Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 132 770 EC 092 201
AUTHOR Hayes, Robert B.; And OthersTITLE Special Education Quality Cost-Effectiveness
Study.INSTITUTION Pennsylvania state Dept. of Education, Harrisburg.
Bureau of information Systems.PUB DATE Oct 76NOTE 74p.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 BC-$3.50 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *cost Effectiveness; *Delivery Systems; Educational
Accountability; *Educational Quality; ElementarySecondary Education; Exceptional Child Research;*Handicapped children; *Program Costs; ProgramEvaluation; Special Education; *State Programs
IDENTIFIERS Pennsylvani
ABSTRACTinvestigated with a random sample of classes for each
of five categories of exceptionality--educable mentally retarded,trainable mentally retarded, socially and emotionally disturbed,brain injured, and physically handicapped--vere the costs of specialeducation in Pennsylvania elementary and secondary schools inrelation to its quality. Data were analyzed for four major studycomponents: (1) inputs (such as instructional setting), (2) outputs(student achievement_and social competence) , (3) costs, and (4) therelationships among inputs, outputs, and costs. Results indicatedthat special education pupils showed significant progress in basicskills and social maturity in the 1975-76 school year, that socialmaturity and achievement increases with chronological age, that thequality of special education instruction and programs is generallygood, that costs of special education vary considerably within eachcategory of exceptionality, that costs of special education did notconsistently correlate with quality of instructional programs, andthat costs of special education did not consistently correlate withachievement gains, but some relationship was discernible. (Findingsare presented in 15 figures and 30 tables whch make up the bulk ofthe document.) (Author/IM)
Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *
* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDES is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.* *********************************************************************
UI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION A WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
EDUCATION
?His DOCUMENT HAs (KEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY Al RECEIVED FROMTNE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OW IGIN*TING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINtONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOUCAT'ON POSITION OR POLICv
SPECIAL EDUCATIONQuality Cost- Effectiveness Study
Prepared byRobert B. HayesJohn G. CoberRobert N. ReynoldsDivision of ResearchBureau of Information SystemsPennsylvania Department of EducationOctober 1976
2
Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaMi Iton J. Shapp, Governor
Department of EducationJohn C. Pittenger, SecretaryRobert N. Hendershot, Executive Deputy Secretary
Bu o of Information Syste sScion H. Cho, Director
Division of ResearchRobert B. Hayes, Director
Pennsylvania Department of EducationBox 911
Harrisburg, PA 17126
ACKNOWIEDGEMENTS
The authors extend grateful appreciation to the special education directors,teachers, supervisors, psychologists and administrators who participated in thisstudy. Guidance from Sean H. Cho, Philip Mulvihill, Ferman Moody, Cary Makuchand William Ohrtman is also gratefully acknowledged.
e primary membe - of the research task force were Albert DiJohnson, JohnCober, Robert Reynolds and Barbara T. Davis. Other researchers who aided at keymoments were George Brehman, -lames Masters, Gregory Shannon, Alfonzo Zawadski,Robert Goldberg, William DiJnny, Russell Dusewicz and Grace Laverty.
We also extend sincere appreciation to ki1lin W. Cooley, josenh L. French,Richard A. Rossmiller, Harold E. Mitzel, Jack W. Birch, Harold DPlp, Daniel Saga,Richard Scherr, John A. Abbruzzese, Robert Algozzini, Sanfoid Temkin, JoannWeinberger, Charles E. Wernert, Donald A. Miller. Laura W. Mur71-,y, Partc,n B.Progar, Sara Tollinger, Ronald L. Finkenbinder and many others for their assistanceas consultants. In addition, we thank the following Penn State graduate studentswho were the raters of school quality: Gail and Randall Quayle, Richard Regan,Margaret Mavretich, Ellen L. Nuffer, Alex Johnson, Kathryn F. Bryant and DeborahSmith.
Finally, the following members of the research staff who capably assisted inpreparing the report were Judy Kinsey, Margaret Sharp, Bruce Ley, Ter y Murphy,Nancy Grissinger, Betsy Maines, Kathy Musselman and Caroline McCrone.
4
SUNNARi
This study examines the costs of special educa ion in Pennsylvania inrelation to its quality. Quality was measured with (1) achievement tests, (2) asocial maturity instrument and (3) a specially developed list of quality indicators.
The data analysis indicated:
1. Special education pupils showed significant progress in basic skills andsocial maturity in the 1975-76 school year. (This progress- is presentedin tabular form on page 3.)
2. Social naturity and achievement increases with chronological age.
Th, quality of special education instruction and programs generallyis good.
Costs of special education vary considerably within each cat_ ory ofexceptionality.
Costs of special education did not consistently correlate with qualityof inst-uctional programs as measured with the quality indicators.
6. Costs of special education did not consistently correlate with achievementgains, but some relationship was discernible. For example, costscontributed significantly to achievement gains in reading and spelling forthe elementary educable mentally retarded; in reading for the secondaryeducable mentally retarded; in reading for the elementary trainable mentallyretarded; and in spelling for the elementary socially and emotionallydisturbed, physically handicapped and brain injured.
The implications of this study are: (1) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania isfulfilling its obligations to special education students since the students aremaking signifieant progress, specifically in basic skills and social maturity;(2) the quality of programs offered by local education agencies generally is good;and (3) since no consistent relationship was established between costs and quality,there may be some way to reduce bigh-cost programs by studr g and comparinglow-cost programs with high-cost programs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement. .. . .. . . ........
y- .... ........ £ ..........Page
iii
iv
Introduction , . . .. . . . 1
Procedures 1
Sample 1
Inputs
Outputs 2
Costs 2
Statistical Analysis. .. .... .. . . . . 2
Results. . .. . . ... . . 2
General . .. . . . . . . . . 2
Is There a Significant Relationship between Costs and StudentAchievement? 10
Is There a Significant Relationship between Costs and Q_-li y? 11
Delivery Systems Costs 27
What Are the Minimum Costs for Effective Pr 1-ams?. 36
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Fall 1975 Social Age Average Scores by Chronological Age . . . 52 Average Reading Grade Equivalent Scores by Chronological Age 63 Average Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores by Chronological Age. 74 Average Math Grade Equivalent Scores by Chronological Age 85 Average TMR Profile Scores by Chronological Age. . 96 SED Elementary Costs
. . .. . . 167 SED Secondary Costs
178 Brain Injured Elementary Costs . .
. .... . 189 Brain Injured Secondary Costs. . . . . . . . . 19
10 Physically Handicapped Elementary Costs. . .. . 2011 Physically Handicapped Secondary Costs . ... . 2112 EMR Elementary Costs
2213 ERR Secondary Costs. .
2314 TMR Elementary Costs . .
0 0 0 ± ... 2415 TMR Secondary Costs
25
LIST OF TABLES
1 Fall 1975 Social Ages Scores, Socially & Emotionally Disturbed . 382 Fall 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores Socially &
Emotionally Disturbed 393 Fall 1975 Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores, Socially &
Emotionally Disturbed 404 Fall 1975 Arithmetic Grade Equivalent Scores Socially &
Emotionally Disturbed 415 Fall 1975 Social Age Scores, Brain Injured
. . . . . . . . . . . . 426 Fall 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores, Brain Injured . . . . . . 437 Fall 1975 Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores, Brain Injured. . . . . . 448 Fall 1975 Arithmetic Grade Equivalent Scores, Brain Injured 459 Fall 1975 Social Age Scores, Physically Handicapped. . . . . . 46
10 Fall 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores, Physically Handicapped. . 4711 Fall 1975 Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores, Physically Handicapped . 4812 Fall 1975 Arithmetic Grade Equivalent Scores, PhysiLally Handicapped . 4913 Fall 1975 Social Age Scores, Educable Mentally Retarded. . . . . 5014 Fall 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores, Educable Mentally
Retarded51
15 Fall 1975 Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores, Educable MentallyRetarded
5216 Fall 1975 Arithmetic Grade Equivalent Scores, Educable Mentally
Retarded53
17 Fall 1975 Social Age Scores, Trainable Mentally Retarded 5418 Fall 1975 TMR Profile Scores, Trainable Mentally Retarded 5519 EMR Social Maturity Gains, Commonality Analysis Results 5620 EMR Reading Gains, Commonality Analysis Results 5721 EHR Spelling Gains, Commonality Analysis Results 5822 ERR Arithmetic Gains, Commonality Analysis Results . . . 5923 TMR Social Maturity Gains, Commonality Analysis Results. . . . . . 6024 TMR Performance Profile Gains, Commonality Analysis Results. . . 6125 SED, BI and PH Social Maturity Gains, Commonality Analysis Results . . 6226 SED, RI and PH Reading Gains, Commonality Analysis Results . . . . 6327 SED, BI and PH Spelling Gains, Commonality Analysis Results. . . . 6428 SED, BI and PH Arithmetic Gains, Commonality Analysis Results. . . . . 6529 1974-75 Intermediate Unit Special Education Cost Per ADM, Elementary 6630 1974-75 Intermediate Unit Special Education Cost Per ADM, Secondary. . 67
vi
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted because of widespread concern about specialeducation. In view of the mounting pressures for accountability, it was decidedto examine costs in relation to quality.
Accordingly, this study sought answers to the following questions:
1. Is there a significant relationship between costs and student progressin basic skills and social competence?
2. Is there a significant relationship between costs and quality?3. What are the costs for the various delivery systems within each category
of exceptionality?4. What are the minimum costs for effective programs?
To answer these questions, it was decided that the four major componentswould be: (1) inputs (such as instructional setting), (2) outputs (studentachievement and social competence), (3) costs and (4) the relationships amonginputs, outputs and costs.
PROCEDU-RES
Sample
A random sample of classes was selected for each of the following fivecategories of exceptionality:
1. educable mentally retarded (SMR)2. trainable mentally retarded (MR)3. socially and emotionally disturbed (SED)4. brain injured (BI)5. physically handicapped (PH)
The sample was stratified by:
1. the number of pupils per except onality2. whether elementary or secondary3. range of costs4. demographic categories (inner-city, other metropolitan, suburban and rural)
Inputs
The lengthy effort which resulted in an indicator of Quality instrument willbe described in a technical manual. The items in this instrument are criteria ofeffectiveness deemed important by teachers, supervisors, parents, members ofadvocacy groups, college faculty and special educators in the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education. The resulting 54-item instrument was administered in the
spring of 1976 by a carefully trained team of eight Penn State graduate students.Their ratings were based on a combination of classroom observations, interviews ofteachers and their supervisors (or school psychologists) and screening of pupilrecords. Subsequent analysis resulted in selecting the 38 items which best reflectthese major factors:
1. instructional process2. instruction setting, program_ and services3. administrative and instructional support4. integration with regular classroom
The following tests were administered in the fall of 1975 and late spring1976 to EMR's, SED's. BI's and PH's:
Vineland Social Maturity ScaleWide Range Achievement Test
The Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the TMR Performance Profile wereadministered to the TMR's in the same time period.
Costs
A new form and detailed instructions were devised in consultation withintermediate unit special educators to obtain 1974-75 costs for (1) generaladministration, (2) special education administration, (3) direct inStructionalcosts, (4) instructional support and (5) instructional materials and equipment.A separate form was prepared to collect 1974-75 costs of delivery systems.Intermediate unit personnel completed these forms in the fall and winter of 1975-76for each category of exceptionality.
_S_tatiatical Analyaia,
This included descriptive statistics, correlation coeffieents and multipleregression (commonality analysis).
RESULTS
General
In the 1975-76 school year, special education students made significant progressin basic skills and social maturity. The gains reported on the next page far exceedgains which could be attributed to chance. The probability in most cases for thisprogress being due to chance is less than two out of 10,00n.
The gains reported on page 3 are quite remarkable, especially when one considersthat there was only a five- to seven-month interval between the fall and springtest periods. The average IQ scores of students were: 92.4 for SED's, 92.3 for HI'77.1 for PH's- 69.6 for EMR's and 41.5 for TMR's.
9
Social and Cognitive Classroom Achievement Gains
Pretest PostrestAchievement Gain
Socially and Emotionally Disturbed (SED)
Vineland-Social Age 11.2 12.6WRAT Reading 4.92 5.76WRAT Spelling 4.33 4.76WRAT Arithmetic 4.28 5.10
1.4a0.84b0.430.82
67
6868
68
Tr Brain Injured (SI)
Vineland-Social Age 11.2 12.9 1.7WRAT Reading 3.37 4.07 0.70WRAT Spelling 2.95 3.40 0.45WRAT Arithmetic 3.50 4.15 0.65
III Physically Handicapped (PH)
Vineland-Social Age 7.4 8.0 0.6 44WRAT Reading 3.65 4.20 0.55 44WRAT Spelling 3.04 3.49 0.45 44WRAT Arithmetic 3.04 3.55 0.51 44
IV Educable Mentally Retarded (EKR)
Vineland-Social Age 10.9 12.3 1.4 148WRAT Reading 2.94 3.28 0.34 148WRAT Spelling 2.93 3.18 0.25 148WRAT Arithmetic 3.11 3.49 0.38 148
V Trainable Men ally Retarded (TMR)
Vineland-Social Age 5.8 6.8 1.0 61TMR Profile 444.38 509.80 65.42d 65
41.4 equals a 1 year, 4 months average gain in social age in the 5-7 monthsbetween tests in the 1975-76 school year.
b0.84 is a grade equivalent score average gain of slightly over 8 monthsin the 5-7 months between tests in the 1975-76 school year.
CRepresents the number of classes used to compute the means
d65.42 represents an average raw score gain on the TMR performance profilein the 5-7 months between tests in the 1975-76 school year.
1 0
3
Another encouraging result is that social lu,turi and achievement generallyincrease with chronological age (see graphs on .ages _, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Theforegoing reflect results which are reported I more detail in Tables 1-18, pages38-55.
The positive significant relationship between chronological age and test resultsis reinforced by the following:
Corr lat_ n Coe cients between Age and Fall 1975 Test Resul
SED B1 PH
Social Age .72 .80 .32 .77 .56
Reading .64 .57 .48 .62 =
Spelling .62 .60 .50 .67
Arithmetic .69 .69 .50 .72
TKR Profile .50
All of the above correlations are significant. They would not be duechance factors more than one time out of 1,000.
The smaller gains by years in special education, shown in Tables 1-18,probably reflect the relatively few years per child in special education asfollows:
SED
Average Years 1.8
in Sp. Ed.
HI PH
1.5 4.7
At the same time in those categoriesin special education ranges from 4.4 to 5.3test results as follows:
Co relation Coe
4.4 5.3
exceptionality where the average yearsthere are significant relationships with
-icients between Years in S ecial Educationand Fall 1975 Test Results
SED HI PH EMR
Social Age .23 .09 .06 .45 .42
Reading .13 .05 .40 .30
Spelling .12 .03 .36 .35
Arithmet- .14 .02 .38 .43
TMR Profile -- .35
The above correlations for the EiR and TMR are significant. They would notbe due to chance factors more than one time out of 1,000. The foregoing also
,applies to the correlations in reading, spelling and arithmetic for the PH. Inthose categories of exceptionality where the pupils remain in special education onthe average of four or more years, special education does seem to make a significantcontribution toward improved achievement in the basic skills.
1
4
19
16
17
16
16
14
13
12
1
8
4
2
FIGURE 1SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
FALL 197 5 SOCIAL AGE AVERAGE SCORES BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
,
i
,,
4 ,/
t-
a,,
r,
All
II
,
..
P
.,4P
BI .SED
BAR
PH_
_TMR;
6
or less7 8 9 10 11 12
CHRONOLOGI CAL AGE
BI
BAR
PH
TMR
13 14 15 16 17
or older
1 2
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.50uw
I--6 5.0
4.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0_5
FIGURE 2SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH SRIDY
AVERAGE READING GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
;.-
i f
'..
it.
Of°....°
-
1
4.
A.
a
-
6or less
7 8 9 10 11 12
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
6 13
13 14
SED
BI
PH
BAR
15 16 17or older
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
ul 6.0
0
LU
LU
0 4 5
z 4.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
AV
FIGURE 3
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
SPELLING GRADE EWIVALENT SCORES BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
MIFillME
._a
6
or less7 9 10
1 4 al NOLOCICAL AGE
7
11 12 14 15 17
S ED
PH
or older
FIGURE 4SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
AVERAGE MA7H GRADE EOUIVALMIT SCORES BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
6 7or less
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
or olderCHRONOLOGICAL AGE
8 15
580
5
5
500
4
Li)tc' 4
2380
280
2
FIGURE 6
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDYAVERAGE 111AR PROFILE SCORES BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
6or less
12
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
16 9
14 15 16 17or older
Is There a Sjnjficant Relation h between Costs and Student Achievement?
This research attempted to study "school effects" in special education byinvestigating the unique and joint (cowman) contribution of costs, qualityand background to achievement. A form of multiple regression known as commonalityanalysis was the major analytic procedure.
Gains in achievement scores (spring 1976 results minus fall 1975 results) wereused as the "criteria" while costs, quality and background were used as "predictors"in the commonality analysis. Background (cumulative effects of home, school, etc.)was measured by fall 1975 test scores. Quality and costs were measured as reportedpreviously on pages 1 and 2 under "Procedures." Classroom means were the statisticalunit of analysis.
The percentages of the explainable variance* accounted for by costs were asfollows:
Percentae of Variance Contributed_ by Cpsts
ElementaTy Secondary
Social Maturity 4.21 9.87Reading 84.60 73.39Spelling 79.29 38.58Arithmetic 78.81 37.42
Social Maturity 29.63 8.16TMR Performance Pro 86.06 1.11
BI and PH Combined
Social Maturity 29.47 43.21Reading 18.73 21.41Spelling 36.60 32.43Arithmetic 52.61 11.37
Costs significantly contributed to achievement gains in reading and spellingfor the elementary EKR's; in reading for the secondary EMR's; in reading for theelementary TMR's; and in spelling for the SED's, PH's and Bi's. A more completetechnical reporting of the commonality results may be seen in Tables 19-28,pages 56-65.
*For example, as indicated in_Table 20, page 57, the total explainable uniquevariance (R's) for EMR reading gains was 0.1915. This means that the variablesincluded in the regression equation were able to predict 19.15 per cent of thetotal variance for EMR reading gains.
1710
Is There a Si nificant Relationshlp_ttlitttri=911UuTiAallial
Before reporting relationships between costs and quality, we feel the readershould know more about the Indicators of Quality instrument described briefly onpages 1 and 2 under "Inputs." The content of the items ani the collective qualityratings for 386 special education classes on a scale of I (low) to 5 (high orbest) were as follows:
Factor 1 - Instruc ional Process(11 items)
ItemLontent
1. Objectives are comprehensive and specific.
2. Individual differences are provided for.
3. There is individual diagnosis andprescription.
Awareness of individual capabil es isreflected in time scheduling.
5. Teacher skillfully gains and maintainsstudent attention.
6. Each student is encouraged to participate.
7. Work is assigned on the basis of needs,interests and ability of each child.
Teacher adjusts techniques to needsof each student.
9. Teacher checks individual progressfrequently.
10. Teacher encourages and effectivelyhandles questions.
11. Teachers uses training aides effectively.
Ratings in Per Cent
7 18 27
6 22
2 12 23
2 5 45
2 6 32
2 5 26
2 7 36
4 7 37
2 7 31
5 11 30
3 15 34
Factor II - Classroom Setting, Program and Services(13 items)
1. Classroom is flexible enough to allowa diversity of activities.
2. Classroom space is adequate.
3. Furniture is adequate.
4. Equipment is adequate.
1811
4 18 29
9 13 39
4 25 37
2 16 33
22 27
35 35
32 32
27 21
35 26
45 24
32 23
30 24
33 27
36 19
30 18
24 25
21 18
19 19
27 22
Item
ContentRat n a in Per Cent
5. Classroom includes attractivelearning centers.
7 28 28 18 19
6. Adequate classroom pace andappropriate facilities are providedfor itinerant services.
12 17 45 10 16
7. There is a continuum of programa andservices through all school ages.
18 18 61
8. Program provides for total rangeexceptionality, including themultiply handicapped.
0 8 18 12 61
9. A parent education program is anintegral part of special education.
14 17 38 23
10. Speech program is provided for allstudents.
6 0 10 6 77
Itinerant vision and hearing teacherswork with kindergarten pupils.
9 6 72
12. Services of physical therapist areavailable for all who need them.
20 11 54
13. Public reiations effort maintainscommunity awareness and interest inspecial education.
18 15 24 29 14
Factor III - Administration and Instructional Support(9 items)
1. Appropriate examination records foreach child, including psychological,vision and hearing screening, are on file
1 20 18 58
2. Continual (cumulative growth) records ofstudents' progress are maintained.
8 22 16 54
3. An educational assessment of each childindicating strengths and weaknesses inspecific skill areas are on file.
10 9 11 20 50
4. Preschool screening is available. 15 4 24 19 38
5. Early and comprehensive identificationof "high risk" school-age children and
18 6 24 42 10
immediate follow-up of individualprescription and instruction are 19available.
12
ItemContent
Ratin:e in Per Cent1 2
6. The educational assignment of every 2 1
special education pupil is reevaluatednot less than every two years.
7. Supervisor provides leadership in 9 14introducing needed and beneficialprogram changes.
8. Supervisor allots time for andencourages staff/parent conferences.
2 16
9. Teacher shares information with 2 10
special education associates and/orother staff.
Pa-- or rv integration with Regular Classroom(5 items)
1. Special education classes are located 33 6
within regular schools or have readyaccess to them.
2. There is evidence of a systematic plan to 27 15
integrate special education studentsinto regular programs.
Special education pupils placed in 34 12
regular classes are provided help byresource and/or special educationteachers.
4. Pupils are given an opportunity toparticipate in social, arts, musicand physical education activities withnonhandicapped pupils.
43
5. Nonhandicapped children are 36 16encouraged to accept and help specialeducation children.
3 4 5
4 15 78
27 18 32
26 6 50
25 25 39
2 1 58
21 14 24
13 16 25
4 39
19 15 14
The significance of the relationships between the above indicators and costa ofspecial education will be described with correlation coefficients. The significanceof such correlations is a function of the number of paired cases as wallas the sizeof the correlation. If.all paired values, when plotted, form a perfectly straightline, the relationship would be the highest possible and the correlation coefficientwould be 1.00. If the high values of one variable tend to be associated with thehigh values of the other, the correlation is positive. . A negative correlation resultswhen the high values of one variable tend to be associated with the low values ofthe other.
The following correlations indicated both significant positive and-negativerelationships between costs and total scores on the indicators of quality instrument.The underlined correlations are significant, since they should not be due to chandefactors more than five times out of 100. There are 13 significant correlations, of
13 2 0
which six are positive and seven are negative.
Correlations Between Costs and Total Quality Sco e
Elementary Classrooms
Cost Cate or SED BI PH EMR
Spec. Ed. Administration -.50* -.04 .00 .19 .20Instructional Salaries -.53*
...._._.01 .10 .08 -.02
Other Instructional Costs .31* -.05 -.27 -.11 -.19Support Services -.01 -.64* -.08 .10 -.12Instructional Materials .05 =56* -.23 .17
Secondary Classrooms
Spec. Ed. Administrati n -13 .06 .04 .35* .00Instructional Salaries _ .08 .06 .42* -.05 -.13Other Instructional Costs .02 .12 -,53* .24 .27Support Services -.42* -.29 -.27 .11Instructional Materials -,52* .23 .02 _09* .10
The above findings make it difficult to generalize except to say it appearsthere is no consistent relationship between costs and quality as measured in the1975-76 school year.
The five cost areas selected for the research analysis and the line budgetitems under each were:
1. special education administration
. principals
. directors of special education
. supervisorsinstructional advisers
. clerical
2. instructional teachers
teachers. teacher substitutes. other instructional staff
other instructional costs
. instructional assistant
. contracted services
4. special education support
school psychologist. psychiatristnurses
21
14
clinical psychologistpsychiatric social workertherapistsclericalother expenses
. contracted medical services
5. instructioual materials
textbooksaudiovisualssuppliesother items
. other expense --alscellaneous
Other costs included:
contracted auditing servicescontracted legal services
. other contracted services
. staff travel
operation and maintenance salariesoperation and maintenance suppliesfael for buildingutilitiesother expenses of maintenanceinstructional equipment replacementnoninstructional equipment replacementcontracted services for maintenance
. employe retirementSocial Security
. Workmen's Compensationemploye insurancefire insuranceother insurancerentother fixed chargessupplementary feeding
. new instructional equipmentnew noninstructional equipment
The 10 charts on the next several pages show the percentages of average classcosts for the various cost areas.
22
15
FIGURE 6
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
SED aEMBITARY COSTS
C11ONAL SALARIES45.7%
OTHERINSTRUCTION
AVBIAGE CLASS ,9
FIGURE 7
VECI AL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
SED SECONDARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES42.8%
OTHER COSTS24.2%
AVERAGE
2 4
17
$24,755
FIGURE 8
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARC31 STUDY
BRAIN INJURED ElEMBITARY COSTS
INSTRUCT] ON AL SALARI ES
44.8%
OTHER COSTS23.9%
OTHER INSTTIUCliON15.0%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $25,074
2 5
18
EGURE 9
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
BRAIN INJURED SECONDARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES47.1%
011-1ER COSTS
20.4%
OTHER INSTRUCTICt4
15.6%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $21.233
2 6
19
FIGURE 10
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY
PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED ELINENTARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES
45.3%
OTHER INSTRLICTION16.0%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $23,864
27
20
FIGURE 11
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH S1UDYPHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED SECONDARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES47.6%
INSMUCTIONAL MATERI ALS
4.25.
OMER INSTRUCTION16.7%
AVERAGE CLASS COST 827,605
282 1
OTHER COSTS18.0%
FIGURE 12
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH SlUDY
EMR ELMENTARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES
60.6%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $18,546
2 9
22
FIGURE 13
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDYEMR SECONDARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES62_8%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $16,9 11
3 0
2 3
FIGURE 14
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
TPAR ELMENTARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARI ES40.3%
OTHER INSTRUCTION18.3%
AVERAGE CLASS COST $26
3 1
24
FIGURE 15
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDYTMR SECONDARY COSTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARI ES44.1%
OTHER INS1TUCTION
AVERAGE CLASS COST $26,175
3225
Figures 6-15 are summarized as follows:
Percentage Compar son of Costs by Categories of Exceptionality
Instruc.Salaries
OtherInstruc.
Instruc.Materials
Instruc.Su port
Sp.Ed.
Admin.OtherCos_ts
Ave.ClassCost
45.7 12.2 4.3 5.0 7.0 24.9 25,908
SED S* 49.8 10.1 10.3 5.4 7.2 24.2 24,755
B1 E 44.8 15.0 3.8 4.0 8.5 23.9 25,074
RI S 47.1 15.6 7.3 3.5 6.0 20.4 21,283
PH- E 45.3 16.0 4.8 7.5 8.5 17.9 26,864
PH- 47.6 16.7 4.2 6.8 6.7 18.0 27,065
EIS 60.6 4.1 5.3 6.1 22.4 Th,546
62.8 3.5 5.4 6.5 16.6 16.6 16,911
E 40.3 18.3 4.9 4.3 7.8 24.5 26,156
44.1 18.0 3.6 3.8 8.7 21.9 26,175
*E means elementary; S means secon ary.
A considerable range of costs exists for the various categories of exceptionality(see Tables 29 and 30, pages 66-67). Some intermediate units are spending twiceas much on EMR's per average daily membership (ADM) as other Wis. Several ITJ'sare spending about three times more than other Ili's on TMR's. Eight are spendingmore than $5,000 per ADM on SED's while three are spending less than $2,000 per ADM.Four are spending more than $5,000 per ADM on BI while six are spending less than$2,000.
26
Delivery System Costs
The following instructional delivery systems costs are based on detailedinstructions furnished intermediate unit spetial education directors:
Sociall and Emotionall- Disturbed Deliver Systems Costs Per Class
Type ofDelivery Systems
No. Classes
119--E9S_t_td_ Average Range
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
37 $16,798 $ 9,415 - 29,344
Reg. classesparttimeresource room
5 12,951 11,167 - 16,624
Spec. classes -reg. classfor nonacademicwork
8 15,808 11,504 - 21,989
Spec. classesreg. classfor selectedacademic work
773 11,504 - 18,388
Reg. classes -consultant orhelping teacheravailable
5 13,245 10,430 - 19,700
Work-studyspec. educ.classes
19,133
Spec. classes -resource room
1 16,555
Full-time self-contained classes were the largest number reported. They hadan average cost of $16,798, which was grea er than the other delivery systems,except the one work-study class reported.
'Delivery system costs include only operational costs, such as third-year salaries ofteachers, aides and support and research staff; supplies; textbooks; materials andmaintenance costs for instructional and noninstructional equipment.
3,127
Brain In-ured Delivery_§If_tems Costs_ Per Class
Type ofDelivery System
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
Reg. classes -parttimeres-aurce room
pec. classes -reg. classfor nonacademicwork
Spec. classesreg. classfor selectedacademic work
Reg. classes -consultant orhelping teacheravailable
Vocational spec.educ. with workexperience
Spec. classes -resource room
Itinerant
No. ClassesReported Range
35 $16,071 $12,337 - 28,583
19 15,437 9,828 - 21,275
9 16,461 12,008 - 16,461
10 18,133 1' 008 - 27,400
12,081 10,236 - 17 840
1 15,346
15,299 10,523 - 19,004
1 10,625
Costs reported for the spec al class resource room are in addition tocosts for the other delivery sys ems.
The least expensive syitem is a regular class program with a consultingor helping teacher.
28
Phsicall--Elms Costs Per Class_
Type of No. ClassesDelivery System Reported Average Range
Full-time self- 40 $17,027 $ 9,874 - 17,027contained spec.educ. class
Spec. classesreg. classfor nonacademicwork
Spec. classesreg. classfor selectedacademic work
In-homeinstruct on
2
14,248
16,067 15,021 - 16,113
14,624 10,050 - 19,290
Four types of delivery systema were reported. The most expensIve andmost widely used was the full-time self-contained delivery system.
3 6
29
Educable Deliver Costs Per Class
Type of No. ClassesDelivery System Leported Average EaTla
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
29 $13,855 $ 9 426 - 21 228
Reg. classes -parttimeresource room
2 27,626 11,683 - 43,568
Spec. classes - 16 12 303 9 06 20,464Reg. classfor nonacademicwork
Spec classes -reg. classfor selectedacademic wor
8 12,256 9,966 - 18,763
Work-studyspec. educ.classes
10 15,895 8,600 - 24,200
Vocational spec. 6 11,981 9,200 - 18,935educ. with workexperience
Six types of delivery systems were reported by the intermediate unitspecial education directors.
The work-study delivery system was the most erpensive. The number ofclasses reported, the average cost and the range of the costs give a betterestimate of the various costs.
3 7
30
Type ofDelivery System
Trainable Delive Systems OostS Per_Class
Range
No. ClassesRe_p_orted Averge
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
51 $16,728 $10,083 - 26,857
Spec. classesreg. classesfor nonacademicwork
2 19,205 17,041 - 21,368
Work-studyspec. educ.classes
1 15,953
Voca ional spec.educ. with workexperience
18,191 9,200 - 23,698
1n-homeinstruction
12,326 9,200 - 17,475
Five types of delivery systems were reported. The special educationclass with a regular class for nonacademic work and the vocational specialeducation class with work experience were higher in cost than the self-contained class. Only one work-study class was reported. The in-home costwas the least expensive.
31
8everel- and Profoundl- Retarded Deliver_8vstems Costs Per Class
Type ofDelivery Syg_tem
No. ClassesEfported AHMaL
Full-time self- 32 $17,925contained'spec.educ. class
In-home
Le2p_g_t
,381 - 25,807
12 10,902 8,850 520
Only two delivery systems were reported. The average cost for thefull-time self-contained class is the highest for the two delivery systemsreported.
Detention Homes Deliver S stems Costs Per Class
Type of
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
No. Classes
EfEEIEL251___
15
Averakz Range
$13-819 $ 9,172 - 36,600
In-home 1 9,785xnstruction
Most of the costs reported represented secondary programs, since de_ ntionhomes usually have older children.
32
11earip-
Type of
al1X2IY_EX!LTR-
No. Classes2ported Average Range
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
24 $14,117 $9,462 - 27,098
Reg. Classes -parttimeresource room
1 11,234
Spec. classes -itinerant speech,vision andhearing aid
864
Spec. classes -reg. classfor nonacademicwork
1 11,234
Spec. classes -reg. classfor selectedacademic work
12,848
Itinerant 34 10,905 8,835 - 19,445
Providing regular class children with speech, vision and hearing aidis the most economical method reported. The cost reported only representsthe additional cost for this service.
33
Visually Im aired Delivery
Type ofDelivery Sytem
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
No. Classes111torted_ AMESR EAME
12 $16,608 $12,608 - 23,201
Reg. classes - 1 13,316parttimeresource room
Spec. classes -reg. class forselected academicwork
Itinerant 42
13,316
10,917 2,570 - 15 968
The self-contained delivery system for the visually impaired is the mostexpensive, but the itinerant program is used most frequently.
eech_and Lan aired Deliver S stems _Costs Per Class
Type aDelivery System
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
No. ClassesReported_
2
AVerage
$16,229
Spec. classes - 1 10,625reg. classfor nonacadem cwork
Raw
$9 302 - 23 155
Itinerant 38 11,550 8,280 - 19,034
The itinerant delivery system is the most frequently reported deliverysystem. Costs are reported as a caseload cost. Teacher caseloads normallyrange from 80 to 90 pupils instructed at least once a week for 45 minutes or40 to 45 children per clinician instructed twice a week. The total number ofchildren does not exceed 100 per clinician.
4 1
34
Gifted and Talented Deliveu Systems Costs Per Class
Type ofDelivery System
Full-time self-contained spec.educ. class
Reg. classes -parttimeresource room
Spec. classes -itinerant speech,vision andhearing aid
Spec. classes -reg. class_for nonacademlework
Reg. classes -consultant orhelping teacheravailable
In-homeinstruc tlon
Itinerant
No. ClassesReported Average Range
4 $10,348 $ 9,403 - 11,756
15,255 9,489 - 30,314
1 13,618
10,890 9,119 - 11,776
5 20,704 8,725 - 32,454
1 9,856
4 ,857 9,914 - 24,208
Gifted and talented delivery systems had the highest average cost of allthe categories reported--$20,704 for a regular class with a consultant or helpingteacher available.
4 2
35
What Are the Minimum Costs for Effective P o rams
Minimum costs for a program as a specific dollar amount could not bedetermined. Teacher salaries are set at the negotiating table and vary withexperience. A big factor in cost is the size of the class. In special education,state guidelines require a minimum class size and also set a maximum by exceptionality
-as follows:
1. Elementary SED
Self-contained class size - five to eight
Secondary SED
Self-contained class size - eight to 12Resource rooms - eight to 12
Paraprofessionals may be employed in self-contained elementary classes whenthe size of the full-time class is maintained at a minimum of seven ADM andwhen the diversity and severity of emotional problems warrant the use ofparaprofessionals.
2. Brain Injured
Class size minimum of five pupils; optimum class size is eight. A maximumof 12 is allowed only when the group presents minimum management problems.
Resource room - minimum of six pupils
A paraprofessional may be employed under specif c conditions:Full-time class exceeds fiveResource room exceeds 15 AMD
Physically Handicapped
Full-time program
Class size - minimum of eight and maximum of 12; the profoundly handicappedhave no minimum number.
An aide normally is permitt d when five or more are enro led, or when threeseverely handicapped students are enrolled.
4. Elementary EMR
Class size - minimum of 10 and a maximum of 18
Secondary EMR
Class size - in half-day class/ha -day work program, minimum of 15 inADM and maximum of 18.
Homeroom diagnostic with integrated activi ie- on a release-time basis -15 minimum in ADM; maximum of 20.
Full-time homeroom - minimum of 10 in ADM; maximum of 18.
36
Resource room - minimum of 15 in ADM; maximum of 30. No more than 15are allowed in the room at one time.
5. Elementary and Secondary TMR
Class size - minimum of seven and maximum of 18
A paraprofessional or teacher aide is permissible or required undercertain conditions:
. An aide is permissible when class size is more than eight but lessthan 15.An aide must be employed when class size is 15 or more.
One could conclude that the minimum cost for each category of exceptionalitywould result when all classes would enroll a maximum number of pupils; then fewerclasses would result in fewer teachers and classrooms, with savings to the districtsand the state. The wide range of reported costs is reflected in Tables 29 and 30,pages 66 and 67.
Special education cost indices were developed to indicated how much more, on theaverage, it costs to provide special education compared to regular education. Inorder to obtain comparable data, costs of transportation, capital outlay and debtservice were deducted from 1974-75 regular education total costs.' This resultedin statewide regular education ADM costs of $951 for elementary, $1,273 for secondaryand $1 191 for total which were used in preparing indices for ILI special educationcosts.-
Special Education Costs Indices
Hxceptionality Elementary Indices Secondary indices Total Indices
2.38 1.66 1.83TMR 3.43 2.00 2.50SED 4.45 2.87 3.41PH 3.64 3.25 3.08BI 3.53 1.82 2.67
S & PMR3 3.52 2.71 2.83Gifted 3.32 1.58 2.10Detention - 2.30 2.43Vision 8.25 4.14 6.03Hearing 7.11 4.00 5.51Speech 6.62 5.56 5.33
1Source: Bureau of Information Syste-- Division of Statistics, Calculator, Vol.17, No. 8
2source: Bureau of Information Systems, DEAS 1340
3S & PKR equals Severely and Profoundly Mentally Retarded
37
Year inSpecial Id.
6orlea. 7 8 9 10
Special Educstton Riseearch Study
Table 1
Fall 1975 Social Aga Scores. Socially and Emotionally Dimturbed Saupla()Nabors of Pupils Shown in Parentheses)
By Chronological Age12 13 16
.9 7.8 8.1 1D.9 13.5 11.2 15.8 .5 15.0 11.5(2) (4) (I) LIAL_12)(7) m_(4) (5) (4) (53)
14.4 12.9 10.8 11.8 13.5 14.7 13,8 18.5 14.1(1) - (W_._---11----(1)-----SILL L4L-L111_-
14.4 10.9 10.6 17.5 12.6 18.0 12.3- -_(12)__._
17.0 18.3 16,5-
5)
5.7 7.5 8.6 9,5 10.1(11.) (261 (3 8) 1_51_ _(1151
6.3 6 .6 8.9
C) (4) (10) 11:)4.5 6.5 .
90-99 (1) (3) (9)
5.6 7.9 9.0100-109_ _ (2) (5) (8)
7.2 9.5
0
9.0 8 8(20) (26)8.0 10.4(14) (19)
10.1 1. 310(9) (8)
10.8 11.0
12.9 17.5 17.0
15.0 17.0 19.02
3.2(1)_____
18.7
11.5 12.6 15.0 15.5 15.0 16.(35) (46) 1561, 4 (39) J
By Chronological Age11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
15.0
15.54
0971
10.9 11.3 12.3 11.3 16.5 16.0 16.5 11.2(162 (17) (22) (27) (17) _001_ (15) 1189)10.4 11.8 11.8 15.3 15.3 15.5 18.0 11.0(12) (e) (14) (5) (12) 5) (10) (110)_.9- 13.2 15.8 17.3 17.3 15.5 13.8 11.7
(5) (3) (6) (6) (8) (8) (2_)(2±I)12.9 11.3 13.8 15.8 12.9 11.7 19.5 12.0
110-119 6: 4) (3 5 ( (5) (4) ( 91(3.9 11.7 6 8 13 2
(1 ) (2) (2
2
.6 16.0.29 - z__ _AP
5.7 7.5 6 9.5 10.1 11.0 11.5Total (El (23) (48) (52) (42) (29)
.4
2
1 or lama 2 3 41776----1.2 11.30 90 2
90-99
042_ (20_
I] YO4rs in Special Education5 6 7 8 9 10
12.6 16.8 0 13.211
6
7
12 Total
11.2(181111.011011.7
12.0
2
14.4
1007-10P
4.429 2
.0 11.3 11.5 14.1 12.6 13.2 l.1(2) _ (4111
Tears inSpeCial Ed.
Spacial Education Eecearh Study
Table 2
FaIl 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores, Socially and Emotionally Di urbsd Sample(Numbers of Pupils Shown in Parenthesea)
leas
_2 _11.11_1_91 A9°2.65 2.6 3 1']3 4.06 5.00 4.40 5.31 4.98 7.42 6.53 4.60
- (2) (4)
4.60 4.07 1.70 4.84 6.16 5.45 5.83 6.40 5.664 (31)
. o 6.03 5.48 5.67 1.50 6.60 5-24m
6.80 2=40 4.22 1.70 4.20 4.046
By Chronological Age11 12 13 14 15 16 17 _Total
4.54 4.46 5.07 6.89 7.72 9.94 8.16 4.62
_cuaEZ.1.31___.40 9.69 8.60 5.31
7
9
5.78 12.05 6.60 7.69
2.20 8.60 6.471). -
10
11 _
1.19 2.16 2.76 2.92 3.75 4.63 4.48 5.35To (11) (28_)(_3_6)(53, _oei__c1uu_ (3(J (4 5)
By Chronolo
2
cal Asa
7.50 7.50(2) (7)
2,60
(1)
7.71
_ (490)
_TO_ 6 c leas 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 _16 17 To1.011 3.66 3.84 5.04 5.29 4.98 7.66 6.74 4.15
c90 (_4 10 1 9 I (_161_ _ _(12 _AP) _(27) _1171_ _IBI-----(.1.3)- (184)1.40 1.43 2.10 2.54 3.50 4.36 4.62 4.66 4.76 6.87 6.32 7.81 4.39
90-99 Ai) (J) _o_)Aj,j)jI)s(.§.) (li)_(_5_)(E) (_3_)(2) _____QA9_)______.0.90 2.26 3.13 3.23 5.46 6.82 4.93 6.75
100,109 (2) (5) ((_)_ 5 3 6
3.37 4.83 4.67 6.38 6.0_ 6
9 - J5)2.20 5.20 5.00 3.00 5.53
__W_ sv_ w (1) -120-129 (3) -
5.00 5=70s129 - - - -_____________ -
1.19 2.16 2.76 2.92 3.75 4.63 4.48Total calaw_iiii IL21i1.2) (2
IQ I or leas 2 3_3.66 4.18 4.04
<90 87) (36) (21)4.00 5.16 4.28
90-99 24
6.35 6.411 5.33 7.30
(19) (1)
O 7.30
(1
7.14 9.70
5.35
>129 2
4.62
6.62 8.64 10.00 9.10 5.786 7 8
7.55---_-__1-9_)________.
8.90 9.62 6.54
_LV,_ 13)9.75 9.30 12.15 6.95C2) =(.11____.12.L_
5.35- _ -2
5.35 3=99 6.72 8.64 7.71
41) (24, (211
By Years in Special Education4 5 6 7 8 _9 0
5.11 6.03 4.42 5.15 5.75(16) (6) (5) (2) -
6.43 3.33 2.95 7.30 7.90
(41%)
12 Tot7.50 2.60 4.15
4.39
(109)5.78(69)
9.10 6.54(38)
6.95
24 4.04 7.69 _.47 7.50 2.60
_ _ _(3) _ _(1)_=()J
4 6
39
Years inSpatial PA.
1 oTleas
Special Mutation Re8
Table
h Study
Pall 1975 SprilIng Grade Equivalent SCorea, Socially and Emotionally Disturbed Sample(Numbers of Pupils Shown in Parentheses)
By Chronological 4gn13 14 7 Tot4
4.03(27) (13) (11) (273)
2.84 2.2711 (24) 25) (99)
1.60 2.61 2.12
10 Ii 123.49
7 29 0
2.57 4.32 3.58
__STY_ _ (10) (5)2. 2.35 4.01 3.55 6.65
- 2) _(4) 7 8 2
_
481 3 11 6.05 -1721 77617----47-2--(9) (99)
3.72 4.90 468 6.48 4 4.340
(4)_ (51)__5.20 4.66 4.57 4.55 4.08 4.47
(7) (6) (4) (4) (31)2.70 5.37 4.75 4.60 2.60 4.60 4.52
7
_-__(1) __ _ __(e2.1(X___ _ -6.50 2.60 2.60 3.60 2.60 4.90 3.82
-_ 1 (1 1) 6) (1) Al) (11)-
5.35 8.85 6,80 6.56- --------(a.-------(21---------La------±7_1-
3.30 7.30 5.97
----="----=--------111---
5,80
(2) _ (2).70
- - (1) (1)
Total
IQ 6 or leas 7 8 9 101.00 1.09 2.59 2.80 2.56
<90 _ 4 (10) (1) U9 2
1.40 1.53 1.86 2.42 3.09
alt___u_v_(36)_(_12) (5 8)
1.08 1.80 2.39 2.71 2.3 4.07 4.00(4 a) (36) (44) (5 (5 2) (32) (35) (491)
By Chronological Age11 12
6 3.76 (17) 7
4.25 4 02 3 53 4 4G 5.8990-_,29at_js_Wili2_ag) (12) (6) (12)0.90 2.08 2.74 3.00 4.81 5.84 5.27- 6.28 5.45 7.81105) fAL(a.L(8) __cs (3) (6) (6) 7_
2.40 2.25 3.90 5.16 5.22 4.06- 6.5410-419 4
<90
4 4.00 4. 7 5.22 5.96 7.47(42) (29) (41) (451_ 141) (24) lo)
By Years in Spacial Education1 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 15 4 .02 3.59 4.08 4.82 3.50 4.95 5.25 5.80
_ (87)_(26)_(22) (18) (6) (5) (4) (2) _ (2) (1)3.55 4.23 3.69 5.03 3.43 3.75 -3-.371-7 4062 (24
4.60(4) 3La.__A_A_(IL_-
5.54 4.47 4.17 .5 .4 .
__2_01)_100-10 (19) (3!) (1) -4.99 5.47 6.78 4.70 4.
110-119 25) 4) (4) (1) (1)5.54 8.00 3.35 10.90
120-129 8 2 2 I) - - -3.60
'129 (2) -
4.03 472 434 4.47 4.52 3.82 4.56 5.97 5.80 3.70(413)_Tott(M(.82-42-1-----)W-L-1.12/Q_LO ---_-SV__--U1------_
.6_
(183)
(low
(69)
47
40
MATS inSpecial Ed.
6
I or 1.01(Ill
2 -
8
9
Special Education Research Study
Table 4
Fall 1925 Arithietic Grade Eoulualent Scores,(Numbers of Pupila Shown
ey Chronological10_ 11 12
Socially and Emotio ain Parentheses)
.
Age11 14
y pitit.rbod Sample
6 172.01120_
2.54cis)
1.23jauLiaLL9j(20)3.61 4.23 3.87 4.31(1.(11)4.981 6.05 15.65 7, 4 07a ,i .)
2.05 2.50 2.72 3.32 4.11 2.86 4.43 4.94 5.52 7.03 7.08 4.57(4) (8)_ 10 _ 10 _i_ yr__ 1
- (g) (4) C7) (Ii) (2) 60 10) (4)5.10 3.20 6.70 3.06 4.51 4.53 5.30
_6.60 4.67
- (1)_ - ( L (6) - j',4) (4) (31)3.60 4. ' 1
_(7)
4.15 4.91 2.30_
4.40 4.21_
(3) _ - ( i (4) 3) (1) (1)6.7n 4.20 5.50 4.60
.-S.I2J___8.50 5.41
- , (I) (6)_ (I) (1)_(I)
4.95 6.20_Ala_
10.70 6.13(4) (2)
3.90_- (1) (7)3.1 r-r-470--
- . . - . . (1)_ (2) (3)
Total
-1.01-(11) ( 6
I 6 or leas
.00.20
0.90 2.00 2.5-6
9)
.78 2.85)
- - - (2)
- , , - (1) (1)--7=10 ----7:7T- . 4 -4-31-576-3-=6----671----
(52) (37) (35) (491)(51) 4 (36) (45) (53)
9By Cbronologial
10AgeII 14
2.80 2.61 3.37 3.-2 4.3 4.37(19) (20) (16) (17) (22) (27)3.-00 3.80 4.05 4.20 3.95- -71.74(14) (6Lu)0.2)3.44
_w_L1124.21 4.94 4.50 5.62 5.30
(9) _ (6) (6)
Total15 16 17
(17) 5(g6 -7------485)-733------5-T6E -678-7-Tx9----(5) (9) (109)
6.11 8.71 --6TE-17M-(7) (8) (2)
(693.97 .22 5.74 6.05 11.M2)85
4.93 2.65 8.00 9.85(5) (4) _(1) (5) 75
(3) (2) (1) (2) - (13)20 4.70 3.95
3.10 3.55 4.101.01 2.02 2.63 3.71Total (A) 21 33) (41) (52) (42) (29)
By Years in Special Education3 4 5_ 6 7 8 9 12
1.28 3.51 3.68 4.58 4.63 5.08 5.85 3.40 .90 2.30J17) __(16 22 6 5 4 _(3)_ (1)
3.85 4.23 6.45 5.70 3.4090-99 14 (2) (1) (1)
.52 5.37 4.37 4.17 6.10 5.27 6.70
5.11 5.92 4.98 4.70 5.70 7.10110-119 (251 _ _ (6) (4) (1) (1) _
6.18 6.60 4.05 6.7020-129 - -
95.129 II
4.07 4.57 4.26 4.67 4.21Total (27) _(-1IL
4 8
41
Total3.68
(DM
6
5.28(38)
5.95
13
3.95
Specia_ (location Research Study
Tabl
Fell 1975 Social Age Scores. Brain Injured SampleNumbers of Pupils Shown ln Farentheoes)
By Chronological Age12 13 15 7 Tota
14.7 15.0 16.8 10.8_(51) (28)_ (A) _______5.8 3.6 8.4 10.0 11.0 10.6 11.7 12.9 16.0 17.0 165 19.7 10.5
._.2_-i31ual---f-12J----1-1.n)------LtD---4-LD---a-k-L--C6-L----C11)-----il-L-U-L---CLI------aDia---- 7.9 9.5 10.5 11.7 13.2 14.1 15.8 17.0 18.3 - 12.0(5) (2) (7) (11) ( 7 (1)
9 9.8 1 11. 15.0 15.5 - 7(4) (4) (4) (5) (5)_
10.-m-----771r 9.0 11.0----TX:1(2) (3) (1) (1) (1)- - - 11.3 18.0 17.0
2) (1)
7
Total
6 or less 7 15.1 6.3 7.6 9,0 1
<90 (3) (13) 6 2 176.0 6.6 8.5
(1)
-71727.1-117-o 15.(76) (74) (e3
By Chronological Age11 12 11 14
14.4(4)
15.0
5 6 1710.4 11.3 14.1 15.5 16.5 18.3 18.8(18) (34) (3.001_(11__12.0 13.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 11.090-9 (5) (10) 4 (111 (2821 2(2$) 25) jj)M________cA)_
6.1 7.8 9.7 10.8 10.5 12.3 13.8 15.3 15.5 18.70 (6) (5) (10) (3) (10) (9) (13) (11) (2) 87
11.2
7.1 10.9 10 .3 13.8 15.0 135 18.0 10.5(4) 2254.3 8.3 9.7 . 3 16.0 - 17.3 - 10.120-129 (1) (1) (1) (1) 2 89.3 - - - - - 9.3129 (1)(1)5.7 .9 9.7 10.5 11.3 12.3 14.4
(15) 4) 54 (53)_/_5_1_3)15.5 16.8 18.3 18.8(9) (3) (3) ygLo
_Pj oUess
-0 (89)0.
0)
By seats in Special Education3 4 6 7 8 9 10
11.8--- 11.3-- -(20 (17)
11.2
10.525
Total.8 10.5 _ 1 .0 12.0 9.8 14.4 15.0
(2 ) (104) (30): (0) (4) (1)_
4 9
42
472
Special Education Research Study
Table 6
Fall 1975 Reading Grade Equivalent Scores. Brain Injured Sample(NuMbera of Pupils Shown in Farentheiea)
Years inSpecial Ed.
6 or le.By Chronological Age
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total3.09 3.81 3.79 4.65 5.20 4.18 1.32
5.20 8.10 5.40 3.30(1)
_9 4.40 5.20 3.93
7
Total
1.80
6.80 2.40
-----Ai)4.50 3.80
11)_ (1)
(12__ 2:i-- 2.62 2.99 364 381_ 4.54 4.63 4.28 6.73 5.85
14) (36) (57) (60) (55) (51) (76) C__ (53)
By Chronological AgeIQ 6 or less 7 8_ 9 10 11 12 4 15 16 17 Total
1.57 132 1.91 2.16 2.89 3.06 3.43 4.23 4.46 4.00 6.73 5.8590 (3) (12) (16)(111_(11)
0.86 1.37 2.53 2.68 2.84 3.87 3.73 4.46 4.25 4.80 - -90-99 (5) _ (10 14 19 _28 _al.)W1) _(2_5) _(11) _(1)a6_42_,_
1.52 2.10 2.31 3.00 3.84 3.59 4 71 5 13 5 30 3 90 - - 3.64100-109 (6) _WI_
- 1.78 2.13 3.87 3.25 7.20 5.33 5.56 6.30 - - - 3.81110-119 (4) (6) 3) 2 1 3 5 1 ILI_____
0.80 4.20 3.15 2.20 - 5.40 - - 4.15 - - 3.40120-129, _ _(1__79(14=__(I) _(j_==(2)
-----------1.81---9.70- _
>129 (1 ) " _ill_1.26 1.82 2.29 2.62 291 364 381 4.54 4.63 4.28 6.73Total (15) 4 -ULU__
3.04
2.98
3.90
3.29
By Years in SpeCial EducatiOn6 7 _8 _9 11 12 Total_
90 3.29
3.31
(1_64)
3.64
3.81
3.40
19 3.00 3.87 4.53 2.35 -90-99 (100) _(12_) -_(.31)(12)M-
3.64 3.09 4.13100-109 (60 (12 12
3.68 . 4.14 -
110-12.75 3.20 4.90
120-129 4
9.70>129 (1)
3.32 3.30 3.93
3.83 -3
- .
9.70
3.59 3.04 2.98 3.90
5 0
43
Tears inSpacial Ed*
6 or less1 or 0.79Ic
Speci1 Education Remearch Study
Table 7
1975 Spelling Grade Equivalent Scores, Brain Injured Sample(Numbera of Pupils Shown in Parentheses)
Py Chronological Age8 9 10 11 12 _13 14 15 16 17 To2.24 2.44 _ 2.98
(?9-1)1.47 2 32 2.24 2.68 2.77 3.19 3.11 3.53 2.89-----------1-3-)------(-9---(1.-----a91V-AJ-----C9 (104)- 1.80 2.65 3.09 3.17 4.22 3.76 4.33 3.50 3.70 - 3.50_ILL(/)_ (10) ___(_1/1_11MW
(54)- 0.85 2.23 1.73 3.93 3.58 3.90 2.86 - 4.00 3.30 2.974_
-----f2L----Oa-----(4l-=------Aa--.-----------LkL.-_.(D.----_i.2_9_A_- - - - 2.90 1.93 2J,0 3.70 3.305 2 3 1 (1 (1)
- - - 2'20 - 5.50
3.70 -
.05 4 2.15 2.50 2.75 3.24 3.43 3.93 4.06Total (14.1___(,121_,_(.57)_ _160.)__1121_(.02A17) _(724)__153)
- _ - 2.65
1.30 - 2.80
3.70(1)
3.27
(91____4.80
(3)
3.95
2)
0.72 .5
281.23 1.76 2.32 2.79 3.24 .3.99 97 4.43 3.30 - -/6.)(.2)100-10 ( 1
0 51.70 2.07 273 2 85 r. 900 450 113 174 !60 ( --42 - ---741-4-11-,):1-12-------__-Q'-)----_.(.A--(3_).-_,--ai---ILL---W-__-_----C.a--W-.-._-._______________.0.70 3.50 3.30 - 2.00 - 5.20 - 3.60 -120.71ILL.,__(2) ___IDJAY (2) (a)
7.20 _ - - - _ - 7:2029(1)2.15
Total
2 3 4
2.58 2.5
20 172.99 2.86 3.52 3.56
3.13 2.63 3.53 3.20
2.90 3.39 -
110-------- 2.75 2.75 4.35 -
220-129
By Years in Spec al Education6 7 0
7.20 ->129
2
(187)
3.06
(164)
(87)
(25)
2.98 2.89 3.50 2.97 2.05 2.80 3.70_
51
44
(472)
Tear' inSpatial Ed.
6 or leap 7
1 or 0.73 1.81
Special Education Reeearch Study
Table 8
Fall 1975 At_thmetic Grade Equivalent Scores Brain Inju ed Sample(Numbers of Pupils Shown in Parenthesize)
By Chronologica0_ 9_ 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 Tote
2.98 3.44 4.13 4.06
00 6.30 3,90 3.46(11_ (1) (104)
.92 4.05 3.24 4.28 4.64 4.02 4.60 5.20 6.30 - 4.005 2 In --(3.4.L._1.15 2.47 2.23 4.75 4.10 4.02 4.46 - 6.50 2.30 3.63(2
- 2.90 2.20 2. 2.90 4.40 - - - 2.79_(2) _ (3) (1)4121__________- 3.65 - 3.90 3.90 - - 3.78------------------al.......- -JAI-. - - 2.90 - - 2.90
7
1.11 1.79 2.53 2.97 3.28 4. 2 4.10U4LSI1LSI7) (1) (76)By Chronological Age
12 13 14 1
3.49
1.27 1.82 2.86 3.62 3.64 4.00 4.67
1.90 2.87 3.70 4.30 5.30 6.
0.60 3.6020- 29
-aBy Years in Special Education
1 or less 2 3 4 5 6 7 _8 9 103.31 3.24 3.72 3.22 2.38 3.78 2.90 3.29
12 To a
9 50 20 1761 3.53 3,93 4.16 4.00 -
0 23.67
100-109
90
(1) 3.90
3.46 4.00 3.63 2.79 3.78 2.90 -Total ___JaLL__Lblki_jal__ClaL___
5 2
45
Taira ISSpecial Ed.
or les-
Spe_ Education Re h Study
Table 9
975 Social Age Scores, Physically Handicapped Sample(Numbers of Pupils Shown in Parentheses)
By Chronological Age10 11 12 5 7
4.7 6.6. 7.1 6.3 8.4 8.6 9.5 13.5 7.0 14.1 7.0leas _(2.2.)_LB.L(-4-L-tfk-l--------f-ZL--------L41--
(3)- 62.4 3.7 6.6 6.9 2.4 10-3 12.0 9.8 6.3 '9=5 1 6.92 9/(!)1121_ (1) (2) (1) (6) (1) (1) (2) (46)1.89 7-0 6.5 9.2 10.8 10.1 9.7 4.7_ - 6.8 -----13-1-----3 1 4 (n(1)A.L._ (5 (27)
. _ 8.5 5.2 7.0 7.9 8.0 7.8 9.2 10.5 .0Lkil_u_iii_ as (7) 3 (4)- (4) (40)
-
- 6.3 5.8 7.9 6.9 5.7 7.6 6.8 7. 671i------A4l---12-1------ (5) (36)
_
- - 8.0 11.5 6.1 7.8 10.9 9.0 -17-3-1175-_.11 7 4 (2)_ - 18.0 5.7 11.2 7.1 8.8 6.8 7.
_ _7 ---WCE (3) (3)
8.3 12.6 7.4 6.9_(1)___ _(5) 13)9.7 4.7 11.51 2) (4)
_ 6.1 6.5(3
1 .1(24)
12
TotaA
(2) (8)7.1 10.6
13)4.4 5.1 5.8 6.8' 7.2 8.3 7.3 .0 7.1 .(1/1___ (24) __(32) (32) (25) (M(21_)_/M_I_2t)L__(5n___(24) (la)
By Chronological 4ge6 8 9 10 11 12 4 17 T3.3 3.8 4.7 5.3 6.0 8.5 7.0 9.0 7.5 8.8 6.5 .9 7.3<90 (13)j8_L_Du_,2Loa_)_aD(AJDj,n1_(22saL__
(15) (46) (222)1.8 8.690 4 2 7 6 2 2 (2) (43)4.3 6.0 9.2 7.7 11.0 11.5 9.3 8.5 . 8.0 8.4,f:V-_=L:14__(1)S_32_c4_L_sa(_4_)(3) () (4) (3) (2)5.2 _ _ 10.3 6.5 _ _ 15.5 3.0 11.3110-119 _siLL______ __(1) _LD (D(.1)_ (2)
8.5 - 4.8_ - _ -120-129 (I/ (1)
4.4 5.1 5.8 6.8 7.2 8.3 7.3 10.0 7.5 8.3 7.1Total __(19151_122_L(a)_slil_
52) (308
6.8 7.9 7.7 5.7 9.8 9.7 6.6 12.6 3.7 9.7 7.6
6.6
(?)_
<90
90-99
1 or6. 5.6 7.9
24 5
9.0 12.05
By Yeara in Special Education5 6 7 8 9 106.0 8.3 8.4 8.6 9.3 6.3
2 8 15 (10) J15) (8)10.3 0 6.0 . 1.89-_
2 5 (2) (2)10. 11.0 7.9 10.6
7.020
0.0
7.0 .
100-109 (6 2
7.5 8.8 16.5 3.0 6.5 14.-110-119_inwW__ (1)
8.5 4.8_11 or)120-129
7 0 6.9 8.1 8.0 .4 8.6.1Eit._____(15_1___(29 (23) (14) (35) (31)
(2) (2) (1)
5
46
(18)
11 12
(11)
8.5(1)
(1)
Tota7.3
(222)_
8.6(43)
(33)
8
(8)
(2)_
(13) (308)
Yearn inSpacial Ed.
6 or leas
1 or 1.17 1.08 2.45
lass _ (4)
1.00 0.94 2.15
2 1)
Special Education Research Stud,'
Table 10
Pall 1975 Re ding Grade Equivalent Scores, Physically Ban icapped Sample(Numbers of Pupae Shown in ParentheSes)
3
6
7
9
2.526
By Chronsiogical Age10 11 12 13 4
2.63 2.50 3.60
6.83(6)_
0.35 _ 1.98 4.20 6.23 7. 2 1.30
(2 1 4 3) 3) (4) (5) (1)
7
3.98(4)_
4.50
To
2.24(63)
3.62(40)
4.5127)
2.80 1.40 5.35 3.21 2.73 2.07 4.58 5.60(1,) _1) 2Alit)0!_ (1)4.35 1.90 3.26 3.60 3.02 5.95 2.00(D(1) 1_(9) (5) (2) (1)
3.40 2.90 3.05 3.86 2. 5
7) (4) 5
80 5.1 6.87(8)
- - 6. 3.53 ._
( )(3) (4) (2)
.60 1.30 5.50_(1) (2) (4)
- 5.32 1.60_(3) (1)
4
2.75 3.53(2) (29)
5.00 3.67
6.20(22)
4.48 4.32
(61 07)4.65 6.30 4.28(2) (1) (10)
7.2g 6.30 6.15(5) (8) (17)
7.04
(7)7.39 7.39
(11)
10
12
(312)
Age13_ 14 15 16 17 Total4.26 3.71 3.80 , 6.25 4.98 3.58
25 21)I2 LC11) (40) AI09).50 4.45 2.30 8.75 9.85 4.34
_21(2) (2) SAL__8.15 7.00 11.45 5.42
_120-1291.16 1.11 2.45 2.49 2.92 3.48 3.79
Total azL____aAL_ufri.)u5_)(A)ua,)_34
<90
90-99
007109
110-119
120-129
TOt31
1 or less 2
1.85 2.85
2
3.7115
_4
2.80 9
24
2.1.6 2.92 6.90 4.44 50
5 7 2
3.13 .76 3.92 5.70
7) 6 (2)
5.10 7.10 5.60 7.50
(2 (1) 1) (1)
1.20 3.30(1) (1)
2.41 3.26 4.51 9(54) (14) (23) 2) 29
By Yearn in Special Education6 T 8_ _ 9
3.18 5.63 3.32 3.97 5.1
25) (16)6.42 7.30
5 (2)
2. 9.
2
0-
(13) (13)
7.10 6.10
(2) (2)'
8.05(2)
12
6.2
7) (9)12.80
12.40(1)
a
3.67 6.20 4.32 4.28 6.15 .70 7.39
(31) (21 ) (17) (10) (16) (7)
Total3.58
(200)4.34
42
5.42(33)7.29
(8)
22-5
(2)__
(285)
5 4
47
Yearn InSpecial Pd.
Special 1:ducion S.searck Study
Tahle 11
Fall 1975 Spelling( Grade Equivalent ScOres, F'hysfat1 Hd1capFI Sample(Numbers of Pupils Shown in Parentheses
By Chronological Age6 11 _12 17 1 -
0.90 2.45 3.77 4.95 .8fl 3.93 2,07Lts-E-----UIL-LL_ 'AI.)--(a------°(.--- (4) ((1)
2
0.60 0.59 2.08 ., 601 '7 8) 8
0.70 0.80 1.38
=---_______LLI- (1).80 0.40 2.80
____)2.80
(1) (11- S21 41_1.75 1.70
,JJ'
AP
IU
1.20 6.80 5.73(2)
2.77 5.00 6.38(3) (3) (4)
2.59 2.10 3.73
(7) _ (3) (4)
3.18 3.21) 4."0
7.33 3.74
(8) (7)6.60 3.70
3'5.50 2.42_(1)
3.)_
2.60_
_IP_ _
12
0.88 0.53 2.41 1.98 2.43 3.13 3.81%Lai (19) (10) (18) (20) (30)_ (30 (24)
10.20 2.20 9.30
6.66 1.50 6.80(5) (1)
-4,30 6,20(1) (1)
2.30 _(1)
3.23 3,66(4) (5)
4.78 5,57 5.23(8:I (3) 12./
3.05 2,85 8.10
(;1) (1)_1,i0.20 5.20 4.35
_ (2)_ (4)_ (2
5.75 1.50 5,64
_ (2) (1)_.. (2)1.20
_
5.65
(19_ (17)
By Chrono)ogica1 AgeS r less 7 s 9 111 11 _12 13 14_ 15
0.70 0.45 1.76 1.64 1,96 2.82 2.91 3.89 3.23 3,27ML---CI7L_-__012-1212 (1=)
5.40 3.07
2.83 4.07
(26)3.10 2.85
(17)
3.12
4.00 3.09(31)
6.80 5.11
4.05 3,72(6) (17)
6.10 1,8e
1)
5.16 5.21
_ (8) (18)5.76 5.17(5) (7)
.7 7.74-4_
(11) (11)
4.72(51) ((08)
16 17
4 .50 4.081 ___all
20tal
1.05_(201)._1.40 1.20 2.40 1.65 3.60 3.84 4.37 5.32 5.50 5.55 7.95 7.65 1.8E90u j!.21_a).il_.1o_iCL)i_D(_6_U_______L2j_
(41)1.60 2.370.40 4.28 3.95 4.20 5.70 7.07 7.55 5.47 9.30 4.77_
--11-L---111------(-11-4---__-- (2) (31)1,J4-109 (2) 4 311., J_WL.,__
1.30 _
110-119 W_ -----aL1.00
_12(1-129 1
0.88 0.83T9."1 __-(11)-_____(.1)) ___112) , /15/_________
5.30 - , 8.00 4.10 10.45 6.54
__KIL_________U_ (8)2.60
1.98 2.43 1.
By Years_in Special EducationI J or Jess 2 3 1. 5 6 3 A 9 10 11 12 Total1.67 2.46 3.42 2.80 3.71 4.29 5.37 4.59 3.05<90 (10)_ 13 9 15 7 8 (71)11_2.41 2.16 0.10 1.66 4.00 5. 6.15 6.80 7,80 11.60 1.8490799 IJILw_cpD_w_____L5_,li_2 (1) (41)2.50 3.84 7,60 3.55 4.85 2.00 7.65 6.65 5.20 _ 10.20 4.77
100-100 -2--(64). --J1___ 6 2 _ 1 __(2-L caco _ _ (33)2.90 7.70 5.80 4.30 5.10 10.20 _ 11.20 6.54
11_0-1_10 2)LI)- (1) _JJ1 _____UL _-_W_ (1)1.00 2.60
1.80120-129 1 1
(2)
_
2.07 3.07 4.07 2.88 1.12 3.09 5.11 3,72 3.88 3.21 5.17 5.74-
1.80
(2)4 5.65 4.72
(285)
Total_ _ (32)_ _ _
48
Special Education Redtarch Etudy
Table 12
Wars inSpecial
6 nr 1ecs 7
Fail 1525 Arithmetic Grade Equivalent Scored. Physically Handicapped Sample(Ntimbr,.4 pi" Pupils Shown In Parentheses
By ChroriologL:al ARe10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
1ess0.9821
1.60
(8)
.90
(4)
2.23
(6)
2.61
(7)_2.48 2.33
(1)
4.45(4)
2,40
(3) _
3.40 2,00
(64)_
=
0.70(1)
0.80(9)
1.73
(8)
1.82
()_ 2.
(2)
4,40
(1)
5.71
(6)
6.90
(1)
5.70
(1)
9.50
(1)
3.80(3)
2.74
(42)
3_
0.70(2)
1.20
(1)
1,70(4)
2.83(14)
2.730)
6.93(3)
5.30(4)
4.96
(5)
1.70(1)
6.10(1)
1.95(2)
1,15
(38)4
.!.40
(1)
0.40(1,
4.05
(2)
3.31
(7)
2.73
(3)
3.61
(-)
_ 190(1)
5.30
(1)
3.48
(4)2.37,-
(4)
1.60(I)
f1 2
(5)
3.24(9)
2.86(5)
1.40(.7)
-.%lio . 2.30(3)
4.35
(2)
2.82
(3(i)
2.140----
(31)
232 .
(:)
-1.61
(1)
5.7(1
(I)
2.6h(S)
4.g5
(I)
2.53-
(7)
fT3(4)
T2.46-
(5)
_
_
-
1.24
(18)
7
F:RO-(1)
S.I0
(3)
1.5a(8)
-1:0-5-
(-)
4.9-r(3)
--77- -70-(3) (2)
4.14(21)
S
!S-.A
(1)
--"F133-79-0-3.M(2) (1) (6)
3.69
(17)
o- = - -
-
-
1.1----1737(1)
).7.71-(i)
(2)
:777-
(3)
6,7-5-
(6) .
7:10
(1)
450(2)
3,90
(1) (IN5.74
(19)_
-
-741g
(7)
:i.21
(8)
- 2.60
(1)
5.14------ 4.46(5) (7)
1,
_= - _
3.18
(30)
_
1.33(24)
_
1.1)
(3))
_ _
-r2-6----7zI1)
(31) (18)
5.26(11) (III
(J10)
liq
2.1
II
-1t,11
0.4o(22)_
1.72
(1_9)
2.18
(21)
2.61
_(39)6.31
(17)
4.40
(51)
7 ! 6_or 1..-ss 8 9 10ly ClIrono1oW.:17 Agc11 12 11 14 15 6 7
-90
90-99
0.80_(9)
0.80(Fii
1.28(12)
1.86
(9)
2.22_(18
2,71
0814.64
7
3.9!!(2)
2.79(17)
1.573
3
3.19
(15.
4,48(6
3
.
2.4821 )
4.852
5.61_(4_)L9___5.60
(2)
3.57(17
5.02
(.11-/
3.93
(40)1.36(5)
1.23
(.4)
1.90(3)
.
2.50(21_
2.407
2.50
-(1)
3.74
3,20
-
2.90
(1)
5.502
10_15 6_90
(2)
100-1090.80(2)_
0.90(1)
4,53 6.57
3.90
_(1)
9.60
(2)
110-119_ 4.50
(1!)
. 4.25
(?)
I')120-1291.60(1)
_ _
Tor31
10
0,96(18)
1 or less
1.24
170
2
1.72
(18)
2.18
(15)
4
2.61
(28)
5
3.18
(28)
3.18(21)
3.99(14)
3.26
(29)
4.30
(19)
6.31 4.4o(4n) '=.7)
!-tal
C201)
(42)
4.42
(3n,
(w)
3
by Yeara In Special Education6 7 8 9 10
4.22(15)
_(15)
11
4.46
(7)
124.33
(9)
7.10
(1)
,.90
1.68(10)
2,41
(21
2,84
(5)
2.9511.
4.90
0)
2.6315
4.37(7)
2.4/1
25
4.60(7)
2.5025
3.93(15)
2.55
A',1 )
4.20(9)_
907992.64(15)
4.46
_(AX1.90
(1)
5.70
(2)7.05
(2)
5.20(21
6,95(2)
- 9.10(2)
100-109 (6)
1.952
1.60
11
2,84(7)
7.04
(5)
3,35(6)
3.90
(1)
4.45
(21_4.50
_(.11__
6.50(1)
11.80(1)
1_1974_19
3.60
a)
2.74
(..1.4)_
5,90
(1-
2.80(_1_)
5.30(1)
-14.90
(I)_
- 2.700)
(2s6)
_120-179
2.00
-(34)
3.70
(22)
3.15
132
2.82
(30)
7.80
(31)
4,14(20)
1.69(17)
4.43(10)
5.74(19
4.46 5.26GO
5 6
49
Yoart toOper.t..t Fr1.
6 cr 7.77.6,9
1:288
s ,T0410 11
Fail 1975 Eth17-4818 Montal 4e17 .1,3-12.8pp s 5 how 111 Parcntl,=*e)
8.511, _L:89
C 1 1
1714 77 16 889re 1577
,
15.1't 1 94 177
'7' i251,
I!)
10.2L'2). ,'191
1.4 1J.27
(7
To,r41 r 42) 172k
or 1g9m_
r50 2( -I- 1.1 1,:l t.;! (14_ A '.) _ (.5)
50-59-2'.]:° _ -LLL ' ''' )
( 7 ).. ') 7.1 7.1 0.1 9.1 8.5 13.5 10.5 1.5 1 /.5 18. r55-59 _ 14! j1.1 (4) (4) (14_ (7) 0) '.1',/
10
my (187.,6, t
12., 1
(19,8 ,
i) 7175 174)1.5 9.1 0.6 9.2 10.3 11.5 11.8 (4.7 JO.80-6:. ff. i_12) __U".,1'
.
19 .2_0 ) 7- :4 ) 2±L_ ( 17) r 7D)
I.4.8 -- _
,.. 7. t 4.1 11.5 12.9 14.2 1,.4 Pr.,00 (W31 I l'vr (21) 1 (299,A,E it e.0
. IF.70-74 Mt( (12) (14 (90)1-'6}) (40)
6.1 7.2 7.4(6) rt r 21
'4) O
7.27r
' (I )
9.!
t
9i .-0 11.2 Ii.e ----1-7.1 -17.0 ---1',..
(29) (49) (41) (31)9.11.4
r
19) (32) (12) (1 ,) (18) I I," )', 7.7 8.5 4.9 3.8 10.4 11.) 12.7, --L.. --15.-g----T7-.1-
(42 (131) ((56) (142) (193) (176) (.178) (181)
ny Y inl,,1 FO:,
1 dr Immo 2 3 4 6 7 Il 910.0 7.4 3 8.3 13,2
50(_9
3.9 7.2 7.7 9.4) 8.o 10,5 10.80-54 71 11) (
.n
12.0 1_ .1
11.8 18.7____V/41,__
9,0 9.)I 12.3 1!.'.
(12)3 (21)
or ,ore
11.-!
(1)
15.5_.(1) 61)
1 (1))1 U/1 071 _(13 (5) _01 _
(191)9.7 11.7 11.8 16.5 18.5 13.7) 13.5 11.56n-64 (1:1.) (12) (z.) (o) 'I)10.0 10.9 11.2 11.1 13.2 14.7 15.4 13.5 19.65-69 J61 (JO) (1,1) (28 (4)) (30) (24) ((5) (4) (81) (5)
8.9 10.4 10.6 12.0 12.1 11.5 11.0 15.1 15.4 18.4 T.70-14 _( 51) ((.5) (31) (27) (9)(.4 10.9 10.') 11.7 71.8 14.4 14 17.8 16.S
75=79 151) 2 12 (22)I ; ,,
l,..,-. 11.2 13.0 11.5 13.5 15.0 12,9 19.0529 1_55,1_ _1.213_1_ (17) (24) _7,19)._ Jail (II) (9)
1 IA,1_8.9 10.0 10. 10,9 11.3 12.0 13.5 1503 11.3 19.4 in., 1 .Tritml /3121 223) (191) i 21e (1471LUIL) _ (42) _(21)
1_1':"1
50
Years inpeeial BO.
6_ or ._
er
leae (291
Arita GJorarion Renttort
Table 14
F;1!: :075 Fe4ir 1r4e Be,Ivolent 0 coro4, C28,ca Mont__'umbero of Pooilt 5B0955 tn Irg9theNg)
Be CrirOnolot_o Ate
Ardgd Sm=ple
0.99(W) (.0)1.17 1.=8.191 1-1.
1.40_t1)
2.84
__L18) (Lb ) (1
SC 20-5, 2.27(ld)
Total4.7 S.9 2.36
.72 4.84 5.301 '7) 192_1_
or)
2-33t1,0 (25)
..44
4.57 7. .8
10
. 53 1.00 1.31 1.75 2.04 2.41 2.86 3.10 1.95
0..4t
4,01tdb) (139) (IoN) (1,)) (152) (196) ( (14'
0.70 1.10 2.0
By Chien
1,97 2.20 2.
4.00
(7o) 2.
4.4 4.i6
(6T__
(7)_
4 2.39 3.03 1.1 3.76
(b) (5) _IJO) (7) I._5) _ II)
1.18 4.3. 1.76 1.74 2.40 7.:.5 2.77 3.137 (17) 7 141 1
1 1.96 6 9 1.31 3.780 29 2 0 17) 2
07 1.17 1.88 2.00 7.311 2.98 3.1 0 4.24 4.07 2 022 L I 3
I 0.9 5 1.88 2.07 2 8 2._ 4.87 1.173 ) 7
1.41 1.31 1.89 2.54 2.71 2.8S 1.10 4.01 4.10 4.34 4.65 3,32(a) __i_21_ 75 32) (49 ) (41) (52) (355)1 1,15 2 7 3.85 4. !,._ 4 4.2.8 2.7
1 2) 7 _o
75 .10
170)
70-74
75-79
(184)4.44
a 17 211 ()570)
By BerrrO In Special Educari:-
10 6 7
14
'50 (5) 151(.4o 1.32 2.52
_50-54_ _c7_,_
1.35 2.17 3.39 3,07 2.30 2.8055-59 (18) DLL A_13) ( _ ) (18) 123 _117) 2 OL 1118
1.88 2.72 7.19 2.27 2.53 1.37 3.67 3.13 4.33 1.63 3.10 2.80 2.746(5-64 ( 34) 12) 4 LLL (72.',
1.98 2.14 2,d7 2.87 2.88 3.31 3.18 345 3.11 3.73 3.88 7.8065-69 (61) (38 ) (1-) (28) 43 24 5 A
_(292)
---2.18 2.91_ 2.55 3.36 3.22 _.79 3.72 3.98 3.69 3.94 4.85 7.10 1.1070-74 (77) (52) (50) (45) (38) (46) _ill) 127 (9) _ _15) (21_ (1) _ _ 08(1
2.81 2.91 3.01 1.38 3.20 3.63 4.07 4.33 3.91 4.80 1,05 3.3255-70 ibd) (44) (48) 51) (19) (29) 29 22 6 7
-052)
4.01 1.62 3.01 3.20 1.44 4.28 3.38 4.34 5.07 5.08 6. 3.33 1.78,79 (17) (19) 22) -) 9 4 (1) _ (3) _ 11061____
9
2.10 _. 7 4.60
(21 (11
4.50 4.80
12
Or morr _0_
2.07(2212.475.01)
7
Total I
7.77 4.00 3.97 4.05 4.18152 1 2- (21) (6)
5 8
51
Years inSpecial Ed.
1 or
2
5
6 or less0,49 1.3tfa___42-_,L_cilzo 0.72 1.19-
(18)
8. e.Eor 66419y
Table 15
Fall 1975 Spelling Era98 EO4Lv1u 9coret). F614691,11Num8er, of Pup! 9084m In Favanthe
Be Chloejo.i
1 2
3.
17
(27)
, .75(17) (21)148 4.; 3
(19) (2.)7-7-1- ---3-1-18------17---- -----1;1) (.01 .1(1 (121)
r_ 112_8_6
1.20
9.11(W.)
,;152
f91 (29) (23) (90)
.1) ( 1,,, (3))) (19)17;7i- 1.0
By Chronolos.led1 Age
11 121! 1) 2.191
( 1)
2. ;6
,*
(101)
0) .1)
2.71 Li(7)
(20) 1211)
1.17
(6) (8)
(181 (1260
0,80 4.$0 1.00 1.10 l791
97 2.54 2.55759 f IL ),V____(.:9____ 141 ( 71 (17)0.18 0.50 1.66 3 1.6* 2.11 2..J '1. ... 3.88
10) 6 (211) (191 (20) (24)1.07 7 1.99 2 .21 2.04 ---3:17-3-m--- 3.73--) (25) (19)
4,1(1
( 12 )
1.05
0.59 0.87
(04)
1 or leott
1.5250-54__ (6)
).43 9.3755-59_ ill)
1.8160-64 (14) 71)
1.89 2, 4
65-69 6 1 _____c-82 19
ny Years in Special Education
5
2.41(0) (1) 11
2.19 2.80 3
12h 1 iLF_.gore Tptal
(32)------47rrr'
(1) (673
2. 111 ----(5) (4) (1171
--17P7----,7A--- -7:71------78-1-(8) ;5) ;I) (223)3.55 3.96 2.50
1.61 3,74 J. 301 6.66 3.9 6.10 3.09
____1.L±_____08222.58 ,-.Ble 2.95 1.34 . . . . ._ .,.1_ 7,-,141Al o_41 11t1)Aalji2/--_-1AMM311----t18)
7 '''."1.81 1.19 2.81 ).09 1.16 3.54 3.45 1.92 1.82 1.98 4,60 1.21 1. 61.121_1.1-1-2_- j2 09612.25 2,5/ 2.6) 2.87 2.99 1./8 2.52 9.77 3.72 1.95 3.80 1.97Tnasl_ __(.2981_ (2_2(11___38 C.W1_ -(1912__-(1717-51) (JAN (AD (.-IL_I_L1,L) _.1119)
(LI_ 119) _(18) (1112.14 -27-C4-7r7A17-77i 2(21) (36) (21) (25)
7.002.913.72
1.28
5 9
52
414car.1.48 '-tuJy
Tath
r.11 1-27 Edu.741.1e
41,0471 I Pd:71-e4es)
::,,n8100.141
1-74 ,r le88 1) 12 11 7.7. 5 _ er r3re Tcril_
3.:, -4.00 3.21(40 A ; 40 ; q) 116' ,'4, ,1.7s)
1.23 I. 1. 2-11. 7197 , s.iI J" (29)
,.28 2.70L1') A?) ____Aia_f22) f71 (2Z1
Z.2 =' 2.0;t 3.31 7.81 4.11
_Li,) --____ 1_.-- _1?)()
,,No 2.3.
- -
-
3.20 l.,., 2.7, =.92 ..42_ . - -8 (1) ki) ill) ,431 t -') , 7 't (12,)2.90 4.28-- 4.=', ,.1; 4.',2
9'1 1.07 . 1
3.54.7'; .. il 4.. . -
(2) (A) (1)- - - - .
t7) e47) 7 4A (A)) ;:0_ t1')) (151 14) ' ),E5)______2-le .7,0.7 1.83 3.74 . 5.1, 1.29
_
-1) t) (IA; rrAi (,r) (,,t. +16) 7251 ,111 r31) !7t,51-, 2.$, 3. , -..137 3.43 ...,1 ..11
(31 ..-:" ±2,1 )' 8, i 5') 739( t 18) (21) O),
14) (32) 51) (27) ',(9) 25)
t
1.,, 1.,44 Z.) 2. '2 1.2 , 1.6-7
' 31' '70) (84-.) (1 ?7) Z165) ( 77.. 1,2 ) ( (116) (157)
Cyrt let,a
0.50'1r i 27
3.2!17. f
0405.-59 (1)
.0.:2
6.064 (5)04,2
+8)
70-74 (8)
7 8 9 10
.0.45 1.20 1.75(4) (3) (
0.60 0.53 1.01 1._.6 .
,4) (3).1.6' 0.977 1.34 1.44(8) (4) (8)_ (1-)71.1 1.59 U.14 2.04'12) (10) (16) (29)T1 1.07 2.06 2.31'1q) (15) (22) 1221
2.50(12) (19) (39) (3t.
( (41
t-26)t 11779)
Bs Chron618g1ral Age
17H. 12_ 1 3 14 15 16 @,-- morr Torl7.00 1.6, 2,3 1.74 2=90 7..0 L'(7) (1) 1 1 3) 1
.
2.67 2. 41 2.02 2.60 1.05 3.-,4 744 2.4(J) (5) (13). (7) (61 451 (11) 1 4 12.18 2.43 2.4, 2.9 2.80 3.23 4.-.2(,) (1) (181 (/7) (17) (19) (III uni3.38 3.52 3.1,, 1.11 . 1.96 4.155 4.22 7.:10(137_ (20) (74) _c_20) 19:%60- 2.74 3.11 1.55 /.75 4.071 1.7 (25) (11) (21) (21) (=) t 15)3.08 3.11 1=25 176 4.17 4.. 1 .27 I. ,..(32) (30) (11) (47)) (49) (4') ( 11) (-08)
----0:17- -1---1-:17-----rri-n-1 ---;-- 4.12- 4.2 4.12 5.0175.79 (0 (1)
.-.(-- `4 .',-_. ----.._-. 2.1- '. 3. -5 3. "L?'.. 7' L.V, 't.1)
(21) (25) C)i) _(11) (31) (2.) (2±±L____u_41 (111
--155-.1); t4:,':'=79 (2) i21 (11) (1 ) (9) (19) (12) (17) (14) ((8) )171:!) (17_ _ .
J.F.1- 09----1.34 -1.9----771"---5 L43---r77,7-7[7., .1 i . 1--- EDT; 4, .(7,tA1
40.54
1 71 - (tt',) (6: (130) (155)
1 t,F 1Cs4A 2 3 4 5
1.1'. 0.92 1.50 -1.01 2.50
_UT (5) (3) (3) (6)0.74:
7.
1.1) 1.78 2.25 -2.1)f7 (11) (5).- (8) _(9)1.16 1.71 2.36 2-.11 2.93(16) L1.._)11_}.=SI6) (ley
(144)_ (1_41) (118) (171) _4(11) (171 (2,).). _114,7___
By Years in Sprr131 Ed47. 47186
126 7 8 9 in
1.47 0.40 2.t0 1.17 7.1,,-
3.( 3) (1)
.(2) IL) 177 1
11
3.15 2-.42 3.10 3.81 4.80 4.90 1.90 7.28(4) (10) (6) (1) (1) (1) (61)2.92 -1-.98 149 2.65 1.,4 4.27 2.,2(11) (21) _sia (2) (5) (4) (1 94)
1.14 2.45 2.8) 3.71 1.33 4.04 1.58 --c4,4- ..): ',cm(35) (21) ((2) (4) (8) (.7 (1)
2.8'(224,)
___:11.),2,01)
3)... 7,,
--Ir:-7q -----T7- -----441-(41) ( :=A (30) (28)-272, .0.1
777) (51)
(44) (44) (48 ) (7.1) (1I)4,o7 1.,a) -.1.6($5( (28) (17)7.28 -77-27-- - ..0
(292) (220) (189) (215)_
:8 _. , -.:LTr-4-7T17-4771-1- 1=11 2.15(74) (15) (8) (8) (%) (n2)TE2 -4-,-71- 4,' .75 .-.F---i.9.1) -----T(T
27) (9 ) (7.) (2) (1) ()M.')4. .43 1.'10
(3'C (29) (22) 1_.
(7) ( '-,=)i, 8 4.41 5.16 5. .4 .. 440--(22) (I)) (4) (4) (4) (1) (3) (11,)
(112) (152) (1)11) (55) (42) _(21) (6) (PO
6 0
53
Pall )75 r
Years iSpecLal Cd.
.7.4ozA
Table 17
a S:oreS Tratnable MetE4 i.rdel 72
r- of Purils Shown in Parentoeg
FA- Chronological Ago
17
IZ or zore2.9 3.4
.<30 2)
2.8 3.64 (4) (N____
2.8 3.5
3.1 3.3
4.0 4 4...1 5.1(,,.11 4.81 (1?) 50
by
116.5 2.2 2.05
_(1) (4)_
2.2 3.7 3.6 3.8(2) (5)
4.9 4.0 4349312)9.,__(2.(72)(2)s7)4.4 4.5 4.3 4.5
13
;.5 7.4_46 (19)
6.3 8.nj23) (24)
11.4 8.14
6c o
6.8 7.1_(642)== (4
12 13
2.9 4.6(3) (3)
14_ 1'1
4. 7 6.3(1)
1 7
3
3.8 4.6 5.2 5.1 6,5 6, a ,.(5) ) (44) (102)
5.---r----87-4-- 5,5Api L(16 ) ( ill )
6.0 5.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 iy . 4
--!q=ii!....--.. . ww_uaLc_LLSIIIClo 9 8 l.SJ112m:3.5 4.3 4.8 5.3 7.6 5.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 7.8 8.9 7.14549 1 3 4 17 07)4.3 4.
450 (8) 6
2.9 3,(25
4-30
4
1 or les,* 2
7.4
_ _(126)7.1 7,1
(41) (49)
Tears in Special Educaticn
4.57 8 9
7.
(597)
To(4115.2 3.5
(224.2 1.1 7.0 7.1 6.9 .3 5.1
(12) (2) L9 zL___(2,))____cjj____Ltili_5.5 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.0 8.3 7.5 92 5.5L 7 71 5 1 (2) 106)
5.340-44
3.145-49 (9 ) 5
6.4 7.2 6.0 8.4 0.
50(19) (L2) (15) CID (14) (9) (7
(4154L 577------T8 5.2 6. f 6.3 6. 7.8Tora1 (49) JL79 )____(58 ) ( 70 )L76 ) ( 59) ( 29 ) (18 )
61
54
4
31)
(1)
17.3
( 1) (118 )
b .8
( )2 )
4;4(7'141 EducatfLo Re4c1rct,
T4-e 18
Fall 1975 THR Ctotite Stoftn. Traloaolc nonfallY :;etdfdcil 11a=f1r(liu*bet6 of turalle 41-lowo in Poren(ilerr9)
Mars toSoect41 Ed,
6 or less 7 9 9
i or 214e1 ,11.25 740.)-3 29i.75
1646 1 3) 187 (4)
240.10 :58.11 311.1-., J..,..ii
2 _1.19 i271 (14) ft)
2,5.56 2 78.24) 332.85 4.15.51
1 (2) 1)1 (1 0 (ZU:g7. .4 -15.00
-4 (9) 71u1
-S
2 .0.2- - _
6 :!)
- _ - -7
15
BY Chronclogtcal A.,;(3
10 11 1= 13 4 15 15352.35 451.0C 569.00 504.42 4-7.25
74) (4) (2) f (1) (1)47h80 574.8u 433.50 -,1.,,
(51_ '5) (2) (2) i 0
412,33 459.25 330. 377.33 -6.3=1 384.83 645-.(1.: 444.100 (,) -4 t 9 (5) (51 (101 "(7:;)71
377.50 t . 5----7-25-17- )=1-77(16) '19) (9) (4)
-'''1 ,10) '7-0
17
ot nOra Total113r..1
(7) (71)
2-,-, '11- -7.93 4327-TF 500 93 .. 1-,.,..-71 5o.,7 .,..
)
217_00 -1 L.,--(T-2; , ' 'r7 0 -,. ' 5t. ' , ,.-1: !-, 11
(15) (201 (14) (4) (T) t)711., .,(in
-5547;L025 381.77 .7-.7-- ,74 .:- 7,-.1-,.3'
,7,, ',,i)(I) (1. .,) (t-,) t :
- _(5) (15) 1 4( ,a.( () '1) (3))
-
,4n.i51Q
(1) II (17) (
)-I,' )1')
(1) 27 I
/ ?Cf. ,(
65 1
Total (33) (36) 44).._0
(15) (51) (-
10
r10
n or less
14).5(17
219.25(7)
30-34
35-3 171207.86
-1
24-..634
45-4215.13
12)
249.80 79.11 .
-150.10 167.00
8
(2)
9
-1
307.57 375.11 115.81
t't) In17) 'r
(5)
(61
244. 39._ 89.14 -6i
294.13 144.25 4 4.1771 141
(63) (501 (61) 1.1. (17,%) (7u1)
Chronological Age
131.00 240.25 298.00 414;33 410.33 257.5010
2
11 12
(3)
13
(3)
14
(3)
15
(2)
1i,
.'-'7,,,°,
(8)
.155,.1 417.:1 1.49 9
20.29 311. 3 3 2zo An 20 1
( 71_ (9) 10 61
:7: :''3::(11) (10) (9) ..- (o)
0.75 'f99.70 514A0 440.11 -4--r.-89- 556.82 579.2.1-----V2-1.29 6Ti.1410 -WI (13) (18) 1101
527. 92.85 534._7 5 . . _ 544./1 608.0 17.6,) 63',.01 941.-16 11l11(15) 1(13) (9) (19) (5) (19)
,e..On .-.7, 522. 5-55.7a )39.4' .41 5_1.81 577,18 1.)f, ,, 4.75 6,',. N :771r-,50
29.50
(A) 6 t 7) (12) (9) (4) (127)1
246.62 271.65 115.98 0.51 380.36 935.75 445.99 .-51- 5
s(m7yr_14)2
Total ( (1) 25) 301_ (1.1_ _440) (58) (59) (164) 16481(57) (3
1 or_les4 2
Years in 4606181 EducAtion
7
Jo)71.25
30-)4 (41
290.2035-19 (10)
40..16
413-44
II 3.
158.13 I16-18 370.64 212.88 )68.21
41)..47 396.08 4 4.411
1111____4124151.87 469.67 171:82 54567
.4 42).5745-44 (V) 712
474.80 498.00,50
151.51
_
4 9
46
9 10 11 12 Total. o 349J)0
-
2 (2) (1) (23)
5 ,2 470.60 437.60 684.30 456.24 177.760 (' 7 -1251
61.2.83 596475 6 1 440.75____(61_ (4). _ (110504.31 614.38 649.11
5.00 470.50 539.25 429.50
_1_7) 15) 14)522.16 421.50 556.67 573.30
2 10 _J_'6L(.1) 78, (125)611.00 7.10 556,88 581.67 651.25 672.61 541.41
2 10) 8 3 4) 107)15.67 593.11 4.43 696.33 525.00 577.(r0 70,71-1 5(5.27-
1 _(9)._ (7) (4) 1) _ (l1 _ _ ()) AIA JJ_____493.02 401. )0 510.46 531.30 530.50 565.18 556.4.(
(351 1471 (35) _(26) (28) (41) 1615)
6 2
55
Special Education Resear-h Study
Table 19
EMR Social Maturity Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
an:LaLaa
Source ofVariance
Uniquevariance
Per Centof
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs 0.011 4.21 0.96052. Quality 0.0259 9.19 0.70923. Background 0.1579* 56.03 0.00091 and 3 0.0160 5.682 and 3 0.0292 10.371, 2 and 3 0.0395 14.03
Total R2 0.2818* 0.0201
.fLnl!LEEZ
1. Costs 0.0429 9.87 0.51252. Quality 0.2223* 51.19 0.00103. Background 0.0278 6.40 0.09601 and 2 0.1321 30.411 and 3 -0.0079 1.822 and 3 0.0407 9.371, 2 and 3 -0,0235 - 5.42
Total R2 0.4343* 0.0003
Note: R2 equals multiple correlation coefficient* statistically significant at indicated probability level
Special Education Research Study
Table 20
EgR Reading Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
Elementary
Source ofVariance
UniqueVariance
Per Cento R2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs 0.1620* 84.60 0.04332. Quality 0.0118 6.15 0.92363. Background 0.0165 8.62 0.26801 and 3 0.0038 1.972 and 3 °Q.0043
Total -2 0.1915 0.1F72L.
Secondary
1. Costs 0.2408* 73.39 0.00342. Quality 0.0236 7.21 0.73763. Background 0.0206 6.29 0.1881I. and 2 0.0290 8.851 and 3 0.0170 5.461, 2 and 3 -0.0041 - 1.26
Total R2 0.3281* 0.0073
*Statistically signi icant at indicated probability level
6 4
57
Special Education Research Study
Table 21
EMR Spelling Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
Source ofVarianc
UniqueVariance.
Jementax°y
ProbabilityValue
Per Centof
1. Costs 0.2110* 79.29 0.00852. Quality 0.0338 12.69 0.60413. Background 0.0241 9.05 0.16231 and 2 -0.0170 - 6.401 and 3 0.0058 2.162 and 3 0.0028 1.041, 2 and 3 0.0058 2.16
Total R2 0.2661* 0.0314
Secondary
1. Costs 0.1039 38.58 0.16082. Quality 0.0235 8.72 0.76303. Background 0.1249* 46.38 0.00291 and 2 -0.0093 3.461 and 3 0.0185 6.882 and 3 0.0041 1.511, 2 and 3 0.0037 1.38
Total R2 0.2693* 0.0352
*Statis ically significant at indicated probabIlity level
58
Special Education Research Study
Table 22
EMR hmetic Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
Elementa
SourceVariance
UniqueVariance
Per Centof R2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background1 and 2
0.10950.04780.0000
-0.0184
78.8134.450.01
-13.28
0.19470.51110.9751
Total R2 0.1389 0.4811
Secondary
1. Costs 0.1045 37.42 0.15992. Quality 0.0544 19.48 0.3773
3. Background 0.0954* 34.13 0.00801 and 2 0.0224 8.01
1 and 3 -0.0123 4.422 and 3 0.0074 2.63
1, 2 and 3 0.0077 2.75
Total R2 0.2794* 0.0296
*Statistically significant at indicated probability level
6 6
59
Special Education Research Study
Table 23
TMR Social Maturity Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
IicataLa
Source ofVariance
UniqueVariance
Per Centof R-
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background1 and 21 and 32 and 31, 2 and 3
Total R2
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background1 and 32 and 3
Total R2
0.16240.11890.0820*
-0.06750.22630_0835
-0.0575
29.6321.7014.96
-12.3141.2915.23
-10.50
Secondari
0.16680.21140.0453
0.5481*
0.02890.15430.13450.00660.0328
0.0155
0.98870.63670.1559
8.1643.6238.05
1.889.27
0.3536 0.7842
*Statlgtjcally significant at indicated probability level
6 7
60
pecial Education Research Study
Table 24
TMR Performance Profile Gains - Commonality Analysis Results
141!Etja
Source ofVariance
UniqueVariance
Per Centf R2
ProbabilityVa117e
1. Costs 0.3255* 86.08 0.04862. Quality 0.0795 21.02 0.53913. Background 0.0129 3.40 0.48521 and 2 -0.0576 -15.221 and 3 0.0270 7.152 and 3 0.0211 5.581 2 and 3 -0.0303 - 8.00
Total R2 0.3782 0.1901
Secondary
1. Costs 0.0032 1.11 0.99952. Quali y 0.1046 36.36 0.70403. Background 0.0836 29.06 0.20231 and 2 0.0784 27.261 and 3 0.0493 17.152 and 3 -0.03741, 2 and 3 0.0059
Total R2 0.2876 0.7870
*Statiatically significant at indicated probability level
6 8
61
Special Education Research Study
Table 2
SED, B1 and PH Social Ma urity GainsCommonality Analysis Results
Elementary
Source ofVariance
UniqueVariance
Per Centof R2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs 0.0615 29.47 0.39222. Quality 0.0837 40.11 0.13823. Background 0.0349 16.73 0.08404. Exceptionality 0.0326 15.60 0.25271 and 2 -0.0071 - 3.411 and 3 0.0286 13.702 and 4 -0.0110 - 5.273 and 4 -0.0197 - 9.451, 2 and 3 -0.0042 - 2.03
1, 2 and 4 0.0190 9.091, 3 and 4 -0.0086 - 4.131, 2, 3 and 4 -0.0034 - 1.65
Total R2 0.2087 0.1477
Secondary
1. Costs 0.1411 43.21 0.11492. Quality 0.0913 27.94 0.21023. Background 0.0122 3.75 0.37384. Exceptionality 0.0531 16.25 0.17971 and 3 0.0394 12.05
1 and 4 0.0091 2.782 and 4 -0.0395 -12.103 and 4 -0.0121 - 3.711, 2 and 3 0.0396 12.11
1, 2 and 4 0.0250 7.641, 3 and 4 -0.0311 - 9.532, 3 and 4 0.0042 1.28
Total R2 0.3266 0.0735
6 9
62
Special Education Rase rch Study
Table 26
SED, BI and PH Reading GainsCommonality Analysis Results
Uementary
Source ofVariance_
UniqueVariance_
Per Centof R2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background4. Exceptionality
0.03440.08120.0691*0.0236
18.7344.1437.5912.82
0.72860.1673
.0.01900.3871
1 and 2 0.0176 9.561 and 3 -0.0197 -10.731 and 4 -0.0118 6.422 and 3 0.0109 5.902 and 4 -0.0138 - 7.513 and 4 -0.0101 - 5.501, 2 and 3 -0.0112 - 6.081, 2 and 4 0.0042 2.261, 3 and 4 0.0113 6.152, 3 and 4 0.0027 1.491, 2, 3 and 4 -0.0044 - 2.41
Total R2 0.1839 0.2639
Secondary
1. Costs 0.0698 21.41 0.45782. Quality 0.0192 5.90 0.85793. Background 0.0411 12.62 0.09694. Exceptional ty 0.0508 15.58 0.18641 and 2 0.0223 6.861 and 3 0.0107 3.281 and 4 0.0162 4.972 and 3 0.0122 3.752 and 4 -0.0167 - 5.143 and 4 0.0052 1.591 2 and 3 0.0545 16.721, 2 and 4 0.0061- 1.891 3.and 4 0.0398 12.21
3 and 4 0.0050 1.53'1,- 2; 3 ahd 4 -0.0103 - 3.16
Total R2 0.3260 0.0666
*Statistically significant at ind cated probability level
7 0
63
Special Education Research Study
Table 27
SED, BI and PH Spelling GainsCommonality Analysis Results
ElemenaEy
Source ofVariance
UniqueVariance
Per CentR2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background4. Exceptionality1 and 2
0.1268*0.0780
0.0431*0.05360.0849
36.60
22.5212.4515.4724.50
0.0302.0.09900.03550.0668
1 and 3 -0.0155 - 4.481 and 4 -0.0134 - 3.872 and 3 -0.0053 - 1.542 and 4 0.0105 3.033 and 4 -0.0171 - 4.931, 3 and 4 0.0038 1.092, 3 and 4 -0.0053 - 1.52
Total R2 0.3466* 0.0023
Secondat
1. Costs 0.0931 32.43 0.33602. Quality 0.0324 11.30 0.73013. Background 0.0207 7.21 0.25794. Exceptionality 0.0055 1.92 0.84191 and 2 0.0742 25.851 and 3 0.0185 6.441 and 4 0.0575 20.042 and 3 0.0065 2.252 and 4 -0.0044 1.531, 2 and 3 -0.0352 -12.261, 3 and 4 0.0371 12.922, 3 and 4 0.0053 1.831, 2, 3 and 4 -0.0254 8.84
Total R2 0.2871 0.1560
*Statistically significant at indicated probability level
64
Special Education Research Study
Table 28
SED, BI and PH Arithmetic GainsCommonality Analysis Results
Elementary
Source ofVariance
UniqueVarIance
Per Cent2
ProbabilityValue
1. Costs2. Quality3. Background4. Exceptionality1 and 21 and 31 and 42 and 3
0.09980.06700.03690.0423
-0.0107-0.0117-0.02600.0127
52.6135.2919.4422.27
- 5.64- 6.16-13.69
6.69
0.15790.24780.08150.1802
2 amd 4 -0.0041 - 2.413 and 4 -0.0147 - 7.751, 2 and 3 -0.0066 - 3.481, 3 and 4 0.0055 2.882, 3 and 4 -0.0089 - 4.711, 2, 3 and 4 0=0083 4.39
Total R2 0.1898 0.2348
Secondary
1. Costs 0.0584 11.37 0.37092. Quality 0.0633 12.32 0.21763. Background 0.0542* 10.56 0.02664. Exceptionality 0.0277 5.39 0.27901 and 2 0.0990 19.271 and 3 0.0271 5.271 and 4 0.0113 2.202 and 3 0.0288 5.602 and 4 -0.0186 - 3.623 and 4 0.0176 3.421, 2 and 3 0.1184 23.041, 2 and 4 -0.0103 - 2.001, 3 and 4 0.0373 _7.26
Total R2 --075138* 0.0004
*Statistically signIficant at indicated probability level
72
65
Special Education Research Study
Table 29
1974-75 Intermediate Unit Special Education Cost Per ADM
E1922TILEE
IU PH113 EMIt
-$2,820
IU
22
TMR
$5,660
SED ID ID BI
3 $5,679 17 $6,775 22 $5,3533 16 5,304 25 5,388 3 6,070 25 5,204
26 2,802 26 4,255 26 5,304 23 5,570 26 5,13127 2,339 27 3,861 2 5,069 16 4,530 17 4,53616 2,280 3 3,822 6 4,993 2 4,246 10 4,261
4 2,215 18 3,459 1 4,247 15 4,046 7 4,20314 2,211 15 3,425 22 4,103 10 4,042 2 4,17719 2,087 23 3,384 10 3,985 12 3,783 19 3_,9611 2,068 10 3,261 27 3,899 26 3,713 16 3,822
24 2,043 11 3,075 21 3,832 13 3,446 15 3,570
10 2,039 25 .% 3,021 14 3,783 19 3,225 5 3,5545 1,999 14 2,796 13 3,731 92 3,171 21 3,49520 1,921 2 2,794 28 3,708 8 3,014 3 3,15021 1,912 12 2,695 15 3,679 6 2,984 28 3,1442 1,893 17 2,602 23 3,672 7 2,968 23 3,130
17 1,674 21 2,562 7 3,544 18 2,899 4 3,1089 1,626 8 .2,561 12 3,408 21 2,636 18 3,0796 1,597 28 2,499 4 3,326 5 2,532 20 3,041
25 1,545 1 2,498 8 3,290 1 2,413 12 2,96218 1,538 24 2,479 24 3,202 9 2,351 14 2,863
7 1,512 4 2,334 19 3,107 24 2,292 24 2,832a 1,466 13 2,288 20 3,089 14 2,275 1 2,788
12 1,397 9 2,215 5 2,994 25 2,144 8 2,58529 1,041 7 2,174 17 2,947 4 2,134 13 2,414
20 2,155 9 2,593 27 2,034 6 2,255
5 2,144 18 2,534 20 1,928 9 2,16819 2,028 29 1,812 29 1,457 11 2,1516 1,666 16 1,308 27 2,034
29 1,429 29 1,403
7366
Special Education Research Study
Table 30
1974=75 Intermediate Unit Special Education Cost Per ADM
$echndary
SED IU
27 $2,819 26 $4,349 22 $6,621
26 2,761 15 3,425 20 $8,293 13 .6,194
19 2,253 3 3,299 25 5,981 26 5,791 9 $5,00625 2,185 18 3,161 3 5,483 25 5,155 2 4,12515 2,105 10 2,849 2 5,042 20 4,621 14 4,017
4 2,086 2 2,840 12 4,930 2 4,247 15 3,57021 2,060 22 2,706 10 4,924 15 4,138 10 3,479
10 2,051 14 2,613 29 4,131 29 4,117 12 3,117
14 1,916 23 2,580 18 4,058 7 4,114 16 2,947
3 1,878 27 2,531 13 3,887 4 3,999 5 3,582
2 1,862 17 2,386 15 3,679 21 3,754 18 2,459
8 1,854 19 2,341 5 3,507 5 3,531 23 2,445
18 1,787 21 2,302 21 3,421 19 3,515 8 2,356
17 1,708 20 2,293 24 3,314 18 3,201 6 2,255
12 1,689 12 2,161 23 3,090 27 3,165 13 2,188
1 1,677 7 2,151 14 2,881 24 3,115 25 1,783
20 1,645 4 2,151 19 2,463 17 3,067 29 1,778
5 1,566 25 2,125 3 2,438 23 2,962 21 1,529
7 1,419 24 2,103 8 2,218 28 2,877 24 1,470
9 1,396 29 2,076 7 2,049 1 2,811 3 1,403
16 1,347 1 2,004 3 2,536
6 1,288 13 1,858 8 2,077
28 1,122 6 1,7355 1,7188 1,536
9 1,39616 1,24328 1,241
74
67