Archived: To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education ... · creased 30.7 percent, and the number of students ages 18-21 with disabilities increased 14.7 percent. More than 90

TO ASSURE THEFREE APPROPRIATEPUBLIC EDUCATIONOF ALL CHILDREN WITHDISABILITIES Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 618

Twentieth Annual Report to Congresson the Implementation ofthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

U.S. Department of Education

1998

xianyi.ye

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

Overview of theIDEA Amend-ments of 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION I

Context/Environment: This section contains background information on the settingwithin which special education services are provided to children and youth withdisabilities. The first module in this section presents some of the changes to theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act resulting from the IDEA Amendments of1997. The second module describes the implementation of State accountabilitysystems.

� The IDEA Amendments of 1997 augment andstrengthen the previous version of the Act. This moduleuses six principles as the framework around whicheducation services are designed and provided to chil-dren with disabilities to describe the recent changes.These six principles are the availability of a free appro-priate public education (FAPE), appropriate evaluation,development of an individualized education program(IEP), education provided in the least restrictive envi-ronment (LRE), parent and student participation indecision making, and procedural safeguards to protectthe rights of parents and their child with a disability.

� The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add specific newrequirements regarding the disciplining of studentswith disabilities. The law now specifically requires thatFAPE must be made available to children who aresuspended or expelled. State and local educationalagencies (SEAs and LEAs) are responsible for ensuringthat a student’s IEP, with its goals and objectives,continues to be implemented in the LRE even thoughthe child has been removed from school.

� The law includes a new competitive grant provision--theState Improvement Grants (SIGs). The majority ofthese grant funds must be spent for personnel develop-ment to fulfill the requirement for an adequate supplyof qualified special education, regular education, andrelated services personnel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

StateAccountabilitySystems andStudents withDisabilities

� The law also addresses the issue of professional stan-dards. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, Statesmay allow the use of appropriately trained and super-vised paraprofessionals and assistants to assist in theprovision of special education and related servicesunder certain conditions.

� The traditional model for general education account-ability is based largely on inputs to the system. Theseinput-oriented accountability systems are variouslycalled accreditation, school improvement reviews, ac-countability reports, profiles, or district compositereports. Compliance reviews for specific categoricalprograms funded by either the Federal or State govern-ment also rely on inputs to the system.

� Traditional accountability in special education has beenfocused on compliance--on ensuring that districts wereundertaking the appropriate procedures prescribed byFederal and State law in a timely fashion.

� The IDEA Amendments of 1997 shift accountability tofocus on whether students are meeting the new stan-dards, which involves shifting the orientation of ac-countability from inputs or processes to results and“raising the bar” on expectations for students withdisabilities.

� States continue to struggle with establishing the correctmix of emphasis on accountability for process versusaccountability for student results.

� Including students with disabilities in the general Stateaccountability system extends their franchise in thegeneral system but at no point exonerates a State fromensuring individual protections promulgated by IDEA.

SECTION II

Student Characteristics: This section contains five modules related to thecharacteristics of students served under IDEA and the Federal funding that Statesreceive to serve these students.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

Children AgesBirth ThroughFive ServedUnder IDEA

Students Ages 6Through 21Served UnderIDEA

� Over the past 5 years, the number of infants andtoddlers served under Part C has steadily increasedfrom 145,179 on December 1, 1992, to 187,348 onDecember 1, 1996. The percentage of the populationages birth through 2 served under Part C rose slightlyfrom 1.54 percent in 1995 to 1.65 percent in 1996.

� The most frequent setting in which infants and toddlerswith disabilities received services was home (90,275 or53 percent), followed by early intervention classroom(47,896 or 28 percent).

� Over the past 5 years, the number of children servedunder the IDEA Preschool Grants Program increasedfrom 455,449 during the 1992-93 school year to559,902 during the 1996-97 school year.

� During the 1995-96 school year, 51.6 percent ofchildren ages 3-5 with disabilities were served inregular classes, approximately a 1 percent increase overthe percentage served in regular classes during theprevious year.

� Over the past few years, the number of school-agestudents with disabilities served has increased at ahigher 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, thenumber of students ages 12-17 with disabilities in-creased 30.7 percent, and the number of students ages18-21 with disabilities increased 14.7 percent.

� More than 90 percent of the school-age students servedunder IDEA in 1996-97 were classified in one of fourdisability categories: learning disabilities (51.1 percentor 2,676,299 children), speech or language impair-ments (20.1 percent or 1,050,975 children), mentalretardation (11.4 percent or 594,025 children), andemotional disturbance (8.6 percent or 447,426 chil-dren).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Racial/EthnicComposition ofStudents withDisabilities

Gender as aFactor in SpecialEducationEligibility,Services, andResults

� The distribution of students by disability varies acrossage groups. Specific learning disabilities is the largestsingle category for each of the three age groups, ac-counting for 41.2 percent of students ages 6-11, 62.3percent of students ages 12-17, and 51.7 percent ofstudents ages 18-21.

� The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnicminorities in special education is a highly complexissue because it is difficult to isolate the effects ofpoverty, limited English proficiency, residence in innercities, and race/ethnicity on special education eligibil-ity.

� Discrepancies in disability prevalence and serviceprovision across racial/ethnic categories are mostapparent in the mental retardation category.

� The race/ethnicity data now required under the IDEAAmendments of 1997 will better enable Congress andOSEP to monitor the disproportionate representation ofracial and ethnic minorities in special education anddropout rates for minority youth.

� Although males and females comprise equal propor-tions of the school-aged population, males account forapproximately two-thirds of all students served inspecial education.

� The disproportionate representation of males in specialeducation seems greatest in the learning disability andemotional disturbance categories, which are oftenconsidered the disability categories with the mostbroadly defined eligibility criteria.

� Once students are identified as eligible for specialeducation, the services they receive do not differ greatlyby gender, and teachers appear to consider an individ-ual student when selecting instructional techniques.

� Overall, girls with and without disabilities had betterin-school results than boys with and without disabili-ties. However, despite their better academic perfor-mance, females with disabilities have less positive

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

Students withEmotionalDisturbance

postschool results than their male peers. They are lesslikely to be employed, have lower wages, and are lesslikely to enroll in postsecondary education or training.

� In comparison with other students, both with andwithout disabilities, children with emotional distur-bance are more likely to be male, African American, andeconomically disadvantaged.

� The majority of students with emotional disturbancecontinue to receive most of their services in environ-ments that separate them from students who do nothave emotional disturbance. Although some studentscan succeed in regular classes, research suggests thatmany of these students and their teachers do notcurrently receive the supports that they need to suc-ceed in regular class placements.

� Students with emotional disturbance fail more courses,earn lower grade point averages, miss more days ofschool, and are retained at grade more than studentswith other disabilities. Fifty-five percent leave schoolbefore graduating.

� OSEP-supported research projects have helped pinpointproblem areas in these students’ development and havemade significant contributions to the development ofpromising approaches to early intervention and schooldiscipline. OSEP currently funds projects that focus onprevention, positive approaches to learning, culturalcompetence, and assessment of children with emotionaldisturbance.

� In fiscal year (FY) 1998, The National Agenda for Improv-ing Results of Children and Youth with Serious EmotionalDisturbance became a Focus Area under OSEP’sModel/Demonstration priority, and three new awardswere granted to support comprehensive services inconformance with the seven target areas of the Agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SpecialEducationTeachers:National Trendsin Demand andShortage

Using IFSPs withPreschoolers

SECTION III

School Programs and Services: This section contains five modules that examinesome of the programs and services available within schools for children and youth withdisabilities and their families.

� Statistics from OSEP’s Data Analysis System (DANS)provide convincing evidence of a national substantialchronic shortage of special education teachers who arefully certified in their positions.

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

� In contrast with the rapid growth in teacher demand forstudents ages 3-5, the growth in the number of totalteaching positions nationally for students ages 6-21with disabilities has been gradual. From 1987-88 to1995-96, demand increased by 15 percent from about284,000 to about 328,000 teachers.

� Teaching positions in special and general educationexpanded by comparable percentages from 1987-88 to1995-96; therefore, the serious chronic shortage ofteachers in special education cannot be attributed toextraordinarily rapid expansion of teaching positions incontrast with general education. Evidence suggests thatthe number of graduates in special education teacherpreparation programs is much too low to satisfy theneed for fully certified special education teachers.

� Twenty-five States either have a statewide policy forusing individualized family service plans (IFSPs) withpreschoolers (3 States) or allow IFSPs as a local optionwith children ages 3-5 who are eligible for specialeducation services (22 States). Sixteen of these Stateshave adopted guidelines, standards, or regulations forIFSP development or transition from an IFSP to an IEP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

EducationalEnvironments forStudents withDisabilities

Funding forIDEA

� A National Association of State Directors of SpecialEducation (NASDSE) study found two main factors thatpromote the successful use of IFSPs with preschoolers:family preference for using an IFSP and State and localsupport for the use of IFSPs.

� The NASDSE study also described barriers to theimplementation of IFSPs with preschoolers. Theseinclude agency differences in eligibility rules and require-ments, resistance to change, and the cost associatedwith using IFSPs with preschoolers.

� There has been gradual progress in serving largerpercentages of students with disabilities in regular classenvironments and regular schools.

� In 1995-96, more than 95 percent of students withdisabilities ages 6-21 attended schools with theirnondisabled peers. Approximately 46 percent wereremoved from their regular classes for less than 21percent of the day; about 29 percent received specialeducation and related services outside regular classesfor 21-60 percent of the day; and 22 percent were servedoutside of the regular classroom for more than 60percent of the day.

� The environments in which students with disabilitiesreceived services varied by disability and age. Progressin serving students in more inclusive settings has alsovaried from State to State.

� Factors affecting the extent to which students are servedwith nondisabled peers include statewide studentachievement, population density, per capita income,human services expenditures per capita, and expendi-tures per pupil.

� Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, in the next FYafter the Federal appropriation for Part B, Section 611reaches approximately $4.9 billion, the previous year’sallocation will become the base allocation for States; 85percent of additional funds above the base will beallocated based on population in the age ranges forwhich States mandate services, and 15 percent will be

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State Progressin Use ofInteragencyAgreements

based on the number of children in the State living inpoverty in those age ranges.

� A NASDSE survey found that although in FY 1994 morethan $7.6 million was distributed nationally to Statesthrough OSEP-sponsored competitive grants for person-nel preparation, 43 States allocated $29.7 million oftheir set-aside for Comprehensive System of PersonnelDevelopment activities.

� The IDEA Amendments of 1997 freeze the State set-asideat FY 1997 levels, plus either an adjustment for inflationor 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 in-crease in the history of the program.

� Over the past 20 years, States have been working towardinteragency collaboration to provide more comprehen-sive, cost-effective, and streamlined services to childrenwith disabilities. Recent reauthorizations of IDEA haveincreasingly required that interagency collaboration beused to strengthen special education services.

� Interagency agreements cover a spectrum of services toschool-aged students with disabilities, including school-to-work transition activities and data sharing, improvingservices to children in juvenile treatment centers,creating coordinated early intervention and preschoolservices, expanding health services access for Medicaideligible children, and collaborating on multi-agencypersonnel development.

� Building on a history of interagency cooperation, SEAs,vocational education agencies, and vocational rehabilita-tion programs are in the process of renewing theirservice systems to provide youth with disabilities asmoother transition into postschool activities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

Standards-BasedReform andStudents withDisabilities

SECTION IV

Results: The six modules in this section describe some of the reforms, alternateassessments, and results for students with disabilities; OSEP’s State monitoringprogram; OSEP’s response to the Government Performance and Results Act; and theefforts of the Federal and Regional Resource Centers to improve results.

� Standards-based reform encompasses four concepts:high standards, accountability, implementation ofconsequences as part of the accountability system, andrenewed reliance on the use of assessments to measurethe performance of students and their progress towardmeeting standards.

� Although the use of statewide assessments as part ofeducational accountability systems is widespread, thespecifics of the assessments are extremely variable fromone State to the next. Most States administer assess-ments in grades 4, 8, and 11, and the subjects mostfrequently covered are mathematics, language arts, andwriting, with science and social studies close behind.

� Currently, there is a tremendous amount of Stateactivity related to assessments, which means that thecharacteristics of State assessment systems changefrequently.

� In December 1997, the Department of Education wassponsoring 19 assessment-related projects. Eight ofthese projects were funded through the Office of SpecialEducation Programs; eight were funded by the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement. The remainingstudies included a project exploring ways to increase thenumber of students with disabilities and limited Englishproficiency who participate in the National Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP); National Center forEducational Statistics research that addresses studentswith disabilities and students with limited Englishproficiency; and a study by the National Center onEducational Outcomes that focuses on educationalresults for all students.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DevelopingAlternateAssessments forStudents withDisabilities

SecondarySchoolCompletion forStudents withDisabilities

� Although many students with disabilities currentlyparticipate in large-scale assessments, the challenge isto develop rigorous, alternate assessments for studentswith significant disabilities that are based on standardsrelevant to their postschool needs.

� There are three predominant types of large-scale assess-ment for students with disabilities: general assessments,general assessments with accommodations, and alter-nate assessments.

� Participation in alternate assessments should be usedcautiously because the majority of students with disabil-ities can participate in large-scale assessments.

� Kentucky’s Alternate Portfolio and Maryland’s Independ-ence Mastery Assessment Program are examples ofalternate assessment systems for the small percentageof students who cannot participate in regular assess-ments.

� Students with disabilities who complete high school aremore likely to be employed, earn higher wages, andenroll in postsecondary education and training.

� Graduation rates vary by disability. Students withspeech and language impairments, specific learningdisabilities, hearing impairments, and visual impair-ments were most likely to graduate with a diploma orcertificate.

� The percentage of students with disabilities who com-plete high school with a diploma or certificate also variesconsiderably by State. In 1995-96, 151,222 studentsages 17-21 with disabilities graduated with a diploma orcertificate. This figure represented 29 percent of allstudents with disabilities and 74 percent of those exitingthe system.

� State economic, demographic, and educational variablesapparently affect graduation rates, but in complex andinconsistent ways.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

StateImprovementand Monitoring

PerformanceIndicators forParts B, C, and D

� In working with States to ensure compliance andimproved results for students with disabilities, OSEPemphasizes partnerships and technical assistance,together with a strong accountability system.

� To ensure a strong accountability system, OSEP hasemphasized strong and diverse customer input in themonitoring process; effective methods for ensuringcompliance with Part B, with strongest emphasis onrequirements that relate most directly to continuousimprovement in learner results; prompt identificationand correction of deficiencies; and corrective actionrequirements and strategies that yield improved accessand results for students.

� OSEP focused its monitoring efforts during the first halfof the 1997-98 school year on working with a broadspectrum of stakeholders to ensure timely implementa-tion of the new requirements in a manner which wouldsupport improved results for students and educationalreform.

� To meet the mandate of the Government Performanceand Results Act of 1993, OSEP developed a strategicplan based on the IDEA Amendments of 1997, OSEP’sprimary vehicle for improving results for children andyouth with disabilities. OSEP developed a series ofprogram logic models with goals, objectives, and perfor-mance indicators for the IDEA Amendments of 1997 asa whole, as well as for Parts B, C, and D independently.

� A primary objective of Part B is to improve educationalresults for children and youth with disabilities. Anindicator of progress in this area is to increase thepercentage of children with disabilities who are proficientin reading, math, and other academic subjects, based onmeasures such as State assessments and the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress.

� One of OSEP’s strategies for reaching the Part C objec-tive of identifying all eligible children is to work with theFederal Interagency Coordinating Council to developways to coordinate Child Find efforts for Federal pro-grams serving similar populations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Results FromRRC TechnicalAssistance toStates

� The primary goal of the Part D discretionary programs isto build a comprehensive and systematic infrastructurethat is linked to States, school systems, and families andthat identifies, develops, and communicates best prac-tices to improve results for children with disabilities.

� RRCs help State educational agencies improve theirsystems of early intervention, special education, andtransition services through the development and imple-mentation of policies, programs, and practices to en-hance educational results for children and youth withdisabilities.

� As a result of an ongoing work group, informationexchanges, and conferences, States are better able toimplement systems for ensuring compliance that have adirect effect on the services available to children withdisabilities and the results they achieve.

� The RRFC Network, its member Centers, and its majorcollaborator in the domain of assessment and account-ability, the National Center for Educational Outcomes,have worked together to develop research, disseminatebest practices, provide technical assistance, and facili-tate collaborative efforts linking general and specialeducation personnel, parents, and other stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: INTRODUCTION xiii

INTRODUCTION

he 20th Annual Report to Congress was writtenTimmediately after the reauthorization of the Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This reportreflects the greater emphasis the IDEA Amendments of 1997place on measurable results, through improved accountabil-ity and data collection efforts. It also discusses schoolreform efforts that have been under way for several years.These changes are taking place at the national, State, andlocal levels and should result in positive changes for infants,toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

This annual report highlights many of the recent changes inthe legislation and also builds upon the information con-tained in the 19th Annual Report. It retains the overallstructure (described below) that was first used in the 19thAnnual Report. To assist the reader, the two reports havebeen cross-referenced where appropriate.

The report is divided into four sections, each representingone part of a conceptual framework (see figure 1). In thismodel, educational results for students with disabilities areenvisioned as the product of three sets of factors: thecontext and environment in which education is provided,the characteristics of students, such as disability, race,gender, or poverty, and the school programs and serviceswhich they receive. As shown in the model,contextual/environmental factors are directly linked tostudent characteristics and to school programs and ser-vices. However, there is also a direct link between studentcharacteristics and school programs and services. All threeof these inputs influence the output, educational results forstudents.

Within each section of this report are a number of discretemodules that address current issues, highlight trends indata, and/or describe OSEP-sponsored projects (seefigure 2). Writers of the modules included OSEP personneland staff from OSEP-funded research and technical assis-tance projects.

Student Characteristics

School Programs and

Services

ResultsContext/Environment

INTRODUCTION

xiv 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: INTRODUCTION

Figure 1Conceptual Framework of Results for Children andYouth with Disabilities

The intent of the first section, Context/Environment, is toidentify selected major societal and educational forces thataffect delivery of services to children with disabilities. Inthis section, two overviews are provided. The first modulehighlights the changes in IDEA based on its reauthorizationin June 1997. The second module contains an overview ofState accountability systems with regard to students withdisabilities. More information on accountability systems isincluded in the Results section.

The second section, Student Characteristics, contains fivemodules that focus on the students served under IDEA.The modules in this section highlight State-reported dataand changes in IDEA for children ages birth through 5 andstudents ages 6 through 21 served under the program.

Student Characteristics

Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and Results Students with Emotional Disturbance

School Programs and Services

Special Education Teachers: National Trends in Demand and Shortage Using IFSPs with Preschoolers Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities Funding for IDEA State Progress in Use of Interagency Agreements

Context/Environment

Overview of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities

Results

Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities Secondary School Completion for Students with Disabilities State Improvement and Monitoring Performance Indicators for Parts B, C, and D Results From RRC Technical Assistance to States

INTRODUCTION

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: INTRODUCTION xv

Figure 2Issues Addressed in This Report

Also included in this section is the racial/ethnic compositionof students with disabilities and gender as factors in specialeducation eligibility, services, and results. Finally, in thissection, the needs of children and youth with emotional andbehavioral problems are addressed.

There are five modules in the third section, School Programsand Services. The first module discusses national trendsover the past 9 years related to special education teacherdemands and shortages. The second module highlights thefactors that support or impede the use of IFSPs withpreschoolers. The third module reports data on educationalenvironments for school-age children. In the fourth module,the status of the Part B funds, the new funding formulas setforth in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 for students ages 6

INTRODUCTION

xvi 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: INTRODUCTION

through 21, and the Preschool Grants Program are de-scribed, and highlights of a National Association of StateDirectors of Special Education survey on State usage of set-aside funds are reported. The fifth module describes theincrease in use of interagency agreements to promotecollaboration among agencies that serve students withdisabilities.

The fourth section brings together all the components of themodel by emphasizing national results in the field of specialeducation. The standards-based reform movement is beingimplemented within the educational system, and specialeducation is playing an increased role in these efforts. Thefirst module describes the concept of standards-basedreform and its implementation by States. The secondmodule continues this discussion by describing State effortsin developing alternate assessments for students withdisabilities. The third module presents data on secondaryschool completion for students with disabilities. Theremaining three modules describe Federal efforts to ensurethat IDEA is fully implemented. They are: OSEP-conductedState improvement and monitoring efforts, development ofperformance indicators for Parts B, C, and D of IDEA, andefforts of Federal and Regional Resource Centers to assistStates in the implementation of the IDEA Amendments of1997.

The modules in each of the four sections cover a wide rangeof topics that describe challenges and achievements inserving students with disabilities. Taken as a whole, the20th Annual Report to Congress provides an overview ofimportant issues affecting education for students withdisabilities today.

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xvii

CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii

SECTION I. CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

Overview of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1The Six Principles of IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30Traditional General Education Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31Traditional Special Education Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31Accountability Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32Issues Associated with Including Students with Disabilities in General

Education Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

SECTION II. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1The Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1Early Intervention Environments for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities . . II-3The Number of Children Served Under the Preschool Grants Program . . . . . . II-4Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11Changes in Numbers of Students Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11Age Distribution of Students Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12Disabilities Distribution of Students Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

CONTENTS

xviii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

Contents (cont’d)

Page

The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19Race/Ethnicity in Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-20Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23

Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and Results . . . . . II-25Special Education Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25Services for Males and Females with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-30Educational Results for Males and Females with and without Disabilities . . . II-31Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-37Issues Remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-38

Students with Emotional Disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45Eligibility and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45Educational Environments and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-54Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-57Improving Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-58Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-61

SECTION III. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Special Education Teachers: National Trends in Demand and Shortage . . . . . . . III-1How Large Is the Shortage of Teachers in Special Education? . . . . . . . . . . . III-4What Factors Are Associated with the Shortages of Teachers in Special

Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-12Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15

Using IFSPs with Preschoolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-25Regulations and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-26States Using IFSPs with Preschoolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-26A Closer Look at Six States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-27Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-30

Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-33Trends in Data on Educational Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-34Factors Associated with Educational Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-35Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-37

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xix

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Funding for IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-41Appropriation of Funds for Part B of IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-41The State Set-Aside Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-42The IDEA Amendments of 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-46Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-48

State Progress in Use of Interagency Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-51Overview of Interagency Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-51Interagency Coordination for Infants and Toddlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-52State Implementation Efforts in Coordinating Services for Infants and

Toddlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-54Interagency Coordination Among Agencies Serving School-Age Children . . . III-59State Implementation Efforts in Coordinating Services for School-Age

Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-60Collaboration on Transition Services for Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . III-61Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-65

SECTION IV. RESULTS

Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1Involvement of Special Education in State-Based Reform Activities . . . . . . . IV-3Current Practices and Policies in Statewide Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5Reporting the Performance of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7Research Findings Related to Standards-Based Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15What Are Alternate Assessments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17Putting Alternate Assessments in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17Issues To Consider in Developing Alternate Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-29

Secondary School Completion for Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33Trends in High School Completion for Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . IV-34Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38

State Improvement and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-41Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-49

CONTENTS

xx 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Performance Indicators for Parts B, C, and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-51The Purposes of GPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-51The Department of Education’s Response to GPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-53OSEP’s Response to GPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-54Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-69

Results From RRC Technical Assistance to States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-71Purpose of the RRFC Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-71Structure of the RRFC Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-72SEA Responsibility for General Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-73Assessment and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-76Behavioral Issues and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-78Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-79

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 1996-97School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Table AA2 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served UnderIDEA, Part B by Disability, During the1996-97 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2




CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xxi

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Table AA6 Number of Children Served Under IDEA,Part B by Disability and Age, During the1996-97 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14

Table AA7 Number of Children Served Under IDEA,Part B by Age, During the 1996-97 SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

Table AA8 Number and Change in Number of ChildrenServed Under IDEA, Part B . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19

Table AA9 Number and Change in Number of ChildrenAges 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B . . . . . A-20

Table AA10 Percentage (Based on Estimated ResidentPopulation) of Children Served Under IDEA,Part B by Age Group, During the 1996-97School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33

Table AA11 Percentage (Based on Estimated ResidentPopulation) of Children Ages 6-21 ServedUnder IDEA, Part B by Disability, Duringthe 1996-97 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-34

Table AA12 Percentage (Based on Estimated ResidentPopulation) of Children Ages 6-17 ServedUnder IDEA, Part B by Disability, Duringthe 1996-97 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-37

Table AA13 Percentage (Based on Estimated Enrollment)of Children Ages 6-17 Served Under IDEA,Part B by Disability, During the 1996-97School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-40

Table AA14 Number of Children Served Under IDEA byDisability and Age Group, During the1987-88 Through 1996-97 School Years . . . A-43

CONTENTS

xxii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Section B. Educational Environments Tables

Table AB1 Number of Children Ages 3-21 Served inDifferent Educational Environments UnderIDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-46

Table AB2 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served inDifferent Educational Environments UnderIDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-49



Table AB5 Number of Children Ages 12-17 Served inDifferent Educational Environments UnderIDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-103

Table AB6 Number of Children Ages 18-21 Served inDifferent Educational Environments UnderIDEA, Part B, During the 1995-96 SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-129

Table AB7 Number of Children Served in DifferentEducational Environments Under IDEA,Part B by Age Group, During the 1986-87Through 1995-96 School Years . . . . . . . . . . A-155

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xxiii

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Table AB8 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served inDifferent Educational Environments UnderIDEA, Part B by Disability, During the1986-87 Through 1995-96 School Years . . A-157

Section C. Personnel Tables

Table AC1 Total Number of Teachers Employed, VacantFunded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency),and Number of Teachers Retained to ProvideSpecial Education and Related Services forChildren and Youth with Disabilities, Ages3-5, During the 1995-96 School Year . . . . . A-162

Table AC2 Total Number of Teachers Employed, VacantFunded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency),and Number of Teachers Retained to ProvideSpecial Education and Related Services forChildren and Youth with Disabilities, Ages6-21, During the 1995-96 School Year . . . . A-163

Table AC3 Total Number of Teachers Employed andVacant Funded Positions (In Full-TimeEquivalency) to Provide Special Educationand Related Services for Children and Youthwith Disabilities, by Disability, Ages 6-21,During the 1995-96 School Year . . . . . . . . A-164

Table AC4 Number and Type of Other PersonnelEmployed and Vacant Funded Positions(In Full- Time Equivalency) to ProvideSpecial Education and Related Services forChildren and Youth with Disabilities Ages 3-21, by Personnel Category, During the1995-96 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-171

CONTENTS

xxiv 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Section D. Exiting Tables

Table AD1 Number of Students Age 14 and OlderExiting Special Education, During the1995-96 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-181

Table AD2 Number of Students with DisabilitiesExiting Special Education by Age Year,During the 1995-96 School Year . . . . . . . . . A-207

Table AD3 Number of Students with DisabilitiesExiting School by Graduation with aDiploma, Graduation with a Certificate,and Reached Maximum Age by AgeDuring the 1986-87 Through 1995-96School Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-220

Section F. Population and Enrollment Tables

Table AF1 Estimated Resident Population for ChildrenAges 3-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-221

Table AF2 Estimated Resident Population for ChildrenBirth Through Age 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-222

Table AF3 Estimated Resident Population for ChildrenAges 3-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-223

Table AF4 Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 6-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-224

Table AF5 Estimated Resident Population for Children Ages 18-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-225

Table AF6 Enrollment for Students in GradesPre-Kindergarten Through Twelve . . . . . . . . A-226

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xxv

Contents (cont’d)

Page

Section G. Financial Tables

Table AG1 State Grant Awards Under IDEA, Part B,Preschool Grant Program and Part H . . . . . A-227

Section H. Early Intervention Tables

Table AH1 Number of Infants and Toddlers ReceivingEarly Intervention Services, December 1, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-228

Table AH2 Early Intervention Services on IFSPsProvided to Infants, Toddlers, and TheirFamilies in Accord With Part H December 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-229

Table AH3 Number and Type of Personnel Employedand Needed to Provide Early InterventionServices to Infants and Toddlers withDisabilities and Their Families December 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-232

Table AH4 Number of Infants and Toddlers BirthThrough Age 2 Served in Different EarlyIntervention Settings Under Part HDecember 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-238

Appendix B. Activities of the Regional Resource Centers

CONTENTS

xxvi 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table II-1 Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities . . . . II-8

Table II-2 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA by Disability:1987-88 and 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Table II-3 Number and Percentage of Students in Special Education byRace/Ethnicity and Disability: 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-22

Table II-4 Gender of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, byDisability Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-26

Table II-5 Gender of Elementary and Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-27

Table II-6 Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities WhoReceived Different Types of Services, by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-32

Table II-7 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Identified as HavingEmotional Disturbance (1995-96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-54

Table III-1 Production of Degree Graduates by Teacher PreparationPrograms in 1993-94 as a Percentage of Three Indicators ofTeacher Demand in Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-18

Table III-2 IDEA, Part B Section 611 Grants to States Program: FundsAppropriated, 1977-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-43

Table III-3 Rank Order of Most Frequently Cited Functions of the ResourceCenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-45

Table III-4 Most Frequently Cited CSPD Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-45

Table III-5 Number of SEA Interagency Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-57

Table IV-1 State Level Emphasis and Special Education Involvement inEstablishing Educational Results, Standards, or CurricularFrameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xxvii

List of Tables (cont’d)

Page

Table IV-2 States That Report Assessment Results for Students withDisabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Table IV-3 Number and Percentage of Students Ages 17 and OlderGraduating with a Diploma or Certificate of Completion:1995-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-36

Table IV-4 Factors Predicting State Graduation Rates for Students withDisabilities in 1992-93: Standard Diploma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-37

Table IV-5 Factors Predicting State Graduation Rates for Students withDisabilities in 1992-93: Certificate of Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38

Table IV-6 Schedule of On-Site Monitoring Reviews, 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-45

Table IV-7 Monitoring Reports Issued During Fiscal Year 1997 . . . . . . . . . . IV-45

Table IV-8 Summary of Findings in Fiscal Year 1997 Monitoring Reports . . . IV-46

Table IV-9 Schedule of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 Implementation Planning Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-49

Table IV-10 Part B Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-58 Table IV-11 Part C Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-64

Table IV-12 Part D Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-67

Table A-1 State Reporting Patterns for IDEA, Part B Child Count Data1996-97, Other Data 1995-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-241

Table B-1 Regional Resource Centers (RRC) and Federal Resource Center(FRC) Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8

CONTENTS

xxviii 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of Results for Children and Youth withDisabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Figure 2 Issues Addressed in This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Figure II-1 Number of Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C,1992 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Figure II-2 Number of Infants and Toddlers Served in Different Settings, 1992-93 and 1995-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Figure II-3 Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served Under the Preschool GrantsProgram, 1992-93 - 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Figure II-4 Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different EducationalEnvironments, 1992-93 and 1995-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

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 From1987-88 to 1996-97: High-Incidence Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Figure II-7 Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B From1987-88 to 1996-97: Low-Incidence Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15

Figure II-8 Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities withDifferent Grade Point Averages, by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-34

Figure II-9 School Exit Status of Youth with Disabilities, by Gender . . . . . . . . II-35

Figure II-10 Students Ages 6-21 Identified as Having Emotional Disturbancein the 50 States and the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-52

Figure II-11 Percentage of Children with Emotional Disturbance Ages 6-21Served From 1987-88 Through 1995-96 in Regular Classes andResource Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-56

CONTENTS

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS xxix

List of Figures (cont’d)

Page

Figure III-1 Number of Teaching Positions, Fully Certified Teachers, andPartially Certified Teachers Plus Vacant Positions in SpecialEducation for Students Ages 3-5 with Disabilities by SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Figure III-2 Cumulative Percentage of Annual Growth in the Number ofStudents Ages 3-5 with Disabilities Compared with theCumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of TeachingPositions in Special Education for These Students by SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Figure III-3 Number of Teaching Positions, Fully Certified Teachers,and Partially Certified Teachers Plus Vacant Positions inSpecial Education for Students Ages 6-21 with Disabilities bySchool Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

Figure III-4 Cumulative Percentage of Annual Growth in the Number ofStudents Ages 6-21 with Disabilities Compared with theCumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of TeachingPositions in Special Education for These Students by SchoolYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-8

Figure III-5 Teacher Shortage Percentages for Students Ages 3-5 and 6-21with Disabilities by School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10

Figure III-6 Cumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of TeachingPositions in Special Education for Students Ages 3-5 and6-21 with Disabilities by School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13

Figure III-7 Students Per Teaching Position by Student Age Group and School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-14

Figure III-8 Cumulative Percentage of Annual Expansion of TeachingPositions in Special Education (for Students Ages 6-21 withDisabilities) and General Education (for Grades K Through 12in Public Schools) by School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15

Figure III-9 Percentage of Students Served in Different Environments . . . . . . III-36

CONTENTS

xxx 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONTENTS

List of Figures (cont’d)

Page

Figure III-10 Number of Interagency Collaborative Efforts Between SEAs andOther Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-58

Figure IV-1 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Graduating with aDiploma or Certificate of Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-35

Figure IV-2 IDEA Program Logic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-55

Figure IV-3 IDEA Program for Children and Youth with Disabilities . . . . . . . IV-57

Figure IV-4 IDEA Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities . . . . . . . IV-62

Figure IV-5 IDEA Discretionary Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-66

SECTION I

CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

Modules

1. Overview of the IDEAAmendments of 1997

2. State AccountabilitySystems andStudents withDisabilities

OVERVIEW OF THE IDEA AMENDMENTS OF 1997

This module is, in part, based on an Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-1

sponsored project from the National Information Center for Children and Youth withDisabilities (NICHCY) and the Federal Resource Center for Special Education (FRC).Information from a two-volume notebook of training materials titled The Individuals withDisabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997: Curriculum and Overheads was used towrite this module.

20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: SECTION I I-1

PURPOSE: To present areview of changes in IDEAresulting from the 1997amendments to the lawthat were enacted to helpensure better results forstudents with disabilitiesand their families.

Overview of the IDEAAmendments of 19971

n June 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-Ition Act (IDEA) was amended by Public Law 105-17, theIDEA Amendments of 1997. This is the fifth set ofamendments to the Act. Over the years, IDEA has fosteredsignificant changes in the lives of children with disabilitiesand their families and in the roles of schools and teachersin the education of children with disabilities.

The basic tenets of IDEA have remained intact since theoriginal passage of the law in 1975. However, each set ofamendments has strengthened the original law. The IDEAAmendments of 1997 retain much of the previous versionof the law but had some important revisions. This moduledoes not attempt to provide a detailed explanation of all thechanges to the Act; rather, it provides an overview of someareas in which the legislation has changed.

Many of the other modules in this annual report alsoprovide specific information on the changes in the law. Thecomplete text of the revised law can be obtained on-line athttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA (case sensitive)or http://www.lrp.com/ed.

The Six Principles of IDEA

One way to conceptualize IDEA is to define six principlesthat provide the framework around which educationservices are designed and provided to students withdisabilities. They are:

� free appropriate public education (FAPE);


I-2 20TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: SECTION I

� appropriate evaluation;

� individualized education program (IEP);

� least restrictive environment (LRE);

� parent and student participation in decision making;and

� procedural safeguards.

The changes in the law will be examined within the frame-work of these six guiding principles.

FAPE

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 retain the original provi-sions of FAPE but added two new provisions. Thus, thelaw still requires that students with disabilities haveavailable to them a “free appropriate public education,”meaning special education and related services that:

“(A) have been provided at public expense, under publicsupervision and direction, and without charge;

(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;

(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, orsecondary school education in the State involved; and

(D) are provided in conformity with the individualizededucation program required under section 614(d).”(§602(8))

The law now also specifically requires that FAPE must bemade available to children who are suspended or expelled.State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educationalagencies (LEAs) are responsible for ensuring that a stu-dent’s IEP with its goals and objectives continues to beimplemented in the least restrictive environment eventhough the child has been removed from the school. (A



further review of the new discipline requirements is givenin the procedural safeguards section of this overview.)

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also place limitations onthe States’ obligation to serve students with disabilities inprison. Federal law does not require States to provideFAPE to individuals ages 18 through 21 who, before theirincarceration in an adult correctional facility, were notconsidered as having a disability--that is, they had notbeen identified as having a disability under IDEA or did nothave an IEP in place prior to incarceration.

Definitions Included in FAPE. Key terms in the FAPEprovision are “special education and related services.” TheIDEA Amendments of 1997 maintain the definition ofspecial education. The definition of related services wasalso virtually unchanged; however, “orientation andmobility services” was added to the nonexhaustive statu-tory list of related services. Orientation and mobilityservices are designed to aid students who are blind or haveother visual impairments.

FAPE and the General Curriculum. What determines anappropriate education was emphasized in the IDEAAmendments of 1997. The language requiring an evalua-tion was strengthened (see “Appropriate Evaluation” in thismodule), and evaluations must include informationrelevant to a student’s participation in the general curricu-lum (§614(b)(2)).

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development(CSPD) and State Improvement Plans (SIPs). Theproviders of services under IDEA must be effectivelyprepared in their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. TheIDEA Amendments of 1997 include a new competitivegrant provision--the State Improvement Grants (SIGs). Themajority of these grant funds must be spent for personneldevelopment. To compete for an SIG, a State must submita State Improvement Plan. A State’s CSPD must bedesigned to ensure an adequate supply of qualified specialeducation, general education, and related services person-nel that meets the requirements for a SIP relating topersonnel development in subsections (b)(2)(B) and (c)(3)(D)



of Section 653 of the Act. In addition, capacity-building isnow promoted at the local level. Adoption of promisingpractices is actively conducted through the SIPs andthrough subgrants to LEAs for capacity building andimprovement (§611(f)(4)).

The new law added provisions to the CSPD, including:

� a State must have in effect a CSPD that meets therequirements of the SIP; and

� personnel must meet the requirements specified in theState’s SIP.

The SIP is a powerful tool for States to use to improve theirsystems and to equip staff with the necessary knowledge toimprove results for students with disabilities. Under theIDEA Amendments of 1997, to the maximum extentpossible, the SIP must be integrated with State plansunder the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965 (ESEA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asappropriate. SIGs are awarded on a competitive basis afterpeer review, and the IDEA Amendments of 1997 setguidelines on how the funds may be used.

Professional Standards. Prior to the IDEA Amendmentsof 1997, each State was required to (a) ensure that person-nel were appropriately and adequately trained; (b) establishand maintain professional standards that its personnelhad to meet; and (c) specify the steps that it intended totake to retrain or hire personnel who did meet Statestandards, when current personnel did not meet thehighest State standard for a specific profession or disci-pline. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add two newprovisions:

� States may allow the use of paraprofessionals andassistants to assist in the provision of special educationand related services under certain conditions. Parapro-fessionals and assistants must be appropriately trainedand supervised.



� States may adopt a policy that requires LEAs to makean ongoing good faith effort to recruit and hire appro-priately and adequately trained personnel to providespecial education and related services. Such a policymay include that where there are shortages of qualifiedpersonnel, the recruitment and hiring of the mostqualified persons available is allowed, provided thatthose persons who are hired are making satisfactoryprogress toward completing applicable course work andwill in 3 years complete the courses to meet Statestandards.

Appropriate Evaluation

As in previous versions of the law, the IDEA Amendmentsof 1997 require that before a student can receive specialeducation and related services for the first time, he or shemust receive a “full and individual initial evaluation.” Thelaw also requires:

� parental consent for the initial evaluation;

� a nondiscriminatory evaluation;

� evaluation by a team in all areas of suspected disability;

� not using any single procedure to determine that achild is a child with a disability or to determine thechild’s educational program;

� testing in the native language or mode of communica-tion of the child, unless it is clearly not feasible to doso; and

� that LEAs conduct reevaluations for each child with adisability if “conditions warrant a reevaluation or if thechild’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation, butat least once every 3 years . . . .” (§614(a)(2)(A)).

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 amend certain aspects ofthe evaluation process and moved all of the provisionsrelated to evaluation and reevaluation to one place in the



law. (See Section 614) The changes in the evaluationprovisions are described below.

The Part B definition of a child with a disability wasexpanded to include, at the discretion of the SEA and LEA,children between the ages of 3 and 9 who are--

“(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined bythe State and as measured by appropriate diagnosticinstruments and procedures, in one or more of thefollowing areas: physical development, cognitive devel-opment, communication development, social or emo-tional development, or adaptive development; and

(ii) who, by reasons thereof, needs special educationand related services.” (§602(3))

Previously, use of the term developmental disabilities waslimited to children ages birth through 5. According to theCommittee on Labor and Human Resources Report, “useof ‘developmental delay’ as part of a unified approach willallow the special education and related services to bedirectly related to the child’s needs and prevent locking thechild into an eligibility category which may be inappropri-ate or incorrect . . . .” (pp. 6-7)

Other changes to the evaluation provisions include codifi-cation of the policy that assessment tools and strategiesprovide information that is instructionally useful, emphasison participation in the general curriculum, and reductionof the paperwork burden.

The evaluation process has also been strengthened. Thelaw now requires that a parent be included as part of theteam that determines eligibility. Specifically, the evalua-tion process includes collecting “information provided bythe parent” (§614(b)(2)(A)), reviewing existing evaluationdata, including “evaluations and information provided byparents” (§614(c)(1)(A)), and requires that the “determina-tion of whether the child is a ‘child with a disability’ . . .shall be made by a team of qualified professionals and theparent of the child . . . .” (§614(b)(4)(A))


For in-depth discussions of the changes in law related to the inclusion of students with2

disabilities in the assessment process, please see in Section I the module titled “StateAccountability Systems and Students with Disabilities,” and in Section IV the modulestitled “Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities” and “Developing AlternateAssessments for Students with Disabilities.”


Inclusion in State and Districtwide Assessment. One2

of the far-reaching changes to IDEA is its alignment withrecent educational reform legislation, including The Goals2000: Educate America Act, the Improving America’sSchools Act (IASA), and the School to Work OpportunitiesAct. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 require that:

“(A) IN GENERAL.--Children with disabilities areincluded in general and district-wide assessmentprograms, with appropriate accommodations, wherenecessary. As appropriate, the State or local educa-tional agency--

(i) develops guidelines for the participation of chil-dren with disabilities in alternate assessments forthose children who cannot participate in State anddistrict-wide assessment programs; and

(ii) develops and, beginning no later than July 1,2000, conducts those alternate assessments.

(B) REPORTS.--The State educational agency makesavailable to the public, and reports to the public withthe same frequency and in the same detail as it reportson the assessment of nondisabled children, the follow-ing:

(i) the number of children with disabilities partici-pating in regular assessments.

(ii) the number of those children participating inalternate assessments.

(iii)(I) The performance of those children on regularassessments (beginning no later than July 1, 1998)and on alternate assessments (no later than July 1,2000), if doing so would be statistically sound and


Section IV contains a module titled “Performance Indicators for Parts B, C, and D.” This3

module gives a detailed description of OSEP’s response to the Government Performanceand Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).


would not result in the disclosure of performanceresults identifiable to individual children.

(II) Data relating to the performance of childrendescribed under subclause (I) shall bedisaggregated--(aa) for assessments conducted afterJuly 1, 1998; and (bb) for assessments conductedbefore July 1, 1998, if the State is required todisaggregate such data prior to July 1 1998.”(§612(a)(17))

Performance Goals and Indicators. In addition to3

requiring that States include students with disabilities inassessment procedures, the IDEA Amendments of 1997require States to establish performance goals for childrenwith disabilities and to establish performance indicators tojudge their progress toward these goals. States had untilJuly 1, 1998, to establish:

� appropriate performance goals for students withdisabilities that “are consistent, to the maximum extentappropriate, with other goals and standards for chil-dren established by the State;” and

� “performance indicators the State will use to assessprogress toward achieving those goals that, at a mini-mum, address the performance of children with disabil-ities on assessments, drop-out rates, and graduationrates.” (§612(a)(16))

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

IDEA requires that an IEP be written for each student witha disability receiving special education and related services.The IDEA Amendments of 1997 incorporate some newrequirements pertaining to IEPs and move all provisionsrelated to the IEP to Section 614(d). These went into effecton July 1, 1998.



The section begins by defining the term “IndividualizedEducation Program”:

“The term ‘individualized education program’ or ‘IEP’means a written statement for each child with a disabil-ity that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accor-dance with this section. . . .” (§614(d)(1)(A))

Below is a summary of the provisions that modified the IEPin the IDEA Amendments of 1997.

Statement of the Child’s Present Levels of EducationalPerformance. The IEP must state how the child with adisability is currently doing at school, emphasizing thechild’s strengths and weaknesses and areas that need to beaddressed. The information is drawn from recent evalua-tions, observations, and inputs from parents and schoolpersonnel. A new area of emphasis in the IDEA Amend-ments of 1997 is “how the child’s disability affects thechild’s involvement and progress in the general curricu-lum.” (§614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I))

Statement of Measurable Annual Goals, IncludingBenchmarks or Short-Term Objectives. This sectionfocuses on the IEP team’s recommended educational goalsthat are appropriate for the student. The goals must beannual and measurable and include benchmarks or short-term objectives, and relate to “meeting the child’s needsthat result from the child’s disability to enable the child tobe involved in and progress in the general curriculum; andmeeting each of the child’s other educational needs thatresult from the child’s disability . . . .” (§614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I)and (II))

Statement of Special Education and Related Services.Given the child’s strengths, needs, and annual goals, theIEP considers the special education and related servicesnecessary to accomplish those goals. Again, the IDEAAmendments of 1997 emphasize services necessary toenable the child to be part of the general curriculum. Infact, the IEP must include “an explanation of the extent, ifany, to which the child will not participate withnondisabled children in the regular class . . . .”


For more on this topic, please see the modules titled “State Accountability Systems and4

Students with Disabilities” in Section I and “Standards-Based Reform and Students withDisabilities” and “Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities” inSection IV of this report.


(§614(d)(1)(A)(iv)) Also, the IDEA Amendments of 1997include a definition of “Supplementary Aids and Services.”“Supplementary aids and services” means “aids, services,and other supports that are provided in regular educationclasses or other education-related settings to enablechildren with disabilities to be educated with nondisabledchildren to the maximum extent appropriate in accordancewith section 612(a)(5) [The 1997 Amendments, provision onLRE].” (§602(29))

Statement of Any Individual Modifications in theAdministration of State or Districtwide Assessment ofStudent Achievement. The IDEA Amendments of 19974

require that students with disabilities be included in theassessment process. Modifications or adaptations must begiven where appropriate. If the IEP team determines that achild will not participate in a particular State or localassessment, or any part of that assessment, then astatement of “why that assessment is not appropriate forthe child and how that child will be assessed” must beincluded. (§614(d)(1)(A)(v)(II)(aa) and (bb))

Dates, Frequency, Location, and Duration of Services.Each student’s IEP must include when the student’sspecial education and related services will begin, how longthey will go on (duration), how often they will be provided(frequency), and where they will take place (location). Thelocation provision is new in the IDEA Amendments of1997. (§614(d)(1)(A)(vi))

Transition Services. The requirement to provide youthwith disabilities transition services was retained from theprior law. However, two new requirements were added.First, IEPs must include,

“beginning at age 14, and updated annually, a state-ment of the transition service needs of the child underthe applicable components of the child’s IEP thatfocuses on the child’s course of study (such as partici-



pation in advanced-placement courses or a vocationaleducation program).” (§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(I))

This requirement was designed to augment the existingrequirement which states:

“beginning at age 16 (or younger, if determined appro-priate by the IEP team), a statement of needed transi-tion services for the child, including, when appropriate,a statement of the interagency responsibilities or anyneeded linkages . . . .” (§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(II))

The second addition is that IEPs must include,

“beginning at least one year before the child reaches theage of majority under State law, a statement that thechild has been informed of his or her rights under thistitle, if any, that will transfer to the child on the age ofreaching majority . . . .” (§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(III))

Developing the IEP. The IDEA Amendments of 1997maintain essentially the same process for developing anIEP. However, the new legislation increases the rolegeneral educators play on the IEP team, and related servicepersonnel are specifically mentioned as being part of theIEP team, where appropriate, and at the discretion of theparent or school. New language was also added withregard to the responsibilities of the IEP team. Specifically,the law charged the IEP team to consider: (a) the strengthsof the child and the concerns of the parents for enhancingthe education of their child and (b) the results of the initialevaluation or most recent evaluation of the child.(§614(d)(3)(A))

In the process of developing the IEP, the IEP team mustalso consider “special factors,” including:

“(i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his orher learning or that of others, consider where appropri-ate, strategies, including positive behavioral interven-tions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior;



(ii) in the case of a child with limited English profi-ciency, consider the language needs of the child assuch needs relate to the child’s IEP;

(iii) in the case of a child who is blind or visuallyimpaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the useof Braille unless the IEP Team determines, after anevaluation of the child’s reading and writing skills,needs, and appropriate reading and writing media(including an evaluation of the child’s future needs forinstruction in Braille or the use of Braille) that instruc-tion in Braille is not appropriate for the child;

(iv) consider the communication needs of the child, andin the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing,consider the child’s language and communicationneeds, opportunities for direct communication withpeers and professional personnel in the child’s languageand communication mode, academic level, and fullrange of needs, including opportunities for directinstruction in the child’s language and communicationmode; and

(v) consider whether the child requires assistive tech-nology devices and services.” (§614(d)(3)(B))

Reviewing and Revising the IEP. The IDEA Amendmentsof 1997 emphasize that the IEP is to be reviewed annuallyor more frequently if needed to determine if goals are beingmet. The IEP must be revised, as appropriate, to address“any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals andin the general curriculum, where appropriate; the resultsof any reevaluation conducted under [§614]; informationabout the child provided to, or by, the parents . . . ; thechild’s anticipated needs; or other matters.” (§614(d)(4)(A))Also, as appropriate the regular education teacher mustparticipate in the review and revision of the IEP.(§614(d)(4)(B))



Least Restrictive Environment

Since 1975, all eligible students must receive FAPE in theleast restrictive environment possible. This means that thechild must receive an appropriate education designed tomeet his or her needs while being educated withnondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.Specifically, the law requires each State to ensure that:

“[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children withdisabilities, including children in public or privateinstitutions or other care facilities, are educated withchildren who are not disabled, and special classes,separate schooling, or other removal of children withdisabilities from the regular educational environmentoccurs only when the nature or severity of the disabilityis such that education in regular classes with the useof supplementary aids and services cannot be achievedsatisfactorily.” (§612(a)(5)(A)).

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add two new provisions tostrengthen this commitment:

“(i) IN GENERAL.--If the State uses a fundingmechanism by which the State distributes Statefunds on the basis of the type of setting in which achild is served, the funding mechanism does notresult in placements that violate the requirementsof subparagraph (A).

(ii) ASSURANCE.--If the State does not have policiesand procedures to ensure compliance with clause(i), the State shall provide an assurance that it willrevise the funding mechanism as soon as feasible toensure that such mechanism does not result insuch placements.” (§612(a)(5)(B))

These new provisions require that States do not set upfunding mechanisms that violate the LRE requirement andthat if a State has in place funding mechanisms that are inviolation, they be revised as soon as possible. Further-more, as described in the IEP section, supplementary aidsand services were defined, as well as other components,



such as student involvement in the general curriculum, theparticipation of students in State and districtwide assess-ment programs, and performance goals and indicators.

When students with disabilities are educated in the generaleducation classroom, the possibility exists that anondisabled child might benefit from the special educationbeing provided to a child with a disability. In the past,schools were required to keep track of these incidentalbenefits. The new provision states:

“(4) PERMISSIVE USE OF FUNDS.--Notwithstandingparagraph (2)(A) or section 612(a)(18)(B) (related tocommingled funds), funds provided to the local educa-tional agency under this part may be used for thefollowing activities:

(A) SERVICES AND AIDS THAT ALSO BENEFITNONDISABLED CHILDREN.--For the costs ofspecial education and related services and supple-mentary aids and services provided in a regularclass or other education-related setting to a childwith a disability in accordance with the individual-ized education program of the child, even if one ormore nondisabled children benefit from such ser-vices.” (§613(a)(4))

Parent and Student Participation

IDEA strongly encouraged the participation of and commu-nication among all parties who have a vested interest in theeducation of students with disabilities. On the one hand,parents have always been important players in the specialeducation process, and their involvement is crucial tosuccessful results for students. On the other hand, thelanguage inviting student participation has becomestronger with the past two reauthorizations of IDEA,particularly in the area of transition.

Previous versions of IDEA stipulated that:



� Public agencies must notify parents when they proposeor refuse to initiate or change the identification, evalua-tion, or educational placement of the child, or theprovision of FAPE to the child.

� Parents have the right to inspect and review anyeducation records relating to their child that the publicagency collects, maintains, or uses. In addition, theyhave the right to inspect and review all educationalrecords with respect to the identification, evaluation,and educational placement of the child, and the provi-sion of FAPE to the child.

� Parental consent is required before a child may beevaluated for the first time.

� Parents have the right to obtain an independent educa-tional evaluation (IEE) of their child; under certaincircumstances, this IEE may be at public expense. Ifthe parents obtain an IEE at private expense, results ofthe evaluation must be considered by the public agencyin any decision made with respect to the provision ofFAPE to the child.

� Parents are members of the team that develops theirchild’s IEP.

� Parental consent is required for a child’s initial specialeducational placement.

� Parents have the right to challenge or appeal anydecision related to the identification, evaluation, orplacement of their child, or the provision of FAPE totheir child.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 define “parent” and provideprocedural safeguards for infants, toddlers, and children sothat they continue to receive services under the Act if theparent is unable to be located.

The definition of parent as it appears in the IDEA Amend-ments of 1997 is:



“The term ‘parent’--(A) includes a legal guardian; and (B) except as used in sections 615(b)(2) and639(a)(5), includes an individual assigned undereither of those sections to be a surrogate parent.”(§602(19)).

Section 615(b) states the procedural safeguards establishedfor Part B; Section 615(b)(2) requires “procedures to protectthe rights of the child whenever the parents of the child arenot known, the agency cannot, after reasonable efforts,locate the parents, or the child is a ward of the State,including the assignment of an individual (who shall not bean employee of the State educational agency, the localeducational agency, or any other agency that is involved inthe education or care of the child) to act as a surrogate forthe parents . . . .”

Section 639(a) states the procedural safeguards establishedfor Part C; Section 639(a)(5) requires

“[p]rocedures to protect the rights of the infant ortoddler whenever the parents of the infant or toddlerare not known or cannot be found or the infant ortoddler is a ward of the State, including

Documents

Archived: To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education ... · creased 30.7 percent, and the number of students ages 18-21 with disabilities increased 14.7 percent. More than 90