A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

>

O

S

E

R

S

Department of Education Seal -- Link to Departmentof Education Home Page
OSEP
20th Annual Report cover scan TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT
to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act
   
On This Page >

E X E C U T I V E 

  S U M M A R Y

SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV
CONTENTS APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES


Executive Summary >

SECTION I
Context/Environment:
This section contains background information on the setting within which special education services are provided to children and youth with disabilities. The first module in this section presents some of the changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act resulting from the IDEA Amendments of 1997. The second module describes the implementation of State accountability systems.

Overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 augment and strengthen the previous version of the Act. This module uses six principles as the framework around which education services are designed and provided to children with disabilities to describe the recent changes. These six principles are the availability of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), appropriate evaluation, development of an individualized education program (IEP), education provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE), parent and student participation in decision making, and procedural safeguards to protect the rights of parents and their child with a disability.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add specific new requirements regarding the disciplining of students with disabilities. The law now specifically requires that FAPE must be made available to children who are suspended or expelled. State and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) are responsible for ensuring that a student's IEP, with its goals and objectives, continues to be implemented in the LRE even though the child has been removed from school.

The law includes a new competitive grant provision--the State Improvement Grants (SIGs). The majority of these grant funds must be spent for personnel development to fulfill the requirement for an adequate supply of qualified special education, regular education, and related services personnel.

The law also addresses the issue of professional standards. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, States may allow the use of appropriately trained and supervised paraprofessionals and assistants to assist in the provision of special education and related services under certain conditions.

State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities

The traditional model for general education accountability is based largely on inputs to the system. These input-oriented accountability systems are variously called accreditation, school improvement reviews, accountability reports, profiles, or district composite reports. Compliance reviews for specific categorical programs funded by either the Federal or State government also rely on inputs to the system.

Traditional accountability in special education has been focused on compliance--on ensuring that districts were undertaking the appropriate procedures prescribed by Federal and State law in a timely fashion.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 shift accountability to focus on whether students are meeting the new standards, which involves shifting the orientation of accountability from inputs or processes to results and "raising the bar" on expectations for students with disabilities.

States continue to struggle with establishing the correct mix of emphasis on accountability for process versus accountability for student results.

Including students with disabilities in the general State accountability system extends their franchise in the general system but at no point exonerates a State from ensuring individual protections promulgated by IDEA.


SECTION II
Student Characteristics:
This section contains five modules related to the characteristics of students served under IDEA and the Federal funding that States receive to serve these students.

Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA

Over the past 5 years, the number of infants and toddlers served under Part C has steadily increased from 145,179 on December 1, 1992, to 187,348 on December 1, 1996. The percentage of the population ages birth through 2 served under Part C rose slightly from 1.54 percent in 1995 to 1.65 percent in 1996.

The most frequent setting in which infants and toddlers with disabilities received services was home (90,275 or 53 percent), followed by early intervention classroom (47,896 or 28 percent).

Over the past 5 years, the number of children served under the IDEA Preschool Grants Program increased from 455,449 during the 1992-93 school year to 559,902 during the 1996-97 school year.

During the 1995-96 school year, 51.6 percent of children ages 3-5 with disabilities were served in regular classes, approximately a 1 percent increase over the percentage served in regular classes during the previous year.

Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

Over the past few years, the number of school-age students with disabilities served has increased at a higher rate than the general school enrollment.

Over the past 10 years, the number of students ages 6-11 with disabilities served increased 25.3 percent, the number of students ages 12-17 with disabilities increased 30.7 percent, and the number of students ages 18-21 with disabilities increased 14.7 percent.

More than 90 percent of the school-age students served under IDEA in 1996-97 were classified in one of four disability categories: learning disabilities (51.1 percent or 2,676,299 children), speech or language impairments (20.1 percent or 1,050,975 children), mental retardation (11.4 percent or 594,025 children), and emotional disturbance (8.6 percent or 447,426 children).

The distribution of students by disability varies across age groups. Specific learning disabilities is the largest single category for each of the three age groups, accounting for 41.2 percent of students ages 6-11, 62.3 percent of students ages 12-17, and 51.7 percent of students ages 18-21.

The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities

The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education is a highly complex issue because it is difficult to isolate the effects of poverty, limited English proficiency, residence in inner cities, and race/ethnicity on special education eligibility.

Discrepancies in disability prevalence and service provision across racial/ethnic categories are most apparent in the mental retardation category.

The race/ethnicity data now required under the IDEA Amendments of 1997 will better enable Congress and OSEP to monitor the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education and dropout rates for minority youth.

Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and Results

Although males and females comprise equal proportions of the school-aged population, males account for approximately two-thirds of all students served in special education.

The disproportionate representation of males in special education seems greatest in the learning disability and emotional disturbance categories, which are often considered the disability categories with the most broadly defined eligibility criteria.

Once students are identified as eligible for special education, the services they receive do not differ greatly by gender, and teachers appear to consider an individual student when selecting instructional techniques.

Overall, girls with and without disabilities had better in-school results than boys with and without disabilities. However, despite their better academic performance, females with disabilities have less positive postschool results than their male peers. They are less likely to be employed, have lower wages, and are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education or training.

Students with Emotional Disturbance

In comparison with other students, both with and without disabilities, children with emotional disturbance are more likely to be male, African American, and economically disadvantaged.

The majority of students with emotional disturbance continue to receive most of their services in environments that separate them from students who do not have emotional disturbance. Although some students can succeed in regular classes, research suggests that many of these students and their teachers do not currently receive the supports that they need to succeed in regular class placements.

Students with emotional disturbance fail more courses, earn lower grade point averages, miss more days of school, and are retained at grade more than students with other disabilities. Fifty-five percent leave school before graduating.

OSEP-supported research projects have helped pinpoint problem areas in these students' development and have made significant contributions to the development of promising approaches to early intervention and school discipline. OSEP currently funds projects that focus on prevention, positive approaches to learning, cultural competence, and assessment of children with emotional disturbance.

In fiscal year (FY) 1998, The National Agenda for Improving Results of Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance became a Focus Area under OSEP's Model/Demonstration priority, and three new awards were granted to support comprehensive services in conformance with the seven target areas of the Agenda.


SECTION III
School Programs and Services:
This section contains five modules that examine some of the programs and services available within schools for children and youth with disabilities and their families.

Special Education Teachers: National Trends in Demand and Shortage

Statistics from OSEP's Data Analysis System (DANS) provide convincing evidence of a national substantial chronic shortage of special education teachers who are fully certified in their positions.

There has been dramatic growth in the number of total teaching positions nationally for students ages 3-5 with disabilities. From 1987-88 to 1995-96, demand increased by more than 100 percent from about 13,000 to about 27,000 teachers.

In contrast with the rapid growth in teacher demand for students ages 3-5, the growth in the number of total teaching positions nationally for students ages 6-21 with disabilities has been gradual. From 1987-88 to 1995-96, demand increased by 15 percent from about 284,000 to about 328,000 teachers.

Teaching positions in special and general education expanded by comparable percentages from 1987-88 to 1995-96; therefore, the serious chronic shortage of teachers in special education cannot be attributed to extraordinarily rapid expansion of teaching positions in contrast with general education. Evidence suggests that the number of graduates in special education teacher preparation programs is much too low to satisfy the need for fully certified special education teachers.

Using IFSPs with Preschoolers

Twenty-five States either have a statewide policy for using individualized family service plans (IFSPs) with preschoolers (3 States) or allow IFSPs as a local option with children ages 3-5 who are eligible for special education services (22 States). Sixteen of these States have adopted guidelines, standards, or regulations for IFSP development or transition from an IFSP to an IEP.

A National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) study found two main factors that promote the successful use of IFSPs with preschoolers: family preference for using an IFSP and State and local support for the use of IFSPs.

The NASDSE study also described barriers to the implementation of IFSPs with preschoolers. These include agency differences in eligibility rules and requirements, resistance to change, and the cost associated with using IFSPs with preschoolers.

Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

There has been gradual progress in serving larger percentages of students with disabilities in regular class environments and regular schools.

In 1995-96, more than 95 percent of students with disabilities ages 6-21 attended schools with their nondisabled peers. Approximately 46 percent were removed from their regular classes for less than 21 percent of the day; about 29 percent received special education and related services outside regular classes for 21-60 percent of the day; and 22 percent were served outside of the regular classroom for more than 60 percent of the day.

The environments in which students with disabilities received services varied by disability and age. Progress in serving students in more inclusive settings has also varied from State to State.

Factors affecting the extent to which students are served with nondisabled peers include statewide student achievement, population density, per capita income, human services expenditures per capita, and expenditures per pupil.

Funding for IDEA

Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, in the next FY after the Federal appropriation for Part B, Section 611 reaches approximately $4.9 billion, the previous year's allocation will become the base allocation for States; 85 percent of additional funds above the base will be allocated based on population in the age ranges for which States mandate services, and 15 percent will be based on the number of children in the State living in poverty in those age ranges.

A NASDSE survey found that although in FY 1994 more than $7.6 million was distributed nationally to States through OSEP-sponsored competitive grants for personnel preparation, 43 States allocated $29.7 million of their set-aside for Comprehensive System of Personnel Development activities.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 freeze the State set-aside at FY 1997 levels, plus either an adjustment for inflation or the percentage increase in the State IDEA allocation, whichever is lower.

Part B funding to States increased by 34 percent ($785,558) from 1996 to 1997, the largest 1-year increase in the history of the program.

State Progress in Use of Interagency Agreements

Over the past 20 years, States have been working toward interagency collaboration to provide more comprehensive, cost-effective, and streamlined services to children with disabilities. Recent reauthorizations of IDEA have increasingly required that interagency collaboration be used to strengthen special education services.

Interagency agreements cover a spectrum of services to school-aged students with disabilities, including school-to-work transition activities and data sharing, improving services to children in juvenile treatment centers, creating coordinated early intervention and preschool services, expanding health services access for Medicaid eligible children, and collaborating on multi-agency personnel development.

Building on a history of interagency cooperation, SEAs, vocational education agencies, and vocational rehabilitation programs are in the process of renewing their service systems to provide youth with disabilities a smoother transition into postschool activities.


SECTION IV
Results:
The six modules in this section describe some of the reforms, alternate assessments, and results for students with disabilities; OSEP's State monitoring program; OSEP's response to the Government Performance and Results Act; and the efforts of the Federal and Regional Resource Centers to improve results.

Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities

Standards-based reform encompasses four concepts: high standards, accountability, implementation of consequences as part of the accountability system, and renewed reliance on the use of assessments to measure the performance of students and their progress toward meeting standards.

Although the use of statewide assessments as part of educational accountability systems is widespread, the specifics of the assessments are extremely variable from one State to the next. Most States administer assessments in grades 4, 8, and 11, and the subjects most frequently covered are mathematics, language arts, and writing, with science and social studies close behind.

Currently, there is a tremendous amount of State activity related to assessments, which means that the characteristics of State assessment systems change frequently.

In December 1997, the Department of Education was sponsoring 19 assessment-related projects. Eight of these projects were funded through the Office of Special Education Programs; eight were funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The remaining studies included a project exploring ways to increase the number of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency who participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); National Center for Educational Statistics research that addresses students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency; and a study by the National Center on Educational Outcomes that focuses on educational results for all students.

Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities

Although many students with disabilities currently participate in large-scale assessments, the challenge is to develop rigorous, alternate assessments for students with significant disabilities that are based on standards relevant to their postschool needs.

There are three predominant types of large-scale assessment for students with disabilities: general assessments, general assessments with accommodations, and alternate assessments.

Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio and Maryland's Independence Mastery Assessment Program are examples of alternate assessment systems for the small percentage of students who cannot participate in regular assessments.

Participation in alternate assessments should be used cautiously because the majority of students with disabilities can participate in large-scale assessments.

Secondary School Completion for Students with Disabilities

Students with disabilities who complete high school are more likely to be employed, earn higher wages, and enroll in postsecondary education and training.

Graduation rates vary by disability. Students with speech and language impairments, specific learning disabilities, hearing impairments, and visual impairments were most likely to graduate with a diploma or certificate.

The percentage of students with disabilities who complete high school with a diploma or certificate also varies considerably by State. In 1995-96, 151,222 students ages 17-21 with disabilities graduated with a diploma or certificate. This figure represented 29 percent of all students with disabilities and 74 percent of those exiting the system.

State economic, demographic, and educational variables apparently affect graduation rates, but in complex and inconsistent ways.

State Improvement and Monitoring

In working with States to ensure compliance and improved results for students with disabilities, OSEP emphasizes partnerships and technical assistance, together with a strong accountability system.

To ensure a strong accountability system, OSEP has emphasized strong and diverse customer input in the monitoring process; effective methods for ensuring compliance with Part B, with strongest emphasis on requirements that relate most directly to continuous improvement in learner results; prompt identification and correction of deficiencies; and corrective action requirements and strategies that yield improved access and results for students.

OSEP focused its monitoring efforts during the first half of the 1997-98 school year on working with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to ensure timely implementation of the new requirements in a manner which would support improved results for students and educational reform.

Performance Indicators for Parts B, C, and D

To meet the mandate of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, OSEP developed a strategic plan based on the IDEA Amendments of 1997, OSEP's primary vehicle for improving results for children and youth with disabilities. OSEP developed a series of program logic models with goals, objectives, and performance indicators for the IDEA Amendments of 1997 as a whole, as well as for Parts B, C, and D independently.

A primary objective of Part B is to improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities. An indicator of progress in this area is to increase the percentage of children with disabilities who are proficient in reading, math, and other academic subjects, based on measures such as State assessments and the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

One of OSEP's strategies for reaching the Part C objective of identifying all eligible children is to work with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council to develop ways to coordinate Child Find efforts for Federal programs serving similar populations.

The primary goal of the Part D discretionary programs is to build a comprehensive and systematic infrastructure that is linked to States, school systems, and families and that identifies, develops, and communicates best practices to improve results for children with disabilities.

Results From RRC Technical Assistance to States

RRCs help State educational agencies improve their systems of early intervention, special education, and transition services through the development and implementation of policies, programs, and practices to enhance educational results for children and youth with disabilities.

As a result of an ongoing work group, information exchanges, and conferences, States are better able to implement systems for ensuring compliance that have a direct effect on the services available to children with disabilities and the results they achieve.

The RRFC Network, its member Centers, and its major collaborator in the domain of assessment and accountability, the National Center for Educational Outcomes, have worked together to develop research, disseminate best practices, provide technical assistance, and facilitate collaborative efforts linking general and special education personnel, parents, and other stakeholders.

[Back to Top of Document]


CONTENTS

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • INTRODUCTION

  • LIST OF TABLES

  • LIST OF FIGURES


 SECTION I. CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

  • Overview of the IDEA Amendments of 1997
  • The Six Principles of IDEA
  • Conclusions
  • State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities
  • Importance
  • Traditional General Education Accountability
  • Traditional Special Education Accountability
  • Accountability Reform
  • Issues Associated with Including Students with Disabilities in General Education
  • Accountability
  • Implications
  • Summary

SECTION II. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

  • Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA
  • The Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part C
  • Early Intervention Environments for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities
  • The Number of Children Served Under the Preschool Grants Program
  • Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities
  • Summary
  • Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA
  • Changes in Numbers of Students Served
  • Age Distribution of Students Served
  • Disabilities Distribution of Students Served
  • Summary
  • The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities
  • Race/Ethnicity in Special Education
  • Summary
  • Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and Results
  • Special Education Eligibility
  • Services for Males and Females with Disabilities
  • Educational Results for Males and Females with and without Disabilities
  • Summary
  • Issues Remaining
  • Students with Emotional Disturbance
  • Eligibility and Characteristics
  • Educational Environments and Services
  • Results
  • Improving Results
  • Summary

SECTION III. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

  • Special Education Teachers: National Trends in Demand and Shortage
  • How Large Is the Shortage of Teachers in Special Education?
  • What Factors Are Associated with the Shortages of Teachers in Special Education?
  • Conclusions
  • Using IFSPs with Preschoolers
  • Regulations and Policies
  • States Using IFSPs with Preschoolers
  • A Closer Look at Six States
  • Summary
  • Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities
  • Trends in Data on Educational Environments
  • Factors Associated with Educational Environments
  • Summary
  • Funding for IDEA
  • Appropriation of Funds for Part B of IDEA
  • The State Set-Aside Funds
  • The IDEA Amendments of 1997
  • Summary
  • State Progress in Use of Interagency Agreements
  • Overview of Interagency Cooperation
  • Interagency Coordination for Infants and Toddlers
  • State Implementation Efforts in Coordinating Services for Infants and Toddlers
  • Interagency Coordination Among Agencies Serving School-Age Children
  • State Implementation Efforts in Coordinating Services for School-Age Children
  • Collaboration on Transition Services for Students with Disabilities
  • Summary

SECTION IV. RESULTS

  • Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities
  • Involvement of Special Education in State-Based Reform Activities
  • Current Practices and Policies in Statewide Assessments
  • Reporting the Performance of Students with Disabilities
  • Research Findings Related to Standards-Based Reform
  • Summary
  • Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities
  • What Are Alternate Assessments?
  • Putting Alternate Assessments in Practice
  • Issues To Consider in Developing Alternate Assessments
  • Summary
  • Secondary School Completion for Students with Disabilities
  • Trends in High School Completion for Students with Disabilities
  • Summary
  • State Improvement and Monitoring
  • Summary
  • Performance Indicators for Parts B, C, and D
  • The Purposes of GPRA
  • The Department of Education's Response to GPRA
  • OSEP's Response to GPRA
  • Summary
  • Results From RRC Technical Assistance to States
  • Purpose of the RRFC Network
  • Structure of the RRFC Network
  • SEA Responsibility for General Supervision
  • Assessment and Accountability
  • Behavioral Issues and Interventions
  • Summary

[Back to Top of Document]


APPENDICES


Appendix A. Data Tables

Section A. Child Count Tables

    Table AA1
    Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA2
    Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA3
    Number of Children Ages 6-11 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA4
    Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA5
    Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA6
    Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability and Age, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA7
    Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA8
    Number and Change in Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B

    Table AA9
    Number and Change in Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B

    Table AA10
    Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident Population) of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA11
    Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident Population) of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA12
    Percentage (Based on Estimated Resident Population) of Children Ages 6-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA13
    Percentage (Based on Estimated Enrollment) of Children Ages 6-17 Served Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97 School Year

    Table AA14
    Number of Children Served Under IDEA by Disability and Age Group, During the 1987-88 Through 1996-97 School Years

Section B. Educational Environments Tables

Table AB1
Number of Children Ages 3-21 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB2
Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB3
Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB4
Number of Children Ages 6-11 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB5
Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB6
Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AB7
Number of Children Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group, During the 1986-87 Through 1995-96 School Years

Table AB8
Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Disability, During the 1986-87 Through 1995-96 School Years

Section C. Personnel Tables

Table AC1
Total Number of Teachers Employed, Vacant Funded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency), and Number of Teachers Retained to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages 3-5, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AC2
Total Number of Teachers Employed, Vacant Funded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency), and Number of Teachers Retained to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages 6-21, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AC3
Total Number of Teachers Employed and Vacant Funded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency) to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities, by Disability, Ages 6-21, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AC4
Number and Type of Other Personnel Employed and Vacant Funded Positions (In Full- Time Equivalency) to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities Ages 3-21, by Personnel Category, During the 1995-96 School Year

Section D. Exiting Tables

Table AD1
Number of Students Age 14 and Older Exiting Special Education, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AD2
Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Age Year, During the 1995-96 School Year

Table AD3
Number of Students with Disabilities Exiting School by Graduation with a Diploma, Graduation with a Certificate, and Reached Maximum Age by Age During the 1986-87 Through 1995-96 School Years

Section F. Population and Enrollment Tables

Table AF1
Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 3-21

Table AF2
Estimated Resident Population for Children Birth Through Age 2

Table AF3
Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 3-5

Table AF4
Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 6-17

Table AF5
Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 18-21

Table AF6
Enrollment for Students in Grades Pre-Kindergarten Through Twelve

Section G. Financial Tables

Table AG1
State Grant Awards Under IDEA, Part B, Preschool Grant Program and Part H

Section H. Early Intervention Tables

Table AH1
Number of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early  Intervention Services, December 1, 1996

Table AH2
Early Intervention Services on IFSPs Provided to Infants, Toddlers, and Their Families in Accord With Part H December 1, 1995

Table AH3
Number and Type of Personnel Employed and Needed to Provide Early Intervention Services to Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families December 1, 1995

Table AH4
Number of Infants and Toddlers Birth Through Age 2 Served  in Different Early Intervention Settings Under Part H December 1, 1995


Appendix B.

Activities of the Regional Resource Centers

[Back to Top of Document]


LIST OF TABLES


Table II-1
Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities

Table II-2
Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA by Disability: 1987-88 and 1996-97

Table II-3
Number and Percentage of Students in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity and Disability: 1994

Table II-4
Gender of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability Category

Table II-5
Gender of Elementary and Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability Category

Table II-6
Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities Who Received Different Types of Services, by Gender

Table II-7
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Identified as Having Emotional Disturbance (1995-96)

Table III-1
Production of Degree Graduates by Teacher Preparation Programs in 1993-94 as a Percentage of Three Indicators of Teacher Demand in Public Schools

Table III-2
IDEA, Part B Section 611 Grants to States Program: Funds Appropriated, 1977-97

Table III-3
Rank Order of Most Frequently Cited Functions of the Resource Centers

Table III-4
Most Frequently Cited CSPD Activities

Table III-5
Number of SEA Interagency Agreements

Table IV-1
State Level Emphasis and Special Education Involvement in Establishing Educational Results, Standards, or Curricular Frameworks

Table IV-2
States That Report Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities

Table IV-3
Number and Percentage of Students Ages 17 and Older Graduating with a Diploma or Certificate of Completion: 1995-96

Table IV-4
Factors Predicting State Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities in 1992-93: Standard Diploma

Table IV-5
Factors Predicting State Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities in1992-93: Certificate of Completion

Table IV-6
Schedule of On-Site Monitoring Reviews, 1996-97

Table IV-7
Monitoring Reports Issued During Fiscal Year 1997

Table IV-8
Summary of Findings in Fiscal Year 1997 Monitoring Reports

Table IV-9
Schedule of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 Implementation Planning Visits

Table IV-10
Part B Performance Indicators

Table IV-11
Part C Performance Indicators

Table IV-12
Part D Performance Indicators

Table A-1
State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B Child Count Data 1996-97, Other Data 1995-96

Table B-1
Regional Resource Centers (RRC) and Federal Resource Center (FRC) Programs

[Back to Top of Document]


LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of Results for Children and Youth with Disabilities

Figure 2
Issues Addressed in This Report

Figure II-1
Number of Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C, 1992 Through 1996

Figure II-2
Number of Infants and Toddlers Served in Different Settings, 1992-93 and 1995-96

Figure II-3
Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served Under the Preschool Grants Program, 1992-93 - 1996-97

Figure II-4
Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different Educational Environments, 1992-93 and 1995-96

Figure II-5
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Served Under IDEA, Part B by Age Group in 1996-97 II-12

Figure II-6
Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B From 1987-88 to 1996-97: High-Incidence Disabilities

Figure II-7
Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B From 1987-88 to 1996-97: Low-Incidence Disabilities

Figure II-8
Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities with Different Grade Point Averages, by Gender

Figure II-9
School Exit Status of Youth with Disabilities, by Gender

Figure II-10
Students Ages 6-21 Identified as Having Emotional Disturbance in the 50 States and the District of Columbia

Figure II-11
Percentage of Children with Emotional Disturbance Ages 6-21 Served From 1987-88 Through 1995-96 in Regular Classes and Resource Rooms

Figure III-1
Number of Teaching Positions, Fully Certified Teachers, and Partially Certified Teachers Plus Vacant Positions in Special Education for Students Ages 3-5 with Disabilities by School Year

Figure III-2
Cumulative Percentage of Annual Growth in the Number of Students Ages 3-5 with Disabilities Compared with the Cumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of Teaching Positions in Special Education for These Students by School Year

Figure III-3
Number of Teaching Positions, Fully Certified Teachers, and Partially Certified Teachers Plus Vacant Positions in Special Education for Students Ages 6-21 with Disabilities by School Year

Figure III-4
Cumulative Percentage of Annual Growth in the Number of Students Ages 6-21 with Disabilities Compared with the Cumulative Percentage of Annual  Expansion of Teaching Positions in Special Education for These Students by School Year

Figure III-5
Teacher Shortage Percentages for Students Ages 3-5 and 6-21 with Disabilities by School Year

Figure III-6
Cumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of Teaching Positions in Special Education for Students Ages 3-5 and 6-21 with Disabilities by School Year

Figure III-7
Students Per Teaching Position by Student Age Group and School Year

Figure III-8
Cumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of Teaching Positions in Special Education (for Students Ages 6-21 with Disabilities) and General Education (for Grades K Through 12 in Public Schools) by School Year

Figure III-9
Percentage of Students Served in Different Environments

Figure III-10
Number of Interagency Collaborative Efforts Between SEAs and Other Agencies

Figure IV-1
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Graduating with a Diploma or Certificate of Completion

Figure IV-2
IDEA Program Logic Model

Figure IV-3
IDEA Program for Children and Youth with Disabilities

Figure IV-4
IDEA Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

Figure IV-5
IDEA Discretionary Programs

[Back to Top of Document]

BACK TO

 

02/27/2003 by gkp