Child Count and Educational Environments refer to the state’s annual process for reporting the number of children with disabilities served under IDEA Part B and the educational environments in which they receive services. The Child Count documents an accurate, unduplicated total of students ages 3–21 receiving special education and related services on the state’s designated child count date, while the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data describe how much time students spend in general education settings or other instructional environments. Districts must certify that their submissions reflect verified IEP information and meet federal definitions, and the state uses these data for federal reporting, funding, and monitoring.
Tables 1 & 3 Certification Form (PDF)
Codes for Disability and LRE (PDF)
The Personnel report is the state’s annual reporting of staff who provide special education and related services under IDEA Part B. Districts submit these data to the Office of Special Education Services (OSES) to document how many special education teachers, paraprofessionals, and related service providers are employed or contracted, along with whether they meet required qualification standards. The state uses this information to meet federal IDEA 618 reporting requirements and to monitor staffing capacity and educator qualifications across South Carolina.
Table 2 Personnel Reporting Form
The Exiting report details how many students with disabilities ages 14–21 leave special education each year and the reason they exited. The data help the federal government understand key outcomes for older students with disabilities, including graduation, dropout, and changes in eligibility, which supports monitoring, compliance, and planning for transition services. The table includes both the number and percentage of students exiting in each category. Students are reported based on their status as of the most recent child count date and must be assigned one of the following valid exit reasons:
* Used in the denominator for dropout and graduation rates
The Discipline report is a federally required summary of how often students with disabilities experience disciplinary removals under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It captures counts of suspensions, expulsions, and other removal types so states and districts can monitor patterns, ensure compliance, and identify potential disparities. These data feed into federal oversight processes, including the Office of Special Education Programs’ review of disciplinary removals by disability category. In South Carolina this information is derived from the PowerSchool Incident Management report.
The Assessment report summarizes how students with disabilities participate in and perform on statewide academic assessments required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It provides a standardized view of assessment outcomes so states and districts can monitor equity, identify gaps in access or performance, and meet federal reporting requirements.
Statewide Assessment Data Collection History
The Dispute Resolution report provides a standardized, federally required summary of how states handle special education related disputes under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It tracks the volume and outcomes of formal processes families and schools use to resolve disagreements about a child’s services or rights.
Dispute Resolution Information
The Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) report documents how school districts use certain IDEA Part B funds to support students who are not yet identified as needing special education but who require additional academic or behavioral support. It also tracks how many students receive these services and how funds are allocated.
Table 8 CEIS Reporting Form
IDC CCEIS and CEIS Comparison Guide
Indicator 1 tracks the graduation rate of students with disabilities, measuring the percentage of youth with IEPs who exit special education by earning a regular high school diploma. It is one of the core performance indicators states must report in their State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report. Indicator 1 highlights how well states and districts prepare students with disabilities for post-secondary success. It also informs federal determinations under IDEA Section 616 and helps identify equity gaps or areas where additional support may be needed.
Indicator 2 reports the dropout rate for students with disabilities, showing the percentage of youth with IEPs (ages 14–21) who leave school before completing high school. It is one of the required State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report indicators used to evaluate how well states support students with disabilities in staying engaged and on track for graduation. Indicator 2 helps states identify patterns in disengagement, evaluate whether dropout prevention strategies are working, and target supports to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. It also contributes to federal determinations under IDEA Section 616 and highlights equity gaps that may require attention.
Indicator 3 focuses on how well students with disabilities participate in and perform on statewide academic assessments, making it a core results indicator in each state’s SPP/APR. It reflects both access to assessments and the academic achievement of students with IEPs. Indicator 3 highlights whether students with disabilities are fully included in state accountability systems and whether instruction is supporting meaningful academic progress. It also informs federal determinations under IDEA Section 616 and helps states identify where additional instructional support or accessibility improvements may be needed.
Indicator 4 focuses on whether schools are suspending or expelling students with disabilities at disproportionately high rates. It looks at two areas: whether districts show a significant discrepancy in long-term suspensions or expulsions of students with IEPs (Indicator 4A), and whether any such discrepancies are linked to policies or practices that violate IDEA requirements (Indicator 4B). Indicator 4 is designed to ensure that students with disabilities are not disciplined more harshly than their peers and that schools use fair, legally compliant practices. It also helps states monitor equity, identify districts needing support, and ensure IDEA protections are being followed.
Indicator 4A and 4B Methodology (PDF)
Indicator 5 describes how well schools are educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE). It reports the percentage of students with IEPs, ages 5–21, who spend different amounts of time in general education settings. The indicator highlights how effectively districts are supporting students with disabilities in learning alongside their peers. Research shows that students who spend more time in general education settings often experience stronger academic, social, and functional outcomes.
Indicator 6 tracks how well preschool‑age children with disabilities are included in age‑appropriate early childhood settings. It reports the percentage of children ages 3–5 with IEPs who receive their special education services in three types of environments: regular early childhood programs, separate special education settings, or services delivered in the home. Indicator 6 helps states and districts understand how often young children with disabilities are learning in inclusive environments. Early inclusion supports social development, communication skills, and long‑term school readiness.
Indicator 7 tracks the percentage of preschoolers aged 3 through 5 with disabilities who show progress in three outcome areas:
Indicator 7 - Reporting Template (XLSX)
COS Process Professional Development
COS Calculators & Graphing Templates
IDEA Indicator 8 measures how effectively schools support parent involvement in special education by tracking the percentage of parents who report that their child’s school actively facilitated their engagement. Using statewide parent surveys, this indicator reflects how well schools empower families to participate meaningfully in the special education process, helping ensure that services and supports lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities.
South Carolina uses a representative sampling process to collect Indicator 8 data, surveying only a subset of parents each year rather than all families of students with disabilities. This approach ensures valid statewide results while reducing survey burden on districts and families.
2022-2023: Anderson 1, Berkeley, Dorchester 2, Florence 1, Georgetown, Greenville*, Lexington 4, Union, Wil Lou Gray, York 2
2023-2024: Anderson 3, Beaufort, Charter Erskine, Dillon 3, Dillon 4, Greenville*, Greenwood 52, Limestone Charter, Marlboro, Pickens, Richland 2, SC Governor's School for Science and Mathematics, Spartanburg 1, York 4
2024-2025: Abbeville, Aiken, Anderson 4, Calhoun, Chester, Fairfield, Florence 3, Greenville*, Greenwood 51, Horry, Jasper, McCormick, Newberry, Richland 1, SC Governor's School for Arts and Humanities, Williamsburg
2025-2026: Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Charleston, Florence 2, Greenville*, Laurens 56, Lee, Lexington 1, Palmetto Unified, Saluda, SC School for the Deaf and Blind, Spartanburg 2, York 3
2026-2027: Anderson 2, Anderson 5, Darlington, Greenville*, Greenwood 50, Hampton, Laurens 55, Lexington 3, Marion, Oconee, Orangeburg, SC Department of Juvenile Justice, SC Governor's School for Agriculture at John de la Howe, SC Public Charter, Spartanburg 6, Spartanburg 7, York 1
2027-2028: Cherokee, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester 4, Edgefield, Florence 5, Greenville*, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lexington 2, Lexington 5, Spartanburg 3, Spartanburg 4, Spartanburg 5, Sumter
*One-sixth of Greenville County Schools are surveyed annually due to district population size.
Indicator 9 examines whether racial or ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in special education overall, and whether that pattern is the result of inappropriate identification practices.
Indicator 10 focuses on whether racial or ethnic groups are disproportionately placed in specific disability categories, such as Autism, Emotional Disability, or Specific Learning Disability, due to inappropriate evaluation or identification procedures.
Together, these indicators help states and districts monitor equity, safeguard against misidentification, and ensure that all students receive appropriate and unbiased special education services.
This data is drawn from FS002 and 45th Day Student Enrollment Count and covers children with disabilities, ages 5 in kindergarten through 21, who are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The data is collected annually as part of the October Child Count reporting, held on the fourth Tuesday of the month.
South Carolina calculates risk ratios or alternate risk ratios for each Local Education Agency (LEA). Using OSEP 618 data and a Westat‑developed spreadsheet, the state compares the likelihood that students from a specific racial or ethnic group are identified with a disability to the likelihood for all other students. This calculation helps determine whether any group is being identified at disproportionately high or low rates.
A risk ratio or alternate risk ratio above 2.50 is considered evidence of overrepresentation. To ensure the results are reliable, LEAs are excluded from the analysis if they have fewer than 30 students in the disability category (cell size) or fewer than 10 students in the comparison group (n‑size).
In South Carolina, disproportionate representation is identified when an LEA has a risk ratio or alternate risk ratio above 2.50, meets the minimum size requirements (an n‑size greater than 30 and a cell size greater than 10), and shows this pattern consistently for three consecutive years.
This systematic approach allows South Carolina to identify instances of disproportionate representation that may arise from inappropriate identification practices. By adhering to these criteria and methodologies, the OSES aims to ensure fair and appropriate identification and service provision for children with disabilities.
Indicator 11 measures whether schools complete initial special education evaluations on time after receiving parental consent. It reports the percentage of children evaluated within the required state or federal timeline (60 days of receiving parental consent).
Percentage = (b ÷ a) × 100 where...
a = # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received, and
b = # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline).
If the evaluation planning team asks for/needs information, it is the LEA's responsibility to obtain that information at no cost to the parent. This includes vision, hearing, audiological, (etc...) evaluations, and may mean working with parents to schedule the appointment, providing transportation to and from the appointment, and even paying for the appointment.
This indicator measures time signed consent to evaluate is received until the evaluation is completed, NOT until eligibility is determined. The evaluation process is completed only when the team has gathered ALL of the info requested (this includes administering assessments, scoring assessments, obtaining and scoring rating scales, etc...)
Indicator 12 measures how effectively states ensure that children receiving Part C early intervention services transition to Part B preschool special education by age 3. It tracks whether eligible children have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) in place by their third birthday, focusing on timely, seamless early childhood transitions.
Percentage = [c ÷ (a - b - d - e - f )] × 100 where...
a = # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination,
b = # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays,
c = # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays,
d = # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied,
e = # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays, and
f = # of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services beyond the child's third birthday through a State's policy under 34 CFR §303.211 or a similar State option.
Indicator 13 measures whether Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students aged 16 and older include all required components for secondary transition planning. This includes appropriate, measurable postsecondary goals, transition assessments, transition services, and annual IEP goals that help students move successfully from school to adult life. It is a compliance indicator focused on the quality and completeness of transition planning.
Indicator 14 measures the post‑school outcomes of youth with IEPs one year after leaving high school. It tracks whether former students are enrolled in higher education, competitively employed, enrolled in other education/training programs, or employed in other settings. This results indicator helps states understand how effectively schools prepare students with disabilities for life after graduation.
The Indicator 14 survey opens on April 1st and closes on June 30th of each year.
District Participation Survey (2025-2026)
Indicator 14 Survey (2025-2026)
Extended School Year (ESY) services are special education and related services provided beyond the regular school year for students with disabilities who need them to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). ESY is not a summer school program; it is an individualized service determined by the IEP team based on factors such as regression and recoupment, emerging skills, or other needs that affect a student’s educational progress. The OSES provides funding from federal funds to help offset the expenses involved in providing ESY services mandated through IDEA for eligible students with disabilities. To qualify, the student must have been evaluated and determined to have a disability in accordance with State Board of Education regulations and the student’s IEP must include ESY services.
ESY Certification Form (PDF)