(Academic and Functional Literacy, Personal & Social Well-Being, Satisfaction)
This Appendix is divided into two parts. (1) a list of all states, with an indication of the number of reports sent to NCEO for this analysis, and whether any of the reports included data on students with disabilities in the three targeted domains; (2) a reproduction of actual data on students with disabilities included in states’ reports, in the three domains targeted here.
I. Analysis of All States: Reports that Include Data on Students with Disabilities
| State |
Number Reportsa |
Disability Data? b |
Other Comments |
| Alabama | 1 |
No |
Data also on internet. |
| Alaska | 1 |
No |
|
| Arizona | 2 |
No |
Data also on internet |
| Arkansas | 2 |
No |
|
| California | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Colorado | 1 |
No |
|
| Connecticut | 2 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. Data also on CD-ROM, but not disability data. |
| Delaware | 2 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. |
| District of Columbia | 1 |
No |
|
| Florida | 3 |
No |
|
| Georgia | 6 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. |
| Hawaii | 2 |
No |
|
| Idaho | 2 |
No |
|
| Illinois | 3 |
No |
|
| Indiana | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Iowa | 1 |
No |
|
| Kansas | 2 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section |
| Kentucky | 2 |
No |
|
| Louisiana | 4 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. |
| Maine | 1 |
Yes (1) |
Data also on internet; see actual data in next section. |
| Maryland | 1 |
No |
|
| Massachusetts | 1 |
No |
Data also on internet. |
| Michigan | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Minnesota | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Mississippi | 1 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Missouri | 2 |
No |
|
| Montana | 2 |
No |
|
| Nebraska | 2 |
No |
|
| Nevada | 1 |
No |
State results presented as a function of % special education population; see next section. |
| New Hampshire | 6 |
Yes (3) |
See actual data in next section. |
| New Jersey | 3 |
No |
|
| New Mexico | 1 |
No |
|
| New York | 5 |
Yes (3) |
Two reports included only disability data. |
| North Carolina | 5 |
Yes (2) |
|
| North Dakota | 2 |
Yes (1) |
| State |
Number Reportsa |
Disability Data? b |
Other Comments |
| Ohio | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Oklahoma | 3 |
No |
|
| Oregon | 2 |
Yes (1) |
|
| Pennsylvania | 2 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Rhode Island | 3 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. |
| South Dakota | 1 |
No |
|
| Tennessee | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Texas | 0 |
Yes |
Data only on internet; data include students with disabilities for three tests; see actual data in next section. |
| Utah | 3 |
No |
|
| Vermont | 3 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section; data also on internet, but not disability data. |
| Virginia | 2 |
Yes (1) |
See actual data in next section. |
| Washington | 2 |
No |
See special note in next section. |
| West Virginia | 2 |
No |
|
| Wisconsin | 0 |
No |
Data only on internet. |
| Wyoming | 3 |
No |
a
This refers to printed documents sent to NCEO for this analysis.b
Addresses only the inclusion of statewide special education data in the targeted domains.Number in parentheses is the number of reports that include data on students with disabilities.
II. Reproduction of Actual Data on Students with Disabilities
Connecticut
Connecticut provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in this domain (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1997a). Connecticut also provided us with a CD-ROM that did not include state level special education data in this domain.
Connecticut reported test data for special education students on Connecticut’s Statewide Assessments. (Refer to Domain 2 for Participation data). The tests given to students included the CMT (Connecticut Mastery Test) in Grades 4, 6, and 8 and the CAPT (Connecticut Academic Performance Test) given in grade 10.
Connecticut Mastery Test
Percentage of Students At or Above State Goal, 1995-96
Mathematics |
Reading |
Writing |
||||
1993-1994 |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Grade 4 |
29.4 | 53.3 | 20.7 | 44.6 | 15.9 | 32.0 |
Grade 6 |
15.5 | 44.9 | 25.9 | 57.5 | 17.3 | 38.3 |
Grade 8 |
14.3 | 46.2 | 25.1 | 58.9 | 11.3 | 32.5 |
1994-1995 |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Grade 4 |
31.9 | 56.8 | 19.9 | 45.0 | 19.6 | 39.7 |
Grade 6 |
16.3 | 45.9 | 26.6 | 58.7 | 19.6 | 40.4 |
Grade 8 |
14.2 | 45.7 | 24.0 | 59.2 | 19.2 | 40.8 |
1995-1996 |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Spec Ed |
All |
Grade 4 |
34.6 | 59.3 | 21.8 | 47.7 | 25.8 | 46.3 |
Grade 6 |
18.5 | 47.7 | 27.8 | 59.4 | 20.7 | 39.6 |
Grade 8 |
14.3 | 47.3 | 25.6 | 58.9 | 19.3 | 45.5 |
Connecticut State Department of Education (1997a), p. 6
Connecticut’s Department of Education (1997a) commented on the CMT scores of students with disabilities:
Those special education students taking the on-level CMT scored less than one-half the statewide overall achievement level of state average students. There is a generally positive upward trend for all students statewide since 1993. In 1995-96, the percentage of special education students scoring at or above the state goals increased in all the nine categories. The largest increase was in Writing at Grade 4. (p. 6)
In general, approximately one-fourth of the special education students taking the CMT scored at or above the state goal, while roughly one-half of all Connecticut students achieved that benchmark. The percentage of special education students at or above state goals increased in all nine categories between 1994 and 1995. The most significant improvement occurred in grade four writing (6.2 percentage points). (pp. 2-3)
The following was stated about the CAPT scores for students with disabilities:
On the CAPT, special education students showed the most success with the editing test, with 45.6% at or above the state standard (compared to 78% of all students). An average of approximately 14% of the special education students scored at or above goal on all CAPT tests (compared to approximately 37% of all students). (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1997a, pp. 2-3)
Delaware
Delaware provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in this domain (Delaware Department of Education, 1997).
The Delaware State Department of Education (1997) stated the following about the Delaware Writing Assessment for students with disabilities:
Delaware reports test data for Special Education Students based on their performance on the Delaware Writing Assessment Program. The 1997 Writing Assessment Program included all students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10, with the exception of some Limited English Proficient (LEP) and special education students. The results in this report are for 30,820 students who were tested in May 1997. (p. i)
This program, based on the English Language Arts Content Standards, assesses Content Standard One, "Students will use written...English appropriate for various purposes and audiences." This content standard stresses the importance of the writing process and focuses on development, organization, word choice and style, sentence formation and conventions. 1997 is the second year of the current Writing Assessment Program (students tested in 1996 and 1997 under identical circumstances). (p. i)
Delaware educators and the Department of Education developed the scoring criteria (rubrics) that are based on English Language Arts Content Standard One. The rubric uses a four point scale with four being the highest score. The holistic score gives an overall evaluation of the student’s writing. (p. i)
Delaware identified accommodations for LEP and special education students so that they could participate in the assessment. Delaware distributed guidelines to assist districts in determining appropriate accommodations for these students. (p. i)
1997 State Results for Special Education: Percent of Students in Each Score Range
Score Ranges |
||||||
4.0 |
3.5-3.0 |
2.5-2.0 |
1.5-1.0 |
Average |
||
Grade 3 |
Spec Ed Reg Ed |
0 1 |
12 33 |
41 51 |
47 15 |
1.8 2.4 |
Grade 5 |
Spec Ed Reg Ed |
1 5 |
11 43 |
49 44 |
39 8 |
1.9 2.6 |
Grade 8 |
Spec Ed Reg Ed |
1 7 |
13 51 |
57 38 |
29 4 |
2.0 2.7 |
Grade 10 |
Spec Ed Reg Ed |
1 9 |
10 56 |
50 29 |
39 6 |
1.9 2.8 |
Delaware State Department of Education (1997), p. 25
The Delaware State Department of Education (1997) stated the following about the Delaware Writing Assessment scores for students with disabilities:
Of the 4,030 students in special education in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10, 3,642 students took the writing test. Of the 635 who did not take the test, 388 were exempted through the IEP (Individualized Education Program) process and 247 were absent. Of the 3,395 special education students who took the test, 1,033 had some type of accommodation and 2,362 tested with no accommodations. . . . All accommodations are based on student IEPs. Students with accommodations are not included in the aggregate scores or matched cases analyses. (p. 25)
The average score results for special education students stayed level at grade 3; improved at grade 5 and 8; and declined by a tenth of a point at grade 10. The five year trend at grade 10 has stayed relatively flat. The major change occurred in scores moving from the two lowest levels (1 and 1.5) to 2. (p. 25)
Delaware is unique among a few other states that can follow students’ scores across time. The Delaware State Department of Education (1997) states the following about the Delaware Writing Assessment matched case analyses for students with disabilities:
Students in Delaware have participated in writing assessments for five years. For some students, it is possible to compare their scores from two administrations of a writing test. This year, three such comparisons are possible:
• Tenth grade students to their 1995 scores as eighth graders
• Eighth grade students to their 1994 scores as fifth graders
• Fifth grade students to their 1995 scores as third graders
The rules for including a student in the matched cases analysis are:
• Students had to have valid scores for both years (that is, a score of 1-4 that counted in the school-district-state results).
• Students had to be in the same district for both of the matching years. For vocational technical districts, students had to have valid scores in both of the matching years. (p. 27)
Changes in State Average Scores for Special Education: 1997 Matched Case Data
Matched Grades |
1997 Average |
1995 Average |
1994 Average |
Number Matched |
Percent Matched |
Grades 3 & 5 |
1.9 | 1.6 | --- | 586 | 65.3 |
Grades 5 & 8 |
2.0 | --- | 1.5 | 419 | 66 |
Grades 8 & 10 |
2.0 | 1.8 | --- | 233 | 70.6 |
Delaware State Department of Education (1997), pg. 30
The Delaware State Department of Education (1997) states the following about the Delaware Writing Assessment matched case analyses scores for students with disabilities:
The matched case data shows an even more positive pattern. At grade 5, 586 (65.3%) were matched. The mean scores went from 1.6 in 1995 to 1.9 in 1997. At grade 8, there were 419 (66%) matched cases. The average scores went from 1.5 in 1994 to 2.0 in 1997. At grade 10 there were 233 (70.6%) matched cases. The average scores went from 1.8 in 1995 to 2.0 in 1997. These changes are consistent with the changes for regular education students in the matched case analyses. In other words, the same growth is seen, but there is no closing of the gap. (p. 32)
Although the scores for special education students continue to be below acceptable levels, the progress that students have made indicates that they are receiving instruction aimed at the writing standards and that it is having a positive impact. (p. 32)
Georgia
Georgia provided us with six accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in this domain (Georgia Department of Education, 1996a). The Georgia State Department of Education stated the following about the Georgia High School Graduation Tests:
Georgia law (O.C.G.A., Section 20-2-281) requires that curriculum-based assessments be administered in grade 11 for graduation purposes. Results of these tests are used to identify students who may need additional instruction in academic content considered essential for a high school diploma. Students who entered ninth grade since July 1, 1991, must pass at least the English Language Arts, Writing, and Mathematics tests as part of the requirements to obtain a high school diploma. Additional test requirements are being phased in gradually. These requirements apply to all students, including those seeking a college preparatory or a vocational diploma seal. Students who do not pass all the required tests may be eligible for a Certificate of Performance or a Special Education Diploma. Students who have left school with a Certificate of Performance or a Special Education Diploma may return to attempt the graduation test(s) again, as often as they wish. (pp. 1-2)
Table 2 in the report (reproduced below) provided state-wide scaled scores and pass rates for selected groups of students for each test. (p. 4)
Table 2
Georgia High School Graduation Tests: Content Area Test
SPRING 1996 RESULTS FOR SELECTED GROUPS
Student Classification |
English Language Arts Score % Pass |
Mathematics Score % Pass |
Social Studies Score % Pass |
Science Score % Pass |
All Students |
541 88 N = 69055 |
531 81 N = 70262 |
526 78 N = 66063 |
518 66-72 N = 64342 |
| Grade 11 1st-Time Test Takers | ||||
All Grade 11 Students Regular Program Only All Special Education All Limited English Proficient |
543 91 N = 63742 545 92 N = 61176 498 52 N = 2194 492 44 N = 372 |
535 85 N = 63811 536 86 N = 61231 496 45 N = 2207 516 64 N = 373 |
528 79 N = 63210 529 81 N = 60686 494 40 N = 2158 490 33 N = 366 |
519 67-73 N = 61830 520 68-74 N = 59700 487 25-31 N = 1844 489 26-32 N = 286 |
Retest Students* |
||||
All Retest Students Second Attempt Third or Fourth Attempt Fifth or Greater |
491 41 N = 2274 501 53 N = 645 487 37 N = 1282 487 37 N = 347 |
486 25 N = 3361 491 34 N = 850 484 23 N = 1973 483 19 N = 538 |
N/A N/A N/A N/A |
N/A N/A N/A N/A |
Georgia Department of Education (1996a), p. 6
Kansas
Kansas provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in the Personal and Social Well-Being domain (KS State Board of Education, 1996). The focus of Kansas’s data is on violent acts, against students and against teachers. In its report, Kansas provided a set of four graphs on violent acts, each of which included disaggregated data for students with disabilities in these domains (data are shown in total, and disaggregated by gender and lunch status as a proxy for socioeconomic status, as well as for students in special education. While the graphs are an excellent way to portray the data, we have transformed the data here into tabular form. The key statements that the text made in relation to students with disabilities in these graphs are as follows:
Overall there are fewer violent acts against teachers than against students. Males are reported as committing more violent acts than females, and special education students commit the most violent acts against both students and teachers. (p. 29)
For this appendix, we have selected only the Total Population, Total Free & Reduced lunch status, and the Total Special Education data. These data were taken from graphs and reproduced in the table below.
All Students |
Free/Reduced Lunch |
Special Education |
||||
| Violent Acts Against: | 1995 |
1996 |
1995 |
1996 |
1995 |
1996 |
| Students | 2.7 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 6.0 | 5.4 |
| Teachers | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
Note: Numbers shown are per 100 students.
Kansas State Board of Education (1996), pp. 28-29
Louisiana
Louisiana provided us with four accountability reports. One of these reports included state level special education data in the Academic and Functional Literacy domain (Louisiana Department of Education, 1997d). The Louisiana State Department of Education (1997d) stated the following about the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP).
In Louisiana, Criterion-Referenced Tests are used to assess students in public schools in grades 3, 5, and 7. Criterion-referenced tests (CRT’s) measure student mastery of specified skills. CRT results are commonly reported in education indicator systems because they provide information on how well students are performing based on state-prescribed curricula. Secondary school students also take CRT’s as part of the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP). The LEAP tests which are administered at the secondary level are more widely known as the Graduate Exit Examination (GEE). (p. 12)
The following scores were reported for students with disabilities:
Number of Students Tested and Percent Attaining
the State Scaled Score Performance Standard
| Language Arts | Regular Education |
Special Education |
|||||
Grade |
# Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
# Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
|
3 |
52,663 | 48,689 | 92 | 3,773 | 2,576 | 68 | |
5 |
53,107 | 47,810 | 90 | 4,277 | 2,415 | 56 | |
7 |
51,975 | 46,262 | 89 | 3,790 | 1,930 | 51 | |
| Mathematics | Regular Education |
Special Education |
|||||
Grade |
# Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
# Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
|
3 |
52,485 | 48,412 | 92 | 3,793 | 2,558 | 67 | |
5 |
55,062 | 48,549 | 91 | 4,277 | 2,585 | 60 | |
7 |
51,728 | 42,597 | 82 | 3,783 | 1,554 | 41 | |
| Graduate Exam | Regular Education |
Special Education |
|||||
| Content Area: | # Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
# Tested |
# Attained |
Percent |
|
| Language Arts | 43,294 | 37,099 | 86 | 1,715 | 793 | 46 | |
| Mathematics | 43,256 | 33,740 | 78 | 1,713 | 843 | 49 | |
| Written Composition | 42,022 | 39,584 | 94 | 1,644 | 1,187 | 72 | |
| Science | 38,872 | 32,394 | 83 | 1,237 | 699 | 57 | |
| Social Studies | 38,857 | 34,609 | 89 | 1,231 | 795 | 65 | |
Louisiana Department of Education (1997d), p.9
Maine
Maine provided us with one accountability report. It included state level special education data in the domain of Academic and Functional Literacy (Maine Department of Education, 1996). The same data also were available on the World Wide Web. The Maine State Department of Education (1997) stated the following about the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) and the performance of students with disabilities:
In Maine, the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) is used to assess students in grades 4, 8, and 11. The MEA tests students in reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, and arts and humanities. Health Education is assessed in grades 4 and 8. (p. 1)
The MEA tests are composed of open-response questions that require students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Scores in reading, writing, and mathematics are reported by performance levels (novice, basic, advanced, and distinguished), which are defined in this report. Scaled scores (on a 100 to 400 scale) are used to report school and district level results in all content areas. The data shown below are taken from the Grade 8 results of the MEA. (p.1)
Subject Results |
Reporting Categories (Identified Disability) |
State % Students in Category |
State % Basic or Above |
State % Advanced or Above |
State Scaled Score |
| Reading | Yes No |
7 93 |
44 86 |
2 25 |
N/A |
| Writing | Yes No |
7 93 |
65 93 |
17 57 |
N/A |
| Mathematics | Yes No |
7 93 |
37 75 |
1 10 |
N/A |
| Science | Yes No |
7 93 |
N/A |
N/A |
187 284 |
| Social Studies | Yes No |
7 93 |
N/A |
N/A |
123 256 |
| Arts and Humanities | Yes No |
7 93 |
N/A |
N/A |
184 270 |
| Health | Yes No |
7 93 |
N/A |
N/A |
164 279 |
Maine Department of Education (1996), pp. 5-19
New Hampshire
New Hampshire provided us with six reports. Three of these included data on students with disabilities in this domain. The reports contained information on the statewide assessments for end-of-grades 3, 6, and 10. According to these reports, the statewide assessment, which is keyed to state standards, uses "both multiple-choice and open-ended items to assess students’ knowledge and their ability to apply that knowledge" (New Hampshire Department of Education 1996a,b,c, p. 1).
The data reported below are compiled from these three reports. The reports also contained data on students who were excluded from testing and the reasons for exclusion (see Appendix B). The reports define four proficiency levels: novice, basic, proficient, and advanced (please see reports for full definitions, included on page 4 of each document). Data are actually reported on % basic or above, and % proficient or above.
New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program
| Grade Level and Subject | % Students in category | % Basic or above | % Proficient or above | |
| 3rd Grade English Language Arts | Educational Disability No Educational Disability |
10 90 |
36 83 |
5 34 |
| 3rd Grade Mathematics | Educational Disability | 12 | 55 | 12 |
| No Educational Disability | 88 | 85 | 37 | |
| 6th Grade English Language Arts | Educational Disability No Educational Disability |
11 89 |
14 62 |
2 19 |
| 6th Grade Mathematics | Educational Disability | 12 | 9 | 1 |
| No Educational Disability | 88 | 44 | 14 | |
| 6th Grade Science | Educational Disability | 12 | 8 | 2 |
| No Educational Disability | 88 | 33 | 10 |
| Grade Level and Subject | % Students in category | % Basic or above | % Proficient or above | |
| 6th Grade Social Studies | Educational Disability | 12 | 12 | 2 |
| No Educational Disability | 88 | 50 | 13 | |
| 10th Grade English | Educational Disability | 9 | 23 | 1 |
| No Educational Disability | 91 | 77 | 12 | |
| 10th Grade Mathematics | Educational Disability | 9 | 12 | 3 |
| No Educational Disability | 91 | 57 | 26 | |
| 10th Grade Science | Educational Disability | 9 | 13 | 4 |
| No Educational Disability | 91 | 50 | 24 | |
| 10th Grade Social Studies | Educational Disability | 9 | 7 | 1 |
| No Educational Disability | 91 | 38 | 15 |
Data taken from New Hampshire Department of Education (1996a), pp. 5, 7, 9, 11; (1996b), pp. 5, 7, 9, 11; (1996c), pp. 5, 7
New York
New York provided us with five reports. Three of these contained Educational Results data on students with disabilities. Two were special education reports, and one was a regular education report that included data on students with and without disabilities.
Within these three documents, data are reported on the Regents Competency Tests (RCT) and the Pupil Evaluation Program Test (PEP). Both of these are state exams. For the PEP, "Schools are mandated to provide remediation for students who score below the State minimum level, referred to as the State reference point (SRP) (University of the State of New York 1997a, p. 83). Students must pass either the Regents Competency Test, the more rigorous Regents Examination, or an "approved alternative" (The University of the State of New York and the New York State Education Department, 1997a, p. 81) in order to receive a high school diploma. While no specific data on students with disabilities for the Regents Examination are given in any of the reports, the number and percent of students with disabilities receiving Regents-endorsed diplomas are reported (see Appendix B). The scores of students with disabilities are not included in the overall scores for the PEP or RCT tests, but they are included in the reporting of scores for the Regents examination (The University of the State of New York et al., 1997a, p. 181). Scores for students with disabilities on the Regents Preliminary Competency Tests (PCT) in Reading and Writing are given in one of the reports (The University of the State of New York, 1996a).
Data also are provided on the Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations and Advanced Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations, which are used for both special and regular education students to determine competence in vocational areas. Other indicators in the areas of academic and functional literacy are presented also.
Pupil Evaluation Program Testing (PEP)
The Statewide Profile of the Educational System provides the following data from 1991-1996, showing trends in the number of students tested as well the number reaching the State Reference Point (SRP). For more information on participation of students with disabilities in state testing, please see Appendix B.
Trends in the Number of Students with Disabilities Tested and the Percent Scoring above the SRP on the Pupil Evaluation Program Tests, New York State 1991 to 1996
| Pupil Evaluation | 1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
|||
| Program Test | # Written |
% Above SRP |
# Written |
% Above SRP |
# Written |
% Above SRP |
| Grade 3 Reading | 18,754 |
30.3 | 19,798 |
28.0 | 20,281 |
32.1 |
| Grade 3 Mathematics | 18,691 |
56.1 | 19,626 |
57.8 | 20,191 |
62.1 |
| Grade 5 Writing | 19,461 |
53.4 | 20,509 |
59.6 | 21,775 |
53.7 |
| Grade 6 Reading | 21,401 |
31.8 | 22,133 |
30.7 | 23,248 |
30.2 |
| Grade 6 Mathematics | 20,847 |
47.2 | 21,719 |
52.0 | 22,430 |
54.9 |
| Pupil Evaluation | 1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
|||
| Program Test | # Written |
% Above SRP |
# Written |
% Above SRP |
# Written |
% Above SRP |
| Grade 3 Reading | 21,613 |
33.0 | 22,556 |
30.4 | 23,876 |
32.8 |
| Grade 3 Mathematics | 21,386 |
67.2 | 22,716 |
71.2 | 24,118 |
70.0 |
| Grade 5 Writing | 22,943 |
55.4 | 23,690 |
56.8 | 24,986 |
58.6 |
| Grade 6 Reading | 24,238 |
31.0 | 25,080 |
32.3 | 25,575 |
31.6 |
| Grade 6 Mathematics | 23,260 |
52.2 | 24,624 |
57.2 | 25,473 |
63.7 |
Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1997a), p. 193
Data for students without disabilities were included in a separate section of this report. In the report, these data are presented graphically, showing performance from 1988 through 1996. For comparison with the performance of students with disabilities, data for the total population of students in 1991 - 1996 are presented here. (The graphs did not include the numbers participating in the assessments.)
Pupil Evaluation Program Test Performance of Public School Population Across Years (from Figure 5.1)
| Pupil Evaluation | Percent Scoring Above State Reference Points (SRP) |
|||||
| Program Test | 1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
| Grade 3 Reading | 81 | 79 | 82 | 82 | 80 | 79 |
| Grade 3 Mathematics | 92 | 92 | 92 | 94 | 95 | 95 |
| Grade 5 Writing | 91 | 92 | 90 | 91 | 91 | 92 |
| Grade 6 Reading | 85 | 84 | 83 | 83 | 84 | 82 |
| Grade 6 Mathematics | 90 | 91 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 |
Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1997a), p. 89
The same data for students with disabilities are reported in the VESID 1996 Pocketbook of Goals and Results for Individuals with Disabilities (The University of the State of New York, the New York State Education Department, and the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, 1996b, p. 8), which gives participation and performance data for students with disabilities for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years. The Consolidated Special Education Performance Report also provides 1992-1995 PEP results (The University of the State of New York, 1996a, p. I.17).
Regents Preliminary Competency Tests (PCT)
Only one of the three reports, the Consolidated Special Education Report (The University of the State of New York 1996a) contained data on the Regents Preliminary Competency Test. The results from 1992 through 1996 on this test are provided here. Comparative data for students without disabilities were not included in this report.
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
||||||
| Grade Level | # Tested |
% Above SRP |
# Tested |
% Above SRP |
# Tested |
% Above SRP |
||
1992-1993 |
||||||||
8 |
19,201 | 46.9 | * |
* |
17,728 | 62.4 | ||
9 |
1,044 | 66.9 | * |
* |
1,042 | 62.9 | ||
1993-1994 |
||||||||
8 |
20,113 | 45.5 | * |
* |
18,319 | 62.5 | ||
9 |
1,145 | 61.3 | * |
* |
1,177 | 59.2 | ||
1994-1995 |
||||||||
8 |
21,121 | 46.9 | * |
* |
19,564 | 61.8 | ||
9 |
1,042 | 63.8 | * |
* |
1,038 | 57.6 | ||
*No State test available for this subject/grade.
Data taken from The University of the State of New York (1996a), p. I.18
Regents Competency Tests (RCT)
The University of the State of New York et al. (1997a) states that:
Many students with disabilities have demonstrated competency for high school diplomas by passing the RCTs. . . . In 1996, students with disabilities were most successful on the RCT in writing; 62.8 percent passed. In previous years, students with disabilities were equally successful on the RCT in reading: 63 to 70 percent of tested students passed. In 1996, only 48.0 percent of students with disabilities passed the RCT in reading. This drop in the passing rate can be attributed to a recent New York City policy requiring students to take the RCT in reading the first time in the ninth rather than the eleventh grade; this policy has substantially reduced the percentages of students with and without disabilities passing the RCT in reading. As with nondisabled students, students with disabilities were least successful on the mathematics RCT (49.6 percent passed), the science RCT (47.6 percent), and the global studies RCT (41.7 percent).
The following table presents the numbers and percentages of students with disabilities who passed the RCT from 1991 to 1996.
Trends in the Number of Students with Disabilities Tested and the Percent Passing Major administrations of the Regents Competency Tests, New York State 1991 to 1996
| Regents | 1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
|||
| Competency Test | # Written |
% Passing |
# Written |
% Passing |
# Written |
% Passing |
| Mathematics | 17692 | 40.0 | 17803 | 46.0 | 17234 | 43.4 |
| Science | 15328 | 46.7 | 16219 | 56.9 | 15543 | 43.0 |
| Reading | 9302 | 63.5 | 9778 | 65.9 | 9799 | 69.9 |
| Writing | 7337 | 69.7 | 7935 | 71.6 | 7780 | 65.3 |
| Global Studies | 10121 | 46.1 | 10565 | 49.8 | 10943 | 39.5 |
| U.S. History & Government | 6880 | 62.9 | 7659 | 62.1 | 7915 | 61.7 |
| Regents | 1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
|||
| Competency Test | # Written |
% Passing |
# Written |
% Passing |
# Written |
% Passing |
| Mathematics | 18,604 | 48.2 | 19,979 | 46.5 | 22,735 | 49.6 |
| Science | 17,257 | 50.5 | 18,464 | 47.7 | 19,891 | 47.6 |
| Reading | 9,080 | 70.7 | 9,600 | 70.9 | 15,460 | 48.0 |
| Writing | 7,869 | 67.3 | 7,797 | 72.3 | 10,681 | 62.8 |
| Global Studies | 11,902 | 43.8 | 12,060 | 44.3 | 15,072 | 41.7 |
| U.S. History % Government | 8,148 | 62.5 | 8,081 | 55.9 | 9,242 | 64.8 |
Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1997a), p. 194
Data for students without disabilities are provided in a separate section of the report. For comparison, data on students without disabilities for 1991-1996 are provided here.
Regents Competency Tests (RCT) Performance of Total Public School Population, 1991-1996
| Pupil Evaluation | Percent of Students Passing RCT |
|||||
| Program Test | 1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
| Reading | 89 | 90 | 90 | 89 | 88 | 75 |
| Writing | 81 | 83 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 83 |
| Mathematics | 64 | 69 | 62 | 64 | 64 | 66 |
| Science | 69 | 75 | 60 | 67 | 63 | 64 |
| U.S. History & Gov | 76 | 73 | 74 | 73 | 65 | 78 |
| Global Studies | 64 | 65 | 49 | 53 | 53 | 53 |
Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1997a), p. 115, Table 5, Table 5.4
The same data are presented for the 1992-1995 school years in the Consolidated Special Education Performance Report (The University of the State of New York, 1996a, p. I.19).
Other Academic and Functional Literacy Data
The VESID 1996 Pocketbook of Goals and Results for Individuals with Disabilities (The University of the State of New York 1996b) gives a number of unique indicators of performance for students with disabilities. In addition to increasing participation of students in testing programs and the percentage of students earning regents, local or high school equivalency diplomas, one of the stated performance standards for students with disabilities is to "Enhance participation and performance in Workforce Preparation Programs" (p. 5). The stated objective is "Students receiving special education services and participating in Workforce Preparation Programs will pass occupational education proficiency examinations at the same rate as their nondisabled peers" (p. 5). The following tables provide data for students with and without disabilities on the Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations and Advanced Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations for June 1995.
Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations, June 1995 (% of students passing)
| Exam | Special Ed |
General Ed |
| Introduction to Occupational Education | 62.80 | 81.90 |
| Advanced Occupational Proficiency Examinations | ||
| Communication Systems | 52.15 | 86.65 |
| Production Systems | 63.85 | 86.65 |
| Transportation Systems | 66.35 | 85.15 |
| Clothing and Textiles | 66.45 | 81.95 |
| Food and Nutrition | 54.95 | 82.75 |
| Housing and Environment | 80.85 | 96.35 |
| Human Development | 70.15 | 91.35 |
| Health Occupations Education | 61.45 | 76.75 |
| Business Analysis/Computer Applications | 74.85 | 85.75 |
Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), pp. 9-10
The Consolidated Special Education Performance Report also provided data on the Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations, including the number of students taking the test as well as the percent who passed during the 1994-1995 school year. Results are given as follows:
– 9,646 students with disabilities took the Introduction to Occupational Education Proficiency Examination, 62.4% passed.
– Students with disabilities took Advanced Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations and passed such tests as follows:
(The University of the State of New York et al, 1996a, p. I.20).
Another indicator provided in the 1996 Pocketbook is the percentage of individuals with disabilities sponsored by VESID who obtained jobs. The following chart indicates the percentage of students with disabilities who were employed in 1994-95 and 1995-96 according to the type of program they were enrolled in, as sponsored by VESID.
Percentages of VESID Sponsored Individuals with Disabilities Obtaining Jobs
| Type of Program | 1994-95 |
1995-96 |
| Bachelor Degree | 55.3 |
60.9 |
| Associate Degree | 53.2 |
53.5 |
| Nondegree | 63.3 |
63.3 |
| Graduate Degree | 72.5 |
55.6 |
| Business School | 63.2 |
63.1 |
| Trade School | 64.5 |
65.5 |
| Average | 58.6 |
61.1 |
Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. 21
In addition, the pocketbook also provides a graph showing the state goal of 20,000 participants employed, and the employment rates from 1989-1996 broken down by total, competitive, sheltered, supported, and homemaker/other types of employment. The data for 1991–1996, as reflected in the graph, are presented in tabular format here.
Job Placements for VESID Consumers
| Type of | Number of Students Placed in Jobs |
|||||
| Employment | 1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
| Homemaker/Other | 521 | 609 | 742 | 960 | 825 | 962 |
| Supported | 611 | 866 | 1069 | 1335 | 1717 | 2221 |
| Sheltered | 2264 | 2580 | 2412 | 2147 | 2169 | 1799 |
| Competitive | 5635 | 5823 | 6670 | 7775 | 9536 | 10318 |
| Total | 9031 | 9878 | 10893 | 12217 | 14247 | 15587 |
Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. 23
Satisfaction
New York includes the following data from it’s Consumer Satisfaction survey on the services provided to special education students by vocational rehabilitation services.
Consumer Satisfaction with Vocational Rehabilitation (VESID) Services
| Year | Percent of Consumers Satisfied |
1993-94 |
86.9 |
1995-96 |
87.1 |
Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al.
(1996b), p. 32
Other
The Consolidated Special Education Performance Report (The University of the State of New York 1996a) reports on students with disabilities passing the Second Language Proficiency Examinations. According to this report "1,262 students with disabilities took Second Language Proficiency Examinations, 65.2% passed," (p. I.20).
North Carolina
North Carolina provided us with five reports. Two of these included Educational Results data on students with disabilities. Both are regular education reports.
The Report of Student Performance in Writing (North Carolina State Board of Education 1997c) includes regular and special education data on the North Carolina Writing Assessment in grades 4, 7, and 10. Scores are given from 1 "Student response exhibits a lack or [sic] command of the mode of writing," (p. 2) to 4 "Student response exhibits a strong command of the mode of writing" (p. 2). According to this report:
The expected standard for writing at grades 4 and 7 is the mid-point score of 2.5 or above on a four-point scale. This standard represents an achievable level and quality of writing that can be reached with effective instruction. (p. 2)
Assessments are also given an independent score of + or -. A + indicates "acceptable level of skills in sentence formation, usage and mechanics" (p. 4), and a – indicates the "paper does not exhibit an acceptable level," (p.4). Scores are reported as ++, +–, and –, probably indicating separate scores from the two independent raters who score the tests. More detailed rubrics on how the assessment is scored are provided on page 3-4 of the report. Samples of practice writing assessments and scores are given on pages 20-33.
The second report containing data in this domain is the 1995-96 State Testing Results: Multiple-Choice, End-of-Grade and End-of-Course Tests (North Carolina State Board of Education 1997a). This report includes testing on state exams on the end-of-grades 3-8 tests in reading and mathematics, multiple-choice tests and end-of-course tests in high school subjects for the 1995-1996 school year. For the end-of-grade tests, scores are reported from Level I ("Students performing at this level do not have sufficient mastery of knowledge and skills in the subject area to be successful at the next grade level" p. iv) to Level IV ("Students performing at this level consistently perform in a superior manner clearly beyond that required to be proficient at grade level work" p. iv). End-of-course tests are reported as scale scores that measure subject-area achievement as standardized across tests, raw scores that show the number of questions answered correctly, and percentiles that allow for comparisons of achievement among different groups across the state. End-of-course tests also are compared to proficiency standards:
In addition, end-of-course test scores are also compared to a standard of proficiency. This standard is used to describe the attainment of a high level of proficiency in the subject area (corresponds to students receiving As and Bs in the course) as judged by teachers at the time of the first test administration and linked to subsequent student performance standards. (p. iv)
Writing Assessment
The Report of Student Performance in Writing provides data on students with disabilities disaggregated by disability category. One table reports, for Grades 4 and 7, the number tested, the percent at or above the state standard of 2.5, the percent of students at score point levels from 1-4, and convention scores of ++, +- and --. Here we report the information in separate tables, with data for the two grades presented together in separate tables for (a) number tested, percent at or above 2.5 (the state standard), and convention scores (+, +–, –), and (b) the percentages in each holistic score point. (Data on students with limited English proficiency are also presented in the original table; these data are not presented here.)
Participation and Performance on North Carolina Testing Program
| Student | Grade 4 |
Grade 7 |
||||||||
| Category* | # Tested |
% Std |
++ |
+– |
++ |
# Tested |
% Std |
++ |
+– |
++ |
| Not Excep | 67,364 | 47.8 | 84.2 | 11.3 | 4.6 | 65,928 | 54.4 | 84.4 | 11.0 | 4.7 |
| Acad Gifted | 11,907 | 80.2 | 98.2 | 1.5 | .3 | 12,314 | 84.2 | 98.1 | 1.7 | 0.1 |
| Behav/Emot | 746 | 11.5 | 54.4 | 19.6 | 26.0 | 920 | 11.1 | 52.8 | 21.6 | 25.5 |
| Hearing | 128 | 26.6 | 68.8 | 19.5 | 11.7 | 100 | 31.0 | 64.0 | 19.0 | 17.0 |
| EMH | 656 | 3.4 | 29.9 | 24.5 | 45.6 | 997 | 4.2 | 29.0 | 25.7 | 45.3 |
| LD | 6,494 | 18.5 | 50.5 | 25.3 | 24.3 | 6,072 | 22.3 | 48.1 | 25.4 | 26.4 |
| Speech-Lang | 1,266 | 30.2 | 69.8 | 19.1 | 11.1 | 259 | 25.5 | 58.3 | 22.0 | 19.7 |
| Visually | 47 | 27.7 | 61.7 | 21.3 | 17.0 | 56 | 32.1 | 69.6 | 17.9 | 12.5 |
| Other Health | 747 | 17.3 | 57.4 | 22.0 | 20.6 | 672 | 22.2 | 61.9 | 22.6 | 15.5 |
| Orthopedic | 53 | 32.1 | 69.8 | 13.2 | 17.0 | 59 | 28.8 | 79.7 | 11.9 | 8.5 |
| TBI | 17 | * | * | * | * | 12 | * | * | * | * |
| Other Excep | 141 | 18.4 | 48.9 | 29.1 | 22.0 | 106 | 21.7 | 55.7 | 19.8 | 24.5 |
Holistic Score Points (North Carolina Testing Program)
| Stu | Grade 4 (Percentages) |
Grade 7 (Percentages) |
|||||||||||||
| Cat* | 4.0 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
|
| Not Ex | 0.6 | 1.6 | 26.4 | 19.1 | 47.5 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 2.4 | 32.1 | 18.8 | 41.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | |
| Gifted | 4.1 | 8.1 | 49.7 | 18.3 | 19.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 7.8 | 9.1 | 51.4 | 16.0 | 15.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | |
| Behav | 0.1 | 0.5 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 52.4 | 6.4 | 25.9 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 5.0 | 5.8 | 46.4 | 8.5 | 32.3 | |
| Hearing | 0.8 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 10.2 | 50.8 | 4.7 | 16.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 21.0 | 9.0 | 53.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | |
| EMH | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 45.4 | 10.1 | 34.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 3.2 | 47.5 | 10.7 | 33.5 | |
| LD | 0.2 | 0.6 | 8.5 | 9.3 | 57.6 | 7.5 | 15.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 11.1 | 10.6 | 55.6 | 5.9 | 15.4 | |
| Speech | 0.1 | 0.7 | 15.6 | 13.8 | 57.3 | 4.4 | 7.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 11.2 | 12.7 | 54.8 | 4.6 | 15.1 | |
| Visual | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 12.8 | 46.8 | 4.3 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.6 | 12.5 | 48.2 | 3.6 | 10.7 | |
| OHI | 0.5 | 0.4 | 9.5 | 6.8 | 56.9 | 6.3 | 17.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 11.6 | 9.7 | 53.9 | 6.0 | 17.1 | |
| Ortho | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.1 | 17.0 | 50.9 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 13.6 | 10.2 | 54.2 | 1.7 | 13.6 | |
| TBI | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
| Other | 0.7 | 0.7 | 7.8 | 9.2 | 52.5 | 11.3 | 15.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 50.0 | 5.7 | 20.8 | |
Data taken from North Carolina Board of Education (1997c), p. 18
An * indicates that the total number of students tested in that category was 30 or less, and thus not reported.
Report includes full names of categories. Abbreviated terms were used here for space considerations.
Multiple-Choice, End-of-Grade, and End-of-Course Tests
North Carolina presented the 1995-96 End-of-Grade Multiple-Choice Test results for students with disabilities, by disability category, in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is not clear from the data presentation what percentages of students with disabilities were tested in each grade (these data are not included in our reproduction of the table). Presented here are data on the percentage proficient, mean reading score, and mean mathematics score.
Grade 3 |
Grade 4 |
Grade 5 |
|||||||
| Stu Cat* | % Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
| Not Ex | 58.9 | 144.1 | 142.0 | 62.4 | 148.2 | 147.7 | 57.9 | 151.4 | 154.0 |
| Gifted | 97.8 | 155.4 | 155.2 | 98.9 | 159.5 | 161.3 | 98.3 | 162.5 | 168.0 |
| Behav | 18.2 | 134.5 | 130.6 | 20.3 | 139.3 | 137.3 | 17.1 | 143.2 | 144.4 |
| Hearing | 23.9 | 136.4 | 133.6 | 31.6 | 142.5 | 143.2 | 37.0 | 146.6 | 149.9 |
| EMH | 1.0 | 129.0 | 122.0 | 0.8 | 133.5 | 129.6 | 1.2 | 137.6 | 138.4 |
| LD | 16.4 | 133.8 | 133.4 | 21.3 | 139.3 | 140.0 | 18.1 | 143.1 | 146.9 |
| Speech | 41.3 | 139.9 | 138.1 | 39.2 | 143.8 | 143.2 | 35.5 | 146.9 | 149.7 |
| Visual | 23.3 | 136.0 | 136.4 | 24.5 | 142.2 | 142.2 | 48.9 | 149.0 | 153.0 |
| OHI | 20.2 | 135.7 | 131.4 | 23.7 | 140.9 | 138.7 | 21.8 | 144.7 | 146.2 |
| Ortho | 34.7 | 140.1 | 132.9 | 34.7 | 141.7 | 139.3 | 31.3 | 148.3 | 147.9 |
| TBI | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Other | 33.1 | 138.3 | 134.5 | 26.4 | 142.2 | 139.9 | 30.8 | 146.6 | 148.5 |
Grade 6 |
Grade 7 |
Grade 8 |
|||||||
| Stu Cat* | % Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
| Not Ex | 60.4 | 154.6 | 160.1 | 55.9 | 157.1 | 164.9 | 58.3 | 159.2 | 169.0 |
| Gifted | 98.8 | 166.1 | 175.1 | 98.7 | 167.7 | 180.2 | 98.7 | 169.6 | 184.9 |
| Behav | 13.8 | 144.7 | 149.6 | 13.1 | 148.3 | 155.4 | 11.0 | 149.1 | 157.2 |
| Hearing | 34.3 | 148.7 | 156.3 | 29.7 | 151.7 | 158.4 | 28.3 | 153.3 | 163.6 |
| EMH | 1.0 | 139.8 | 145.3 | 0.7 | 143.5 | 151.2 | 0.4 | 144.8 | 153.9 |
| LD | 20.7 | 145.8 | 152.9 | 18.0 | 148.9 | 157.9 | 20.4 | 151.0 | 161.3 |
| Speech | 28.8 | 148.9 | 154.1 | 23.6 | 150.0 | 158.2 | 24.6 | 152.9 | 161.8 |
| Visual | 38.3 | 151.3 | 156.0 | 37.0 | 153.6 | 160.3 | 34.0 | 154.9 | 164.5 |
Grade 6 |
Grade 7 |
Grade 8 |
|||||||
| Stu Cat* | % Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
% Proficient |
Mean Reading |
Mean Math |
| OHI | 27.1 | 148.1 | 152.9 | 22.0 | 151.1 | 158.0 | 24.5 | 152.8 | 161.3 |
| Ortho | 36.4 | 151.6 | 153.7 | 26.1 | 152.5 | 159.7 | 29.5 | 155.4 | 159.9 |
| TBI | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Other | 29.7 | 147.8 | 153.6 | 26.5 | 151.3 | 159.2 | 29.8 | 153.4 | 163.1 |
Data taken from North Carolina State Board of Education (1997a), pp. 21-22, Table 8: 1995-96 End-of-Grade Multiple Choice Test Results Average Performance of Students with Special Needs
Data from the End-of-Course test results are also presented by content area: Algebra I, Biology, Economic, Legal and Political Systems (ELP), English I, and U.S. History. These results also are broken down by category. (See 1995-96 End-of-Course Tests Results Performance of Students with Special Needs, Algebra 1, ELP, U.S. History; North Carolina State Board of Education (1997a), p. 104.
North Dakota
North Dakota provided us with two reports. One contained data on students with disabilities in this domain. The report consisted of test scores for the California Test of Basic Skills IV. The results given below are for students with and without disabilities in grades, 3, 6, 8, and 11. A glossary of the abbreviations used in the table was not included in the report.
NORTH DAKOTA 1997 RESEARCH RESULTS (STATE-WIDE TESTING)
(NP OF THE MEAN NCE)
Grade 3 |
Grade 6 |
Grade 8 |
Grade 11 |
||||||||||||||||
| Data |
IEP |
504 |
IEP & 504 |
M ND |
IEP |
504 |
IEP & 504 |
M ND |
IEP |
504 |
IEP & 504 |
M ND |
IEP |
504 |
IEP & 504 |
M ND |
|||
| Total | 31 | 46 | 30 | 65 | 22 | 37 | 29 | 63 | 21 | 40 | 5 | 68 | 16 | 42 | 13 | 65 | |||
| Number | 708 | 45 | 19 | 8944 | 643 | 57 | 7 | 9622 | 531 | 63 | 6 | 9815 | 261 | 49 | 5 | 8429 | |||
| Percent | 7.9 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
100 |
6.7 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 100 |
5.4 | 0.6 | 0.06 | 100 |
3.1 | 0.6 | 0.06 |
100 | |||
| Rd Voc | 30 | 48 | 30 | 62 | 23 | 40 | 29 | 57 | 24 | 46 | 7 | 64 | 16 | 41 | 13 | 57 | |||
| Rd Co | 38 | 50 | 49 | 66 | 26 | 38 | 34 | 61 | 26 | 40 | 3 | 66 | 17 | 38 | 35 | 61 | |||
| Rd Tot | 34 | 50 | 40 | 65 | 24 | 38 | 32 | 60 | 25 | 43 | 4 | 66 | 17 | 39 | 22 | 60 | |||
| L Mech | 28 | 41 | 26 | 57 | 26 | 37 | 26 | 65 | 24 | 42 | 6 | 65 | 17 | 41 | 25 | 62 | |||
| L Exp | 30 | 46 | 31 | 62 | 22 | 34 | 18 | 59 | 21 | 35 | 9 | 63 | 19 | 38 | 15 | 64 | |||
| L Tot | 28 | 43 | 28 | 60 | 24 | 35 | 21 | 64 | 23 | 40 | 8 | 66 | 19 | 41 | 21 | 65 | |||
| M Cmp | 37 | 44 | 24 | 63 | 25 | 39 | 39 | 59 | 20 | 36 | 11 | 61 | 20 | 43 | 21 | 64 | |||
| M C/A | 33 | 46 | 31 | 65 | 29 | 45 | 50 | 68 | 22 | 40 | 8 | 68 | 24 | 47 | 9 | 69 | |||
| M Tot | 34 | 44 | 25 | 65 | 26 | 42 | 45 | 65 | 21 | 38 | 9 | 65 | 22 | 47 | 14 | 67 | |||
| Spellng | 23 | 35 | 27 | 53 | 22 | 40 | 18 | 61 | 18 | 36 | 10 | 53 | 15 | 35 | 14 | 57 | |||
| WA/Std | 26 | 36 | 26 | 59 | 35 | 47 | 37 | 67 | 23 | 40 | 2 | 61 | 24 | 45 | 24 | 65 | |||
| Science | 42 | 56 | 47 | 71 | 35 | 55 | 48 | 70 | 29 | 50 | 5 | 68 | 28 | 51 | 22 | 69 | |||
| Soc St | 37 | 49 | 36 | 67 | 43 | 61 | 57 | 74 | 34 | 50 | 14 | 70 | 32 | 50 | 23 | 68 | |||
Data taken from North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (1997), unnumbered pages. Data areas are Total = Total Battery, Number = number tested, Percent = Percent of total population of students tested, Rd Voc = Reading Vocabulary, Rd Co = Reading Comprehension, Rd Tot = Reading Total, L Mech = Language Mechanics, L Exp = Language Expression, L Tot = Language Total, M Cmp = Math Computation, M C/A = Math Application, M Tot = Math Total, Spellng = Spelling, WA/Std = Word Analysis (Gr 3) and Standard Skills (Gr 6, 8, 11), Science = Science, Soc St = Social Studies.
Oregon
Oregon provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included results data on students with disabilities (OR Department of Education, 1997b). The following special studies were reported in this separate special education report, the Oregon 1996 Status Report: Special Education, Student Services, and Compensatory Education.
The Oregon Transition Systems Change Project (OTSC) is a five-year federal grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), designed to work with educational and adult service systems to improve transition outcomes for students with disabilities in Oregon (p. 31, OR Department of Education, 1997b).
Recently, OTSC conducted a special study that reviewed Individual Education Plans (IEP) from 239 students over age 16 (or younger, if they had transition services listed on their IEP) for the status of delivery of transition services (1997b). For more details, the reader can refer to pp. 31- 32 of the Oregon 1996 Status Report: Special Education, Student Services, and Compensatory Education (Oregon Department of Education, 1997b).
The Oregon Department of Education has long term care and treatment programs in place that identify over 80% of their students as receiving special education services (OR Department of Education, 1997b, p. 41). The Portland School District is an example of a district that "provides education services to nine private agency treatment programs" (OR Department of Education, 1997b, p. 44). This district collected "pre-test/post-test measures of grade level equivalencies in reading and math for each child served, as well as collected measures of the percentage of students at their expected grade level in reading and math at entry and exit from the program" as part of a special pilot study (OR Department of Education, 1997b, p. 42, 44). The achievement tests used as measures were not described. For achievement data, the reader can refer to p. 42 of the Oregon 1996 Status Report: Special Education, Student Services, and Compensatory Education published by the Oregon Department of Education in 1997.
The Oregon Department of Education also completed a four-year Follow-Along Study of their graduates from the Oregon School for the Deaf (OR Department of Education, 1997b, p. 24-26). For post high school experience and employment information, the reader can refer to p. 26 of the Oregon 1996 Status Report: Special Education, Student Services, and Compensatory Education published by the Oregon Department of Education in 1997.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island provided us with three accountability reports, one of which included data on students with disabilities in this domain (RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a). Rhode Island uses the seventh edition of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) in mathematics and reading, as well as a state created exam – the Rhode Island Writing Assessment. The data reported here were collected in March, 1997 (RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a, p. 1).
Results are based on stanine scores from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) given to grades 4, 8, and 10 for 1995-96. Statistics representing fewer than 5 students are not reported. For mathematics and reading scores, Special Education students are those who are receiving special education services "less than 50% of the day." For the writing assessment, all special education students assessed are included (p. 7, RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a).
Low, medium and high scores are defined using the following stanine scores (RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a, p. 7):
Stanine 1 - 4 = Low score Stanine 5 - 6 = Middle scores Stanine 7 - 9 = High score
The writing achievement score is based on an essay written by students in grades 4, 8, and 10. Student essays are rated by teachers and given a score on a scale of 1 to 6. Students receive a single writing score ranging from 2 to 12 that represents the combined rating by two readers (p. 7, RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a).
Low, medium and high scores on the 12 point writing scale are defined as follows:
Score of 2 to 6 = Low Score of 7 to 9 = Middle Score of 10 to 12 = High
(RI Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 1997a, p. 7)
State 4th Grade Achievement Results
Grade 4 |
Grade 8 |
Grade 10 |
||||||||||
| Grp/ Test | # |
% Low |
% Mid |
% High |
# |
% Low |
% Mid |
% High |
# |
% Low |
% Mid |
% High |
| Spec Ed | ||||||||||||
| MAT Mth | 918 | 66.3 | 25.7 | 8 | 664 | 72.7 | 23.8 | 3.5 | 415 | 78.3 | 16.4 | 5.3 |
| MAT Rdg | 926 | 69.7 | 22.6 | 7.7 | 671 | 71.2 | 22.1 | 6.7 | 436 | 75.6 | 18.4 | 6 |
| RI Writing | 1259 | 69.8 | 28.9 | 1.3 | 994 | 71.5 | 22.2 | .3 | 638 | 66.6 | 31 | 2.4 |
| All | ||||||||||||
| MAT Mth | 10,935 | 37.2 | 33.1 | 29.7 | 9,825 | 38.2 | 34.3 | 27.5 | 8,119 | 39.9 | 31.3 | 28.8 |
| MAT Rdg | 10,975 | 36 | 33.1 | 30.9 | 9,851 | 38.5 | 33.3 | 28.2 | 8,235 | 37.9 | 36 | 26.1 |
| RI Writing | 11,385 | 41.5 | 50.1 | 8.4 | 10,245 | 36.5 | 55.3 | 8.2 | 8,534 | 29.4 | 57.5 | 13.1 |
Data taken from Rhode Island Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (1997a) pp. 11-13
South Carolina
South Carolina provided us with four accountability reports, three of which included data on students with disabilities in this domain (SC Department of Education, 1996a; SC Department of Education, 1996c; SC Department of Education, 1996d). The fourth document did provide descriptions of the assessments used (SC Department of Education, 1996b).
South Carolina administers its South Carolina Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP) "to assess student performance on statewide objectives in reading, mathematics, writing, and science for grades 3, 6, 8 and 10 (Exit Examination)" (SC Department of Education, 1996d, p.39 of Appendix C). No explanation of the standards was included.
The Metropolitan Achievement Test, Seventh Edition (MAT/7), is administered to grades 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11. The 3 R’s Battery used is a composite score of Reading, Mathematics, and Language (SC Department of Education, 1996d, p. 1 of Appendix C).
"The percentages of South Carolina students scoring in each of the four national quartiles in Reading, Mathematics, Language, and the 3R’s Battery of the MAT/7 for the various grades in 1995-96 are presented below" as well as the number of students tested (SC Department of Education, 1997d, p. 3 of Appendix C). MAT/7 results are reported by
percentage of students who scored in each national quartile: Quartile 1 refers to the 1 - 25 percentile; Quartile 2 refers to the 26 - 50 percentile; Quartile 3 refers to 51 - 75 percentile; and Quartile 4 refers to 76 - 99 percentile (SC Department of Education, 1996b, p. xii).
Disabled was defined as including students classified as disabled as well as those who are homebound (SC Department of Education, 1996b, p. vii).
Percentages by National Quarters (1996 Results)
MAT/7 Reading |
MAT/7 Math |
||||||||||
Grade |
Group |
# |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
# |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
Disabled | 3,857 | 59 | 23 |
9 | 9 | 4,114 | 48 |
23 |
13 | 15 |
| Non-Disabled | 42,684 | 31 | 27 |
20 | 22 | 42,683 | 23 |
23 |
20 | 35 | |
5 |
Disabled | 3,349 | 61 | 24 |
10 | 6 | 3,536 | 48 |
26 |
1 | 11 |
| Non-Disabled | 43,671 | 29 | 28 |
21 | 22 | 43,678 | 20 |
22 |
23 | 35 | |
7 |
Disabled | 2,929 | 67 | 20 |
9 | 4 | 2,970 | 68 |
19 |
9 | 4 |
| Non-Disabled | 44,602 | 27 | 26 |
22 | 25 | 44,567 | 29 |
25 |
22 | 25 | |
9 |
Disabled | 2,745 | 73 | 16 |
7 | 4 | 2,735 | 72 |
19 |
7 | 2 |
| Non-Disabled | 47,083 | 29 | 26 |
22 | 23 | 47,082 | 28 |
27 |
24 | 20 | |
11 |
Disabled | 809 | 73 | 17 |
7 | 3 | 768 | 67 |
23 |
6 | 4 |
| Non-Disabled | 30,775 | 23 | 29 |
24 | 24 | 30,359 | 23 |
26 |
22 | 29 | |
MAT/7 Language |
3 R’s Battery |
||||||||||
Grade |
Group |
# |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
# |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
Disabled | 3,845 | 47 |
30 |
14 |
9 | 3772 | 54 |
25 |
12 | 9 |
| Non-Disabled | 42,639 | 21 |
26 |
24 |
29 | 42,549 | 26 |
25 |
24 | 25 | |
5 |
Disabled | 3,307 | 51 |
29 |
14 |
6 | 3,231 | 55 |
26 |
12 | 7 |
| Non-Disabled | 43,627 | 18 |
26 |
28 |
28 | 43,542 | 22 |
26 |
24 | 28 | |
7 |
Disabled | 2,886 | 65 |
22 |
9 |
4 | 2,805 | 70 |
19 |
8 | 3 |
| Non-Disabled | 44,421 | 21 |
24 |
23 |
31 | 44,139 | 26 |
25 |
22 | 26 | |
9 |
Disabled | 2,718 | 72 |
19 |
7 |
2 | 2,650 | 76 |
17 |
5 | 2 |
| Non-Disabled | 46,959 | 23 |
26 |
26 |
25 | 46,258 | 27 |
27 |
23 | 23 | |
11 |
Disabled | 760 | 71 |
19 |
8 |
2 |
714 | 74 |
18 |
6 | 3 |
| Non-Disabled | 30,287 | 21 |
27 |
30 |
21 |
29,504 | 22 |
28 |
25 | 26 | |
Data taken from South Carolina Department of Education (1996d), pp. 8 - 32, Appendix C
Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP) 1996
Reading Tests |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
||||||
Grade |
Group |
% Mtg Stds |
# Tested |
% Mtg Stds |
# Tested |
% Mtg Stds |
# Tested |
% Mtg Stds |
# Tested |
3 |
Disabled | 64.4 | 4,993 | 66.8 | 5,268 | 38.7 | 3,621 | 48.0 | 4,954 |
| Non-Dis | 86.7 | 40,924 | 84.6 | 40,990 | 78.0 | 43,706 | 66.9 | 41,017 | |
8 |
Disabled | 30.2 | 3,502 | 26.7 | 3,538 | 42.6 | 3,415 | 22.6 | 3,571 |
| Non-Dis | 74.5 | 44,416 | 68.2 | 44,437 | 84.4 | 44,197 | 55.2 | 43,764 | |
10 |
Disabled | 43.5 | 1,871 | 38.2 | 1,876 | 45.4 | 1,844 | 12.2 | 3,386 |
| Non-Dis | 85.2 | 38,114 | 79.2 | 38,136 | 83.9 | 37,919 | 47.6 | 44,253 | |
Data taken from South Carolina Department of Education (1996d), pp. 8-32, Appendix C
Texas
Texas had educational data available on the World Wide Web. These data did include Educational Results data on students with disabilities (TX Education Agency, 1996). Texas disaggregated results of special education students for three tests: Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS); TASP (Texas Academic Skills Program); and an End-of-Course examination.
The TAAS is a criterion-referenced test that measures student achievement in reading and mathematics at grades 3 through 8 and 10, and science and social studies in grade 8 (TX Education Agency, 1996, p. 12 of "Glossary").
The TASP is a basic skills test measuring reading, writing and mathematics skills. It is required of all persons entering Texas public institutions of higher education for the first time (TX Education Agency, 1996, p. 13 of "Glossary").
The End-of-Course examination refers to the Biology I End-of-Course Exam that students completing a Biology I course must now take. Eventually End-of-Course Examination results will also be reported for Algebra I, English II, and United States History (TX Education Agency, 1996, p. 7 of "Glossary").
The TAAS/TASP equivalency indicator shows the percent of graduates from the class of 1993 and 1994 who did well enough on the exit-level TAAS to be expected to pass the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) test. To be counted for this indicator students must have received a TAAS score equivalent to the TASP passing standard; that is, they must have correctly answered at least 77% of the items on the reading test, and at least 70% of the items on the mathematics test and for the writing test, a combined rating of 5 or higher on the written composition or a combined rating of 4 with a scale score of 1560 or higher. Equivalency rates are shown for the class of 1994 (students first took the TAAS test in the fall of 1992) and the class of 1993 (students first took the TAAS test in the fall of 1991) (TX Education Agency, 1996, p. 13).
1994-95 TAAS Results – Participation and Percentage Passing
All Grades |
3rd Grade |
4th Grade |
5th Grade |
|||||
| TAAS | Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
| All Sections | 27.8 | 60.7 | 44.0 |
67.4 |
34.9 |
64.1 |
32.7 |
66.8 |
| Reading | 47.0 | 78.7 | 57.5 |
79.5 |
54.7 |
80.1 |
48.5 |
79.3 |
| Math | 34.1 | 65.9 | 52.4 |
73.3 |
43.6 |
71.1 |
39.6 |
72.6 |
| Writing | 45.0 | 82.0 | NA |
NA |
58.1 |
85.0 |
NA |
NA |
6th Grade |
7th Grade |
8th Grade* |
10th Grade |
|||||
| TAAS | Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
Sp Ed |
All |
| All Sections | 25.0 | 61.3 | 20.7 | 59.4 | 11.7 | 46.8 | 16.2 | 55.1 |
| Reading | 45.9 | 78.9 | 42.7 | 78.7 | 36.8 | 75.5 | 38.8 | 76.4 |
| Math | 28.1 | 64.6 | 23.2 | 62.3 | 19.8 | 57.3 | 21.8 | 60.2 |
| Writing | NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
31.3 | 75.3 | 45.4 | 86.3 |
* TAAS included two extra content areas at the Grade 10 level – science and social studies.
TAAS 9th grade results were not reported on the Web pages. Exemption rates are reported for those students exempted from the TAAS. Please refer to Appendix C.
TAAS/TASP Equivalency Tests
| % of Special Education Students Passing* | 11.9 |
| State % Passing | 53.9 |
Data taken from Texas Education Agency (1996), Web Pages 1-2
Virginia
Virginia provided us with two accountability documents, one of which provided Educational Results data on students with disabilities (VA Department of Education, 1997b). The other document provided interpretative information regarding Virginia’s assessment results (VA Department of Education, 1997a).
Virginia reported on the Virginia State Assessment Programs’ standardized tests that were given at grades 4, 8, and 11 (VA Department of Education, 1997b). It is unclear which standardized tests were used or whether they were created by the state. Virginia also reports on the passing of three Literacy Passport tests given in grade 6 (1997b).
The following table reported statewide improvement in increasing special education students’ living skills and opportunities. Within the table, the Literacy Passport 6th Grade Pass Rate referred to the percent of 6th grade special education students who passed all three Literacy Passport tests (p. 17, VA Department of Education, 1997a). The Statewide Percentage Point Improvement (number of increased or decreased percentage points in performance) from 1990-91 to 1995-96 for the Literacy Passport 6th Grade Pass Rate of Special Education students was 0, while the Statewide Percentage Point Improvement from 1994-95 to 1995-96 was 3 (VA Department of Education, 1997b, p. 5).
Table IV. Statewide Improvement on Objective IV
Increasing Special Education Students’ Living Skills and Opportunities
Indicator |
% Improvement 1990-91 to 1995-96 |
% Improvement 1994-95 to 1995-96 |
| Attendance, Special Education | 9 | 1 |
| Dropouts, Special Education | 1 | 0 |
| Regular or Advanced Studies Diploma, Sp Ed | – 5 | – 3 |
| Literacy Passport 6th Grade Pass Rate, Sp Ed | 0 | 3 |
| Work Experience | 3 | 0 |
| Co-Curricular Participation | 1 | – 2 |
| Number of Indicators Showing Improvement | 4 | 2 |
Data taken from Virginia Department of Education (1997b), p. 5