Special Education Data Services & Reports
These data and reports relate specifically to students with disabilities. The information included addresses both state and federal reporting requirements.
Annual Performance Report
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, states are required to compile both aggregate and district-level data addressing 17 "indicators" that measure implementation of special education programs. Targets for these indicators (minus Indicator 17) are collaboratively set by the department and stakeholder groups, including the Governor's Advisory Council for the Education of Students with Disabilities.
The department submits an Annual Performance Report (APR) containing statewide data and targets for the 17 indicators to the federal government early every year. Based on this data, a determination on the quality of the implementation of special education programs in the state is issued. This same indicator data is publicly reported at the district level, and determinations are made for each of these individual districts. Indicators provide information about achievement, post-school outcomes, and educational environments for students with disabilities.
- APR Local Determinations Quick Reference Guide
- APR Local Determinations Process Guide
- APR Indicator 4 Guidance Document
- APR Indicators 9 and 10 Guidance Document
- APR Data Webinar: Postsecondary Transition (Indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14)
- APR Data Webinar: General Supervison (Indicators 8 and 11)
- APR Data Webinar: Disproportionate Representation (Indicators 9 and 10)
- APR Data Webinar: Discipline (Indicator 4)
- Indicator 1: Graduation Rate
- Indicator 2: Dropout Rate
- Indicator 3A: Assessment Participation
- Indicator 3B: Regular Assessment Proficiency
- Indicator 3C: Alternate Assessment Proficiency
- Indicator 3D: Assessment Proficiency Gap
- Indicator 4A: Suspensions and Expulsions
- Indicator 5: Education Environments (Ages 5 in Kindergarten through 21)
- Indicator 6: Education Environments (Ages 3 through 5 Not in Kindergarten)
- Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes
- Indicator 8: Parent Involvement
- Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes
- Indicator 15: Resolution Sessions
- Indicator 16: Mediation
- 2020-21 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2019-20 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2018-19 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2017-18 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2016-17 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2015-16 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2014-15 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2013-14 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2012-13 Annual Performance Report (APR)
- 2005-13 State Performance Plan (SPP) 2/3/14
- 2020-21 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2019-20 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2018-19 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2017-18LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2016-17 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2015-16 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2014-15 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2013-14 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- 2012-13 LEA APR Indicator Summary
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2020-21
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2019-20
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2018-19
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2017-18
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2016-17
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2015-16
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2014-15
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2013-14
- OSEP Letter of Determination 2012-13
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2020-21
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2019-20
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2018-19
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2017-18
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2016-17
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2015-16
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2014-15
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2013-14
- TN RDA and Compliance Matrices 2012-13
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
Indicator 17 of the APR is the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). For this specific indicator, states are required to identify a measurable goal and then develop a thorough plan, complete with action steps, infrastructure development, evidence-based practices, and evaluation metrics, to meet this goal. In Tennessee, the goal set was to increase by three percent annually the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8 scoring at or above basic on the English language arts (ELA) statewide assessment.
Additional Data and Reports
- 2020-21 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2018-19 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2017-18 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2016-17 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2014-15 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2013-14 Students with Disabilities Participation and Performance on Assessments
- 2020-21 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2019-20 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2018-19 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2017-18 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2016-17 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2015-16 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2014-15 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2013-14 Isolation and Restraint Data
- 2012-13 Isolation and Restraint Data
618 Data
Section 618 of IDEA requires each state to submit data about children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and related services under Part B of IDEA.
2021-22 School Year
2020-21 School Year
2019-20 School Year
2018-19 School Year
Significant Disproportionality
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, states are required to conduct analysis on 14 identified categories to determine if there is over-representation or over-identification of students with disabilities based on race or ethnicity (memo can be found here). These 14 categories fall under the following three areas:
- Identification of students with disabilities overall and in six high-incidence disability categories
- Educational environments for students with disabilities
- Type, duration, and incidence of disciplinary action for students with disabilities
Defining Significant Disproportionality in Tennessee: Revisions to the Calculation
The department has revised its calculation of significant disproportionality that will likely lead to an increase in the number of districts identified in 2018-19. Identification of significant disproportionality will require districts to review (and possibly revise) policies, procedures, and practices that might contribute to significant disproportionality and set aside 15 percent of the district’s IDEA Part B allocation to address causes of significant disproportionality. More information about this regulation and the revised calculations can be found here. The department has also developed a template by which districts can assess whether they meet criteria for significant disproportionality, which can be found here.