Friday, December 30, 2016

2016 Year In Review: Best Year Ever! #grandbabies #FlyTheW #WhereIsJG

OK - so this post does not relate to special education. Call it a point of personal privilege.

2016 was the best year ever. There are three reasons:

1. and 2. My daughter gave birth to identical twin boys, Franklin George Ball and James Casey Ball, on May 4th. The twins and mom are doing very well. See photo below (slightly dated-taken during the world series.) They are smart, beautiful, adorable and amazing!

3. The Chicago Cubs won the world series.



Have a happy new year!

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Breaking: Feds Release New Guidance on §504, Seclusioin & Resrtaints, and Charter Schools



The U.S. Department of Education released three new sets of guidance today to assist the public in understanding how the Department interprets and enforces federal civil rights laws protecting the rights of students with disabilities. These guidance documents clarify the rights of students with disabilities and the responsibilities of educational institutions in ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn.

The three new sets of documents include Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools  by OCR, and Dear Colleague letter (DCL) and question and answer document on the use of restraint and seclusion in public schools and when such seclusion or restraion may violate §504 and the ADA; and jointly-issued Dear Colleague Letter and question and answer documents will help update educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders to better understand the rights of students with disabilities in public charter schools under Section 504 and IDEA (issued by both OCR and OSERS).

The Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, issued by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), provides a broad overview of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The guidance describes school districts’ nondiscrimination responsibilities, including obligations to provide educational services to students with disabilities, and outlines the steps parents can take to ensure that their children secure all of the services they are entitled to receive.
Among other things, the Section 504 Parent and Educator Resource Guide:
  • Defines and provides examples to illustrate the meaning of key terms used in Section 504.
  • Highlights requirements of Section 504 in the area of public elementary and secondary education, including provisions related to the identification, evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities, and procedures for handling disputes and disagreements between parents and school districts.
The second guidance package released by OCR addresses the circumstances under which use of restraint or seclusion can result in discrimination against students with disabilities, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Department’s May 15, 2012, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document suggested best practices to prevent the use of restraint or seclusion, recommending that school districts never use physical restraint or seclusion for disciplinary purposes and never use mechanical restraint, and that trained school officials use physical restraint or seclusion only if a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others. The DCL and question and answer document released today offer additional information about the legal limitations on use of restraint or seclusion to assist school districts in meeting their obligations to students with disabilities.

The third guidance package released today was developed by OCR and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). The jointly-issued Dear Colleague Letter and question and answer documents will help update educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders to better understand the rights of students with disabilities in public charter schools under Section 504 and IDEA. These documents provide information about how to provide equal opportunity in compliance with Section 504 in key areas such as charter school recruitment, application, admission, enrollment and disenrollment, accessibility of facilities and programs, and nonacademic and extracurricular activities. The documents are responsive to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s 2012 report, Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with Disabilities, which included the recommendation that the Department issue updated guidance on the obligations of charter schools.

  • Explains that charter school students with disabilities (and those seeking to attend) have the same rights under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA as other public school students with disabilities.
  • Details the Section 504 right to nondiscrimination in recruitment, application, and admission to charter schools.
  • Clarifies that during the admission process a charter school generally may not ask a prospective student if he or she has a disability.
  • Reminds charter schools, other entities, and parents that charter school students with disabilities have the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under Section 504.
  • Emphasizes that children with disabilities who attend charter schools and their parents retain all rights and protections under Part B of IDEA (such as FAPE) just as they would at other public schools.
  • Provides that under IDEA a charter school may not unilaterally limit the services that must be provided a particular student with a disability.
  • Reminds schools that the least restrictive environment provisions require that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities attending public schools, including public charter schools, be educated with students who are nondisabled.
  • Clarifies that students with disabilities attending charter schools retain all IDEA rights and protections included in the IDEA discipline procedures.

Monday, December 26, 2016

Weekly Question!

We are running a Series on Procedural Safeguards. Which of the procedural safeguards under IDEA are most effective in protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities? #SpEdProcedures

Friday, December 23, 2016

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all our readers.

First some classic Christmas music:



Also here are some fun facts related to the season from our friends at the census bureau:

This festive season, or simply the holidays, is a time for gathering and celebrating with family and friends, gift giving, reflection and thanks. To commemorate this time of year, the U.S. Census Bureaupresents the following holiday-related facts and figures from its collection of statistics.          
Rush to the Stores
$23.8 billion
The estimated retail sales by the nation’s department stores (including leased departments) in December 2015. A decrease of $0.4 billion in retail sales from December of the previous year. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Retail Trade Survey

Note: Leased departments are separately owned businesses operated as departments or concessions of other service establishments or of retail businesses, such as a separately owned shoeshine parlor in a barbershop, or a beauty shop in a department store. Also, retail sales and inventory estimates have not been adjusted to account for seasonal or pricing variations.
14.3%
The estimated percentage of total 2015 sales for department stores (including leased departments) in December. For bookstores, the estimated percentage was 12.4 percent. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Retail Trade Survey


23.7%
The estimated increase in the end-of-month inventories by our nation’s department stores (excluding leased departments) between August and November 2015. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Retail Trade Survey

$55.7 billion
The estimated value of retail sales by electronic shopping and mail-order houses in December 2015 — the highest estimated total for any month last year. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Retail Trade Survey


$27.1 billion
The fourth quarter 2015 after-tax profits for all retail trade corporations with assets of $50.0 million and over, up from $18.3 billion in the third quarter of 2015. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Financial Report  

Christmas Tree Decorations                       
$1.1 billion
The value of U.S. imports of Christmas tree ornaments from China between January and September 2016. Imports from China led the way with 92.0 percent of the total imports of Christmas tree ornaments. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Trade Statistics


$346.0 million
The value of U.S. imports of Christmas tree lights from China between January and September 2016. Christmas tree lights imported from China accounted for 87.0 percent of the total imports for that product.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Trade Statistics


Where Toys Are Made
560
The number of locations nationwide that primarily produced dolls, toys and games in 2014, an increase of 15 locations from 2013 (545); they employed 6,215 workers in the pay period including March 12, a decrease of 323 employees from 2013 (6,538). California led the nation with 93 establishments. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 County Business Patterns

Holiday Names
Some names of places associated with the holiday season consist of a dozen places named Holly, including Mount Holly, N.C. (population 14,176), and Holly Springs, Miss. (7,610). There is Snowflake, Ariz. (5,666); Santa Claus, Ind. (2,474); North Pole, Alaska (2,189); Noel, Mo. (1,824); and — if you know about reindeer — Dasher, Ga. (963), and Rudolph, Wis. (432). There is also Unity, N.H. (1,603), and Peace, N.D. (28). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Procedural Safeguards - The Series Part IX #state complaint #dispute resolution

This is the ninth installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful. Be sure to tell me what you think about the series.

State Complaint Procedures


Each state education agency must maintain a state complaint procedure. 34 C.F.R. §§300.151-300.153. OSEP has stated that the state complaint system is required even though Congress has not specifically provided or addressed a state complaint system in the IDEA. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46606 (August 14, 2006).

Within one year of an alleged violation of the Act, any entity may file a state complaint. 34 C.F.R. §§300.151-300.153. A ruling is required within 60 days subject to extension for exceptional circumstances or an agreement to mediate. 34 C.F.R. §300.152. Only agreement, and not consent, is required to extend the 60 day time limit for processing complaints. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46604 (August 14, 2006). Here is an analysis by the Regional Resource Centers concerning how the exceptional circumstances exception should be applied. 


Any organization or individual, including one from another State, may file a signed written State complaint that meets the requirements in 34 CFR §300.153. 34 CFR §300.151(a).

The state complaint system may be used to address problems allegedly involving a group of students.  OSEP describes the state complaint system as an important tool for dealing with systemic issuesIndependent Sch Dist No 281 v Minnesota Dept of Educ 48 IDELR 222 (Minn Ct App 2007) See, Letter to Douglas 35 IDELR 278 (OSEP 4/19/1). 

Where a state complaint and a due process hearing are requested on the same topic, the complaint investigator must set aside the portion of the complaint being addressed by due process until the hearing officer issues a decision. 34 C.F.R. §300.152(c). 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46606 (August 14, 2006). 

Where a state complaint investigator finds that IDEA has been violated, a corrective action is ordered. The relief that may be awarded includes compensatory education and reimbursement. 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b). The purpose of this change to the federal regulations in 2006 was to make it clear that states have broad flexibility in awarding an appropriate remedy in resolving state complaints. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46602 (August 14, 2006). 

When a state has finished processing a state complaint, a party who disagrees with the result may file a due process hearing complaint on the same issue if the statute of limitations has not passed. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46607 (August 14, 2006).

Here is the OSEP Topic Brief on State Complaint Procedures; See also,  Memo to Chief Sch Officers Re Dispute Resolution Procedures Under Part B of IDEA 61 IDELR. 232 (OSEP 7/23/13) (Q and A document with a section on state complaints.)

Monday, December 19, 2016

Weekly Question!

We are running a Series on Procedural Safeguards. Which of the procedural safeguards under IDEA are most effective in protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities? #SpEdProcedures

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Feds Announce New IDEA Regulations Concerning Disproportionality #disproportionality #discipline

The U.S. Department of Education yesterday announced new final regulations under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), aimed at promoting equity by targeting widespread disparities in the treatment of students of color with disabilities. The regulations will address a number of issues related to significant disproportionality in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities based on race or ethnicity. The Department is also releasing a new Dear Colleague Letter addressing racial discrimination.
"Children with disabilities are often disproportionately and unfairly suspended and expelled from school and educated in classrooms separate from their peers," said U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. "Children of color with disabilities are overrepresented within the special education population, and the contrast in how frequently they are disciplined is even starker."
King added, "Today's new regulations and supporting documents provide the necessary guidance and support to school districts and build upon the work from public education advocates and local leaders who believe, like we do, that we need to address racial and ethnic disparities in special education. This important step forward is about ensuring the right services get to the right students in the right way."

Some of the highlights of the new regulations include:

A Standard Approach

The final regulations establish a standard approach that States must use in determining whether significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring in the state and in its districts. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report finding that, because states currently use a wide variety of methodologies for examining their districts, few states take action to address significant disproportionality; in fact, as the GAO found, only two to three percent of all districts nationwide are identified as having significant disproportionality, and some states' methodologies for identifying districts for disproportionality were constructed in such a way that the GAO found districts would likely never be identified. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Department require that all states adopt a standard approach to identify racial and ethnic disparities. With these final regulations, all states will use the same methodology, which will allow for more accurate comparisons within and across states.

Focusing on Discipline

In addition to requiring a standard methodology, the regulations shine a spotlight on disparities in the discipline of students with disabilities on the basis of race or ethnicity by requiring states to examine districts for significant disproportionality in their disciplinary practices. Specifically, the regulations clarify that States must address significant disproportionality in the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, using the same statutory remedies required to address significant disproportionality in the identification and placement of children with disabilities.

Addressing the Root Causes of Disproportionality

In order to eliminate the racial and ethnic disparities that are the focus of these regulations, districts must identify and address the root causes of significant disproportionality. Accordingly, the final regulations clarify requirements for the review and revision of policies, practices, and procedures when significant disproportionality is found. Districts will be required to identify and address the factors contributing to significant disproportionality as part of comprehensive, coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). In addition, new flexibilities in the use of CEIS will further help districts identified with large disparities in addressing the underlying causes of the disparity.

You can read an unofficial copy of the 521 pages of new regs here. A corresponding Dear Colleague Letter is available here.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Weekly Question!

We are running a Series on Procedural Safeguards. Which of the procedural safeguards under IDEA are most effective in protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities? #SpEdProcedures

Friday, December 9, 2016

Procedural Safeguards - The Series Part VIII #mediation

This is the eighth installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful. In this post we examine mediation.


Mediation


Mediation is a highly flexible way to resolve disagreements between school systems and parents of children with disabilities. An impartial person, called a mediator, helps parents and school district personnel to communicate more effectively and develop a written document that contains the details of their agreement. The mediator has been trained in effective mediation techniques.

Participation in mediation is completely voluntary; parents and school districts only have to participate if they choose to. The mediation process is also confidential; discussions cannot be used in any future due process hearing or court proceeding. 34 CFR § 300.506(b)(8); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at pages 46695-96 (August 14, 2006).  JD by Davis v. Kanawha County Bd of Educ 571 F.3d 381, 52 IDELR 182 (4th Cir. 7/9/2009)

IDEA requires state education agencies to provide a mediation system at no cost to the parties; mediation is free for both parents and school districts. Mediation must be available at any point in the process, including disputes arising before a due process complaint has been filed. IDEA §615(e). 

A mediation agreement must state that mediation discussions are confidential and may not be used in a subsequent due process hearing or court proceeding. § 615(e)(2)(F)(i).

 IDEA specifically provides that mediation agreements are enforceable in court. § 615(e)(2)(F)(iii). OSEP has noted that nothing prevents parties to a mediation from agreeing to have the mediator facilitate an IEP team meeting. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46695 (August 14, 2006).

Mediators must be selected on a random, rotational or other impartial basis, and one such impartial basis would be agreement by the parties. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46695 (August 14, 2006). Because mediators are not selected by the parents, states are not required to provide a list of their mediators or their qualifications to the parents or the public in general. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46695 (August 14, 2006). 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES for MEDIATORS: In addition to the general IDEA resources, mediators should frequently visit the CADRE website. The Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education is an OSEP funded group that encourages mediation, IEP facilitation and other means of special education dispute resolution that are less formal and legalistic than due process hearings. Their website is loaded with helpful articles, materials and other information; See also,  Memo to Chief Sch Officers Re Dispute Resolution Procedures Under Part B of IDEA 61 IDELR. 232 (OSEP 7/23/13) (Q and A document with a section on mediation.)

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Supreme Court Oral Argument Scheduled in Special Ed Case #SCOTUS #Rowley Standard

The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for January 11, 2016 at 10:00 am for the special education case Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch Dist, Case # 15-827. 

This case gets to the heart of special education law. Does FAPE require an IEP to be reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit as the Supremes have previously said or does FAPE require an IEP that is designed to provide meaningful educational benefit. Or maybe the court will state that there is really no difference between the two standards. Remember that there are only eight justices as of now. If the decision is 4-4, it will have no precedential value.

You can read our previous posts about this case here, here, and here.  You can read the briefs of the parties and some of the briefs of amici at the case page on the SCOTUS blog

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

CADRE Webinar: Trends in Dispute Resolution #dispute resolution #due process complaint

CADRE offered a webinar today concerning special education dispute resolution under IDEA for the last eleven years. The following are some of the trends highlighted in the webinar.

Trends in the Use of Mandated IDEA Dispute Resolution Processes
 Written State Complaints and Complaint Reports Issued have remained relatively steady over the past 7 years. Activity is broad-based across states, as compared to Due Process Complaint activity. 
 Mediations Requested, Mediations Held, and Mediation Agreements have increased during the last 9 years, due to a nearly 20% increase in due process-related mediation. The national average mediation agreement rate is 69%. 
 Due Process Complaints filed continue to decline following a slight uptick in 2013-14 that was attributable to activity in 2 states. Overall, 7 states account for 80% of Due Process Complaints filed and 5 states account for 90% of Due Process Hearings Held. 
 Resolution Meetings Held and Resolution Meeting Agreements have both declined since 2006-07, with the agreement rate dropping to 19% in 2014-15 from a peak of 30% in 2009-10. 
 Most (about 85%) Due Process Complaints filed each year are withdrawn, dismissed, or resolved without a hearing (about 65%), or pending at the end of the school year (about 20%). 
Support for More Collaborative Dispute Resolution Approaches
 Based on CADRE’s examination of state practices, we believe that the use of collaborative approaches can lead to a decreased use of formal dispute resolution processes and may foster better school-family relationships. 
o Some states that offer facilitators for Resolution Meetings have agreement rates that are higher than the national average, reinforcing the belief that third party neutrals may improve the likelihood that potentially contentious meetings end in agreement. 
o Some states that offer facilitators for IEP meetings have experienced a decrease in the use of formal dispute resolution processes available under IDEA. 
 States continue to make investments in early conflict resolution activities that are not required by the IDEA, such as local capacity building, stakeholder training, ombudspersons, advisory opinions, stakeholder councils, and other innovative approaches. 
 43 states and D.C. currently provide IEP facilitation, or are developing or exploring its use: 
o 36 of these currently offer IEP facilitation statewide or are piloting programs in select school districts (compared to 9 in 2005, and 29 in 2015). 

Here is a one page summary of the findings by CADRE. The CADRE website also has the powerpoint used during the webinar.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Weekly Question!

We are running a Series on Procedural Safeguards. Which of the procedural safeguards under IDEA are most effective in protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities? #SpEdProcedures

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Department of Education Issues 38th Annual Report to Congress on IDEA #data #IDEA

The Department of Education has issued its thirty-eighth annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA.  The report contains a wealth of data, graphs, charts and information concerning many aspects of the special education law. You should check it out.

Here are the primary findings concerning special education under Part B of IDEA for students ages 6 to 21:
-In 2014, a total of 5,944,241students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B. Of these students, 5,825,505 were served in the 49 states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 8.7 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21.The total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2005 was 6,109,569. In each year between 2005 through 2011, the number of students served was less than in the previous year. However, more students were served under Part B in 2012 and in each subsequent year through 2014. In 2005, 9 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 were served under Part B. Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of the population served gradually decreased to 8.4 percent. The percentage served remained at 8.4 percent until 2013, when it increased to 8.5 percent. In 2014, the percentage increased to 8.7 percent (Exhibit 18). 
• The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2005 was 9.0 percent. Thereafter, the percentage stayed the same or slightly decreased, reaching a low of 8.4 percent in 2010. The percentage remained at 8.4 until 2013 when it increased to 8.5. In 2014, the percentage increased to 8.7. Between 2005 and 2011, the percentage of the population ages 6 through 11 served under IDEA, Part B, decreased gradually from 11.5 percent to 10.6 percent. The percentage increased in each year thereafter and reached 11.1 percent in 2014. The percentage of the population ages 12 through 17 served under Part B decreased gradually from 11.5 percent to 10.8 percent between 2005 and 2010, where it stayed until 2014 when the percentage reached 11 percent. The percentage of the population ages 18 through 21 served under Part B, was 1.9 percent in each year from 2005 through 2008, and 2 percent in each year from 2009 through 2014 (Exhibit 19).  
• In 2014, the most prevalent disability category of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was specific learning disabilities (39.2 percent). The next most common disability category was speech or language impairments (17.6 percent), followed by other health impairments (14.4 percent), autism (8.6 percent), intellectual disabilities (7.0 percent), and emotional disturbance (5.9 percent). Students ages 6 through 21 in “Other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining 7.3 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B (Exhibit 20). 
• The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under each of three disability categories changed by more than two-tenths of a percentage point between 2005 and 2014. The percentages of the population reported under autism and other health impairments both increased by 0.5 of a percentage point and the percentage of the population reported under specific learning disabilities decreased by 0.7 of a percentage point (Exhibit 21). 
• Between 2005 and 2014, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of autism increased gradually from 0.3 percent to 0.8 percent. Between 2005 and 2014, the percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism all increased. Specifically, the percentages of these three age groups that were reported under the category of autism were 124 percent, 213 percent, and 236 percent larger in 2014 than in 2005, respectively (Exhibit 22). 
• From 2005 through 2014, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of other health impairments increased gradually from 0.8 percent to 1.3 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairments were 43 percent, 55 percent, and 95 percent larger in 2014 than in 2005, respectively (Exhibit 23).
• From 2005 through 2014, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of specific learning disabilities decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.4 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities were 16 percent, 16 percent, and 8 percent smaller in 2014 than in 2005, respectively (Exhibit 24). 
• In 2014, American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander children ages 6 through 21 had risk ratios above 1 (i.e., 1.7, 1.4, and 1.6, respectively). This indicates that the children in each group were more likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Asian and White children ages 6 through 21 as well as children ages 6 through 21 associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups, with risk ratios of less than 1 (i.e., 0.5, 0.9, and 0.9, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Hispanic/Latino children ages 6 through 21, with a risk ratio of 1 were as likely to be served under Part B as children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (Exhibit 25).  
• In 2014, American Indian or Alaska Native students, Black or African American students, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students ages 6 through 21 were more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (1.68, 1.41, and 1.59, respectively). Asian students, White students, and students associated with two or more races ages 6 through 21 were less likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (0.47, 0.90, and 0.87, respectively). Hispanic/Latino students were about as likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, as were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (1.01). American Indian or Alaska Native students ages 6 through 21 were 4.09 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for developmental delay than students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for American Indian or Alaska Native students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for all disability categories except autism (0.94). Asian students ages 6 through 21 were 1.11 and 1.17 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for autism and hearing impairments, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Asian students ages 6 through 21 was smaller than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for each of the other disability categories. Black or African American students ages 6 through 21 were 2.08 and 2.22 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for emotional disturbance and intellectual disabilities, respectively, than were the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Black or African American students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every disability category except autism (0.99), deafblindness (0.76), and orthopedic impairments (0.86). Hispanic or Latino students ages 6 through 21 were 1.04, 1.35, 1.21, 1.31, and 1.08 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for deaf-blindness, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, specific learning disabilities, and speech and language impairments, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students ages 6 through 21 were 3.4, 2.35, and 2.71 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for deaf-blindness, developmental delay, and hearing impairments, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every other disability category as well. White students ages 6 through 21 were 1.16, 1.1, 1.11, 1.28, and 1.29 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for autism, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, other health impairments, and traumatic brain injury, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Students associated with two or more races ages 6 through 21 were 1.24 and 1.19 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for developmental delay and emotional disturbance, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for students associated with two or more races ages 6 through 21 was smaller than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every other disability category (Exhibit 26). 
• For the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2014, specific learning disabilities was the most prevalent disability category for every racial/ethnic group. In particular, this disability category accounted for 45.4 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 25.7 percent of Asian students, 41.1 percent of Black or African American students, 47.4 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 50.7 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 35 percent of White students, and 34.4 percent of the children xxvii associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups. Speech or language impairments was the second or third most prevalent category for students ages 6 through 21 in every racial/ethnic group. The students served in this disability category accounted for 14.7 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 25.4 percent of Asian students, 13.4 percent of Black or African American students, 19 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 10.4 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 18.3 percent of White students, and 18.1 percent of the students associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups (Exhibit 27). 
• In 2014, a total of 94.7 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day. More than 60 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B (62.6 percent), were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. A total of 18.6 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, and 13.5 percent were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Only 5.3 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated outside of the regular classroom in “Other environments” (Exhibit 28). • From 2005 through 2014, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day increased from 53.6 percent to 62.6 percent. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day decreased from 25.8 percent in 2005 to 18.6 percent in 2014. Similarly, the percentage of these students educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day decreased from 16.6 percent to 13.5 percent between these years. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated in “Other environments” increased from 4 percent in 2005 to 5.3 percent in 2014. However, it had also accounted for as much as 5.3 percent in 2007 and 2009 (Exhibit 29). 
• In 2014, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in each educational environment varied by disability category. More than 8 in 10 students reported under the category of speech or language impairments (86.8 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Only 16.9 percent of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities and 13.4 percent of students reported under the category of multiple disabilities were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Almost one-half of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities (49.2 percent) and students reported under the category of multiple disabilities (46.0 percent) were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. In 2014, larger percentages of students reported under the categories of deaf-blindness (29.0 percent) and multiple disabilities (24.3 percent) than students reported under other disability categories were educated in “Other environments” (Exhibit 30). 
• In 2014 for each racial/ethnic group, the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. The students who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for at least 50 percent of the students in each of the racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students in the racial/ethnic groups who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day ranged from 54.9 percent to 65.3 percent. The category inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for between 16.5 and 26.3 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group. In contrast, less than 20 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group, except for Asian students (21.0 percent), were xxviii educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. “Other environments” accounted for less than 6 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group (Exhibit 31). 
• In school year 2013–14, between 41.3 and 48.5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in math. Between 21 and 28.4 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in math. In contrast, 37.9 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in math. Between 10.5 and 11.8 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 participated in a field test of a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math. In contrast, only 1 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school participated in a field test of a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math. Of all students who participated in some type of alternate assessment in math in school year 2013–14, larger percentages of these students in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school took an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards than the other three types of alternate tests (Exhibit 32). 
• In school year 2013–14, between 40.8 and 45.3 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in reading. Between 24.2 and 37.1 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in reading. Between 10.5 and 11.8 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 participated in a field test of a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading. In contrast, only 0.9 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school participated in a field test of a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading. Of the students in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school who participated in some type of alternate assessment in reading in school year 2013– 14, a larger percentage took an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards than the other three types of alternate tests (Exhibit 32). 
• No more than 4.26 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a math assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2013–14 were classified as nonparticipants. Similarly, no more than 3.94 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a reading assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2013–14 were classified as nonparticipants. Larger percentages of the students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school in school year 2013–14 were classified as nonparticipants for both the math assessment (6.14 percent) and the reading assessment (6.29 percent). Of the three nonparticipant categories, students who did not take any assessment accounted for more of the nonparticipants in each grade in both math and reading. However, the percentage only exceeded 4 percent for high school students expected to be assessed in math (5.20 percent) and high school students expected to be assessed in reading (4.90 percent) (Exhibit 33). 
• In school year 2013–14, between 47 and 48 of the 59 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 xxix and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 3, grade 4, and grade 5 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was 36.1 percent, 34.4 percent and 27.4 percent, respectively. The median percentage of students in grade 6 through high school who were found to be proficient with these tests was in a range from 16.8 percent to 20.1 percent. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for math was not administered by any jurisdiction to students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for math was administered to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school by 8 to 11 jurisdictions. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 7 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 46.5 percent to 56.8 percent. The median percentage of students in each of grade 8 and high school who were found to be proficient with these tests was 37.5 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. Non-suppressed data were available for between 50 and 52 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 70.2 percent to 72.6 percent (Exhibit 34). 
• In school year 2013–14, between 47 and 49 of the 59 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentages of these students who were found to be proficient with these reading tests ranged from 23.1 percent to 32.1 percent. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for reading was administered by one jurisdiction to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and by no jurisdiction to students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for reading was administered by 7 to 11 jurisdictions to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade except grade 6 who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 54.5 percent to 62.2 percent. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 6 who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was 43.4 percent. Non-suppressed data were available for 48 to 53 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 71 percent to 75.7 percent (Exhibit 34). • Of the seven exit reason categories, graduated with a regular high school diploma accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 14 through 21 who exited special education in 2013–14 (42.1 percent), followed by moved, known to be continuing in education (27.2 percent) and dropped out (11.8 percent) (Exhibit 35). 
• In 2013–14, a total of 66.1 percent of the students ages 14 through 21 who exited IDEA, Part B, and school graduated with a regular high school diploma; an additional 18.5 percent dropped out. From 2004–05 through 2013–14, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having graduated with a regular high school diploma increased from xxx 54.4 percent to 66.1 percent. From 2004–05 through 2013–14, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having dropped out decreased from 28.3 percent to 18.5 percent (Exhibit 36). • From 2004–05 through 2013–14, the graduation percentage increased for students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school in all disability categories. Increases of at least 10 percentage points were associated with the following five disability categories: emotional disturbance (14.6 percentage points), speech or language impairments (12.9 percentage points), specific learning disabilities (11.2 percentage points), other health impairments (10.3 percent points), and autism (10.0 percentage points). In every year from 2004–05 through 2013–14, except 2006–07, the disability category of visual impairments was associated with the largest graduation percentage. The students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities had the smallest graduation percentages from 2004–05 through 2013–14 (Exhibit 37). 
• From 2004–05 through 2013–14, the dropout percentage decreased for students in each disability category who exited IDEA, Part B, and school. The decreases were most notable for students reported under the categories of emotional disturbance (-13.0 percentage points) and speech or language impairments (-11.8 percentage points). In each year from 2004–05 through 2013–14, a larger percentage of the students reported under the category of emotional disturbance exited special education and school by dropping out. In fact in each year, the dropout percentage was no less than 35 percent, which was substantially larger than the dropout percentage for any other disability category (Exhibit 38). 
• In 2013, a total of 355,570, or 93.9 percent, of the 378,614 FTE special education teachers who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified (Exhibit 39). 
• In 2013, a total of 400,040, or 96 percent, of the 416,798 FTE special education paraprofessionals who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified (Exhibit 40). Children and Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served Under IDEA, Part B 



You can read the entire 212 page report here.