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Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished* materials not available from other sources.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