Text only version |
The Study of
State and Local Implementation and Impact of the |
Text only
links: This site is
|
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 4 Data Tables represent the responses from states, districts, and schools collected during the 2004-2005 School Year. A census of states and a nationally representative sample of districts and schools for Wave 4 data collection included 50 states plus D.C., 956 districts and 4,412 schools. Response rates for states, districts and schools surveys were 100 percent, 89 percent, and 80 percent, respectively. The data presented here, in the Data Tables, are based on responses from the following surveys: State Questionnaire; District Questionnaire; and School Questionnaire. In each district and school table, the descriptive findings are reported by the percent of districts or schools, along with the standard error. Each state table presents the percentage and number of states providing each response. The "source note" at the bottom of each table indicates the relevant survey item(s). The discussion of the findings from these tables will appear in the upcoming reports, The SLIIDEA Sourcebook Report and Marking the Progress of IDEA Implementation - Spring 2006. Search. There are two ways to access Wave 4 data tables: (1) Select one of the three levels of data -- state, school district, or school -- and see categories and subcategories of data tables under each level; or (2) Select a keyword and see state, school district, and school tables that are associated with the 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 state, districts, or schools that indicated "yes" as the response to the survey item. The denominator for the conditional items was the number of states, districts or schools that reported "yes," and not of all states, districts, or schools that responded to a particular item. Here is an example of how a conditional response has been reported: 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 (.11x .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:
Click here if you experience problems printing data tables. |