Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................H-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .............................................................................H-8

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................H-9

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................H-10

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................H-11

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................H-14

Activities:

State grants:

Grants to States ........................................................................................................H-15

Preschool grants .......................................................................................................H-39

Grants for infants and families ...................................................................................H-50

Natinoal activities:

State personnel development....................................................................................H-59

Technical assistance and dissemination....................................................................H-67

Personnel preparation ...............................................................................................H-79

Parent information centers.........................................................................................H-91

Educational technology, media, and materials.........................................................H-101

Special Olympics education programs ..........................................................................H-114

State tables1

 

1 State tables reflecting final 2016 allocations and 2017 and 2018 estimates are posted on the 

Department’s webpage at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-1

Appropriation s L angu age

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), $12,942,126,000, of 

which $2,591,321,000 shall become available on July 1, 2018, and shall remain available 

through September 30, 2019, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall become available on October 

1, 2018, and shall remain available through September 30, 2019, for academic year 2018-

2019:

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 2017, 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, but not less than the amount for that activity 

during fiscal year 2017:

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, 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 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 
H-2

calculating the awards under section 611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or for any subsequent fiscal 

years:6 Provided further, That, notwithstanding the provision in section 612(a)(18)(B) regarding 

the fiscal year in which a State's allocation under section 611(d) is reduced for failure to comply 

with the requirement of section 612(a)(18)(A), the Secretary may apply the reduction specified 

in section 612(a)(18)(B) over a period of consecutive fiscal years, not to exceed five, until the 

entire reduction is applied:7 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: 8 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) 9 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:10 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 under such subpart:

11

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). 

The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
H-3

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

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

H-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...$12,942,126,000, of which $2,591,321,000 

shall become available on July 1, 2018, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2019, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall 

become available on October 1, 2018, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2019, for academic year 2018-2019:

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, and Grants for 

Infants and Families 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 2017, 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, but not less than 

the amount for that activity during fiscal year 

2017:

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 2017 plus inflation or the 

percent change in the appropriation for the 

Grants to States 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 2017 appropriation.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-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, 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 State 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. 

4Provided 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 State 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

H-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 State 

financial support requirements in section 612. 

This language mitigates the potential longterm impact of one-time reductions in 

awards.

7 Provided further, That, notwithstanding the 

provision in section 612(a)(18)(B) regarding 

the fiscal year in which a State's allocation 

under section 611(d) is reduced for failure to 

comply with the requirement of section 

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

reduction specified in section 612(a)(18)(B) 

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 State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA over 

a maximum of 5 years.

8 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:

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

H-7

Language Provision Explanation

9 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 failure to meet 

the maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 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. 

10Provided 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:

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.

11Provided 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 under such subpart:

This language permits the Secretary to use 

funds appropriated for the State Personnel 

Development Grants program under Part D 

of the IDEA to evaluate program 

performance.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-8

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................ $12,959,21

0 $12,952,190 $12,942,126

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year..................... -9,265,735 -9,283,383 -10,124,103

Advance from prior year ..................................... 9,283,383 9,265,735 +9,283,383

Total, budget authority................................. 12,976,858 12,934,542 12,101,405
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-9

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2017 Annualized CR ............................................................................ $12,952,190

2018..................................................................................................... 12,942,126

Net change .................................................................................. -10,064

Decreases: 2017 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Elimination of funding for the Special Olympics Education 

program $10,064 -$10,064

Total, decreases: -10,064
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-10

H-10

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CRfootnote

2018

Authorizedfootnote

2018

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611)................................. Indefinite 1 $11,890,2022 Indefinite1 $11,890,2022

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) ................................ Indefinite 367,538 Indefinite 367,538

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C)................... 0 3 457,684 03 457,684

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) ................ 03 41,551 03 41,551

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination (IDEA-D2-663)................................................................ 03 44,261 03 44,261

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) .................... 03 83,541 03 83,541

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673)....... 03 27,359 03 27,359

National acti viti es Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

(IDEA-D-3-674) ................................................. 03 29,990 03 29,990

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA 3(a)) ... Indefinite 10,064 Indefinite 0

Total definite authorization ...................................... 0 0

Total annual appropriation ...................................... 12,952,190 12,942,126

Portion of request subject to reauthorization ........... 684,866

 1 Funding for technical assistance on State data collection is limited to $25,000 thousand adjusted for inflation. This amount is estimated to be $32,666 thousand 

for fiscal year 2017 and $33,444 thousand for fiscal year 2018. 2 Includes $21,400 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal year 2017 and $21,500 thousand in fiscal year 2018. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2018 through appropriations language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-11

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2009 $12,335,943 $12,587,920 1 $12,511,631 1 $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 12,587,856 2 12,587,035

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

2011 12,846,190 12,564,953 3 12,787,035 2 12,526,672 4

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

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (-16,240)4

2012 12,861,351 13,757,844 5 12,553,066 2 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 6 12,770,709 6 11,982,364

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

2014 12,657,307 N/A7 12,803,387 2 12,497,300

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

2015 12,600,627 N/A7 12,555,044 8 12,522,358

2015 Advance for 2016 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2016 12,822,358 13,024,510 

9 12,636,817 9 12,976,858

2016 Advance for 2017 (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2017 13,066,858 13,406,51710 13,066,85810 13,064,358

 1 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. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only.

6 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. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee. 10 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriations bill.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-12

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2017 Advance for 2018 (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2018 12,942,125

2018 Advance for 2019 (10,124,103)
H-13

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 


(dollars in thousands)

Amount Percent Amount Percent

Special Education 

1. State grants:

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

Annual appropriation D 2,629,465 2,606,818 2,719,465 1,766,099 (840,719) -32.25% (953,366) -35.06%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1, 2 D 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383 10,124,103 840,720 9.06% 840,720 9.06%

Subtotal 11,912,848 11,890,202 12,002,848 11,890,202 0 0.00% (112,646) -0.94%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA B-619) D 368,238 367,538 368,238 367,538 0 0.00% (700) -0.19%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA C) D 458,556 457,684 458,556 457,684 0 0.00% (872) -0.19%

Subtotal, State grants 12,739,642 12,715,424 12,829,642 12,715,424 0 0.00% (114,218) -0.89%

2. National activities (IDEA D):

(a) State personnel development (subpart 1) D 41,630 41,551 38,630 41,551 0 0.00% 2,921 7.56%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) D 44,345 44,261 44,345 44,261 0 0.00% (84) -0.19%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 83,700 83,541 83,700 83,541 0 0.00% (159) -0.19%

(d) Parent information centers (sections 671-673) D 27,411 27,359 27,411 27,359 0 0.00% (52) -0.19%

(e) Educational technology, media, and materials (section 674) D 30,047 29,990 28,047 29,990 0 0.00% 1,943 6.93%

Subtotal 227,133 226,701 222,133 226,701 0 0.00% 4,568 2.06%

3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) D 10,083 10,064 12,583 0 (10,064) -100.00% (12,583) -100.00%

Total, Appropriation D 12,976,858 12,952,189 13,064,358 12,942,126 (10,063) -0.08% (122,232) -0.94%

Total, Budget authority D 12,976,858 12,934,541 13,064,358 12,101,406 (833,135) -6.44% (962,952) -7.37%

Current 3,693,475 3,668,806 3,780,975 2,818,023 (850,783) -23.19% (962,952) -25.47%

Prior year's advance 1 9,283,383 9,265,735 9,283,383 9,283,383 17,648 0.19% 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The Advance for succeeding fiscal year shown in the 2016 Appropriation column and the Prior year’s advance shown in the 2017 Appropriation column reflect the final 2016 appropriation level. The Prior year’s advance 

shown in the 2017 Annualized CR column reflects the 0.1901 percent across-the-board reduction applied to the 2016 Advance for succeeding fiscal year that was part of the 2017 Annualized CR that expired April 28, 2017.

2 The fiscal year 2018 amount for Advance for succeeding fiscal year is increased to account for the proposed elimination of advances in Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants in the School Improvement Programs account.

2018 President's Budget 

Compared to 2017 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2016

Appropriation

2018 President's Budget 

2017 Annualized Compared to 2017 Annualized CR

CR 

2018 

President's 

Budget 

2017 

Appropriation 

H-13
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-14

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 2018 Budget Request for Special Education of $12.9 billion is aimed at 

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

with disabilities. A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget 

was prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the 

annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $13.1 billion, an increase of $87.5 million, or 0.67 percent, 

over the 2016 level for programs in this account. 

The Administration requests $11.9 billion for the Grants to States program, level with the fiscal 

year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) 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. The request would provide an average of $1,742 for each of the 6.8 million 

children with disabilities who are estimated to be served in 2018. The Federal contribution 

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

approximately 15 percent of the national average per pupil expenditures under this request.

The request of $367.5 million for Preschool Grants would provide support to States and 

schools for providing special education services to children ages 3 through 5. The request of 

$457.3 million for Grants for Infants and Families would provide assistance to States to help 

them implement statewide systems of early intervention services for children from birth through 

age 2.

The $226.7 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. The 

Administration’s request eliminates funding for the Special Olympics Education Programs

and maintains Federal support for all other National Activities programs at the fiscal year 2017 

annualized CR level.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-15

State grants: Grants to States

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Indefinite 1, 2

Budget Authority:

Budget Authority 2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

Annual appropriation $2,606,818 $2,719,465 $1,766,099 -$840,719

Advance for succeeding 

fiscal year 9,2,83,383 9,283,383 10,124,103 +$840,719

Total 11,890,202 12,002,848 11,890,202 0

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 fiscal year 2018 would be $33,444 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 fiscal year 2018 would be $145,744 thousand.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Department 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 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.

Funding Formula – Funds are allocated among States in accordance with a variety of factors, as 

outlined in the funding formula under section 611(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). 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 IDEA also includes several maximum and minimum allocation requirements that are 

triggered when the amount available for distribution to States increases. 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-16

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.

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 2018, the latter amount is estimated to be approximately $1 million.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-17

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 expenditures by up to 

50 percent of any increase in its allocation under the Grants to States program over the prior 

year. The Department 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

(ESEA) of 1965, as amended. Also, if a State educational agency (SEA) determines that an 

LEA is not meeting 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.

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) – LEAs typically may 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 comprehensive coordinated early intervening 

services. 

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 Department 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.

IDEA requires that from the funds appropriated for Grants to States, 1.226 percent must be set 

aside for the Department of the Interior to meet the need for assistance for the education of 

children with disabilities on reservations aged 5 through 21, inclusive, enrolled in elementary 

and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by that Department. It is 

estimated that the maximum amount authorized for fiscal year 2018 would be approximately 

$146 million. 

This is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A portion of the funds 

becomes available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated, and 

remains available for Federal obligation for 15 months. The remaining funds become available 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-18

on October 1 of the following fiscal year and remain available for Federal obligation for

12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion. For fiscal year 2018, 

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

2018-2019 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, 2020, to obligate their fiscal year 2018 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ......... $10,974,866

2014.............................................................. ...........11,472,848

2015.............................................................. ...........11,497,848

2016.............................................................. ...........11,912,848

2017.............................................................. ...........12,002,848

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.9 billion in fiscal year 2018 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 request is the same as 

the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 12.0 billion for this program.

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

from educational services. To remedy that, the IDEA guarantees that any child identified as 

having a disability that is covered by the IDEA will have access to a free appropriate public 

education in the least restrictive environment. The Grants to States program is aimed at 

assisting States and districts to meet that mandate.

The request would assist all States in implementing improvement efforts identified in their State 

Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP) in addition to providing special education and related 

services for children with disabilities. States submit SSIPs to the Department to evaluate their 

results for children with disabilities, their capacity to improve those results, and the needed 

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

In addition, the request level would maintain the Federal contribution toward offsetting the cost 

of special education and related services for children with disabilities to approximately 

15 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) based on the anticipated 

growth of APPE in fiscal year 2018. The request would provide an average of $1,742 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 2015-2016 school year level of 6.8 million.

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. Since 

2011, the number of children with disabilities served under IDEA increased each year, with 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-19

increases exceeding 1.5 percent annually during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. 

However, the Department cannot reliably estimate whether this trend is expected to continue. 

In the absence of more certain information, the Department has projected the numbers of 

children with disabilities expected to be served for fiscal years 2016 through 2018 at 6.8 million, 

the same level reported by States for the 2015-2016 school year.

One of the primary objectives of the Grants to States program is to improve the quality of the 

education provided to children with disabilities so that they can be involved in, and make 

progress in, the general education curriculum. This includes helping to ensure that eligible 

children have access to grade-level academic content, meet the same rigorous standards that 

have been established for all children to help prepare them for college and a career, and are

prepared to lead productive, independent adult lives to the maximum extent possible.

Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

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

accountability system, RDA, designed to improve State performance by emphasizing student 

outcomes. RDA shifted 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., early childhood outcomes, performance on assessments and graduation rates). 

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.

However, the Department believes that focusing monitoring and technical assistance efforts on 

significant areas of need identified by States, such as academic performance, will have the 

greatest impact on improving results for children with disabilities receiving services under the 

program.

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

develop fair, results-driven performance measures; however, because RDA’s success is 

dependent on State-level capacity to evaluate data and thoughtfully modify or refine support and 

service-delivery systems at the local level, some States need technical assistance in 

transitioning to this new framework. Therefore, the Administration is investing more than 

$20 million in fiscal year 2018 for technical assistance centers through the IDEA Technical 

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

programs that help States improve their data quality and assist with the implementation of 

SSIPs.

As the Department continues to shift to the RDA framework, States, lead agencies, districts, and 

early childhood providers will need support on multiple fronts to identify, prioritize, and 

implement evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities. The 

Administration, in turn, will continue to support States through targeted efforts by assisting in the 

identification and development of evidence-based practices as well as enhancing State systems 

of support. The funds requested under the Grants to States program and the National Activities 

programs would provide needed support to States and lead agencies. These investments will 

be used to enhance State-wide technical assistance, professional development, or other 

coordinated activities across a broad range of service providers; build the evidence base for 

promising interventions; and ensure that local education agencies and early childhood providers 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-20

have additional resources to provide high quality direct services to children with disabilities and 

their families.

FY 2018 Proposed Appropriations Language 

The Administration is proposing to continue appropriations language provided in previous years 

regarding State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, the technical assistance set-aside 

under section 616(i) of the IDEA, and the allocation provided to the Bureau of Indian Education.

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’ award under this provision and 

expects to reduce awards to Illinois, Tennessee, West Virginia, and American Samoa under this 

provision in 2017. 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 previous years, the Administration proposes appropriations language that would (1) allow 

the Department to redistribute reductions to other States and (2) 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 that 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 1 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.

As in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Administration also proposes appropriations 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 proposed 

language would allow the Department, for a State’s failure to meet MOE in any fiscal year, 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, in any year for which a State fails to meet the MOE requirement, the 

Department must reduce that State’s award in 1 fiscal year, and cannot spread the penalty over 

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-21

providing the Department 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 Department 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 to either recover State funds or reduce

the State’s IDEA grant, the Department can mitigate the impact of a reduction in funds on 

services for children with disabilities.

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 Department 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. In general, the Department uses these funds to improve data quality, drive data 

use, and inform program improvement at the State and local levels. The 2018 Request includes 

$21.4 million for such technical assistance, level with the amount that would be set aside for this 

purpose in fiscal year 2017. The request would include funds for a planned new award for a 

National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems, 

which would support States in developing and using their early childhood data systems. The 

request would also support a new award for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Data Capacity, which would provide technical assistance to States and local educational 

agencies on improving their data collection and analytic processes in order to promote use of 

data to drive program improvement. The request would support continuation awards to several 

existing technical assistance centers, including the Fiscal Technical Assistance Center, which 

provides technical assistance to States to improve the reporting of fiscal data; and the Data 

Management Center, which works with States to improve system architecture to ensure IDEA 

data can be used with other data collections to improve results for students with disabilities. In 

addition, these funds would be used to support a contract to provide logistical support and 

quality control of State-reported data to ensure its accuracy and improve data quality.

As in previous years, the Administration is proposing appropriations language that would 

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-22

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

language would maintain the expanded authority enacted through appropriations language in 

fiscal year 2016, which is currently being used in several of the Department’s technical 

assistance investments. 

Department of the Interior Set-Aside

Consistent with previous years, the Administration proposes that the fiscal year 2018 Budget 

Request include special appropriations language limiting the amount of funding required to be 

provided to the Department of the Interior (Interior). The 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. 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 $23,101 for each child with a disability it served in the fall of 2014, which is nearly

13 times the average amount per child that States would receive. At the fiscal year 2018 

Request level with the cap, Interior would receive about 8.6 times the average amount per child 

that States would receive, which translates into an average of $14,956 for each child with a 

disability, or about 130 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) compared 

to 15 percent of the APPE for States overall.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-23

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

footnote

Formula grants:

Formula grants to States $11,757,795 $11,845,719 $11,733,749

Formula grants to Outlying Areas 34,304 34,269 34,304

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

Department of the Interior 94,170 94,881 94,170

Subtotal, formula grants 11,892,848 11,981,448 11,868,802

Technical Assistance (TA):

IDEA Assessment Center 1,000 1,000 1,000

IDEA Data Validation Contract 01 20024053

Early Childhood Data 5,300 6,500 6,755

Fiscal Data Center 3,200 3,200 3,200

IDEA Data Management Center 2,500 2,500 2,500

TA Center on State Data 8,000 8,000 7,500

Peer review 0 0 40

Subtotal, TA 20,0004 21,4005 21,4006

Total program funding 11,912,848 12,002,8487 11,890,202

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 6,814,4108 6,814,4108 6,814,4108

Average Federal share per child (whole 

dollars) $1,7458 $1,7588 $1,7428

Average per pupil expenditure (APPE) 

(whole dollars) $11,4598 $11,4788 $11,6668

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 15%8 15%8 15%8

 1 Excludes $493 thousand of fiscal year 2015 carry over funds the Department obligated in fiscal year 2016. 2 Excludes $241 thousand of fiscal year 2016 carry over funds the Department plans to obligate in fiscal year 2017. 3 Excludes $85 thousand of fiscal year 2017 carry over funds the Department plans to obligate in fiscal year 2018. 4 The Department carried over $241 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2016 multi year appropriation into fiscal 

year 2017. 5 The Department plans to carry over $85 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2017 multi year appropriation into 

fiscal year 2018. 6 The Department plans to carry over $255 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2018 multi year appropriation into 

fiscal year 2019. 7 On October 1, 2017, the Department plans to reduce an award to American Samoa by approximately $35 thousand 

pursuant to section 612(a)(18)(B) of the IDEA. Under the terms of the continuing resolution, the Department does not 

have the authority to reallocate these funds to other States and will therefore lapse these funds.

8 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2015.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-24

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

Basis:

School 

Year

2012-2013

Percent

School 

Year

2012-2013

Number

School 

Year

2013-2014

Percent

School 

Year

2013-2014

Number

School 

Year

2014-2015

Percent

School 

Year

2014-2015

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 41.9% 257,982 42.2% 258,969 45.2% 252,172

Graduating through 

certification 9.2% 56,399 8.6% 53,031 6.7% 37,590

Transferred to 

regular education 9.4% 57,639 9.2% 56,552 9.7% 53,999

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 12.1% 74,502 11.8% 72,251 11.6% 64,850

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 26.5% 162,887 27.2% 167,187 25.6% 142,847

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 0.9% 5,839 1.0% 5,935 1.1% 6,054

Total 100.0% 615,248 100.00% 613,925 100.0% 557,512

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

Exchange Network (EDEN)/EDFacts.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-25

History of Children Served and Program Funding – FYs 1985 through 2018

Fiscal Year

Children Served 

(thousands)

Appropriation footnote (dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

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 1

1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 1

1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 1

1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 1

1,609 17%

2009 6,599 22,805,211 1, 2

3,453233%2

2010 6,614 11,505,211 1

1,736 16%

2011 6,558 11,465,960 1

1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 1

1,766 16%

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

2014 6,593 11,472,848 1

1,743 16%

2015 6,697 11,497,848 1

1,715 15%

2016 6,814 11,812,848 1

1,745 15%

2017 6,814 12,002,848 1

1,758 15%

2018 6,814 11,890,202 1

1,742 15%

 NOTE: 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.

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

2014, $25,000 thousand in 2010 through 2012, $23,693 thousand in 2013, $13,000 in 2015, $20,000 thousand in 

2016, and $21,400 thousand in 2017 and 2018.

2 Includes funds available in fiscal year 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-26

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 2018 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.

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.

Year Target Actual

2009 37% 34%

2011 39 32

2013 40 28

2015 40 30

2017 40

2019 40

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

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2009 35% 36%

2011 37 35

2013 38 31

2015 38 28

2017 38

2019 38

Additional information: 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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-27

“National public” is defined as: “public schools only. Includes charter schools; excludes Bureau 

of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools.” NAEP is a 

biennial assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments were scheduled for mathematics 

in 2012 and 2014.

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, increased slightly but have fallen 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 2015 fourth-grade reading assessment, only 30 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 2015, the exclusion rate for 

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

13 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 2015, 7 States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities 

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

Note 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.

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.” 

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, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-28

since 2011, eighth-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 2015

math assessment, only 28 percent of eighth-graders with disabilities scored at or above Basic, 

while 76 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 2015, 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 2015, 

zero States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities higher than 15 percent, down from 

19 States in 2011. Note 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.

Elementary and Secondary Education Measures

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

program that are parallel with those used for the ESEA 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 have been 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. With the passage of the ESSA, which 

reauthorized ESEA, and the removal of the statutory requirement of 100 percent proficiency by 

2014, the Department is currently revising and setting ambitious but realistic targets for these 

measures.

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. The Department notes that, for many States, the 2014-2015 

academic year was the first year of implementation of new assessments, which may have had 

an effect on performance on some of these measures.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-29

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

2013 92.4% 37%

2014 100 36

2015 100 22

2016 100

2017 TBD

2018 TBD

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

2013 92.2% 36%

2014 100 35

2015 100 22

2016 100

2017 TBD

2018 TBD

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

2013 3.6 28%

2014 0 28

2015 0 30

2016 0

2017 TBD

2018 TBD
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-30

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

2013 3.4 27%

2014 0 27

2015 0 26

2016 0

2017 TBD

2018 TBD

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

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

since 2013, State scores regressed in both reading and mathematics. The data suggested 

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 decreased and was not substantial enough to keep up with the 

increasing targets to bring all students with disabilities to proficiency by 2014. While 

performance among students with disabilities declined in the most recent year, that decrease 

can be most likely attributed to the implementation of new State assessments nationally in the 

2014-2015 academic year, on which students tended to fare worse than the prior State 

assessments. 

As is evident from the two previous tables, the 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 remained relatively 

consistent, demonstrating that the drop in performance on the first two measures captures a 

wider phenomenon than one only affecting students with disabilities. 

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

2013 63.0% 65.1%

2014 64.0 66.1

2015 65.0 69.9

2016 66.0

2017 68.0

2018 70.0

Additional information: Since 2008, States have successfully increased their graduation rates 

among students with disabilities and exceeded the targets for this measure. However, there 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-31

have been significant changes to reporting requirements for graduation and dropout rates over 

the last 5 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 complied 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 through 2013-14 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. In 2011, the Department developed an 

indicator on employment and postsecondary education. This indicator tracks the median 

percentage of 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 is 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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-32

Measure: The median percentage of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in 

effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher education or in some other 

postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other 

employment within 1 year of leaving high school.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 73.4%

2014 74.0% 76.3

2015 74.5 77.5

2016 75.0

2017 76.0

2018 78.0

Additional information: The Department collected baseline data in fall 2011 and 2012 and 

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

with States to provide technical assistance to identify improvement activities to produce 

meaningful and reliable data on postsecondary outcomes and set baseline data in 2014, and 

States met the target in 2014. However, States continue to struggle to collect a representative 

sample in the surveys through which data for this measure are collected. Response rates 

ranged from 14.2 percent to 100 percent, with an average response rate of 49 percent. In 

addition, only one State reported a respondent group that was representative of all five 

subgroups, which include disability, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and exit status. In fiscal year 

2014, the Department funded the National Technical Assistance Center on Improving Transition 

to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students with Disabilities, which will continue 

to work with States to improve their data quality and postsecondary outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

Efficiency Measure

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine 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. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

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. 

The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 2011 through 2015. During 

that time, OSEP continued to meet its statutory monitoring responsibilities through the State 

Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute 

resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits using a risk-based approach to 

monitoring. Under this new system, the Department plans to establish a target that tracks the 

number of days between completion of site visits to OSEP’s follow-up with each State. 

However, the Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available until 

summer 2017, at which point a baseline could first be established.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-33

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 

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 by disability type were in the areas of autism and developmental delay. Autism 

showed a 400 percent increase among children ages 10 to17 years, and developmental delay 

showed an almost 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 percentage of children with 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-34

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 

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, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-35

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.

The RtI evaluation employed 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. The study compared two different samples: a “reference 

sample” of schools representative of elementary schools in the 13 states and an “impact 

sample” of 146 elementary schools with three or more years of implementing RtI 

approaches in reading. This study attempted to address the following research questions:

• How did the prevalence of RtI practices differ between a representative reference sample of 

schools and schools selected for the impact evaluation? To what extent were impact 

sample schools implementing more RtI practices than the reference sample schools? How 

do special education identification rates in the impact sample compare with rates for the 

states as a whole?

• To what extent did schools place students in tiers as suggested by earlier RtI models? To 

what extent did schools adjust tier placement during the school year? To what extent is 

there variation in how schools organize reading services for specific reading levels? To 

what extent were services for students reading below grade level more intense than for 

students reading at or above grade level?

• For students who fell just below school-determined standards for each grade on screening 

tests: What were the effects on reading achievement of actual assignment to receive 

reading intervention services in addition to core instruction? What is the extent of variation 

in estimated impacts across RtI schools? How is the estimated impact associated with 

certain school features or student characteristics?

This study compared the intensity of RtI services provided to elementary reading groups, in 

grades 1 through 3, at different reading levels within. The study measured the extent to which 

support is more intense for students reading below grade level compared to students at or 

above grade level. In addition, for those students who fell just below school-determined 

standards for each grade on screening tests, the study investigated the impacts of reading 

intervention services. We note that concerns have been raised in the field regarding the 

strength of the research design of this study, particularly its focus on students just below reading 

proficiency, and not those with moderate or significant needs.

The final report found that, for the 2011-12 school year, schools implementing three or more

years of RtI approaches in reading provided more support to students reading below grade-level 

standards than those reading at or above grade-level standards. For those students reading 

just below the grade-level standards (as measured by a school-determined eligibility cut point 

on a screening test) in Grade 1, RtI reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes, but 

actually produced negative impacts (e.g., lower scores compared to the initial screening test) for 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-36

such students. For Grades 2 and 3, the estimated effects on reading outcomes were not 

statistically significant. Researchers stated that some plausible factors that may be related to 

negative impacts of assignment to intervention on some Grade 1 students include: (1) false or 

incorrect identification of students for intervention, (2) mismatch between reading intervention 

and the instructional needs of students near the cut point, and (3) poor alignment between 

reading intervention and core reading instruction. Overall, the study found that the estimated 

impacts of reading interventions on reading outcomes vary significantly across schools. It is 

also worth noting that this study focused on a very specific population in one subject area, and 

did not assess whether RtI may be effective in improving student outcomes in other subjects 

areas and grade levels, or whether RtI elementary literacy interventions may be effective for 

students performing well below grade-level standards.

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.

The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012), is the third in a series examining 

the characteristics and school experiences of a nationally representative sample of youth with 

disabilities. NLTS 2012 focuses on students ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011) but also 

includes a small sample of students without disabilities and those on 504 plans to enable direct 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-37

comparisons of students with and without individualized education programs (IEPs). The study 

collected baseline data in the spring of 2012 through the summer of 2013 on a nationwide 

sample of youth, and is expected to be released in 2016. The study is addressing such 

questions as:

• What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of youth with disabilities in public 

schools across the country? 

• What regular education, special education, transition planning, and other relevant services 

and accommodations do youth with disabilities receive? 

• How do the services and accommodations differ from those of youth not served under IDEA, 

including those identified for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? 

• How do the services and accommodations for youth with disabilities vary with the 

characteristics of youth? 

• How much have the services and accommodations of youth with disabilities changed over 

time? 

Post-High School Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities. Helping students, particularly those with 

disabilities, to complete high school prepared to pursue postsecondary education or begin 

productive jobs is a national priority. IDEA emphasizes transition services focused on improving 

the academic and functional achievement of students with disabilities to facilitate their transition 

from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education and employment. The 

study, awarded in 2015, will address such questions as:

• To what extent do youth with disabilities who receive special education services under IDEA 

make progress through high school compared with other youth, including those identified for 

services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? For students with disabilities, has high 

school course taking and completion rates changed over the past few decades?

• Are youth with disabilities achieving the post-high school outcomes envisioned by IDEA, and 

how do their college, training, and employment rates compare with those of other youth?

• How do these high school and postsecondary experiences and outcomes vary by student 

characteristics, including their disability category, age, sex, race/ethnicity, English Learner 

status, income status, and type of high school attended (including regular public school, 

charter school, career/technical school, special education school, or other State or 

Federally-operated institution)?

This new study will utilize administrative records data to follow a sample of youth with disabilities 

beyond high school. The sample for this study will focus on the youth who participated in the 

baseline study of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012). The NLTS 

2012 sample included a group of over 12,000 students ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011), 

including a small sample of students without disabilities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-38

Study of School Accountability for Students with Disabilities. As part of the IDEA National 

Assessment, IES studied changes in student outcomes after schools adopted programs focused 

on improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The focus of the study was 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 aligned 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 study used descriptive statistics to examine patterns of school accountability across States 

and over time, and examined how school practices varied with respect to school accountability 

for the SWD subgroup. Data sources for the evaluation included extant data from the 

Department of Education's EDFacts database and 2011 surveys of principals and special 

education designees from elementary and middle schools in 12 states. An interim report was 

released in May 2012; an update with information through the 2009−10 school year was 

released in October 2013; and a third report that provided the results of analysis of 2011 survey 

data on school practices in 12 States was released in February 2015 and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154006/. The study found that, when surveyed in 2011, 

elementary schools accountable for the SWD subgroup were 15.8 percentage-points more likely 

than never-accountable elementary schools to report moving students with disabilities from selfcontained settings to regular classrooms over the previous 5 years. Middle schools accountable 

for the SWD subgroup were 16.7 percentage-points more likely than never-accountable middle 

schools to report moving students with disabilities from self-contained settings to regular 

classrooms over the previous 5 years.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-39

State grants: Preschool grants

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, Section 619)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$367,538 $368,238 $367,538 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Preschool Grants program provides formula grants to States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico for the provision of 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 have provided assurances to the 

Department that they 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. Removal of children with disabilities from the regular 

educational environment is only warranted 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, is not 

possible. 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 child care facilities.

Funding Formula

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-40

relative percentage of the total number of children aged 3 through 5 in the general population. 

The other 15 percent are 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 

received in the prior year. In addition, every State must receive an increase equal to the higher 

of either: (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. 

Specifically, 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 

are no radical shifts in resources among the States. States must distribute the bulk of their 

grant awards to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).

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 for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year.

State-Level Activities

States may retain a portion of funds allocated to them in any given year for State-level activities. 

More specifically, the amount that may be used for State-level activities is capped at an amount 

equal to 25 percent of the amount they received for fiscal year 1997 under the Preschool Grants 

program, adjusted upward by the lesser of the rate of increase in the State’s allocation or the 

rate of inflation. Likewise, the amount that may be used for administration is limited to 

20 percent of the funds 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 a wide range of activities that are critical to effective administration 

of the program, including: (1) support services, such as 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) a supplement for the development and implementation of a statewide coordinated 

services system designed to improve results for children and families, including children with 

disabilities and their families. This supplement cannot 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 pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills. In 

addition, such services 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-41

Numbers of Children Served

The number of children served under this program increased slightly from 752,628 in fiscal 

year 2015 to 762,802 in fiscal year 2016. The increase is consistent with trends since 2009. 

The variations in the total number of children served make 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 2016 level for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013............................................................................ $353,238

2014.............................................................................. 353,238

2015.............................................................................. 353,238

2016.............................................................................. 368,238

2017.............................................................................. 368,238

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $367.5 million for the Preschool Grants program. The request 

would maintain funding for this program at the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution 

(CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $368.2 million for 

this program. The request amount would provide an average of $482 per child, based on the 

assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 5 who will be served will remain 

constant at the 2016 level of 762,802. 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 $11.9 billion for the Grants to States program for fiscal 

year 2018, which will provide an average of $1,742 per child. Funding under Preschool Grants 

supplements the funds provided to States under the Grants to States program, which serves 

children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, including all children served under the Preschool 

Grants program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Number of Children Served 762,802 762,802 762,802

Share per child (whole dollars) $483 $483 $482

NOTES: States may, at their discretion, provide free 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.

The numbers of children served for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 are estimates based on fiscal year 2016.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-42

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

1988 288 $201,054 $698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 798 1

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 709 774,0992 1,092

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 3 373,351 508

2012 745 3 372,646 500

2013 749 3 353,238 472

2014 745 3 353,238 474

2015 753 3 353,238 469

2016 763 3 368,238 483

2017 763 3 4 368,238 483

2018 763 3 4 367,538 482

 1 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.

2 These figures include funds provided under the Recovery Act in fiscal year 2009. 3 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 are not eligible to receive Preschool Grant awards.

4 Estimate based on number of children served in fiscal year 2016.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-43

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 2018 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.

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

2013 82% 81%

2014 83 80

2015 84 80

2016 84

2017 84

2018 84

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

2013 82% 80%

2014 83 80

2015 84 80

2016 84

2017 84

2018 84
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-44

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

2013 82% 80%

2014 83 79

2015 84 79

2016 84

2017 84

2018 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 the Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center (a grantee competitively funded under the IDEA, Part D 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination program), uses these data to assess outcomes for 

children served through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for 

preschool aged children, 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 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 

39 to 42 out of 59 States and jurisdictions in 2014. To help determine an appropriate baseline 

for these three measures, a weighted data set was derived from these 42 States, excluding 

States that had high proportions of missing data, anomalous outcomes, or were known to have 

other data quality or collection issues. The targets for these measures were established, in part, 

based on the outcomes of the sample of States with high quality data. Within this smaller 

sample of States, nearly 80 percent of preschoolers demonstrated substantially increased rates 

of growth by the time they exited the program in each measure category: 80 percent in positive 

social-emotional skills, 80 percent in the acquisition and use of knowledge, and 79 percent in 

the use of appropriate behavior. While the 2015 results do not meet the targets set for each 

category, they are consistent with the 2014 results.

States are engaged in implementing strategies to identify and improve the accuracy of local 

data collections, 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 regard to missing data. The extent of missing data is difficult to determine 

because States do not currently 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-45

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilities (ages 3 through 5) attending a regular 

early childhood program and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related 

services in the regular early childhood program.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 43.5%

2014 44 44

2015 45 44.8

2016 46

2017 46

2018 46

Additional information: This measure replaced a previous measure that focused on the extent 

to which children with disabilities receive their special education services in regular education 

settings. The earlier measure required States to report 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; however, the Department revised the 

Preschool Educational Environment reporting categories to better assess the inclusive 

experiences of preschool children with disabilities. In addition, the Department received 

feedback that the previous Preschool Educational Environments reporting categories were 

challenging to report on and provided little information regarding the inclusive experiences of 

children with disabilities in regular early childhood programs.

In the new measure, the Department simplified data 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 childhood program. The revised data collection is designed to obtain information 

on where children receive the majority (at least 50 percent) of their special education and 

related services. The first collection of preschool educational environment 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 developed a baseline in 2014 and met the target 

set for 2014. The actual performance of 44.8 percent in 2015 represents a small increase over 

the 2013 and 2014 actuals, but is slightly lower than the target of 45 percent.

The Department is using technical assistance providers such as the IDEA Data Center 

(https://ideadata.org/) and the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems 

(http://dasycenter.org/) 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, along with 

guidance in the Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive Environments 

(https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/preschool-lre-dcl-1-10-17.pdf).

The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems, which was created in 2012, also provides 

technical assistance and resources to state agencies to assist with the development or 

enhancement of data systems for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special 

education programs supported through 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, including Race To the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund and the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System grant program, to help state agencies create and expand 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-46

early childhood cross-agency and longitudinal data systems that include the Part C and Part B 

preschool data needed to collect, analyze, and report high-quality data required under IDEA.

Measure: The number of States with at least 90 percent of special education teachers of 

children with disabilities ages 3 to 5 who are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching.

Year Target Actual

2013 42 43

2014 45 44

2015 46 45

2016 47

2017 47

2018 47

Additional information: Although the Department is below its target for fiscal years 2014 and 

2015, performance has improved from 2013 to 2015. Forty five States meet the 90 percent 

requirement ensuring their full time equivalent special education teachers of children ages 3 to 5

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.

Efficiency Measure

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine 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. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

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.

The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 2011 through 2015. During 

that time, OSEP continued to meet its statutory monitoring responsibilities through the State 

Performance Plan /APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute resolution 

systems. Beginning in 2016, OSEP conducted site visits using a revised, risk-based approach 

to monitoring. Under this revised system, the Department again plans on establishing a target 

number of days from completion of the site visit to OSEP’s response to the State. However, the 

Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available until the end of 2017.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-47

Other Performance Information

Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS) (http://www.peels.org)

The PEELS study involved 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 answered 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?

• What child, family, community, and system factors are associated with the services children 

receive and the results they attain?

• What are the 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?

Results from the PEELs Study

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-48

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.

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?

• 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) (https://nces.ed.gov/ecls). 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 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 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-49

kindergarten experiences of these children. The first ECLS-K study 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 original 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. 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 non-poor 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 

non-poor children. One in three students who receive special 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, school, urbanicity, region, and poverty concentration.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-50

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$457,684 $458,556 $457,684 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

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, the Department 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 birththrough-2-year-olds with disabilities and their families, including Indian children and families who 

reside on reservations geographically located within a 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,

States define “developmental delay” and 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.

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. The natural environment includes the home and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-51

community settings where children would be participating if they did not have a disability. 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. 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.

The statewide system also must comply with additional statutory requirements, including 

designating a lead agency responsibility for the coordination and administration of funds, and 

developing and maintaining 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.

The 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 both: a) an educational component that promotes school 

readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills, and b) a written 

notification to parents of their rights regarding the continuation of services under Part C and 

eligibility for services under section 619.

Funding Formula

Allocations are based on the number of children in the general population aged birth through 

2 years in each State. The Department of Education (Department) 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 Department 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 

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 for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year.

State Incentive Grants

In any fiscal year in which the appropriation for Part C exceeds $460 million, the statute also 

includes authority for the Department 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-52

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 2017 did not exceed 

$460 million, so the Department did not have authority to award State Incentive Grants in any of 

these fiscal years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2013 ......................................................................................$419,653

2014 ........................................................................................438,498

2015 ........................................................................................438,556

2016 ........................................................................................458,556

2017 ........................................................................................458,556

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $457.7 million for the Part C program for fiscal year 2018. The 

request would maintain funding for this program at the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing 

resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$458.6 million for this program. 

These funds would continue to provide support for early intervention programs that provide 

services to infants and toddlers with disabilities. Such programs are also generally designed to 

mitigate the need for more extensive services in the future, and ensure that infants and toddlers 

with disabilities receive the supports and services that they need to prepare them to enter formal 

education.

These funds would also help States address the growing population of infants and toddlers that 

are likely to require early intervention services due to the rise in opiate addiction and the Zika 

virus. Over the past 14 years, the number of babies born addicted to opiates has quadrupled, 

putting them at a higher risk for developmental delays or disabilities

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6531a2.pdf). In addition, congenital Zika

virus infection is associated with a wide range of birth defects, and infants born with these birth 

defects are likely to exhibit significant delays in cognition, motor, communication, and adaptive 

development (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsr1604338).

At the requested level, the average State award would be approximately $8.6 million. These 

funds will help States maintain their systems for identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and determining appropriate services, and facilitate coordination with other programs serving 

young children.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-53

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Range in size of awards to States:

Rang e in size of awar ds to States:Smallest State regular Part C award1 2 $2,248 $2,248 $2,243

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Average State regular Part C award1 $8,645 $8,645 $8,628

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Largest State regular Part C award1 $54,898 $54,602 $54,498

Children served 362,000 362,000 362,000

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 2018 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

2013 69% 66%

2014 69 65

2015 70 66

2016 70

2017 70

2018 70

 1 The calculations exclude funds for the Outlying Areas and 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-54

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

2013 73% 71%

2014 73 71

2015 75 71

2016 76

2017 76

2018 76

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

2013 73% 71%

2014 73 72

2015 75 73

2016 77

2017 77

2018 77

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 the Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center (a grantee competitively funded under the IDEA, Part D Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination program), uses these data to assess outcomes for children 

served through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for infants and 

toddlers, 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 deliberately focused these measures on aspects of performance that take 

into account the challenges of assessing growth in early childhood outcomes, especially for 

children with disabilities. While two States have current 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.

Since States first starting reporting data on this measure in February of 2010 (providing data on 

program year 2009), there has been a marked improvement in data quality, with 42 States 

submitting high quality data in 2016 (for program year 2015), up from only 19 States in 

2010.The Department acknowledges that some data quality issues persist in a few States, 

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). However, most States are now producing high-quality data that provide 

a reliable national estimate of how children are performing when they exit Part C. Through its 

technical assistance investments, the Department continues to work with States to resolve 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-55

implementation issues, improve the validity and reliability of reported data, and use these data 

to inform program improvements.

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

2013 27 30

2014 28 31

2015 30 33

2016 32

2017 32

2018 34

Additional information: For a number of years, only 24 or 25 States served at least 1 percent 

of infants in the general population under the age of 1. The program made progress from 2012 

through 2015, exceeding its targets. 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.

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

2013 42 41

2014 45 44

2015 45 45

2016 46

2017 46

2018 47

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 

 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

H-56

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 over the past 6 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

2013 94% 95%

2014 95 96

2015 95 96

2016 95

2017 95

2018 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 14 years (by 20 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.

Efficiency Measures

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine 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. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

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.

The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 2011 through 2014. During 

that time, OSEP continued to meet its statutory monitoring responsibilities through the State 

Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute 

resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits using a revised, risk-based 

approach to monitoring. Under this revised system, the Department again plans on establishing 

a target number of days from completion of the site visit to OSEP’s response to the State. 

However, the Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available until the 

end of 2017.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-57

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.

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. Forty-six 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 fiscal year 2009 was 

21 percent. Twenty-three 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).
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-58

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

H-59

National activities: State personnel development

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$41,551 $38,630 $41,551 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program provides grants to help State educational 

agencies (SEAs) reform and improve 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 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, as amended (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

H-60

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; 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 1005 and 2101(d) of the 

ESEA; and as appropriate, the use of evidence-based programs and research. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ..................41,630

2014.............................................................. ..................41,630

2015.............................................................. ..................41,630

2016.............................................................. ..................41,630

2017.............................................................. ..................38,630

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $41.6 million for the State Personnel Development (SPD) grants 

program to help State educational agencies improve results for children with disabilities through 

the delivery of high quality instruction and the recruitment and retention of effective and qualified 

personnel. The request, which is the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing 

resolution (CR) level, would support continuation awards, and performance evaluation activities. 

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $38.6 million for this program. 

As in fiscal year 2017, the Administration is requesting appropriations language in the 2018

Budget that would provide 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.

11 SPD projects assist in addressing critical 

State and local needs to improve personnel preparation, induction to the LEA, and ongoing 

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 IDEA. Support for special education personnel preparation activities is also provided 

through the Personnel Preparation program, under which the Administration makes competitive 

awards, primarily to institutions of higher education, to help States train and employ adequate 

numbers of fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities. 

Activities funded through the SPD program are intended to support statewide strategies to 

prepare, recruit, and retain teachers who are qualified under IDEA and the ESEA. Qualified 

teachers generally: 1) meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements 

(including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes); 2) are

 1 Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

March 2015: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-61

prepared to deliver instruction, supported by evidence; and 3) are effective in improving 

outcomes for children with disabilities. States must collaborate and seek the input of teachers, 

principals, parents, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel when 

developing SPD activities.

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 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 

strategies for successful transitioning to postsecondary opportunities. Funds also assist States 

in utilizing classroom-based techniques to assist children prior to referral for special education.

Funding Priorities

To improve the outcomes of children with disabilities, the Administration is focusing the SPD 

program’s resources in on projects that: 1) provide evidence-based professional development, 

and; 2) provide on-going assistance to personnel who have received SPD-supported 

professional development, including assisting local educational agencies (LEAs) to build upon 

systems that support implementation of practices supported by evidence. In addition, the 

Administration is emphasizing and promoting practices supported by evidence in SPD by 

awarding competitive preference points to applicants demonstrating that they will use program

funds to support practices that meet the evidence of promise standard to improve outcomes for 

children with disabilities. Such activities will help ensure that personnel receive the necessary 

support to use the acquired knowledge and skills to implement practices with fidelity.

Personnel Recruitment and Retention

The SPD program supports States in developing and implementing strategies that are effective 

in promoting the recruitment and retention of 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. 

Some examples of how States are using SPD funds to improve the knowledge and skills of 

teachers serving children with disabilities include: 

• Wisconsin SPD funds are used to support the development and sustainment of professional 

learning communities (PLCs). These PLCs help teachers to examine data, determine 

effective practices, and develop action plans that will lead to improvement in academic 

achievement for students with disabilities. Sixty-seven percent of schools participating in 

this professional development showed a decrease in the proficiency gap on Statewide 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-62

assessments. Sixty-three percent of schools demonstrated growth in the achievement of 

students with disabilities on reading and math assessments. 

• Louisiana SPD funds are used to support family engagement activities that have resulted in 

a sixty-six percent increase in the number of families with students with disabilities who 

reported schools facilitate family involvement to improve services (based on the IDEA 

survey).

• Connecticut SPD funds are used to support improvements in school climate and positive 

behavior supports. In one year the SPD schools decreased their use of out-of-school 

suspensions and expulsions by eight percent. Sixty-four percent of the SPD-supported 

schools were able to decrease their use of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions.

• Oklahoma SPD funds are used to support improved literacy instruction for students with 

disabilities. Ninety-six percent of students receiving the program with fidelity moved up one 

grade level. Forty-nine percent of students moved up two grade levels.

• Rhode Island’s SPD funds are used to support their Multi-tiered Systems of Support 

efforts. Seventy-two percent of schools receiving assistance demonstrated increases in the 

percentage of students meeting academic benchmarks.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Project funding:

New SPD awards $8,866 $25,599 0

Continuation SPD awards 32,633 15,890 $41,498

Performance evaluation 124 53 53

Peer review of new award applications 7 9 0 

Total funding 41,630 41,551 41,551

Average award (whole dollars) 1,090 1,012 1,015

Number of awards:

New 7 25 0

Continuation 31 16 41 

Total awards 38 41 41

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 results is based on the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-63

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

year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

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.

Objective 3: Implement strategies that are effective in meeting the requirements of section 

612(a)(14) of IDEA to take measurable steps to retain highly qualified personnel in areas of 

greatest need to provide special education and related services.

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 through 2014 were used to refine the measures, methodology, and 

scoring. The Department used data reported in 2012 through 2014 to develop baseline targets 

in the fall of 2015. 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.

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmarks for use of 

evidence-based professional development practices over time.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 72%

2016 70% 75

2017 70

2018 77

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in their 2nd through final year of implementation that meet their respective benchmarks 

for use of evidence-based PD practices by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in their 2nd

through final year of implementation reviewed, times 100. 

In 2016, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd through final year of funding. In 

2016, 32 initiatives were subject to the benchmarks defined by the program office. An outside 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-64

contractor used a random sampling process to select one professional development (PD) 

initiative for review from each of these 32 eligible SPD grants. The contractor commissioned two

reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, and program evaluation to assess the extent 

to which the SPD grant PD initiatives selected for review utilized evidence-based PD practices. 

To standardize the review, the program office provided the reviewers with an electronic copy of 

a worksheet describing each PD initiative in terms of (1) Selection, (2) Training, (3) Coaching, 

(4) Performance Assessment, and (5) Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention 

with an “SPD Evidence-based Professional Development Components Rubric,” which reviewers 

used to assess the extent to which the SPD PD initiatives implemented evidence-based PD 

practices.

Of the 32 SPD grants reviewed in 2016, a total of 24 were determined to “meet their respective 

benchmarks for use of evidence-based PD practices.” 

Therefore, in 2016, the number of SPD PD initiatives meeting their respective 

benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (24/32) x 100 = 75 percent.

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmark for improvement 

in implementation over time.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 58%

2016 60% 74

2017 60

2018 65

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in at least their 3rd year of implementation that meet their benchmark for improvement 

of evidence-based PD practices by the total number of SPD funded PD initiatives, times 100.

An outside contractor used a random sampling process to select one professional development 

(PD) initiative for review from each of these 32 eligible SPD grants. The contractor then 

identified PD initiatives that were in at least their 3rd year of implementation during the most 

recent APR period, when improvements in implementation can be observed. A total of 31 PD 

initiatives were in at least their 3rd year of implementation, and therefore included in the review.

It is noteworthy that the total number of projects eligible for review under this measure in 2016 

was significantly larger than in previous years (31 PD initiatives vs. 12 PD initiatives in 2015). 

Of these 31 PD initiatives, a total of 23 were deemed to “meet the benchmark for improvement 

of evidence-based PD practices.”

Therefore, in 2016, the number of SPD PD initiatives meeting their respective 

benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (23/31) x 100 = 74 percent. This 

actual performance represents a significant increase from previous years, and OSEP raised the 

target in response to this outcome.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-65

Measure: The percentage of initiatives that meet targets for their use of funds to sustain SPDsupported practices.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 90%

2016 85% 78

2017 85

2018 85

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in at least their 2nd year of implementation that meet the grantee benchmark for using 

funds to support sustainability by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in at least their 2nd year 

of implementation reviewed times 100. Grantee-submitted data describing the cost of the 

fidelity activities designed to sustain individual initiatives is used to support this measure. 

Targets for each initiative are set in conjunction with the grantee. 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. 

In 2016, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd through final years of funding. The 

contractor commissioned two reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, program 

evaluation, and finance to extract cost data for each PD initiative under review from the APR 

and calculate the percentage of SPD grants that met their targets for the use of funds to sustain 

evidence-based practices. 

In 2016, 25 of the 32 initiatives included were in at least their 2nd year of implementation and 

were therefore subject to the benchmark defined by the program office. 

Therefore, for 2016, the number of SPD initiatives meeting their respective benchmark/number 

of SPD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (25/32) x 100 = 78 percent.

Measure: The percentage of SPD grant-funded projects that meet targets for retention of 

special education teachers. 

Additional information: Beginning in the 2016 report, the information for this measure will be 

provided qualitatively. 

Some SPD grantees have special education teacher retention as a goal and are required to 

report the number of qualified special education teachers who remain as special education 

teachers two or more years following their initial participation in grant activities and the total 

number of teachers who participated in grant activities designed for teacher retention at least 

two years prior to the annual performance reporting period (APR). 

In 2016, this measure applied to five SPD grants. An outside contractor commissioned two 

reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, and program evaluation to assess the extent 

to which each grantee had met their respective target for retaining special education teachers. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-66

The program office uses a standardized rubric containing four questions to determine whether 

or not each grantee met their benchmark for retaining special education teachers after their 

participation in grant activities. These questions are:

• Did the grantee divide the number of teachers who remain in a teaching position by all 

teachers who received SPD grant assistance? (Equation = Number of teachers retained 

for at least two years following participation in a SPD grant teacher retention activity 

divided by number of teachers participating in a SPD grant activity designed to retain 

highly qualified special education teachers.) (Response categories = Yes, No)

• Does the grantee set a target for teacher retention for teachers who participated in SPD 

grant activities at least two years ago? (Response categories = Yes, No)

• Does the grantee have special educators who participated in SPD grant activities at 

least two years ago? (Response categories = Yes, No, Not Sure)

• Did the grant meet its target for these teachers? (Response categories = Yes, No)

Reviewers extracted data from the APR to answer these questions for each of the five SPD 

grants with teacher retention as a goal, and the reviewers then discussed their individual 

assessments until reaching consensus on each grantee’s response to each question.

In 2016, of the five SPG grants listing teacher retention as a goal, three met their target for 

teacher retention.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-67

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 663)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$44,261 $44,345 $44,261 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program is the Department’s primary 

vehicle under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for identifying, providing, and 

disseminating information on effective practices with educators, policymakers, service providers, 

and parents and families of children with disabilities. 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 IDEA, promote academic achievement, and 

improve results for children with disabilities. 

The majority of TA&D program investments support national and regional technical assistance 

centers that support the field to implement Parts B and C of IDEA and expand the use of 

evidence-based or promising practices. Centers focus on a variety of critical topics, such as

behavior, assessment, inclusive practices, secondary transition, literacy, and early childhood 

education. 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 small number 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. Activities supported through this program are designed 

to address the needs of a variety of audiences, including teachers, related service personnel, 

early intervention personnel, administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

The TA&D program also funds model demonstration projects that evaluate the implementation 

of research findings in typical settings. Models that are found to be effective can then be 

promoted by the network of TA&D centers. In an on-going effort to leverage existing resources 

and to collaborate with other federally funded TA&D projects more effectively, over the last few 

years the program has aligned investments to support coordination of efforts without duplication. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-68

TA&D activities promote the application of knowledge to improve practice by: determining areas 

where technical assistance and information are needed, ensuring that materials are 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 duration of awards varies with the award's purpose, though 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

2013..................................................................................... $44,3451

2014....................................................................................... 44,3451

2015....................................................................................... 44,3451

2016....................................................................................... 44,3451

2017....................................................................................... 44,3451

1 The request for the TA&D program does not include funds for the Special Olympics program.

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $44.3 million for the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination (TA&D) program, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing 

resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$44.3 million for this program. Approximately $29.2 million would be used to support 

continuation costs and $14.9 million would be used to fund new competitions. 

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. Through TA&D, the Department focuses on identifying and 

disseminating evidence-based practices and building capacity at the State and local levels to 

implement, sustain, and scale-up such practices. These activities have successfully facilitated 

the adoption and spread of evidence-based practices such as positive behavioral interventions 

and supports, which have been implemented in more than 23,300 schools nationwide, and 

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), which have been implemented and widely used 

throughout the country as a framework for delivering differentiated instruction.

Model Demonstration Projects

As States refine their systems and use data to identify areas for improvement in their State 

Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), a required component of the Administration’s Results 

Driven Accountability (RDA) framework, there is growing demand for evidence-based 

interventions that can be implemented in schools to help meet the specific needs of children 

with disabilities. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of interventions that have demonstrated 

success in school settings, particularly for students who require intensive individualized 

attention. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-69

The growing field of implementation science suggests that effective implementation—including 

an understanding of how to accommodate variations inherent in the different contexts in which 

programs are implemented—can be just as important as identifying evidence-based practices in 

the first place. Few schools or programs can successfully implement evidence-based practices 

without detailed implementation strategies. Research studies, however, do not often address 

what it takes to implement and sustain a practice in typical early intervention, preschool, 

classroom and school settings. 

Model demonstrations are an effective and efficient way to bridge the gap between existing 

research and the effective implementation of interventions in areas of critical need. The focus 

areas for model demonstrations will be selected based on emerging areas of research, needs 

identified by TA&D centers, and input from the special education field. Cohorts would include 

schools and districts in varied settings ranging from rural to urban in order to identify and 

address the implementation challenges of students throughout the country. The fiscal year 

2018 model demonstration investment will fund 3 new projects ($1.2 million) and 9 continuations

($3.5 million) aimed at addressing critical areas of need in special education (e.g., improving

mathematics and English language arts outcomes of students with significant cognitive 

disabilities in inclusive public and charter schools). 

Additional Technical Assistance Activities

The Administration’s technical assistance investments focus on meeting the needs of States 

and LEAs that serve children with disabilities and include support in priority areas such as: 

early learning, post-secondary transition, and support for low incidence disabilities like deafblindness. The Administration takes a number of factors into consideration when funding 

technical assistance centers including: meeting statutory requirements, the needs of the field, 

and the risk of duplication across programs. Investments in this program are required to 

coordinate with the Comprehensive Centers, the Regional Educational Laboratories and other 

relevant Administration investments. This request includes approximately $13.8 million for new 

awards in fiscal year 2018 to support State efforts to use evidence-based implementation in 

building State capacity.

Specifically, the Administration plans to fund a new national technical assistance center on 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) at $1.7 million, which will provide 

technical assistance to States and LEAs. The center will support development, implementation, 

scaling-up, and sustainability of school-wide frameworks for positive behavioral interventions 

and supports that will help improve student behavior and school climate and help students with 

disabilities and their non-disabled peers remain engaged in learning. In addition, the 

Administration plans to fund a new center for dispute resolution in special education at $650,000

to provide 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 SSIPs indicators related to dispute 

resolution. This center will help ensure that parents and families get the information they need 

about various methods for resolving disputes and helps avoid costly adversarial due process 

hearings. Finally, the Administration plans to provide $11.4 million in new funding for awards to 

support State and multi-State projects providing technical assistance on services for children 

who are both deaf and blind. This request will also support a coordinating center that provides 

technical assistance to State and multi-State projects. Overall, this investment represents a 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-70

significant portion of the minimum annual funding requirement (i.e., $12.8 million) of IDEA to 

address the educational, related services, transitional, and early intervention needs of children 

with deaf-blindness.

Of the remaining fiscal year 2018 continuation funds, $750,000 of the request would support the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) investment in the Comprehensive 

Centers. Another $200,000 will be transferred to the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education (OCTAE) to support an interagency technical assistance investment to improve 

academic, employment and behavioral outcomes for justice-involved youth. Approximately 

$1.5 million would support contracts for peer review, performance evaluation, reporting, and 

dissemination. Lastly, $22.9 million would support continuations for a variety of technical 

assistance and dissemination projects under this program: 

Model Demonstration Projects

• Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with 

Disabilities in Middle and High School – assess how models can improve algebraic 

reasoning for students with disabilities in middle and high schools and be implemented 

and sustained by educators in general and special education settings.

Behavior

• Technical Assistance Center on Positive Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes 

for Young Children with Disabilities – supports States, early childhood programs, and 

personnel in implementing an early childhood MTSS framework focused on improving 

social, emotional, and behavioral development.

Early Childhood

• Early Childhood Systems Technical Assistance Center – provides TA to States to 

increase their capacity to maintain have a high-quality infrastructure in place to 

implement IDEA, enabling States to provide comprehensive IDEA services for young 

children with disabilities and their families. Consistent with IDEA requirements, the 

Center also offers TA to States on effective strategies to work collaboratively with other 

early childhood systems, to increase young children with disabilities’ access to and 

participation in high-quality inclusive programs.

Assessment

• National TA Center to Increase the Participation and Performance of Students with 

Disabilities on State and Districtwide Assessments – addresses national, State, and 

local assessment issues related to students with disabilities.

Inclusive practices

• National TA Center for Inclusive Policies and Practices – assists SEAs and LEAs to 

successfully implement and sustain inclusive practices and policies, supported by 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-71

evidence and based on individualized determinations, for students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities in elementary and middle school (K-8) programs.

• National Center For Students With Disabilities Who Require Intensive Intervention –

assists SEAs and LEAs in their efforts to support schools and educators in implementing 

intensive intervention composed of practices that are evidence-based for students with 

disabilities who have persistent learning or behavior difficulties and who need intensive 

intervention to succeed in school and be prepared for postsecondary opportunities.

• National Center to Build State Education Systems’ Infrastructure to Improve Services 

and Results for Children with Disabilities – assists States and other entities in building an 

infrastructure that supports the full and sustained use of instructional and leadership 

practices supported by evidence.

• National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) – provides States with technical 

assistance to support LEAs and local early intervention service providers in improving 

educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. NCSI is also 

supporting States in the development of their SSIPs, which are a required component of 

RDA. NCSI works collaboratively with other OSEP-funded TA centers to focus on areas 

such as special education fiscal management, early-childhood programs, and 

postsecondary transition.

Secondary Transition

• The National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) – assists SEAs, LEAs, 

State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, and VR service providers to implement 

evidence-based and promising practices ensuring students with disabilities, including 

those with significant disabilities, graduate prepared for success in postsecondary 

education and employment.

For more information on the OSEP technical assistance centers, visit: 

www.OSEPideasthatwork.org. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Program Funding:

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New $986 $1,200 $1,200

Model demonstration centers: Continuations 812 2,252 3,504

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 1,798 3,452 4,704

Behavior:

 New 685 1,100 1,700

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Continuations 1,884 1,000 1,100 

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 2,569 2,100 2,800
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-72

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Early childhood:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 3,400 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 4,500 0 3,400

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 4,500 3,400 3,400

Assessment:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 1,000 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 0 1,000 1,000

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 1,000 1,000 1,000

Inclusive Practices:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 2,100 3,100 650

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 15,421 12,257 14,518

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 17,521 15,357 15,168

Secondary transition:

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:New 1,300 1,400 0

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:Continuations 2,100 3,400 3,400

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:Subtotal 3,400 4,800 3,400

Technical assistance for children who are 

both deaf and blind:

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: New 0 0 11,350

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Continuations 11,350 11,350 0

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Subtotal 11,350 11,350 11,350

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary 

Education for comprehensive centers:

 New 0 $750 0

 Continuations $750 0 $750

 Subtotal 750 750 750

Transfers to Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education for corrections collaboration:

 New 0 200 0

 Continuations 0 0 200

 Subtotal 0 200 200

National Activities

 New 78 1,099 0

 Continuations 1,293 623 1,354

 Subtotal 1,371 1,722 1,354

Peer review of new award applications 85 130 135

Total program funding:

New 6,214 12,249 14,900

Continuations 38,046 31,882 29,226

Peer review 85 130 135

Total 44,345 44,261 44,261
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-73

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 2018 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.

Five performance measures were developed for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program. Three of these measures are annual measures, and two are long-term.

Annual Performance 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 

Department-wide. However, the measures have been adapted to reflect the unique purposes of 

the TA&D program. Targets for 2016 and beyond were revised in 2015 to reflect reductions in 

the number of grantees in the program due to consolidations. These targets do not reflect a 

reduced expectation for program performance; rather they are lower due to the reduced number 

of products and services available for review. The actual data and targets for these measures 

reflect the performance in the year that the activity took place; in this case, the year the product 

or service was developed or delivered. 

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, a contractor collects and 

analyzes data, based on input from two panels of subject matter experts. Panels review a 

sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based 

practices in key target areas the Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees 

included in this measure for each year consists of approximately 13 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 year, from which one new product and service are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-74

selected to be reviewed. Each State Deaf-Blind grantee included in the sample is asked to 

submit a list of every new service from the previous year, from which one service is selected to 

be reviewed. 

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 six or better (out of nine 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

2013 94% 81%

2014 95 91

2015 95 77

2016 90

2017 90

2018 90

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 six or higher out of nine possible points to be of high quality.

In fiscal year 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department 

adjusted the targets for this program. Based on the most recent data available for products and 

services developed with fiscal year 2015 funds, the program fell substantially short of the target

with only 23 out of 30 products and services meeting the standard for high quality (i.e., 

77 percent). The Department 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 quality of their products and services.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-75

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

2013 95% 94%

2014 95 97

2015 95 93

2016 90

2017 90

2018 90

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, including 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 six or higher of nine possible points.

Overall performance under this measure has been strong in every year for which data have 

been collected. While 28 out of 30 products and services (i.e., 93 percent) from fiscal year 2015 

met the standard for high relevance, the percentage still fell short of the target due to the 

smaller number of products and services reviewed; however, this performance exceeds the 

targets adjusted for 2016 and beyond. The target percentages for 2016 and beyond were 

lowered to adjust for a smaller number of projects. 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

2013 95% 84%

2014 95 94

2015 95 93

2016 90

2017 90

2018 90

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

H-76

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 six or higher

of nine possible points.

In fiscal year 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department 

adjusted the targets for this program to account for the smaller number of total products and 

services. Based on the most recent data available on products and services from fiscal year 

2015, the program fell short of the target with 28 out of 30 products and services meeting the 

standard for high usefulness; however, this performance exceeds the targets adjusted for 2016 

and beyond. 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 Performance Measures

The Department established two long-term measures for this program. Data for the long-term 

measures are 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 developed this 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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-77

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

2011 86%

2013 86% 83

2015 86 100

2017 86

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, literacy, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, secondary transition, 

and 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. For additional information 

on the Department’s definition of evidence see 34 CFR 77.1. 

In 2009, the first year data were collected for this measure, 79 percent of districts and agencies 

sampled were implementing evidence-based practices for which they received technical 

assistance. In 2011, this figure increased to 86 percent of districts and agencies sampled. In 

2015, the Department exceeded the target with 7 out of 7 States implementing evidence-based 

practices for which they received technical assistance. 

Efficiency Measures

In 2008, the Department developed a common efficiency measure for OSEP programs that 

provide technical assistance. After collecting multiple years of data and attempting multiple 

methodologies to examine efficiency, the Department struggled to produce reliable results. Due 

to the varied technical assistance provided by the Department, data was unstable from year to 

year. Therefore, the Department has decided to stop using this efficiency measure. While the 

Department is no longer attempting to measure the efficiency of the technical assistance 

provided by the TA&D network, the Department will continue to monitor grantees to ensure that 

they are meeting project goals and milestones on time and on budget. 

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: (1) the nature of the technical 

assistance services provided by TA&D grantees; (2) the experiences of SEAs and LEAs that 

interact with such grantees; (3) 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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-78

Initial data collection and analysis revealed limitations of the data, so the objectives of the 

evaluation were revised to determine: (1) the needs and uses for TA&D services; (2) what 

services are seen as most helpful in contributing to the improvement of key student outcomes;

(3) the perceived barriers to local level implementation; (4) how TA&D grantees identify their 

clients, assess their needs, and develop and maintain their relationship with clients; and (5) 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 EDFacts, 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 

expected to publish in June 2017.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-79

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$83,541 $83,700 $83,541 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

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 fully 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 Department is required to make competitive grants that support training activities in a 

few high priority areas, including personnel development, beginning special educators, 

personnel to serve children with low incidence disabilities, and leadership personnel. These 

grants are typically 5 years in length.

Personnel Development. This broad authority requires the Department to support at least one 

of the following activities:

 

• Promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation and training between 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs);

• Developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the recruitment, 

induction, retention, and assessment of teachers;

• Providing continuous training and professional development to support special education 

and general education teachers and related services personnel;

• Developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to become special educators;
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-80

• Promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration between general and 

special education;

• Supporting IHEs with minority enrollment of not less than 25 percent; and 

• Developing and improving programs to train special educators to develop expertise in 

autism spectrum disorders.

Beginning Special Educators. The Department is also required to provide support to beginning 

special educators. Specifically, the Department 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 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, however, beginning in fiscal year 2014, the Department expanded the definition to 

also include persistent and severe learning and behavioral problems that need the most 

intensive individualized supports. In carrying out this authority, the Department 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-81

received training, or by making a cash repayment to the Federal Government. In recent years, 

approximately half of the total funding available under the program has been used to directly 

support student scholarships. 

A significant percentage of the grants awarded through this program go to IHEs to provide 

scholarships to train additional special education and early intervention 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 and dissemination of materials and best practices. 

Additional support for personnel preparation activities is provided through the State Personnel 

Development Grants program, under which the Department makes competitive awards to help 

SEAs reform and improve in-service training and professional development activities for 

teachers, including the recruitment and retention of 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)

2013.............................................................. ..................83,700

2014.............................................................. ..................83,700

2015.............................................................. ..................83,700

2016.............................................................. ..................83,700

2017.............................................................. ..................83,700

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $83.5 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, level with the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $83.7 million for this program. Of 

the request level, approximately $16.3 million (including peer review costs) would be used for 

new projects and $67.2 million would support the continuation of grants made in prior years. 

Approximately $10.4 million of the funding for new projects in fiscal year 2018 would be used to 

support training for special education and early intervention personnel, and approximately 

$4.0 million would be used to support the training of special education leadership personnel. 

The remaining additional funding would be used to support national technical assistance centers 

focused on improving the professional development of special education personnel.

Program Funding Priorities

The Administration is exploring how funds available to support new activities under this program 

can be targeted to support human capital systems that prepare, recruit, support, evaluate, 

compensate and retain effective educators. Administration priorities in this area include

partnering with States, LEAs, and grantees under the program to: ensure teachers enter the 

classroom with the necessary skills to be effective; address inequities in the distribution of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-82

effective teachers; and alleviate ongoing personnel shortages of teachers and principals who 

are prepared to provide evidence-based services for children with disabilities.

Since fiscal year 2011, the Department has required 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 are required, during their project periods, to 

track impacts on student growth and social, emotional, and academic development, as 

appropriate. These requirements will be continued in new competitions in fiscal year 2018. 

The funds available through this program are primarily used to support on-going development of 

best practices, improvements in the quality of training offered and the training of additional 

special education, related services, and leadership personnel in high priority areas, including 

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. 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/nclb-final/index.html). 

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 

education 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).

While the funds available through this program are by no means sufficient to resolve ongoing 

shortages in special education nationwide, they have played a critical role in increasing the 

supply of personnel in specific areas where the demand for additional staff are especially 

critical, such as in the area of low incidence disabilities at both the postsecondary and K-12 

levels. Further, in fiscal year 2014, 83 percent of degree/certification recipients supported under 

this program were employed in a high-need school district.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-83

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants $1,700 0 $250

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 4,550 $3,649 4,681

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 6,250 3,649 4,931

Leadership training grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants 4,142 3,626 4,000

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 12,640 15,701 14,072

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 16,782 19,327 18,072

Program improvement grants:

New 0 5,450 1,200

Continuations Program improvement grants 6,250 0 5,450

Subtotal Program improvement grants 6,250 5,450 6,650

Early childhood grants:

New Early childhood grants 0 2,000 0

Continuations Early childhood grants 1,850 0 2,000

Subtotal Early childhood grants 1,850 2,000 2,000

Pre-service training grants

New Other personnel development grants 9,323 9,000 10,432

Continuations Other personnel development grants 41,305 41,453 38,976

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 50,628 50,453 49,408

National Activities:

New 43 1,681 100

Continuations national activities 1,541 641 2,065

Subtotal national activities 1,584 2,322 2,165

Peer review of new award 

applications 356 340 316

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 15,208 21,757 15,982

Continuations total program funding 68,136 61,444 67,243

Peer review of new award 

applications 356 340 316

Total 83,700 83,541 83,541
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-84

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 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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.

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. These measures are:

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2013 90% 82%

2014 90 88

2015 90 95

2016 90

2017 90

2018 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor using a panel of five 

to seven experts, who review a randomly selected sample of grantee course syllabi submitted 

by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. Syllabi, which are taken from grantee 

applications, are reviewed by expert, content-specific panels for the inclusion of between five 

and seven 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-85

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 2015 review, 19 syllabi from fiscal year 2015 personnel development grantees 

were included from the following types of projects: early childhood (3 syllabi scored), leadership 

(8 syllabi scored), and low incidence (8 syllabi scored), including 3 syllabi from minority 

institutions. Only one grant (in the leadership area) did not meet the established standard for 

incorporating scientifically- or evidence-based practices in their curricula, though that project did 

support the development of expertise in two of the four research and evaluation domains.

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor 

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2013 1.9% 1.3%

2014 1.9 1.0

2015 1.9

2016 1.9

2017 1.9

2018 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 1.0 percent of scholars exited programs early due to poor academic performance 

in 2014, continuing a consistent trend since 2009, when 2.0 percent exited early due to poor 

academic performance, declining to 1.9 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.6 percent in 2010, 2011, 

and 2012. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of scholars exiting their 

training program due to poor academic performance (n=16 in 2014) and dividing it by the total 

number of scholars completing a training program (n=1,455 in 2014) and the number of 

scholars exiting their training program prior to completion for any reason (n=92 in 2014). Data 

for fiscal year 2015 are expected to be available in fall 2017.

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. 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-86

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2013 84% 87%

2014 85 93

2015 85

2016 85

2017 85

2018 85

Additional Information: In January 2015, the Department changed its data collection for this 

measure to a new online survey instrument which is intended to increase data reliability and 

validity. This measure is calculated by dividing the number of degree/certification recipients 

who are working in the areas for which they were trained upon program completion by the total 

number of degree/certification recipients who completed their program in that year, including 

those who were working in the field for which they were trained, those who are not working in 

the field for which they were trained, and those for whom data are missing. 

In 2014, 1,455 scholars completed their programs and 546 were reported as working in the field 

for which they were trained upon program completion. However, to date, 866 scholars have not 

yet entered employment records into the system. At this time, the Department is missing data 

on approximately 60 percent (886 divided by 1,455) of 2014 program completers. Actual data 

reported above for 2014 do not include these program completers.

The Department is taking proactive steps to resolve the issues with missing data in this 

measure. The contractor is still in the process of fully implementing its procedures for following 

up with non-responsive program completers. In addition, the contractor is continuing to work to 

ensure that all program completers have access to the online survey instrument. Data for fiscal 

year 2015 will be available in fall 2017.

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

2013 83% 84%

2014 83 88

2015 83

2016 83

2017 85

2018 85

Additional Information: In January 2015, the Department also changed its data collection for 

this measure to an online survey instrument. 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-87

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 included all students currently employed, not employed, and those for 

whom employment status was not known, the denominator for the new measure 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.

In 2014, 1,455 scholars completed their programs and 449 were reported as working in the field 

for which they were trained upon program completion and were highly qualified. However, the 

denominator for this measure does not include scholars who have not submitted employment 

records (866 scholars), scholars funded under leadership projects (58 scholars), and scholars 

who were employed in States that do not have requirements for certification/licensure for the 

positions or certification/licensure is not applicable (20 scholars).

As with the preceding measure, the Department continues to seek ways to address issues with 

missing data, including by implementing procedures to proactively follow-up with nonresponsive scholars and ensure that all scholars have timely access to the online survey 

instrument. Data for fiscal year 2015 will available in fall 2017.

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, the Department is currently 

developing a piloting a new outcome measure – the percentage of degree/certification recipients 

who are employed in the field of special education for at least two years. In consulting with 

grantee focus groups, the Department determined that it would be reasonable to calculate 

performance on this measure three years after program completion in order to provide adequate 

time for degree/certification recipients to obtain employment. Further, this measure would 

provide information on the extent to which those degree/certification recipients maintained at 

least two continuous years of employment in the field of special education. Among 2012 

graduates, 62 percent had maintained employment for at least two years in the field of special 

education by 2015. As the department is still piloting this measure, we do not expect to 

establish benchmarks for performance until fall 2019 at the earliest.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-88

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

2013 85% 81%

2014 85 92

2015 90

2016 90

2017 90

2018 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 (1,337 students in fiscal year 2014) by 

the total number of students who completed training programs – including students who passed 

a test (1,337 students), students who did not take a test (53 students), and students who did not 

pass a test or whose testing status or results are missing or unknown (65 students). Data for 

fiscal year 2015 are expected to be available in fall 2018.

Efficiency Measures

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

2013 $25,000 $35,726

2014 25,000 35,851

2015 25,000

2016 30,000

2017 32,500

2018 32,500

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-89

cohorts of grantees by dividing the sum of all project costs supported with Federal funds (across 

all years of each individual scholar’s training) ($38,540,803 in fiscal year 2014) by the number of 

degree recipients who successfully completed funded training programs closing in that year and 

who are fully qualified (1,075 in 2014). Results on this measure have increased over the last 

four years, but the Department believes these increased costs reflect the increased costs of 

college attendance, particularly at the graduate level.

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 2007 competitions:

• Certain types of applicants tended to be more successful than other types:

o Public IHEs were more successful than private IHEs (37 percent versus 32 percent);

o Doctorate-granting IHEs were more successful than non-doctorate-granting IHEs 

(38 percent versus 25 percent); and

o Minority institutions were more successful than non-minority institutions (38 percent 

versus 34 percent).

• Fifty-three percent of funded applicants proposed new courses of study;

• Seventy-three percent of grant funds were used for monetary support for scholars in funded 

training programs for which scholar stipends were required, with 88 percent of enrolled 

students receiving monetary support (averaging $11,558 per scholar); and

• By the 2008-2009 academic year, on average, 17 scholars per program had completed their 

training program, with 86 percent receiving State-issued credentials and 46 percent 

receiving a master’s or education specialist degree. 

The study also assessed the work of national centers funded under this program between fiscal 

years 2001 and 2007. They determined that:

• Of the “signature” products/services of these centers:

o Seventy-seven percent were “high” or “very high” quality;
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-90

o Eighty-two percent were “high” or “very high” relevance/usefulness.

• Of the “non-signature” products/services of these centers:

o Seventy-three percent were “high” or “very high” quality; and 

o Sixty-eight 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

H-91

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$27,359 $27,411 $27,359 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

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 typically have multiple 

centers that serve designated counties. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-92

The centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by sharing information on the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 

required to make available under IDEA. Parent center staff attend or facilitate over 1,300 

alternative dispute resolution sessions every year. These alternative methods of dispute 

resolution can help avoid costly litigation. As part of that role, parent centers are required to 

meet with parents to explain the IDEA-mandated mediation process. In States where parent 

centers provide this service, they typically do so through contracts with State educational 

agencies.

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 $200,000. No center will 

receive a reduction of more than 20 percent below 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, in smaller 

geographically defined areas, 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 

parent training and information centers in their States.

Parent technical assistance centers are authorized to assist parent training and information 

centers and community parent resource centers, in areas such as coordinating parent training 

efforts, disseminating evidence-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.parentcenterhub.org/). Two technical assistance 

centers provide assistance to parent information centers so that they can better meet the needs 

of military families and Native American families respectively.

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 under the age of 26. 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. 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

H-93

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.................................................................................... $27,411

2014...................................................................................... 27,411

2015...................................................................................... 27,411

2016...................................................................................... 27,411

2017...................................................................................... 27,411

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $27.4 million for fiscal year 2018 for the Parent Information Centers 

program, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $27.4 million for this program. The 

request would support awards for a total of 103 Centers, including 64 continuing Parent 

Training Information Centers (PTIs), 30 continuing Community Parent Resource Centers 

(CPRCs), and 9 new Technical Assistance Centers. Together, these centers provide training 

and information to over one million parents and professionals each year. Family involvement in 

children's learning is critical to achieving high quality education. Decades of research show that 

positive school-family partnerships can effectively 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.

The training and information provided by the PTIs help ensure that parents have the knowledge 

and skills to help their children with disabilities succeed. In addition to helping 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 required by the IDEA. For parents of infants and toddlers receiving early 

intervention services, this 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. 

Parent centers use a variety of mechanisms to share information with 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 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). Families who receive services, according 

to data collected by the parent centers, report a high degree of satisfaction with the services 

they receive and an increase in their capacity to effectively support their children.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-94

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Program Funding:

Parent Training & Information 

Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers $200 0 0

Continuations : Parent Trai ning & Info C enters 20,969 $21,181 $21,183 

Subtotal: Par ent Trai ning & Info C enters 21,169 21,181 21,183

Community Parent Resource 

Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 2,300 700 0

Continuations: Communi ty Par ent R esource C enters 0 2,300 3,000

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource Centers 2,300 3,000 3,000

Technical Assistance Centers:

New 0 0 2,900

Continuations: Technical Assistance 2,900 2,494 0

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,900 2,494 2,900

Total Program Funding:

New: Total 2,500 700 2,900

Continuations: Total 23,869 25,975 24,183

Other (contracts, 

supplements): 975 657 276

Peer Review of new award 

applications 67 27 0

Total 27,411 27,359 27,359
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-95

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Number of Projects:

Parent Training & Information 

Centers: 1 0 0

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 63 64 64

Continuations: Parent Training & Info

Community Parent Resource 

Centers: 23 7 0

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 23 30

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers

Technical Assistance Centers: 0 0 9

New 9 9 0

Continuations: Technical 

Assistance

Total number of projects: 24 7 9

New: Total 72 96 94

Continuations: Total 96 103 103

Total

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 2018 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.

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-96

Annual Performance 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 Department-wide. However, the measures were adapted to reflect 

the unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2012 through 2018

were established based on performance data from 2007 to 2016. 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

2013 80% 100%

2014 97 79

2015 97 93

2016 97 93

2017 93

2018 93

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. 

The expert panel reviews a randomly selected sample of services made available through 

OSEP-funded Parent Information Centers grants funded during FY2015. The program office 

defines a “service” as “work performed by an OSEP-funded project to provide information to a

specific audience relevant to the improvement of outcomes for children with disabilities.”

The cohort sample design ensures a random selection of a new group of grants annually while 

avoiding sample replication in any two consecutive years. All Parent Information Center grants 

funded in fiscal year 2015 that were not included in the previous year’s sample are included in 

the sampling frame. Fifty percent (50%) of the eligible grants are randomly selected. In 2016, a 

total of 28 grants are included in the sample.

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 dimension subscores. High quality for any individual service is defined as a total score of six or higher of nine 

possible points. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-97

The result for fiscal year 2016 equals the total number of grant services with average panel 

ratings of 6 or higher (26) divided by the total number of grant services (28) reviewed times 100 

= 26/28 x 100 = 93 percent. The actual data fell short of the target for this year.

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

2013 96% 96%

2014 97 85

2015 97 90

2016 97 93

2017 93

2018 93

Additional Information: As with the performance measure above, 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. 

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, which 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 six or higher 

of nine possible points.

All grants funded in fiscal year 2015 that were not included in the previous year’s sample are 

included in the sampling frame. Fifty percent (50%) of the eligible grants are randomly selected. 

In 2016, a total of 28 grants are included in the sample. 

In 2016, average panel ratings of the relevance of services ranged between 4.33 and 8.83. 

Services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher (26) across the three criteria are 

deemed to be of high relevance.

The calculation is as follows: Total number of grant services with average panel ratings of 6 or 

higher (26) divided by the total number of grant products (28) and services reviewed times 100 

= 26/28 x 100 = 93 percent. The actual data fell short of the target for this year.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-98

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

2013 96% 93%

2014 97 88

2015 97 93

2016 97 93

2017 93

2018 93

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 disseminated by the centers. In an effort to ensure that the sample 

materials reviewed were representative, 1 service was 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, which 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 dimensions related to usefulness, which were updated in fiscal year 2015: (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); and 

(2) Suitability (does the product or service provide the target audience(s) with information or 

resources that can be used again or in different ways to address the problem or issue). The 

total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the quality dimension sub-scores. 

In 2016, a total of 28 were included in the sample, and the average panel ratings of the 

usefulness of services ranged between 5.17 and 9.00 for the 26 grant services found to be of 

high usefulness. Services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher across the two 

criteria are deemed to be of high usefulness.

The total number of grant services (26) found to be of high usefulness/number of grant services 

reviewed (28) x 100 = 26/28 x 100 = 92.9 percent.

Long-Term Performance 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 received services from the parent 

centers. Data was not collected in fiscal year 2016, but will be in fiscal year 2017. 

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-99

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 78

2017 Set Baseline 

Additional Information: Data are collected by the parent centers every 2 years using 

telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center. 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 evidencebased practices is divided by the total number of parents who responded to four relevant survey 

questions. Baseline data for this measure were first collected in 2007 and on the results of a 

validation study in 2009. Due to changes in data collection, targets were undefined for 2017. 

Based on the most recent years of data, it appears that program grantees do a reasonably good 

job of ensuring that parents receiving services from parent information centers promote 

evidence-based practices for their children. The Department uses the results of this measure 

and the annual quality measure to provide the centers with feedback on how they can better 

align their products and services with evidence-based practices. Starting in fiscal year 2017, 

the Department plans to update this measure to report: the percentage of parents receiving 

Special Education Parent Information Centers services who report enhanced knowledge of 

IDEA rights and responsibilities. 

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% 90.5%

2011 87 84.5

2013 89 87.6

2015 91 88

2017 Set Baseline

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. 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-100

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. Starting in fiscal 

year 2017, the Department plans to update this measure to report: the percentage of parents 

receiving PTI services who report having enhanced capacity to work with schools and service 

providers effectively in meeting the needs of their children. 

Efficiency Measure

Measure: An index of the Federal cost per unit of output provided by the Special Education 

Parent Training and Information Centers.

Year Target Actual

2013 1.1 1.2

2014 1.1 1.1

2015 1.1 1.6

2016 1.1 0.8

2017 1.1

2018

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for the PTIs program is “the index of federal 

cost per unit of output.” The calculation of the Federal index of cost per unit of technical 

assistance is the total federal cost of PTI grant funding for a given fiscal year divided by the sum 

of the numbers of parents and professionals receiving technical assistance across the four 

categories of technical assistance during that fiscal year. The result is expressed as an index of 

cost rather than a cost in dollars.

The program office maintains data on the amount of funding provided for Center grants each 

fiscal year. Data on the number of parents and professionals served by grantees is provided to 

the program office by the National Parent Information Center, which is funded by the program. 

The grantee is required to maintain these data and provide them to the program office each 

fiscal year. For fiscal year 2016, the index of .84 was arrived by dividing the total funding 

($27,411,000) by the total number of parents and professionals served (32,640,860).
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-101

National activities: Educational technology, media, and 

materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$29,990 $28,047 $29,990 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2018 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program is the primary source of support for 

accessible technology and media-related activities under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). The program supports two broad categories of activities – accessible 

technology and educational media and materials. 

Technology activities are generally designed to promote the development, demonstration, and 

use of accessible technology. The technology component of the program also supports 

research on using technology to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, and technical 

assistance and dissemination activities to enhance the use of technology by students, parents, 

and teachers. Media and materials activities focus on closed captioning, video description, 

timely provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats, and other 

activities to improve access to education for students with disabilities.

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 expanded the range of 

media that must be closed captioned and updated accessibility standards to include emerging 

Internet and mobile technologies. However, significant gaps in captioning coverage remain. 

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program ensures educational media that are 

not otherwise required to be made accessible are available to students with disabilities. For 

example, mandatory captioning only applies to broadcast television, not to video broadcast 

solely over the Internet or video produced for classroom viewing. Funding for this program helps 

to fill these critical gaps in the accessibility of learning content and materials by supporting the 

captioning and nationwide distribution of thousands of titles of educational media each year.

Video description is used to make video and other media with visual content accessible for 

people who are blind or visually impaired. Audio-narrated descriptions of key visual elements in 

a video or television program are inserted into natural pauses in the spoken dialogue, 

supplementing the regular audio track of the program by providing additional context. Federal 

law requires television broadcast stations affiliated with the top four commercial broadcasting 

corporations (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) and licensed to the top 60 Designated Market Areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-102

(i.e., unique, county-based geographic areas designated by The Nielsen Company, a television 

audience measurement service based on television viewership) and the five most watched nonbroadcast networks to provide 50 hours of video description per calendar quarter. The video 

description must be of prime time or children's television programming. All other video 

programming, including educational materials intended for use in the classroom and 

increasingly popular Internet media, are not subject to description requirements. The funds 

available through this program play a critical role in filling these gaps. The IDEA requires that 

description and captioning funds be used only for programs that are suitable for use in 

classroom settings, and program funds may not be used to describe or caption news programs, 

even when they are suitable for use in classrooms.

Educational materials activities include the preparation of electronic files suitable for efficient 

conversion into specialized accessible formats. The educational materials provided by this 

program are intended to support 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. Due to recent advances in digital 

technologies, these activities can be accomplished more efficiently than ever before. 

The Department makes awards for projects throughout the fiscal year. 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)

2013 ................................................................. $28,047

2014 ................................................................. 28,047

2015 ................................................................. 28,047

2016 ................................................................. 30,047

2017 ................................................................. 28,047

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 request for the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials program is $30.0 million, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing 

resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$28.0 million for this program. This request would provide approximately $3 million for 5 new 

awards and approximately $27 million for 23 continuation projects. 

Projects funded under the 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 students with disabilities 

receive a free appropriate public education guaranteed under the IDEA. This program also

funds innovations in accessible technologies and broadens the understanding of how 

technology can be effectively utilized to increase academic achievement. The Administration

believes increased access and participation results in higher expectations and improved 

outcomes for children with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-103

Educational Technology

The request includes $13.8 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of accessible technology. In fiscal year 2018, at least $1.5 million will

support three new Stepping Up Technology Implementation awards and $7 million will support

11 continuing Stepping Up projects. These model demonstration grants validate and scale up 

promising technology-based products or interventions, such as curriculum materials, accessible 

products, and instructional methodologies.

Of the $13.8 million requested for technology activities, $1.5 million will be used to fund a new 

Center on Technology and Disability to build on previous investments, as the current grant will 

end in fiscal year 2017. This center will provide technical assistance (TA) to state and local 

educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to help them build capacity in their efforts to support 

families, students, and providers in acquiring and implementing appropriate assistive and 

instructional technology practices, devices, and services.

Additionally, the 2018 request would provide $1.6 million to continue support for an Early 

Childhood STEM Center (to be awarded in fiscal year 2017) and $1.2 million for a continuation 

award to an Assistive Technology Implementation Center (funded in fiscal year 2015). The 

request would also provide $1 million for a continuation award to further the support of

successful strategies to recruit, enroll, retain, and provide instruction to students who are deaf or 

hard of hearing in postsecondary settings. This grant, awarded in fiscal year 2016, addresses 

the varying communication, technology, and learning needs and preferences of individuals who 

are deaf or hard of hearing, to help ensure students have access to and can be successful in 

postsecondary settings. This project would be jointly supported with funds from the Personnel 

Preparation and Technical Assistance and Dissemination programs. Under IDEA section 

682(d)(1)(B), the Administration 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 includes a variety of activities designed to provide educational content, 

such as textbooks, in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities, particularly deaf or

hard-of-hearing individuals and blind or other visually impaired individuals. In fiscal year 2018, 

$15.5 million would be allocated to these activities. 

The 2018 request for educational media and materials includes a total of $4 million for 

captioned and described accessible media. Of that amount, $2 million will support continuation 

awards for projects to provide access—through video description and captioning—to television 

programs appropriate for use in classroom settings and are not otherwise required to be 

captioned by the Federal Communications Commission. These projects fill in the gaps for an 

increasing large amount of content that is not currently covered under Federal accessibility 

policies, to ensure that as much educational programming as possible is accessible to students 

with visual or hearing impairments. The current grantee, the DIAGRAM Center 

(http://www.diagramcenter.org/), has developed new standards and open-source software for 

making digital images accessible for students with disabilities. Images and graphics are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-104

considerably more difficult to make accessible than basic text, but this center’s innovative tools 

make creating and using accessible images easier, faster, and more cost effective. 

An additional $2 million would support a continuation award under the Described and Captioned 

Media Program (http://www.dcmp.org), which makes accessible media (video other than 

television) available at no cost to students. The support for video description of educational 

programming is essential for individuals with visual impairments because, unlike closed 

captioning, there are few Federal requirements for providing video descriptions. This project not 

only captions and describes educational media, but also efficiently distributes the media to 

schools via the Internet and other channels. The current media library contains over 4,000 

titles. With continuation funding, the DCMP will additionally focus on STEM related media and 

describing and captioning items in Spanish. More details regarding ongoing work can be found 

here: https://dcmp.org/press_releases/23-grant-renewal-ensures-equal-educational-opportunityfor-students-who-are-deaf-and-or-blind.

The 2018 request for educational media and materials also includes a total of $11.5 million for 

accessible books and other instructional materials. Of that amount, about $8.5 million of the 

request would support a new award under the Accessible Materials program to support the 

development, production, and distribution of educational materials in accessible formats to 

students with visual impairments and other print disabilities, including those in traditionally 

underserved areas.

Approximately $1.2 million of the 2018 request would provide continued support for a project 

awarded in fiscal year 2014 that provides technical assistance to States and other entities on 

the provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats. Activities further 

support the widespread use of the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard 

(NIMAS), which sets clear guidelines for converting educational media into a variety of 

accessible formats for use by publishers, educational agencies, and students with disabilities. 

The request also includes $1.2 million for ongoing support of a project devoted to improving the 

accessibility of educational materials. The new software and hardware used to deliver 

educational content are often not accessible to students with disabilities, even as a greater 

portion of classroom materials are published digitally. These activities are designed to address 

the issues and challenges related to the development, production, and dissemination of 

accessible educational materials. Activities of the current grant focus on ensuring infants, 

toddlers, and children who are blind or have print disabilities, as well as those with disabilities 

not traditionally associated with print disabilities, have full access to educational content, 

including graphic representations, in accessible formats.

Additionally, the IDEA requires the Administration to support the National Instructional Materials 

Access Center (NIMAC), which is awarded noncompetitively to the American Printing House for 

the Blind. The NIMAC (http://www.nimac.us/) 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. NIMAC receives source files 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 nearly 45,100 

books and other items as of March 2017. The request includes $650,000 for a continuation 

award for this project in fiscal year 2018. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-105

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 Footnote

2017

Annualized CRFootnote2018footnote

Program Funding:

Technology:

Technolog y: Research:

Newtechnol ogy research $1,470 $4,100 $1,500

Continuations technol ogy research 11,393 7,637 9,755

Subtotal technolog y: research 12,863 11,737 11,255

Technolog yTechnical assistance and dissemination:

Newtechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 0 0 1,500

Continuationstechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 1,435 0

Subtotal technolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 1,435 1,500

Technolog yProjects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

NewTechnolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 1,000 0 0

Continuations Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocati onal, technical , and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 0 1,000 1,000

Subtotal Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of indi vi duals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Technology:

New program funding subtotal , technolog y 2,470 4,100 3,000

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 12,828 10,072 1 11,015 2

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 15,298 14,172 14,015

Media and Materials:

Medi a and materials Captioned and described accessible 

media:

New media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 1,996 0 0

Continuations medi a and materials: captioned & described accessi ble media 2,000 3,995 3,997

Subtotal media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 3,996 3,995 3,997

Medi a and materials: Books and other instructional materials 

in accessible formats:

New medi a and materials: books and other instructi onal materials in accessi ble formats 0 9,500 0

Continuations medi a and materials: books and other instructional materials in accessibl e formats 9,700 1,200 10,900

Subtotal media and materials: books and other i nstr ucti onal materials i n accessibl e for mats 9,700 10,700 10,900

 1 About $8 thousand of FY 2017 funds will be used to support FY 2018 continuations. 2 About $260 thousand of FY 2018 funds will be used to support FY 2019 continuations.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-106

Output Measures 2016 Footnote

2017

Annualized CRFootnote2018footnote

Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access 

Center (NIMAC) – Statutory earmark:

New Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access C enter (NIM AC) – Statutor y ear mar k $650 0 0

Continuations Media and materials: nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k 0 $650 $650

Subtotal Media and materials: nati onal i nstructional materi als access center statutor y ear mar k 650 650 650

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New program funding subtotal, Media and materials 2,646 9,500 0

Continuations program funding subtotal, Media and materials 11,700 5,845 15,547

Subtotal program funding subtotal, Media and materials 14,346 15,345 15,547

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

Continuations other 332 380 375

Subtotal, Other, other 332 380 375

Peer review of new award applications: 71 93 53

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 5,116 13,600 0

Continuations total program 

funding

24,860 16,297 29,937

Peer review 71 93 53

Total program funding 30,047 29,990 29,990

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 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

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 Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, a contractor collects and 

analyzes data, based on input from two panels of subject matter experts. Panels review a 

sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-107

practices in key target areas the Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees 

included in this measure for each year consists of projects from across all areas of this program. 

Products and services are divided into the categories of policy and practice.

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. 

In assessing the performance under each measure, panels of six to eight experts reviewed a 

sample of products and services from the program’s projects. Of the 19 projects to receive 

funding during the previous fiscal year (but were not in their first year of operation), 18 grantees 

provided data on new technology products or services. These projects submitted a total of 18 

products and 4 new services released during the prior fiscal year for review.

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 relevance to improving outcomes of infants, toddlers, children and youth with 

disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2013 94% 93%

2014 94 100

2015 94 91

2016 94

2017 94

2018 94

Additional information: A total of 18 products and 4 services (22 new products and services)

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.

The percentage of products judged to be of high relevance for this measure decreased, falling 

below the target of 94 percent. The panel found 20 of the 22 new products and services in the 

sample to be highly relevant for the intended users. It is noteworthy that overall performance 

under this measure has been consistently strong over time, and that variations in actual 

performance are expected considering the small number of items reviewed in the sample. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-108

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2013 94% 89%

2014 94 100

2015 94 86

2016 94

2017 94

2018 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 that receive 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 decreased, falling below the target in 

fiscal year 2016. Of the 22 products reviewed in the sample, 19 were reported to be of high 

quality. Not unlike the previous measure, it is noteworthy that overall performance under this 

measure has been consistently strong over time, and that variations in actual performance are 

expected considering the small number of items reviewed in the sample. 

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-109

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects and services judged by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in 

improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2013 94% 79%

2014 94 91

2015 94 96

2016 94

2017 94

2018 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. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of the 

following dimensions related to usefulness, which were updated in fiscal year 2015: (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?); and

(2) Suitability (does the product or service provide the target audience(s) with information or 

resources that can be used again or in different ways to address the problem or issue?). The 

total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the quality dimension sub-scores. 

High usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of six or higher 

of nine possible points.

Performance on this measure improved for fiscal year 2015 products and services, exceeding

the target. The panel found 21 out of the 22 products in the sample to be highly useful. The 

Department considers the fiscal year 2013 drop in usefulness to be an outlier, and not indicative 

of a larger trend. 

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

Long-Term Performance 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 fiscal year 2011, the Administration modified the data collection 

to every 2 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

H-110

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that validate their products and services.

Year Target Actual

2012 70% 70%

2014 72 100

2016 72 75

2018 75

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: (1) 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; (2) an evaluation study and/or qualitative study providing evidence that the project’s 

products and services result in improving the outcome of interest; (3) 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 (1) or (2) above; or (4) 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. Three of the four 

projects that were rated in the 2016 data collection submitted acceptable evidence of validity.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-111

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

2013 95% 50%

2015 95 100

2017 95

2019 95

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. For fiscal year 2013, the panel 

reviewed evidence from four centers that entered the dissemination phase of their projects or 

completed the final year of their grants and submitted a final report. Two centers rated as 

“validated” submitted sufficient evidence of the availability of their products or services to the 

target population. For fiscal year 2015, three of the three grants providing data for this measure 

were found by the panel to have made their products and services widely available. 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. 

As such, the Administration plans to reconsider this measure or develop more appropriate 

targets for 2019 reporting.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

Efficiency Measures

The Administration established two efficiency measures for the Educational Technology, Media, 

and Materials program. The two measures provide data on accessible book distribution and on 

video captioning and description projects, respectively. The Administration 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

H-112

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

2013 $5.0 $4.2

2014 5.0 5.4

2015 5.0 4.2

2016 5.0 

2017 5.0

2018 4.0

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 Administration’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. For example, in fiscal year 

2015: $6,500,000/1,546,022 = $4.20. 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 Administration-funded projects, such as the National Instructional 

Materials Access Center, to ensure eligible students have appropriate materials needed to 

access the general curriculum. 

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2013 $2,548

2014 $1,669 2,469

2015 1,669 2,336

2016 1,669

2017 2,000

2018 2,000

Additional information: The educational media measure is calculated as the total amount of 

funding provided for description activities ($2 million in fiscal year 2015) divided by the total 

number of hours of accessible described media produced (856.25 hours in 2015). The cost of

an hour of media description decreased slightly from fiscal years 2014 to 2015; however, the 

hourly rate still did not approach the target. No target is shown for 2013, because the target in 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-113

that year was based on incorrectly reported data. Targets in 2014 and subsequent years are 

based on corrected data.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data aligned with the fiscal year in which the 

review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment with 

the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.
H-114

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, Section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$10,064 $12,583 0 -$10,064

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Departments 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 Department 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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ..................$7,583

2014.............................................................. ....................7,583

2015.............................................................. ....................7,583

2016.............................................................. ..................10,083

2017.............................................................. ..................12,583

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests no funds for the Special Olympics education 

programs. This request is consistent with the Administration’s intent to eliminate programs that 

are more appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds. The Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $12.6 million for this program. 

Special Olympics is a well-established non-profit organization with a broad network of program 

volunteers and supporters. Special Olympics education programs include worthwhile activities, 

such as the Special Olympics National Youth Activation Demonstration (Unified Champion 

Schools, previously referred to as Project UNIFY), a national youth sports demonstration and 

education program. However, the Administration does not believe funding is necessary for the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-115

successful operation of these programs, given that in fiscal year 2015, Special Olympics 

reported over $101 million in revenue from its individual and corporate donors.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Project UNIFY

Project UN IFY :Number of funded State programs 47 47 0

Project UN IFY :Number of schools participating 4,451 4,500 0

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.

The Department collected data in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to set targets for fiscal year 2014 

and beyond.

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase the inclusion and awareness of students with 

intellectual disabilities.

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY helps raise awareness 

about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2013 66%

2014 67% 72

2015 67 68

2016 67 71

2017 67

Additional information: Special Olympics revised its methodology for reporting on this 

measure beginning in fiscal year 2016. Under the methodology used up to and including fiscal 

year 2015, only those survey responses that indicated the program “made a big difference” 

(scores of 4 or 5 on the survey’s Likert scale) were included in the numerator used to calculate 

the actual performance. Under the revised methodology, Special Olympics also included survey 

responses in the numerator that indicated the program “made a difference” (scores of 3 on the 

survey’s Likert scale) in addition to the survey responses that indicated the program “made a big 

difference.”

Special Olympics provided data for fiscal year 2016 under both methodologies. Under the 

previous methodology, the data increased to 71 percent. Under the revised methodology, the 

2016 performance increased to 93 percent. Special Olympics will continue to report under both 

methodologies until sufficient data has been collected to establish revised targets.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-116

The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 because the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special Olympics.

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

2013 60%

2014 61% 64

2015 61 65

2016 61 65

2017 61

Additional information: Data were reported for these measures starting in 2011. To collect 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 achieves in promoting positive and inclusive 

learning environments. The data indicate the program is improving the awareness of and 

opportunities for students with disabilities and has exceeded the targets in fiscal years 2014-

2016.

Special Olympics revised its methodology for reporting on this measure beginning in fiscal year 

2016. Under the methodology used up to and including fiscal year 2015, only those survey 

responses that indicated the program “made a big difference” (scores of 4 or 5 on the survey’s 

Likert scale) were included in the numerator used to calculate the actual performance. Under 

the revised methodology, Special Olympics also included survey responses in the numerator 

that indicated the program “made a difference” (scores of 3 on the survey’s Likert scale) in 

addition to the survey responses that indicated the program “made a big difference.”

Special Olympics provided data for fiscal year 2016 under both methodologies. Under the 

previous methodology, the data remain level with 2015 data at 65 percent. Under the revised 

methodology, the 2016 performance increased to 89 percent. Special Olympics will continue to 

report under both methodologies until sufficient data has been collected to establish revised 

targets.

The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 because the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special Olympics.

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 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-117

Measure: The number of schools participating in Project UNIFY.

Year Target Actual

2013 2,310

2014 2,400 3,076

2015 2,500 3,686

2016 4,000 4,451

2017 4,500

Additional information: The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 

because the Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special 

Olympics.

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Project UNIFY High Activation Program.

Year Target Actual

2013 987

2014 1,056 1,413

2015 1,150 1,685

2016 1,725 3,005

2017 1,765

Additional information: Special Olympics has aggressively expanded the reach of Project 

UNIFY during recent years to more than 4,451 locations in 47 States. There were 

1,329 preschool and elementary schools, 750 middle schools, and 2,084 high schools, 192 

post-secondary schools, and 96 other schools participating in Project UNIFY in 2016. The 

program exceeded the targets for this measure in fiscal years 2014 and 2015; therefore, the 

Department adjusted targets for 2016 and beyond. 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 generally include 

schools that are new to the program. Schools with High Activation programs also generally 

require a greater commitment of resources.

In 2016, 67 percent of all participating schools were in the High Activation category, an increase 

of 21 percent from 2015. Special Olympics attributes much of this growth to clarification it 

provided schools about what they must implement to be categorized as a High Activation 

school, as well as the overall growth in the number of participating schools.

The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 because the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special Olympics.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-118

Efficiency Measures

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

2013 $3,463

2014 $3,160 2,465

2015 3,033 2,057

2016 3,033 1,716

2017 3,033

Additional information: The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 

because the Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special 

Olympics.

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2013 22%

2014 20% 22

2015 20 21.6

2016 20 21.6

2017 20

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. The program did not meet the target for the percent of Federal funds spent on 

administration in 2014-2016; however, the program met the targets for Federal cost per school 

in each of these years. 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.

The Department has not developed targets for fiscal year 2018 because the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for Special Olympics.

Other Performance Information

In 2014, external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts conducted a formative 

evaluation of Project Unify. Data from surveys of school liaisons in 1,509 schools indicate that 

Project UNIFY does not demonstrate causal 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 have positive attitudes and behaviors. It is difficult to avoid 

this self-selection effect because participation in Special Olympics activities is voluntary and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-119

non-random. The project’s impact on academic outcomes was not measured, because 

improving academic achievement is not the primary goal of this program.

The formative evaluation also found that the majority of school staff involved with the project 

believe 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.