Analysis Steps Used to Generate National Estimates for Progress Categories, Summary Statements, and Results FFY 2022

Multiple years of these data are available:

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 2022–2023 child count from the Part C Child Count and Settings and overall 2022–2023 child count from the Part B Child Count and Educational Environments for that state by the percentage of children reported in any given Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) progress category in FFY 2022.
Weighted numerator
=
percentage of children reported in an OSEP progress category
×
child count
Note that 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 2022 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Repor (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 618 Exiting Data Table (2021–2022) as the denominator. We used the number of children included in the outcomes data as reported in the FFY 2022 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 Part B 618 Child Count Data Table (2022–2023) as the denominator and the number of children included in the outcomes data from the FFY 2022 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.

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 at each of these steps. each state is only counted once. If the reason that a state's data were excluded from analysis is a combination of 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.
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	2
Missing data (Reported outcomes data on less than 28% of exiters)	1
"a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	1
Missing data AND ALSO "a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	0
Data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP	0
States included in the analysis (out of 51)	47

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)	2
"a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	3
Missing data (Reported outcomes data on less than 12% of child count) AND ALSO "a" and "e" patterning (Had at least one outcome with category "a" greater than 10% or category "e" greater than 65%)	0
Data greater than 100% of percent of child count	0
Data determined not valid and reliable by OSEP	0
State did not report outcomes data	0
States included in the analysis (out of 51)	44

Table 3. Part C, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for OSEP progress categories (N=47)

Table 3. Part C, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for OSEP progress categories (N=47)
Outcome 1 Social relationships	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	2.15
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	23.7
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	23.5
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	26.3
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	24.4
Outcome 2 Knowledge and skills	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	1.62
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	24.3
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	32.5
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	30.3
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	11.4
Outcome 3 Action to meet needs	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	2.17
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	23.1
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	23.9
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	31.2
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	19.6

Table 4. Part C, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for the OSEP summary statements (N=47)

Table 4. Part C, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for the OSEP summary statements (N=47)
Summary Statements	Outcome 1	Outcome 2	Outcome 3
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.	66	71	69
2. Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in [outcome], by the time they exited.	51	42	51

Table 5. Part B preschool, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for OSEP progress categories (N=44)

Table 5. Part B preschool, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for OSEP progress categories (N=44)
Outcome 1 Social relationships	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	1.18
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	15.0
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	32.2
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	31.4
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	20.2
Outcome 2 Knowledge and skills	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	1.05
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	15.8
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	34.4
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	34.2
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	14.5
Outcome 3 Action to meet needs	Percent
a: Children who did not improve functioning	1.24
b: Children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparably to same-age peers	14.3
c: Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it	26.0
d: Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers	34.0
e: Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers	24.4

Table 6. Part B preschool, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for the OSEP summary statements (N=44)

Table 6. Part B preschool, states with high-quality data, weighted by child count: Percentages for the OSEP summary statements (N=44)
Summary Statements	Outcome 1	Outcome 2	Outcome 3
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.	80	80	79
2. Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in [outcome], by the time they exited.	52	49	59

Please cite as: Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (2025). Analysis steps used to generate national estimates for child outcomes progress categories, summary statements, and results FFY 2022. Retrieved from https://ectacenter.org/eco/pages/analysissteps.asp

The content of this document was developed under a cooperative agreement, #H326P220002, and a grant, #H373Z240001, from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. However, the content does not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. ECTA Center Project Officer, Julia Martin Eile, and DaSy Center Project Officers, Meredith Miceli and Alexis Lessans.

This website uses cookies