Text only version
Full graphics version

The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Text only links:

SLIIDEA Home

Study Description

Data Collection Instruments

Reports

Data Tables Main

Contact Information

Links


Abt Associates Inc.

This site is
Bobby Approved


Wave 3 Survey Data (2003-2004 School Year)
Overview | Search | Technical Note
Wave 1 Data Tables | Wave 2 Data Tables | Wave 4 Data Tables |
Comparison of All Waves Data Tables

Overview.  The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, SLIIDEA, has been designed as a national assessment to examine how the changes in the 1997 IDEA amendments are affecting states, districts, and schools, as well as infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families. The Wave 3 Data Tables represent the responses from states collected during the 2003-2004 School Year. The census of states included all 50 states plus D.C.

The state survey instrument is available on our Data Collection Instruments page.  The "source note" at the bottom of each table indicates the survey item(s). 

The discussion of the findings from these tables will appear in an upcoming report that will be provided on our Reports page. 


Search.  There are three ways to access Wave 3 State data tables:

  • Search by Keyword:

Technical Note.  Except for conditional findings, each survey item adds to 100 percent. When conditional questions were asked on the survey, we report these findings as conditional of those states that indicated "yes" as the response to the survey item. The denominator for the conditional items was the number of states that reported "yes," and not of all states that responded to a particular item. Here is an example of how a conditional response has been reported, using a Wave 2 state table: Thirty-nine percent of states reported that they rewarded districts or schools on the basis of student performance. Of these states, 11 percent considered the performance of students with IEPs when making this determination. (See Wave 2 State Exhibit 1.9.) In this example, 39 percent represents the number of states that reported yes, they reward districts or schools for student performance, divided by the number of states that responded to the question on rewards. Eleven percent represents a subset of the 39 percent of states, and is thus, a conditional percentage of 39 percent. On the other hand, if one wanted to know the unconditional percentage - that is, how many states considered the performance of students with IEPs when determining a reward to districts and schools - one would multiple 11 percent by 39 percent by 100 to equal 4 percent (.11 x .39 = .04 x 100 = 4 percent).   

And finally, in each exhibit, we present the "Missing N" and "Total N." We used the following criteria for determining each of these numbers: 

  • Missing N: The number of states, districts, or schools that had a missing or invalid response for the survey item. 
  • Total N: The number of states, districts, or schools providing a valid response to the item.


Click here if you experience problems printing data tables.