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 two targeted domains (only data beyond the federally required enrollment data are counted here); and (2) a reproduction of actual data on students with disabilities included in states’ reports, in the two domains targeted here.

Number in parentheses is the number of reports that include data on students with disabilities.

Alaska provided us with one accountability report that included state level disaggregated special education data in this domain. In addition to the data presented below, this report contained exit data not included here (Alaska Department of Education, 1997).

Alaska State Department of Education (1997), p. 8

Arizona provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in this domain. In addition to the data below, this report contained enrollment data not included here (Arizona Department of Education, 1997a). Arizona also had educational data available on the World Wide Web that did not include any state level special education data in this domain.

Arizona Department of Education (1997), p. 12

Connecticut provided us with two accountability reports, one of which included state level special education data in this domain. This report also contained enrollment data, exit data, and data on the presence and participation of special education students in various settings, which are not included here. Connecticut also provided us with a CD-ROM that did not include state level special education data in this domain (Connecticut Department of Education, 1997a, p. 1.).

Table 5

Connecticut State Department of Education (1997a) p. 12

Maine provided us with one accountability report. It did include state level special education data in this domain other than enrollment and dropout data not included here (Maine Department of Education, 1996). The Maine State Department of Education also had educational data available on the World Wide Web (Maine Department of Education, 1997).

Maine Department of Education (1997) p. 1

Massachusetts had educational data available on the World Wide Web. These data did include state level special education data in this domain as well as enrollment data not included here. Massachusetts also provided us with one accountability report that did not include state level special education data in this domain (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1997b).

Massachusetts Department of Education (1997b), unnumbered Web pages

New Hampshire provided us with six documents. Three of these contained data on students with disabilities in this domain.

The following table combines information from three reports about the populations of students who were not included in testing (total not tested and "excluded: educationally disabled"). The reports also included the number and percent of students excluded as "non - or limited-English proficient," "absent," and "other." Additional information on testing in New Hampshire, and test scores of students with disabilities who took the test, is in Appendix B.

Data taken from New Hampshire Department of Education (1996a), p. 2; (1996b), p. 2; (1996c), p. 2

New Jersey provided us with three documents. All three contained data on students with disabilities in this domain.

Two of the documents were regular education reports that contained data on participation in large scale assessment. One was a special education report that contained very detailed enrollment data, most of which are not reported here. The report also included exit data, dropout data, and data on the presence and participation of special education students in various settings not included here. New Jersey provided a Glossary of Abbreviations for the reader (see NJ State Department of Education, 1996, p 67).

Two of the documents sent to us by New Jersey contained data on the participation of students with disabilities in state-wide testing for grades 8 and 10. While these documents reported on the number of students with disabilities who were tested, they did not indicate the percentage of students with disabilities who were tested. Test scores for students with disabilities were not given in the reports and the scores of students with disabilities were excluded from the scores of general education students.

Grade 8 data taken from New Jersey State Department of Education (1995b), no page number given. Grade 10 data taken from New Jersey State Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (1996), p. 61.

New Mexico

New Mexico provided us with one document. This document did not contain data on students with disabilities in this domain. The document did contain enrollment data that are not included in this report (see New Mexico State Department of Education 1996). No specific data on the participation of students with disabilities were given in the report.

New York provided us with five reports. Three of these contained data on students with disabilities in this domain. These documents also contained enrollment data, exit data, dropout data, and data on the presence and participation of special education students in various settings not included here.

The University of New York et al. (1997a) provided the number of students taking the PEP test and the Regents Competency Test from 1991 to 1996. However, the actual percentage of students with disabilities taking the tests was not given. The following data were taken from the tables reproduced in Appendix B, which also provided the percent of students scoring above the State Reference Point (SRP) for these tests.

Data taken from the University of the State of New York et. al. (1997a), p. 193, Table 7.9

Data taken from the University of the State of New York et. al. (1997a), p. 194, Table 7.11

The University of New York et al. (1996b) provided the percent of students with disabilities who participated in testing in 1993-94 and 1994-95. These data were also included in Appendix B along with the percent of students scoring above the SRP.

Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1996a), p. I.21

Total Exempt includes information from both PEP and PET.

Failure to Graduate (Students with Disabilities who were Candidates for 1994-95 Graduation)

Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1996a), p. I.21

Other unique educational indicators used by the state of New York are enrollment of students with disabilities in workforce preparation programs and the outcomes of these programs. The VESID: 1996 Pocketbook of Goals and Results for Individuals with Disabilities compared students with and without disabilities who were enrolled in occupational education programs, indicating that very few students in special education (1.4%) participated in these programs.

Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. 17

The VESID: 1996 Pocketbook of Goals and Results for Individuals with Disabilities also provided the number of individuals with disabilities attending post secondary education programs, and the percent of students in these programs who obtain jobs. Job placement information is also given.

Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. 19

Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. 20

Note: Identical information is also provided in the Consolidated Special Education Performance Report (University of the State of New York 1996a, p. I.24)

See Appendix B for this information.

The University of the State of New York et al. 1996b, p. 23

Miscellaneous Indicators: Procedural Safeguards. New York is one of the few states that provided information about the use of procedural safeguards by students with disabilities and their families. The following information contained data on impartial hearings and appeals from 1992-93 to 1994-95 by the issue that was appealed. Data are also provided on the number of impartial hearings given from 1982-83 to 1994-95. These data were taken from more comprehensive charts and reproduced in the tables below.

The University of the State of New York et al. (1996a), p. I.32

Note: Only four issue categories, plus the totals, are presented here. A total of 26 categories were presented in the original report

*Data for 1992-93 to 1994-95 represent the number of students with disabilities, ages 3 to 21, provided special education programs or services pursuant to Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Data taken from The University of the State of New York et al. (1996a), p. I.33

Students Returning to General Education. Another indicator included in the Consolidated Special Education Performance Report is for those students with disabilities, ages 14-21 who had received special education and "returned to general education as a result of having met the objectives included in their IEP" (p. I.24). According to the report "these students no longer have an IEP and receive all educational services from a general education program" (p. I.24.)

Data taken from the University of the State of New York et al. (1996b), p. I.24

Oregon provided us with two accountability reports, one of which did include special education data other than enrollment and the presence and participation of special education students in various settings in this domain (OR Department of Education, 1997b). Both accountability reports contained special education enrollment data, including enrollment by disability, enrollment in the Oregon School for the Deaf, enrollment in the Oregon School for the Blind, and enrollment by primary disability of juvenile offenders housed in the Oregon Youth Authority correctional facilities.

Oregon Department of Education (1997b), p. 52

The following special study includes data on post high school experience and employment. A four-year study of OSD graduates shows clearly what former students are doing, providing accurate information for the direction of the educational program at OSD. Table 4 displays the results of this study. Examples of employers include: Boeing, Mervyns, State Farm, Willamette Industries, Praegitzer Industries, state agencies, Morrow Snowboards, Xerox, U.S. Postal Service, Nike, Salem Hospital, Tektronix, Sprint.

Data taken from Oregon Department of Education (1997b), p. 26

Oregon also provided information on students with disabilities in the domain of family involvement (Oregon State Department of Education, 1997b). The following 1994-95 data were from Oregon’s Special Education report "1996 Status report: Special education, student services, and compensatory education." This report included data on a special program, Together for Children (TFC) parent education program in Oregon for families considered to be at risk for having children with disabilities. Risk factors considered for the program included single or step-parented families, teen parents, low income, children with special needs, and some first-time parents.

TFC (Together for Children)

Data taken from Oregon State Department of Education, (1997b), p. 84

The report did not include data on the number of parents or children with disabilities included in the program.

South Carolina provided us with four accountability reports, three of which (SC Department of Education, 1996a; South Carolina Department of Education, 1996c; SC Department of Education, 1996d) included Educational Processes data, other than enrollment data, on students with disabilities. Two of the reports (1996b, 1996d) contained enrollment data on students with disabilities (which are not included here).

The participation rates in the table below refer to participation by students with a disability on the Stanford/8 and MAT/7 assessments and/or Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP). Disability was not defined in the documents (SC Department of Education, 1996a, p.5; SC Department of Education, 1996c, p.7).

Students with Disability and Tested**

**Comparisons are not reported in this category because percentages vary widely at different grade levels.

Note: Denominators for percents tested exclude enrollment for grades that are not tested.

Data taken from South Carolina Department of Education (1996a), p. 5; (1996c), p.7

Data taken from South Carolina Department of Education (1996d), p. 1, Appendix C

**Increase in student exemptions for the state is due to 2,557 (24%) more students with identified disabilities and instructional plans stating testing is inappropriate, 74 (30%) more students with English as a second language and unable to function in MAT7 testing situation, and 841 (99%) more students participating in the 12 Schools project and electing not to participate in MAT7 testing.

Below are the participation rates for participation in South Carolina’s Basic Skill Assessment Program (BSAP).

Data taken from South Carolina Department of Education (1996d), p. 1, Appendix D

**Increase in student exemptions for the state is due to 3,164 (46%) more students with identified disabilities and instructional plans stating that testing is inappropriate and 95 (74%) more students with English as a second language and unable to function in BSAP testing.

For further detail on participation by grades on the BSAP and MAT/7 in South Carolina, please refer to Appendix B.

Texas had educational data available on the World Wide Web. These data did include data on students with disabilities in this domain (TX Education Agency, 1996). The World Wide Web also contained enrollment data, exit data, and data on the presence and participation of special education students in various settings not included here.

Texas Education Agency (1996), unnumbered Web pages