Number and percentage of states whose monitoring and improvement planning focused on a select set of areas or priorities: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using the same focus areas or priorities for all LEAs in the state: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific focus areas for monitoring and improvement planning, by focus area: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select focus areas for monitoring and improvement planning, by method of selection: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific indicators for each focus area: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific targets related to the indicators for each focus area: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that coordinated monitoring of LEAs under IDEA with monitoring activities of other programs: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that coordinated monitoring under IDEA with other programs, by program type: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states devoting monitoring and improvement efforts to various accountability areas, by accountability area and percent of effort: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified statewide systemic noncompliance requiring special attention and systemic remedies: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to identify statewide systemic noncompliance, by method used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified local systemic noncompliance that required special attention and systemic remedies: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified local systemic noncompliance, by method used: School year 2004–05.

Number and percentage of states with different numbers of LEAs under their General Supervision responsibility, by type of LEA: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various procedures to select LEAs for monitoring: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using a regular cycle to select LEAs for monitoring, by length of cycle: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used various compliance or performance criteria to select LEAs for monitoring, by selection criteria: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used various monitoring-related activities for LEAs not selected for monitoring, by activity: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states selecting different numbers of LEAs for monitoring, by type of LEA: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that reviewed child records in LEAs selected for monitoring: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used random sampling to select child records for review: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used random sampling to select child records for review, by type of random sampling used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used stratified random sampling, by categories (strata) used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used oversampling for one or more categories: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that oversampled specific categories, by category: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that reviewed various percentages of child records, by lowest and highest percentage of records reviewed in an LEA: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where LEA monitoring involved a site visit: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where selected LEAs were required to conduct self-assessments: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided a standard self-assessment procedure for LEAs to follow: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various data sources when monitoring LEAs or planning improvements, by data source and frequency of use: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where findings from Part C monitoring activities were used for monitoring or improvement planning related to Part C to Part B transition: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA had electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring and improvement planning: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states whose electronic database of individual child records included child records for various age groups, by child age group and availability: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states whose electronic database of individual child records included IEPs/IFSPs for various age groups, by child age group and availability: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where the electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring allowed tracking of children from Part C to Part B: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA had electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring and improvement planning, by frequency of updates: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where the SEA has plans to establish electronic database of individual child records for use in monitoring and improvement planning: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where planned database will include child records from all LEAs: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that will include different age ranges in the planned electronic database, by planned age range: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with established date for planned database to be fully operational, by planned date: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific information available for monitoring and improvement planning, by information source: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that analyzed dispute resolution data to determine whether statewide systemic noncompliance had occurred: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that analyzed dispute resolution data to determine whether local systemic noncompliance had occurred: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where findings from monitoring and improvement activities led to further evaluation in specific areas where statewide systemic noncompliance was found: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that conducted further evaluation of specific areas where statewide systemic noncompliance was found, by entity conducting the evaluation: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that had an individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: School year 2004–05

Name of person whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: School year 2004–05

Name and position of person supervising the individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that had individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: School year 2004–05

Name of person whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: School year 2004–05

Name and position of person supervising the individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to LEAs on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for monitoring: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to LEAs on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for monitoring, by frequency of training: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to LEAs on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for local improvement activities: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to LEAs on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for local improvement activities, by frequency of training: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals serving on monitoring teams, by type of individual: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals participating in monitoring site visits, by type of individual: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals participating in local improvement planning or implementation, by type of individual: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select parents of children with disabilities or disability advocates to serve on monitoring teams, by selection method used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring, by frequency of training: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring, by training topic: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals working on local improvement planning and implementation participated in training about monitoring: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals working on local improvement planning and implementation participated in training about monitoring, by frequency of training: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with a state-level steering committee specifically devoted to monitoring and improvement activities: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states including various stakeholders on the state-level steering committee, by type of stakeholder: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select individuals with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, and disability advocates for the state-level steering committee, by selection method used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states receiving steering committee input on specific areas, by area of input: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where members of state-level steering committee served on the teams monitoring LEAs: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific methods to inform LEAs about procedures for monitoring and improvement planning, by methods used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to inform the public about procedures for monitoring and improvement planning, by method used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states providing LEAs with different types of monitoring team reports, by type and timing of report: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that made various types of monitoring results and local improvement activities publicly available, by type of information and dissemination method used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used different types of analyses to support decisions related to corrective actions, by analysis type: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used different types of analyses to support decisions related to local improvement planning or implementation, by analysis type: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states requiring various actions of LEAs as part of corrective actions, by type and frequency of action: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states requiring various actions of LEAs as part of improvement planning, by type and frequency of action: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states taking various actions in support of corrective actions, by type and frequency of action: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states taking various actions in support of improvement activities, by type and frequency of action: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific procedures for monitoring progress on corrective actions, by procedure used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific procedures for monitoring progress on local improvement plans, by procedure used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that examined the relationship between LEA compliance with process and procedural requirements and LEA child outcomes: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific types of analyzes when examining the relationship between LEA compliance and child outcomes, by type of analysis used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific LEA rewards for reducing noncompliance, by type of reward: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific incentives to LEAs for reducing noncompliance: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using rewards to encourage local improvement planning and implementation, by type of reward: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific incentives to LEAs to encourage local improvement planning and implementation: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with the authority to use sanctions in the event of LEA noncompliance, by type of sanction: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that consider various factors when deciding whether to impose a sanction for noncompliance, by factor considered: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific sanctions for specific types of noncompliance: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various sources of materials, procedural guidelines, or technical assistance related to monitoring and improvement planning, by source used: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring findings influenced practices at universities in the state with regard to the preparation of teachers and other personnel: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring findings influenced practices at universities, by type of practice influenced: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where other departments or divisions in the SEA or other states agencies used monitoring findings: School year 2004–05

Name of departments, divisions, or other agencies using monitoring findings: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring has changed since 1997, by type and degree of change: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where special situations played a role in shaping monitoring and improvement activities since 1997, by type of special situation: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated since 1997: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated, by evaluation method: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where evaluation of state's performance included an opportunity for LEAs to provide feedback on SEA performance: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated since 1997, by how decision to evaluate was made: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that made major revisions to their procedures for monitoring and improvement, by year of most recent revision: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states providing comments about important changes made to state monitoring and improvement activities since last monitoring period: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where SEA has a plan for major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement activities: School year 2004–05

Number and percentage of states planning major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement activities, by year changes are scheduled to be in place: School year 2004–05