Analysis Steps Used to Generate National Estimates for Progress Categories, Summary Statements, and Results 2024–2025 (FFY 2024)

Additional pages provide these data for other years:

Methods for computing national estimates

National estimates were determined by weighting and combining data from states that met criteria for high-quality data. Weighting allows states that serve larger numbers of children to exert more influence on the national estimates.

The first step was to compute a weighted numerator for each outcome and progress category for each state with high-quality data by multiplying the overall 2024–2025 child count from the IDEA Section 618 State Part C Child Count and Settings and overall 2024–2025 child count from the IDEA Section 618 State Part B Child Count and Educational Environments for that state by the percentage of children reported in each Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) progress category in FFY 2024.

Weighted numerator

=

percentage of children reported in an OSEP progress category

×

child count

Note: The weighted numerator is not the actual number of children in a progress category in a state but a calculated number that allows each state to carry a weight proportionate to its child count in the national percentages.
Once the weighted numerators for each state were computed, we summed across states to create the weighted national numerators for each outcome and progress category.
Next, the child counts across all states were summed to create the denominator for the national estimates.
Then, we computed the national weighted percentage for each progress category by dividing the national weighted numerator (Step 2) by the denominator (Step 3). This produced the national percentage for each progress category.
Finally, we computed the national weighted summary statements based on the nationally weighted progress category percentages.

Method used to identify states with high-quality data

Two criteria were used to identify which of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have high-quality data:

High-quality data criteria
Criteria	Part C	Part B, Section 619
Data completeness	Minimum of 28% of exiters included in outcomes data	Minimum of 12% of the count of children ages 3–5 included in outcomes data
Reasonable data patterning	10% or less of children in progress category "a", and 65% or less of children in progress category "e."	10% or less of children in progress category "a", and 65% or less of children in progress category "e."

Data completeness

The first data quality criterion was that states measured a large enough proportion of their population. We eliminated states that were conducting sampling because we had no metric for estimating the extent of missing data. "Sampling" means selecting a sample of children from the population instead of measuring the whole population. States were identified as conducting sampling based on state report in the FFY 2024 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR).

Part C

For Part C, we established a proxy for missing data by using the number of children the state reported in the IDEA Section 618 State Part C Exiting (2023–2024) as the denominator. We used the number of children included in the outcomes data as reported in the FFY 2024 Part C SPP/APR as the numerator.

We removed states that reported outcomes data on fewer than 28% of children reported as exiting.

Part B, Section 619

For Part B, we established a proxy for missing data by using the number of children ages 3–5 not in kindergarten the state reported in the IDEA Section 618 State Part B Child Count and Educational Environments (2024–2025) as the denominator and the number of children included in the outcomes data from the FFY 2024 Part B SPP/APR as the numerator.

We removed states that reported outcomes data on less than 12% of their child count for Part B, Section 619.

Some Part B, Section 619 state programs also reported outcomes data on more than 100% of their child count. As this is an unexpected pattern, these states were excluded from the analysis.

Reasonable data patterning

The second data quality criterion was that states' data had "reasonable" patterns. Because outliers in data patterns are often indicators of questionable data quality, we established criteria for reasonable parameters of the "a" and "e" progress category percentages.

Progress Category "a"

Progress category "a" includes children who do not make any progress or who regress from entry to exit. These should be children with the most significant delays and disabilities. We established a cutoff of 10% of children in progress category "a" as reasonable based on historical patterns.

We removed states from the analysis that reported more than 10% in progress category "a" on one or more of the child outcomes.

Progress Category "e"

Progress category "e" includes children who enter and exit at age expectations in the outcome area. This category is related to eligibility criteria; the percentage of children in category "e" will be lower for states with narrow eligibility categories and higher for states that serve a broader range of children. On the basis of historical data, we established a cutoff of 65% of children in progress category "e" as the reasonable limit.

We removed states from the analysis that reported more than 65% of children in progress category "e" on one or more of the child outcomes.

Tables

Table 1 and Table 2 indicate the numbers of states excluded for each reason. A state can have more than one reason for being excluded so a state may be counted in multiple rows. If the reason that a state's data were excluded from analysis is a combination of specific reasons, it is listed below with an "AND ALSO" between reasons. States that are sampling or have data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP are only counted under "state is sampling" or "data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP" and never under another reason. If a Part B, Section 619 state is excluded for having outcomes data greater than 100% of percent of child count then the state will only be counted under that reason.
Table 3 and Table 4 present weighted progress category and summary statement data for the Part C states that met the quality criteria.
Table 5 and Table 6 present weighted progress category and summary statement data for the Part B preschool states that met the quality criteria.

Table 1. Reasons for Excluding Part C States

Table 1. Reasons for Excluding Part C States
Reason	States Excluded
State is sampling	1
Missing data (Reported outcomes data on less than 28% of exiters)	0
"a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	4
Missing data AND ALSO "a" and "e" patterning	0
Data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP	1
Summary: States included in the analysis (out of 51)	45

Table 2. Reasons for Excluding Part B, Section 619 States

Table 2. Reasons for Excluding Part B, Section 619 States
Reason	States Excluded
State is sampling	2
Missing data (Reported outcomes data on less than 12% of child count)	0
"a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	5
Missing data AND ALSO "a" and "e" patterning	0
Data greater than 100% of percent of child count	2
Data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP	0
Summary: States included in the analysis (out of 51)	42

Table 3. Part C Percentages for OSEP Progress Categories (N=45)

Progress category "e": Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
Progress category "d": Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
Progress category "c": Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
Progress category "b": Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers
Progress category "a": Children who did not improve functioning

Table 3. Part C Percentages for OSEP Progress Categories (N=45)
Outcome	e	d	c	b	a
Social Relationships	26	27	22	23	2.5
Knowledge and Skills	14	30	31	23	1.8
Action to Meet Needs	20	31	24	23	2.2

Table 4. Part C Percentages for OSEP Summary Statements (N=45)

Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in [outcome], the percent that substantially increased their rate of growth in [outcome] by the time they exited.
Summary Statement 2: Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in [outcome], by the time they exited.

Table 4. Part C Percentages for OSEP Summary Statements (N=45)
Outcome	Summary Statement 1	Summary Statement 2
Social Relationships	66	53
Knowledge and Skills	71	45
Action to Meet Needs	69	51

Table 5. Part B Preschool Percentages for OSEP Progress Categories (N=42)

Progress category "e": Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
Progress category "d": Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
Progress category "c": Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
Progress category "b": Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers
Progress category "a": Children who did not improve functioning

Table 5. Part B Preschool Percentages for OSEP Progress Categories (N=42)
Outcome	e	d	c	b	a
Social Relationships	18	30	37	14	1.3
Knowledge and Skills	13	33	39	15	1.1
Action to Meet Needs	20	34	31	14	1.2

Table 6. Part B Preschool Percentages for OSEP Summary Statements (N=42)

Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in [outcome], the percent that substantially increased their rate of growth in [outcome] by the time they exited.
Summary Statement 2: Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in [outcome], by the time they exited.

Table 6. Part B Preschool Percentages for OSEP Summary Statements (N=42)
Outcome	Summary Statement 1	Summary Statement 2
Social Relationships	81	47
Knowledge and Skills	82	46
Action to Meet Needs	81	54

Developed under cooperative agreement #H326P220002 (ECTA) and grant #H373Z240001 (DaSy) from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Contents do not represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

ECTA Project Officer: Project Officer: Julia Martin Eile.

DaSy Project Officers: Meredith Miceli and Alexis Lessans.