and regular 

education to work with infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and ensure that those 

personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been 

determined through scientifically-based research and experience, to be successful in serving 

those children.

The Department also created the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems in 2012. This center provides technical assistance on 

developing and expanding statewide, longitudinal data systems that incorporate data required 

under Sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The center works intensively with 10-12 States in four 

main areas of data collection: defining data elements, acquiring data, validating data, and using 

data to examine validity and program improvement. The center also coordinates with other 

Department initiatives related to data systems and early learning, including Race To the Top –

Early Learning Challenge Fund and the Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grant Program.

Efficiency Measure

The Department collects data for this measure through its program monitoring files. The 

Department reduced the number of days to issue responses in 2009 and further reduced the 

number of days in 2010, far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its reporting format to 

remove extraneous descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. This ensures that 

the written responses are issued in a reasonable period of time and are meaningful to the 

public. The Department is currently in the process of modifying its accountability system, 

including the onsite visit component, in order to increase efficiency and balance our focus on 

improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and compliance with the requirements 

of the IDEA. Due to these changes, the Department is unable to report data for 2011 and 

2012. We anticipate having the onsite visit component of the new accountability system fully 

developed and operational for fiscal year 2014. In the meantime, OSEP continues to meet its 

statutory monitoring responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, 

fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute resolution systems.

Other Performance Information

Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS): The PEELS study involves a nationally 

representative sample of children, 3 to 5 years of age when they entered the study, with diverse 

disabilities who are receiving preschool special education services in a variety of settings. The 

study will answer questions such as: 

• What are the characteristics of children receiving preschool special education? 

• What services do they receive and in what settings? Who provides these services?
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-50

• What child, family, community, and system factors are associated with the services 

children receive and the results they attain? 

• What are their transitions like between early intervention (programs for children from 

birth to 3 years old) and preschool, and between preschool and elementary school? 

• To what extent do the children participate in activities with other children their age who 

are not receiving preschool special education services? To what extent are preschool 

special education graduates included in general elementary education classes and 

related activities? 

• What short- and long-term results do children achieve in preschool, kindergarten, and 

early elementary school? 

In October 2010, the National Center for Special Education Research released the report, 

“Access to Educational and Community Activities for Young Children with Disabilities.” As 

reported in parent interviews, participation in community activities such as sports, organized 

clubs, art, and music varied significantly by type of disability and by household income. 

Children from households with annual incomes greater than $40,000 participated in sports with 

greater frequency than children from households with lower incomes. Children of parents who 

perceived their neighborhood to be unsafe or who reported that their transportation did not meet 

their families’ needs were significantly less likely to participate in extracurricular activities. 

Parents also reported on educational settings, and 69 percent said they sent their children to full 

day kindergarten. Children from high wealth districts and those from suburban settings were 

less likely to attend full-day kindergarten than their peers.

In a survey of kindergarten teachers, 73 percent of teachers reported that the regular education 

classroom was the main setting for children receiving special education services. This inclusion 

rate was significantly higher in very large districts (91 percent) than districts of other sizes, and 

significantly higher in rural districts (86 percent) than in suburban or urban districts. Children in 

very low wealth districts were less likely to have regular classrooms as their main setting 

(59 percent) compared to all other districts. On average, children spent 17.1 hours per week in 

regular classrooms and 7.1 hours in special education settings. 

Teachers also reported on modifications and accommodations provided to children with 

disabilities. Overall, teachers reported using unmodified grade-level materials in 44 percent of 

cases, while 14 percent of children received specialized materials or curricula. There was no 

significant variation in these data across district size or wealth. The study also found that 

children who received special education services in a regular classroom were in classrooms in 

which, on average, 82 percent of students were nondisabled (http://www.peels.org).

In August 2011, the latest report from this study was released, “A Longitudinal View of the 

Receptive Vocabulary and Math Achievement of Young Children with Disabilities.” This report 

was designed to address two PEELS specific research questions: 

• How do children who received preschool special education services perform over time 

on assessments of receptive vocabulary and math skills?
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-51

• How does their receptive vocabulary and math performance vary over time by primary 

disability category?

Children who received preschool special education services showed growth each year in 

vocabulary and mathematics; however, growth slowed in both math and vocabulary as they got 

older. Children’s performance varied across assessments and across subgroups defined by 

disability. At age 3, children with a speech or language impairment had higher average scores 

than those with developmental delays. At age 10, the gap between these subgroups persisted, 

and there were no statistically significant differences in growth rates between subgroups. 

Other Studies: The Department also is investing in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 

program through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This program involves 

two complementary cohort studies, a Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) and a Kindergarten Cohort 

(ECLS-K), that focus on children's early school experiences. The ECLS-K has followed the 

kindergarten class of 1998-99 through eighth grade. The ECLS-K provides descriptive 

information on children's status at entry to school and their transition into school, and their 

progression through middle school. The ECLS-B is designed to follow children from 9 months 

through kindergarten. It focuses on health, development, early care, and education during the 

formative years of children born in 2001. These studies also are providing some data on 

outcomes experienced by children with disabilities participating in preschool programs and

baseline data on outcomes experienced by nondisabled children. 

OSEP, and subsequently the National Center on Special Education Research, have sponsored 

a special education questionnaire for teachers in the ECLS-K Study and the collection of more 

extensive data on children with disabilities and their programs, including the identification of, 

receipt of services for, and use of special equipment for a number of disabling conditions that 

may interfere with a sampled child’s ability to learn. The children in the ECLS-K cohort were 5 

years of age in school year 2006-07, when the first kindergarten data collection was conducted. 

During this collection, the majority of the children in the cohort were age-eligible for 

kindergarten, although all sample children were evaluated, regardless of kindergarten 

enrollment status. Since about a quarter of the cohort were not age-eligible for kindergarten 

until fall 2007, a second kindergarten data collection was fielded in 2007 to measure the 

kindergarten experiences of these children. The ECLS-K followed children through the cohort’s 

eighth grade year in school year 2008-09. The final data for the 8th and final year of data 

collection was released in July 2009. A new study, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 

Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) replaces the ECLS-K and will be an ongoing 

study sponsored by NCES. The ECLS-K: 2011 will provide descriptive information on children's 

status at entry to school, their transition into school, and their progression through the 

elementary grades.

Data from ECLS-K on demographic and school characteristics indicate that for the cohort of 

students beginning kindergarten in 1998, specific learning disabilities and speech or language 

impairments were the most prevalent primary disabilities over the grades studied. The 

percentage of the student cohort receiving special education grew from 4.1 percent in 

kindergarten to 11.9 percent of students in fifth grade. The results also indicate that higher 

percentages of boys than girls and of poor students than nonpoor students received special 

education. About 12 percent of students receive special education in at least one of the grades: 

kindergarten, first, and third grade, including 16 percent of boys, 8 percent of girls, 18 percent of 

poor children, and 10 percent of nonpoor children. One in three students who receive special 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-52

education in early grades, first receive special education in kindergarten. Half of those who 

begin special education in kindergarten are no longer receiving special education by third grade. 

In addition to students’ gender and poverty status, results are presented separately for other 

student and school characteristics, including race/ethnicity and school control, urbanicity, 

region, and poverty concentration.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-53

Grant s for infants and f amilies

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$438,498 $441,825 +$3,327 _________________

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2015 

through appropriations language. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Grants for Infants and Families program (Part C) awards formula grants to the 50 States, 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Secretary of the Interior, and Outlying Areas to assist them in 

implementing statewide systems of coordinated, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, interagency 

programs and making early intervention services available to children with disabilities, aged 

birth through 2, and their families. Under the program, States are responsible for ensuring that 

appropriate early intervention services are made available to all eligible birth-through-2-yearolds with disabilities and their families, including Indian children and families who reside on 

reservations geographically located in the State. Infants and toddlers with disabilities are 

defined as children who: (1) are experiencing developmental delays, as measured by 

appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following five areas: 

cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional 

development, or adaptive development; or (2) have a diagnosed physical or mental condition 

that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay. Within statutory limits, 

"developmental delay" has the meaning given the term by each State. In addition, States have 

the discretion to provide services to infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial 

developmental delays if they do not receive appropriate early intervention services. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) gives States the discretion to extend 

eligibility for Part C services to children with disabilities who are eligible for services under 

section 619 and who previously received services under Part C, until such children enter or are 

eligible under State law to enter kindergarten or elementary school, as appropriate. The Act 

further stipulates that any Part C programs serving children aged 3 or older must provide an 

educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates preliteracy, language, 

and numeracy skills and provide a written notification to parents of their rights regarding the 

continuation of services under Part C and eligibility for services under section 619. In fiscal year 

2009, two States (New Mexico and Maryland) elected to make Part C services available to 

children with disabilities beyond their third birthday and continued to do so in 2010, 2011, and 

2012. No additional States elected to implement this option in fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-54

In any fiscal year in which the appropriation for Part C exceeds $460 million, the statute also 

includes authority for the Secretary to reserve 15 percent of the amount above $460 million for a 

State Incentive Grants program. The purpose of this program is to provide funding to assist 

States that have elected to extend eligibility for Part C services to children with disabilities aged 

3 years until entrance into kindergarten or elementary school, or for a portion of this period. No 

State can receive more than 20 percent of the amount available for State Incentive Grants in a 

fiscal year. In fiscal year 2009, due to the addition of funds from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, the total of funds appropriated for Part C exceeded the $460 million level. 

The States that opted to extend their provision of Part C services beyond age 3 received 

additional funds through this program, and had until September 30, 2011, to expend these 

funds. The appropriation for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 did not exceed $460 million, so the 

Department did not have authority to award State Incentive Grants in any of these fiscal years. 

The statewide system also must comply with 17 statutory requirements, including having a lead 

agency designated with the responsibility for the coordination and administration of funds and a 

State Interagency Coordinating Council to advise and assist the lead agency. One of the 

purposes of the Part C program is to assist States to coordinate payment for early intervention 

services from Federal, State, local, and private sources, including public and private insurance 

coverage. These include Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 

Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, and Early Head Start.

Funds allocated under this program can be used to: (1) maintain and implement the statewide 

system described above; (2) fund direct early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families that are not otherwise provided by other public or private sources; 

(3) expand and improve services that are otherwise available; (4) provide a free appropriate 

public education, in accordance with Part B of the IDEA, to children with disabilities from their 

third birthday to the beginning of the following school year; (5) continue to provide early 

intervention services to children with disabilities from their third birthday until such children enter 

or are eligible to enter kindergarten or elementary school; and (6) initiate, expand, or improve 

collaborative efforts related to identifying, evaluating, referring, and following up on at-risk 

infants and toddlers in States that do not provide direct services for these children. 

The IDEA requires that early intervention services be provided, to the maximum extent 

appropriate, in natural environments. These services can be provided in another setting only 

when early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural 

environment. The natural environment includes the home and community settings where 

children would be participating if they did not have a disability. Each child’s individualized family 

service plan (IFSP) must contain a statement of the natural environments in which early 

intervention services will be provided, including a justification of the extent, if any, to which the 

services will not be provided in a natural environment.

Allocations are based on the number of children in the general population aged birth through 

2 years in each State. The Department of Education uses data provided by the United States 

Census Bureau in making this calculation. No State can receive less than 0.5 percent of the 

funds available to all States, or $500,000, whichever is greater. The Outlying Areas may 

receive not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated. The Secretary of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Education, receives 1.25 percent of the aggregate of the amount available to 

all States. Interior must pass through all the funds it receives to Indian tribes, tribal 

organizations, or consortia for the coordination of early intervention services on reservations 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-55

with Interior schools. Tribes and tribal organizations can use the funds they receive to provide 

(1) help to States in identifying Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities, (2) parent training, 

and (3) early intervention services. 

This is a forward funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following 

year. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnot

e

2010........................................................ ........................ $439,427

2011........................................................ .......................... 438,548

2012........................................................ .......................... 442,710

2013........................................................ .......................... 419,653

2014........................................................ .......................... 438,498

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $441.8 million for the Part C program for fiscal year 2015, an 

increase of $3.3 million from the fiscal year 2014 level. The requested amount would provide 

support to increase access to high-quality early childhood programs for children with disabilities. 

Funds requested for the Part C program would be used to support early intervention programs 

that provide services designed to lessen the needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities for 

future or more extensive services and to ensure that very young children with disabilities receive 

the supports and services they need to prepare them to participate in a meaningful manner 

when they are ready to enter formal education. 

The Administration expects that the requested amount also would help States enhance their 

systems for identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities and determining appropriate 

services, and facilitate better coordination with other programs serving young children. 

Department’s Early Learning Agenda

The Administration is proposing to increase support for the Federal early learning investment by 

more than $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2015 through the Preschool Development Grants and 

Preschool for All programs, funded in the School Readiness account. Preschool Development 

Grants provide competitive grants to States and local entities to support efforts to: 1) develop 

infrastructure to implement high-quality preschool programs, and 2) scale-up model programs in 

States with high capacity. This effort will improve the capacity of States to meet eligibility 

requirements for the Preschool for All program, which supports universal access to high-quality 

preschool services for children from low- and moderate-income families, including those with 

disabilities.

These new investments build upon the work of Part C grants for infants and toddlers as well as 

the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (ELC) to help ensure that children with 

disabilities receive a strong start in life. Since fiscal year 2011, the Department has awarded 

$1 billion in competitive RTT-ELC grants to 20 States for the development of a statewide 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-56

infrastructure of integrated high-quality early learning supports and services for children from 

birth through age 5, with a focus on children with high needs, including those with disabilities. 

States are able to use their Part C program funds to support improved coordination between 

State lead agencies and early learning programs, including those participating in RTT-ELC grant 

projects, to help ensure that the needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities are addressed 

appropriately through these programs.

Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Incentive Grants

In fiscal year 2015, the Administration is proposing a $100 million increase in funding for the 

Special Education Grants to States program to support new competitive incentive grants for 

States. These 4-year grants will be used by States to identify and implement promising, 

evidence-based reforms that will improve service delivery for children with disabilities served 

under Parts B and C of IDEA while also building State and local capacity to continue to improve 

outcomes for those children in the long-term. States receiving incentive grants would have a 

demonstrated commitment to using results data in their IDEA-required local educational agency

determinations, consistent with the Department’s Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) system, 

to support their efforts to implement evidence-based practices that have a demonstrated 

positive impact on results for children with disabilities. For more information on the RDA 

Incentive Grant proposal, refer to the Special Education Grants to States section in this chapter.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Range in size of awards to States:

Smallest State regular Part C award 1 2 $2,056 $2,149 $2,164

Average State regular Part C award 1 $7,979 $8,343 $8,405

Largest State regular Part C award 1 $49,791 $53,044 $53,436

Children served 3 333,982 340,000 340,000

________________________ 1 The calculations for smallest, average, and largest awards do not include the Outlying Areas or the Department 

of the Interior. 2 IDEA, section 643(c)(2) provides for a minimum allocation to States of the greater of $500,000 or 1⁄2 of 

1 percent of the amount available to States after the reservations for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian 

Education are excluded. 3 Estimates.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-57

year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To enhance the development of infants and toddlers (birth to three) with 

disabilities and support families in meeting the special needs of their child.

Objective: The functional development of infants and toddlers will be enhanced by early 

intervention services.

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) who substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 71%

2011 65% 68

2012 67 66

2013 69

2014 69

2015 70

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 

language/communication and early literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by 

the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 74%

2011 69% 73

2012 71 72

2013 73

2014 73

2015 75
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-58

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in the use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs who substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2010 76%

2011 69% 73

2012 71 73

2013 73

2014 73

2015 75

Additional information: Through their Annual Performance Reports (APRs), States report on 

the cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development of children with disabilities served 

through the Part C program. The Department, with the assistance of its grantee, the Early 

Childhood Outcomes Center, uses these data to assess outcomes for children served through 

this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for infants and toddlers, is a 

complicated endeavor that requires a significant investment of time and technical assistance at 

both the Federal and State levels to ensure that the data collected are valid, reliable, and 

meaningful. The Department has been deliberate in developing this measure due to the 

challenges of assessing program performance based on growth in early childhood outcomes, 

especially for children with disabilities. In 2005, States began developing systems for collecting 

entry and exit data on children with disabilities who receive services through the Part C program 

and remain in the program for at least 6 months. While 3 States have received approval from 

the Department to collect data for a representative sample of the children they serve through the 

Part C program, all other States are responsible for reporting data on all children served. The 

APRs submitted by States in February 2010 included the first opportunity for States to have a 

set of complete entry and exit data for a full cohort of infants and toddlers, but the Department 

did not publish these data because a large number of States had high percentages of missing 

data or other data quality concerns. 

However, the quality of the data States reported in their APRs in February of 2011, 2012, and 

2013 (providing data on program years 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively) demonstrated 

marked improvement. In the APRs submitted in 2010, only 19 States provided high quality 

data, meaning that they did not have high proportions of missing data, anomalous outcomes, 

nor were known to have other data quality or collection issues. In the APRs submitted in 2011, 

29 States provided high quality data, increasing to 39 in 2012. However, APRs submitted in 

February 2013 (for program year 2012) showed only 33 States with high quality data. The 

Department believes that the reduction in the number of States providing high quality data in 

2013 is a result of program decisions to shift data collection approaches at the State level. 

While this reduced the number of States producing high quality data in the short term, the 

Department believes that the new approaches, in conjunction with broader State efforts to 

address data quality issues, will result in better information moving forward. Furthermore, it is 

important to note that there has been a trend across all years of this data collection that States 

with the highest quality data also demonstrated the best results. Prior year data in the charts 

above have been revised to accurately reflect data from all States.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-59

States have indicated that they believe data on these measures will be useful in their program 

improvement efforts. States are engaged in implementing quality control systems to identify 

and improve the accuracy of local data. The Department acknowledges that some data quality 

issues persist, particularly concerning missing data. In some instances, States may be unable 

to collect exit data for all children (e.g., due to a move to another State, withdrawal from the 

program without prior notice, or death). Through its technical assistance investments, the 

Department continues to work with the States to resolve implementation issues, improve the 

validity and reliability of reported data, and use these data to inform program improvements.

Results for program year 2012 across two of the three outcomes declined from 2011 and 2010, 

though 22 States showed improvements for infants and toddlers in positive social-emotional 

skills from 2010, 24 States in acquisition of knowledge and skills, and 24 States in appropriate 

behaviors. At this time, it is difficult to determine trends with such a small number of data points 

and changes in the quality of data being submitted by States. As data quality continues to 

improve, results reported on this measure will converge with actual performance in the field. 

However, at this time, it is not possible to accurately determine whether actual performance is 

above, below, or equal to the results presented above.

Objective: All infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families will receive early 

intervention services in natural environments that meet their individual needs.

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 1 percent of infants in the general 

population under age 1 through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2010 27 25

2011 27 26 

2012 27 28

2013 27

2014 28

2015 28

Additional information: For a number of years, only 24 or 25 States have served at least 

1 percent of infants in the general population under the age of 1. The program made progress 

in 2012 and exceeded its target. The 1 percent threshold for this measure is based on data 

collected by the U.S. Census bureau on prevalence rates for 5 conditions: 0.4 percent - severe 

mental retardation1

; 0.2 percent - hearing impairment; 0.1 percent - visual impairment; 0.2 

percent - physical conditions (spina bifida, cerebral palsy, etc.); and 0.1 percent - autism. State 

lead agencies responsible for the implementation of these programs report data annually to the 

Department through their APRs on numbers of infants and toddlers with disabilities served 

under the Grants for Infants and Families program. Through its monitoring and technical 

assistance efforts, the Department is working with States to ensure that they are appropriately 

identifying and serving all eligible infants with disabilities and expects the number of States 

serving at least 1 percent of infants in the general population under age 1 to increase further as 

a result.

 1 Consistent with P.L. 111-256, the Department uses the term “intellectual disabilities” instead of “mental 

retardation,” but we have retained the term here to permit verification of the data that were used to set the threshold. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-60

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the 

general population, birth through age 2, through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2010 31 37

2011 32 42

2012 32 44

2013 42

2014 45

2015 45

Additional information: The State lead agencies responsible for the implementation of these 

programs report data on the numbers of infants and toddlers with disabilities served under the 

Grants for Infants and Families program annually to the Department through their APRs. The 

Department sets the 2-percent threshold for this measure using data from the U.S. Census 

bureau on the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities in the general population. 

Through its monitoring and technical assistance efforts, the Department helps States enhance 

their child find systems to ensure that they are appropriately identifying and serving eligible 

toddlers with disabilities. The Department believes that these efforts are partially responsible for 

the improved performance of States under this measure and has set higher targets for 2013 

through 2015 to reflect the actual performance for the past 3 years.

Measure: The percentage of children receiving age-appropriate early intervention services in 

the home or in programs designed for typically developing peers. 

Year Target Actual

2010 87% 94%

2011 93 94

2012 93 95

2013 94

2014 95

2015 95

Additional information: State lead agencies report annually to the Department on the settings 

in which children receive services provided under the Part C program. In 2001, States reported 

that only 76 percent of children receiving early intervention services through the Part C program 

were served in the home or in programs designed for typically developing peers, so 

performance on this indicator has improved dramatically in the past 11 years (by 19 percentage 

points). To assist States to continue to improve their performance in this area, the Department 

provides technical assistance and disseminates information on effective home visits and other 

practices related to providing services in natural settings. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-61

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of 

Special Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2010 79 60

2011 79

2012 79

2013 75

2014 75

2015 70

Additional information: The Department collects data for this measure through its program 

monitoring files. The Department reduced the number of days to issue responses in 2009 and 

further reduced the number of days in 2010, far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its

reporting format to remove extraneous descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. 

This ensures that the written responses are issued in a reasonable period of time and are 

meaningful to the public. The Department is currently in the process of modifying its 

accountability system, including the onsite visit component, in order to increase efficiency and 

balance our focus on improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and compliance 

with the requirements of the IDEA. Due to these changes, the Department is unable to report 

data for 2011 and 2012. We anticipate having the onsite visit component of the new 

accountability system fully developed and operational for fiscal year 2014. In the meantime, 

OSEP continues to meet its statutory monitoring responsibilities through the State Performance 

Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute resolution systems.

Other Performance Information

Through the “Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Birth Cohort” (ECLS-B), the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) collected longitudinal data on a nationally representative sample 

of 14,000 children from their birth in 2001 through their entry into kindergarten. Approximately 

75 percent of the sample entered kindergarten in fall 2006, with the remaining 25 percent 

entering in the following year. The ECLS-B study provides data on the early development of 

these children, their preparation for school, and key transitions experienced by these children 

during the early childhood years. The study includes detailed data on the physical, cognitive, 

social, and emotional development of these children. 

Analyses of the data collected through this study have provided important demographic 

information on infants and toddlers with disabilities. For example, the ECLS-B data collection 

over-sampled moderately low and very low birth weight children because low birth weight was 

believed to be associated with developmental issues, including a variety of disabilities. This 

relationship was confirmed by the study. The Department anticipates that further analyses 

associated with the study may provide additional information about children’s health and 

development that is relevant to children with disabilities. More information on this study is 

available on the NCES Web site at: http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/birth.asp.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-62

In July 2011, IES published the final report for the “IDEA National Assessment Implementation 

Study.” The report from the congressionally mandated study provides a national picture of State 

agency implementation of early intervention programs for infants and toddlers under Part C of 

IDEA, and both State and school district implementation of special education programs for 

preschool- and school-age children under Part B of IDEA. 

The study was based on surveys of State agency directors and a nationally representative 

sample of district special education directors conducted in 2009. The key findings relating to the 

Part C program include:

• Referral and identification—The most common outreach activity reported by States was the 

development and/or dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health 

care providers, followed by Web-based dissemination and outreach to child care providers. 

States reported family members and primary healthcare providers as the most frequent 

sources of referral to the Part C program. 

• Coordination and transition between IDEA programs—At the time the surveys were 

conducted, States reported supporting the transition of young children with disabilities from 

the Part C program to preschool services under section 619 of Part B, but no States 

reported expanding Part C services to serve eligible children with disabilities until they enter 

kindergarten. 46 States reported having different coordinators for the Part C and Preschool 

programs, but 67 percent of Part C coordinators reported meeting at least monthly with the 

coordinator for the Preschool program.

• Financing—For the 37 States that provided this information, the average percentage of early 

intervention services funding that came from the Part C program in FY 2009 was 21 percent. 

23 States indicated that State early intervention services funding represented the largest 

source of funding for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities. 

The largest sources of funding in other States were: Part C (8 States), Medicaid/Title XIX 

(8 States), local municipality or county funds (4 States), and Part B (1 State).

The final report for the “IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study” is available on the 

IES Web site at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-63

State person nel d evelop ment

National activities: State personnel development

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$41,630 $41,630 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding for this program is proposed in 

FY 2015 through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program provides grants to assist State educational 

agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and 

professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition 

services to improve results for children with disabilities. 

The SPD program focuses on professional development needs. Each State must spend at least 

90 percent of its funds on professional development activities, including the recruitment and 

retention of highly qualified special education teachers. No more than 10 percent of the State’s 

funds can be spent on State activities, such as reforming special education and regular 

education teacher certification (including recertification) or licensing requirements and carrying 

out programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for State certification of 

special education teachers. 

Awards are based on State personnel development plans that identify and address State and 

local needs for the preparation and professional development of personnel who serve infants, 

toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, as well as individuals who provide direct 

supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities. Plans must be designed to enable 

the State to meet the personnel requirements in Parts B and C (section 612(a)(14) and section 

635(a)(8) and (9)) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These plans must 

also be integrated and aligned, to the maximum extent possible, with State plans and activities 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, and the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Grants are made on a competitive basis for any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated is 

less than $100 million. However, if the amount appropriated is $100 million or greater, funds 

would be distributed as formula grants, with allotments based on the relative portion of the funds 

the State received under Part B of IDEA. Competitive awards are made for periods of 1 to 5 

years with minimum awards to States of not less than $500,000 and not less than $80,000 for 

Outlying Areas. The maximum award that can be made to States is $4 million per fiscal year. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-64

The factors used to determine the ultimate amount of each competitive award are: the amount 

of funds available; the relative population of the State or Outlying Area; and the types of 

activities proposed, alignment of proposed activities with the State’s personnel standards, 

alignment of proposed activities with the State’s plan and application under sections 1111 and 

2112 of the ESEA, and the use, as appropriate, of scientifically-based research. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010..................................................................................... $48,000

2011....................................................................................... 46,846

2012....................................................................................... 43,917

2013....................................................................................... 41,630

2014....................................................................................... 41,630

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $41.63 million for the SPD grants program to assist State 

educational agencies to improve results for children with disabilities through the delivery of high 

quality instruction and the recruitment and retention of effective and highly qualified personnel. 

The request, which is level with the fiscal year 2014 appropriation, would support 30 

continuation awards, 8 new awards, and performance evaluation activities. In addition, the 

Administration is requesting appropriations language in the 2015 Budget that would provide the 

Secretary the authority to use SPD funds under section 655 of IDEA to carry out performance 

evaluation activities. SPD is the only program within Part D of IDEA that does not have the 

authority to use funds to evaluate program performance. 

Personnel shortages and inadequately trained teachers in special education are among the 

most pressing and chronic problems facing the field. SPD projects assist in addressing critical 

State and local needs for personnel preparation and professional development identified in the 

State’s Personnel Development Plan. Projects provide personnel with the knowledge and skills 

to meet the needs of, and improve the performance and achievement of infants, toddlers, 

preschoolers, and children with disabilities, and to meet the State’s performance goals 

established in accordance with section 612(a)(15) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). Support for special education personnel preparation activities is also provided 

through the Personnel Preparation program, under which the Secretary makes competitive 

awards, primarily to institutions of higher education, to help States meet their responsibility to 

train and employ adequate numbers of fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities. 

Activities funded through this program are intended to support a statewide strategy to prepare, 

recruit, and retain teachers who are highly qualified under IDEA and the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), who are prepared to deliver scientific research-based 

or evidence-based instruction, and who are effective in improving outcomes for children with 

disabilities. States must develop SPD activities in a collaborative fashion and seek the input of 

teachers, principals, parents, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-65

Funding Priorities

To improve the outcomes of children with disabilities, the Administration plans to focus the 

program’s available resources in fiscal year 2015 to support projects that 1) provide evidencebased professional development activities that increase implementation of effective practices 

and 2) provide on-going assistance to personnel who have received SPD-supported 

professional development, including assisting local educational agenceis (LEAs) to build upon 

systems that support implementation of effective practices. Such activities would ensure that 

personnel receive the necessary support to use the acquired knowledge and skills to implement 

practices with fidelity. New projects funded in fiscal year 2015 will be required to use 

technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoing professional development, 

including to personnel in rural areas and to other populations that are less likely to receive 

comprehensive professional development. The SPD program has worked to expand the use of 

technology that can assist projects in becoming more effective and efficient in their delivery of 

professional development. With the increased emphasis on ongoing professional development 

and coaching, increased use of technology is necessary if SPD grantees are to work with more 

than a few sites and/or work with schools in rural areas.

In addition, to better align the SPD program with the Administration’s broader efforts supporting 

teacher effectiveness, in fiscal year 2015, the Department will award competitive preference 

points to projects designed to target professional development needs as identified through 

teacher evaluation and support systems that take into account student growth.

Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in improving student achievement and 

eliminating achievement gaps between our neediest students and their more advantaged peers. 

Research shows that effective teaching is integral to improving the academic achievement of 

students who are at greatest risk of not meeting high academic standards. The SPD program 

provides funding for professional development to improve the knowledge and skills of special 

education and regular education teachers serving children with disabilities. Specifically, SPD 

funds are used to provide training in effective interventions. Examples of such interventions 

include positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the 

classroom, scientifically-based reading instruction, early and appropriate interventions to identify 

and help children with disabilities, effective instruction for children with low incidence disabilities, 

and successful transitioning to postsecondary opportunities. Funds also assist States in utilizing 

classroom-based techniques to assist children prior to referral for special education.

Personnel Recruitment and Retention

The SPD program also supports States in developing and implementing strategies that are 

effective in promoting the recruitment and retention of effective and highly qualified special 

education teachers. These include strategies such as teacher mentoring provided by exemplary 

special education teachers, principals, or superintendents; induction and support for special 

education teachers during their first 3 years of employment as teachers; and providing 

incentives, including financial incentives, to retain special education teachers who have a record 

of success in helping students with disabilities. Listed below are examples of how States are 

using SPD funds to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers serving children with 

disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-66

• Louisiana SPD funds support collaboration between the Louisiana Department of 

Education (LDOE) and Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) in Louisiana to increase 

the number of special education teachers graduating each year and also to improve their 

effectiveness. The LDOE worked with IHEs to develop effective reading competencies 

to improve literacy instruction for pre-service teachers. In addition, this funding was 

used to facilitate meetings and provide resources to IHEs that resulted in 50 percent of 

Louisiana’s IHEs receiving approval to implement a blended program. These blended 

programs have been found to increase literacy rates for students with disabilities.

Ten out of 15 (67 percent) districts in Louisiana that received professional development 

in the areas of Family Engagement, Inclusive Practices, Data-Based Decision Making, 

and Culturally Responsive Practices from the Louisiana SPD had an increase of 

5 percent or more in their District Performance Score (DPS) from 2008 to 2011. The 

DPS is a measure that includes a school district’s individual student scores on the 

Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP), the iLEAP score (the LEAP for 

special populations Graduation Exit Exam), and attendance, dropout, and graduation 

data. The other 5 districts made DPS gains, but were below the 5 percent target.

• The Missouri SPD project developed the Missouri Integrated Model (MIM) framework in 

2007-08, which has been implemented with fidelity in 25 schools in 14 districts across 

the State. The MIM design was grounded in research from multiple tiered models: 

(a) Response to Intervention (RTI), (b) Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports, (c) High 

Schools That Work, (d) Reading First, and (e) Professional Learning Communities. The 

percentage of students with disabilities in MIM schools who demonstrate proficiency or 

better on State assessments has risen steadily for both communication arts and for 

math: in 2006-07, the year preceding the first funding year of the MIM, only 14.6 percent

of students with disabilities demonstrated proficiency or better in communication arts, 

and 17.9 percent demonstrated proficiency or better in math. By 2011-12, these rates 

had risen to 23.89 percent for communication arts, an increase of 9.29 percent, and to 

29.82 percent for math, an increase of 11.9 percent, outpacing statewide increases. 

From 2009 to 2012, MIM schools increased math statewide achievement test scores for 

students with IEPs by 10.7 percent, while non-MIM schools increased students with IEP 

scores by only 3.2 percent. For communication arts, students with IEPs in MIM schools 

increased their scores by 8.59 percent and non-MIM schools increased their scores by 

3.49 percent.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-67

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

1

 About $47 thousand of FY 2013 funds will be used to support project continuation costs in FY 2014. 2

 About $2,803 thousand of FY 2012 funds were used to support FY 2013 continuation costs. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, and measures. 

Goal: To assist State educational agencies in reforming and improving their systems for 

providing educational, early intervention, and transitional services, including their 

systems of professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination of 

knowledge about best practices, to improve results for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Provide personnel with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of, and 

improve the performance and achievement of, infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with 

disabilities.

Objective 2: Improve the quality of professional development available to meet the needs of 

personnel serving infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

In fiscal year 2011, the Department revised its measures to better align with the current focus of 

the professional development provided by the program. The measures are based on the belief 

that no intervention practice, no matter what its evidence base, is likely to be learned and 

adopted if the methods and strategies used to teach or train personnel are not themselves 

effective. The new measures were implemented in the project year that began October 1, 2011,

for SPD cohorts funded in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. Performance data and other 

information reported in 2012 and 2013 were used to refine the measures, methodology, and 

Measures 2013

footnote

2014

Footnote

2015

Project funding:

New SPD awards 0 0 $8,174

Continuation SPD awards $41,630 1 2 $41,630 33,326

Performance evaluation 0 0 92

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 38

Total funding 41,630 41,630 41,630

Average award (whole dollars) $1,010 $1,125 $1,092

Number of awards:

New 0 0 8

Continuations 40 37 30

Total awards 40 37 38
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-68

scoring. The Department will use data reported in 2012 through 2014 to develop a baseline 

target. The actual data and targets for these measures reflect the performance in the year the 

initiative took place, in this case the year the initiative was implemented or delivered.

Annual Measures: For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, data are 

collected and analyzed by a contractor using expert panels of reviewers who assess grant 

implementation by reviewing the components of each grantee’s professional development 

system included in their annual performance reports. The data are evaluated on a rubric based 

on the 4 domains of professional development (selection, training, coaching, and performance 

assessment) including 6 components adapted from the work by the National Implementation 

Research Network, Learning Forward, and relevant experts such as Thomas Guskey. Each 

year the grantees included in this measure consist of States in years 2 through 5 of their SPD 

grant implementation in SPD cohorts. Grantees submit up to two initiatives a year based on 

input from Office of Special Education Programs project officers for each of the measures. The 

specific rubric used to assess initiatives is identified below in the Additional Information section 

following each measure.

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmarks for use of 

evidence-based professional development practices in years two to five.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Additional information: Expert panels review the components of each SPD grant to determine 

whether the initiative has met its benchmark on a scale ranging from 1-4 (1= Inadequate, 

2 = Barely adequate, 3 = Good, or 4 = Exemplary). In order to meet a benchmark, a certain 

percentage of each initiative’s components must receive a score of three or four each year,

including: (a) 50 percent of components in year 2, (b) 70 percent of components in year 3, 

(c) 80 percent of components in year 4, and (d) 80 percent of components in year 5. The 

Department considers individual components that receive a total score of 3 or 4 to have met the 

benchmark.

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmark for improvement 

in implementation in their third through fifth years.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Additional information: This measure represents the percentage of SPD-funded professional 

development projects demonstrating improvement in implementation of SPD-supported 

practices in project performance years 3 through 5. Expert panels assess the implementation of 

each initiative as measured by a fidelity measure that denotes the presence or absence of the 

core features of the set of practices, innovation, program, or system representing the focus of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-69

the training initiative. Panels review the data reported that indicates the evidence of fidelity of 

implementation of evidence based practices (EBP’s) in targeted programs. Grantees report 

surveys from targeted programs and the number and percentage of participants in these 

programs determined to be implementing EBPs at the benchmark level. Each grantee creates a 

plan indicating (a) how they will collect implementation data, (b) the population universe, and 

(c) yearly fidelity benchmarks for each cohort of trainees. The data reported is evaluated with 

respect to each specific initiative to determine whether it has met its benchmark. The total 

number of initiatives meeting improvement benchmarks is then divided by the total number of 

initiatives to produce this measure. 

Measure: The percentage of initiatives that meet targets for their use of funds to sustain SPDsupported practices.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Additional information: Grantees submit data describing the cost of the fidelity activities 

designed to sustain individual initiatives divided by the total cost of all professional development 

activities carried out for that initiative. Targets for each initiative are set in conjunction with the 

grantee, and expert panels review the data to determine whether the grantee has met the target 

for spending on that initiative within 5 percent of the target. 

Objective 3: Implement strategies that are effective in meeting the requirements described in 

section 612(a)(14) of IDEA to take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly 

qualified personnel in areas of greatest need to provide special education and related services. 

Measure: The percentage of States that have retention of highly qualified special education 

teachers as a goal that reach their targets for retention of special education teachers 2 years 

after their initial participation in SPD activities.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Additional Information: To assess performance on this measure, SPD projects that have 

special education teacher retention as a goal report retention data in their final performance 

report. This measure is calculated by examining the number of highly qualified special 

education teachers who remain as special education teachers 2 or more years following initial 

participation in SPD-funded teacher retention activities divided by the number of highly qualified 

special education teachers participating in SPD-funded activities designed to retain highly 

qualified special education teachers.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-70

Tech nical assistan ce an d dissemin ation

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 663)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$44,345 $44,345 0 _________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding for this program is proposed in 

FY 2015 through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination program is the Department’s primary vehicle 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for providing educators, 

policymakers, other service providers, and parents of children with disabilities with information 

on effective practices for meeting the needs of children with disabilities and their families. The 

program makes competitive awards to provide technical assistance, support model 

demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and implement activities that are 

supported by scientific research. These awards are intended to improve services provided 

under the IDEA, including the practices of professionals and others involved in providing 

services that promote academic achievement and improve results for children with disabilities. 

A majority of the grants currently funded under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program support technical assistance centers that focus on a particular topic, population, or age 

range, such as early intervening services, dispute resolution, early childhood, college- and 

career-readiness, and positive behavioral interventions and supports. Most centers use a 

service model that provides three levels of technical assistance: intensive/sustained, 

targeted/specific, and general/universal. At the intensive/sustained level, a handful of States 

receive on-site, ongoing planned assistance designed to reach an outcome desired by the 

recipient. Through targeted/specific services, centers support activities based on the topical or 

technical needs common to multiple recipients and can be one-time or short-term events such 

as consultation services or presentations at conferences. The centers also provide 

general/universal technical assistance services that permit a broader audience to access 

information and services through presentations, newsletters, or research syntheses that are 

made available on center websites. Most activities supported through this program are 

designed to address the needs of a variety of audiences. While these audiences vary, in 

general, they include teachers, related services personnel, early intervention personnel, 

administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

In addition to facilitating the adoption of model practices, technical assistance and dissemination 

activities promote the application of knowledge to improve practice by: determining areas where 

technical assistance and information are needed, preparing or ensuring that materials are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-71

prepared in formats that are appropriate for a wide variety of audiences, making technical 

assistance and information accessible to consumers, and promoting communication links 

among consumers. 

The technical assistance and dissemination activities supported through this program are based 

on the best information available. One source of the scientifically-based research findings that 

are used to inform technical assistance and dissemination activities is the What Works 

Clearinghouse in the Institute of Education Sciences. This is particularly true in cases where 

there is alignment between the topical focus of a center and work being supported through the 

What Works Clearinghouse, such as dropout prevention. 

The duration of awards varies with the award's purpose. Most individual awards are made for a 

period of 5 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2010..................................................................................... $49,549

2011.......................................................................................48,806 

2012....................................................................................... 46,7811

2013....................................................................................... 44,3452

2014....................................................................................... 44,3452

_________________

1

 The amount shown for FY 2012 excludes $8,000 thousand in funds used to support the Special Olympics. 2

 The amount shown for FY 2013 and FY 2014 excludes $7,583 thousand in funds used to support the Special 

Olympics. Funds are requested in FY 2015 in the Special Olympics Activity.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration is requesting $44.35 million for the Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination (TA&D) program, the same level as the fiscal year 2014 appropriation. In 

fiscal year 2015, 100 percent of the funds requested would be used to support continuation 

costs and no new competitions would be funded.

TA&D activities support the application of knowledge to improve practices among professionals 

and others involved in providing services that promote academic achievement and improve 

results for children with disabilities. TA&D activities combine the identification and 

dissemination of evidence-based practices with an effort to build capacity at the State and local 

levels to implement, sustain, and scale-up such practices. These activities have facilitated the 

adoption and spread of evidence-based practices such as positive behavioral interventions and 

supports (PBIS), which have been implemented in more than 20,000 schools nationwide.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-72

Continuation funding would be provided for a variety of projects, including those that focus on 

particular topics, age ranges of children, and student needs or disabilities. These include, for 

example: 

Projects focusing on particular topical areas:

Support for the Comprehensive Centers administered by the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) – Office of Special Education Programs will provide $750,000 

for activities related to the Comprehensive Centers in 2015. As part of the Comprehensive 

Center on Effective Teachers and Leaders’ overall work on teacher evaluation, funds will 

supplement this Center’s work on developing effective teacher evaluation systems for 

special education personnel.

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) – CADRE provides 

State Education Agencies(SEAs) and Part C Lead Agencies with resources that can help 

them effectively implement a range of dispute resolution options, including strategies that 

other SEAs and Part C Lead Agencies use to address the State Systematic Improvement 

Plan indicators related to dispute resolution. CADRE helps ensure that parents and families 

get the information they need about various methods for resolving disputes and helps avoid 

costly adversarial due process hearings. 

Projects focusing on children with disabilities by age or grade:

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center – This Center provides technical assistance to 

States to help them develop early childhood data systems. Its focus is on helping States 

develop the capacity to use data for program improvement to improve early learning 

outcomes, to enable more data-based decision making, and to support programs or 

practices with strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. 

Projects focusing on children with particular needs:

National Center for Students with Disabilities Who Require Intensive Interventions – This Center 

provides technical assistance on and dissemination of evidence-based intensive 

interventions for students with persistent learning or behavioral difficulties. This Center also 

works with Local Education Agencies(LEAs) to identify and enhance the system 

components that promote the implementation and sustainability of such interventions.

Note: For more information on the Office of Special Education’s (OSEPs) technical assistance 

Centers, visit: http://www.tadnet.org/. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-73

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Program Funding:

Specialized technical assistance and 

dissemination:

zed technical assistance and dissemi nation:New $2,3511 0 0

zed technical assistance and dissemi nation: Continuations 10,999 $10,319 $10,335

Specialized technical assistance and dissemi nation: Subtotal 13,350 10,319 10,335

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New 0 0

Model demonstration centers: Continuations 2,916 2,733 1,196

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 2,916 2,733 1,196

Regional/Federal Resource Centers:

Regional/F eder al Resource Centers: New 0 8,790 0

Regional/F eder al Resource Centers: Continuations 7,756 0 9,933 

Regional/F eder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 7,756 8,790 9,933

Early childhood technical assistance:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 1,7842 4,500 4,500

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 1,784 4,500 4,500 

Secondary, transition and postsecondary technical 

assistance:

 on and postsecondar y technical assistance: New 0 2,100 0

 on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Continuations 3,865 1,300 3,800

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Subtotal 3,865 3,400 3,800

Technical assistance for children who are both 

deaf and blind:

 ce for children who ar e both deaf and blind: New 11,350 0 0

 ce for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Continuations 0 11,350 11,350

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Subtotal 11,350 11,350 11,350 

_________________

1

 About $16 thousand of these funds will be used to pay 2014 continuation costs. 2

 About $2,716 thousand of FY 2012 funds were used to pay 2013 continuation costs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-74

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) (continued)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary 

Education for comprehensive centers:

 New 0 0 0

 Continuations $750 $750 $750

 Subtotal 750 750 750

Federal technical assistance; technical assistance

on data analysis; State, and Federal 

information exchange; other:

: SISEP Center (grant)1 1,100 1,100 1,100

: ACDM contract2 666 674 674

: Performance Measures contract 89 90 92

: CIPP contract3 135 135 148

: Annual Report to Congress contract 454 454 467

 Subtotal 2,444 2,453 2,481

 New, Subtotal 135 674 0

 Continuations, Subtotal 2,309 1,779 2,481

Peer review of new award applications: 130 50 0

Total program funding:

New 13,836 11,564 0

Continuations 30,379 32,731 44,345

Peer review 130 50 0

Total 44,345 4 44,345 4 44,345

_________________

1 State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center.

2 Analysis, Communications, Dissemination, and Meetings contract.

3 Center to Improve Project Performance contract.

4 Excludes $7,583 thousand for the Special Olympics in FY 2013 and FY 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-75

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To assist States and their partners in systems improvement through the 

integration of scientifically-based practices. 

Objective 1: States and other recipients of Special Education Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program services will implement scientifically- or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

Objective 2: Improve the quality of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

projects.

Objective 3: The Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program will 

identify, implement, and evaluate evidence-based models to improve outcomes for infants, 

toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

Six performance measures have been developed for the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program. Three of these measures are annual measures, two are long-term, and 

the last is a measure of efficiency.

Annual Measures: The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness

of products and services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of 

an effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination activities more 

consistent Departmentwide. However, the measures have been adapted to reflect the unique 

purposes of the TA&D program. Targets for 2011 and beyond were revised in 2010 to reflect 

strong performance that exceeded targets. 

The actual data and targets for these measures were adjusted in the FY 2012 Congressional 

Justification from prior year Congressional Justifications to more accurately reflect the 

performance in the year that the activity took place, in this case the year the product or service 

was developed or delivered. In previous years, the Department reported data by the year in 

which those data were collected.

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, data are collected and 

analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels of reviewers who assess grant implementation by 

reviewing a sample of products and services developed by grantees. Products and services are 

reviewed against a listing of evidence-based practices in key target areas that the Department 

has identified as critical. The sample of grantees included in this measure for each year 

consists of approximately 19 TA&D centers and 10 State Deaf-Blind programs. Each TA&D 

center included in the sample submits a list of every new product and service from the previous 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-76

year, from which one new product and service are selected to be reviewed. Each State DeafBlind grantee included in the sample is asked to submit a list of every new service from the 

previous year, from which one product is selected to be reviewed. Products and services are 

divided into the categories of policy and practice. Items that are considered to be in the area of 

practice are reviewed by the science panel, and policy items are reviewed by the State 

representative stakeholder panel. 

Panels of experts review and score all products and services based on an OSEP-designed 

rubric that is specific to each performance measure, rating the products and services on the 

extent to which they meet the measure’s performance indicators. Data for each indicator are 

calculated by dividing the number of TA&D center products and services that received an 

average quality rating of 6 or better, out of 9 possible points, by the total number of TA&D 

products and services reviewed. The Department performs the same calculation for the

services provided by State Deaf-Blind grantees, assigns weights to each of these calculations to 

correspond to the proportion of total program funds expended in each area, and then adds the 

figures together to produce an overall quality rating for the program. The specific rubric used to 

assess products and services for each measure is identified below in the Additional Information 

section following the Measure.

Measure: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the 

substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2010 78% 85%

2011 90 91

2012 92 100

2013 94

2014 95

2015 95

Additional information: Expert panels review all products and services and score them based 

on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of these materials is: evidence-based, 

valid, complete, and up-to-date. Specifically, the panels assess the quality of the materials on 

the following dimensions: (1) Substance (Does the product reflect the best of current research 

and theory or policy guidance, as demonstrated by a scientifically- or evidence-based approach, 

a solid conceptual framework, appropriate citations and other evidence of conceptual 

soundness?); and (2) Communication (Does the product have clarity in its presentation, as 

evidenced by being free of editorial errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized?). The 

total score for any individual product or service reviewed is the sum of the two quality dimension 

sub-scores. The Department considers any individual product or service that receives a total 

score of 6 or higher out of 9 possible points to be of high quality.

Actual performance has exceeded performance targets for this measure over the past 4 years. 

This suggests grantees better understand the expectations for the quality of products and 

services they provide. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-77

Measure: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 

deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of high relevance to 

educational and early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2010 94% 100%

2011 94 100

2012 95 94

2013 95

2014 95

2015 95

Additional information: Expert panels review the products and services and score them 

based on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of materials is responsive to 

priority issues and challenges confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is designed 

to yield ratings on the basis of the following three dimensions related to relevance: (1) Need 

(Does the content of the material attempt to solve an important problem or critical issue?); 

(2) Pertinence (Does the content of the material match the problem or issue facing the target 

group or groups?); and (3) Reach (To what extent is the content of the material applicable to 

diverse populations within the target group?). The total score for any individual product or 

service reviewed is the sum of the three quality dimension sub-scores. High relevance for any 

individual product or service is defined as a total score of 6 or higher of 9 possible points.

Overall performance under this measure has been strong in every year for which data have 

been collected. In 2012, the program fell just short of the target with 26 out of 28 products and 

services meeting the standard for high relevance. The Department seeks to maintain the high

levels of performance for this measure and will monitor any individual grantees that receive 

lower scores more aggressively to improve program performance and ensure that these 

grantees take steps to improve the relevance of their products and services.

Measure: The percentage of all Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful 

to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2010 86% 88%

2011 89 93

2012 92 83

2013 95

2014 95

2015 95

Additional information: Expert panels review the products and services and score them 

based on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of materials can be easily and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-78

quickly adopted or adapted by the target group, and the likelihood that the product or service, if 

adopted, will produce the desired result. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on 

the basis of the following three dimensions related to usefulness: (1) Ease (Does the content of 

the product or service description address a problem or issue in an easily understood way, with 

directions or guidance regarding how a problem or issue can be addressed?); (2) Replicability 

(Is it likely that the information derived from the product or service will eventually be used by the 

target group to achieve the benefit intended?); and (3) Sustainability (Is it likely that the 

information derived from the product or service will eventually be used in more than one setting 

successfully over and over again to achieve the intended benefit?). The total score for any 

individual product or service reviewed is the sum of the three quality dimension sub-scores. 

High usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of 6 or higher of 

9 possible points.

Actual performance at the program level exceeded established targets in 2007 through 2011; 

however, grantees failed to meet the target in 2012. The Department is examining whether the 

current methodology for usefulness is appropriate for the deaf-blind projects, which constituted 

the largest component of the reduction in 2012. Overall, 24 out of 28 products and services met 

the standard for high usefulness. In addition, to ensure that grantees continue to improve their 

performance under this indicator, the Department will monitor more aggressively any individual 

grantees that receive relatively lower scores to improve program performance and ensure that 

they take steps to improve over time.

Long-term Measures: The Department has established two long-term measures for this 

program. Data for the long-term measures will be collected every 2 years. 

Measure: The percentage of effective evidence-based program models developed by model 

demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners through the TA&D 

Network. 

In 2010, the Department began developing a new long-term pilot measure because the previous 

measure did not provide meaningful data for program improvement. This new measure will 

provide the Department valuable data on how well model demonstration projects are 

disseminating effective practices, a key component of this program. In November 2012, the 

Department began collecting the new data using a revised methodology, and will use the results 

to continue to refine the measure and set performance targets for future years. 

Measure: The percentage of school districts and service agencies receiving technical 

assistance and dissemination services regarding scientifically- or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that implement those practices.

Year Target Actual

2009 79%

2011 86

2013 86% 83

2015 87

Additional information: Experts review data from States that have received intensive 

technical assistance from OSEP TA&D Centers in six focus areas. These areas include 

assessment, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, secondary transition, and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-79

inclusive practices. Scientifically or evidence-based practices are defined as practices that have 

been demonstrated as effective within multiple settings through rigorous studies that document 

similar outcomes, and State implementation is defined as having practitioners within some 

portion of the school district or service agency use the practice.

In 2009, the first year data were collected for this measure, 79 percent of districts and agencies 

sampled were implementing evidence-based practices. In 2011, this figure increased to 

86 percent of districts and agencies sampled. In 2013, the Department did not meet the target; 

however, the Department was able to obtain data demonstrating 5 out of 6 States did implement 

evidence-based practices for which they received technical assistance. Due to staff turnover at 

the State level, the Department did not have enough data to determine whether the sixth State 

is implementing evidence-based practices. OSEP will aggressively monitor any individual 

grantees that receive relatively lower scores to ensure that they take steps to improve over time. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department has developed a common efficiency measure for OSEP programs that provide 

technical assistance. The measure is “the cost per unit of technical assistance.” The TA&D 

program uses a slightly modified “cost per unit of target audience,” which divides the total cost 

of a product or service by the number of target audience units that receive the technical 

assistance. A target audience unit may be an individual, such as a teacher, or an organization, 

such as a State educational agency. To calculate this measure, each year the Department uses 

the cost per unit data of a product and a service developed in the most recent fiscal year from a 

sample of approximately 19 TA&D centers and the cost per unit data for services of 10 State 

Deaf-Blind programs. 

Measure: The Federal cost per unit of technical assistance provided by the Special Education 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination program, by category.

Year Target Actual

2010 $5,786

2011 651

2012 890

2013

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Since 2008, the first year of data collection, the Department has struggled to produce a reliable 

cost per unit of target audience results. Due to concerns about data quality, compliance, and 

methodology, the Department has since enhanced guidance and changed methodologies. 

Beginning in 2009, the Department realized that aggregate data were not useful because the 

cost of providing technical assistance varies significantly based on the sample and decided 

instead to disaggregate the cost per unit based on three levels of intensity of technical 

assistance (intensive/sustained, targeted/specific, and general/universal). In 2010, the cost per 

unit was $5,786, which subsequently fell to $651 in 2011, and rose to $890 in 2012. These 

variable results demonstrate the lack of reliability in the current measure and a need for an 

improved methodology. The Department is exploring different alternatives to evaluate the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-80

efficiency of TA&D investments and began piloting a new measure in 2013. Therefore, no 

targets have been set for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

Other Performance Information

In August 2009, as part of the ongoing National Assessment of IDEA, the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) launched a 5-year evaluation of the IDEA TA&D program and various technical 

assistance activities that are currently supported under the other IDEA, Part D programs, such 

as centers that provide technical assistance on specific topical areas. The initial goals of this

evaluation were to inform policymakers and practitioners about (a) the nature of the technical 

assistance services provided by TA&D grantees, (b) the experiences of SEAs and LEAs that 

interact with such grantees, (c) the implementation of practices recommended by such 

grantees, and (d) whether implementation of recommended practices is associated with 

improved outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.

Initial data collection and analysis revealed limitations of the data, so the objectives of the 

evaluation were revised to determine (a) the needs and uses for TA&D services, (b) what 

services are seen as most helpful in contributing to the improvement of key student outcomes,

(c) the perceived barriers to local level implementation, (d) how TA&D grantees identify their 

clients, assess their needs, and develop and maintain their relationship with clients, and (e) the 

extent to which assistance from TA&D grantees relate to implementation of special education 

policies and practices that support the implementation of IDEA. The evaluation addresses 

these research questions using data gathered from OSEP, through EDFacts1

, and through new 

surveys of TA&D grantees, SEA officials responsible for IDEA implementation, and school 

district special education directors. 

In October 2013, IES released an interim report, the “National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical 

Assistance & Dissemination Program.” Technical assistance providers most commonly 

reported providing technical assistance on the topics of “parent and family involvement”, and 

“data systems and use of data for improvement.” Recipients of technical assistance identified 

General Supervision/Monitoring, early childhood transition, special education finance, and 

Response to Intervention as the topics for which they had the greatest need for technical 

assistance in the 2010–11 school year. In addition, this analysis found some potential 

duplication of services provided by technical assistance providers; however, this analysis was 

unable to establish whether such cases were indicators of inefficiency or of complementary and 

coordinated services. 

The report found that 71 percent of technical assistance recipients had a "very satisfactory" 

overall experience. On average, customers receiving high intensity technical assistance were 

significantly more satisfied than those receiving lower intensity technical assistance 

(i.e., infrequent training and consultation or web-only support). The final report is scheduled to 

be published in 2014.

_________________

1

 EDFacts is a U. S. Department of Education initiative to put performance data at the center of policy, 

management and budget decisions for all K-12 education programs. EDFacts centralizes performance data supplied 

by K-12 State educational agencies (SEAs) with other data assets, such as financial grant information, within the 

Department to enable better analysis and use in policy development, planning and management. EDFacts relies on 

the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN), a centralized portal through which States submit their educational 

data to the U.S. Department of Education.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-81

Personn el preparation

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$83,700 $83,700 0 _________________

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2015 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Personnel Preparation program helps meet State-identified needs for adequate numbers of 

fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities by supporting competitive awards to:

• Provide research-based training and professional development to prepare special 

education, related services, early intervention, and regular education personnel to work with 

children with disabilities;

• Ensure that those personnel are highly qualified, and possess the skills and knowledge that 

are needed to serve children with disabilities; and

• Ensure that regular education teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide 

instruction to students with disabilities in regular education classrooms.

The Secretary is required to make competitive grants that support training activities in a few 

high priority areas, including: general personnel development and preparing beginning special 

educators, personnel serving children with low incidence disabilities, and leadership personnel. 

These grants are typically 5 years in length.

Personnel Development. This broad authority requires the Secretary to support at least one of 

the following activities: (a) promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation and 

training between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), 

(b) developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the recruitment, induction, 

retention, and assessment of highly qualified teachers, (c) providing continuous training and 

professional development to support special education and general education teachers and 

related services personnel, (d) developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to 

become special educators, (e) promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration 

between general and special education, (f) supporting IHEs with minority enrollment of not less 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-82

than 25 percent, and (g) developing and improving programs to train special educators to 

develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders.

Beginning Special Educators. The Secretary also is required to provide support to beginning 

special educators. Specifically, the Secretary is required to make at least one award to: 

(a) enhance and restructure existing teacher education programs or develop teacher education 

programs that prepare special education teachers by incorporating an extended clinical learning 

opportunity, field experience, or supervised practicum (e.g., an additional 5th year), or (b) create 

and support teacher-faculty partnerships between LEAs and IHEs (e.g., professional 

development schools) that provide high-quality mentoring and induction opportunities with 

ongoing support for beginning special educators or in-service support and professional 

development opportunities.

Personnel to Serve Children with Low Incidence Disabilities. Awards to support personnel to 

serve children with low incidence disabilities are designed to help ensure the availability of 

quality personnel in this area by providing financial aid as an incentive to the pursuit of careers 

in special education, related services, and early intervention. Under this authority, the term “low 

incidence disabilities” primarily refers to visual or hearing impairments and significant intellectual 

disabilities. In carrying out this authority, the Secretary is required to support activities that 

benefit children with low incidence disabilities, such as: preparing personnel; providing 

personnel from various disciplines with interdisciplinary training that will contribute to 

improvements in early intervention and educational outcomes for children with low incidence

disabilities; and preparing personnel in the innovative uses of technology to enhance 

educational outcomes for children with low incidence disabilities, and to improve communication 

with parents.

Leadership Personnel. Leadership preparation activities focus on improving results for students 

with disabilities by ensuring that leadership personnel in both regular and special education 

have the skills and training to help students with disabilities achieve to high standards. Under 

this authority, leadership personnel may include a variety of different personnel, such as teacher 

preparation and related service faculty, administrators, researchers, supervisors, and principals. 

Authorized activities include preparing personnel at the graduate, postgraduate, and doctoral 

levels, and providing interdisciplinary training for various types of leadership personnel.

All Personnel Preparation competitions emphasize the value of incorporating best practices, as 

determined through research, evaluations, and experience. These include practices related to 

personnel training and professional development, as well as the provision of special education, 

related services, and early intervention services.

While individuals and students are not eligible for awards under the Personnel Preparation 

program, many grantees are required to use at least 65 percent of their award(s) for student 

support (e.g. tuition, stipends, and payment of fees). Students who receive financial assistance 

from projects funded under the program are required to pay back such assistance, either by 

working for a period of time after they complete their training in the area(s) for which they 

received training, or by making a cash repayment to the Federal Government. In recent years, 

approximately half of the program’s total appropriations have been used to support student 

scholarships. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-83

A large majority of grants awarded through this program goes to IHEs to provide scholarships to 

train additional special education personnel. However, the Department also makes awards to 

centers under this program. Unlike awards that provide support for scholarships, which are 

designed primarily to increase the supply of personnel, center-based awards tend to focus on 

enhancing the quality of work in a particular topical area through such activities as professional 

development, technical assistance, partnerships, or the development of materials and best 

practices. 

Additional support for personnel preparation activities is provided through the State Personnel 

Development Grants program, under which the Secretary makes competitive awards to help 

SEAs reform and improve in-service training and professional development activities for 

teachers, including the recruitment and retention of highly qualified special education teachers. 

A variety of other programs administered by the Department also make competitive awards that 

support training and professional development activities that are designed to improve the 

effectiveness of teachers, including special education personnel.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnot

e

2010........................................................ .......................... $90,653

2011........................................................ ............................ 88,466

2012........................................................ ............................ 88,299

2013........................................................ ............................ 83,700

2014........................................................ ............................ 83,700

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $83.7 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, level with the FY 2014 appropriation. Of this amount, approximately $12.6 million 

would be used for new projects (including peer review costs of approximately $306,000) and 

$71.1 million would support the continuation of grants made in prior years. 

Program Funding Priorities

The Administration continues to explore how funds available to support new activities under this 

program can be better targeted to support human capital systems that effectively prepare, 

recruit, support, evaluate, compensate and retain effective educators, and to address 

Administration priorities relating to the special education personnel workforce. Department 

priorities in this area include: addressing the inequities in the distribution of effective and highly 

qualified teachers (consistent with Section 14005(d)(2) of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)); implementing high quality teacher and principal evaluation 

and support systems that take into account student growth and provide useful feedback to 

inform instruction and professional development; alleviating ongoing personnel shortages by 

targeting funds on training programs that provide for alternative certification and dual 

certification; increasing the supply of principals who are adequately prepared to ensure the 

provision of evidence-based services for children with disabilities; and improving the quality of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-84

teacher pre-service preparation programs through the use of data on the effectiveness of 

graduates in the classroom.

To address these priorities, beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Administration included provisions 

in its two largest competitions in this program to encourage grantees to provide scholar 

practicum experiences in high-poverty and/or low-performing schools and track and evaluate 

program graduates to ensure that they possess the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of 

students with disabilities in high-need schools. In the Program Improvement Grants 

competition, grantees were required to incorporate evidence-based practices into their curricula; 

provide field-based training in high-need local educational agencies, high-poverty schools, or 

low-performing schools; track graduates after they leave the program; and collect data on their 

students’ outcomes. Grantees were also encouraged to develop partnerships with other 

academic departments on campus to promote dual certification of special educators.

The Administration continued these efforts to bolster highly-effective human capital systems in 

fiscal year 2011 in a number of different grant areas by requiring preparation programs 

supported under this program to track the impact that program completers had on students after 

they completed their training and entered the field. Specifically, grantees were required to track 

impacts on student growth and social, emotional, and academic development, as appropriate. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Administration funded a new technical assistance center to, among other 

things, assist States and institutions of higher education in evaluating and improving personnel 

preparation programs by using data on outcomes for students with disabilities.

Additionally, while the funds available through this program are by no means sufficient to 

resolve ongoing nationwide personnel shortages in special education, they do contribute to: the 

on-going development of best practices; improvements in the overall quality of training offered; 

and the training of additional special education, related services, and leadership personnel in 

certain high priority areas where program investments have been targeted over time, such as 

training personnel to provide services to students with low incidence disabilities.

Data on Personnel Shortages

Available data relating to personnel shortages in special education, including State-reported 

data outlining the percentage of special education teachers fully certified in States and Outlying 

Areas, strongly support the need for continued Federal investment in this area. Persistent 

shortages of qualified personnel have been reported since the enactment of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. While States and local educational agencies across 

the country experience personnel shortages, recruiting and retaining special educators is 

particularly challenging for schools in high-poverty districts. Data from “Teacher Quality Under 

No Child Left Behind: Final Report,” illustrate the challenge. According to this study, completed 

by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Department in January 2009, 

approximately half of all districts in the country reported difficulty attracting highly qualified 

special education teachers in the 2006-2007 school year, while 90 percent of high-poverty 

districts reported the same difficulty (see http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclbfinal/index.html). 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-85

According to data that States are required to report pursuant to Title II of the Higher Education 

Act (HEA), through the 2009-2010 academic year, more States reported shortages in special 

education personnel than in any other area. Forty-nine States, the District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and Virgin Islands reported 

shortages in special education (see https://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport13.pdf). 

The National Assessment of IDEA also found that 51 percent of district Part B special education 

administrators reported that their districts routinely had difficulty finding qualified special 

application applicants over the past 3 years, and approximately 5 percent of preschool-age and 

school-age special education teacher full-time positions were left vacant in the 2008-2009 

academic year (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/pdf/20114026.pdf). 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 footnote2014 footnote2015

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities grants:

New Low i nci dence disabilities grants $2,853 $6,180 $2,045

Continuations Low inci dence disabilities grants 11,568 9,983 15,838

Subtotal Low i nci dence disabilities grants 14,421 16,163 17,883

Leadership training grants:

New Leadership trai ning grants 3,573 4,250 4,250

Continuations Leadership trai ning grants 13,597 1 14,305 2 11,458

Subtotal Leadership trai ning grants 17,170 18,555 15,708

Minority institution grants:3

New Minority i nstituti on grants 2,103 2,569 1,651

Continuations Minority institution grants 7,163 6,488 8,793

Subtotal Minority institution grants 9,266 9,057 10,444

Program improvement grants:

New Pr ogram i mprovement grants 0 0 0

Continuations Program i mprovement grants 15,264 13,036 9,088

Subtotal Program i mprovement grants 15,264 13,036 9,088

Early childhood grants:

New Earl y childhood grants 4,113 5,024 3,230

Continuations Early chil dhood grants 15,210 13,889 18,399

Subtotal Early childhood grants 19,323 18,913 21,629

Other personnel development grants:

New Other personnel development grants 1,414 1,727 1,110

Continuations Other personnel devel opment grants 4,816 4,362 5,913

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 6,230 6,089 7,023
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-86

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 footnote2014 footnote2015

National Activities:

New nati onal acti vi ties $210 $691 0

Continuations national acti vities 1,422 874 $1,619

Subtotal national acti vi ties 1,632 1,565 1,619

Peer review of new award applications 394 322 306

Program Totals:

New total program funding 14,266 20,441 12,286

Continuations total program funding 69,040 62,937 71,108

Peer review of new award applications 394 322 306

Total 83,700 83,700 83,700

________________

1 The fiscal year 2013 continuation awards total includes approximately $1,502 thousand in fiscal year 2013 

funds used to support fiscal year 2014 continuation costs. 2 The fiscal year 2014 continuation awards total includes approximately $4,164 thousand in fiscal year 2014 

funds for support of fiscal year 2015 continuation costs. 3 This category includes awards to institutions with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent. Under 

IDEA, Part D, Sec. 681(c)(2), the Secretary is required to reserve not less than 2 percent of the total amount of funds 

appropriated under Part D, subparts 2 and 3, for outreach and technical assistance activities for historically Black 

colleges and universities and IHEs with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Administration is working to develop reliable and systematic ways to understand the effects 

of activities supported through the Personnel Preparation program. While State-reported data 

provide critical insights into the overall conditions in the market for special educators, such data 

do not shed much light on the effectiveness of particular personnel or training programs. 

Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the overall effectiveness of the Personnel 

Preparation program. 

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-87

Goal: To prepare service providers and leadership personnel in areas of critical need 

who are highly qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to ensure that personnel 

preparing to serve children with disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices that 

reflect the current knowledge base.

Objective 2: Increase the supply of teachers and service providers who are highly qualified for 

and serve in positions for which they are trained.

Objective 3: Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal dollars under the program.

Long-Term Performance Measures

The program has two long-term measures that are designed to provide information on the 

quality of the program by looking at the skills of scholars supported using program funds. 

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who maintain employment for 3 or more 

years in the area(s) for which they were trained and who are fully qualified under IDEA.

Additional Information: In recent years, the Department has found it difficult to accurately and 

meaningfully calculate and report data on this measure. As such, we are currently evaluating 

this measure and the available methodologies for accurately calculating it. The Department 

expects a revised measure or methodology to be in place by March 2015.

Measure: Percentage of scholars completing Special Education Personnel Preparation funded 

training programs who are knowledgeable and skilled in evidence-based practices for children 

with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2010 48% 93%

2011 51 88

2012 85

2013 85

2014 85

2015 90

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report (PPD) Web-based data collection (see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov). 

This measure presents information on the percentage of scholars completing programs who 

passed an independent exam, such as the Praxis II, that is designed to assess the knowledge 

and skills of special educators. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of 

scholars who graduated in a given year and pass an exam demonstrating knowledge and skills 

in evidence-based practices for children with disabilities (1,748 students in fiscal year 2011) by 

the total number of students who completed training programs – including students who passed 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-88

a test (1,748 students), students who did not take a test (188 students), students who did not 

pass a test or whose testing status or results are missing or unknown (35 students), and 

students for whom testing was not applicable (3 students). Data for fiscal year 2012 are 

expected to be available in fall 2014.

The Department does not currently require IHEs receiving program funds to use an independent 

assessment to assess the knowledge and skills of individuals graduating from institutions 

supported with program funds. Historically, actual data and targets for this measure were 

unusually low because, while all scholars receiving program funds are included in the 

denominator, a substantial number of those scholars (approximately 908 out of 2,712, or 

33 percent, in fiscal year 2008) did not participate in independent assessments according to 

grantees. While these scholars attend programs at IHEs located in States that did not require 

graduates to pass an independent assessment to measure the knowledge and skills of 

graduates, the Department has worked closely with grantees to improve data collection on 

graduates who take other, non-required assessments and to ensure that data on nonstandardized measures of knowledge and skills are reported by grantees (such as an oral 

examination administered by faculty at the IHE). The Department believes that including data 

on these other assessments was primarily responsible for the improvement in performance on 

this measure rather than any change in actual practice or performance by grantees.

Annual Performance Measures

The program has five annual performance measures. All five of these measures are designed 

to provide information on various aspects of program quality, including scholars who receive 

funding through the program. 

While several years of data have been collected for most of these annual measures, the 

Department recently recalculated all years of actual performance to ensure that the appropriate 

subcategories of “unknowns” were included in the denominators. In most cases, because the 

actual data changed substantially, new targets also had to be established. These measures 

are:

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2010 80% 100%

2011 90 74

2012 95 89

2013 90

2014 90

2015 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor using a panel of 5 to 

7 experts, who review a randomly selected sample of 50 percent of grantee course syllabi 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-89

submitted by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. Syllabi, which are taken from 

grantee applications, are reviewed for the inclusion of between 5 and 7 scientifically- or 

evidence-based practices in key target areas that have been identified by the Department as 

critical for all projects -- including assessment, behavior, inclusive practices, instructional 

strategies, literacy, transition, and early childhood, as appropriate. The score for every 

individual syllabus is the sum of the evidence-based practices observable in that syllabus. In 

order to meet the standard for incorporating evidence-based practices, all evidence-based 

practice areas reviewed must be identifiable in the syllabus.

In the fiscal year 2013 review, 18 syllabi from fiscal year 2012 grantees were included from the 

following types of projects: early childhood (5 syllabi scored), leadership (7 syllabi scored), low 

incidence (5 syllabi scored), and minority institutions (1 syllabi scored). 

Performance under this measure in 2009 and 2010 was well above established targets, which 

led the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to increase the criteria for a set of syllabi 

under review to be identified as “evidence-based” across all five domains for the review of 2011 

grantees – from 50 percent agreement to at least two-thirds. While there was a drop in 

performance in 2011, the Department believes that it is largely a result of the higher standard 

rather than any decrease in actual quality of syllabi. In 2012, the syllabi review was conducted 

by expert panels grouped according to area of specialization (e.g., early childhood, lowincidence). With higher standards and content-specific review panels, performance on this 

measure increased dramatically from the prior year. Moving forward, the Department believes 

that this higher standard and review process will ultimately lead to better data on this measure 

and the quality of projects funded under this program. Data for fiscal year 2013 are expected to 

be available in fall 2014.

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor 

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2010 1.9% 1.9%

2011 1.9 1.7

2012 1.9

2013 1.9

2014 1.9

2015 1.9

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report (PPD) Web-based data collection (see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov). 

No calculation is necessary. The data are taken directly from the PPD data collection. 

Approximately 1.7 percent of all scholars receiving program funds exited their training programs 

early due to poor academic performance in 2011, down from 2.0 percent in 2009 and 

1.9 percent in 2010, but still higher than 1.4 percent in 2007 and 1.6 percent in 2008. This 

measure is calculated by dividing the total number of scholars exiting their training program due 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-90

to poor academic performance (n=41 in 2011) and dividing it by the total number of scholars 

completing a training program (n=1,997 in 2011) and the number of scholars exiting their 

training program prior to completion for any reason (n=369 in 2011). Data for fiscal year 2012 

are expected to be available in fall 2014.

A low number of scholars exiting their training programs early could reflect either a strong 

recruitment effort by IHEs to ensure high quality students receive Federal scholarship funds or a 

strong student support network in programs receiving Federal funds. While there is still room 

for improvement, IHEs on average seem to be adequately ensuring that scholars do not exit 

training programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance. However, despite the 

reasonably strong performance of grantees on this measure, the Department believes that this 

measure is essential to maintain to ensure that grantees continue to maintain high standards 

when recruiting scholars.

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2010 81% 78%

2011 84 82

2012 84

2013 85

2014 85

2015 85

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the PPD Web-based data 

collection. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of degree and certification 

recipients who were working in the area(s) for which they received training at the completion of

the program by all degree and certification recipients who were employed in their area of 

training, recipients who were not employed in their area of training, recipients for whom 

grantees did not know if they were employed upon program completion, recipients who were not 

employed, and recipients for whom employment data were missing. Individuals who received 

only an endorsement are excluded from all calculations. 

Although performance on this measure increased from the prior year, approximately 1 in 5 

degree/certification recipients funded through this program do not work in the area for which 

they were trained upon graduation. It is difficult to determine the ultimate driver of this trend. It 

is possible that a number of degree recipients are doing so purposefully. While the program has 

in place a service obligation requirement that mandates that degree recipients provide services 

to infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, it is possible that a portion of graduates have 

chosen to provide special education and related services outside of their area of expertise or to 

not provide special education and related services at all. Additionally, teaching assignments are 

not wholly at the discretion of the program’s graduates, but are instead largely at the discretion 

of LEAs and schools that may opt to place a teacher in an assignment that is out of area. Given 

the continuing impacts of the recession, shrinking local and State government budgets, and the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-91

increased number of teacher layoffs, we are likely to see a number of teachers placed “out-ofarea” as LEAs attempt to cope with smaller numbers of personnel. With smaller local budgets 

and fewer LEAs hiring, program graduates may accept teaching positions outside of their field of 

training in order to secure employment with a view to transition to their area of expertise in a 

number of years. The Department is currently conducting a review to determine if those 

graduates who are not working in the area for which they were trained are nevertheless

employed in special education or if they are working in non-special education placements. The 

Department is also considering additional steps to ensure that grantees more effectively recruit 

and train students who will work in the area for which they received training; to improve training 

courses and curricula to ensure that graduates are competitive in the market; and to promote 

high quality residency programs that help graduates build relationships with LEAs and increase 

their competitiveness. Data for fiscal year 2012 are expected to be available in fall 2014.

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion and who are fully qualified under IDEA.

Year Target Actual

2010 77% 76%

2011 80 79

2012 83

2013 83

2014 83

2015 83

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the PPD Web-based data 

collection. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of non-leadership degree 

recipients who were working in the area(s) for which they received training at the completion of 

the program and who are highly qualified by all degree recipients who were employed, who 

were not employed, and for whom the employment status was not known, minus students 

working in positions for which the State does not have certification or licensure requirements. 

Note that the population included in calculations for this measure differs from the population 

included in the previous measure. While the denominator in the previous measure includes all 

students currently employed, not employed, and those for whom employment status was not 

known, the denominator here excludes students working in positions for which the State has no 

licensure or certification requirements. Additionally, scholars who received only an 

endorsement, as well as students who received leadership training, are excluded from all 

calculations because highly qualified status does not apply to these individuals. 

As noted in the discussion of the previous measure, there are a number of reasons why 

degree/certification recipients funded through this program may not work in the area for which 

they were trained upon program completion. More importantly, the comparison of this measure 

to the previous one provides an important insight into the alignment of training programs 

supported under this program and the certification standards outlined in IDEA. Despite 

improvement in this measure over the last 4 years, this measure has consistently lagged behind 

the previous one by 3 to 5 percentage points, indicating that, even of those individuals who 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-92

obtain employment in the area for which they were trained, a consistent subset do not meet the 

certification standards of the field despite program regulations that require program graduates to 

meet State certification and licensure standards. The Department is currently taking several 

steps to determine the full extent and cause of this shortfall and address it. Through updated 

data collection instruments employed in fiscal year 2011, the Department seeks to gather more 

information about the subset of scholars who do not meet State certification and licensure 

standards and the specific causes (e.g., not taking or failing State licensure exams, or a lack of 

appropriate coursework). In its grant application review process, the Department has provided 

greater direction to reviewers and applicants to ensure a more thorough review of course syllabi 

submitted by applicants to ensure that program funds are used to support high quality 

programs. Additionally, through the program’s Preservice Training Improvement grants and a 

new technical assistance center funded in fiscal year 2012, the Department is providing support 

to a number of teacher and paraprofessional training programs to restructure their curricula to 

align with State standards for certification and accreditation. Data for fiscal year 2012 are 

expected to be available in fall 2014.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established one efficiency measure for the Personnel Preparation program. 

This measure is: 

Measure: The Federal cost per degree or certification program recipient working in the area(s) 

in which they were trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2010 $25,000 $22,333

2011 25,000 32,822

2012 25,000

2013 25,000

2014 25,000

2015 25,000

Additional Information: This measure links directly to the program’s annual performance 

measures, and should enable comparisons across grantees or sub-sets of similar grantees. 

The Department is currently working with a contractor to analyze grantee-level results to identify 

high performing institutions that other grantees can look to as examples for improving program 

performance. Grantee-level data will also be used to compare the relative efficiency of program 

grantees, both in relation to one another as well as in relation to other Federal programs that 

provide graduate level scholarships. 

The data used to calculate this measure come from the Department’s PPD Web-based data 

collection. The cost per degree/certification program recipient is calculated for individual 

cohorts of grantees by dividing the sum of all project costs supported with Federal funds (across 

all years of each individual scholar’s training) ($82,153,509 in fiscal year 2011) by the number of 

degree recipients who successfully completed funded training programs closing in that year and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-93

who are fully qualified (2,503 in 2011). Results on this measure were higher in fiscal year 2011 

than in previous years, but the Department believes these increased costs actually reflect the 

fact that a larger proportion of grants expiring in that year supported doctoral training programs, 

which tend to be more expensive per scholar than those at the masters’ level. Data for fiscal 

year 2012 are expected to be available in fall 2014.

Other Performance Information

At the end of fiscal year 2007, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a $2.8 million, 

4-year contract for the evaluation of the Personnel Development Program. The evaluation 

included two separate components. The first was a study of IHEs that have applied for funds to 

train personnel under the program. This portion of the study was designed to: (1) collect 

descriptive data from all the funded and non-funded applicants to the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 

year 2007 competitions (approximately 185 funded and 265 non-funded), and (2) document 

changes to the funded applicants’ courses of study. The second component of the evaluation 

was a study of the national centers funded under the program. This component of the 

evaluation was designed to: (1) document the products and services generated by the national 

centers; (2) produce a rough estimate of their costs; and (3) rate the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of a sample of those products and services. The study of the national centers 

included all 12 of the centers funded between 2001 and 2008.

The study (see http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20144007) determined 

that, in the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 competitions, the percentage of successful 

applications was higher for public IHEs than for private IHEs (37 percent versus 32 percent), for 

doctorate-granting IHEs than for non-doctorate-granting IHEs (38 percent versus 25 percent), 

and for minority institutions than for non-minority institutions (38 percent versus 34 percent). Of 

the 190 applications that were funded in the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 competitions, 

53 percent of funded applications proposed new courses of study. Of unsuccessful applicants 

proposing a new course of study in their application, only 8 percent were developed without 

funding (compared to 88 percent of existing courses of study that were maintained without 

funding).

In funded training programs in which scholar stipends were required, 73 percent of grant funds 

were used for monetary support for scholars. An additional 18 percent of grant funding was 

used to support faculty in that training program. Additionally, in supported programs, 88 percent 

of enrolled students received monetary support from the grant in the 2008-2009 academic year, 

averaging $11,558 per scholar.

By the 2008-2009 academic year, 3,038 scholars enrolled in courses of study funded in the 

fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 competitions had completed their training, averaging 17 

scholars per program, with 86 percent receiving State-issued credentials and 46 percent 

earning a master’s or education specialist degree. The study also determined that the average 

number of enrollees, scholars, and completers in funded training programs increased from the 

academic year preceding funding to the first year of full grant funding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-94

In funded training programs that identified changes made since the time of application, an 

expert panel determined that 58 percent of those changes were of “high” or “very high” quality, 

and 55 percent were of “high” or “very high” relevance/usefulness.

Of non-funded training programs in the fiscal year 2006 competition, 70 percent reapplied to the 

same priority/focus area within 4 years, and 50 percent were funded. Of those with non-funded 

applications in the fiscal year 2007 competition, 57 percent reapplied to the same priority/focus 

area within 3 years and 33 percent were funded.

The study also assessed the work of national centers funded under this program between fiscal 

years 2001 and 2007. They determined that 77 percent of “signature” products/services of 

these centers were “high” or “very high” quality and 82 percent of them were “high” or “very 

high” relevance/usefulness. They also determined that 73 percent of “nonsignature” 

products/services of these centers were “high” or “very high” quality and 68 percent were “high” 

or “very high” relevance/usefulness. 

The study also examined the costs of various products and services provided by the centers, 

where possible. The largest number of products and services identified were presentations and 

webinars (47 percent of all identified). Only 10 of 12 centers were able to provide individualized 

costs for products and services, and they reported them for 51 percent of the total produced by 

all 12 centers. The largest share of costs reported by the centers was for 69 conferences, 

institutes, or workshops, totaling 48 percent of the identified costs. These included centerproduced events for the purposes of training recipients, providing general TA, or disseminating 

information to targeted recipients. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-95

Parent information centers

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$27,411 $27,411 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2015 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Parent Information Centers program is one of the primary vehicles under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for providing information and training to parents of 

children with disabilities. The program supports competitive awards to help ensure that:

• Children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information designed to 

assist these children in meeting developmental and functional goals and challenging 

academic achievement goals, and in being prepared to lead productive independent adult 

lives;

• Children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information on their rights, 

responsibilities, and protections under IDEA, in order to develop the skills necessary to 

cooperatively and effectively participate in planning and decision making relating to early 

intervention, educational, and transitional services; and

• Parents receive coordinated and accessible technical assistance and information to assist 

them in improving early intervention, educational, and transitional services and results for 

their children and families. 

The IDEA authorizes three types of competitive projects: parent training and information 

centers, community parent resource centers, and technical assistance for parent centers. The 

award period for these projects is typically 5 years.

Parent training and information centers must serve parents of children of all ages (birth to 26) 

and all types of disabilities. Awards are made only to parent organizations as defined by IDEA. 

The training and information provided by the centers must meet the training and information 

needs of parents of children with disabilities living in areas served by the centers, particularly 

underserved parents and parents of children who may be inappropriately identified. At least one 

award for a parent training and information center must be made in each State, subject to the 

receipt of acceptable applications. Large and heavily populated States have multiple centers 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-96

that serve designated counties. One center specifically serves the unique needs of military 

families and another center serves Native American families across the country.

The parent centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by explaining to parents the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 

required by IDEA to make available. Parent center staff attended or facilitated over 1,000 

alternative dispute resolution sessions last year. These alternative methods of dispute 

resolution can help avoid costly litigation. As part of that role, parent centers are required, if 

State educational agencies choose, to contract with those State educational agencies to provide 

individuals who will meet with parents to explain the IDEA-mandated mediation process.

The Department allocates funds to parent centers through a formula based on three weighted 

indicators of need: State population of ages 0 to 26 (85 percent), child poverty (10 percent), and 

rural school enrollment (5 percent), with all centers receiving at least the amount of their fiscal 

year 2007 grant. When the appropriation for the program increases, this formula ensures that 

centers in States with the greatest need and the lowest per capita funding receive more funds. 

Community parent resource centers are parent training and information centers, operated by 

local parent organizations, that help ensure underserved parents of children with disabilities, 

including low-income parents, parents of children who are English learners, and parents with 

disabilities, have the training and information they need to enable them to participate effectively 

in helping their children. Community parent resource centers are required to establish 

cooperative partnerships with the other parent training and information centers in their States.

Technical assistance is authorized to assist parent training and information centers, including 

community centers, in areas such as coordinating parent training efforts, disseminating 

scientifically-based research and information, and the effective use of technology. These 

technical assistance services enhance the capacity of parent centers to serve parents 

effectively. The parent technical assistance center network maintains a Web site with a wide 

variety of information and materials for parents and professionals, as well as a directory of the 

parent centers (http://www.parentcenternetwork.org/).

In order to receive an award for a parent center, the IDEA requires that applicants must be a 

parent organization that has a board of directors, the majority of which must consist of parents 

of children with disabilities. The board must also include individuals with disabilities and 

individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, or early intervention. The 

parent and professional members of the board must be broadly representative of the population 

to be served, including low-income parents and parents of English learners.

While parent centers serve as direct resources for parents and families, they also act as referral 

points to other resources such as those available under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program and from the Institute of Education Sciences. Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination activities are coordinated with Parent Information Centers program activities to 

ensure that parents participating in parent training projects as well as other parents have access 

to valid information that is designed to address their needs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-97

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.................................................................................... $28,028

2011...................................................................................... 27,972

2012 ..................................................................................... 28,917

2013...................................................................................... 27,411

2014...................................................................................... 27,411

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request for the Parent Information Centers program is $27.4 million, the 

same level as in fiscal year 2014. The request would support a total of 106 Centers, including 

69 parent training and Information centers, 28 community parent resource centers, and 9

technical assistance centers. Family involvement in children's learning is critical to achieving 

high-quality education. Decades of research show that positive school-family partnerships can 

be built to inform families about and involve families in their children's learning. Studies show 

that all families can take concrete steps that significantly help their children succeed in school, 

regardless of their income, education, disability status, or knowledge of the English language 

[see IDEA sec 601(c)(5)(B)].

The training and information provided by the parent centers help ensure that parents have the 

knowledge and skills to help their children with disabilities succeed. In addition to assisting 

parents to better understand the nature of their children's disabilities and their educational and 

developmental needs, the centers provide training and information on how parents can work 

with professionals serving their children. For parents of school-aged children, this includes 

participating with administrators and teachers in the development of their child’s individualized 

education programs (IEPs), as provided for by the IDEA. For parents of infants and toddlers 

receiving early intervention services, it means participating with a multidisciplinary team in the 

development of individualized family service plans (IFSPs). Parent centers also serve as 

sources of information and training for hundreds of thousands of teachers and other 

professionals each year. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which includes provisions that affect all 

children, emphasizes the role of parents in education through provisions that stress shared 

accountability between schools and parents for high student achievement, educational options, 

local development of parental involvement plans, and building parents’ capacity for using 

effective practices to improve their children’s academic achievement. For a non-regulatory 

guidance document that provides a detailed overview of parent involvement in the context of 

ESEA, see: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/parentinvguid.doc. The Administration’s

proposal for the reauthorization of ESEA would further strengthen family engagement by 

doubling the amount of Title I, Part A funding that districts must reserve for family engagement 

and requiring districts to develop and implement comprehensive family engagement plans, as 

well as allowing States to fund programs that support family engagement and identify and 

disseminate best practices.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-98

Parent centers use a variety of mechanisms for providing information to parents and 

professionals. These include Web sites, one-on-one support, telephone call-in numbers, 

training workshops, and dissemination of written materials. In recent years, the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) has worked with parent centers to improve their Web sites 

and make their resources available in languages other than English, particularly Spanish (see 

http://www.neparentcenters.org/glossary/index.html). 

The 2015 request includes $14 million for new awards to parent training and information centers 

and $13 million for continuing awards to parent training and information centers, community 

parent resource centers, and technical assistance centers. Together, these 106 centers provide 

training and information to over a million parents and professionals each year.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Program Funding:

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers $487 $6,656 $14,020

Continuations : Parent Trai ning & Info C enters 21,769 14,953 7,368

Subtotal: Par ent Trai ning & Info C enters 22,256 21,609 21,388

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 0 0

Continuations: Communi ty Par ent R esource C enters 2,799 2,800 2,800

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource Centers 2,799 2,800 2,800

Technical Assistance Centers:

New: Technical Assistance 2,068 300 0

Continuations: Technical Assistance 0 2,398 2,900

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,068 2,698 2,900

Other (contracts):

New 100 92 0

Continuations: Other 148 160 263

Subtotal: Other 248 252 21,599

Peer Review of new award applications: 40 52 60

Total program funding:

New: Total 2,655 7,048 14,020

Continuations: Total 24,716 20,311 13,331

Peer Review: Total 40 52 60

Total 27,411 27,411 27,411
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-99

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (continued)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Number of Projects:

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 2 26 43

Continuations: Parent Training & Info Centers 68 43 26

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 0 0

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers 28 28 28

Technical Assistance Centers:

New: Technical Assistance 8 1 0

Continuations: Technical Assistance 0 8 9

Other (contracts):

New 1 1 0

Continuations: Other 2 2 3

Total number of projects:

New: Total 11 28 43

Continuations: Total 98 81 66

Total 109 109 109

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To provide training and information to parents of children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Improve the quality of parent training and information projects.

Objective 2: Parents served by Special Education Parent Information Centers will be 

knowledgeable about their IDEA rights and responsibilities. 

Objective 3: Parents served by Special Education Parent Information Centers will be able to 

advocate for scientifically- or evidence-based practices for their child.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-100

Six performance measures have been developed for the Parent Information Centers program. 

There are three annual measures, two long-term measures, and one efficiency measure.

Annual Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of a crossdepartmental effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination 

activities more consistent Departmentwide. However, the measures have been adapted to 

reflect the unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2012 

through 2015 have been established based on performance data from 2007 to 2011. The 

measures are:

Measure: The percentage of materials used by Parent Information Centers projects that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2010 63% 76%

2011 76 89

2012 78 96

2013 80 100

2014 82

2015 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels 

of reviewers who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected sample of 

materials disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents. In an effort 

to ensure that the sample materials reviewed in 2013 were representative of all grantees, 

1 service was drawn from a stratified random sample of community parent resource centers 

(CPRCs) and parent training and information centers (PTIs), for a total of 28 services reviewed. 

Prior to 2013, OSEP collected and analyzed data on this measure for both products and 

services. However, because the primary focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the provision of 

services, beginning in 2013, the Department no longer collected information on products in 

order to more accurately reflect the work of these centers.

All services are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by the OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the extent to which the content of submitted materials is: evidencebased, valid, complete, and up-to-date. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on 

the basis of the following two quality dimensions: (1) Substance (Does the service reflect the 

best of current research and theory or policy guidance, as demonstrated by a scientifically- or 

evidence-based approach, a solid conceptual framework, appropriate citations, and other 

evidence of conceptual soundness?); and (2) Communication (Does the service have clarity in 

its presentation, as evidenced by being free of errors, appropriately formatted, and well 

organized?). The total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the two quality 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-101

dimension sub-scores. High quality for any individual service is defined as a total score of 6 or 

higher of 9 possible points. Prior to 2013, this same methodology was used for both products 

and services.

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average quality rating of 6 or better (28 services) by the total number of services reviewed (28), 

multiplied by 100 percent. Prior to 2013, this same methodology was used for both products 

and services. For 2013, 100 percent (28/28 = 1.00 x 100% = 100.0%) of services were deemed 

to be of high quality, which is an increase compared to 2011 and 2012 and exceeds the target 

level. The Department continues to use the feedback from the expert panel to work with 

grantees to continuously improve their services. 

Measure: The percentage of Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to be 

of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice by an independent 

review panel of qualified members of the Parent Information Centers target audience. 

Year Target Actual

2010 96% 98%

2011 96 99

2012 96 100

2013 96 96

2014 97

2015 97

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using panels of 

special education parent stakeholders to review a randomly selected sample of materials 

disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents. In an effort to ensure 

that the sample materials reviewed in 2013 were representative, 1 service was drawn from a 

stratified random sample of CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 28 services reviewed. Prior to 2013, 

OSEP collected and analyzed data on this measure for both products and services. However, 

because the primary focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the provision of services, beginning 

in 2013, the Department no longer collected information on products in order to more accurately 

reflect the work of these centers.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the materials’ responsiveness to priority issues and challenges 

confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of 

the following three dimensions related to relevance: (1) Need (Does the content of the material 

attempt to solve an important problem or critical issue?); (2) Pertinence (Does the content of the 

material match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups?); and (3) Reach (To 

what extent is the content of the material applicable to diverse populations within the target 

group?). The total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the three relevance

dimension sub-scores. High relevance for any individual service is defined as a total score of 6 

or higher of 9 possible points.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-102

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average relevance rating of 6 or better (27 services) by the total number of services reviewed 

(28), multiplied by 100 percent. Prior to 2013, this same methodology was used for both 

products and services. For FY 2013, 96.4 percent (27/28 = 0.964 x 100% = 96.4%) of services 

were deemed to be of high relevance.

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that program grantees do a good job of 

ensuring that products and services are of high relevance to education and early intervention 

policy or practice. The actual percentage of materials judged to be of high relevance met the 

target. (The 1 service that failed to be judged of high relevance scored a 5.17 of 9 possible 

points.) The Department is using the feedback from the expert panel to work with grantees to 

improve their services and maintain the high standard achieved in 2012. 

Measure: The percentage of all Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to 

be useful by target audiences to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice. 

Year Target Actual

2010 95% 95%

2011 95 92

2012 95 100

2013 96 93

2014 96

2015 96

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using a panel of six 

to eight parent stakeholders who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected 

sample of materials (n = 28) disseminated by the centers. In an effort to ensure that the sample 

materials reviewed were representative, 1 service were drawn from a stratified random sample 

of 28 CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 28 services reviewed. Prior to 2013, OSEP collected and 

analyzed data on this measure for both products and services. However, because the primary 

focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the provision of services, beginning in 2013, the Department no 

longer collected information on products in order to more accurately reflect the work of these 

centers.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the extent to which the content can be easily and quickly adopted or 

adapted by the target group, and the likelihood that the product or service, if adopted, will 

produce the desired result. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of 

the following three dimensions related to usefulness: (1) Ease (Does the content of the service 

description address a problem or issue in an easily understood way, with directions or guidance 

regarding how a problem or issue can be addressed?); (2) Replicability (Is it likely that the 

information derived from the service will eventually be used by the target group in multiple 

settings to achieve the intended benefit?); and (3) Pertinence (Does the content of the material 

match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups?). The total score for any 

individual service reviewed is the sum of the three quality dimension sub-scores. High 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-103

usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of 6 or higher of 9 

possible points. 

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average usefulness rating of 6 or better (26 services) by the total number of services 

reviewed (28), multiplied by 100 percent. Prior to 2013, this same methodology was used for 

both products and services. For fiscal year 2013, 92.9 percent (26/28 = 0.929 x 100% = 92.9%)

of services were deemed to be useful by target audiences. 

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that the program’s grantees generally 

produce products and services that are useful to target audiences. The actual percentage of 

materials judged to be useful decreased from the prior year and failed to meet the target. The 

Department is using the feedback from the expert panel to work with grantees to improve their 

services and maintain the high standard achieved in 2012.

Long-Term Measures

Two long-term measures have been developed for the program. Data are collected every 

2 years through an OSEP-supported survey of parents who had received services from the 

parent centers. In 2009, OSEP conducted an independent survey of the same population to 

test the validity of these measures. The survey found parents’ answers to questions were not 

significantly different from the original data and confirmed the accuracy of the data collection 

methods used for the following long-term measures:

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who promote scientifically- or evidence-based practices for their infants, toddlers, 

children and youth.

Year Target Actual

2009 74% 79%

2011 75 77

2013 76 80

2015 77

Additional Information: Data are collected by the parent centers every 2 years using 

telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center (n = 3,195). The 

National PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate the measure, a 

weighted sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced knowledge of 

evidence-based practices is divided by the total number of parents who responded to four 

relevant survey questions. Baseline data for this relatively new measure were first collected in 

2007 and used to establish targets for later years.

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that program grantees do a reasonably good 

job of ensuring that parents receiving parent information centers services promote sound 

practices for their children. The Department uses the results of this measure and the annual 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-104

quality measure to provide the centers with feedback on how they can better align their products 

and services with evidence-based practices.

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report enhanced knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities.

Year Target Actual

2009 85% 91%

2011 87 85

2013 89 88

2015 91

Additional Information: Data are collected for this measure by the parent centers every 

2 years using telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center 

(n = 3,195). The National PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate 

the measure, a weighted sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced 

knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities is divided by the total number of parents who 

responded to three relevant survey questions. The targets were established based on results 

from the survey in prior years.

Data for this measure suggest that most of the parents receiving services from the grantees 

believe they enhanced their understanding of their rights and responsibilities under IDEA. 

However, while the actual percentage of parents who reported enhanced knowledge increased 

from last year, performance on this measure still fell below the target level.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The Federal cost per unit of output provided by the Special Education Parent 

Training and Information Centers, by category.

Year Target Actual

2010 $2.24 $1.13

2011 1.14 1.13

2012 1.12 1.26

2013 1.10 1.17

2014 1.08

2015 1.08

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for the Parent Information Centers program is 

“the cost per output, by category, weighted by an intensity rating.” In 2012 and 2013, the cost 

per unit of services exceeded the target level. The Department believes that data for 2012 

represent an outlier, given performance on this measure in both 2011 and 2013, which were 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-105

significantly lower than in 2012. Starting in 2011, targets were adjusted downward based on the 

consistent low level of the cost per unit from 2008 to 2010.

The data for this measure are collected by a survey developed by the National PTI Technical 

Assistance Center. The measure is calculated by dividing the total value of all Federal funds in 

the Parent Information Centers program by the number of parents reported to be served under 

the program weighted by an index reflecting the intensity of the services provided 

($28,917,243 / 24,636,014 = $1.17). The intensity weights represent the amount of interaction 

and support required to render each type of service. High intensity services such as IEP 

facilitation meetings receive a weight of 4; medium intensity services such as group trainings 

and counseling phone calls receive a weight of 3 and 2, respectively; and low intensity services 

such as visits to parent center websites receive a weight of 1. However, these whole number 

intensity weights do not reflect precise estimates of the relative amounts of time and resources 

associated with different types of services. The Department has examined revising these 

weights, but an analysis of data and input from performance measures specialists and parent 

center directors found that the weights could have a wide range of possible values, depending 

on the mix of services and costs at each parent center. In light of these findings, the 

Department has kept the weights unchanged to preserve the simplicity and transparency of this 

measure. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-106

Education al technolog y, media, and materials 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$28,047 $28,047 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding for this program is proposed in 

FY 2015 through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program (formerly known as the Technology 

and Media Services program) is the primary source of support for accessible technology and 

media-related activities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Technology activities promote the development, demonstration, and use of technology, 

including products with universal design features. It includes activities such as research on 

using technology to improve learning and provide access to curricula, and technical assistance 

and dissemination activities to enhance the use of technology by parents and teachers. Media 

and materials activities include closed captioning, video description, the timely provision of 

books and other educational materials in accessible formats, and other activities that improve 

access to education for students with disabilities. 

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program ensures that educational media 

that are not otherwise required to be made accessible are available to students with disabilities. 

Despite the passage of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 

which expanded the range of media that must be closed captioned and updated accessibility 

standards to include emerging Internet and mobile technologies, significant gaps in captioning 

coverage remain. Mandatory captioning still does not apply to video produced for classroom 

viewing rather than broadcast television or to video broadcast exclusively over the Internet. 

Funding for this program supports the captioning and nationwide distribution of thousands of 

titles of educational media per year. 

Video description consists of verbal depictions of key visual elements in a video or television 

program that are inserted into natural pauses in the spoken dialogue. These descriptions 

supplement the regular audio track of the program. They provide individuals with visual 

impairments access to television and other media that include visual images. Federal law only

requires video description of 4 hours of television programming a week on each broadcast 

television network and the five most watched cable networks. All other video programming, 

including increasingly popular Internet media, are not subject to description requirements. In 

2013, over 1,023 hours of educational video were described by grantees funded through this 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-107

program. The IDEA requires that description and captioning funds be used only for programs 

that are suitable for use in a classroom setting. These funds may not be used to describe or 

caption news programs even when they are suitable for use in classrooms. 

Educational materials activities include maintaining the standard used in the preparation of 

electronic files suitable for efficient conversion into specialized accessible formats. The 

educational materials and related printed core materials provided by this program are written 

and published primarily for use in elementary and secondary schools for instructional purposes 

and are required by a State educational agency or local educational agency to be used by 

students with disabilities in the classroom. As such, the timely delivery of these materials 

supports students’ access to the general curriculum and participation in statewide assessments. 

The single largest grant in this program provides funding for the production and distribution of 

textbooks and other educational materials in accessible formats to students with visual 

impairments and other print disabilities. These activities can be accomplished more rapidly and 

cheaply than ever before due to recent advances in digital technologies. In 2013, this grantee 

provided more than 1,300,000 accessible books and other materials at no cost to eligible 

students across the country.

The Department makes awards for projects throughout the fiscal year. The initial project 

periods of most awards start at the beginning of the fiscal year following the year of the 

appropriation. The duration of awards typically varies from 3 to 5 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 .................................................................................... $43,973

2011 ...................................................................................... 28,644

2012 ...................................................................................... 29,588

2013 ...................................................................................... 28,047

2014 ...................................................................................... 28,047 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program is 

$28.05 million, the same as the 2014 appropriation. The fiscal year 2015 request would provide 

approximately $3.5 million for about six new awards and approximately $24.5 million for 24

continuation projects. Projects funded under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

program support improved access to, and participation in, the general education curriculum, 

developmentally appropriate activities for preschool children, and statewide assessments. By

supporting research on, and dissemination of, accessible instructional materials and technology, 

this program helps ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public 

education guaranteed for them under the IDEA. This program funds innovations in accessible 

technologies and broadens the understanding of how technology can be effectively utilized to 

increase academic achievement. The Administration believes that improved access and 

participation result in higher expectations and improved outcomes for children with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-108

Educational Technology

The request includes $14.3 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of accessible technology. This is accomplished primarily through 

research, for which at least $11.9 million is proposed. In 2015, all of this research funding will 

support continuations for grants awarded in prior years. This includes $7 million to support 14

Stepping Up Technology Implementation projects first awarded in prior years. These model 

demonstration grants validate and scale up promising technology-based products or 

interventions such as curriculum materials, accessible products, or instructional methodologies. 

The research request would also support $1.5 million of continuation funding in fiscal year 2015 

for the Center on Online Learning for Students with Disabilities. This project investigates how 

the rapid growth of instruction delivered through the Internet affects students with disabilities, 

both positively and negatively, and develops promising practices for delivering online instruction 

to these students (project website: http://centerononlinelearning.org/). The Technology 

Research and Development Center on Literacy Achievement for Middle School Students with 

Disabilities would also receive about $2 million of continuation funding to support its work to 

expand the research base about technology-based instructional methods that can improve 

literacy outcomes. Approximately $1.2 million would provide continuation funding for early 

childhood technology model demonstration grants first awarded in prior years.

In addition to research projects, the request for Technology activities includes $1.4 million for a

continuation award to support technical assistance and dissemination activities carried out by 

the Center on Technology and Disability. This center assists parents and educators with using 

best practices with new products and services for students with disabilities. 

The request would also provide $1 million for the fourth year of an award to address the needs 

of postsecondary institutions related to recruiting, enrolling, retaining, and instructing students 

who are deaf, and addressing the varying communication and technology needs of and 

methods used by individuals who are deaf. This project is jointly funded with the Personnel 

Preparation and Technical Assistance and Dissemination programs. Under IDEA section 

682(d)(1)(B), the Department is required to provide at least $4 million of the funds provided for 

programs authorized under subparts 2 and 3 of Part D of IDEA “to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, continuing, and adult education needs of individuals with deafness.” 

Educational Media and Materials

Media and materials activities include a variety of activities targeted toward providing 

educational materials, such as textbooks, in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities, 

particularly deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and blind and other visually impaired 

individuals. In fiscal year 2015, $13.3 million would be allocated to these activities. 

About $3.5 million of the request will be available for new awards in 2015. Of this, $1 million 

would support a new investment in activities to improve the accessibility of educational 

materials. Even as a greater portion of classroom materials are published digitally, the new 

software and hardware used to deliver educational content are often not accessible to students 

with disabilities. Therefore, the Administration proposes to fund a project that would build on the 

groundbreaking work of a previous investment whose funding ends in 2014, the Digital Images 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-109

and Graphic Resources for Accessible Materials (DIAGRAM) Center. The DIAGRAM Center 

has developed new standards and open-source software for making digital images accessible 

for students with disabilities. Images and graphics are considerably more difficult to make 

accessible than basic text, but this Center’s tools make it easier, faster, and more cost effective 

to create and use accessible images (http://www.diagramcenter.org/).

Approximately $2.5 million would likely support several new awards for projects to provide 

access—through video description and captioning—of television programs that are appropriate 

for use in the classroom setting and are not otherwise required to be captioned by the Federal 

Communications Commission. These projects fill in the gaps in Federal accessibility policies to 

ensure that as many educational television programs as possible are accessible to students 

with visual or hearing impairments. Prior Department investments in this area have made 

accessible over 1,200 hours of programming per year that would otherwise be unavailable to 

these students.

The 2015 request for continuation activities in educational media and materials includes a total 

of $7.6 million for accessible books and other instructional materials. Of this, $6.5 million is for 

an award to support the development, production, and distribution of educational materials in 

accessible formats to students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The current 

grantee under this priority, Bookshare for Education (http://www.bookshare.org), has 

transformed the provision of educational materials in accessible formats by nationally providing 

free educational media, including textbooks, much more efficiently and quickly than was 

previously possible. Approximately $1.1 million of this funding will support a project first 

awarded in fiscal year 2014 to provide technical assistance to States and other entities on the 

provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats. In prior years, the 

Department has funded similar projects that develop and support the widespread use of the 

National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS). This standard ensures that 

publishers, educational agencies, and students with disabilities have clear guidelines for 

converting educational media into a variety of accessible formats.

Continuation projects also include $1.5 million to support the Described and Captioned Media 

Program, which makes accessible media (video other than television) available at no cost to 

students. This project not only captions and describes educational media, but also efficiently 

distributes the media to schools via the Internet and other channels. The support for video 

description of educational programming is essential for individuals with visual impairments 

because, unlike closed captioning, there are very few Federal requirements for providing video 

descriptions. Teachers and students can browse the growing media library of over 4,000 titles 

at http://www.dcmp.org. 

The IDEA requires the Department to support the National Instructional Materials Access Center 

(NIMAC), which is awarded noncompetitively to the American Printing House for the Blind. The 

NIMAC is a national electronic file repository that makes electronic files that comply with the 

NIMAS available for the production of print instructional materials in specialized formats 

(http://www.nimac.us/). NIMAC receives source files in NIMAS format from textbook publishers 

and provides these files to State and local educational agencies for use in producing materials 

in accessible media, such as braille, audio, and digital text. NIMAC contained over 32,000
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-110

books and other items as of February 2013. The request includes $649,000 for a continuation 

award for this project in fiscal year 2015. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 ootnote2014 Footnote2015footnote

Program funding:

Technology:

Technolog y Research:

New technology research $1,999 $1,500 0 

Continuations technology research 10,707 10,117 $11,910 1

Subtotal technology research 12,706 11,617 11,910

Technolog y Technical assistance and dissemination:

New technolog y technical assistance and disseminati on 1,440 0 0

Continuations technol ogy technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,000 1,431 1,435

Subtotal technolog y technical assistance and disseminati on 2,440 1,431 1,435

Technolog y Projects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

Continuations Technolog y Proj ects to address the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of indi vi duals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal Technolog y Proj ects to address the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adul t education needs of indi viduals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Technology:

New pr ogram fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 3,439 1,500 0

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 12,707 12,548 14,345

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 16,146 14,048 14,345

Media and Materials:

Medi a ser vicesCaptioned & described accessible media:

New 0 0 2,500

Continuations medi a ser vices captioned & described accessibl e medi a 3,998 3,998 1,500

Subtotal medi a ser vices captioned & described accessi ble media 3,995 3,998 4,000

Medi a ser vicesBooks and other instructional materials in 

accessible formats:

New medi a ser vices books and other instructional materials in accessi ble formats 0 1,287 1,000

Continuations medi a ser vices books and other i nstructional materi als in accessibl e for mats 6,8211 7,500 7,613

Subtotal medi a ser vices captioned & described accessi ble media 6,821 8,787 8,613
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-111

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Medi a ser vicesNational Instructional Materials Access 

Center (NIMAC) – Statutory earmark

Continuations medi a ser vices national i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y earmar k $567 $604 $649

Subtotal medi a ser vices nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k 567 604 649

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New pr ogram fundi ng subtotal, media services 0 1,287 3,500

Continuations program funding subtotal , medi a ser vices 11,3852 12,102 9,762

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, media services 11,385 13,389 13,262

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

New 130 160 0

Continuations other 307 389 377

Subtotal, Other, other 437 549 377

Peer review of new award applications: 78 62 62

Total program funding: 

New total program funding 3,569 2,946 3,500

Continuations total program funding 24,400 25,039 24,485

Peer review 78 62 62

Total program funding 28,047 28,047 28,047

________________

1 Approximately $259 thousand of fiscal year 2015 funds for media services will cover a portion of the 

continuation costs for this activity in fiscal year 2016. 2 Approximately $2,100 thousand of fiscal year 2012 funds for media services covered a portion of the 

continuation costs for this activity in fiscal year 2013.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-112

Seven performance measures have been developed for the Educational Technology, Media, 

and Materials program. Three of these measures are annual measures, two are long-term, and 

the last two are measures of efficiency.

Annual Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

Expert panels of six to eight reviewed a sample of products from 18 of the program’s projects. 

Each project submitted a product or multiple products that represents the primary or typical 

products/services released by that grantee during the prior fiscal year. 

Goal: To promote the development, demonstration, and use of accessible technology 

and media services to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with 

disabilities.

Objective: Improve the quality of products produced by projects in the Special Education 

Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2010 83% 97%

2011 97 97

2012 97 92

2013 98 94

2014 94

2015 94

Additional Information: The quality dimensions measured are (1) Substance – Does the 

product/service description reflect the best of current research and theory or policy guidance, as 

demonstrated by a scientifically- or evidence-based approach, a solid conceptual framework, 

appropriate citations and other evidence of conceptual soundness?; and (2) Communication –

Does the product/service description have clarity in its presentation, as evidenced by being free 

of editorial errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized? All of the selected products are 

reviewed and scored on whether the product content is evidence-based, valid, complete, and 

up-to-date. Products and services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher across 

the two criteria are deemed to be of high quality.

The percentage of products judged to be of high quality increased but did not meet the target in 

fiscal year 2013. However, a high percentage of products were still reported to be of high 

quality. The reviewers judged 17 of the 18 products in the sample to be of high quality. The 

Department set higher targets starting in fiscal year 2011 based on the high percentages 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-113

achieved in prior years; however, due to the decrease in the size of the sample the targets are 

now unrealistic. Therefore, the Department is reducing targets in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to 

account for the reduced number of projects. 

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high relevance to improving outcomes of infants, toddlers, children and youth with 

disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2010 95% 97%

2011 97 91

2012 97 100

2013 98 94

2014 94

2015 94

Additional information: All of the selected products were assessed on whether the product 

content was responsive to priority issues and challenges confronting the target groups and 

judged on three dimensions of relevance: (1) Need – Does the content of the material attempt to 

solve an important problem or critical issue?; (2) Pertinence – Does the content of the material 

match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups?; and (3) Reach – Is the content of 

the material applicable to diverse populations within the target group? Products and services 

receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher across the three criteria are deemed to be 

of high relevance.

In fiscal year 2013, the percentage of products judged to be of high relevance for this measure 

decreased and did not meet the target level. However, the panel found 17 out of the 18

products in the sample to be highly relevant for the intended users. The Department set higher 

targets starting in fiscal year 2011 based on the high percentages achieved in prior years; 

however, due to the decrease in the size of the sample the targets are now unrealistic. 

Therefore, the Department is reducing targets in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to account for the 

reduced number of projects. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-114

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that produce findings, products, and/or services that contribute to improving results for 

infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2010 84% 97%

2011 97 97

2012 97 92

2013 98 94

2014 94

2015 94

Additional information: All selected products were reviewed and scored on whether the 

product content could be easily and quickly adopted or adapted by the target group and produce 

the desired result. The products were judged on three dimensions of usefulness: (1) Ease –

Does the content of the product or service description address a problem or issue in an easily 

understood way, with directions or guidance regarding how a problem or issue can be 

addressed?; (2) Replicability – Is it likely that the information derived from the product or service 

will eventually be used by the target group to achieve the benefit intended?; and 

(3) Sustainability – Is it likely that the information derived from the product or service will 

eventually be used in more than one setting successfully over and over again to achieve the 

intended benefit? Products and services receiving an average panel rating of 6 or higher across 

the three criteria are deemed to be of high usefulness.

The actual percentage for fiscal year 2013 did not meet the target. However, the panel found 

17 out of the 18 products in the sample contributed to improving results for children with 

disabilities. The Department set higher targets starting in fiscal year 2011 based on the high 

percentages achieved in prior years; however, due to the decrease in the size of the sample the 

targets are now unrealistic. Therefore, the Department is reducing targets in fiscal years 2014 

and 2015 to account for the reduced number of projects. 

Long-Term Measures

The following two long-term measures have been developed for the program to provide 

information about the potential impacts of the projects’ products and services on the target 

population. Evidence about outcomes of the target population may take more than 1 year to 

become available; therefore, in FY 2011, the Department modified the data collection to every 

two years for both of these measures.

Objective: Investments in the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program will 

develop and validate current and emerging technologies that incorporate scientifically- or 

evidence-based materials and services.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-115

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that validate their products and services.

Year Target Actual

2010 63%

2011 70

2013 50%

2015 54

Additional information: Panelists individually assess the strength of the evidence supporting 

the case that each grantee’s products and services have resulted in improving outcomes of 

interest for children with disabilities on a 4-point scale defined differently for research grants and 

technology utilization and technical assistance grants. Grants receiving an average panel score 

of 2 or higher are determined as having validated their products and services.

For research grants, the scale is 3, signifying Superior (one or more well-designed randomized 

controlled trials, quasi-experiment, or single-subject research studies conducted by the project 

that support the case that the project’s products and services result in improving the outcomes 

of interest); 2, signifying Acceptable (any of the types of evidence described above with 

limitations that prevent a rating of 3); 1, signifying Low (any of the types of evidence described 

above, but with weaknesses of a substantial degree that result in an unconvincing case that the 

product or service results in improving the outcomes of interest); and 0, signifying Unacceptable 

(little or no evidence of results in improving the outcomes of interest).

For technical assistance and service grants, to receive a rating of 3, the project must meet one 

or more of the following standards: (a) a review of high-quality research that clearly applies to 

the project’s products and services and supports its efficacy in improving the outcomes of 

interest; (b) an evaluation study and/or qualitative study providing evidence that the project’s 

products and services result in improving the outcome of interest; (c) ratings of the project’s 

product and services obtained from users, focus groups, review panel, etc., when used in 

combination with a type of evidence such as (a) or (b) above; or (d) expert opinion derived from 

strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence. 

Additionally, the evidence must be of high technical quality and make a convincing case that the 

project’s products and services result in improving the outcomes of interest. For a rating of 2, 

the project may demonstrate any of the types of evidence described above with limitations that 

prevent a rating of 3. For a rating of 1, a project may demonstrate any of the types of evidence 

described above, but with weaknesses of a substantial degree that result in an unconvincing 

case that the product or service results in improving the outcomes of interest. For a rating of 0, 

a project demonstrates little or no evidence of results in improving the outcomes of interest.

This measure only includes projects that have entered the dissemination phase of their grants 

or completed the final year of their grants and submitted a final report. Of the ten projects that 

were rated in 2011 data collection, seven submitted acceptable evidence of validity; the other 

three projects struggled with collecting sufficient evidence of validity within one year. New data 

for this long-term measure are expected in 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-116

Objective: Investments in the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program will 

make validated, evidence-based technologies to improve results for infants, toddlers, children 

and youth with disabilities available for widespread use. 

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that make validated technology products and services available for widespread use. 

Year Target Actual

2010 100%

2011 100% 83

2013 100

2015 100

Additional information: This measure evaluates the extent to which each project rated in the 

measure above as “validated” has submitted evidence of the availability of, and customer 

support for, their technology-based products and services. In fiscal year 2012, the panel 

reviewed evidence from six centers that entered the dissemination phase of their projects or 

completed the final year of their grants and submitted a final report. Five centers that were 

rated as “validated” submitted sufficient evidence of the availability of their products or services 

to the target population. Due to the small number of projects that are eligible for this measure, 

minor changes in the number of projects that submit acceptable evidence can cause large drops 

in the reported percentages. Fiscal year 2013 data for this long term measure are expected 

in 2014.

Efficiency Measures

The Department has established two efficiency measures for the Educational Technology, 

Media, and Materials program. The two measures provide data on accessible book distribution 

and video captioning and description projects, respectively. The Department recently eliminated 

a measure on the efficiency of research projects due to concerns about the transparency and 

validity of the measure’s calculation methodology.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-117

Measure: The Federal cost per download from the accessible educational materials production 

and distribution project funded by the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program. 

Year Target Actual

2011 $7.0

2012 5.5

2013 5.0

2014 $5.0

2015 5.0

Additional Information: One of the major activities supported by this program is the 

development, production, and distribution of educational books and materials in accessible 

formats to students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The current grantee 

performing activities under the Department’s accessible educational materials priority is 

Bookshare, Inc. This measure, new in 2011, is calculated as the annual amount of Federal 

funding for the project divided by the number of files downloaded from the project by eligible 

students or teachers and sponsors on behalf of eligible students (In 2013: $6,500,000 / 

1,309,868 = $4.96). After downloading these files, eligible students can access the content in 

specialized formats, such as audiobooks or braille. Bookshare is the most widely used 

accessible book producer and distributor in the country. This project works in conjunction with 

other Department funded projects, such as the National Instructional Materials Access Center 

(NIMAC), to ensure that eligible students have appropriate materials needed to access the 

general curriculum. The Department established targets for 2014 and 2015 in fiscal year 2014. 

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2010 $2,255

2011 2,258

2012 1,962

2013 2,442

2014 $1,669

2015 1,523

Additional information: The educational media measure is calculated as the total amount of 

funding provided for description activities ($2,499,066 in 2013) divided by the total number of 

hours of accessible described media produced (1,024 hours in 2013). The cost of an hour of 

media description increased from fiscal years 2012 to 2013. Recent advances in technology 

have increased automation in the descriptioning process; however, costs increased in 2013 

because of the shift from closed captioning projects to video descriptioning projects, which are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

J-118

more time intensive. No target is shown for 2013 because the target in that year was based on 

incorrectly reported data. Targets in 2014 and subsequent years are based on corrected data.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-119

Special Ol ympics educati on pr ograms

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$7,583 $7,583 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010; continued funding for this program is proposed in 

FY 2015 through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Secretaries of 

Education, State, and Health and Human Services to make discretionary grant awards to the 

Special Olympics to support activities in a number of areas related to the Special Olympics. 

The Secretary of Education is authorized to make awards for:

1) Activities to promote the expansion of Special Olympics, including activities to increase the 

participation of individuals with intellectual disabilities within the United States; and

2) The design and implementation of Special Olympics education programs, including character 

education and volunteer programs that support the purposes of the Special Olympics Sport and 

Empowerment Act of 2004, that can be integrated into classroom instruction and are consistent 

with academic content standards.

In addition to funds appropriated under this authority, Special Olympics has received over 

$5 million in non-competitive grant awards from the Department since fiscal year 1999, including 

funds for national and world games and affiliated programs.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2010....................................................................................... $8,095

2011......................................................................................... 8,079

2012 ........................................................................................ 8,000

2013......................................................................................... 7,583

2014......................................................................................... 7,583
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-120

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $7.6 million for Special Olympics education programs, the same as 

the fiscal year 2014 level. The Administration’s request would support efforts to promote the 

expansion of Special Olympics and the design and implementation of Special Olympics 

education programs, specifically, the Special Olympics National Youth Activation Demonstration 

Project (Project UNIFY).

Project UNIFY, a national youth sports demonstration program, is the major activity funded by 

this direct appropriation. In addition to sports and physical education in integrated settings, this 

project also provides opportunities for youth to participate in leadership development, service 

learning, and structured interpersonal communication and socialization activities. The 

Administration believes the activities supported under this program assist individuals with 

intellectual disabilities in becoming productive members of their communities by dispelling 

negative stereotypes and promoting positive and inclusive learning environments.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Project UNIFY

Number of funded State programs 38 38 38

Number of schools participating 2,310 2,400 2,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

The Department established two output measures, two outcome measures, and two efficiency 

measures for this program. These are the first formal performance measures for this program, 

and the Department believes that they provide valuable information on the scope, quality, 

progress, and effectiveness of program services. The first year of formal data collection for 

these measures was 2011, and the Department used data reported in 2013 to set targets for 

fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase the inclusion and awareness of students with 

intellectual disabilities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-121

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY helps raise awareness 

about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2011 66%

2012 65

2013 66

2014 67%

2015 68

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY increases opportunities 

for students with intellectual disabilities to be involved in school activities.

Year Target Actual

2011 52%

2012 58

2013 60

2014 61%

2015 62

Additional information: Data were reported for these new measures starting in 2011. To 

gather the data, Special Olympics engaged external evaluators to survey school liaisons at the 

end of the program year. School liaisons are volunteers, typically teachers, who administer 

Special Olympics programming at the school level. Their perceptions are not direct indicators of 

programmatic outcomes. However, they are informed by close experience with participating 

students and the Special Olympics organization. These annual measures provide perspectives 

on the level of success that the Special Olympics is having in promoting positive and inclusive 

learning environments. The data indicate the program is improving the awareness of and 

opportunities for students with disabilities. 

Objective: The Special Olympics will promote the expansion of opportunities provided by 

Special Olympics programs for students with intellectual disabilities to participate in service 

learning, character education, and structured interpersonal communication and socialization 

activities that can be integrated into classroom instruction and are consistent with academic 

content standards.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-122

Measure: The number of schools participating in Project UNIFY.

Year Target Actual

2011 2,025

2012 2,150

2013 2,310

2014 2,400

2015 2,500

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Project UNIFY High Activation Program.

Year Target Actual

2011 810

2012 924

2013 987

2014 1,056

2015 1,150

Additional information: Special Olympics has aggressively expanded the reach of Project 

UNIFY during recent years to more than 2,310 locations in 38 states. There were 718

elementary schools, 481 middle schools, and 1,028 high schools, and 83 other schools 

participating in Project UNIFY in 2012. Schools typically offer programming at one of two 

intensity levels: High Activation or Building Bridges. High Activation schools feature a higher 

intensity and variety of activities, and therefore are likely to have a larger impact on participating 

students. Building Bridges schools offer fewer activities and tend to be new to the program. 

Schools with High Activation programs also generally require a greater commitment of 

resources. In 2013, 43 percent of all participating schools were in the High Activation category, 

the same as 2012.

Objective: The Special Olympics will develop efficient programs at the national, State, and 

school level.

Measure: The average total Federal cost per school.

Year Target Actual

2011 $3,997

2012 3,758

2013 3,463

2014 $3,160

2015 3,033
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-123

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2011 33%

2012 25

2013 22

2014 20%

2015 20

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. The decrease in the cost per school reflects an increase in the number of participating 

schools and a slight decline in the Federal appropriation for this program. The measure on 

administrative costs includes administrative expenses at the State level and national level 

charged to the Federal grant. These administrative expenses pay for management, oversight, 

and coordination functions that make possible the ongoing implementation of programming in 

schools. Administrative costs vary among the Department’s grants with respect to the type of 

entity, activity performed, structure of the grantee, and the efficiency of the project’s operations. 

This program has continued to decrease the percentage of funds spent on administration every 

year since 2011. 

Other Performance Information

Project reports indicate that State and local coordinators were given significant latitude in 

developing programs. This flexibility has resulted in significant differences in the approaches 

taken to achieving Project UNIFY’s goals and presented challenges for evaluating success. For 

example, the intensity of services offered varied substantially among participating schools.

Project UNIFY has engaged external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts to 

conduct a formative evaluation. Data from surveys of school liaisons in 954 schools indicated 

that Project UNIFY had an inconclusive impact on the attitudes and behaviors of participating 

students toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. The evaluators commented that the 

effect of Project UNIFY may be limited by the self-selection into the program by students who 

already had positive attitudes and behaviors. It is difficult to avoid this self-selection effect 

because participation in Special Olympics activities is voluntary and non-random. The project’s 

impact on academic outcomes was not measured because improving academic achievement 

was not the primary goal of this program. 

The formative evaluation also found that the majority of school staff involved with the project 

believed that Project UNIFY helped raise awareness about students with intellectual disabilities, 

increased interaction between students with and without intellectual disabilities, and increased 

the confidence of students with intellectual disabilities. Surveys showed that most participating 

schools have hosted both inclusive sports programs and youth leadership/activation activities. 

Schools with the highest levels of involvement generally featured extra-curricular clubs that 

provided a venue for students with and without intellectual disabilities to participate in sports and 

social activities that promote inclusive school environments. The evaluators concluded that

these clubs are a best practice that can provide a model for other participating schools.