INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8407238 Shinsky, Edmund Jo h n THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT THE FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL Ph.D. M ichigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1984 by Shinsky, Edmund John All Rights Reserved 1983 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark b ack g ro u n d______ 4. Illustrations are poor c o p y ______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through a s th ere is text on both sid e s of pag e______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print exceeds margin requirem ents______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. Computer printout p ages with indistinct print______ 11. P ag e(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P ag e(s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. 14. 15. S Two pages n u m b ered ____________. Text follows. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ O ther___________________________________________________________________ ____ University Microfilms International THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT THE FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL By Edmund John Shinsky A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e re qu ir e m e nt s f o r t h e degre e o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Co unsel in g, Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1983 © 1984 EDMUND JOHN SHINSKY All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT THE FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL By Edmund John Shinsky The purposes o f t h i s stu dy were t o examine t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ­ ness o f t h e e x i s t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i ­ p a t i n g in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) t e s t . A t o t a l o f 751 f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from 97 o f M ic hi gan 's 530 K-12 school d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s s t u d y . To a s s u r e t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e stu dy f i n d i n g s , a s y s t e m a t i c s t r a t i f i c a t i o n method was used in s e l e c t i n g t h e 97 d i s t r i c t s . Seven c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e s tu d y : ed uc a ble m e n t a l l y i m p a ir e d , speech and language im p a ir e d , e m o t i o n a l l y im pa ire d, p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h i m p a ir e d , v i s u a l l y im p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r in g impa ired . All s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u ­ d e n ts from t h e 97 sampled d i s t r i c t s were t o be in c lu d e d in t h e s t u d y . The ind ep en den t v a r i a b l e s were t h e seven impairment gro u p s , t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e a d i n g and math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , and t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s ' judgment o f whether t h e mechanics o f t h e t e s t were a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e s t u d e n t s . MEAP r e a d in g and math s c o r e s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e Edmund John Shinsky The d a t a g a t h e r e d from t h i s s t u d y were an alyzed and s t a t i s ­ t i c a l hypothe ses t e s t e d thro ugh a s e r i e s o f one-way a n a l y s e s o f variance. F - r a t i o s w it h s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l s o f a lp h a * .05 were a cc e p te d as s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s s t u d y . Planned com­ p a r i s o n s were used t o examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s among l e v e l s o f i n d e ­ pendent v a r i a b l e s . The o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s s u gg es te d t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from v a r i o u s d i s a b i l i t y groups s co re d d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e MEAP re a d i n g and math t e s t s . A d d it io na l f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n cl assroom s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and math t e s t s th a n d id s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r math a n d / o r re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c la s s r o o m s . Examina­ t i o n o f s t u d e n t s c o r e s on t h e MEAP t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r o c t o r s co uld a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y t h e s t u d e n t s who had d i f f i c u l t y hand lin g t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t . Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e a d in g and math i n s t r u c t i o n t i m e s , t h e p r e s e n t i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a f o r t h e MEAP t e s t seem t o be a p p r o p r i a t e . I wish t o d e d i c a t e t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n t o t h e pe rs ons l i s t e d h e r e i n , f o r i t i s o nly with t h e i r encouragement, s u p p o r t , and love t h a t I have ach ie ve d t h i s g o a l . I so d e a r l y thank t h e Lord f o r g r a n t i n g me t h e s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s t o f u l f i l l t h i s t a s k and a l s o f o r knowing Him thro ugh t h o s e I am a bout t o mention. Dr. P a t r i c i a P a tt o n Shin sk y, my w i f e , whose unending C h r i s t i a n love and s u p p o r t provided me t h e encouragement t o m a i n t a i n t h e d e t e r ­ min at ion and s t r e n g t h n e c e s s a r y t o f u l f i l l t h i s major academic t a s k . That l o v e , w hil e working on h e r own d i s s e r t a t i o n , w i l l always be de ep ly remembered and c h e r i s h e d . Ms. Lorene Shin sk y, my mo ther, who has d i s p l a y e d an u n s e l f i s h love which has been demo nst rat ed by h e r e x c e p t i o n a l courage and strength. Mr. and Mrs. Robert J . Weiss and t h e i r son Tom, f o r pro vi d i n g me a s e t t i n g by which t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o purs ue t h i s t a s k was made available. Mr. William Gutbrod, my high school f o o t b a l l c o a c h , and Mr. John S t o r e y , my high school w r e s t l i n g c o ac h, who have so g r a ­ c i o u s l y t a u g h t me what i t means t o be a good C h r i s t i a n man, with i n t e g r i t y , d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and t h e a b i l i t y t o use o n e ' s s k i l l s t o th e f u l l e s t capacity. To each o f you I d e d i c a t e t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I acknowledge t h e many f i n e people who have a s s i s t e d and sup porte d me th ro ug ho ut my d o c t o r a l program. To a l l o f you, I extend my d e e p e s t g r a t i t u d e and a p p r e c i a t i o n . Dr. Charles Henley, c h a i r p e r s o n o f my d o c t o r a l committee, has my s p e c i a l thanks f o r h i s guidance and s u p p o rt th r o u g h o u t my d o c t o r a l program. His unending encouragement, s i n c e r i t y , and f r i e n d ­ s h i p a r e de ep ly a p p r e c i a t e d . I want t o e x p re s s my ad m ir a ti o n and r e s p e c t f o r Dr. Charles Mange f o r a g r e e in g t o guide t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and f o r g iv i n g t h e time and commitment t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has r e q u i r e d . His i n s i g h t , c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g , and p a t i e n c e w i l l s er v e as models f o r my f u t u r e endea vo rs. Dr. Donald Burke and Dr. Richard F e a t h e r s t o n e have my a p p r e ­ c i a t i o n f o r a g r e e i n g t o a c t as members o f my d o c t o r a l committee and f o r t h e i r subse que nt he lp and encouragement. Spec ial tha nk s i s given t o Dr. Donald Burke f o r h i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s guidance as my f a c u l t y a d v i s o r duri ng both my u nd e rg ra duat e and m a s t e r ' s s t u d i e s . His sup­ p o r t , s i n c e r i t y , and p l e a s a n t a t t i t u d e have been q u a l i t i e s t h a t I s h a l l always c h e r i s h . I am in d e b te d t o Mrs. Susan Cooley f o r he r a s s i s t a n c e in t h e e d i t i n g and f i n a l p r e p a r a t i o n o f my d i s s e r t a t i o n and f o r h e lp in g me t o make t h i s endeavor a s c h o l a s t i c a l l y rewarding e x p e r i e n c e . Her p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s and s k i l l s a r e o f t h e f i n e s t q u a l i t y . I wish t o thank Mr. P h i l l i p Babcock and Mrs. Gali Edon f o r t h e i r c o n s c i e n t i o u s approach t o a n a ly z in g t h e d a t a upon which my d i s s e r t a t i o n was based. Ms. Gerri Richardson and Ms. June Reese provide d o u t s t a n d i n g s e c r e t a r i a l s e r v i c e th r ou gh ou t my g ra d u a te s t u d i e s . I am deep ly in de bt e d to them both f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e , good humor, and perso nal s a c r i f i c e s to help me f u l f i l l my commitments. I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l t o Dr. Ed Roeber o f t h e Michigan Department o f Education and to t h e Michigan Educa tiona l Assessment Program s t a f f f o r t h e su ppo rt I have r e c e i v e d from them, which has g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e d my a b i l i t y t o a ch ie ve my academic g o a l s . Dr. Roeber's co ntin uo us su p p o rt and openness have enhanced my r e s p e c t f o r both th e ass e ss m e nt and e v a l u a t i o n a r e a s o f t h e Michigan D e p ar t­ ment o f Education and f o r Dr. Roeber as an i n d i v i d u a l . Each o f t h e peo ple I have acknowledged has provide d me with s p e c i a l guidance in a c h ie v in g t h i s g o a l . I a s p i r e t o be worthy o f t h e s e e f f o r t s as I c o n ti n u e w it h my l i f e and c a r e e r . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................................................................................... LIST OF FIGURES........................................... vii xi Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Sta te me nt o f t h e Problem .............................................................. Purpose o f t h e Study ...................................................................... Importance o f t h e Study .................................................................. G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e Findi ngs ............................................ Research Que stions ........................................................................... D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ........................................................................... Overview o f Subsequent Chapters ................................................. 1 3 4 7 7 8 11 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................................... I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ General Review o f Minimum Competency T e s ti n g .................. Background o f Minimum Competency T e s t i n g ...................... P e r s p e c t i v e s on Minimum Competency T e s t i n g .................. S tud en t D i f f e r e n c e s and Minimum Competency T e s t i n g . The I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan and Minimum Competency T e s t i n g .................................................................. Legal Is s u e s Regarding Minimum Competency T e s ti n g . . . Legal P r o t e c t i o n s f o r Handicapped Stu de nts .................. Educational Ri ght s Versus C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Rights . . . Other Legal and P o l i c y Que stions Regarding Minimum Competency T e s t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . I n c l u s i o n o f Spec ial Education S tu d e n ts in Minimum Competency T e s t i n g ...................................................................... S pe c ia l Accommodations A v a i l a b l e f o r Handicapped S t u d e n t s i n Minimum Competency T e s t i n g Programs . . Summary.............................................................................................. 48 III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 13 13 14 14 17 19 21 23 24 27 30 38 41 50 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ 50 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e S a m p l e ...................................................... 50 v Page I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ................................................................................... D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedures ......................................................... Research Hypotheses ........................................................................... S t a t i s t i c a l Methods ........................................................................... 53 57 57 58 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA......................................... 61 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Sample .............................................................. D e s c r i p t i o n o f Research Findings ............................................ Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................... Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................... Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................... Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................... Summary o f F ind in gs ........................................................................... 61 61 71 71 80 90 96 105 112 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 117 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ Summ ary..................................................................................................... R e s u l t s ..................................................................................................... D is c u s si o n o f L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study ............................... D is cu s si on o f R el at e d I s s u e s . . . ........................................ Recommendations .................................................................................... Recommendations f o r t h e S t a t e o f Michigan Educational Assessment Program ........................................ Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research ............................... 117 117 119 137 138 147 APPENDICES................................................................................................................... 159 IV. V. A. EXPLANATION OF SELECTION PROCESS, LIST OF 37 DISTRICTS CHOSEN FOR STUDY, AND LETTER TO DISTRICT SUPERIN­ TENDENTS ABOUT DISTRICT SELECTION ............................................ B. ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, GRADE 4 ...................... C. SCHOOL COORDINATOR'S MANUAL, FALL 1982 D. MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ANSWER SHEET, GRADE 4 ............................................................................................. E. TABLES BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... ................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................... vi 148 156 I 60 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4 .5 4.6 4 .7 4.8 4.9 Page D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r t i c i p a t i n g Stu de nt s According t o S pec ial Education Category .............................................................. 52 Fourth-Grade S p e c ia l Education S tu d e n t P a r t i c i p a n t s , by S pe c ia l Education Category ..................................................... 52 Number o f Responses Received t o Each Question in t h e S p e c i a l - E d u c a t i o n - S t u d y S e c t i o n o f t h e MEAP T e s t , by Impairment Group ........................................................................... 63 Breakdown o f S pe c ia l Education S t u d e n t s , by C at ego ry, According t o P e rc e nt ag e o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n i n Spec ial Education ............................................................................... 65 Breakdown o f S pec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by C at eg or y, According t o Pe rc e n ta g e o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Education ............................................................................... 66 Breakdown o f S pe c ia l Education S t u d e n t s , by C a t eg or y, According t o I n c l u s i o n in o r Exclu sio n From MEAP Summary Reports .................................................................................... 67 Breakdown o f S p e c ia l Education S t u d e n t s , by C at ego ry, According t o Whether t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP T e s t Were Judged t o Be A p p r o p r i a t e o r Not A p p r o p r i a te f o r T h e m ...................................................................................................... 68 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Spec ial Education S tu d e n ts i n Each Categ ory, According t o Whether t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP Te s t Were Judged t o Be A p p ro p ri a te o r Not A p p ro p ri a te f o r Them, by P e rc e nt ag e o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n i n S pe c ia l Education ................................................. 69 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S pe ci al Education S tu d e n ts in Each Cat ego ry, According t o Whether t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP Te s t Were Judged t o Be A p p ro p ri a te o r Not A p p ro p ri a te f o r Them, by P e rc e nt ag e o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S pe ci al Education ................................................. 70 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Reading Scores According t o Impairment Groups .................................... 72 v ii S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Reading Scores and Standard D e v i a t i o n s , by Impairment Groups ................................................. 73 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Reading Scores o f St u d e n ts Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Education According t o Impairment Groups .................................................................................... 74 Mean MEAP Reading Scores and Sta ndard D e v ia ti o n s f o r Stu de nt s Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Ed u c a ti o n , by Impairment Groups ........................... 75 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Reading Scores o f St u d e n ts Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Education According to Impairment Groups . . . 75 Mean MEAP Reading Scores and Sta nda rd D e v ia ti o n s f o r St u d e n ts Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S pec ial E duc a tio n, by Six Impairment Groups .................. 77 ANOVA R e s u l t s : o f St u d e n ts Instruction ment Groups Comparison o f Mean MEAP Reading Scores Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Reading i n S pe ci al Education According t o I m p a ir ­ ................................................................................................. 77 Mean MEAP Reading Scores and Standard D e via ti on s f o r Stu de nt s Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial E du c a tio n, by Six Impairment Groups .......................................................................................................... 78 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Reading Scores o f Stu d e n ts Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S pec ial Education According t o Impairment Groups . . . 79 Mean MEAP Reading Scores and Sta ndar d D e v ia ti o n s f o r S tu d e n ts Rec eiving Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S pec ial E duc a tio n, by Six Impairment Groups .................. 80 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Math Scores According t o Impairment Groups ........................................ 81 S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Math Scores and Sta ndard D e v i a t i o n s , by Impairment Groups ........................................................................... 82 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Math Scores of Stu de nt s Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S pe ci al Education According t o Impairment Groups . . . 83 vi i i Page 4.22 4.2 3 4.24 4. 25 4 .26 4.27 4 .2 8 4. 29 4. 30 4.31 4.32 Mean MEAP Math Scores and Standard D ev iati ons f o r Stu de nt s Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S p ec ial E du c a tio n, by Six Impairment Groups ................... 84 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Math Scores o f Stu d e nts Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n Special Education According t o Impairment Groups . . . 85 Mean MEAP Math Scores and Standa rd D e vi at i on s For Stu d e n ts Receiving Minimal (0-9%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Edu c a tio n, by Impairment Groups ............................ 86 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Math Scores o f St u de nts Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n i n S pe ci al Education According t o Impairment Groups . . . 87 MeanMEAP Math Scores and Standard D e vi at i on s f o r Stu de nt s Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n in S pe c ia l Ed u c a ti o n , by Six Impairment Groups ................... 88 ANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparison o f Mean MEAP Math Scores o f St u d e n ts Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n S pec ial Education According to Impairment Groups .................................................................................... 88 Mean MEAP Math Scores and Standard De vi at io ns f o r St u d e n ts Receiving Maximal (90-100%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S p ec ial Ed uca tio n, by Six Impairment G r o u p s ......................................................................................................... 89 P e r c e n t a g e - o f - I n s t r u c t i o n Levels f o r Emotionally Impaired (El) and Learning Disabled (LD) Groups..................... 91 MAN0VA R e s u l t s : Comparisons o f Emotionally Impaired (E l) and Learning Dis abl ed (LD) S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Reading Scores According t o Perc e nta ge o f Math and Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S p ec ial Education ................................................. 92 R e s u lt s o f T- Te sts f o r S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s in Mean MEAP Reading Scores According t o P e rc e nt ag e o f Math and Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S p ec ial E d u c a ti o n , by Impairment Group ................................................................................... 97 P e r c e n t a g e - o f - I n s t r u c t i o n Levels f o r Emotionally Impaired (El) and Learning Disable d (LD) Groups..................... 98 ix Page 4.3 3 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.3 8 MANOVA R e s u l t s : Comparisons o f Emotionally Impaired (El) and Learning Disable d (LD) S t u d e n t s ' Mean MEAP Math Scores According t o Per c e nta ge o f Math and Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Education ................................................ 99 R e s u lt s o f T - T e st s f o r S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s in Mean MEAP Math Scores According to Per c e nta ge o f Math and Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S pe ci al Edu c a tio n , by Impairment Group ................................................................................... 104 Comparisons o f Mean MEAP Math and Reading Scores o f Stu d e nts f o r Whom t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP T e s t Were Judged A p p ro p ri a te and Not A ppro pri ate ........................... 106 Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment Categ ory, f o r Whom t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP T e s t Were Judged A p pro pri ate and Not A p p ro p ri at e ..................................................... 107 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S pec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment Category, f o r Whom t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP T e s t Were Judged A p p ro p ri a te and Not A p p r o p r i a t e , and T he ir I n c l u s i o n in o r Exclusion From t h e MEAPSummary Report . 110 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S pe cial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment Cat ego ry, o f t h e Total Number o f Special Education St u de nts T y p i c a l l y Included i n o r Excluded From t h e MEAP T e s t ..................................................................................................... 112 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4 .4 4.5 4 .6 4 .7 4.8 Page P o r t i o n o f t h e MEAP Te s t Answer Sheet P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Spec ial Education Study ......................................... . . . . 55 S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s Between Impairment Groups in Terms o f Mean MEAP Reading Scores ............................................ 72 S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s Between Impairment Groups in Terms o f Mean MEAP Math S c o r e s ................................................. 82 Mean MEAP Reading Scores f o r Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment C atego ry, Receiving Minimal (0-9%) and Maximal (90-100%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n S pec ial E d u c a t i o n ................................................................................................. 94 Mean MEAP Reading Scores f o r Special Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment C at eg ory , Receiving Minimal (0-9%) and Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n i n Special E d u c a t i o n ................................................................................................. 95 Mean MEAP Math Scores f o r Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment C at ego ry, Receiving Minimal (0-9%) and Maximal (90-100%) Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Special E d u c a t i o n ................................................................................................. 102 Mean MEAP Math Scores f o r Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment C at eg or y, Receiving Minimal (0-9%) and Maximal (90-100%) Math I n s t r u c t i o n i n Special E d u c a t i o n ................................................................................................. 103 Mean MEAP Math Scores o f Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment C at ego ry, f o r Whom t h e Mechanics o f t h e MEAP Te s t Were Judged A p p ro p ri a te and Not A p p ro p ri at e . 108 Mean MEAP Reading Scores o f Spec ial Education S t u d e n t s , by Impairment Category, f o r Whom Mechanics o f th e MEAP T e s t Were Judged A p p ro p ri a te and Not A p p ro p ri a te . 109 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION St at em en t o f t h e Problem Using s t u d e n t s ' t e s t r e s u l t s to a s s e s s t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l achievement and c a p a b i l i t y in s p e c i f i c academic a r e a s i s a t o p i c in e d u c a t i o n t h a t c o n t i n u e s to r e c e i v e n a t i o n a l , s t a t e , and l o c a l a t t e n ­ tion. Assessments va ry in scope from s t a n d a r d i z e d achievement t e s t s , t o measures t h a t g a t h e r in f o r m a t io n on s t u d e n t s ' s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses, t o competency t e s t s t h a t use a s s e s s m e n t - t e s t d a t a to make d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g s t u d e n t e n t r a n c e , promotion, r e t e n t i o n , or graduation. Whether a s t a t e uses an asse ssm en t program o r com­ pe tency t e s t i n g , t h e r e i s a ge ner al commonality between t e s t i n g programs t h a t p r o v id e s f o r accommodation o f s t u d e n t s with s p e c i a l needs. S t a t e p o l i c y makers p l a c e g r e a t emphasis on t h e v a l u e o f s t u d e n t t e s t r e s u l t s , c o r r e l a t i n g them w ith t h e q u a l i t y o f i n d i ­ vidua l school d i s t r i c t s ' e d u c a t i o n a l programs. Major c o n t r o v e r s i e s have s u r f a c e d , co nc er ni ng which s t u d e n t s should o r should n o t ta k e t h e t e s t s , al ong w ith who should g r a d u a t e , based on t h e i r t e s t results. This i s s u e becomes most complex when one t a k e s i n t o a cco unt th o s e s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l e d u c a ti o n a l s u p p o r t , such as s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 1 2 Michigan e d u c a t o r s have w r e s t l e d wit h t h e dilemma o f which students to t e s t or not to t e s t f o r several y e a r s . The p r e s e n t c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) were e s t a b l i s h e d in t h e 1978-79 school y e a r . A f t e r a g r e a t deal o f d e l i b e r a t i o n , t h e Research Ev a lu a ti o n and Assessment S e r v i c e s Advisory Committee s e t t h e s t a n ­ dards f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t . The a d v i s o r y committee agr eed t h a t ev ery s t u d e n t who r e c e i v e s 50% o r more o f h i s / h e r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n pe r day in t h e general e d u c a t i o n c las sr oom i s t o be t e s t e d ; a s t u d e n t may be excluded from t a k i n g t h e t e s t s o nl y i f h e /s h e has been found e l i g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n through an I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plannin g Committee (IEPC) p ro c e s s and r e c e i v e s more tha n 50% o f h i s / h e r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n p e r day thro ugh s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n programs and s e r v i c e s . This may i n c l u d e s t u d e n t s who a r e ed ucable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI), speech and language impaired (S L I) , e m o t i o n a l l y impaired ( E l ) , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h impaired (POHI), v i s u a l l y impaired (V I) , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD), and h e a r in g impaired (HI). In a r e c e n t paper e n t i t l e d " P o li c y I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Competency T e s t i n g as P a r t o f High School Graduation a t t h e Lo c a l, S t a t e , and National L e v e l, " S h a r i f Shakrani from t h e Michigan Department o f Education (1980) p o in te d o u t t h a t many s t a t e s and hundreds o f school d i s t r i c t s have adop ted competency t e s t i n g as p a r t o f high school graduation c r i t e r i a . Concerning t h e importance o f such t e s t i n g p r o ­ grams, Shakrani s t a t e d , "A v i a b l e competency t e s t i n g program i s 3 one i n which s t u d e n t performance d a t a a r e used as a b a s i s f o r d i a g ­ nosing weaknesses and n e c e s s a r y r e m e d ia t io n no t o nl y f o r s t u d e n t s b u t t h e e d u c a ti o n a l system a s a whole" (p . 8 ) . I f Shakrani's points a r e t a k e n s e r i o u s l y , i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t MEAP d a t a on a l l s t u d e n t s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , be used t o t h e maximum e x t e n t a t a l l t h r e e Michigan t e s t i n g l e v e l s : f o u r t h , s e v e n t h , and t e n t h grades. With t h e c u r r e n t n a t i o n a l concern f o r s t u d e n t a t t a i n m e n t o f minimum c om pet en c ie s, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n be g a th er ed so t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n and r e m e d ia t io n can ta k e pl a ce b e f o r e any typ e o f competency t e s t i s used t o de ter mi ne a s t u d e n t ' s cand ida cy f o r g r a d u a t i o n . The major problem t o which t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y was a dd re ss ed i s t h a t very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been done on handicapped s t u d e n t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in any ty p e o f ass e ss m e nt o r competency t e s t i n g . The c r i t e r i a f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s ' i n c l u s i o n in and performance on such t e s t s , usi ng t e s t r e s u l t s t o enhance t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f h a n d i­ capped s t u d e n t s , and u s i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s ' t e s t r e s u l t s to improve t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c u r r i c u l u m a r e a few i s s u e s t h a t have been a dd re ss ed in a ru di m en ta ry f a s h i o n . In Michigan, no formal r e s e a r c h has been conducted on handicapped s t u d e n t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program. I t is th is subject with which t h e p r e s e n t s tu dy was co ncerned. Purpose o f t h e Study The primary purpose o f t h i s s tu d y was to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f e x i s t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n 4 s t u d e n t s in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). As s t a t e d b e f o r e , onl y t h o s e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e more than 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in gener al e d u c a ti o n programs a r e c u r r e n t l y in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP t e s t i n g . Hypotheses were t e s t e d c on cer nin g seven s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n impairment groups (EMI, SLI, E l , POHI, VI, LD, HI) and t h e i r s c o r e s on t h e MEAP t e s t a t t h e f o u r t h grade l e v e l . Data were g a t h e r e d on a l l s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e f o u r t h g r a d e , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e amount o f time t h e y were i n t e g r a t e d i n t o g en eral e d u c a t i o n E n g l i s h / r e a d i n g . A ddi tio na l i n fo r m a t io n was c o l l e c t e d on t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s tr u c tio n in special education the student received. Another p u r ­ pose o f t h e st udy was t o de ter mi ne whether t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d in g and math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechan­ i c s o f t h e t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and th o s e f o r whom t h e t e s t mechanics were judged n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . Importance o f t h e Study This stu dy w i l l p ro vi de i n i t i a l d a t a f o r t h e development o f r e s e a r c h - v a l i d a t e d c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program. The s tu d y i s i m p o r ta n t f o r s e v e r a l o t h e r r e a s o n s , as w e l l . F i r s t , s t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c ie s a r e o b l i g a t e d by t h e Four­ t e e n t h Amendment o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , by P u b li c Law 94-142 ( t h e Education o f All Handicapped Ch ild re n Act o f 1975), and by S e c ti o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973 t o make every e f f o r t p o s s i b l e t o p r o t e c t t h e e q u a l - e d u c a t i o n a l - o p p o r t u n i t y r i g h t s o f a l l handicapped 5 individuals. P ub li c Law 94-142 e n f o r c e s t h i s p r o t e c t i o n by r e q u i r i n g t h a t each p u b l i c agency e nsu re t h a t handicapped c h i l d r e n a r e edu­ c a t e d with nonhandicapped p u p i l s as much as p o s s i b l e . S e c t i o n 504 ( R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973) mandates t h a t "no o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d handicapped i n d i v i d u a l . . . s h a l l , s o l e l y by re aso n o f h i s h a n d i ­ cap, be excluded from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n , be de ni ed t h e b e n e f i t s o f , o r be s u b j e c t t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under any program o r a c t i v i t y r e c e i v ­ ing f e d e r a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e " (45 CRF, s e c . 81 and 8 4 ) . One o f t h e major e f f o r t s t h a t s t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c i e s can pursue t o e n su r e t h a t t h e i r minimum-competency t e s t i n g program com­ p l i e s w ith t h e re q u ir e m e n ts o f t h e F o u r te e n th Amendment, P u b li c Law 94-142, and Se c ti o n 504 i s t o e v a l u a t e t h e involvement and pe rform­ ance o f handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r t e s t i n g program. The i n f o r ­ mation g a th e r e d from t h e p r e s e n t stu dy w i l l pr ovide s t a t e and l o c a l e d u c a ti o n a l a g e n c i e s w it h d a ta from which th e y can m a i n t a i n o r develop s t r a t e g i e s in th e Michigan Educational Assessment Program t h a t w i l l allow handicapped s t u d e n t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n and b e n e f i t from t h e t e s t i n g program as much as t h e i r nonhandicapped p e e r s . This s tu dy i s a l s o im p o r ta n t because i t p ro v id e s a base o f r e s e a r c h d a t a from which s p e c i f i c unanswered q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement i n s t a t e a sse ssm en t o r minimum competency t e s t i n g programs can be a d d r e s s e d . Three o f t h e s e q u e s ­ tio n s are: 1. Is i t a p p r o p r i a t e t o have uniform s t a t e a sse ssm en t t e s t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f handicapped s t u d e n t s ? 6 2. Are s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a d e q u a t e l y pr e pa re d t o t a k e t h e s t a t e ass e ss m e nt t e s t ? That i s , i s t h e r e a match between t h e c u rr ic u lu m and t h e i n fo r m a t io n on which they a r e t e s t e d ? 3. Are s t a t e and l o c a l ag en c ie s us in g s t a t e ass e ss m e nt t e s t r e s u l t s t o he lp i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f handicapped s t u d e n t s ? There i s a g r e a t deal o f s k e p t i c i s m among Michigan e d u c a t o r s r e g a r d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and perfor m­ ance on t h e MEAP t e s t . Some i n d i v i d u a l s f e e l t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' t e s t s c o r e s lower t h e o v e r a l l d i s t r i c t performance l e v e l . The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y can be used t o a d d r e s s t h e assumption t h a t t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t i s a f a c t o r in lowering MEAP scores. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s s tu d y i s im po rt an t because l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been completed a t e i t h e r t h e s t a t e o r t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l in r e g a r d t o handicapped s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in s t a t e a ss e ss m e nt o r minimum competency t e s t i n g program. A majority of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed was concerned w it h us in g minimum competency t e s t s as a graduation c o n sid e ra tio n . To t h e w r i t e r ' s knowledge, no r e s e a r c h has been done on e le m e n ta ry handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement in s t a t e ass e ss m e nt o r competency t e s t i n g . R ese arche rs have mainly spoken t o t h e f a c t t h a t e a r l y asse ssm en t and i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e ­ g i e s a r e im p o r ta n t in p r o v id i n g s t u d e n t s wit h t h e b e s t o p p o r t u n i t y t o pass t h e minimum-competency t e s t as a g r a d u a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t . F i n a l l y , t h i s s t u d y i s im port an t because t h e in f o r m a t io n g a th e r e d can be r e l a t e d t o t e s t i n g programs i n o t h e r s t a t e s . As 7 t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program i s s i m i l a r t o a sse ssm en t programs used in o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d from t h i s st ud y can p ro vi de v a l u a b l e d a t a f o r o t h e r s t a t e s t o use in accommodating handicapped s t u d e n t s in t h e i r t e s t i n g programs. G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e Findings The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y a r e most g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o Michi­ g a n ' s f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n p o p u l a t i o n . However, th e f i n d i n g s a r e a l s o s u g g e s t i v e o f what may be found a t o t h e r grade levels. In a d d i t i o n , t h e s tu dy f i n d i n g s may be u s e f u l t o o t h e r s t a t e s using a sse ssm en t o r competency t e s t s w it h s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n populations. Research Questions This study was conducted i n an a t t e m p t t o answer t h e f o l ­ lowing r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s : 1. Do s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t impairment groups s c o r e d i f f e r e n t l y in t h e a r e a s o f r e a d in g and math on t h e MEAP t e s t ? 2. Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e rc e n ta g e s o f r e a d ­ ing o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n ? 3. Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t pe rc e n ta g e s o f re a d in g or math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n ? 4. To what de gre e do t h e mechanics o f t e s t t a k i n g and t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o u n de rs ta nd t h e d i r e c t i o n s f o r 8 re sponding t o q u e s t i o n s , as a s s e s s e d by MEAP p r o c t o r s , a f f e c t t h e s t u d e n t s ' performance on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g a n d / o r math t e s t s ? D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The f o l l o w i n g key terms a r e d e f i n e d in t h e c o n t e x t i n which th e y a r e used in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Assessment t e s t s —i n s t r u m e n t s used t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on a s t u d e n t ' s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses and t o i n d i c a t e s k i l l s t h e s t u ­ d e n t has o r has no t a c h i e v e d . Competency t e s t s — i n s t r u m e n t s used t o de te r m in e a s t u d e n t ' s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses and t o make d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g e n t r a n c e , promotion, r e t e n t i o n , o r g r a d u a t i o n . T e s t i n g program—a program t h a t uses a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t to show t h e r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f a s t u d e n t w i t h i n t h e group. Michigan Educ at ion al Assessment Program (MEAP)—a s t a t e w i d e program used to a s s e s s s t u d e n t achievement i n r e a d i n g and mathe­ ma tic s ( o t h e r s u b j e c t a r e a s a r e t e s t e d on a sampling b a s i s ) . The MEAP t e s t s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d e v er y f a l l t o a l l f o u r t h , s e v e n t h , and t e n t h g r a d e r s . They p ro vid e i n f o r m a t i o n on what t h e s t a t e ' s s t u d e n t s a r e l e a r n i n g in s p e c i f i c a r e a s as compared w it h what t h e s t a t e wants them t o know and do. The c u r r e n t ass e ss m e nt t e s t s a r e o b j e c t i v e - r e f e r e n c e d s e t s o f items measuring s e l e c t e d minimum-performance o b j e c t i v e s i n t h e s u b j e c t a r e a s o f r e a d i n g and mathe mati cs. Each o b j e c t i v e i s measured by a s e t o f t h r e e i te m s . O b j e c t i v e a t t a i n m e n t r e q u i r e s answering c o r r e c t l y a t l e a s t two o f t h e t h r e e items measuring each o b j e c t i v e . The untimed t e s t s a ll ow s t u d e n t s t o work a t t h e i r own pa ce . The t e s t s were w r i t t e n by Michigan e d u c a t o r s and f i e l d t e s t e d tw i c e on a s t a t e w i d e sample o f s t u d e n t s . Following each t r y o u t , t h e t e s t s were reviewed and r e f i n e d . The r e v i s e d t e s t s were approved by t h e S t a t e Board o f Education and a d m i n i s t e r e d on a s t a t e - w i d e b a s i s in 1980-81. (Michigan Department o f E d u c a ti o n , 1982, introduction) 9 I n d i v i d u a l Educational Planning Committee (IEPC)—a committee o f pe rsons ap p o in te d and i n v i t e d by t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t t o de te r m in e a s t u d e n t ' s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs and s e r v i c e s , and i f t h a t s t u d e n t i s found t o be e l i g i b l e f o r such programs, t o develop an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a ti o n program f o r h im /h e r. I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Education Program (I E P) —an e d u c a t i o n a l p r o ­ gram developed by t h e IEPC; t h i s program i s reviewed a n n u a l l y . Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t a l l o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : ( a ) development a t a r a t e a ppro x im a te ly two t o t h r e e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s below t h e mean, as de termined thro ugh i n t e l l e c t u a l a s s e s s m e n t ; (b) s c o r e s w i t h i n a ppro xim a te ly t h e low est s i x p e r c e n t i l e s on a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t in r e a d in g and a r i t h m e t i c ; (c ) l a c k o f development p r i m a r i l y in t h e cog­ n i t i v e domain; (d) impairment o f a d a p t i v e b e h a v i o r . Emotionally impaired (E l) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by t h e IEPC t o q u a l i t y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t beh av io r problems p r i m a r i l y i n t h e a f f e c t i v e domain, o ve r an extended p e r io d o f t i m e , which a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e i r e d u c a t i o n t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t th e y cann ot p r o f i t from r e g u l a r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h o u t special education support. The problems r e s u l t i n b e h a v io r s mani­ f e s t e d by one o r more o f t h e fo ll o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) i n a b i l i t y to build o r maintain s a ti s f a c t o r y interp erso n al r e la tio n s h ip s within t h e school e nvi ron me nt, (b) i n a p p r o p r i a t e be h a v io r o r f e e l i n g s under normal c i r c u m s t a n c e s , (c) general p e r v a s i v e mood o f unhappiness o r 10 d e p r e s s i o n , and (d) tendency t o develop ph ys ic a l symptoms o r f e a r s a s s o c i a t e d with per so nal o r school problems. The term "e m o ti o n a l ly impaired" a l s o i n c l u d e s persons who, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e pre ced ing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e x h i b i t m a la da ptiv e be h av io r s r e l a t e d t o s c h i z o ­ p h re n ia o r s i m i l a r d i s o r d e r s . Hearing impaired (HI) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t a he ar in g impairment t h a t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s e d u c a t i o n a l performance. A d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f impairment i s based on a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n by a m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n team, which i n c l u d e s an o t o l a r y n ­ g o l o g i s t and an a u d i o l o g i s t . Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s - - t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i t y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t a d i s o r d e r in one o r more o f t h e b a s i c p s yc ho lo gic a l p r o c e s s e s involved in u n d e rs ta n d in g o r in using la n gu ag e , spoken, o r w r i t t e n , which may m a n i f e s t i t s e l f in an im p e r f e c t a b i l i t y t o l i s t e n , t h i n k , spea k, r e a d , w r i t e , s p e l l , o r do mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n s . The c a t e g o r y in c l u d e s such c o n d i t i o n s as p e r c e p tu a l h a n d i c a p s , b r a i n i n j u r y , minimal b r a i n d i s f u n c t i o n , d y s l e x i a , and developmental a p h a s i a . I t does no t i n c lu d e c h i l d r e n who have l e a r n i n g problems t h a t a r e p r i ­ m a r i l y t h e r e s u l t o f v i s u a l , h e a r i n g , o r motor ha n d ic a p s ; o f mental r e t a r d a t i o n ; o f emotional d i s t u r b a n c e ; o r o f e n v ir o n m e n ta l, c u l t u r a l , o r economic d i s a d v a n t a g e . P h y s i c a l l y o r o th e r w is e h e a l t h impaired (POHI) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t a ph y s ic a l o r o t h e r h e a l t h impairment t h a t a d v e r s e l y n a f f e c t s e d u c a t i o n a l performance and t h a t r e q u i r e s ph y s ic a l a d a p t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e school env iro nm en ts . Speech and language impaired (SLI) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s and who m a n i f e s t communication impairments ( a r t i c u l a r i o n , v o i c e , f l u e n c y impairment) t h a t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l performance. V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) s t u d e n t s —t h o s e s t u d e n t s determined by an IEPC t o q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s who m a n i f e s t a v i s u a l impairment t h a t i n t e r f e r e s w it h development o r a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l performance. S pec ial e d u c a t i o n —s p e c i a l l y de signed i n s t r u c t i o n , provided a t no c o s t t o t h e p a r e n t s , t o meet t h e unique needs o f a handicapped p e rs on; t h i s i n c l u d e s c las sr oom i n s t r u c t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n in ph ys ica l e d u c a t i o n , home i n s t r u c t i o n , and i n s t r u c t i o n in h o s p i t a l s and i n s t i ­ tutions. Such e d u c a t i o n i s de sig ne d t o develop t h e maximum p o t e n t i a l o f a handicapped pe rs on . Overview o f Subsequent Chapters Chapter I I c o n t a i n s a review o f l i t e r a t u r e on s t a t e a s s e s s ­ ment and minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. Included a r e a general review o f minimum competency t e s t i n g , a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e l e g a l i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g such t e s t i n g , and an exam in ation o f t h e i s s u e s su rrounding i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n minimum competency t e s t i n g . The r e s e a r c h methodology o f t h e stud y i s e x p la i n e d in Chapter I I I . The i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n procedures a r e d e s c r i b e d , and t h e r e s e a r c h hypotheses a r e s t a t e d . 12 Chapter IV c o n t a i n s t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f t h e data. I t i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e sample, by impairment c a t e g o r y , t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o t h e hypotheses t e s t e d , and a summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s . A summary o f t h e s t u d y , r e s u l t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e s t u d y , and l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e r e s e a r c h may be found i n Chapter V. Recommendations f o r t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program, as well as f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , a r e a l s o i n c lu d e d . CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction An e x t e n s i v e review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e was conducted on han­ dicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement in s t a t e a sse ssm en t and minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. Almost a l l o f t h e r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement in s t a t e a sse ssm en t t e s t i n g p r o ­ grams c e n t e r e d on minimum competency t e s t i n g . Whether a s t a t e uses an ass essment o r a minimum competency t e s t ( r e s u l t s o f t h e l a t t e r a r e used f o r making d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g e n t r a n c e , promotion, r e t e n ­ t i o n , o r g r a d u a t i o n ) , t h e r e s e a r c h on minimum competency t e s t i n g can be u s ef u l t o e d u c a t o r s pla nn in g to accommodate handicapped s t u d e n t s in a s t a t e a sse ssm en t program. T h e r e f o r e , to e x p l o r e in d e t a i l t h e c u r r e n t s t a t u s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' involvement in s t a t e a sse ssm en t programs, t h e theme o f minimum competency t e s t i n g was e x p lo re d . The i n f o r m a t i o n r e p o r t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r d a t e s from t h e l a t e 1970s u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t and was gleaned mainly from j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s and papers p r e s e n t e d a t c o n f e r e n c e s . The review i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e major t o p i c a r e a s t h a t r e f l e c t t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h on handicapped s t u d e n t s and minimum competency t e s t i n g . The f i r s t s e c t i o n i s a gener al review o f minimum competency t e s t i n g . The second p a r t c o n t a i n s a d i s c u s s i o n o f l e g a l 13 14 i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g minimum competency t e s t i n g . The i s s u e s s ur rou ndi ng i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t ­ ing a r e e xp lo re d in t h e t h i r d s e c t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e revie w . General Review o f Minimum Competency T e s t i n g The i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g minimum competency t e s t i n g can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n s e v e r a l ways. Since minimum competetency t e s t i n g and competency t e s t i n g in g en er al a r e t o o l s used w it h t h e school p o p u l a t i o n as a whole, many o f t h e i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g t e s t i n g t h e handicapped a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d and f a l l w i t h i n t h e general themes covered i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e purpose o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o p ro v id e a gener al overview o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e on minimum competency t e s t i n g ; s e v e r a l t o p i c s a r e examined t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t to t h e e n t i r e school p o p u l a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e handicapped. Background o f Minimum Competency T e s ti n g Minimum competency t e s t i n g was developed in r e s p o n s e t o s o c i e t y ' s demand f o r s c h o o l s to be e d u c a t i o n a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e . Wise (1978) d i s c u s s e d t h e re a s o n i n g behind t h e a d o p ti o n o f such t e s t i n g : Minimum competency t e s t i n g i s a r e c e n t " i n v e n t i o n " de sig ne d t o improve t h e s c h o o l s . The l a s t decade o r two have w it n e s s e d a s u c c e s s i o n o f s i m i l a r i n v e n t i o n s . These i n v e n t i o n s have a l l been de sig ne d t o make t h e o p e r a t i o n o f sc h o o ls more " a c c o u n t­ a b l e , " more " b u s i n e s s l i k e , " and more " s c i e n t i f i c . " One by one , t h e s e i n v e n t i o n s have been e nac te d i n t o s t a t e law. The re a s o n in g a p pea rs t o be t h a t 1. 2. 3. 4. the schools an i n v e n t i o n a s t a t e law as r e q u i r e d a r e no t producing w e l l ; a p p e a rs t h a t i s s a i d t o improve s c h o o l i n g ; embodying t h a t i n v e n t i o n i s p a s s e d ; by law, t h e sc h o o ls w i l l produce w e l l . (p. 596) 15 As t h e concern f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y grew, minimum competency t e s t i n g gained appeal as a p o s s i b l e means o f improving t h e s c h o o ls (Bla u, 1978). According t o Blau, t h e proponents o f m i n i ­ mum competency t e s t i n g s u g g e s t t h a t such measurement i s o f b e n e f i t because 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. t h e high school diploma i s o f q u e s t i o n a b l e v a l u e s i n c e s o c i a l promotions be gin a t t h e f i r s t grade and c o n ti n u e onward thr ou gh a l l twe lve g r a d e s ; t h e l e v e l o f a t t a i n m e n t by high school g r a d u a t e s i s d e c e l ­ erating constantly; s t u d e n t s l a c k m o t i v a t i o n and t h e y r e q u i r e something t o make them more concerned about s c h o o l ; t e a c h e r s a r e n o t as competent as th e y ought t o be; and t h e f a b r i c o f i n t e l l e c t u a l s o c i e t y i s d e t e r i o r a t i n g , and t h e school system i s h e l p i n g t o h id e t h i s by c o n t i n u i n g t o p ro c e ss s t u d e n t s w i t h o u t concern about t h e p u r s u i t o f e x c e l ­ l e n c e . (p. 173) E d u c a to r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and be h av io r al s c i e n t i s t s have deb ate d w hether minimum competency t e s t i n g i s t h e answer t o e x i s t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l c o n ce rn s . Blau argued a g a i n s t t h e use o f such t e s t i n g . He c i t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s f o r h i s s t a n d : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. t e s t in s t r u m e n t s used in minimum competency e v a l u a t i o n s a r e of lim ited v a lid ity ; a s i d e from t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t e s t s a r e not a very f a i r way o f a s s e s s i n g e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r e s s ; t e s t i n g i s a n t i l i b e r a l and a n t i p r o g r e s s ; t e s t s l a b e l c h i l d r e n and i t i s g e n e r a l l y agre ed t h a t c h i l d r e n should n o t be l a b e l e d ; and t h e use o f minimum competency t e s t s w i l l f o r c e t h e sc h oo ls to develop programs to " te ac h t h e t e s t . " (p. 174) The National Education A s s o c i a t i o n (NEA, 1978) took t h e f o l ­ lowing p o s i t i o n on t h e major use o f t e s t s and voiced i t s concern a bo ut l a b e l i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g s t u d e n t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e t e s t s . The major use o f t e s t s should be t o improve e d u c a t i o n —t o diagn ose l e a r n i n g d i f f c u l t i e s and to plan l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s in re sp ons e t o l e a r n i n g need s. T e s t s must n o t be used i n any 16 way t o l a b e l and c l a s s i f y s t u d e n t s , t o t r a c k i n t o homogeneous gr o up s , . . . t o p e r p e t u a t e an e l i t i s m , o r t o m a i n t a i n some groups o f i n d i v i d u a l s " in t h e i r p l a c e " n e a r t h e bottom o f t h e socio-economic l a d d e r . P o l i c y makers have s t a t e d a number o f o p in io n s and ta ken v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s on minimum competency t e s t i n g . Whether t h e s e o p in io n s and p o s i t i o n s r e f l e c t a need t o be e d u c a t i o n a l l y a c c o u n t ­ a b l e o r pro v id e a to o l t o i d e n t i f y s t u d e n t ne e d s , s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s remain r e g a r d i n g t h e imple menta tion and va lu e o f minimum competency testing. The 13 i s s u e s posed by Howell ( i n S e c h r e s t , 1981) i n 1978 p ro vi de a sy n o p si s o f t h e q u e s t i o n s c once rn in g minimum competency t e s t i n g w it h which e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers a r e s t i l l d e a l i n g : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Should t h e s k i l l s t o be t e s t e d be " l i f e s k i l l s " o r "school s k i l l s ? " A c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n can be drawn between t h e two t y p e s , and each i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e s . Once t h e ty pe o f s k i l l s has been d e te r m in e d , which o f t h e s p e c i f i c s k i l l s sho uld be c o n s id e r e d t o make up t h e " b a s i c s " w i t h i n t h e type ? Once t h e ty p e o f s k i l l s has been d e te r m in e d , what would be t h e a p p r o p r i a t e proce dur e f o r measuring t h e l e v e l o f s k i l l s ach ie ve d? L i f e s k i l l s a r e b e s t measured ov er time with l i f e - l i k e s i t u a t i o n s . School s k i l l s a r e b e s t measured in a sin g le t e s t , u su ally a paper-and-pencil t e s t . When would be t h e a p p r o p r i a t e time f o r minimum competency t e s t i n g ? I f t h e t e s t i s t o be simply an e x i t mechanism, t h e j u n i o r o r s e n i o r y e a r may be a d e q u a te . I f t h e t e s t i s t o be used as a p a r t o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s , i t should be admin­ i s t e r e d as e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e . The r e s u l t s co uld th e n be used i n shaping t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. The b a s i c c r i t e r i o n f o r t h e tim e chosen would be t h e purpose o f t h e t e s t i n g p r o ­ gram. Once an i n s t r u m e n t o r proce dure has been developed o r s e l e c t e d f o r use in a minimum competency t e s t i n g program, who should s e l e c t t h e s t a n d a r d f o r achievement? The answer t o t h i s qu es ­ tion is c r i t i c a l . Where do maximum s t a n d a r d s and minimum s t a n d a r d s meet? A major concern o f e d u c a t o r s i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t e s t a b l i s h ­ ing a f l o o r o f minimum re q u ir e m e n ts would have t h e e f f e c t o f lowering t h e c e i l i n g . What accommodations should be made f o r f a i l u r e s ? The common res pon se s have been t o o f f e r a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o ta k e 17 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. t h e t e s t and t o p ro vid e re m e d ia t io n t o t h e s t u d e n t who f a i l e d t h e t e s t . These approaches have been b e n e f i c i a l t o many s t u d e n t s when t h e re m e d ia t io n i s w e l l - c o n c e i v e d , b u t new approaches a r e needed. How can a minimum competency t e s t i n g program be f in a n c e d ? The development o r s e l e c t i o n pr oc e ss becomes p r o h i b i t i v e l y exp ens ive f o r school systems wit h low t a x b a s e s . I f a m i n i ­ mum competency program i s t o be e d u c a t i o n a l l y sound, i t has t o employ o nly w e l l - c o n s t r u c t e d t e s t s with high v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . These a r e c o s t l y . What s t e p s a r e p o s s i b l e t o p r e v e n t a r e t u r n t o s e g r e g a t i o n ? St u d e n ts from low socio-economic backgrounds te nd t o do more p o o rl y on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s tha n t h o s e from h ig h e r s o c i o ­ economic backgrounds. Since t h e r a t i o o f non-white s t u d e n t s t o w hit e s t u d e n t s i s h i g h e r in t h e lower socio-economic l e v e l s , t h e n e t e f f e c t would be r e s e g r e g a t i o n o f s c h o o l s . This would o c cu r as r e m e d ia t io n programs a r e developed f o r s t u d e n t s who have f a i l e d o r have been i d e n t i f i e d as l i k e l y t o f a i l . For t h o s e s t a t e s which choose t o use l i f e s k i l l s i n t h e i r minimum competency t e s t i n g programs, what shou ld be done t o a s s u r e t h a t s t u d e n t s a r e r e c e i v i n g an e d u c a t i o n i n t h o s e s k i l l s ? Few sc ho ols o f f e r a program d e a l i n g w it h l i f e s k i l l s . When should minimum competency re q u ir e m e n ts be imposed on s t u d e n t s ? Should t h e r e be a " p h a s e - i n " p e r io d t o a ll o w s t u ­ d e n t s t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e t e s t ? The q u e s t i o n o f t h e l e g a l i t y o f imposing such a re qu ire m e nt on s t u d e n t s who have no t had foreknowledge o f i t has been q u e s t i o n e d in t h e c o u r t s ( e . g . , Florida). Should r e s u l t s from t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g program be used in a c c o u n t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t e a c h e r s ? What i s t h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e co nce pt o f minimum competency t e s t i n g ? Does i t deny t h e s t u d e n t s who f a i l t h e r i g h t t o o b t a i n an e d u c a ti o n ? Proponents arg ue t h a t i t c oul d a s s u r e t h a t r i g h t by e s t a b l i s h i n g s t a n d a r d s . Opponents argue t h a t i t f r e q u e n t l y p e n a l i z e s s t u d e n t s who f a i l because o f f a c t o r s beyond t h e i r c o n t r o l ( e . g . , i m p o s it io n o f t h e re q u ir e m e n t a t a l a t e d a t e i n t h e school e x p e r i e n c e , t e s t b i a s , handicapping c o n d i t i o n , weak i n s t r u c t i o n a l program), (pp. 15-18) P e r s p e c t i v e s on Minimum Competency T e s ti n g Opinions about minimum competency t e s t i n g va ry both among and w i t h i n school bo a rd , e d u c a t o r , and s t u d e n t grou ps . In 1978, t h e National School Board A s s o c i a t i o n p o l l e d s c h o o l- b o a r d members f o r t h e i r o p in io n s ab out i s s u e s involved wit h minimum competency t e s t i n g . 18 Responses r e p r e s e n t e d 5.5% o f t h e n a t i o n ' s p u b l i c s c h o o l s . The gener al f i n d i n g s were as fo l l o w s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School l e a d e r s f e l t more i n c l i n e d t o c r i t i c i z e s t u d e n t s , s t a f f , o r c u r r ic u lu m th a n t o c r i t i c i z e , e l i m i n a t e , o r change t e s t s in t h e e v e n t o f s t u d e n t s ' MCT f a i l u r e . Modest d i f f e r e n c e s in p r i o r i t i e s appeared in what competen­ c i e s school l e a d e r s b e l i e v e should be t e s t e d . Among school l e a d e r s t h e r e was a marked p r e f e r e n c e f o r MCT d e c i s i o n s made l o c a l l y , a p r e f e r e n c e f o r c i t i z e n i n v o l v e ­ ment, and a d i s t r u s t o f l e g i s l a t u r e s . The m a j o r i t y o f res po nd en ts achieve d consensus in n o ti n g t h a t MCT a p p ea ls t o them. They f e l t t h a t MCT aims t o improve t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g and seeks t o document t h a t ev ery s t u ­ d e n t i s minimally competent. There was consensus n a ti o n -w id e about t h e v a l u e o f g iv in g a s t u d e n t s e v e r a l chances t o pass a t e s t , o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e ­ pa re f o r a t e s t , and some measure o f d i s c r e t i o n in t h e use o f t e s t s c o r e s . ( S z a f r a n l e e , 1981, pp. 31-32) In d i s c u s s i n g t h e National School Board A s s o c i a t i o n s u rv e y , S z a f r a n l e e p o in te d o u t t h a t The survey was not n e g l i g e n t in uncovering o p in io n s about MCT s p e c i f i c a l l y with t h e handicapped. The survey showed t h a t : 1. 2. 3. Respondents were unsure whether t h e same minimums should a pply to a l l s t u d e n t s , but 21 p e r c e n t f e l t handicapped s t u ­ de nts should a c h ie v e t h e same minimal competency. MCT was c o n s i d e r e d a good " e q u i ty " measure t o be used t o meet t h e needs o f a l l s t u d e n t s , give a l l s t u d e n t s maximum o p p o r t u n i t y , t o make s u r e sc h o o ls a r e h e l p i n g a l l s t u d e n t s . MCT was seen a s needed t o he lp c e r t a i n ty p e s t o gr a d u a te (below av er ag e i n "book i n t e l l i g e n c e " ) , (p. 32) Educators have voiced t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e use o f minimum competency t e s t i n g in t h e p u b l i c s c h o o l s . Dittmar (1979; quoted in S e c h r e s t , 1981) l i s t e d a number o f o b j e c t i o n s e d u c a t o r s have t o usi ng minimum competency t e s t i n g : 1. 2. 3. I t ex clu des some c h i l d r e n a r b i t r a r i l y from t h e b e n e f i t s o f e d u c a ti o n and s t i g m a t i z e s u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s . I t does not a s s u r e t h e development o f e f f e c t i v e programs o f re m e d ia t io n f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s who f a i l t h e t e s t s . It te n d s t o o v e r s i m p l i f y t h e i s s u e o f minimal competency among g r a d u a t e s . 19 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I t causes a narrowing o f c u r r ic u lu m as t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program begins t o focus on s p e c i f i c s u r v i v a l s k i l l s . I t pl a c e s an u n f a i r burden o f f a i l u r e on t h e s t u d e n t s . I t pla c e s an u n f a i r burden o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y on e d u c a t o r s . I t encourages " t e a c h i n g t h e t e s t . " I t c r e a t e s maximums f o r t h e r e q u i r e d minimums. I t f o r c e s s t u d e n t s t o spend hours d e a l i n g wit h t r i v i a while n e g l e c t i n g i m p o r ta n t e d u c a ti o n a l i s s u e s . ( S e c h r e s t , 1981, p. 43) Stu d e n ts thems elv es a l s o have n e g a t i v e o p in io n s o f minimum competency t e s t i n g . Blau (1978) surveyed 35 s t u d e n t s who had r e c e n t l y been examined in F l o r i d a ' s minimum competency program. His f i n d i n g s were as f o ll o w s : T h i r t y o f t h e t h i r t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s i n te rv ie w e d in depth were r e l a t i v e l y d i s t r e s s e d and d i s d a i n f u l ab out t h e whole t e s t i n g b u s i n e s s . They saw i t as a n o t h e r burden developed by a d u l t s to make t h e i r p r o g r e s s through school more d i f f i c u l t . . . . The s t u d e n t s who f a i l e d t h e minimal competency t e s t saw t h i s r e s u l t as a n o t h e r a n t a g o n i s t i c "put down" from a s o c i e t y t h a t does not 1i ke them very wel1. A number o f b ri ght s t u d e n t s who w i l l be a d m it te d t o c o l l e g e w it h advanced s t a n d i n g had almost i d e n t i c a l views, e x c e p t t h a t th e y saw t h e t e s t s as j u s t a n o t h e r " p i e c e o f nonsense" t h a t waste s time d u ri n g high school and keeps them from p r o d u c t i v e l e a r n i n g . The poor s t u d e n t s saw t h e t e s t s as an a d d i t i o n a l b a r r i e r t o s u cc e ss and esteem and n o t a h e l p , w hil e t h e good s t u d e n t s saw them as a b a r r i e r t o u s in g t h e i r time e f f e c t i v e l y , (pp. 176-77) St ud en t D i f f e r e n c e s and Minimum Competency T e s t i n g Also d i s c u s s e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s how minimum competency t e s t i n g a f f e c t s d i f f e r e n t groups o f s t u d e n t s . C e r t a i n b a s i c assump­ t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g S e c t i o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973 pose some t e c h n i c a l problems in accommodating competency t e s t i n g programs t o handicapped s t u d e n t s . (1978) Two assumptions p o in te d o u t by Morrissey are th a t f i r s t , ways e x i s t o r can be developed t o n e u t r a l i z e o r account f o r t h e e f f e c t s o f impairments on performance; and second, equal o p p o r t u n i t y can be a s s u r e d by d e te r m in in g how much 20 handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s a r e a l i k e r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r normal c o m p e t i t o r s , (p. 208) Another i s s u e r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s and minimum com­ pe tency t e s t i n g i s t h e tendency f o r t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t e s t i n g program t o s t i m u l a t e t r a c k i n g , th u s v i o l a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e o f e d u c a t i n g s t u ­ d e n ts i n t h e l e a s t - r e s t r i c t i v e environment. Cohen, S a f r a n , and Polloway (1978) p o i n t e d o u t : During t h e p a s t decade t h e emphasis upon t h e co nce pt o f t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment has c a r r i e d w it h i t t h e u l t i m a t e goal t o f o s t e r he tero gen e ous groupin gs and t h u s t o a f f i r m t h a t c h i l d r e n with d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g a b i l i t i e s , l i f e s t y l e s , t a l e n t s , and c u l t u r e s can l e a r n from each o t h e r when given t h e o p p o r t u ­ n i t y . A s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e a t t o hetero gen eo us l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n ­ ments e x i s t s w i t h i n t h e M.C.T. movement. Remedial programs, sometimes known a s s u r v i v a l s c h o o l s , have been in t r o d u c e d as a n e c e s s a r y outgrowth o f M.C.T. P u p i l s who do not i n i t i a l l y pass t h e exam a r e pl a ce d i n t o t h e s e programs in o r d e r t o advance t h e i r achievement t o an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l . T h e r e f o r e , a by -p r o d u c t o f M.C.T. may be t o r e s u l t in t h e d i s ­ c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e o f a b i l i t y t r a c k i n g which may i n h e r e n t l y be b ia s e d a g a i n s t handicapped and m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s , (p. 251) Also r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s and minimum competency t e s t i n g i s t h e f a c t t h a t "minimum competency" has d i f f e r e n t meanings f o r d i f f e r e n t pe ople. Danielson (1978) p o i n t e d o u t : A r e t a r d e d a d u l t ' s s u r v i v a l in a halfway house may be an a pp rop ­ r i a t e le v e l o f f u n c t i o n a l competency. The n o t i o n o f minimum competency i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e a r e b a s i c s k i l l s a n d / o r competen­ c i e s which a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r any person t o p o s s e s s in o r d e r t o f u n c t i o n . But t h e term " to f u n c t i o n " needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n , and sch ools must g r a p p l e wit h t h e f a c t t h a t competencies a r e no t a b s o l u t e , b ut a r e r e l a t i v e to t h e environment o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . Our s o c i e t y has long r e c o g n iz e d t h a t i t c o n t a i n s many a c c e p t a b l e environments ( s u b - c u l t u r e s ) , (p. 201) The ways in which minimum competency t e s t i n g must p r o v id e f o r s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . However, when d e a l i n g w it h t h e handicapped s t u d e n t , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s 21 o f S e c t i o n 504 a r e c l e a r . As M or ris sey (1978) po in te d o u t , "In a competency t e s t i n g program a handicapped s t u d e n t must be i n d i v i d u a l l y accommodated" (p. 20 7) . The a c t u a l te c h n i q u e s used t o accommodate handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e s t a t e and l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a l agency. The I n d iv i d u a l iz ed Educational Plan and Minimum Competency T e s t i n g Throughout t h e l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers a r e s t r i v i n g f o r an answer on how t o accommodate s t u ­ de nts with s p e c i a l needs. Que stions c o n ti n u e t o a r i s e a bou t whether e d u c a t o r s a r e usin g minimum competency t e s t i n g t o t h e maximum b e n e f i t o f t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s , whether t h e r e i s a p p r o p r i a t e fo ll o w - u p re m e d ia t io n f o r s t u d e n t s who f a i l t h e t e s t , whether minimum competency t e s t i n g programs r e a l l y b e n e f i t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , and a t what p o i n t in a s t u d e n t ' s c a r e e r t h e t e s t s should be i n t r o d u c e d . Ravich (1978) n o t e d , "The u l t i m a t e purpose o f t h e t e s t i s t o provid e a s s i s t a n c e t o t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s r a t h e r t h a n t o w ith ho ld d ip lo m a s , but o f t e n t h e t e s t s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d to o l a t e in t h e s t u d e n t ' s c a r e e r t o be o f much use t o him" (p. 7 ) . Feldmesser (1980) a d d re s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f fo ll o w - u p reme dia ­ tion. He w r o te , " P r e s e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r han dl in g s t u d e n t s who have not met minimum s t a n d a r d s by t h e end o f t h e i r high school e d u c a t i o n a r e not s a t i s f a c t o r y . To imply o t h e r remedial i n s t r u c t i o n , when sc hools have n o t y e t brought s t u d e n t s t o t h e p o i n t o f competence, seems f u t i l e " (p. 421). 22 Que stion s c on ce rn in g minimum competency t e s t i n g become even more i m p o r ta n t when e d u c a t o r s e v a l u a t e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c u r r ic u lu m and t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g p r o ­ gram. These q u e s t i o n s p o s t major c h a l l e n g e s t o both e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers. In t h e l i t e r a t u r e i t was po in te d o u t t h a t us in g t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan (IEP) can help e d u c a t o r s meet some o f t h e c h a l l e n g e s i n h e r e n t in accommodating minimum competency t e s t ­ ing to e x c e p ti o n a l c h i l d r e n . In "Competency T e s ti n g and t h e Exceptional C h i l d , " Swartz (1979) provided t h e fo ll o w i n g recommendations r e g a r d i n g minimum competency t e s t i n g and t h e use o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan. Based on an e x t e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e review and t h e c u r r e n t p e r s p e c ­ t i v e o f t h e Na tional Council f o r Exceptional C h i l d r e n , t h e I .C .E .C . Ad Hoc Committee on Minimal Competency T e s ti n g f o r Handicapped C hild re n made t h e fo ll ow in g recommendations: 1. 2. 3. 4. The I n d i v i d u a l Educational Program should be used as t h e d e t e r m i n e r o f competencies f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n . I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t both t h e I . E . P . and t h e minimal competency t e s t have a s i m i l a r i n t e n t , t o i n s u r e q u a l i t y e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u ­ n i t y f o r p u b l i c school c h i l d r e n . I t i s a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e I . E . P . i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e measure f o r t h e handicapped child. Minimal competency t e s t i n g should be c o n s id e r e d an o p t i o n f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n when a p p r o p r i a t e . When t h e ha n d icapped c h i l d ' s academic su cc e ss i s such t h a t t a k i n g t h e m i n i ­ mal competency t e s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e , t h i s should be e s t a b ­ l i s h e d as a goal on t h e c h i l d ' s I . E . P . Under no c i rc u m s t a n c e s should minimal competency t e s t i n g become mandatory f o r h a n d i ­ capped c h i l d r e n bu t r a t h e r be s e l e c t e d as an o p t i o n on an in d i v i d u a l b a s i s . Minimal competency t e s t i n g must be n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y t o h a n d i­ capped c h i l d r e n . A p p ro p ri at e m o d i f i c a t i o n s in t e s t a d m in is ­ t r a t i o n must be made t o accommodate each c h i l d ' s handicapping condition. Minimal competency t e s t i n g should n o t be t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r de te r m in in g a p p r o p r i a t e grade placement f o r handicapped 23 5. c h i l d r e n . Program d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e handicapped must be made on t h e b a s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l l y determined needs. A r e g u l a r high school diploma should be awarded t o each handicapped c h i l d who completes t h e p r e s c r i b e d s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n program. I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t onl y a r e g u l a r diploma would be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e s p i r i t o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e laws r e g a r d i n g t h e handicapped, (pp. 5-6) Legal I s s u e s Regarding Minimum Competency T e s ti n g Legal i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g minimum competency t e s t i n g c o n t i n u e to r e c e i v e a g r e a t deal o f a t t e n t i o n th r ou gh out t h e United S t a t e s . As minimum competency t e s t i n g c o n t i n u e s t o evolve i n t o a major a s p e c t o f t h e e d u c a ti o n a l syst em , l e g a l i s s u e s w i l l i n e v i t a b l y a r i s e . McCarthy (1982) s t a t e d , "The l i t i g a t i o n i s o n ly in i t s i n f a n t s t a g e , and i t seems d e s t i n e d t o p r o l i f e r a t e " (p. 1 6 ) . McCarthy's s t a t e m e n t i s p a r ­ t i c u l a r l y t r u e when one c o n s i d e r s t h e involvement o f handicapped s t u d e n t s in t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g program. Handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement in minimum competency t e s t ­ ing i s not a new i s s u e . The f o ll o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e f l e c t t h e major a r e a s emphasized in t h e l i t e r a t u r e w it h re g a rd t o handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement in minimum competency t e s t i n g : 1. To what e x t e n t does t h e law p r o t e c t handicapped s t u d e n t s in r e g a rd t o minimum competency t e s t i n g ? 2. What importance do e d u c a t i o n a l v e rs us c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s have f o r t h e handicapped s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i n g in minimum competency t e s t i n g programs? 3. What l e g a l and p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s should be ta ke n i n t o acc ou nt when e d u c a t i o n a l a g en c ie s a r e involved w ith minimum compe­ ten cy t e s t i n g ? 24 The l i t e r a t u r e on t h e s e t h r e e t o p i c s o f concern i s p r e s e n t e d in t h e fo ll o w i n g pages. Legal P r o t e c t i o n s f o r Handicapped Stu de nts The t h r e e major l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n s f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s a re t h e Fo u r te e n th Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e United S t a t e s , Pu bl i c Law 94-142 (known as t h e Educational o f All Handicapped C h i l ­ dren Act o f 1975), and S e c ti o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973. Fenton (1978) p o i n t e d o u t t h e r e l e v a n c e o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s f o r e d u c a t o r s , as well as how t h e s e r i g h t s r e l a t e t o t e s t i n g and t h e handicapped: . . . The Supreme Court has made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e b e ha vi or o f e d u c a t o r s must conform t o fundamental c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e ­ guards and cann ot c o n f l i c t with b a s i c c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . Two c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s s e t f o r t h in t h e F ourt ee nt h Amendment have s p e c i a l re l e v a n c e f o r school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c on ­ t e m p l a t i n g how th e y w i l l deal w ith handicapped s t u d e n t s in t h e i r t e s t i n g programs. The f i r s t r i g h t i s t h e g u a r a n t e e o f equal p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e law, c o n s tr u e d as equal o p p o r t u n i t y when a p p l i e d t o e d u c a t i o n ; t h e second r i g h t i s t o due p ro c e ss when s t a t e a c t i o n may a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t an i n d i v i d u a l . Both t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s have been embodied in P u b li c Law 94-142, t h e Education o f All Handi­ capped Ch ild ren A c t, and a r e e l a b o r a t e d on by t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n and i t s r e g u l a t i o n s , (p. 182) The F o u r te e n th Amendment e s t a b l i s h e s a f o u n d a ti o n o f l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r a l l p e r s o n s , whereas P u b li c Law 94-142 and Se c ti o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act a pp ly t h o s e req u ir e m e n ts more s p e c i f i c a l l y t o handicapped p e r s o n s . P ubli c Law 94-142 and S e c t i o n 504 mandate not onl y t h a t each handicapped c h i l d r e c e i v e a f r e e , a p p r o p r i a t e public education, but a l s o t h a t t h e c h i l d be a f f o r d e d s p e c i f i c p r o ­ t e c t i o n s when being e v a l u a t e d . Also, S e c t i o n 504 mandates 25 n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f handicap in t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s th r o ug ho ut t h e handicapped i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e . According t o M orrissey (1978), These l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s a r e very im p o r ta n t because th e y s h i f t t h e emphasis from r e c o g n i z i n g groups o f handicapped persons t o a s s u r i n g s e r v i c e s t o t h e handicapped i n d i v i d u a l . T h i e r p r o ­ ced ur al re quir e m e nts en do rs e a n t i c i p a t o r y and remedial e f f o r t s , and th e y r e q u i r e t h a t e d u c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s be made on an i n d i ­ vidua l b a s i s . And f i n a l l y , t h e s e laws giv e t h e handicapped person o r h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a d i r e c t voic e in ju dgin g p u b l i c e f f o r t s to s e r v e t h e handicapped. S e c t i o n 504 i s a p e r v a s i v e l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. Whereas P ubli c Law 94-142 emphasizes s p e c i f i c e d u c a t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s and s af e g u a r d s f o r handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s , s e c t i o n 504 n o t on ly mandates such s a f e g u a r d s bu t r e q u i r e s t h a t "no o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d handicapped i n d i v i d u a l . . . s h a l l , s o l e l y by re aso n o f h i s h a n d i ­ cap , be excluded from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n , be de ni ed t h e b e n e f i t s o f , o r be s u b j e c t t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under any program o r a c t i v i t y r e c e i v i n g f e d e r a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . The Congressional i n t e n t was t o a s s u r e equal o p p o r t u n i t y f o r each handicapped i n d i v i d u a l t o o b t a i n t h e same r e s u l t and a c h i e v e t h e same l e v e l o f s u cc e ss as t h o s e d e s i g n a t e d non-handicapped. A d d i t i o n a l l y , d i f f e r e n t o r s p e c i a l accommodation i s viewed a s a v i a b l e means o f meeting t h i s intent." The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e c t i o n 504 mandate a r e c l e a r . In a competency t e s t i n g program a handicapped s t u d e n t must be i n d i ­ v i d u a l l y accommodated. The t e s t s must be v a l i d . The s t u d e n t must have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o q u a l i f y f o r promotion o r a diploma equal t o t h a t o f h i s o r h e r non-handicapped c o u n t e r p a r t . (pp. 207-208) Some e d u c a t o r s f e e l P u b li c Law 94-142, thro ugh t h e i n d i v i d u a l ­ iz e d e d u c a ti o n a l pl a n n in g r e q u i r e m e n t , p r o t e c t s handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. The b a s i c components o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan i n c l u d e : 1. 2. 3. A s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l o f e d u c a ti o n a l performance o f such c h i l d ; A s t a t e m e n t o f annual g o a l s , i n c l u d i n g s h o r t - t e r m i n s t r u c ­ tional o b je c tiv e s ; A s t a t e m e n t o f t h e s p e c i f i c s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s t o be provided t o t h e c h i l d , and t h e e x t e n t to which t h e c h i l d w i l l be a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e in r e g u l a r e d u c a ti o n programs; 26 4. 5. The p r o j e c t e d d a t e s f o r i n i t i a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s and th e a n t i c i p a t e d d u r a t i o n o f t h e s e r v i c e s ; and A p p ro p ri at e o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a . a n d e v a l u a t i o n proce du res and sch e du le s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g , on a t l e a s t an annual b a s i s , whether t h e s h o r t - t e r m o b j e c t i v e s a r e being a c h ie v e d . (45 CFT 42, Federal R e g i s t e r , 1977, p. 42491) Fenton (1978) p o in te d o u t t h a t t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan i s a "documented plan which employs a competency-based c u r r i c u ­ lum a pproa ch- -o n an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d b a s i s r a t h e r th a n w it h a s t a n d a r d s e t o f g o a ls " (p. 183). He went on t o i d e n t i f y s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t a r i s e r e g a r d i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s t h a t should be employed t o p r o t e c t t h e e q u a l - o p p o r t u n i t y r i g h t s o f handicapped c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t i n g in competency t e s t i n g programs. These a r e : F i r s t , must t h e IEP go als and o b j e c t i v e s r e f l e c t t h o s e o f t h e r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n a l program i n s o f a r as p o s s i b l e ? The burden w i l l probably be on t h e p la nn in g team t o show c au s e f o r d e l e t i n g goa ls and o b j e c t i v e s known t o be in t h e competency t e s t i n g program. Second, w i l l sc h oo ls have to develop a means t o de m onst ra t e t h a t t h e c h i l d a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program o u t ­ l i n e d in t h e IEP with re g a r d t o t h e competencies a d d re ss e d in t h e t e s t i n g program? T h i r d , w i l l t h e school need t o e n s u r e t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l omis­ s i o n does n o t o c cu r f o r mainstreamed c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e in "p u ll o u t" programs but who in t e n d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e r e g u l a r competency t e s t i n g program? L. C. Danielson d i s c u s s e s t h e need t o en su re c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y between t h e t e s t s and t h e c h i l d ' s IEP. Thus t h e school has t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o develop o r modify t h e c u r ­ ric ulu m so t h a t i t c o i n c i d e s with t h e d i s t r i c t ' s chosen compe­ t e n c i e s . (pp. 184-85) Whereas t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Educational Plan s t r e s s e s t h e importance o f i n d i v i d u a l i z e d plannin g f o r t h e ha ndicapped, Schenck and Welch (1980) p o i n t e d o u t t h e importance o f e q u a l i t y in t e s t i n g f o r t h e handicapped. " I t goes w i t h o u t s ay in g t h a t i f minimum compe­ te n c y i s th oug ht n e c e s s a r y f o r minimal p a r t i c i p a t i o n in l i f e f o r th e nonhandicapped, i t must have e q u i v a l e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e h a n d i ­ capped" (p. 3 ) . 27 The F ourt ee nt h Amendment, Pu bli c Law 94-142, and S e c ti o n 504 e s t a b l i s h t h e l e g a l mandate f o r s t a t e and l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a l a g en c ie s t o pro vid e handicapped s t u d e n t s with equal e d u c a ti o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The l i t e r a t u r e implie d t h a t answers t o f u t u r e le g a l q u e s t i o n s and l i t i g a t i o n w i l l depend on t h e a b i l i t y o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o prove t h a t t h e i r minimum competency t e s t i n g programs do n o t v i o l a t e h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s ' l e g a l r i g h t s . Educational Rights Versus C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Rights The involvement o f handicapped s t u d e n t s i n minimum competency t e s t i n g programs poses an im p o r ta n t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y concern f o r s t a t e and l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a g e n c i e s . Educational a g e n c ie s must comply with e d u c a t i o n a l , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , and i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s when p ro v id i n g a minimum competency t e s t i n g program. A number o f a u t h o r s have d i s ­ t i n g u i s h e d among t h e s e ty p e s o f r i g h t s . In " Te st Scores and I n d iv i d u a l R i g h t s , " Kennedy (1978) stated, Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f s t a t e - a s s u m e d r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t y . . . some d e t e r m i n a t i o n must be made r e g a r d i n g whether e d u c a t i o n i t s e l f i s t o be c o n s id e r e d a r i g h t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o be e x e r c i s e d a t h i s o r her d i s c r e t i o n o r whether i n s t e a d s o c i e t y i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a s s u r i n g i n d i v i d u a l accomplishments. I f we assume e d u c a t i o n i s a r i g h t , we must r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r i g h t t o an e d u c a ti o n i s n o t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y gua ra nt ee d r i g h t s such as freedom o f speech o r r e l i g i o u s p r e f e r e n c e , (p. 189) Kennedy proceeded t o p o i n t o u t t h a t e d u c a t i o n a l r i g h t s d i f f e r from c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s in t h r e e im p o r ta n t r e s p e c t s : F i r s t , e d u c a t i o n i s s upport e d w ith f i n i t e p u b l i c r e s o u r c e s . Though f r e e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l , e d u c a ti o n i s n o t f r e e t o s o c i e t y . And t h a t means d i s t r i b u t i v e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g s o c i a l r e s o u r c e s 28 must be m a d e - - d e c i s i o n s which need n o t be made f o r r i g h t s such as f r e e s pee ch . This c r e a t e s a dilemma: u n l i k e o t h e r r i g h t s , t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a u n i v e r s a l r i g h t t o e d u c a ti o n must n e c e s ­ s a r i l y i n c l u d e a method o f d i s t r i b u t i n g r e s o u r c e s . The second major d i f f e r e n c e between e d u c a ti o n and o t h e r r i g h t s i s t h a t t h e r i g h t to e d u c a ti o n can no t be e x e r c i s e d f r e e l y a t any time o r p l a c e . R a t h e r , i t must be a c q u i r e d o r o b t a i n e d h i e r a r c h i c a l l y , in a p l a c e and in a sequence p r e s c r i b e d by s o c i e t y : one must complete t h e re q u ir e m e n ts f o r one grade b e f o r e one can a t t e n d t h e n e x t . The use o f minimum competency t e s t i n g f u r t h e r s t r u c t u r e s t h e way in which an i n d i v i d u a l can e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t t o an e d u c a t i o n . By r e q u i r i n g passage o f a minimum competency t e s t b e fo re grade advancement o r r e c e i p t o f a diplo ma , t h e t e s t c o n s t r a i n s i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s o f a c c e s s to l a t e r e d u c a ti o n a l opportunities. T h i r d , one can n ot e a s i l y de te rm in e when an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o e d u c a ti o n has been e x e r c i s e d o r when i t has been d e n i e d , though one can e a s i l y de te rm in e whether an i n d i v i d u a l was allowed t o v o t e , f o r example, o r t o speak f r e e l y , (p. 189) Recent c o u r t c a s e s have d e a l t with t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether i n d i v i d u a l s were pro vid ed t h e i r r i g h t t o an e d u c a t i o n . Kennedy c i t e d t h e fo ll o w i n g example: In Brown v. t h e Board o f Education (19 54 ), t h e concern was n o t merely f o r e q u a l i t y o f o p p o r t u n i t y , bu t i n s t e a d i t was f o r e f f e c t i v e e q u a l i t y . That i s , t h e ev idenc e o f equal r i g h t s t o e d u c a t i o n must be found in t h e outcomes o f e d u c a t i o n r a t h e r than simply in t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f e d u c a t i o n . This p o i n t o f view can be found in a t l e a s t one s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t ' s a t t e m p t to measure equal o p p o r t u n i t y , where t h e measure o f e q u a l i t y has i n f a c t been a measure o f e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l outcomes, o r a t l e a s t e q u a l i t y o f outcomes a c r o s s major segments o f our p o p u l a t i o n . But ex te n d i n g t h e measurement o f e q u a l i t y t o in c l u d e t h e o u t ­ comes o f e d u c a t i o n means t h a t e d u c a ti o n as a r i g h t now has a con­ s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t s t a t u s th a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . To r e - d e f i n e freedom o f speech t o mean e f f e c t i v e f r e e sp ee c h, f o r example, would mean t h a t someone must l i s t e n t o every i n d i v i d u a l ' s speech. C l e a r l y no g u a r a n t e e o f e f f e c t i v e f r e e speech i s p o s s i b l e . Equal o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r e e sp e e c h , however, can be gua ra nt ee d by re q ui re m e nt s such as equal time on p u b l i c b r o a d c a s t s , (pp. 190-91) When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f minimum competency t e s t i n g as ev id en c e o f wh ether equal e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s have been pr o v id e d , many q u e s t i o n s begin to s u r f a c e . For example, can a minimum competency 29 t e s t c o n t a i n t h e t r u e minimum req u ir e m e n ts o f a d i v e r s e s o c i e t y ? If an i n d i v i d u a l does no t pass t h e minimum competency t e s t , who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o r r e c t i n g o r improving t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s ? Some i n d i v i d u a l s f e e l t h e burden o f p a s s in g r e s t s on t h e i n d i v i d u a l , whereas o t h e r s a s s e r t t h a t " i t i s s o c i e t y which must a s s u r e t h a t an e f f e c t i v e e d u c a ti o n has been a c q u ir e d " (Kennedy, 1978, p. 191). Yet, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c r i b e f a i l u r e t o e i t h e r t h e e d u c a t o r o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i s so complex. What i s needed i s a s e t o f performance s t a n d a r d s f o r s o c i e t y t h a t can (a) a s s u r e t h a t s o c i e t y i s pro vi d i n g every o p p o r t u n i t y t o a l l i n d i ­ v i d u a l s , y e t (b) re c o g n i z e t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l g r a d u a te with d i f f e r e n t c o m pe t en c ie s, and (c) a s s u r e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e not p e n a l i z e d f o r s o c i e t y ' s f a i l u r e s t o meet i t s own s t a n d a r d s . To e n su r e t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f s t u d e n t s ' r i g h t s , a ll o w in g f o r in d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s o f utmost importance in devel opi ng minimum competency t e s t s . Educators and p o l i c y makers must a l s o e n su r e t h a t t h e use o f t e s t r e s u l t s i s monitored so t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i ­ vidual a r e no t v i o l a t e d . Using t e s t r e s u l t s t o r e t a i n , t r a c e , o r d e p r i v e a s t u d e n t o f g r a d u a t i o n i s a major i s s u e co ncerning i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s and minimum competency t e s t i n g . Kennedy (1978) poin te d o u t t h a t many e d u c a t o r s f e e l minimum competency t e s t i n g i s t h e answer t o s o c i e t y ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a s s u r ­ ing u n i v e r s a l i t y o f minimum com pet enc ies. She s t a t e d , however, t h a t t h e t e s t s f a i l f o r t h r e e im p o r ta n t re a s o n s : F i r s t , t h e s e t e s t s cannot accommodate l e g i t i m a t e v a r i a t i o n s among i n d i v i d u a l a s p i r a t i o n s and a b i l i t i e s . Second, where t h e s e v a r i a ­ t i o n s may le a d to t e s t f a i l u r e s , t h e e x t e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l v e rs us 30 school r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r f a i l u r e has n o t been c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . T h i r d , t e s t s f o r minimum competencies seem t o be based on t h e assumption t h a t e d u c a ti o n i s an e n t i t y t h a t can be "given" to i n d i v i d u a l s by s o c i e t y . In f a c t , e d u c a ti o n i s a p r o c e s s ; i t oc cu rs over time thro ug h t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e e d u c a t o r , (pp. 197-98) The purpose o f minimum competency t e s t i n g , t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e s t i t s e l f , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s on t h e m i n i ­ mum competency t e s t r a i s e many l e g a l q u e s t i o n s . The r e s u l t s o f minimum competency t e s t i n g a f f e c t t h e s t u d e n t ' s f u t u r e e d u c a t i o n a l a n d / o r vocational o p p o rtu n itie s . When minimum competency t e s t i n g outcomes a r e viewed as i n d i c a t o r s o f equal e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y , people d e s ig n i n g t h e t e s t must e nsu re t h a t t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e s o c i e t y i s taken i n t o account and t h a t no p e r s o n ' s e d u c a t i o n a l , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , or individual r ig h t s a re v io la te d . The q u e s t i o n o f whether t h i s t a s k can be accomplished may u l t i m a t e l y be answered by t h e c o u r t s . Other Legal and P o l i c y Questions Regarding Minimum Competency Te s ti n g In a d d i t i o n t o t h e l e g a l i s s u e s su rro undin g minimum competency t e s t i n g t h a t have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d , t h e fo ll o w i n g s i x a r e a s o f concern r a i s e f u r t h e r l e g a l and p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s about t h e use of minimum competency t e s t s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. the poten tial fo r ra c ia l d iscrim in atio n ; in a deq ua te advance n o t i c e and p h a s e - i n pe ri o d p r i o r t o t h e i n i t i a l use o f t h e t e s t s ; p o s s i b l e l a c k o f psychometric v a l i d i t y o r r e l i a b i l i t y o f the t e s t s ; in a d eq u a te match between t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program and t h e test; in a deq ua te remedial i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t c r e a t e s o r r e i n f o r c e s t r a c k i n g ; and u n f a i r appo rtionm en t o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e s t f a i l u r e s between s t u d e n t s and e d u c a t o r s . (McClung & Pull i n , 1978, p. 922) 31 Because t h e s e s i x i s s u e s a ppl y t o t h e e n t i r e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , they have im port an t i m p l i c a t i o n s when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e involvement o f h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s i n minimum competency t e s t i n g . Racial d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . —The p o t e n t i a l f o r r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a ­ t i o n can be f u r t h e r expanded t o in c l u d e t h e u n f a i r t r e a t m e n t o f a l l m i n o r i t y groups. This l e g a l a n d / o r p o l i c y q u e s t i o n would th e n p e r ­ t a i n t o a l l t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e no t p a r t o f t h e m a j o r i t y and who have been o r could p o s s i b l y be d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t in t e s t i n g p r o ­ grams. Court d e c i s i o n s have shown t h a t handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e c o n s id e re d a m i n o r i t y group and need p r o t e c t i o n from p a s t d i s c r i m i ­ nation. Swartz (1979) s t a t e d , As a case in p o i n t , in McNeal y - T a t e Co. School D i s t r i c t , 508 Federal 2d 1017 (5th c i r . 1975) . . . t h e Appeals Court o v e r t u r n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and d i s a l l o w e d a t e s t i n g p r o ­ gram t h a t could cause f u r t h e r s e g r e g a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s by e i t h e r ra c e o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . Also t h e landmark c a s e o f Diana v. S t a t e Board o f Education o f C a l i f o r n i a , C.A. No. 3-379 RFP (N.D. Cal. J an . 7, 1970 and June 18, 1973) s af egu arde d t h e r i g h t s o f m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s from being pl ace d i n t o programs f o r t h e r e t a r d e d on t h e b a s i s o f a s i n g l e t e s t . Minimum competency t e s t i n g cann ot be c o n s t r u e d as a m u l t i - f a c t o r e d e v a l u a t i o n which i s p r e s c r i b e d in P.L. 94-142. (p. 9) S e c ti o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973 o f f e r s a general g u a r a n t e e o f e q u a l - r i g h t s p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e handicapped. I t reads: No o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d handicapped i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e United S t a t e s . . . s h a l l , s o l e l y by re aso n o f h i s ha n d ic a p , be excluded from t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n , be den ied t h e b e n e f i t s o f , o r be s u b j e c t e d t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under any program o r a c t i v i t y r e c e i v i n g Federal f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . (45 C.F.R. §§ 81 and 84) McClung and Pull in (1978) p o in te d o u t t h a t " t h e r e a r e f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t have been e s t a b l i s h e d t o p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s o f h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s , b ut t o t h i s p o i n t t h e c o u r t s have done ve ry l i t t l e 32 in p ro v id i n g s p e c i f i c guidance r e g a r d i n g competency t e s t i n g o f h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s " (p. 9 2 6 ). The a u t h o r s noted t h a t t h e r e i s no simple answer t o accommodating handicapped s t u d e n t s in competency t e s t i n g and t h a t some o f t h o s e s t u d e n t s "may be s u b j e c t t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i f t h e y a r e excluded from p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o r den ied t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e same competency program t h a t i s provide d t o nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s " (p. 926). In a d d i t i o n , th e y p o in te d o u t t h a t Other handicapped s t u d e n t s may be d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t and de nied t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e program u n l e s s d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s and a ss e ss m e nt pro c e du re s a r e p r o v id e d , and t h a t t h e p o t e n ­ t i a l c o n f l i c t between t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y presumption: 1. t h a t handicapped s t u d e n t s should be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n a l program t o t h e maximum e x t e n t ap p ro p­ r i a t e , and 2. t h a t t o pr o v id e equal t r e a t m e n t t o pe rsons wit h unequal needs i s u n f a i r in some c i r c u m s t a n c e s , pr ob ab ly cann ot be r e s o l v e d w i t h o u t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . The unde rs core d language in t h e s e presumptions a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a r e in o r d e r , (p . 926) The p o l i c i e s e s t a b l i s h e d to p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s o f handicapped persons a r e based on i n d i v i d u a l need and do not lend themselves to uniformity. "What i s f a i r f o r one handicapped s t u d e n t may be u n f a i r f o r a n o t h e r because i n d i v i d u a l c i rc u m s t a n c e s va ry so g r e a t l y " (McClung & P u l l i n , 1978, p. 926). Advance n o t i c e and p h a s e - i n p e r i o d s .-- Th e i s s u e o f in a d eq u a te advance n o t i c e and p h a s e - i n p e r i o d s b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l use o f compe­ te n c y t e s t s has become a major a r e a o f concern f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s being r e q u i r e d t o pa ss t h e minimum competency t e s t b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g a diploma. According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e s t u d e n t ' s due p ro c e s s r i g h t s under t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n a r e 33 v i o l a t e d i f t h e s t u d e n t i s n o t given s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e t h a t h e /s h e must pass a minimum competency t e s t t o r e c e i v e a diploma. Fenton (1978) s t a t e d , Pu bli c Law 94-142 r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e development and review o f a handicapped c h i l d ' s IEP [ i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n ) be governed by due p ro c e s s pro c e du res p a t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e j u d i c i a l model. This model emphasizes t h e f o l l o w i n g e le m e n ts : n o t i c e o f pending a c t i o n ; informed c o n s e n t ; and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e s o ­ l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s through informal means and t h e r i g h t t o formal appeal and an i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g , (pp. 185-86) He proceeded to say t h a t school competency programs must deal with t h e fo ll o w i n g q u e s t i o n s in o r d e r t o e n su r e t h e s t u d e n t ' s due pr oc e ss rights. F i r s t , what p r o v i s i o n s does t h e school make f o r informing p a r ­ e n t s and t h e c h i l d , when a p p r o p r i a t e , t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e IEP w i l l de ter mi ne t h e c h i l d ' s e l i g i b i l i t y o r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e competency t e s t i n g program? Furt her mo re , does t h e school make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p a r e n t s (and t h e c h i l d ) a l i s t o f t h e competen­ c i e s in c lu d e d in t h e t e s t i n g program so p a r e n t s can ju dge t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e program and t h e i r c h i l d ' s IEP? And t h i r d , a r e p a r e n t s a d v is e d about t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i r c h i l d ' s f u t u r e e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s and employment p r o s p e c t s i f t h e IEP does n o t a d d re s s t h e d i s t r i c t ' s competencies? (p. 186) A q u e s t i o n a r i s e s when an e d u c a t i o n a l agency f o l l o w s t h e due pr oc ess proce dures p e r t a i n i n g t o minimum competency t e s t i n g and t h e handicapped s t u d e n t : Does t h e school have p o l i c i e s o r proc ed ures t o promote informal r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s when p a r e n t s and s c h o o ls d i s a g r e e on which competencies a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u ­ de nt? I s t h e r e a mechanism whereby p a r e n t s o r t h e c h i l d can appeal and r e c e i v e an i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g r e l a t i v e to p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n in t h e competency t e s t i n g ? (F ent on, 1978, p. 186) Without q u e s t i o n , advance n o t i c e and a p p r o p r i a t e p h a s e - i n time o f minimum competency t e s t i n g a r e im p o r ta n t f o r a l l s t u d e n t s , i n c l u d ­ ing t h e handicapped. The "Minimum Competencies and t h e Handicapped" 34 g u i d e l i n e s b o o k l e t p u b li s h e d by t h e V i r g i n i a Department o f Education (1980) s u p p o r ts t h i s id e a in t h e s e c t i o n on " P re p a ri n g t h e S t u d e n t " : "Handicapped s t u d e n t s must be a d e q u a t e l y pre pa red t o t a k e t h e Minimum Competency T e s t s . The p e r io d o f p r e p a r a t i o n i s long term: from K in de rga rte n t o t h e a c t u a l t e s t i n g o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' competencies" (p. 6 ) . Psychometric v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . —The p o s s i b l e la c k o f psychometric v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y must be c o n s i d e r e d in any typ e o f achievement t e s t . When c o n te m p la ti n g t h e involvement o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g , one must r e a l i z e t h e uniqu e nes s es o f v a r i o u s d i s a b i l i t y groups and t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e t e s t . In usi ng t h e h e a r i n g impaired as an example, Jensema (1980) h i g h l i g h t e d th e importance o f t h i s p o i n t : Most o f t h e t e s t s used in e d u c a ti o n a l programs f o r t h e he ar in g impaired were o r i g i n a l l y developed f o r s t u d e n t s wit h normal h e a r i n g . Since t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f a t e s t does not n e c e s s a r i l y hold f o r any p o p u l a t i o n o t h e r th a n t h e one f o r which i t was d e v el op e d , t h e s e measures must be c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y in r e g a rd to h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d s t u d e n t s . In g e n e r a l , a t e s t which was developed f o r no rm a l- h e a ri n g s t u d e n t s w i l l have lower r e l i a ­ b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y f o r h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d s t u d e n t s . How much lower i s a q u e s t i o n which can o n ly be answered through e x t e n s i v e c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f t e s t d a t a . (p. 497) Match between t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program and t h e t e s t . - -The i s s u e o f in a deq u a te match between t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program and t h e t e s t is receiving a g r e a t deal o f l e g a l a t t e n t i o n . Cohen, S a f r a n , and Polloway (1980) r a i s e d an i m p o r ta n t q u e s t i o n in Is i t legal to t e s t r i a l t h a t might n o t such an exam deny a g e n e r a l l y ap pea r t o c u r r i c u l a , (p. 251) t h i s regard: a c h i l d in an u n f a m i l i a r manner on mate­ have been t a u g h t , and on t h e b a s i s o f high school diploma? For now t h e t e s t s be p oo rl y matched t o s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n 35 Another l e g a l q u e s t i o n in v o lv e s t h e amount and t y p e o f e v i ­ dence o f match between t e s t s and i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i s needed t o s a t i s f y a ju d g e . "A l e n i e n t jud ge could a c c e p t t e a c h e r te st im on y o r could a c c e p t evidenc e o f homework and m a t e r i a l s used in c l a s s , " wrote McClung. But he c a u t i o n e d t h a t " d i s t r i c t s should be a b l e to document ' i n some o b j e c t i v e way' what i s happening in t h e cl assroom" ( i n N e i l l , 1979, p. 453) . McClung (1978) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t sc hools might be l e g a l l y bound to de mon strate t h a t t e s t s have c u r r i c u l a r and i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a l i d i t y . C u r r i c u l a r v a l i d i t y r e p r e s e n t s th e match between t h e t e s t and g o a l s , w hil e i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a l i d i t y i n d i c a t e s t h e match between t h e t e s t s and i n s t r u c t i o n . I f i n s t r u c t i o n does not p r o ­ ceed from t h e g o a l s upon which t h e t e s t i s ba se d , t h e t e s t may have c u r r i c u l a r v a l i d i t y bu t la c k i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a l i d i t y . Whether viewed l e g a l l y o r e t h i c a l l y , t h e c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e t e s t s cannot be i g n o r e d . Competency t e s t s should be based upon educa­ t i o n a l go a ls and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n which proceeds from t h o s e g o a l s . (D a ni e ls o n, 1978, pp. 201-202) The l e g a l q u e s t i o n s re g a r d in g t e s t c o n t e n t and c u rr ic ulu m v a l i d i t y a r e s t i l l be ing reviewed in t h e c o u r t s . The sc hools w i l l have t o defend t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and c u r r i c u l a r v a l i d i t y o f t h e i r minimum competency t e s t s , e s p e c i a l l y i f a s t u d e n t must pass such a t e s t b e fo re being g r a n t e d a diploma. A prime example i s a c a s e in I l l i n o i s in which "handicapped s t u d e n t s have sought both t h e i r d i p l o ­ mas and $1 m i l l i o n in damages, c la im in g t h a t t h e i r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c l a s s e s did n o t cover t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t was inc lu de d on t h e high school ' e x i t ' t e s t " (Sevene, 1982, p. 16 ). Remedial i n s t r u c t i o n r e i n f o r c i n g t r a c k i n g . —The co ncept o f t r a c k i n g has r e c e i v e d a g r e a t deal o f a t t e n t i o n over t h e p a s t s e v e ra l years. Inadequate remedial i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t c r e a t e s o r r e i n f o r c e s 36 t r a c k i n g c oul d be a r e s u l t o f minimum competency t e s t i n g . According t o Swartz (1979), I f minimal competency t e s t i n g i s t o be used f o r grade placement and promotion, t h e end r e s u l t c oul d be t h e emergence o f t r a c k i n g programs. S tu d e n t s could be e l i m i n a t e d o r "couns eled " i n t o p r o ­ grams t h a t would n o t in c l u d e t h e n e c e s s a r y c o u r s e s , req u ir e m e n ts and programs l e a d i n g t o a high school diploma. Tracking systems f o r placement o f m i n o r i t y and poor s t u d e n t s was s u c c e s s f u l l y l i t i g a t e d in Hobson v. Hanson, 369 F. Supp. 401, 514 (DDC 1969) by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e s and (by i m p l i c a t i o n ) r i g h t s t o e d u c a ti o n c l a u s e s under t h e 14th Amendment. Any t e s t i n g , i n c l u d i n g minimal competency t e s t i n g , t h a t t r a c k e d s t u d e n t s i n t o d i f f e r e n t programs o r t h a t caused them t o r e c e i v e d i f f e r e n t edu­ c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s would ap pe a r t o be i l l e g a l under t h i s p r e c e ­ d e n t . (pp. 7-8) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e s t f a i l u r e s . —Mho i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o r r e c t i n g s t u d e n t s ' f a i l u r e s on t h e minimum competency t e s t ? Is t h e r e an u n f a i r app ort ion me nt o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e s t f a i l u r e s between s t u d e n t s and e d u c a t o r s ? The c o u r t s a r e sometimes involved in d e te r m in in g who i s a c c o u n t a b l e when an i n d i v i d u a l does no t accomp­ l i s h a minimal l e v e l o f competency. I t i s sometimes assumed t h a t any s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e United S t a t e s e d u c a t i o n a l system can a t t a i n minimal competency. I f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a " u n i v e r s a l l y requi s i t e " minimum competency t e s t t h a t e n s u r e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s o f a l l s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d , t h e c o u r t s may need t o de te rm in e who i s r e s p o n s i b l e i f a s t u d e n t does not pa ss t h e t e s t . C u r r e n t l y , e d u c a t o r s c onc ur t h a t t h e s t u d e n t and h i s / h e r f a m i l y , as well as t h e s c h o o l , should be concerned a bout t h e s t u d e n t f a i l i n g t h e minimum competency t e s t . Ebel (1978) w ro te : I t should be re c o g n iz e d t h a t f i n d i n g a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f f a i l u r e i s no t t h e e x c l u s i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e s c h o o l . The pupil i s most d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d , and he and h i s f a m il y should be most de ep ly co ncerned. The pupil can do more than 37 anyone e l s e t o a c h ie v e s u c c e s s . Learning cann ot be imposed. I t must be p ur s ue d, even by t h e younge st p u p i l . The b e s t a school o r a t e a c h e r can do i s pr ovi de o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r l e a r n i n g and c r e a t e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t make l e a r n i n g a t t r a c t i v e , (p . 548) Blau (1978) espoused a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t o f view. He a s s e r t e d , In t h e i s s u e o f minimum competency t e s t i n g , t h e s t u d e n t i s ag ain t h e " v i c t i m . " Under t h e g u i s e o f " he lp in g" t h e v i c t i m , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o examine t h e v i c t i m c a r e f u l l y , s c i e n t i f i c a l l y , o b j e c t i v e l y , m a t h e m a t i c a l l y , and so f o r t h . The purpose i s to c o n f i n e t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e dilemma to m a n i p u l a t i o n s o f t h e v i c t i m . By c o n c e n t r a t i n g a l l e f f o r t on t h e v i c t i m , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d i s ­ p l a c e , i g n o r e , and u l t i m a t e l y avoid t h e b a s i c s o c i a l cau s e s o f t h e problems being a d d r e s s e d . The most i m p o r ta n t s u b t l e e f f e c t o f t h i s i d e o l o g i c a l p ro c e ss i s t h a t when one c o n c e n t r a t e s on t h e v i c ­ t i m , one can avoid p a s s in g judgements on o n e ' s own adequacy. To c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e i n a d e q u a c ie s o f our s t u d e n t s i n t h e school s y s ­ tem i s t o s a n c ti m o n io u s ly imply a "not g u i l t y " v e r d i c t f o r o u r ­ s e l v e s . Genuine and pragmatic concern f o r t h e w e l f a r e o f our s t u d e n t s might b e t t e r be de mo nstrated by c a r e f u l l y de sig ne d e v a l u a ­ t i o n pl an s t o answer q u e s t i o n s about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f sch o o li n g t o q u a l i t y o f l i f e and t o per so nal su cc e ss f i v e , t e n , and tw en tyf i v e y e a r s a f t e r g r a d u a t i o n , (p. 175) Because e d u c a t i o n i s a complex p r o c e s s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c r i b e f a i l u r e s to e i t h e r t h e e d u c a t o r o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t . As Kennedy (1978) p o i n t e d o u t : The assumption behind t h e use o f competency t e s t s i s t h a t educa­ t i o n a l outcomes can be g u a r a n te e d . But s i n c e e d u c a t i o n i s an i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s , such g u a r a n te e s may no t be p o s s i b l e . In f a c t , i t i s even d i f f i c u l t t o a s c r i b e f a i l u r e s t o e i t h e r t h e e d u c a t o r o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i s so com­ p l e x . (p. 198) In summary, t h e l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s co n ce rn in g minimum compe­ t e n c y t e s t i n g and t h e handicapped a r e c o n t i n u i n g t o u n fo ld and a r e very complex. There seems t o be no s p e c i f i c answer t o how e d u c a t o r s , p a r e n t s , and p o l i c y makers can g u a r a n te e an a p p r o p r i a t e minimum com­ pe tency program f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s . However, much o f t h e l i t ­ e r a t u r e fa vored McClung and Pull i n ' s (1978) p o s i t i o n t h a t : 38 I t i s hard t o make any g e n e r a l i z e d s t a t e m e n t a bou t t h e l e g a l i t y o f competency t e s t i n g o f handicapped s t u d e n t s e x c e p t t h a t i n d i ­ vid ua l needs and c ir c u m s t a n c e s a r e l i k e l y t o be a key c o nc e rn . The c o u r t s t r a d i t i o n a l l y s t r e s s i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s and s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s as much as p o s s i b l e , and reach d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s a c c o r d i n g l y . T h e r e f o r e , we t h i n k t h a t i f p a r e n t s and p o l i c y makers d e c id e to a ppl y competency t e s t i n g programs to handicapped s t u d e n t s , t h e y would be well a d v is e d t o avoid any uniform approach f o r a l l handicapped c h i l d r e n , and t o c o n s i d e r i n s t e a d an approach based upon i n d i v i d u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , (p . 927) I n c l u s i o n o f S pec ial Education Stu de nts in Minimum Competency T e s ti n g Through t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g program, p u b l i c sc h o o ls have a tt e m p te d t o respond t o s o c i e t y ' s demand f o r g r e a t e r e d u c a t i o n a l accountability. This c h a l l e n g e becomes more complex when e d u c a t o r s co ntem pla te in v o lv in g handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency testing. Because 11 c a t e g o r i e s o f handicapping c o n d i t i o n s a r e d e f i n e d in P u b l i c Law 94-142 and each o f t h o s e c a t e g o r i e s i s un iq u e , e d u c a t o r s must c o n s i d e r s e v e r a l f a c t o r s when th e y c onte m pl ate i n v o l v ­ ing handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g . Some o f t h e s e facto rs are: t h e i n c l u s i v e n e s s o f t h e phr as e g e n e i t y w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y o f ric ul um and i n s t r u c t i o n a l go al s i n d i v i d u a l s , and t h e purpose o f Smith, 1981, p. 523) handicapped s t u d e n t s , h e t e r o ­ ha nd ic a p , widely v a ry in g c u r ­ s p e c i f i c t o handicapped competency t e s t i n g . (Ewing & These f a c t o r s n e c e s s i t a t e t e s t i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t o accommodate t h e s p e c i a l needs o f handicapped s t u d e n t s . "One ca n no t assume t h e minimum competency programs de signed f o r non-handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e a ppro p­ r i a t e f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s " (Rosewater, 1979, p. 1 ) . In de te r m in in g t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g program i s most a p p r o p r i a t e , Ewing and Smith (1981) sug ges te d t h a t : 39 . . . i t would be h e l p f u l t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e t h e s e s t u d e n t s i n t o two b a s i c groups: 1. 2. handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l e a r n i n g environment handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a modif ied c u rr ic u lu m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , (p. 523) Ewing and Smith f u r t h e r s ug ges ted t h a t f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s who b a s i c a l l y r e q u i r e a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l e a r n i n g e nviro nm en t, t h e c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l go a ls a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as th o s e f o r nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s . The same competency t e s t and p r o f i c i e n c y s t a n d a r d s r e q u i r e d o f nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s could be used with e q u i t y in making d e c i s i o n s a bo ut high school g r a d u a t i o n o r grade p r o ­ motion f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s . There might be a need t o modify t h e a s s e s s ­ ment p r o c e d u r e s , depending on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e handicapping c o n d i t i o n ( i . e . , v i s u a l im pa ir m e nt) . For handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a modified c urr ic u lu m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , t h e e d u c a t i o n a l program o f t e n d i f f e r s n o t i c e ­ a b l y from t h a t o f t h e i r nonhandicapped p e e r s . These handicapped s t u ­ d e n ts a r e g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by lower achievement p o t e n t i a l , and t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s focus on lower l e v e l s o f s k i l l development. Modified e d u c a t i o n a l programs a r e l i k e l y t o r e s u l t in an in a d eq ua te match between t h e handicapped s t u d e n t ' s program o f i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e l e v e l o f item d i f f i c u l t y on t h e competency t e s t s . When e d u c a ti o n a l program d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t , competency t e s t s should n o t be a p p l i e d e q u a l l y t o handicapped and nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s . One p o s s i b l e approach t o d e a l i n g w it h t h e problem would be t o use t h e competency t e s t developed f o r nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s bu t t o e s t a b l i s h d i f f e r e n t p r o f i c i e n c y re q u ir e m e n ts f o r i n d i v i d u a l handicapped s t u d e n t s . 40 The e d u c a t i o n a l program f o r s t u d e n t s with s e v e r e and profound handicaps i s so v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f t h e i r nonhandicapped p eer s t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s can no t begin t o develop t h e s k i l l s needed t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e r e g u l a r competency t e s t i n g program. Tot al exemp­ t i o n from competency t e s t re q u ir e m e n ts i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e s e s t u ­ d e n ts (Ewing & Smith, 1981, p. 523). When c o n s i d e r i n g wh ether t o in c l u d e handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g , i t i s i m p o r ta n t t o c o n s i d e r t h e purpose o f such t e s t i n g . A 1982 i s s u e o f Education Week c o n t a i n e d a r e p o r t on "How Minimum-Competency T e s t s Are Used in 35 S t a t e s . " From t h e findings of t h i s re p o rt, i t is evident th a t a majority o f the s ta t e s use minimum competency t e s t i n g f o r r e m e d i a t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n a l improve­ ment, promotion, and high school g ra d u a t i o n (p. 7 ) . In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e Michigan Department o f Education (1982) d e s c r i b e d t h e purpose o f t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program as "to a ll ow l o c a l edu­ c a t o r s to i d e n t i f y which s t u d e n t s have a c q u i r e d b a s i c s k i l l s and a s s e s s t h e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f t h e i r b a s i c s k i l l s programs" (Introduction). Much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e f l e c t e d t h e n o t i o n t h a t , both l e g a l l y and e t h i c a l l y , minimum competency t e s t i n g programs used w ith h a n d i­ capped s t u d e n t s , whether f o r r e m e d i a t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement, promotion, o r a g r a d u a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t , must r e s p e c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l handicapped s t u d e n t ' s needs and t h a t t e s t r e s u l t s should n o t be used to the detriment of th e stu d en t. Thus p r o f e s s i o n a l s must use t h e a p p r o p r i a t e accommodations in t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g program 41 t o allow handicapped s t u d e n t s to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e t e s t i n g w i t h o u t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s being v i o l a t e d . Special Accommodations A v a i l a b l e f o r Handicapped St u d e n ts in Minimum Competency T e s t i n g "Programs The movement t o in v o lv e handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum com­ petency t e s t i n g has caused p o l i c y makers and e d u c a t o r s th ro u g h o u t t h e United S t a t e s t o review and implement s p e c i a l t e s t i n g arrangements t o accommodate s t u d e n t s with unique needs. The v a r i e t y o f t h e s e a r r a n g e ­ ments becomes e v i d e n t when one reviews t h e minimum competency t e s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f Michigan, New J e r s e y , and V i r g i n i a . M ic hi gan 's e d u c a t i o n a l ass e ss m e nt program t e s t has an e d i t i o n a v a i l a b l e in B r a i l l e o r l a r g e p r i n t f o r s t u d e n t s who need such a d a p t a ­ tions. The Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education a l s o pr o v id e s s p e c i a l t e s t s e t t i n g s , as d e s c r i b e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n : I f a s t u d e n t who i s r e c e i v i n g s e r v i c e s in a Spec ial Education Program i s t o be t e s t e d , s h e /h e may be t e s t e d by t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n t e a c h e r in t h a t cl assroom t o minimize t h e e f f e c t s o f t e s t i n g . While a t t e m p t i n g t o m a i n t a i n a s t a n d a r d procedure f o r t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e l e n g t h and s c h e d u li n g o f t e s t s e s s i o n s may be adap te d t o t h e needs o f i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . (Michigan S t a t e Board o f Edu ca tio n, 1982-83, p. 5) Johnson ( n . d . ) d e s c r i b e d t h e s p e c i a l minimum competency t e s t ­ ing p r o v i s i o n s f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s in New J e r s e y : New J e r s e y has t h r e e s u p p o r ts a v a i l a b l e t o accommodate h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s in t h e i r minimum b a s i c s k i l l s t e s t i n g program. These a r e : t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a v a r i e t y o f t e s t a d m i n i s t r a ­ t i o n p ro c e d u re s ; a B r a i l l e and l a r g e - p r i n t v e r s i o n o f t h e t e s t ; and a modif ied t e s t a t t h e t h i r d and s i x t h grades t o accommo­ d a t e c e r t a i n a u d i t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s , (p. 3) 42 S p e c i f i c accommodations f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s , as o u t ­ l i n e d i n "The New J e r s e y Minimum Basic S k i l l s T e s t i n g Program: Accommodating Handicapped P u p i l s " (Johnson, n . d . ) , a r e l i s t e d below. Suggested M o d if ic a t io n s When t e s t i n g a s t u d e n t c l a s s i f i e d as ha nd icapped, any o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s l i s t e d below may be u s e d . The d e c i s i o n as t o which ones sho uld be used w i l l be de termined by t h e s t u ­ d e n t ' s needs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The s t u d e n t may be t e s t e d in h i s / h e r r e g u l a r c la s s ro o m ; ve ry few changes can be implemented in t h i s s e t t i n g w i t h o u t d i s ­ r u p t i n g t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e more m o d i f i ­ c a t i o n s needed, t h e more l i k e l y t h a t t h e s t u d e n t should be t e s t e d in a s e p a r a t e s e t t i n g . The s t u d e n t may be t e s t e d i n a r e s o u r c e room, a l o n e , o r with o t h e r s t u d e n t s c l a s s i f i e d as handicapped who need t h e same ty p e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n changes. The s t u d e n t may be t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . I f h e / s h e needs a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a d a p t a t i o n s t h i s s e t t i n g would be b e s t . I f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , t h e Examiner should be someone who i s f a m i l ­ i a r w it h t h e s t u d e n t . I d e n t i f y i n g In f o rm a ti o n and General In fo rm atio n q u e s t i o n s may be gr idd ed by t h e Examiner in advance. I f t h e s t u d e n t can not t r a n s f e r t h e answer t o t h e answer s h e e t , h e / s h e may r e c o r d t h e answers in t h e t e s t b o o k l e t . (In a l l c a s e s when t h e s t u d e n t does no t answer on t h e computer answer s h e e t , t h e Examiner w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n t e r i n g t h e s t u ­ d e n t ' s answers on t h e answer s h e e t . ) The s t u d e n t may answer t h e q u e s t i o n s o r a l l y , i f h e /s h e normally uses t h i s re s p o n se mode t o answer t e s t q u e s t i o n s i n t h e c l a s s ­ room. (I n a l l c a s e s when t h e s t u d e n t does n o t answer on t h e computer answer s h e e t , t h e Examiner w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n t e r i n g t h e s t u d e n t ' s answers on t h e answer s h e e t . ) The s t u d e n t may use a communication de v ic e i f h e / s h e u s u a l l y us es t h e d e v ic e t o communicate i n t h e clas sroo m (an abacus o r c a l c u l a t o r can no t be u s e d ) . This should be determined b e f o r e t e s t i n g so t h a t n e c e s s a r y d e v ic e s w i l l be in working o r d e r and a v a i l a b l e . (I n a l l c a s e s when t h e s t u d e n t does not answer on t h e computer answer s h e e t , t h e Examiner w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n t e r i n g t h e s t u d e n t ' s answers on t h e answer sheet.) I f a s t u d e n t can no t use a #2 p e n c i l , h e /s h e may use a t h i c k e r pencil. Examiners may r e p e a t d i r e c t i o n s o r r e - e x p l a i n examples i f no t un d e rs to od. Examiners may reword d i r e c t i o n s f o r c l a r i t y as long as t h e rewording does no t change t h e n a t u r e or i n t e n t o f t h e ite m. 43 11. 12. 13. 14. All d i r e c t i o n s w r i t t e n in t h e t e s t may be read t o t h e s t u d e n t . Under no c ir c u m st a n c e s should i t e m s , p a s s a g e s , o r a c t u a l t e s t s e c t i o n s be re a d t o t h e s t u d e n t . Se s si o n s may be extended beyond s ug ges te d tim e l i m i t s . This i s a power t e s t , n o t a speed t e s t . Time segments should be r e g u ­ l a t e d t o accommodate t h e s t u d e n t ; g iv in g p a r t s o f s e c t i o n s o r p ro v id i n g f r e q u e n t breaks a r e a c c e p t a b l e p r o c e d u r e s . A s t u ­ d e n t should n o t be p e n a l i z e d because o f s t r i n g e n t time l i m i t s . St u d e n ts may use a mask (pa pe r used t o c o v er p a r t s o f t h e t e s t ) t o block o f f an item o r to mark t h e i r p l a c e on t h e t e s t . St u d e n ts may be given a p r a c t i c e t e s t one o r two weeks b e f o r e actual t e s t i n g . P rac tic e t e s t s will f a m i l i a r iz e the student w it h t e s t - t a k i n g t e c h n i q u e s . Suggested G u id e li n e s f o r A dm ini st er ing MBS T e s t s to A u d i t o r i l y Handicapped Stu de nts A few a u d i t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s may be a b l e t o t a k e t h e s t a n d a r d MBS T e s t s in a r e g u l a r s e t t i n g and so n o t r e q u i r e a d a p t a t i o n s in t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s . Others w it h more s ev e re problems may need many a d m i n i s t r a t i o n m o d i f i c a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e general m o d i f i c a t i o n s l i s t e d above, s p e ­ c i f i c a d a p t a t i o n s which may be implemented t o accommodate a u d i ­ t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e d e s c r i b e d below. These m o d i f i c a t i o n s do not have t o be used . The examiner should de ci de which ones a r e n e c e s s a r y a cc or di n g t o t h e s t u d e n t ' s ne ed s . M o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r Regular Classroom S ettin g Administration The m o d i f i c a t i o n s used in t h i s s e c t i o n a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r some a u d i t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who do not have s e v e r e problems and a r e a b l e t o t a k e t h e t e s t in a r e g u l a r c la s s ro om . Very few a d ju s t m e n ts can be made i n t h i s s e t t i n g ; t h e r e f o r e , i f you f e e l t h a t a s t u d e n t can n ot be t e s t e d w ith t h e s e minimal m o d i f i c a t i o n s , t h e s t u d e n t should be t e s t e d in a d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g , e i t h e r on a o n e - t o - o n e b a s i s o r w it h o t h e r a u d i t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s who w i l l be t e s t e d with sim ilar t e s t adm inistration modifications. I f an a u d i t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t i s t e s t e d in a r e g u l a r s e t t i n g , the following adm in istratio n m odifications are the only ones which may be implemented: 1. 2. The s t u d e n t may read a l l d i c t a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n s . St u d e n ts may have a typed s h e e t c o n t a i n i n g a l l d i r e c t i o n s re a d by t h e Examiner. Thus, t h e s t u d e n t can read d i r e c t i o n s a f t e r o r as t h e Examiner d i c t a t e s them. The s t u d e n t should be s e a t e d i n a s e c t i o n o f t h e classroom where h e /s h e w i l l not be d i s t r a c t e d . The s t u d e n t should be a b l e t o s ee t h e Examiner c l e a r l y and c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e t e s t items w i t h o u t d i s t r a c t i o n . 44 3. 4. All h e a r in g d e v i c e s normally used by t h e s t u d e n t ( h e a r i n g a i d ) should be checked; b a t t e r i e s should be working. The d e v i c e should n o t i n t e r f e r e w ith t e s t - t a k i n g p r o c e s s . The Examiner may s i g n a l v i s u a l l y when i t i s tim e t o st o p by f l a s h i n g l i g h t s in t h e room o r g i v i n g a hand s i g n a l t o t h e student. S pec ial S e t t i n g M o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r A u d i t o r i l y Handicapped St u d e n ts A s p e c i a l s e t t i n g can be a r e s o u r c e room o r clas sr oom where t h e s t u d e n t i s t e s t e d on a o n e - to - o n e b a s i s o r w ith o t h e r a u d i ­ t o r i l y handicapped s t u d e n t s who w i l l be t e s t e d us in g s i m i l a r t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n m o d i f i c a t i o n s . When t h e a u d i t o r i l y h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t i s t e s t e d in a s p e c i a l s e t t i n g , a l l m o d i f i c a t i o n s d i s c u s s e d in p re v io u s s e c t i o n s pl u s t h e a d ju s t m e n ts l i s t e d below may be used: 1. 2. All d i r e c t i o n s read by t h e Examiner may be p r i n t e d on a s h e e t o r pla ced on a t r a n s p a r e n c y (overhead t r a n s p a r e n c i e s w i l l be in l a r g e p r i n t ) . In t h i s manner t h e s t u d e n t can read e v e r y ­ t h i n g t h e t e a c h e r d i c t a t e s . The mode o f w r i t t e n d i r e c t i o n s ( t r a n s p a r e n c y o r p r i n t e d s h e e t ) should be de termined p r i o r to t e s t in g . The Examiner should be f a m i l i a r wit h s t u d e n t s . A t e a c h e r o r guidance c o u n s e l o r who knows t h e s t u d e n t s o r has t a u g h t t h e s t u d e n t s shou ld a d m i n i s t e r t h e t e s t . Modified T e s ts B r a i l l e and l a r g e - p r i n t t h i r d , s i x t h , n i n t h , and e l e v e n t h grade Reading and Mathematics T e s t s and a u d i t o r i l y handicapped t h i r d and s i x t h grade modified Mathematics t e s t s a r e a v a i l a b l e upon r e q u e s t thro ugh t h e New J e r s e y Commission f o r t h e B li n d . (PP. 1-3) V i r g i n i a ' s minimum competency t e s t accommodations f o r h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s , as o u t l i n e d in "Minimum Competencies and t h e Handi­ capped" (Department o f Edu c a tio n, Commonwealth o f V i r g i n i a , 1980 ), a r e c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o f i v e major a r e a s : s c h e d u li n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s , s e t t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s , format a n d / o r equipment m o d i f i c a t i o n s , r e c o r d ­ ing m o d i f i c a t i o n s , and mo da lit y m o d i f i c a t i o n s . A description of V i r g i n i a ' s minimum competency t e s t i n g accommodations f o r handicapped students follows. 45 MINIMUM COMPETENCY TEST ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS (Department o f E du c a tio n, Commonwealth o f V i r g i n i a , 1980) Accommodations A. Scheduling M o d i f i c a t i o n s : T e s t s w i l l be a d m i n i s t e r e d : 1. a t time o f day most b e n e f i c i a l to student. 2. in p e r i o d o f mi nutes followe d by r e s t bre ak s o f m in ute s . X DRl 3. u n t i l , in a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s ju d g e ­ ment, s t u d e n t can no l o n g e r s u s ­ t a i n t h e a c t i v i t y due t o phys ic a l d is a b i lity or lim ited atten tio n span. X B. S e t t i n g M o d i f i c a t i o n s : T e s ts w i l l be a d m i n i s t e r e d : 1. in a small 2. in a c a r r e l . group. X DR 3. i n t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s ­ room. 4. at ch ild 's home. 5. wi th c h i l d s e a t e d in f r o n t o f clas sr oom . 6. w it h t e a c h e r f a c i n g c h i l d . 7. by s t u d e n t ' s s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n teacher. 8. us in g an i n t e r p r e t e r du rin g t h e time o r a l i n s t r u c t i o n i s given t o t h e s t u d e n t ( s ) . C. Format a n d / o r Equipment Mod ifi ca ­ t i o n s : T e s t s w i l l be a d m i n i s t e r e d : 1. in l a r g e p r i n t . 2. in B r a i l l e . 3. with c h i l d usi ng magnifying equipment. 4. wi th c h i l d wearing n o i s e b u f f e r s . 5. us in g t e m p l a t e s a n d / o r graph paper. .x - X DR X 46 • • • • »—i 1 O l-H s: l-H »— Oi oc t o • M• 3C I • s: _1 to LU o O z: LU 1- >* 3 = Accommodations D. Recording M o d i f i c a t i o n s : 1. Child w i l l mark answers in t e s t booklets. X 2. C h i l d ' s answers w i l l be rec ord ed by p r o c t o r o r a s s i s t a n t . |x X )R X X * X )R |x |x* X )R 3. Child w i l l mark answers by machine. [x. E. Modality M o d i f i c a t i o n s : 1. Math t e s t o nly w i l l be re a d to c h i l d by p r o c t o r o r v i a audio cassette. 2. Reading t e s t w i l l be a d m i n i s t e r e d o r a l l y to s t u d e n t s with s e v e r e psychomotor im p airm en ts , v i s u a l im pairments, o r l e a r n i n g d i s ­ a b i l i t i e s which p r e v e n t them from re a d in g t h e t e s t . * NOTE: X X X X Any o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s l i s t e d above, e xc e pt t h e m od a li ty m o d i f i ­ c a t i o n f o r t h e r e a d i n g t e s t ( E - 2 ) , can be c o n s i d e r e d and added f o r an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d . Accommodations should t a k e i n t o ac c ou nt such t h i n g s as sec ondary handicapping c o n d i t i o n s . *Accommodation E-2 i s allowed under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s and with approval o f The Department o f E d u c a t i o n . SYMBOLS: EMR TMR V .I . H. I . L.D. S.I. E.D. 0 . 1. O.H.I. M.H. - Educable M en ta lly Retarded T r a i n a b l e Menta lly Retarded V i s u a l l y Impaired Hearing Impaired Learning Disabled Speech Impaired Em otion ally Dis tur be d O r t h o p e d i c a l l y Impaired Other He alth Impaired M u l t i p l e Handicapped 47 A dm in is te ri ng t h e Reading T e s t O r a l l y Under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s t h e re a d i n g t e s t may be a d m i n i s t e r e d o r a l l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e use o f audio c a s s e t t e s , t o s t u d e n t s who canno t read t h e t e s t s because o f problems in v i s u a l m o d a l i t y . The f o ll o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s must be met: 1. 2. 3. 4. The d e c i s i o n t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e t e s t s o r a l l y should be p r e ­ ceded by c o u n s e l i n g w it h t h e s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s . The s t u d e n t must f i r s t have a tt e m p te d t o pass t h e r e g u l a r printed t e s t or the la r g e - p r in t B ra ille e d itio n s . A copy o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s IEP must be s u b m it te d t o t h e D ep art­ ment o f Education by t h e l o c a l school d i v i s i o n . The IEP w i l l be reviewed and t h e r e q u e s t f o r o r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l be approved o r de n ie d . The s t u d e n t ' s permanent r e c o r d and any o t h e r school documents which c o n t a i n t h e competency t e s t s c o r e s must c l e a r l y s t a t e t h a t t h e r e a d i n g t e s t was a measure o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o pro ce ss i n f o r m a t i o n read to him /h e r and n o t a measure o f a b i l i t y t o decode p r i n t e d symbols, (pp. 9-11) The accommodations c u r r e n t l y being used t o i n c l u d e handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g programs must c o n t i n u a l l y be reviewed f o r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s . Mor ris sey (1978) no te d: We need i n t e r i m and lo n g - t e r m s t r a t e g i e s f o r accommodating h a n d i ­ capped s t u d e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y wit h t h e r a p i d expansion o f compe­ te ncy t e s t i n g programs. Four i n t e r i m g u i d e l i n e s seem t h e most p r a c t i c a b l e . F i r s t , ask t h e handicapped i n d i v i d u a l b e fo re d e c i d ­ ing on t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f accommodation. Second, de cid e any accommodations on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . T h i r d , do not use a t e s t s c o r e as t h e s o l e c r i t e r i o n f o r d e c i d i n g promotion o r gra dua ­ t i o n . F o u r th , document why and how accommodation o c c u r r e d f o r each handicapped s t u d e n t , (pp. 209-10) The l i t e r a t u r e on t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n echoed many o f t h e concerns voiced by e d u c a to r s and p o l i c y makers c once rn in g t h e use o f a p p r o p r i a t e c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. S t a t e departments o f e d u c a ti o n have a tte mp ted t o p ro ­ vide s u i t a b l e accommodations f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s w i t h i n t h e i r t e s t ­ ing programs. The q u e s t i o n s o f whether t h e r e i s one c o r r e c t s e t o f c r i t e r i a f o r in c l u d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s in minimum competency 48 t e s t i n g o r whether one approach i s b e t t e r th a n a n o t h e r do no t seem t o have been answered in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . Most w r i t e r s were c o n s i s t e n t in e x p r e s s i n g t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a ti o n a l p l a n , as o u t l i n e d in P ub li c Law 94-142, used in c o n j u n c t i o n w ith minimum com­ petency t e s t i n g programs, seems t o be a co m pat ib le l i n k which would a s s u r e s t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c ie s t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s o f h a nd i­ capped s t u d e n t s a r e be ing p r o t e c t e d . Schenck and Welch (1980) d e s c r i b e d how t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l plan f u l f i l l s t h i s l i n k ­ age r o l e : I f t h e handicapped a r e t o be in c lu d e d i n t h e minimum competency movement, t h e I . E . P . must be u t i l i z e d as t h e v e h i c l e which con­ n e c t s minimum competencies with i n s t r u c t i o n and a ss e ss m e nt . The I . E . P . should d e l i n e a t e 1. 2. 3. competencies t h e s t u d e n t i s t o a t t a i n p r o f i c i e n c y i n , t h e l e v e l o f p r o f i c i e n c y t o be e x p e c t e d , and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f any a l t e r n a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l / t e s t i n g strategies. Reference to t h o s e competencies t h e s t u d e n t i s not ex pected t o a t t a i n , and why, should a l s o be c o n ta i n e d in t h e I . E . P . (p . 5) Summary The l i t e r a t u r e review c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h r e e major t o p i c a r e a s t h a t were most r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e on handicapped s t u d e n t s and minimum competency t e s t i n g . These s u b j e c t s were: 1. a g en era l review o f minimum competency t e s t i n g 2. l e g a l i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g minimum competency t e s t i n g and t h e handicapped 3. i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in minimum competency t e s t i n g . 49 The l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o minimum competency t e s t i n g and t h e handicapped c e n t e r e d on e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers r e s p e c t i n g t h e s p e c i a l needs o f handicapped s t u d e n t s in re g a rd to minimum com­ pe tency t e s t i n g and p r o v id i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e accommodations t o al lo w handicapped s t u d e n t s t h e maximum b e n e f i t o f t h e t e s t i n g program. The v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e was geared to t h e t e s t i n g o f high school s t u d e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in r e l a t i o n t o p a s s in g minimum compe­ te ncy t e s t s as a g r a d u a t i o n r e q u ir e m e n t. CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction The primary purpose o f t h i s s tu dy was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e appropriateness of e x is tin g c r i t e r i a fo r the inclusion o f special e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t . D i f f e r e n c e s among f o u r t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s from seven s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n impairment g ro u p s , r e l a t i v e to t h e i r r e a d in g and math s c o r e s on t h e MEAP t e s t , were examined. Several ty p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were an alyze d in t h e s tu d y : the p er­ c entag e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e c e i v e d by t h e s t u d e n t s , d a t a on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s normally inc lud ed in and excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t , and MEAP p r o c t o r s ' judgment r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e t e s t mechanics f o r t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in c lu d e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y . The r e s e a r c h methodology o f t h e s tu d y i s e x p l a i n e d in t h i s chapter. The s a m p ! e - s e l e c t i o n te c h n i q u e s a r e d e s c r i b e d , and t h e r e s e a r c h hyp otheses a r e s t a t e d . The i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n pr oc ed ures a r e d i s c u s s e d , t o g e t h e r w it h t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s employed i n a n a l y z i n g t h e d a t a . D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Sample The stu dy was conducted with f o u r t h - g r a d e ed uca bl e m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI), speech and language impaired (S L I) , e m o t i o n a l l y 50 51 impaired ( E l ) , p h y s i c a l l y o r o th e r w is e h e a l t h impaired (POHI), v i s u a l l y impaired ( V I ) , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD), and h e a r i n g impaired (HI) s t u d e n t s who q u a l i f i e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s through t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l plan nin g committee p ro c e ss and met t h e s t a t e c r i t e r i a f o r e l i g i b i l i t y in t h e i r primary impairment. The s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d from a sample o f 97 school d i s t r i c t s randomly chosen by a s y s t e m a t i c s t r a t i f i c a t i o n method from M ic hig an 's 530 K-12 school d i s t r i c t s . A d e t a i l e d d escrip tio n o f the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n pro­ cedu re may be found in Appendix A, t o g e t h e r wit h a l i s t o f t h e 97 school d i s t r i c t s chosen f o r t h i s st ud y and t h e l e t t e r s e n t t o t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and MEAP ass essment c o o r d i n a t o r s o f t h o s e d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s tu d y . The MEAP ass e ss m e nt c o o r d i n a t o r s were a l s o i n v i t e d t o a MEAP p r e p a r a t i o n i n s e r v i c e s e s s i o n t h a t provided them wit h in f o r m a t io n r e l a t i n g t o t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e s t u d y . The MEAP c o o r d i n a t o r s were then r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a r r a n g i n g f o r a l l o f t h e i r f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e s e l e c t e d impairment c a t e g o r i e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s tu d y . Two d e v i a t i o n s from a complete random-sampling procedure occurred: F i r s t , because o f t h e s i z e o f t h e e i g h t D e t r o i t r e g i o n s , th e y were c o n s id e re d as e i g h t school d i s t r i c t s . The second d e v i a ­ t i o n concerned t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a , where one school d i s t r i c t from each i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t was chosen. These d e v i a t i o n s were based on t h e need f o r p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e duc a­ t i o n s t u d e n t s th r o u g h o u t Michigan. 52 Table 3.1 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r y , along with t h e t o t a l number o f f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each c a t e g o r y i n t h e s t a t e o f Michigan. Table 3.1 . —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t u d e n t s a cc o rd in g t o special education category (fourth-grade level o n ly ). Number o f Participating Stu de nt s Category Total Number o f St u d e n ts in Michigan Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 82 1,174 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 3.457 138 1,554 10 281 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 62 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 475 5,036 11 176 Emotionally impaired (El) Physically o r otherwise health impaired (POHI) Hearing impaired (HI) In lo o ki n g a t t h e t a b l e , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t having an a d e ­ q u a t e sample w i t h i n e v e r y s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n impairment group was r e l i n q u i s h e d in f a v o r o f o b t a i n i n g a s y s t e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Michigan school d i s t r i c t s . Such a t r a d e - o f f was n e c e s s a r y t o e nsu re g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e st u dy f i n d i n g s . The SLI c a t e g o r y co n ta i n ed fewer p a r t i c i p a n t s th a n would be e x p e c te d . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to explain t h i s , bu t one might s p e c u l a t e t h a t due t o t h e almost complete i n t e g r a ­ t i o n o f SLI s t u d e n t s i n t o t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n program, d i s t r i c t s may n o t t y p i c a l l y c o n s i d e r them as s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s . cannot be s u r e o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n . However, one I t should a l s o be 53 p o in te d o u t t h a t due t o t h e c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g o f e d uca bl e m e n ta ll y impaired s t u d e n t s , t h e i r a ges a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e l e v e l may va ry t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n t h o s e o f t h e i r s p e c i a l and g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n p e e r s . Instrumentation The i n s tr u m e n t used f o r t h i s st u dy was t h e Michigan Educa­ t i o n a l Assessment Program (MEAP) t e s t . The MEAP t e s t i s an o b j e c t i v e - r e f e r e n c e d in s t r u m e n t i n i t i a t e d by t h e S t a t e Board o f Ed uca tio n, sup porte d by t h e go v e rn o r, and funded by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e —i n i t i a l l y through enactment o f Act 307 o f t h e P ub li c Acts o f 1969 and s u b s e ­ q u e n t l y through Act 38 o f th e P u b li c Acts o f 1970. Although t h e i n f o r m a t i o n provided by t h e a sse ssm en t program s e r v e s a v a r i e t y o f pu rp o s e s, t h e program was c r e a t e d t o p ro vid e in f o r m a t io n on t h e s t a t u s and p r o g r e s s o f M ic hi gan 's b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n . The r e s u l t s a r e int en de d t o show whether s t u d e n t s a r e l e a r n i n g i d e n t i f i e d b a s i c s k i l l s in r e a d i n g and mathematics and whether more s t u d e n t s a r e a c q u i r i n g such in f o r m a t io n each y e a r . In a d d i t i o n t o measuring m ast ery o f b a s i c r e a d in g and mathematics s k i l l s , t h e MEAP t e s t a l s o measures a t t a i n ­ ment o f o b j e c t i v e s in o t h e r e s s e n t i a l s k i l l a r e a s , e . g . , s c i e n c e , h e a l t h , ph y s ic a l e d u c a t i o n , s o c i a l s t u d i e s , a r t , and music. The s t a t e o f Michigan has conducted an a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r ­ nal c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e MEAP t e s t s , u s in g Kuder-Richardson formula #20 (KR-20). A d i s t r i b u t i o n o f KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s can be found in Volume I I o f t h e MEAP Technical R e p o r t J ^A v a il a b le from MEAP, P.O. Box 30008, La nsing, MI 48909. 54 The v a l i d i t y o f t h e MEAP in s t r u m e n t s depends p r i m a r i l y on t h e adequacy with which t e s t items sample t h e b e ha vio r s p e c i f i e d by the ob je ctiv e. The MEAP t e s t s a r e not de sig ne d t o p r e d i c t something e l s e o r t o f i n d s u b s t i t u t e meas ure s, but r a t h e r t o measure d i r e c t l y s t u d e n t mast ery o f a give n o b j e c t i v e . The t e s t must be an ad eq u a te measure o f what i t i s supposed t o measure. The t e s t i t s e l f i s th e c r i t e r i o n o f performance. The c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y o f c u r r e n t MEAP t e s t s i s based on c r i t i ­ cal judgments. The Michigan Department o f Education has g a th e r e d judgmental d a t a from t e a c h e r s , c u r r ic u lu m s p e c i a l i s t s , measurement s p e c i a l i s t s , and o t h e r s involved in both t h e development and t h e r e v i s i o n o f t h e m i n i m a l - s k i l l s o b j e c t i v e s and in t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t e s t items t o measure a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e s k i l l s . MEAP t e s t s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d i n grades 4 , 7, and 10, which were s e l e c t e d as a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t s a t which t o a s s e s s s t u d e n t performance because th e y r e p r e s e n t im p o r ta n t t r a n s i t i o n time s in a s t u d e n t ' s education: completion o f primary e d u c a t i o n , completion o f e le m en ta ry e d u c a t i o n , and comple tion o f middle -sc hool e d u c a t i o n . Although s t u ­ d e n t s a r e t e s t e d upon e n t e r i n g grades 4 , 7, and 10, t h e s k i l l s t e s t e d should have been a c q u i r e d in t h e p re v io u s grades (K-3, 4 - 6 , and 7 - 9 , respectively). The Michigan Department o f Education has done a g r e a t deal o f pla nni ng and p r e p a r a t i o n t o implement and m a in ta in t h e focus o f t h e Michigan Educationa l Assessment Program. To communicate t h e s e e f f o r t s , t h e Department o f Education has produced a Technical Report t h a t c o n t a i n s v a l u a b l e in f o r m a t io n on t h e h i s t o r y and t e c h n i c a l 55 dimensions o f t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MDE, 1982). The d a t a f o r t h e p r e s e n t stu dy were based on in f o r m a t io n g a th e r e d from a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t t o handicapped s t u d e n t s a t the fourth-grade level only. The s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n on t h e MEAP t e s t answer s h e e t t h a t was used t o g a t h e r s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n - s t u d e n t d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y i s shown in Figure 3 . 1 . (A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n pr oc ed ure s followed i n t h i s s tu d y i s found in t h e Assessment A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Manual in Appendix B. The complete MEAP answer s h e e t i s shown in Appendix D.) i S PE C IA L EDUCATI ON' S T U D Y 1 Spec r Ed Cat e qor y . - iv i - - pO e Hi < r P e r c e n t of 2 Mat h 3 Reading 0 10 30 50 70 5 29 43 69 B9 Ins t ruct i on in S p e c i a l Ed u c a t i o n 9 0 t> m on 4 I ncl ude in Summary Reports7 Yes 5 K- MEAP V : Ap p r o p n a t ' for th'S studer'’ ] v. | Figure 3 . 1 . - - P o r t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t answer s h e e t p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d y . School d i s t r i c t s s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s s tu dy were asked t o respond t o t h e f i v e q u e s t i o n s in c lu d e d on t h e MEAP answer s h e e t (F ig ur e 3 . 1 ) f o r each o f t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s they served. An e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d f o r each q u e s t i o n i s given below. Question 1 . " Sp eci al Ed. Ca te go ry "—School personnel were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e s t u d e n t ' s primary s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n i m p a i r ­ ment. 56 Question 2 . " P e r c e n t o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n in Special E du ca tio n" —School pe rsonnel were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s math i n s t r u c t i o n pe r week in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Question 3 . " P e r c e n t o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Ed uc a tio n" —School personnel were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e pe rc e n ta g e o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n per week in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Question 4 . " I n c lu d e in Summary R e p o r t s " —School personnel were asked to respond "Yes" i f t h e s t u d e n t r e c e i v e d more th a n 50% o f h i s / h e r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n i n g en er al e d u c a t i o n and th u s h i s / h e r MEAP s c o r e s would be in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP Summary Report. A "No" re sp on se meant t h e s t u d e n t r e c e i v e d more t h a n 50% o f h i s / h e r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and th u s h i s / h e r MEAP s c o r e s would be exclu de d from t h e MEAP Summary Report. Question 5 . "MEAP T e s t A p p r o p r i a te f o r t h i s s t u d e n t ? " — The MEAP p r o c t o r s were asked to respond "Yes" i f , through t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e t e s t pro c e d u re s seemed a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e s t u d e n t . In o t h e r words, could t h e s t u d e n t handle t h e s e p a r a t e answer s h e e t and t e s t b o o k l e t and t a k e t h e t e s t as d e s i g n e d , read t e s t d i r e c t i o n s , work a l o n e , and mark answers on t h e answer s h e e t w i t h o u t s k i p p i n g o r double marking? The MEAP p r o c t o r s were r e q u e s t e d t o mark "No" i f t h e s t u d e n t d id n o t seem a b l e t o hand le t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t as d e s c r i b e d above. This q u e s t i o n was in c lu de d because a purpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e wh ether a person s u p e r v i s i n g t h e MEAP t e s t could r e c o g n i z e o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v io r s t h a t evidenced student f r u s t r a t i o n in the t e s t - t a k i n g process. 57 D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedures The MEAP t e s t was conducted th ro u g h o u t Michigan d u r in g a four-week p e r i o d from September 13 through October 8 , 1982. The t e s t i n g sch ed ul e was a s f o l l o w s : Testing: Make-ups: September 13 - October 1, 1982 October 4 - October 8 , 1982 Spec ial p r o v i s i o n s were made f o r d i s t r i c t s t h a t d id no t begin school on time because o f t e a c h e r s t r i k e s , f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , o r o t h e r reasons. These d i s t r i c t s began t e s t i n g w i t h i n t h r e e weeks o f open­ ing and completed t e s t i n g w i t h i n two weeks. A f t e r t h e MEAP t e s t s had been a d m i n i s t e r e d and t h e answer s h e e t s com ple ted , t h e I n t r a n C orp o ra ti o n provided a s e p a r a t e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n - s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n l i s t w it h a c o m p il a ti o n o f t h e stu dy data. Research Hypotheses The f o ll o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s , s t a t e d in t h e n u ll form, were f o r ­ mulated t o answer t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s posed in Chapter I . Ho 1: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s between d i f f e r e n t impairment groups. Ho 2: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s between d i f f e r e n t impairment gro ups. Ho 3: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each impairment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e s o f math and re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Ho 4: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each impairment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e s o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 58 Ho 5: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math and r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t a ppro p­ riate. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods The d a t a g a t h e r e d in t h i s s tu d y were an aly z e d and s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses t e s t e d th ro u g h a s e r i e s o f one-way and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e and t - t e s t s . The ind ep end en t v a r i a b l e s were t h e seven s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n impairment g ro u p s , t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f re a d in g and math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , and t h e MEAP t e s t p r o c t o r s ' judgments o f t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t being a p p r o p r i a t e o r not a p p r o p r i a t e fo r the student. math s c o r e s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e MEAP r e a d in g and F - r a t i o s w ith an al pha l e v e l o f .05 were a cc e p te d as s t a ­ t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s s tu d y . Planned comparisons were used t o examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s among l e v e l s o f ind ep end en t v a r i a b l e s . Again, a .05 a lp ha le v e l was used f o r ju dg in g s i g n i f i c a n c e . A n a ly si s o f v a r i a n c e was used because t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r was most i n t e r e s t e d i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e MEAP math a n d / o r r e a d in g s c o r e s o f t h e seven impairment groups and o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e s o f math a n d / o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , r a t h e r th a n a t t e m p t i n g t o i d e n t i f y a l l o f t h e f a c ­ t o r s t h a t ac c ou nt f o r v a r i a n c e s in MEAP r e a d i n g and math s c o r e s . A na ly si s o f v a r i a n c e a l s o provide d in f o r m a t io n a bou t i n t e r a c t i o n o f f a c t o r s t h a t was u s e f u l in s u g g e s t i n g a l t e r n a t e c r i t e r i a o r s u p p o r ti n g t h e p r e s e n t c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t i n g . 59 C e r t a i n f a c t o r s r e g a r d i n g t h e make-up o f t h e s t u d e n t sample determined t h e ty p e s o f comparisons t h a t c ould be made. These f a c ­ t o r s a r e as fo l l o w s : 1. Comparisons could n o t be made among s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from t h e seven impairment groups r e c e i v i n g 0-49% v e rs us 50-100% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n because o f t h e unequal c e l l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s . Tables 4 .3 and 4 .4 c o n t a i n s p e c i f i c i n fo r m a t io n on t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n i n s t r u c t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d in math and r e a d i n g , r e s p e c ­ tively. 2. Comparisons w i t h i n s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c a t e g o r i e s f o r s t u ­ d e n ts r e c e i v i n g 0-49% v e rs u s 50-100% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n could only be conducted w i t h i n t h e e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e g o r i e s . 3. Comparisons between t h e v a r io u s p e rc e n ta g e s o f r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n could only be conducted w i t h i n t h e e m o ti o n a ll y impaire d (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e g o r i e s , bu t with s p e c i a l l y de sig ne d p e r c e n ta g e comparisons t o compensate f o r t h e unequal s t u d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s . 4. Comparisons between and w i t h i n a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c a t e g o r i e s took p la c e f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) ve rs us maximal (90-100%) re a d in g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n because o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s from each c a t e g o r y r e p o r t e d in th o s e a r e a s . 60 5. Comparisons between t h e lo w -i n c id e n ce s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n groups o f p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h impaired (POHI), v i s u a l l y impaired ( V I) , and h e a r in g impaired (HI) were l i m i t e d because o f t h e small numbers o f s t u d e n t s from t h o s e groups involved in t h e stu dy (POHI = 10, VI = 4 , HI = 1 1 ) . CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction In Chapter IV, t h e d a t a g a t h e r e d t o t e s t t h e hypotheses o f t h e s tu dy a r e p r e s e n t e d and a n al y z e d . t h e fo ll ow in g s e c t i o n s : The c h a p t e r i s d i v i d e d i n t o d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e sample, d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s , and summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s . D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Sample F o u r th -g ra d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from 97 school d i s t r i c t s randomly chosen by a s y s t e m a t i c s t r a t i f i c a t i o n method from M ichigan's 530 d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e s t u d y . i n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d on each s t u d e n t : The fo ll o w i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n im p a ir ­ ment c a t e g o r y , p e r c e n t a g e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , whether t h e s t u d e n t ' s i n t e g r a t i o n in general e d u c a ti o n r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h would al low h i s / h e r MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s t o be included in t h e d i s t r i c t summary r e p o r t , and t h e t e s t p r o c t o r s ' judgment o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t f o r t h a t s t u ­ d e n t. The number o f s t u d e n t s involved in t h e s t u d y , by s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c a t e g o r y , i s p r e s e n t e d in Table 4 . 1 , along wit h t h e t o t a l number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each c a te g o r y in Michigan. 61 62 Table 4.1 . - F o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s , by special education category. Number o f P artici­ pa nts Category % of Sample Total Number o f Stu d e n ts in Michigan Category % o f Total Special Education P o p u la ti o n Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 82 10.92% 1,174 9.62% Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 4.14% 3,457 28.33% 138 18.37% 1,554 12.74% 10 1.33% 281 2.30% V i s u a l l y im paired (VI) 4 .53% 62 .50% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 475 63.25% 5,036 41.27% 11 1.46% 176 1.45% 463 3.79% Category Emotionally impaired (ED Physically o r otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Hearing impaired (HI) Spec ial e d u c a t i o n popu­ l a t i o n s not in s tu d y 0 Total 751 Total f o r popula­ t i o n s in stu dy 751 0 100% 12,203 100% 11,740 Table E-l (Appendix E) shows t h e a c t u a l number o f sampled Michigan school d i s t r i c t s from which s t u d e n t d a ta were g a t h e r e d . t h i s t a b l e , d i s t r i c t s a r e s e p a r a t e d a cc o rd in g t o s t r a t u m . (Refer t o Appendix A f o r community ty p e and re g i o n a l make-up o f s t r a t a . ) Table 4 . 2 shows t h e number o f re s p o n se s r e c e i v e d f o r each q u e s t i o n i n t h e s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n - s t u d y s e c t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t answer s h e e t . Responses a r e broken down a c c o rd in g t o impairment In Table 4 . 2 . --Number o f re s p o n s e s r e c e i v e d t o each q u e s t i o n in t h e s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n - s t u d y s e c t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t , by impairment group. Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 (S peci al Education Category) (P e r c e n t o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Education) (Percent o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S pec ial Education) (Include i n Summary Report) (MEAP T e s t A p p ro p ri a te f o r This S tu d e n t? ) Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 32 81 81 82 82 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 31 31 31 31 Em otionally impaired (E l) 138 138 138 138 138 10 10 10 10 9 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 4 4 4 4 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 475 470 471 475 467 Hearing impaired (HI) 11 11 11 11 11 751 745 746 751 742 Category Physically or o ther­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Total 64 group. From t h i s t a b l e i t can be seen t h a t not e ver y q u e s t i o n was answered f o r a l l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t a k i n g t h e t e s t . Tables 4 . 3 , 4 . 4 , 4 . 5 , and 4 . 6 c o n t a i n in f o r m a t io n on t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t h a t was g a t h e r e d through t h e f i v e q u e s t i o n s in t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e c t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t . Table 4 . 3 d i s p l a y s a breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a cc o rd in g t o p e r c e n ta g e o f math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 4 shows a breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a c c o rd in g t o t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . A breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a c c o rd in g t o t h e i r e x c l u s i o n in o r e x c l u s i o n from t h e summary r e p o r t s i s shown in Table 4 . 5 . Table 4 . 6 c o n t a i n s a breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a c c o rd in g to whether MEAP p r o c t o r s judged t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t t o be a p p r o p r i a t e o r not a p p r o p r i a t e f o r them. Many o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s r e l a t i n g to t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f math o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c o n t a i n e d i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers o f s u b j e c t s f o r a n a l y s i s p u rp o s e s . Appendix E.) (R e fe r to Table E-2, C onse que ntl y, o n ly th o s e s u b j e c t s who s p e n t a minimal (0-9%) o r a maximal (90-100%) amount o f time in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n math o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n were used in t h e a n a l y s i s . Tables 4 . 7 and 4 . 8 a r e t a b u l a t i o n s o f th o s e s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s judged t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t to be appro p­ r i a t e o r not a p p r o p r i a t e , a c c o rd in g to t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f i n s t r u c t i o n r e c e i v e d in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n math and r e a d i n g , r e s p e c t i v e l y . 65 Table 4 . 3 . —Breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by c a t e g o r y , a c c o rd in g t o p e rc e n ta g e o f math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l education. Perce ntag e o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Education Category 0-9% Educable mencally impaired (EMI) 10-29% 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-100% 0 0 10 0 1 70 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 0 1 0 0 2 Emotionally impaired (El) 35 9 5 6 3 80 5 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 179 59 46 20 5 161 Hearing impaired (HI) 1 1 0 0 0 9 Column t o t a l s 252 69 62 26 9 327 Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Total N f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s * 745 66 Table 4 . 4 . --Breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by c a t e g o r y , a cc o rd in g t o p e r c e n t a g e o f re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. Pe rce nta ge o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Special Education Category 0-9% 10-29% 1 0 1 8 0 71 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 0 0 1 0 2 Emotionally impaired (El) 30 5 5 8 2 88 4 3 0 0 0 3 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 1 0 0 0 0 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 71 54 40 45 16 245 Hearing impaired (HI) 2 0 0 0 0 9 Column t o t a l s 139 63 46 62 18 418 Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Total N f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s = 746 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-100% 67 Table 4 . 5 . —Breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by c a t e g o r y , ac c o rd in g t o i n c l u s i o n in o r e x c l u s i o n from MEAP summary r e p o r t s . Total Number Excluded Total No. by Category P e rc e n t Included P e rc e n t Excluded 1 81 82 1.2% 98.8% Speech and language impaired (SLI) 27 4 31 87.1% 12.9% Emotionally impaired (El) 41 97 138 29.7% 70.3% 4 6 10 40.0% 60.0% V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 0 4 100.0% 0 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 146 329 475 30.7% 69.3% Hearing impaired (HI) •» / 4 11 63.6% 36.4% Column T o t a l s 230 521 751 Category Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) P h y s i c a l l y or o t h e r ­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Total Number Included 68 Table 4 . 6 . --Breakdown o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by c a t e g o r y , a c c o rd in g t o whether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged to be a p p r o p r i a t e o r no t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r them. P e rc e n t Test Approp­ riate P e rc e n t T e s t Not Approp­ riate Tes t Appropr i ate T e s t Not Approp­ riate Total No. by Category 1 81 82 1.2% 98.8 % Speech and language impaired (SLI) 25 6 31 80.65/; 19.35% Emotionally impaired (El) 52 86 138 37.7% 62.3% Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 5 4 9 55.6% 44.4% V i s u a l l y imDaired (VI) 3 1 4 75.0% 25.0% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 116 351 467 24.8% 75.2% Hearina impaired (HI) 8 3 11 72.7% 27.3% Column t o t a l s 210 532 742 Category Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 69 Table 4 . 7 . —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in each c a t e g o r y , ac c o rd in g t o whether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged t o be a p p r o p r i a t e o r not a p p r o p r i a t e f o r them, by p e r c e n ta g e o f math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Perce nta ge o f Math I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Education Category 0-9% 10-29%; 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-100% Mechanics o f MEAP T e s t Judged A pp ro p ri a te Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 1 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 25 Emotionally impaired (El) 17 Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 3 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 75 Hearing impaired (HI) Totals 5 3 1 1 2 21 7 6 1 6 7 1 124 25 26 10 7 2 41 1 69 Mechanics o f MEAP T e s t Judged Not A p p ro p ri a te Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) Speech and language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) 10 3 18 Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 1 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 1 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 103 2 1 4 2 5 2 3 38 38 14 4 151 2 Hearing impaired (HI) Totals 55 126 42 51 19 7 282 70 Table 4 . 8 . —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in each c a te g o r y a cc ord in g t o wh ether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged t o be a p p r o p r i a t e o r n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r them, by p e r c e n ta g e o f r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . P e rc e nt ag e o f Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Education Category 0-9% 10-29% 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-100% Mechanics o f MEAP Te st Judged A p p ro p ri at e Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 1 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 25 Emotionally impaired (El) 19 3 Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 3 1 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 41 Hearing impaired (HI) 2 25 1 14 5 3 2 94 Totals 29 3 24 6 33 17 7 3 56 Mechanics o f MEAP Te st Judged Not A pp ro p ri a te Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) Speech and language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) 1 3 11 2 Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 2 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 1 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 30 25 2 8 71 1 2 6 2 2 26 40 13 215 3 Hearing impaired (HI) Totals 63 44 30 29 55 15 356 71 Table E-2 (Appendix E) r e p o r t s t h e mean MEAP math and r e a d ­ ing s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each c a t e g o r y , by p e r ­ ce nt a g e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n r e c e i v e d in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table E-3 (Appendix E) summarizes t h e mean MEAP math and r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in each c a t e g o r y , a cc or di ng t o whether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged t o be a p p r o p r i a t e o r no t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r them. D e s c r i p t i o n o f Research Findings The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s o f MEAP re a d i n g and math s c o r e s o f f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from seven impairment groups were designed t o t e s t t h e f i v e hypotheses f or m ul at ed f o r t h i s s t u d y . In t h e fo ll o w i n g p a g e s , each r e s e a r c h h y p o th e s i s i s r e s t a t e d , f o l ­ lowed by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e ( s ) used t o t e s t t h e h y p o th e s i s and t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s . Hypothesis 1 Ho 1: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s between d i f f e r e n t impairment gro ups. Table 4 . 9 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) performed on t h e re a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s in t h e seven impairment groups. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s was found f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i n d i f f e r e n t impairment groups. To deter mine which o f t h e impairment groups d i f ­ f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Sche ff6 p roc ed ure f o r comparing mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The ScheffS t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from SLI, E l , LD, and HI 72 s t u d e n t s , i n terms o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s . The t e s t a l s o i n d i ­ c a te d t h a t SLI s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and LD s t u ­ dents. In Figure 4 . 1 , t h e a s t e r i s k s i n d i c a t e which c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r in terms o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s . Table 4 . 9 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f s t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s a cc o rd in g t o impairment groups . Source MS Between seven impairment groups 977.25 6 50.00 744 Error df F Significance of F 19.54 <0.0000* ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI EMI SLI * El * * * POHI VI LD * HI * Figure 4.1 . —S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between impairment groups i n terms o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s . 73 Table 4.1 0 c o n t a i n s t h e s t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s by impairment group. As r e p o r t e d i n Table 4 . 1 0 , t h e h i g h e r mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s f o r SLI, E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s as compared t o EMI s t u d e n t s and t h e h i g h e r mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s f o r SLI s t u d e n t s as compared t o El and LD s t u d e n t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e i n d i c a t e d impairment groups s co r ed d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t . Table 4 . 1 0 . —S t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a ­ t i o n s , by impairment groups . Impairment C a t e g o r i e s N Mean Standard Devi ati on Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 82 3.85 4. 4 0 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 19.09 7.25 138 10.03 7.86 P hysically o r otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 10 10.60 7.15 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 11.25 8.84 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 475 9.78 7.13 11 14.81 8. 5 0 Emotionally impaired (El) Hearing impaired (HI) A d d it io na l one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e , ho ld in g c o n s t a n t t h e minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) p e rc e n ta g e o f math o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , were conducted t o pursue more s p e c i f i c informa­ t i o n r e g a r d i n g Hypothesis 1. The minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) p e r c e n t a g e s o f math o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n were held c o n s t a n t because 74 a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s from a l l c a t e g o r i e s f e l l i n t o t h e two time a l l o c a t i o n s , which allowed f o r more s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s between t h e d i f f e r e n t i m p a i r ­ ment groups. The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e f o ll o w . Table 4.11 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i ­ ance performed on t h e mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s between s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. Table 4 . 1 1 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) re a d i n g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n a c c o rd in g t o impairment gro ups . Source Between seven impairment groups Er ro r MS df F 125.21 6 2.89 43.25 132 Significance of F <0.0110* * S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . To d i s c o v e r which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Scheff6 procedure f o r a comparison o f mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n d i f f e r e d 75 s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e El group in terms o f mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s . Table 4.12 shows t h e mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by impairment group. As shown in Table 4 , SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n scor ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t th a n did t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e El group. Table 4 . 1 2 . —Mean MEAP re a din g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by impairment groups. Impairment C a t e g o ri e s Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) N Mean Standard De viatio n 1 12.00 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 20.00 6.35 Emotionally impaired (El) 30 13.56 6.37 P hysically or otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 4 14.75 2.87 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 13.66 9.07 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 71 15.38 6.80 2 21.50 3.53 Hearing impaired (HI) Table 4.13 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by 76 impairment groups. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d in mean MEAP rea di ng s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 1 3 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a cc ord in g t o impairment groups. Source Between s i x impairment groups E r ro r MS df 394.10 5 48.50 246 F Significance of F 8.1 2 <0.0000* * S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . To f i n d o u t which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Sc he ff€ proce dure f o r comparison o f mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t SLI s t u ­ d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and LD s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP reading scores. Table 4 .1 4 c o n t a i n s a summary o f t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by impairment group. SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed h ig h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g t e s t tha n d id t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e El and LD groups. 77 Table 4 . 1 4 . --Mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment gr oups . Mean Standard Devi ati on 20.00 6.35 35 12.65 6.68 Physically or otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 5 15.20 3.27 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 11.25 8.84 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 179 11.37 7.12 1 24.00 Impairment C at eg ori es N Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 Emotionally impaired (El) Hearing impaired (HI) Table 4.15 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment gro ups. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g maximal r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4.15.--AN0VA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n a c c or di ng t o impairment gro ups. Source Between s i x impairment groups E r ro r MS df F 285.91 5 7.36 38.83 412 Significance of F ♦S ig n ific a n t at or beyond the .05 level o f confidence. <0.0000* 78 To d i s c o v e r which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a S ch ef fe procedure to compare mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l educa­ t i o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s . Table 4. 16 shows t h e mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment group. E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s co r ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t than d id EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 1 6 . —Mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment gro ups . Impairment C at e g o ri e s Educable m e n t a l l y impa ire impaired (EMI) Speech and language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) P h y s i c a l l y o r o th e r w is e h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired N Mean Standard D ev iat io n 71 3.53 4.35 2 12.00 15.55 88 8.20 7.74 3 3.33 5.77 245 7.13 5.91 9 13.33 8.67 79 Table 4.17 c o n t a i n s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by impairment group. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 1 7 : ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n a c c o rd in g t o impairment gro ups. df F 316.99 5 8.0 5 39.37 321 Source MS Between s i x impairment groups Er ro r Significance of F <0.0000* ♦ S i g n i f i c a n c e a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n fi d e n c e . To de te rm in e which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Sche ff6 proce du re t o compare mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and HI s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s . LD s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from HI s t u d e n t s in t h i s a n a l y s i s . Table 4. 1 8 shows a summary o f t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) 80 math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment group. El and HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n scor ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP re a d i n g t e s t tha n did t h e i r coun­ t e r p a r t s in t h e EMI group. Likewise, HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co re d h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t than d id t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e LD group. Table 4 . 1 8 . —Mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment gro ups. Impairment C a t e g o r i e s Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) Speech and language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) P h y s i c a l l y o r o th e r w is e h e a l t h impaired (POHI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired (HI) Standard De viation N Mean 70 3.61 4.41 2 12.00 15.55 80 8.4 2 7.98 5 6.00 7.17 161 6.57 5.74 9 15.00 8.07 Hypothesis 2 Ho 2: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s between d i f f e r e n t impairment groups. Table 4.19 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s in th e seven impairment gro ups. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean 81 MEAP math s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in d i f f e r e n t im pa ir ment groups. Table 4 . 1 9 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f s tu d e n t s ' m e a n MEAP math s c o r e s a c c ord in g t o impairment gro ups. MS Source Between seven impairment groups df 1671.98 6 52.14 744 Error P ■■ Significance Of F 32.06 <0.0000* * S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . To deter mine which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a S c h e f f l pro ce dur e f o r comparing mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from SLI, E l , POHI, VI, LD, and HI s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . The S c h e ff e t e s t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t SLI s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and LD s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . In Figure 4 . 2 , t h e a s t e r i s k s i n d i c a t e which c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r on t h i s measure. Table 4 .2 0 c o n t a i n s t h e s t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s by impairment group. As shown i n t h e t a b l e , t h e h i g h e r mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r SLI, E l , POHI, VI, LD, and HI s t u d e n t s as compared t o EMI s t u d e n t s and t h e h i g h e r mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r SLI s t u d e n t s as compared t o El and LD s t u d e n t s s u g g e s t 82 t h a t t h e i n d i c a t e d impairment groups s cor ed d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e MEAP math t e s t . EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI EMI SLI * El * POHI ★ VI * LD * HI * ★ * Fi gu re 4 . 2 . - - S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between impairment groups in terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . Table 4 . 2 0 . - - S t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , by impairment groups. Impairment C a t e g o r i e s N Mean Standard D e v iati on Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 82 5.97 5.19 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 24.06 4.33 138 14.53 7.98 10 16.00 8.51 4 19.50 10.37 475 15.85 7.38 11 20.54 6.71 Emo tionally impaired (El) Physically or otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) V i s u a l l y impaired Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired 83 In a d d i t i o n , one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e , holdin g c o n s t a n t t h e minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) p e rc e n ta g e s o f math and re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , were conducted t o pursue more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g Hypothesis 2. The minimal and maximal p e rc e n ta g e s o f math and r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n were held c o n s t a n t because a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s from a l l impairment c a t e g o r i e s f e l l i n t o t h e two tim e a l l o c a t i o n s , which allowed f o r more s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s between t h e d i f f e r e n t impairment g rou ps . The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l one­ way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e f o ll o w . Table 4.21 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment category. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal math i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. Table 4 . 2 1 . —AN0VA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a c c ord in g t o impairment gro ups. Source MS Between s i x impairment groups 186.55 5 42.30 246 Error df F Significance of F 4.41 <0.0007* ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . 84 To d i s c o v e r which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Sc he ffg proce dur e f o r comparing mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. This t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n d i f ­ f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and LD s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . Table 4.22 shows t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment group. SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n scored h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t th a n did t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e El and LD gro ups. Table 4 . 2 2 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment gro ups. N Mean Standard D ev iati on Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 24.17 4.49 Emotionally impaired (El) 35 16.88 7.73 Physically or otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 5 19.00 5.83 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 19.50 10.37 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 179 18.88 6.43 1 25.00 Impairment C a t e g o ri e s Hearing impaired (HI) 85 Table 4. 23 r e v e a l s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f variance performed on t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v ­ ing minimal (0-9%) re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment groups. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d i n mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 2 3 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n a c c o rd in g t o impairment gro ups. Source Between seven impairment groups E r ro r df F 167.89 6 3.83 43.76 132 MS Significance of F <0.0015* ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . To de ter mi ne which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Scheffg proc ed ure t o compare mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. The t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from El and LD s t u d e n t s i n terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . Table 4. 2 4 c o n t a i n s a summary o f t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment c a t e g o r y . SLI s t u d e n t s 86 r e c e i v i n g minimal r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s cor ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t th a n did El and LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4 . 2 4 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by impairment groups . Impairment C at e g o ri e s Standard Deviation N Mean 1 19.00 Speech and language impaired (SLI) 28 24.17 4.49 Emotionally impaired (El) 30 16.73 8.12 Physically o r otherwise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 4 21.25 6.29 V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 24.66 1.15 Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 71 18.57 6.73 2 22.00 4. 24 Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) Hearing impaired (HI) Table 4. 2 5 c o n t a i n s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v ­ ing maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment c a t e g o r y . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 87 Table 4 . 2 5 . —ANOVA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a c c o rd in g t o impairment gr oups . Source Between s i x impairment groups Error MS df 654.01 5 68.36 321 F Significance of F 13.52 <0.0000* ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . To f i n d o u t which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a ScheffS proce dure f o r comparing mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. This t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s and t h a t LD s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from HI s t u d e n t s in terms o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s . Table 4.2 6 shows t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by impairment group. E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co r ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t t h a n d id t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e EMI group. Also, HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n s cor ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t tha n d id t h e i r c o u n t e r ­ p a r t s i n t h e LD group. 88 Table 4 . 2 6 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment gr oups . Impairment C a t e g o ri e s N Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) Speech and language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) Physically or otherwise h e a l t h impaired (P0HI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired (HI) S ta ndard D ev iati on Mean 70 5.81 4.9 9 2 22.50 3.53 80 13.02 8.1 0 5 13.00 10.31 161 11.63 6.96 9 19.88 7.28 Table 4.27 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v ­ ing maximal (90-100%) i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n by impairment group. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found i n mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r s t u d e n t impairment groups r e c e i v i n g maximal r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4.27.--AN0VA r e s u l t s : comparison o f mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n a cc ord in g t o impairment gro ups. Source Between s i x impairment groups E r ro r MS df 958.64 5 51.12 412 F Significance of F 18.74 <0.0000* ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t or beyond the .05 level o f confidence. 89 Table 4. 2 8 shows t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a ­ t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n by impairment group. To det er mi ne which o f t h e impairment groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r , a Sche ff£ proce dur e t o compare mean group d i f f e r e n c e s was performed. This t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower th a n E l , LD, and HI s t u d e n t s . HI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s co r ed h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t th a n d i d t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e El and LD groups. Table 4 . 2 8 . --Mean MEAP math s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by s i x impairment grou ps . Impairment C a t e g o r i e s Educable m e n ta ll y imp ai red (EMI) Speech and language impa ired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (E l) Phy sically o r otherwise h e a l t h impaired (P0HI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired (HI) N Mean Standard De viatio n 71 5.77 4.82 2 22.50 3.53 88 13.25 7.81 3 8.3 3 7.09 245 14.26 7.46 9 20.22 7.31 90 Hypothesis 3 Ho 3: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in each impairment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e rc e n ta g e s o f math and r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This h y p o th e s i s was f o r m ul at ed t o compare t h e mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s in each impairment group a cc or di ng t o t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n r e c e i v e d in s p e c i a l edu­ cation. Because t h e r e was an i n s u f f i c i e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s in v a r i o u s p e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n gro u p s , a n a l y s e s w i t h i n each o f t h e seven impairment c a t e g o r i e s could no t be co nducted. However, comparisons o f two impairment c a t e g o r i e s could be conducted r e g a r d i n g v a r i o u s p e r c e n t a g e s o f math and re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l edu­ cation. F u r t h e r comparisons o f mean MEAP math and r e a d in g sc or es o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) math o r re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n were conducted f o r f i v e impairment c a t e g o r i e s . The e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (E l) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e g o r i e s had t h e l a r g e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s a c r o s s a m a j o r i t y of percentage-of-instruction categories. Because o f t h e c l u s t e r i n g o f s t u d e n t s w i t h i n t h e El and LD c a t e g o r i e s , two s e p a r a t e p e r c e n t a g e o f - i n s t r u c t i o n group comparisons were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The p e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n group comparisons used in t h e a n a l y s i s f o r e m o t i o n a l l y impaired and l e a r n ­ ing d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s a r e shown in Table 4 . 2 9 . 91 Table 4 . 2 9 . — P e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n l e v e l s f o r e m o t i o n a l l y impaired ( E l ) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) gro ups . Spec ial Education C a t e g o ri e s LD El Percentage-ofi n s t r u c t i o n group compari sons 0-29% v s . 30-49% 0-49% v s . 50-100% 0-29% v s . 30-49% 0-49% v s . 50-100% 50-69% v s . 70-100% The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s used was a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (MANOVA), usi ng t h e groups formed by p e r c e n ta g e o f math and rea d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n as t h e m u l t i p l e v a r i a t e s . These m u l t i p l e v a r i a t e s were i n t e r d e p e n d e n t and t h u s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s be a rr a ng ed in a manner t h a t pla ced t h e most im p o r ta n t comparison l a s t , with o t h e r im po r tant comparisons immediately p r e ­ ceding i t . Table 4.3 0 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s w i t h i n t h e two p e r c e n t a g e o f - i n s t r u c t i o n comparison groups. Because o f unequal c e l l s i z e s and t h e int e rd e pe nd e nc y o f t h e groups formed by p e r c e n ta g e s o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education, the f i r s t in d ic a tio n of sig n ific a n c e progressing from t h e bottom o f t h e comparisons t o t h e t o p i s v a l i d . All o t h e r comparisons may be confounded. The comparison o f s c o r e s o f groups r e c e i v i n g 0-49% v e rs us 50-100% o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n was o r d e r e d as 92 Table 4 . 3 0 . —MANOVA r e s u l t s : comparisons o f e m o ti o n a ll y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s a cc o rd in g to pe rc e n ta g e o f math and r e a d in g in s t r u c ti o n in special education. Source o f V a r i a t i o n MS F df Significance of F For Em otionally Impaired St u d e n ts Time Math 0-29% vs. 30-49% 322.01 1 5.76 .018 Time Math 0-49% vs. 50-100% 376.26 1 6.74 <.011* Time Reading 0-29% vs. 30-49% 182.88 1 3.27 .073 Time Reading 0-49% vs . 50-100% 17.40 1 .31 .578 148.73 2 2.66 .073 55.82 131 Time Math by Time Reading E r ro r For Learning Disabled Stu de nt s Time Math 50-69% v s . 70-100% 0.0 1778.77 1 42.60 Time Math 0-29% v s . 30-49% 23.51 1 .56 .453 Time Math 0-49% v s . 50-100% 696.30 1 16.67 .000 Time Reading 50-69% v s . 70-100% 455.86 1 10.91 .001 Time Reading 0-29% vs . 30-49% 929.81 1 22.27 0 .0 Time Reading 0-49% v s . 50-100% 866.66 1 20.75 <0.0* 29.93 8 .71 Time Math by Time Reading E r ro r 41.74 455 *S ig n ific a n t a t or beyond the .05 level o f confidence. .677 93 t h e most im p o r ta n t comparison because i t i s most r e l e v a n t t o t h e c u r r e n t Michigan c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t . Subsequent comparisons o f p e r c e n ta g e s o f math and re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n were a r r a n g e d in descending o r d e r o f impor tanc e. In Table 4 . 3 0 , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .011 s u g g e s t s t h a t El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co r ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g t e s t than d i d El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 50-100% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l education. S im ila r ly , the sig n ific a n c e level o f 0.0 suggests t h a t LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n sco red s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t than d id LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 50-100% o f t h e i r re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. F u r t h e r a n a l y s e s were conducted t o de te rm in e i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e mean MEAP re a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n f i v e impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs u s maximal (90-100%) math o r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e du ca­ tion. The o t h e r two groups d id n o t have s t u d e n t s in t h e s e p e rc en ta g e grou ps ; hence t h e y were ex cluded from t h i s a n a l y s i s . Fi g ur e 4 . 3 d i s p l a y s t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs u s maximal (90-100%) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Figu re 4 . 4 d i s p l a y s t h e mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs us maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 94 25 24 23 22 21 20 / ( 20. 0 ) ( 2 1 .5 ) 19 18 Mean MEAP Reading Scores 17 16 15 - • ( 1 5 .3 ) 14 (1 3.3 ) 13 12 (12. 0) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 (0-9% r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed.) 4 3 (90-100% re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed.) (3.3) 2 1 0 SLI El POHI LD HI Speci al Education Impairment C at e g o ri e s Figure 4 . 3 . —Mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l education. 95 25 24 ( 2 4 .0 ) 23 22 21 20 (20. 0 ) \ 19 18 Mean MEAP Reading Scores 17 16 ( 1 5. 2) A 15 (1 5.0 ) 14 13 (12. 0 ) 12 ( 1 2. 6 ) 11 ( 11 .3) 10 9 (8.4) ' 8 7 6 (6.5) (6 . 0 ) 5 (0-9% math i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed.) 4 3 (90-100% math i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed .) 2 1 0 SLI El POHI LD HI S pec ial Education Impairment C a t e g o r i e s Figure 4 . 4 . --Mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 96 T - t e s t s were conducted t o de ter mi ne wh ether t h e r e were s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean MEAP r e a d in g s c o r e s between s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each impairment c a t e g o r y r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs us maximal (90-100%) math and re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l educa­ tion. Table 4.3.1 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t - t e s t s . As shown in Table 4.3'1, in t h r e e o u t o f f i v e impairment c a t e ­ g o r i e s (e m o ti o n a ll y i m p a ir e d , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h im p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d ) , s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math and r e a d ­ ing i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean MEAP r e a d in g sc or es th a n did s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math and r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . However, i t must be po in te d o u t t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f speech and language impaired and he ar in g impaired had ver y small N ' s , which may have been r e s po n­ s i b l e f o r t h e la c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s . Hypothesis 4 Ho 4: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i n each impairment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e s o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Hypothesis 4 was for mu late d t o compare t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s in each impairment group a c c o rd in g t o t h e p e r ­ c en ta ge o f math and r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n r e c e i v e d in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Because t h e r e was an i n s u f f i c i e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s in v a r io u s p e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n gr oup s , a n a l y s e s w i t h i n each o f t h e seven impairment c a t e g o r i e s could no t be co nducted. However, comparisons o f two impairment c a t e g o r i e s could be conducted r e g a r d i n g v a r i o u s p e rc e n ta g e s o f math and re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 97 Table 4 . 3 1 . - - R e s u l t s o f t - t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s acc or din g t o p e rc e n ta g e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by impairment group. Impairment Group Speech & language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) Physically or otherwise health impaired (POHI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired (HI) P e rc e nt ag e o f Math & Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in Spec ial Educ. TValue Probabi 1 i t y 6.36 15.55 0.720 0.601 20.0 12.0 6.36 15.55 0.720 0.601 35 80 12.65 8.42 6.68 7.98 0.240 <0.007* Reading 0-9% 90-100% 35 88 13.56 8.2 0 6.37 7.74 3.420 <.001* Math 0-9% 90-100% 5 5 15.20 6.00 3.27 7.17 0.157 <0.031* Reading 0-9% 90-100% 4 3 14.75 3.33 2.87 5.77 0.282 <0.017* Math 0-9% 90-100% 179 161 11.37 6.57 7.12 5.74 6.880 <0.000* Reading 0-9% 90-100% 71 245 15.38 7.13 6.80 5.91 9.990 <0.000* Math 0-9% 90-100% 1 9 24.00 15.00 0.00 8 .07 1.060 0.321 Reading 0-9% 90-100% 2 9 21.50 13.33 3.53 8 .67 1.260 0.238 N Mean S.D. Math 0-9% 90-100% 28 2 20.0 12.0 Readi ng 0-9% 90-100% 28 2 Math 0-9% 90-100% ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t or beyond the .05 level o f confidence. 98 F u r t h e r comparisons o f mean MEAP math and r e a d in g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n were conducted f o r f i v e impairment c a t e g o r i e s . The e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e ­ g o r i e s had t h e l a r g e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s a c r o s s a m a j o r i t y o f percentage-of-instruction categories. Because o f t h e c l u s t e r i n g o f s t u ­ d e n ts w i t h i n t h e s e two c a t e g o r i e s , two s e p a r a t e p e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n group comparisons were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The p e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n group comparisons used in t h e a n a l y s i s f o r El and LD s t u d e n t s a r e shown in Table 4 . 3 2 . Table 4 . 3 2 . — P e r c e n t a g e - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n l e v e l s f o r e m o t i o n a l l y impaired ( E l ) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) gro ups. S pec ial Education C a t e g o r i e s El Percentage-ofi n s t r u c t i o n group comparisons 0-29% vs . 30-49% 0-49% vs . 50-100% LD 0-29% v s . 30-49% 0-49% v s . 50-100% 50-69% v s . 70-100% The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s used as a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (MANOVA), u s i n g t h e groups formed by p e r c e n ta g e o f math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a s t h e m u l t i p l e v a r i a t e s . These m u l t i p l e v a r i a t e s were i n t e r d e p e n d e n t and th u s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s be a r r a n g e d in a manner t h a t p la ce d t h e most im p o r ta n t comparison l a s t , with o t h e r im p o r ta n t comparisons immediately p r e ­ cedi ng i t . Table 4.33 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f e m o t i o n a l l y impaired 99 Table 4 . 3 3 . —MANOVA r e s u l t s : comparisons o f e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s ' mean MEAP math s c o r e s a c c o rd in g t o p e r c e n t a g e o f math and r e a d i n g in s tru c tio n in special education. Source o f V a r i a t i o n MS df F Significance of F For Em otion ally Impaired St u d e n ts Time Math 0-29% vs . 30-49% 336.73 1 5.46 <.021* Time Math 0-49% v s . 50-100% 186.76 1 3.03 .084 Time Reading 0-29% vs . 30-49% 6.49 1 .10 .746 Time Reading 0-49% vs. 50-100% 6.82 1 .11 .740 Time Math by Time Reading 66.21 2 1.07 .344 E r ro r 61.62 131 For Learning Disabled Stu de nt s Time Math 50-69% v s . 70-100% 3078.85 1 70.75 Time Math 0-29% v s . 30-49% 603.59 1 13.87 Time Math 0-49% vs . 50-100% 1155.98 1 26.56 Time Reading 50-69% v s . 70-100% 22.49 1 .51 .473 Time Reading 0-29% v s . 30-49% 6.29 1 .14 .704 Time Reading 0-49% v s . 50-100% 344.27 1 7.91 <.005* Time Math by Time Reading 66.22 8 1.52 .147 Error 43.51 455 *S ig n ific a n t a t or beyond the .05 le vel o f confidence. 0.0 .000 0 .0 TOO (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s w i t h i n t h e two p e r c e n t a g e o f - i n s t r u c t i o n comparison groups. Because o f unequal c e l l s i z e s and t h e in te rd e pen de nc y o f t h e groups formed by p e r c e n ta g e o f math and re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , t h e f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n c e p r o g r e s s i n g from t h e bottom o f t h e comparisons t o t h e to p i s v a l i d . All o t h e r compari­ sons may be confounded. The comparison o f s c o r e s o f groups r e c e i v i n g 0-49% v e rs us 50-100% o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n was o r d e r e d as t h e most im p o r ta n t comparison because i t i s most r e l e v a n t t o t h e c u r r e n t Michigan c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t . Subsequent comparisons o f p e rc e n ta g e o f math and re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n were a r r a n g e d in descending o r d e r o f importance. In Table 4 . 3 3 , a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .021 s u g g e s ts t h a t e m o t i o n a l l y impaired s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-29% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n scor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t than d id e m o t i o n a l l y impaired s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 30-49% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . S im ilarly , the s i g n i f i ­ cance l e v e l o f .005 s u g g e s t s t h a t l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s r e c e i v ­ ing 0-49% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n scor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t t h a n d id l e a r n i n g d i s ­ a b le d s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 50-100% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. 101 F u r t h e r a n a l y s e s were conducted t o de te r m in e i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in f i v e impairment groups r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs u s maximal (90-100%) math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. The o t h e r two impairment groups d id no t have s t u d e n t s in t h e s e p e r c e n ta g e gr oup s; hence th e y were excluded from th e a n a l y s i s . Fi gu re 4 . 5 d i s p l a y s t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs u s maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Figur e 4 . 6 d i s p l a y s t h e mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs us maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . T - t e s t s were conducted t o de te rm in e whether t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean MEAP math s c o r e s between s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each impairment c a t e g o r y r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) v e rs u s maximal (90-100%) math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Table 4.35 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t - t e s t s . As shown in Table 4 . 3 4 , i n two o u t o f f i v e impairment c a t e g o r i e s ( e m o t i o n a l l y impaired and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d ) , s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) math and r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean MEAP math s c o r e s th a n did s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math and r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . However, i t must be p o in te d o u t t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f speech and language i m p a ir e d , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e 102 27 26 25 (2 4.1 ) 24 23 (22 . 5)\ 22 ( 22. 0 ) (21. 2 ) 21 'V 20 (20. 2 ) 19 18 (1 8.2 ) Mean MEAP Math Scores 17 16 (1 6.7 ) 15 14 (14 .2 ) 13 ( 1 3. 2) 12 11 10 9 8 (8 .3 ) 7 6 (0-9% r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in special educ.) 5 4 3 (90-100% re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c .) 2 1 0 SLI El POHI LD HI Special Education Impairment C a t e g o ri e s Figure 4 . 5 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 103 27 26 25 (2 4.1 ) 24 * (2 5.0 ) / 23 ( 2 2 . 5 ) v (19 .8 ) (19. 0) Mean MEAP Math Scores (1 8. 8) (lV.8) ( 1 3 .0 ) (13.0 11 (11. 6 ) 10 9 8 7 (0-9% math i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed.) 6 5 (90-100% math i n s t r u c t i o n in special ed.) 4 3 2 1 0 SLI El POHI LD HI S pec ial Education Impairment C a t e g o ri e s Figure 4 . 6 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 104 Table 4 . 3 4 . - - R e s u l t s o f t - t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean MEAP math s c o r e s a cc or di ng t o p e rc e n ta g e o f math and re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , by i m p a i r ­ ment group. Impairment Group Speech & language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) Physically or otherwise health impaired (POHI) Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) Hearing impaired (HI) Perce nta ge o f Math & Reading I n s t r u c t i o n in S pe c ia l Educ. N Mean S.D. TVal ue Proba­ b ility Math 0-9% 90-100% 28 2 24.17 22.50 4.4 9 3.53 0.51 0.612 Reading 0-9% 90-100% 28 2 24.17 22.50 4.49 3.53 0.51 0.612 Math 0-9% 90-100% 35 80 16.88 13.02 7.73 8.1 0 2.3 8 <0.019* Reading 0-9% 90-100% 30 88 16.73 13.25 8.12 7.81 2.09 <0.039* Math 0-9% 90-100% 5 5 19.00 13.00 5.83 10.32 1.13 0.295 Readinq 0-9% 90-100% 4 3 21.25 8.33 6.29 7.09 2.55 0.051 Math 0-9% 90-100% 179 161 18.88 11.63 6.43 6.96 9.99 <0.000* Readinq 0-9% 90-100% 71 245 18.57 14.26 6.73 7.46 4 .3 8 <0.000* Math 0-9% 90-100% 1 9 25.00 19.88 0 .0 0 7.28 0.67 0.525 Readintj 0-9% 90-100% 2 9 22.00 20.22 4.24 7.31 0.32 0.754 ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t or beyond the .05 level o f confidence. 105 h e a l t h im p a ir e d , and h e a r in g impaired had ve ry small N ' s , which may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in these categories. Hypothesis 5 Ho 5: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean MEAP math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t ap pro p­ riate. T - t e s t s were conducted t o de term in e whether t h e r e were s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean MEAP math and re a d i n g s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and t h o s e f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . The pr oc ed ure p r o c t o r s used t o make judgments o f " a p p r o p r i a t e " o r "not a p p r o p r i a t e " i s e x p l a i n e d in Appendix C. As shown in Table 4 . 3 5 , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s o f 0.000 s u g g e s t t h a t t h o s e s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math and r e a d i n g t e s t s th a n d id s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . A d d it io n a l d a t a p e r t i n e n t t o Hypothesis 5 f o l l o w . Table 4 .3 6 c o n t a i n s a breakdown, by impairment c a t e g o r y , o f s p e c i a l e duca­ t i o n s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . More d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g mean MEAP math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics 106 o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and no t a p p r o p r i a t e a r e c o n t a i n e d in Table E-3 (Appendix E). Table 4 . 3 5 . —Comparisons o f mean MEAP math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . MEAP Test Math Reading Proctors1 Judgment N Mean S.D. TValue Probability A p p ro p ri a te 210 19.94 6.43 12.32 <0.000* Not A p p ro p ri a te 533 13.06 7.83 A p p ro p ri a te 210 15.31 7.14 14.28 <0.000* Not A p p r o p r i a te 533 7.48 6.56 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t o r beyond t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . Fi g ur es 4 .7 and 4 . 8 d i s p l a y t h e mean MEAP math and re a d in g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n ot appropriate. These f i g u r e s f u r t h e r de m onst ra te t h a t s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e had h i g h e r mean MEAP math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s tha n d id s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . a l s o Table 4 . 3 5 . ) (See 107 Table 4 . 3 6 . —Spec ial e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged appr op­ r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . # Judged Approp­ riate # Judged Not Appropri ate % Judged Approp­ riate % Judged Not Approp­ riate 1 81 1.2% 98.8% 31 25 6 80.6% 19.4% 138 52 86 37.7% 62.3% 9 5 4 55.6% 44.4% Visually impaired (VI) 4 3 1 75.0% 25.0% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 467 116 351 24.8% 75.2% Hearing impaired (HI) 11 8 3 72.7% 27.3% 742 210 532 28.3% 71.7% Impairment Group N Educable mentally impaired (EMI) 82 Speech &language impaired (SLI) Emotionally impaired (El) Physically or otherwise health impaired (POHI) Totals for all cate­ gories Table 4. 37 shows a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e , and t h e i r i n c l u s i o n in o r e x c l u s i o n from t h e MEAP summary r e p o r t s . St u d e n ts in c lu d e d in t h e summary r e p o r t s a r e t h o s e who r e c e i v e 50% o r more o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / En gl ish i n s t r u c t i o n in g en er al e d u c a t i o n . 108 27 26 (2 4. 9) 25 24 A / 23 ' (23.2) \ \ ' 22 21 ( 24 .6) / (2 2 . 8 ) ^ \ ( 2 0 .3 ) \ \ 20 \ / \ / ✓ V 19 18 Mean MEAP Math Scores 17 16 15 14 13 12 (1 3.3) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 — A p pro pri at e 4 _ A pp ro p ri at e Not 3 2 1 0 EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Spec ial Education Impairment C a t e g o ri e s Figur e 4 . 7 . —Mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . 109 25 24 23 22 (20. 8 ) 21 § 20 19 / \ ( 1 8. 6) \ \ / 17 Scores t\ / 18 Mean MEAP Reading / \ / \ 16 \ (15 .4) 15 (1 4. 0) 14 " (1 3.6 ) _______ ' (1 3 .9 ) 13 (11. 6 ) 12 11 ( 12 . 0 ) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 — 1 0 A p p ro p ri at e Not A p p ro p ri a te EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Special Education Impairment C a t e g o r i e s Figure 4 . 8 . --Mean MEAP re a d in g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and no t a p p r o p r i a t e . no Table 4 . 3 7 . —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , f o r whom t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were judged a p p r o p r i a t e and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e , and t h e i r i n c l u s i o n in o r e x c l u s i o n from t h e MEAP summary r e p o r t . Impairment Category Inclu de Exclude Total No. by Category % of In c lu d e 1 100.00% % of Exclude A pp ro p ri a te Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 1 • • Speech and language impaired (SLI) 24 1 25 96.00% 4.00% Emotionally impaired (El) 31 21 52 59.60% 40.40% Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 3 2 5 60.00% 40.00% V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 3 • 3 100.00% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 91 25 116 78.45% 21.55% 7 1 8 87.50% 12.50% 160 50 210 76.20% 23.80% Hearing impaired (HI) Totals • Not A ppro pr ia te Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 100.0% 81 81 3 3 6 50.0% 50.0% Emotionally impaired (El) 10 76 86 11.6% 88.4% Physi c a l 1y o r o t h e r wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) • • 4 4 * • • 100.0% V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) • • 1 1 • • • 100.0% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 55 296 351 3 3 464 532 • Speech and language impaired (SLI) Hearing impaired (HI) Totals • • * 68 15.7% • • • 13.0% 84.3% 100.0% 87.0% Ill Table 4 . 3 7 . — Continued. Total No. in Category Impairment Category Total # Inc lu de %of Include Total # Exclude % of Exclude For Both A p p ro p ri a te and Not A p pr op ri at e Educable m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) 82 1 1.2% 81 98.8% Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 27 87.1% 4 12.9% 138 41 29.7% 97 70.3% Physi c a l 1y o r o t h e r wise h e a l t h impaired (POHI) 9 3 33.3% 6 66.6% V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 3 75.0% 1 25.0% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 467 146 31.3% 321 68.7% 11 7 63.6% 4 36.4% 742 228 30.7% 514 69.3% Emotionally impaired (El) Hearing impaired (HI) Totals Table 4 . 3 8 p r o v id e s a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u ­ d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , who were e l i g i b l e to be in c lu d e d in o r excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t . S tu d e n ts in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP t e s t a r e th o s e who r e c e i v e 50% o r more o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n . For each c a t e g o r y l i s t e d in t h e t a b l e , t h e p e rc e n ta g e s o f t h e t o t a l number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i n c lu d e d and excluded a r e a l s o l i s t e d . 112 Table 4 . 3 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by impairment c a t e g o r y , o f t h e t o t a l number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t y p i c a l l y in c lu d e d in o r excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t . % of In c lu de Total % Of Exclude Total Impairment Category Total Number Educable m e n t a l l y impaired (EMI) 82 1 .4% 81 15.8% Speech and language impaired (SLI) 31 27 11.8% 4 .8% 138 41 17.9% 97 18.9% Physically or o th e r­ wise h e a l t h impaired impaired (POHI) 9 3 1.3% 6 1.2% V i s u a l l y impaired (VI) 4 3 1.3% 1 .1% Learning d i s a b l e d (LD) 467 146 63.8% 321 62.5% Hearing impaired (HI) 11 7 3.1% 4 .8% 742 228 100.0% 514 100.0% Em otionally im paired (El) Totals Inc lud e Exclude Summary o f Findings The f o l l o w i n g major f i n d i n g s emerged from t h e a n a l y s i s o f data. 1. In a l l comparisons in which s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e mean s c o r e d i f f e r ­ ences fa vore d th o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g t h e g r e a t e s t amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n program. In a l l 113 c a s e s , t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g t h e g r e a t e s t amount o f t h e i r r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e ge ner al e d u c a ti o n program had h ig h e r raw mean MEAP s c o r e s . 2. In re g a r d t o t h e c r i t e r i a f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s be ing in c lu d e d in ( r e c e i v i n g l e s s th a n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ) o r excluded from ( r e c e i v i n g more tha n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ) t h e MEAP t e s t , 30.7% o f t h e seven c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u ­ d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h i s s tu d y were e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t , whereas 69.3% would t y p i c a l l y be excluded from t h e t e s t . 3. Of t h e 30.7% s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s e l i g i b l e t o be in c lu d e d i n t h e MEAP t e s t , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n o f t h e group, having 63.7% o f t h e t o t a l ; educable m e n t a l l y im paired had t h e s m a l l e s t p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l , a t .4%. 4. Of t h e 30.7% o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e MEAP t e s t , t h e p r o c t o r s judged t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r 70.2% o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s and no t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r 29.8%. Of t h e 69.3% s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t y p i c a l l y excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t , t h e p r o c t o r s judged t h e mechan­ i c s o f t h e MEAP t e s t t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r 9.7% and n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r 90.3% o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s . 5. S pe ci al e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s judged t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t t o be a p p r o p r i a t e s cor ed s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n both math and r e a d i n g on t h e MEAP t e s t than did s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e t e s t mechanics were judged no t a p p r o p r i a t e . 114 6. Learning d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s who were e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u ­ s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t ( r e c e i v i n g more th a n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g e ner al e d u c a t i o n ) s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on th e MEAP t e s t th a n d i d l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s who would normally be excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t ( r e c e i v i n g l e s s th a n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / English i n s t r u c t i o n in gener al e d u c a t i o n ) . 7. Emotionally impaired s t u d e n t s who were e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u ­ si o n in t h e MEAP t e s t ( r e c e i v i n g more than 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in ge ner al e d u c a t i o n ) d id not s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r on t h e HEAP r e a d in g o r math t e s t s than did e m o t i o n a l l y impaired s t u ­ d e n t s who would normal1> be excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t ( r e c e i v i n g l e s s than 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g en er al edu­ cation) . 8. Emotionally impaired s t u d e n t s e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t who r e c e i v e d 0-9% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s co r ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math and re a d in g t e s t s th a n did e m o t i o n a l l y impaired s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d 90-100% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n (who would normally be excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t ) . 9. A m ajority of the fourth-grade special education students in t h i s s tu dy (74.6% f o r r e a d i n g , 77.7% f o r math) were r e p o r t e d in t h e two extremes o f p e r c e n ta g e o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n math o r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n t im e s : minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%). Of t h e 74.6% o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , 18.6% were r e p o r t e d in t h e m i n i ­ mal (0-9%) and 56% in t h e maximal (90-100%) c a t e g o r i e s o f p e rc e n ta g e o f r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Of t h e 77.7% o f 115 s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , 33.8% were r e p o r t e d in t h e minimal (0-9%) and 43.9% in t h e maximal (90-100%) c a t e g o r i e s o f pe rc e n ta g e o f math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 10. The ed uc a b le m e n t a l l y impaired group had t h e h i g h e s t p e rc en ta g e (87.6% f o r r e a d i n g , 86.4% f o r math) o f i t s t o t a l number o f s t u d e n t s in t h e maximal (90-100%) p e r c e n t a g e o f math o r rea di ng in s t r u c t i o n in special education. 11. The speech and language impaired group had t h e h i g h e s t pe rc e n ta g e (90.3% f o r r e a d i n g , 90.3% f o r math) o f i t s t o t a l number o f s t u d e n t s in t h e minimal (0-9%) p e r c e n ta g e o f math o r r e a d in g in s tru c tio n in special education. 12. S pe ci al e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) as compared t o t h o s e r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) math o r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co re d h i g h e r on both t h e MEAP math and r e a d in g t e s t s . Fi g ur es 4 . 3 , 4 . 4 , 4 . 5 , and 4 . 6 d i s p l a y e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in mean MEAP r e a d i n g and math s c o r e s between t h e s e groups. 1 3. S p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s ab out i n d i v i d u a l impairment groups a r e l i s t e d below: a. S pe ci al e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t impairment groups s c o r e d d i f f e r e n t l y on both t h e MEAP r e a d in g and math t e s t s . b. Educable m e n t a l l y impaired s t u d e n t s sco red low est o f a l l t h e impairment groups on t h e MEAP r e a d in g and math t e s t s . c. Speech and language impaired s t u d e n t s s co re d h i g h e s t o f a l l t h e impairment groups on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and math t e s t s . 116 d. Speech and language i m p a ir e d , e m o t i o n a l l y im pa ir e d, l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r in g impaired s t u d e n t s s cor ed s i m i l a r l y on t h e MEAP re a d in g t e s t . e. Speech and language im p a ir e d , e m o ti o n a ll y i m p a ir e d , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h i m p a ir e d , v i s u a l l y i m p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r in g impaired s t u d e n t s scor ed s i m i l a r l y on t h e MEAP math t e s t . CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s a summary o f t h e s t u d y , as well as the r e s u l ts of the study. discussed. The l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s tu d y a r e a l s o Recommendations f o r t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program and f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a r e o f f e r e d . Summary The purpose o f t h i s s tu dy was t o examine t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e e x i s t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) t e s t . L ittle r e s e a r c h has been done t o e v a l u a t e t h e MEAP i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a and t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o a s s e s s i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' l e v e l o f achievement in b a s i c s k i l l s . In t h i s stu dy an a t t e m p t was made t o answer t h e fo ll o w i n g research questions: 1. Do s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t impairment groups s c o r e d i f f e r e n t l y in t h e a r e a s o f re a d in g and math on t h e MEAP t e s t ? 2. Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e a d ­ ing o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n ? 117 118 3. I s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP math s c o r e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n ta g e s o f r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n ? 4. To what de gre e do t h e mechanics o f t e s t t a k i n g and t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o u nd e rs ta nd t h e d i r e c t i o n s f o r re s po ndi ng t o q u e s t i o n s , as a s s e s s e d by MEAP p r o c t o r s , a f f e c t t h e s t u d e n t s ' performance on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g a n d / o r math t e s t s ? A t o t a l o f 751 f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from 97 o f M ic hi ga n's 530 K-12 school d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . To a s s u r e t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e s tu d y f i n d i n g s , a s y s t e m a t i c s t r a t i f i c a t i o n method was used i n s e l e c t i n g t h e 97 d i s t r i c t s f o r study. Seven c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e s tu d y : ed uca ble m e n t a l l y i m p a ir e d , speech and language im pa ir e d, e m o t i o n a l l y im p a ir e d , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h im pa ir e d, v i s u a l l y i m p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r i n g im pa ire d. All s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from t h e 97 sampled d i s t r i c t s were t o be in c lu d e d i n t h e s tu d y . The ind ep en de nt v a r i a b l e s were t h e seven impairment gr o u p s , t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e a d i n g and math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , and t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s ' judgment o f whether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e s t u d e n t s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and math s c o r e s . The d a t a g a th e r e d from t h i s s tu dy were a nal yz ed and s t a t i s ­ t i c a l hypo the ses t e s t e d through a s e r i e s o f one-way a n a l y s e s o f variance. F - r a t i o s w it h s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l s o f alpha = .05 were 119 ac c e p te d as s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s s t u d y . Planned com­ p a r i s o n s were used t o examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s among l e v e l s o f i n d e ­ pendent v a r i a b l e s . The o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s sug ges te d t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from v a r i o u s d i s a b i l i t y groups s cor ed d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and math t e s t s . A d d it io na l f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n c las sr oom scor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and math t e s t s th a n d id s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r math and re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c la s s r o o m s . Examination o f s t u d e n t s c o r e s on t h e MEAP t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r o c t o r s could a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y t h e s t u d e n t s who had d i f f i c u l t y han dl in g t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t . Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t s a c c o rd in g t o p e r c e n ta g e o f r e a d in g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n t i m e s , t h e p r e s e n t i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a f o r t h e MEAP t e s t seem t o be a p p r o p r i a t e . Results 1. Special e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t impairment groups s cor ed d i f f e r e n t l y in t h e a r e a s o f re a d i n g and math on t h e MEAP t e s t . Hypotheses 1 and 2 were f or m ula te d t o t e s t t h e d a t a r e g a r d i n g the f i r s t research question. There were two s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s e h y p ot he se s . The f i r s t i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g was t h a t ed uca ble m e n ta ll y impaired (EMI) s t u d e n t s as a group accounted f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t 120 d i f f e r e n c e s in MEAP s c o r e s because t h e i r math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s were lower than t h o s e o f a l l o t h e r impairment c a t e g o r i e s . These r e s u l t s may be expected in view o f t h e f a c t t h a t EMI s t u d e n t s q u a l i f y f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s e r v i c e s based on t h e i r lower i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . It must be poin te d o u t t h a t t h e s e r e s u l t s were based on comparisons wi th EMI s t u d e n t s o f whom 1 o u t o f 82 met t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t . To e l a b o r a t e on t h i s p o i n t , 71 o f t h e 81 s t u d e n t s no t meet­ ing t h e c r i t e r i a f o r t h e MEAP r e c e i v e d 90-100% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This p e rc e n ta g e was s i m i l a r in t h e math a r e a , in which 69 o f t h e 81 EMI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d 90-100% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d r e g a r d i n g EMI s t u d e n t s , based on t h e i r no t meeting t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t , would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r b a s i c - s k i l l s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a t t a i n m e n t i s t h e main r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n program, a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l plan nin g committee. Con sid eri ng t h e number o f EMI s t u d e n t s who a r e r e c e i v i n g t h e i r t o t a l r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , t h e s e r e s u l t s seem very a p p r o p r i a t e and p r e d i c t a b l e . However, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t such a l a r g e number o f EMI s t u d e n t s on a s t a t e w i d e b a s i s a r e r e c e i v i n g t h e i r t o t a l r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This r e s e a r c h e r , thr oug h t h i s s t u d y , cann ot i d e n t i f y why so few EMI s t u d e n t s a r e being i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n r e a d in g a n d / o r math program. may provid e However, answers t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s in s ig h t into the s i t u a t i o n . 121 1. Are EMI s t u d e n t s as a whole t r u l y f u n c t i o n i n g a t such a low academic l e v e l t h a t t h e i r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e g en eral e d u c a ti o n re a d in g and math programs i s n o t p o s s i b l e ? 2. Are s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g and math programming te c h n i q u e s t a k i n g p l a c e a t t h e f i r s t - , s e c o n d - , and t h i r d - g r a d e l e v e l s t h a t complement t h e ge ner al e d u c a ti o n c u r r i c u l u m , t h u s b u i l d i n g a s u p p o rt system by which i n t e g r a t i o n o f EMI s t u d e n t s could t a k e p la ce ? 3. Are t h e ph ilo so phy and program de si gn a t t h e e a r l y - e le m en ta ry l e v e l conducive t o EMI s t u d e n t s ' being i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e general e d u c a t i o n re a d i n g and math programs? 4. Are e le m en ta ry s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s , in g e n e r a l , h ig h l y equipped w it h remedial and i n t e n s i v e re a d i n g and math i n s t r u c ­ t i o n s k i l l s t h a t would a ll ow f o r a l a r g e r number o f EMI s t u d e n t s t o p ro g r e s s more r a p i d l y in t h e a r e a s o f re a d i n g and math and thu s enhance t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e g r a t i o n ? These f o u r q u e s t i o n s a r e r a i s e d i n i t i a l l y t o pursue t h e r e a ­ sons f o r t h e minimal i n t e g r a t i o n o f EMI s t u d e n t s i n t o t h e general e d u c a t i o n program. i ng . The stu dy r e s u l t s in t h i s a r e a were q u i t e enl i g h t e n - The r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t g r e a t e r i n t e g r a t i o n could ta k e p l a c e i f t h e r e were more c o n t i n u i t y o f programming between t h e s p e c i a l and g en eral e d u c a t i o n programs. The second im p o r t a n t f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in MEAP r e a d in g and math s c o r e s i s t h a t both e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than speech and language impaired (SLI) s t u d e n t s on t h e MEAP r e a d i n g and 122 math t e s t s . Comparisons between t h e c a t e g o r i e s may p ro vi de some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s outcome. Of t h e SLI s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s t u d y , 90% r e c e i v e d a l l o f t h e i r re a d i n g and math i n s t r u c t i o n in ge ner al e d u c a t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, 23.5% o f t h e El s t u d e n t s and 26.5% o f t h e LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d t h e i r r e a d in g and math i n s t r u c t i o n t o t a l l y in gener al e d u c a t i o n . SLI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e t h e i r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e on a s u p p o rt b a s i s and t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y may n o t have a g r e a t e f f e c t on t h e i r academic fu n c ­ t i o n i n g , whereas El and LD s t u d e n t s r e q u i r e much more i n t e n s e s e r v i c e and t h e i r needs can have a g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r academic f u n c ­ tioning. The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s u p p o r t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e e x i s t i n g i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a f o r s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP t e s t . The i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a , through t h e req uire m e n t o f a l l s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n program, do ta k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n impairment c a t e g o r i e s . The c r i t e r i a a l s o a s s u r e t h a t handicapped s t u d e n t s ' r i g h t s as d e s c r i b e d in S e c ti o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973, which mandates n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f h a n d i ­ cap in t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , a r e n o t v i o l a t e d . 2. There was a d i f f e r e n c e in mean MEAP r e a d i n g s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n ta g e s o f re a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . 123 Hypothesis 3 was f or m ula te d t o t e s t t h e d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e second r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . There were f o u r major f i n d i n g s r e g a r d ­ ing t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . The f i r s t f i n d i n g was t h a t t h e r e was no t an equal d i s t r i b u ­ tio n of special education students across various percentages of re a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . t a t e d two s p e c i a l l y a r r a n g e d comparisons: This n e c e s s i ­ one w i t h i n t h e e m o ti o n a ll y impaired and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c a t e g o r i e s and t h e o t h e r w i t h i n t h e speech and language im p a ir e d , e m o t i o n a l l y i m p a i r e d , p h y s i c a l l y or o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h i m p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r in g impaired categories. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f a l l t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from each c a t e g o r y were r e c e i v i n g most o f t h e i r re a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in e i t h e r s p e c i a l o r g en eral e duc a­ tion. This p a r t i c u l a r f i n d i n g seemed s u r p r i s i n g from t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e o f Michigan emphasizes t h e " l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r ­ n a t i v e " i n programming f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , which should a llow f o r a g r e a t e r continuum o f s e r v i c e s . This f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in Michigan a r e r e c e i v i n g t h e i r re a d in g and math i n s t r u c t i o n almost t o t a l l y in an " e i t h e r (ge ne ra l e d u c a t i o n ) / o r ( s p e c i a l e duc a­ t i o n ) " s i t u a t i o n and t h a t a l i m i t e d continuum o f mainstreaming i s t a k i n g p l a c e f o r r e a d in g a n d / o r math. However, t h e w r i t e r i s n o t con­ vinced t h i s i s a t r u e p i c t u r e o f what ta k e s p l a c e th ro u g h o u t t h e school y e a r because two b a s i c p h i l o s o p h i e s a r e p r a c t i c e d r e g a r d i n g mainstream­ ing s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s . Some e d u c a t o r s f e e l s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n 124 s t u d e n t s should i n i t i a l l y be pl ace d in t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c l a s s ­ room and then mainstreamed o u t on a gradual b a s i s . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e a r e t h o s e who f e e l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s should i n i t i a l l y be pl ace d in t h e g en eral e d u c a t i o n c lass roo m t o t h e maxi­ mum e x t e n t p o s s i b l e and n o t p la ce d i n t o s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n class roo ms u n l e s s t h e s u p p o r t r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n p r o ­ gram a r e ex h au s te d in a s s i s t i n g t h o s e s t u d e n t s t o have a s u c c e s s f u l experience. The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y d id i n d i c a t e t h a t f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , on t h e whole, a r e n o t going to q u a l i f y f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t , based on t h e p r e s e n t c r i t e r i a . As a r e s u l t , n e i t h e r s p e c i a l nor general e d u c a t o r s w i l l have an o b j e c t i v e measure by which to s e e how t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s a r e f u n c ­ t i o n i n g in comparison t o t h e i r g en eral e d u c a ti o n p e e r s . The second f i n d i n g in re g a r d t o Hypothesis 3 was t h a t e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (E l) s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t than did El s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d 50-100% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . For El s t u d e n t s t h e mean re a din g s c o r e was h i g h e r f o r t h o s e r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t h a n f o r th o s e r e c e i v i n g 50-100% r e a d i n g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , bu t t h e d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant. These r e s u l t s may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a more equal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f El s t u d e n t s ' academic f u n c t i o n i n g i n r e a d in g th a n in math. This would i n d i c a t e a l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e r e a d i n g ar ea because t h e r e was not such an extreme range o f performance a b i l i t i e s . 125 However, in re g a r d t o p e r c e n t a g e o f math i n s t r u c t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t i n g r e a d in g s c o r e s , one might s p e c u l a t e t h a t t h o s e El s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d 0-49% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n prob­ a b l y were h ig h ly i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n program as a whole and t h u s would pro ba b ly s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r . t h a n th o s e El s t u d e n t s who were n o t as t o t a l l y i n t e g r a t e d . The t h i r d f i n d i n g co ncer ni ng Hypothesis 3 was t h a t l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co re d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r on t h e MEAP re a d in g t e s t th a n did LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 50-100% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This f i n d i n g seems l o g i c a l because i.iany o f the LD s t u d e n t s have v a s t needs in t h e a r e a o f r e a d i n g . I t might be ex pected t h a t t h o s e LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g over 50% o f t h e i r r e a d ­ ing i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n program would perform s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on t h e MEAP re a d i n g t e s t because t h e i r l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y may not be as s e v e r e as t h e LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g o ve r 50% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n program. How­ e v e r , t h i s f i n d i n g shou ld no t be a cc e pte d as f a c t but should only e s t a b l i s h a c h a l l e n g e o f how e d u c a t o r s can narrow t h i s gap. The f o u r t h f i n d i n g con cerns comparisons t h a t were made w i t h i n f i v e c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s (speech and language im p a ir e d , e m o t i o n a l l y i m p a i r e d , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e im p a ir e d , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d ) : between t h o s e r e c e i v i n g 0-9% (minimal) v e r s u s 90-100% (maximal) r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c ­ t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and t h e s t u d e n t s ' c o rr e s p o n d i n g mean MEAP 126 re a d in g s c o r e s . The re a so n f o r i n c l u d i n g j u s t t h e two extreme i n s t r u c t i o n a l time s and f i v e o f t h e seven c a t e g o r i e s i n t h e comparison is th a t the student t o ta k e p l a c e . d i s t r i b u t i o n onl y The major f i n d i n g was allowed f o r such a comparison t h a t in t h r e e o f t h e f i v e c a t e ­ g o r i e s ( E l , POHI, Sind LD), t h o s e s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal r e a d in g and math i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g and math t e s t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , th a n did s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e s e s u b j e c t s . was n o t t h e c a s e f o r SLI and HI s t u d e n t s . However, t h i s The comparison between SLI s t u d e n t s (N = 28 v s . 2) and HI s t u d e n t s (N = 1 v s . 9) l e d one to believe th a t i f t h e N's had been more equal t h e r e s u l t s probably would have been t h e same as f o r t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . These r e s u l t s r a i s e d t h r e e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. Are t h e a b i l i t y l e v e l s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in general ed u ca ti o n o f a much h i g h e r l e v e l th a n t h o s e o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g most o f t h e i r re a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , t h u s e n a b l i n g them t o s c o r e s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r on th e MEAP t e s t ? 2. Are t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n r e a d in g and math c u r r i c u l a c over in g t h e minimum o b j e c t i v e s being t e s t e d by t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e MEAP t e s t ? 3. I f more s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s were i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g en eral e d u c a ti o n re a d in g a n d / o r math programs, could an i n c r e a s e in t h e i r MEAP performance be expec ted ? 127 The a n a l y s i s f o r Hypothesis 3 compared t h e two extremes (minimal v s . maximal) o f r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l education. The a n a l y s i s d id re v e a l t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e r e c e i v i n g a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in e i t h e r s p e c i a l o r g en eral e d u c a t i o n . I f e d u c a t o r s ' u l t i m a t e goal i s t o have s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e in and perform t o t h e b e s t o f t h e i r a b i l i t y on t h e MEAP t e s t , t h i s f i n d i n g pro vi de s v a l u a b l e in f o r m a t io n a bout how t o a c h ie v e t h a t g o a l . F irst of a l l , i f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s who a r e maximally i n t e g r a t e d s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r th a n t h o s e who a r e n o t , ways must be found t o al lo w more s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t o be s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o gener al e d u c a t i o n r e a d in g and math c l a s s e s and th u s accomplish two g o a l s : g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and b e t t e r performance. A second a s p e c t o f t h i s a n a l y s i s t h a t needs t h e a t t e n t i o n o f e d u c a t o r s r e g a r d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and performance on t h e MEAP i s t h a t many s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e r e c e i v i n g t h e i r r e a d i n g o r math i n s t r u c t i o n e i t h e r t o t a l l y in general education o r t o t a l l y in special education. The w r i t e r b e l i e v e s t h i s s e p a r a t e approach has been bro u gh t about by e d u c a t o r s ' f e e l i n g t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s need " s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n " with which gen­ e r a l e d u c a t o r s cann ot d e a l . As a r e s u l t , s p e c i a l e d u c a t o r s have r e t r e a t e d i n t o t h e i r c las sr ooms t o p ro v id e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n , not c o n s i d e r i n g t h e ge ner al e d u c a t i o n c u r r i c u l u m . C on ver sel y, general e d u c a t o r s have become h e s i t a n t t o t a k e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s because th e y do n o t know what g e n e r a l - e d u c a t i o n - c u r r i c u l u r n g o a ls have been emphasized in t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . 128 The t h i r d i n s i g h t provided by t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h e importance of early intervention. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s st ud y i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s on t h e whole a r e r e c e i v i n g minimal r e a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in general e d u c a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t e minimally i n t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e MEAP t e s t . When th e y do p a r t i c i p a t e in th e MEAP t e s t , t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e in performance between t h o s e i n t e g r a t e d and n o n i n t e g r a t e d i n t o general education. T h e r e f o r e , f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , on t h e whole, may be s i g n i f i c a n t l y behind t h e i r general e d u c a ti o n p e e r s , e s p e c i a l l y in r e l a t i o n t o t h e b a s i c s k i l l s measured in t h e MEAP t e s t . This in f o r m a t io n r a i s e s two i m p o r ta n t q u e s t i o n s : 1. I f special education students are functioning s i g n i f i c a n t l y behind t h e i r general e d u c a ti o n peers a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e l e v e l , i s t h i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e s e s t u d e n t s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y behind as t h e i r school y e a r s p r o g r e s s ? 2. Are t h e r e a d d i t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s o r programmatic de si g n s t h a t would al lo w K-3 s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s t o be b e t t e r p r e ­ pared f o r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o g en eral e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s and p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n in t h e MEAP, and th u s reduce t h e gap between general and s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ? More emphasis should be p la ce d on t h e prepr ima ry through s i x t h - g r a d e programming f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , s t r e s s i n g t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l s look a t e x t e n s i v e d i a g n o s t i c , p r e s c r i p t i v e , and e v a l u a t i o n - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s t h a t would allow s p e c i a l educa­ t i o n s t u d e n t s t h e maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o be as e q u a l l y p re p a re d f o r t h e f u t u r e as t h e i r g en er al e d u c a t i o n p e e r s . This should not j u s t 129 t a k e p l a c e in t h e a r e a s o f r e a d i n g and math b u t exten d a c r o s s t h e e n t i r e school program. Spec ial and general e d u c a t i o n s t a f f members should work t o g e t h e r t o develop t h i s approach so t h a t each group und e rs ta n d s t h e t o t a l e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Adopting such an a t t i ­ tude could f o s t e r development o f e f f e c t i v e e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e ­ g i e s t h a t would f a c i l i t a t e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ap proa ches and communication to a ll ow s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s t h e maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i ­ p a te and perform i n t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n mainstream. The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g to t h e second r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s u p p o r t the appropriateness of the e x istin g inclusion c r i t e r i a f o r special e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP t e s t . In t h e c a s e o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s , who had t h e l a r g e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in v a r i o u s g en eral e d u c a t i o n r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e s , t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a performance d i s t i n c t i o n f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s a t t h e 50% o f general e d u c a ti o n r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n c l u s i o n c rite r io n point. For t h e o t h e r impairment c a t e g o r i e s on which a n a l y ­ s es were c on duc te d, s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g minimal (0-9%) re a d in g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g t e s t than did t h o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g maximal (90-100%) r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Based on t h e s e r e s u l t s , an a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t e r i o n can no t be s u g g e s t e d . Because a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d t h e i r re a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n almo st t o t a l l y in e i t h e r t h e s p e c i a l o r g e ne r al e d u c a ti o n c la s s ro o m , t h e 50% o f gener al e d u c a ti o n r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n seems a p p r o p r i a t e . 130 3. There was a d i f f e r e n c e i n mean MEAP math s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t p e rc e n ta g e s o f r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Hypothesis 4 was for m ul at ed to t e s t t h e d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e th ir d research question. There were f o u r major f i n d i n g s c on ce rn in g t h i s hypothesis. The f i r s t f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h e r e was not an equal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s among t h e p e r c e n ta g e s o f r e a d i n g and math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , s p e c i a l l y de sig n e d comparisons w i t h i n t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) were c on du cte d, and an a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i a l l y designe d comparison was conducted w i t h i n t h e speech and language impaired ( S L I ) , e m o t i o n a l l y impaired ( E l ) , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h impaired (POHI), h e a r i n g impaired ( H I) , and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e g o r i e s . The second f i n d i n g was t h a t El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-29% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math p o r t i o n o f t h e t e s t than d id El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 30-49% o f t h e i r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This i n fo r m a t io n p ro v id e s i n s i g h t i n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e more math i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n c l a s s El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d , t h e b e t t e r th e y s c o r e d . This s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e in s c o r i n g o f El s t u ­ d e n t s might be r e l a t e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t El s t u d e n t s who a r e more i n t e g r a t e d i n t o gener al e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s do n o t have t h e i r emo­ t i o n a l needs a f f e c t i n g academic performance as do t h o s e needing more special education basic-classroom support. This s p e c u l a t i o n may be 131 c a r r i e d one s t e p f u r t h e r t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e s p e c i a l educa­ t i o n t e a c h e r s f o r t h e El s t u d e n t s may be spending more time on emphasizing s o c i a l and be h av io r al s k i l l s to meet t h e El s t u d e n t s ' needs so t h a t th e y can f u n c t i o n s u c c e s s f u l l y in t h e g e n er al e d u c a t i o n cl as sr oom. T h e r e f o r e , t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s can not pr ovide math i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e same depth as t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r c a n , so t h e h i g h l y m a t h - i n t e g r a t e d El s t u d e n t s c o r e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e m a r g i n a l l y m a t h - i n t e g r a t e d El s t u d e n t . I t i s a l s o im p o r ta n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e r e was not a s i g n i f i ­ c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in MEAP math s c o r e s f o r El s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% ve rs us 50-100% o f t h e i r re a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . This i s p o i n t e d o u t because t h e 50% r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in gen er al e d u c a t i o n i s t h e c u t - o f f p o i n t f o r s t u d e n t s being inc lud ed i n t h e MEAP t e s t . For El s t u d e n t s , in t h i s c a s e , t h e d a t a did not d i s p l a y t h a t th e y would s c o r e b e t t e r on t h e math t e s t th a n t h o s e r e c e i v i n g 49% o r l e s s r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g e ner al edu­ cation. The t h i r d f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s co r ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t th a n did LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 50-100% o f t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . One might assume t h a t t h e LD s t u d e n t s who f e l l i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y were many o f t h e s t u d e n t s who s har ed t h e s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s on t h e MEAP re a d in g t e s t . This would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h o s e LD s t u d e n t s who were l e s s i n t e g r a t e d had problems in both t h e r e a d i n g and math a r e a s and fu n c t i o n e d lower in both a r e a s t h a n th o s e l e s s s e v e r e l y impaired LD 132 s t u d e n t s who were more i n t e g r a t e d . However, co nti nuo us review o f d i a g n o s t i c , p r e s c r i p t i v e , and e v a l u a t i o n - o f - i n s t r u c t i o n approaches can p ro vid e e d u c a t o r s w it h more i n s i g h t i n t o how t o reduc e t h i s gap. The f o u r t h f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t two ( E l , LD) o f t h e f i v e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s (SLI, E l , POHI, LD, HI) r e c e i v i n g 0-9% (minimal) re a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP math t e s t tha n El o r LD s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 90-100% (maximal) r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n in special education. This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e f a c t t h a t t h o s e s t u d e n t s needing more b a s i c s p e c i a l - e d u c a t i o n - c l a s s r o o m help scored lower on t h e MEAP t e s t tha n th o s e h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d s t u d e n t s . For POHI s t u d e n t s , t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­ ence in MEAP math s c o r e s based on 0-9% (minimal) v e rs u s 90-100% (maximal) math i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . However, t h e r e was a very c l o s e i n d i c a t i o n o f a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in MEAP math s c o r e s f o r t h o s e POHI s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-9% (minimal) ve rs us 90-100% (maximal) r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . I t might be assumed t h a t any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e , i f p r e s e n t , was between t h e more s e v e r e l y p h y s i c a l l y and a c a d e m ic a ll y involved POHI c h i l d and t h e no t as s e v e r e l y impaired c h i l d . SLI and HI s t u d e n t s d id n o t show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e minimal and maximal r e a d in g a n d / o r math s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l co m p ar iso ns, bu t i t was assumed t h i s r e s u l t was due t o t h e low N's in v o lv e d Once a g a i n , (SLI N = 28 v s . 2; HI N = 2 v s . 9 ) . t h e r e s e a r c h e r emphasizes t h e importance o f e v a l u a t i v e , i n s t r u c t i o n a l , i n t e g r a t i v e , and communicative s t r a t e g i e s 133 between both s p e c i a l and gener al e d u c a t o r s , which w i l l a ll ow improve­ ments f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n t h e a r e a o f math a l s o . The e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , usi ng a l l r e s o u r c e s , w i l l b e n e f i t t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c h i l d as a t o t a l s t u d e n t , t h u s a ll o w in g him/her t o grow in a l l a r e a s —academic, s o c i a l , and em o ti o n a l. The t h i r d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n , along w it h t h e h y p o t h e s i s , was de sig ne d t o e x p l o r e whether t h e c u r r e n t MEAP i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a , based on t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n i n general e d u c a t i o n , were su pp or te d by s t u d e n t s ' math performance as being appropriate. As i n d i c a t e d by t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y , s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n program and t h e i r performance on t h e MEAP math t e s t were s i m i l a r t o what was found in t h e re a d i n g a r e a . Because a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l e duc a­ t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d t h e i r re a din g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n almost t o t a l l y in e i t h e r t h e s p e c i a l o r t h e general e d u c a ti o n c la s s r o o m , t h e c r i t e r i o n o f r e c e i v i n g 50% o f o n e ' s r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in gener al e d u c a ti o n seems a p p r o p r i a t e . Because o f t h e l i m i t e d d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n o f general e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e v a r i o u s p e r c e n t a g e o f - i n t e g r a t i o n tim e s and la c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s t o c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a math i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n , m a in t a i n i n g t h e p r e s e n t c u r ri c u lu m s t a n d a r d o f r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h in t h e i n c l u s i o n p o l i c y a l s o seems a p p r o p r i a t e . 4. Based on t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s ' a s s e s s m e n t , t h e mechanics o f t e s t t a k i n g and t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o unde rs tand t h e d i r e c t i o n s f o r responding t o q u e s t i o n s d id have an e f f e c t on t h e s t u d e n t s ’ MEAP math a n d / o r r e a d in g t e s t performance. 134 Hypothesis 5 was for mu la te d t o t e s t t h e d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e fourth research question. The f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s . The a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a from t h i s s tu d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s judged by MEAP p r o c t o r s as c ap a b le o f ha n d li n g t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t scor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e t e s t than t h o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s judged n o t a b l e t o handle t h e t e s t mechanics. In a n a l y z i n g t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s ' judgments, by s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c a t e g o r y , i t was i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t f o r both t h e e m o ti o n a ll y impaired (E l) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) c a t e g o r i e s a p o r t i o n o f s t u d e n t s who t y p i c a l l y would be excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t were judged c ap a ble o f hand lin g t h e mechanics o f t h e t e s t . Also, a group t y p i c a l l y in c lu de d in t h e MEAP t e s t were judged not c ap a ble o f han dlin g t h e t e s t mechanics. Of t h e El s t u d e n t s judged c a p a b l e , 40.4% would o r d i n a r i l y be excluded from t h e t e s t , and o f t h e LD s t u d e n t s , 21.55%. Although in f o r m a t io n could n o t be g a th e r e d on how t h e s e two groups o f s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y performed on t h e MEAP t e s t , one might assume t h a t t h e s e s t u d e n t s would ap pea r on t h e s u r f a c e to be a b l e t o handle t h e t e s t . This in f o r m a t io n c ould be c a r r i e d beyond t h e MEAP t e s t and p o s s i b l y i n t o t h e g en eral o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n cl assroom s e t t i n g . These d a t a , when expanded, could t e l l e d u c a t o r s t h a t ap pro xi ma te ly o n e - t h i r d o f t h e LD s t u d e n t s and t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e El s t u d e n t s ap pea r on t h e s u r f a c e t o be c a p a b l e o f han d lin g t h e i r school work bu t in r e a l i t y may need some s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n . This in f o r m a t io n should r e i n f o r c e t h e f a c t t h a t e x t e n s i v e e v a l u a t i o n and m o nit or ing t e c h n i q u e s need t o be employed in class roo ms so t h a t s p e c ia l 135 e d u c a ti o n and e s p e c i a l l y g en er al e d u c a ti o n t e a c h e r s a r e n o t fo o l e d by s t u d e n t a pp ear an ce. On t h e o t h e r hand, 11.6% o f t h e El s t u d e n t s and 15.7% o f t h e LD s t u d e n t s who o r d i n a r i l y would be in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP t e s t were judged n o t c a p a b le o f ha n d li n g t h e t e s t mechanics. Again, w i t h o u t t h e a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n a c t u a l t e s t s c o r e s f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s , one can only s p e c u l a t e ab out t h e s e r e s u l t s . However, t h i s in f o r m a t io n might i n d i c a t e t h a t some El a n d / o r LD s t u d e n t s may be a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g en eral e d u c a ti o n clas sroom bu t may ev id en c e f r u s t r a t i o n co ncerning t e s t t a k i n g or s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s . The o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t may be h e l p f u l t o e d u c a t o r s i s t h e f a c t t h a t many be h av io r s i n d i c a t i n g a s t u d e n t ' s f r u s ­ t r a t i o n in t e s t t a k i n g can be i d e n t i f i e d , as shown by t h e a p p a r e n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e p r o c t o r s ' judgments. These b e h a v io r s c oul d be analyzed and e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s p r o v i d e d , which might he lp s t u ­ d e n t s l e s s e n some o f t h o s e f r u s t r a t i o n s and t h u s a ll o w them t o become more s e l f - c o n f i d e n t in s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . One b u i l d s a s t u d e n t ' s c on fi d e n c e in an a c t i v i t y by t o t a l l y p r e p a r i n g him /he r f o r t h e a c t i v i t y and by p ro v id i n g p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t and encouragement so t h e s t u d e n t can develop s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e ab ou t t h e a c t i v i t y . I t would be i n t e r e s t ­ ing t o know t o what e x t e n t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s had been exposed t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e MEAP t e s t and how f a m i l i a r t h e y were with t h e ty p e s o f t e s t it e m s . These two f a c t o r s c ou ld a f f e c t t h e f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l o f s t u d e n t s t a k i n g t h e MEAP t e s t . The f o u r t h r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n and i t s c o rr e s p o n d i n g hy p o th e si s were desi gne d t o pr o v id e an a d d i t i o n a l me asure, thro ugh t h e MEAP 136 p r o c t o r s ' o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d e n t s , o f whether t h o s e s t u d e n t s t y p i c a l l y i n c lu d e d i n t h e MEAP t e s t evidenced b e h a v io r s t h a t i n d i ­ c a t e d t h e i r a b i l i t y t o ha ndl e t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t . Based on t h e s t u d e n t s ' s c o r e s and t h e MEAP p r o c t o r s ' ju dg m e nts , r e s u l t s r e l a t i n g to t h i s question in d icated t h a t those students t y p i c a l l y in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP t e s t d i s p l a y e d b e h a v io r s t h a t i n d i ­ c a t e d th e y were a b l e t o handle t h e t e s t mecha nic s, whereas th o s e s t u d e n t s n o t t y p i c a l l y in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP t e s t d i s p l a y e d be h av io r s t h a t i n d i c a t e d th e y co uld no t handle t h e t e s t mechanics. These r e s u l t s s u p p o r t t h e id ea t h a t s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP t e s t a r e p re pa re d t o handle t h e mechanics o f t h e t e s t and t h a t the c u rre n t inclusion c r i t e r i a a re ap p ro p riate f o r d i s t i n g u i s h ­ ing between t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a r e and a r e no t c a p a b le o f han dl in g t h e MEAP t e s t mechanics. I t i s v e ry im p o r ta n t to p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu dy r e l a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e a r e a s o f r e a d i n g and math, and t h e d a t a should n o t be t a k e n t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t one would assume t h a t extreme e f f o r t s o f i n t e g r a t i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n t o t h e s e two a r e a s would r e s u l t i n h i g h e r MEAP s c o r e s . One must t a k e i n t o acc ou nt t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s t h a t a ll ow a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t t o be s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d , such as s o c i a l and b e h a v io r a l s k i l l s . EMI s t u d e n t s , f o r example, may be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o nonacademic a r e a s i n i t i a l l y t o develop t h e n e c e s s a r y s o c i a l and b e h a v io r a l s k i l l s so t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e g r a t i o n can be f a c i l i t a t e d . I t should be u n d e r ­ s to od t h a t i n c r e a s e d i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o general e d u c a t i o n r e a d i n g o r math i s n o t t h e complete answer t o improvement o f MEAP s c o r e s . 137 D is cu s si o n o f L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study This s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s an a p p r a i s a l o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s tu d y . Because t h e r e s e a r c h foc used on a l a r g e number o f school d i s t r i c t s th r o u g h o u t Michigan, i t was n o t p h y s i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r t h e r e s e a r c h e r to v i s i t and m onito r each school d i s t r i c t w hil e t h e MEAP t e s t i n g was t a k i n g p l a c e . Conse quen tly , s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s should be c o n s i d e r e d . 1. I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o de te rm in e o r e v a l u a t e t h e p r o ­ cedures by which handicapped s t u d e n t s were i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e gen­ e r a l e d u c a t i o n programs t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e . These va ry in g i n t e g r a t i o n s t a n d a r d s could i n f l u e n c e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s . 2. The time o f da y, t e s t i n g atmos phe re , and t e s t - d e l i v e r y s t y l e may have been p o s i t i v e l y a n d / o r n e g a t i v e l y i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r s t h a t were beyond t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s c o n t r o l . 3. In d i s t r i c t s th ro u g h o u t t h e s t a t e t h e r e may be va ryi ng a t t i t u d e s toward and s u p p o r t o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs, which may r e s u l t in some d i s t r i c t s having r e l a t i v e l y more r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o s p e c i a l and g en era l e d u c a t i o n programs. These v a r i a t i o n s may i n f l u e n c e the students' t e s t r e s u lts . 4. The c u r r i c u l u m in some d i s t r i c t s may c o r r e l a t e b e t t e r w it h t h e MEAP t e s t t h a n in o t h e r d i s t r i c t s . A ls o , emphasis on and e x p e r i e n c e in t e s t i n g may be g r e a t e r i n some d i s t r i c t s t h a n in o t h e r s . T h i s , t o o , could i n f l u e n c e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' t e s t s c o r e s . 5. I t was not p o s s i b l e t o a n a l y z e t h e t y p e and amount o f s u p p o r t given s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t i n g p r o c e s s . 138 T h e r e f o r e , i t c oul d n o t be determined i f some s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u ­ d e n t s r e c e i v e d more s u p p o r t in t h e t e s t - t a k i n g p ro c e ss th a n o t h e r s . 6. I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o deter mine i f t h e MEAP c o o r d i n a t o r s made s u r e t h a t a l l e l i g i b l e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t a k i n g t h e MEAP t e s t . 7. This s t u d y a d d re s s e d onl y t h e a r e a s o f r e a d i n g and math; t h e r e f o r e , i t was no t p o s s i b l e t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i n t o o t h e r academic and nonacademic a r e a s had on t h e i r MEAP performance. D is cu s si on o f R el ate d I s s u e s One major q u e s t i o n w a r r a n ts f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n , and from t h i s q u e s t i o n s e v e ra l r e l a t e d i s s u e s e v o lv e . That i s , i f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e t o be in c lu d e d in a s t a t e ass e ss m e n t o r minimum competency t e s t , what v a r i a b l e s a r e im p o r ta n t f o r e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers to t a k e i n t o acc oun t in o r d e r t o make t h e t e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e v a l u a b l e f o r both t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t and school-district staff? In an e f f o r t t o have handicapped s t u d e n t s s u c c e s s f u l l y in vo lve d in a s t a t e ass e ss m e nt o r minimum competency t e s t i n g program, t h e f i r s t t h i n g t h a t e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers must t a k e i n t o ac c ou nt i s c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g th e purpose o f t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s a ss ess me nt and how i t r e l a t e s t o t h e involvement o f handicapped s t u d e n t s in t h e testing. In some c a s e s , t h e s t u d e n t s ' i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l plan and e v a l u a t i o n measures a r e used as a supplement t o o r in p la c e 139 o f a basic-skills-assessm ent te s t . Although t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d edu­ c a t i o n a l plan pr o v id e s v a l u a b l e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , i t i s n o t t h e same as a b a s i c - s k i l l s asse ssm en t o r minimum competency t e s t because i t may no t have t h e same i n f l u e n c e as t h e a ss ess me nt o r minimum competency t e s t s on t h e c u rr ic u lu m c o n t i n u i t y among c la s s r o o m s , b u i l d i n g s , d i s t r i c t s , o r t h e s t a t e as a whole. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no common s e t o f b a s i c s k i l l s t h a t a l l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s should a c q u i r e . For t h i s r e a s o n , i t i s i m p o r ta n t f o r th o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s c a p a b le o f p a r t i c i p a t ­ ing in t h e s t a t e a ss ess me nt o r minimum competency t e s t t o do so and n o t t o be de p ri v e d o f t h a t r i g h t based cn th e f a c t t h a t th e y have an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l p la n . However, i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t edu­ c a t o r s use t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a ti o n a l plan t o supplement t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s in fo r m a t io n o b t a i n e d on s p e c i a l e du ca­ tion students. Another f a c t o r t h a t i s im p o r ta n t in a t t e m p t i n g t o have h a n d i­ capped s t u d e n t s s u c c e s s f u l l y involved in a s t a t e asse ssm en t o r m i n i ­ mum competency t e s t i n g program i s t o d e f i n e c l e a r l y t h o s e s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h e t e s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e . Ewing and Smith (1981) d e s c r i b e d how s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s f a l l i n t o one o f two groups when p a r ­ t i c i p a t i n g in a minimum competency t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . The groups are: 1. 2. handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l e a r n i n g envi ron me nt, handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a modified c u rr ic u lu m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , (p. 523) To expand on t h e s e g r o u p i n g s , t h e f o ll o w i n g i s s u g g e s te d : 140 For t h o s e s t u d e n t s needing a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l e a r n i n g en vironm ent, c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a ls a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as f o r t h e i r nonhandicapped p e e r s . They would p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e same b a s i c - s k i l l s t e s t , and a p p r o p r i a t e s p e c i a l accommodations would be a v a i l a b l e f o r them. For handicapped s t u d e n t s who r e q u i r e a modified c u rr ic u lu m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , t h e same a sse ssm en t o r competency t e s t should no t be a p p l i e d a s i s used with nonhandicapped s t u d e n t s . A d e t e r m i n a t i o n would need t o be made as t o which s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s would p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e ass e ss m e nt o r minimum competency te st. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n would have t o be c o n t i n u a l l y reviewed to be s u r e i t was working t o t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e handicapped s t u d e n t . For t h e more s e v e r e l y impaired s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , th e asse ssm en t o r minimum competency t e s t would be t o t a l l y i n a p p ro p ­ riate. That i s , t h e i r program i s so d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f t h e i r general e d u c a t i o n peer s t h a t th e y could n o t begin t o approach t h e development o f s k i l l s needed t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e t e s t . s t u d e n t s , t o t a l exemption from t h e t e s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e . For t h e s e However, c u r r ic u lu m goal s t a t e m e n t s should be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s so t h a t e d u c a t o r s c o n s i s t e n t l y u n d e r s t a n d , e v a l u a t e , and improve upon t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s program, t h u s emphasizing t h e p o i n t t h a t b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n i s im p o r ta n t f o r a l l s t u d e n t s and t h a t t h e onl y way p r o g r e s s i s t o be made i s i f goa ls a r e e s t a b l i s h e d and e v a l u a t e d and programming improved. Another i m p o r ta n t f a c t o r t h a t can i n f l u e n c e how e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers view t h e involvement o f handicapped s t u d e n t s in 141 an ass e ss m e nt o r minimum competency t e s t i s t h e media coverage r e l a t i n g t o how t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s - a t t a i n m e n t r e s u l t s f o r c l a s s r o o m s , b u i l d i n g s , and school d i s t r i c t s a r e p u b l i c i z e d . The image o f a school d i s t r i c t , p e r c e i v e d from a media r e p o r t a bout t e s t s c o r e s and s t u d e n t g a i n s , may n o t r e f l e c t what i s a c t u a l l y t a k i n g p l a c e in that d i s t r i c t. Such p e r c e p t i o n s c au s e some e d u c a t o r s t o q u e s t i o n whe the r handicapped s t u d e n t s sh ould be in vol ve d in t h e a ss e ss m e n t o r minimum competency t e s t i n g because th e y f e e l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u ­ d e n ts a r e p u l l i n g down t h e aver age s c o r e s and th u s p ro v id i n g an i n a p p r o p r i a t e image o f t h e i r c la s s ro o m , b u i l d i n g , o r d i s t r i c t t o t h e community. This may or may no t be t h e c a s e . However, i t should be rec og niz e d t h a t b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n and t h e ass e ss m e nt o f a c q u i r e d s k i l l s a r e f o r a l l s t u d e n t s , and many f a c t o r s may cause lower s c o r e s in a given y e a r . Some o f t h e s e may be a change in school bounda rie s t h a t would a l t e r t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , a l a r g e f a m i l y - r e l o c a t i o n p a t t e r n , poor t h i r d - g r a d e b a s i c - s k i l l s i n s t r u c t i o n , and so on. Caution must be ta ke n t o e n su r e t h a t handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e n o t used as a s o l u t i o n t o a p u b l i c i t y problem. E f f o r t s should be made t o re c o g n i z e t h o s e d i s t r i c t s t h a t have made t r u e b a s i c s k i l l s - e d u c a t i o n g a i n s , a l t h o u g h many v a r i a b l e s may make t h i s a monumental t a s k . In e s s e n c e , d i s t r i c t s w it h a l a r g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s may be doing a much f i n e r j o b o f te a c h i n g b a s i c s k i l l s t o a l l o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s p e c i a l needs o f t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n . The media p r e s s u r e s , i n some c a s e s , r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether i t i s advantageous t o in c l u d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in 142 s t a t e ass e ss m e nt o r minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. This concern a r i s e s because t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t a t e ass e ss m e nt o r minimum compe­ t e n c y t e s t a r e used f o r some o f t h e f o ll o w i n g pu rp os e s: 1. Making comparisons between t h e d i f f e r e n t c l a s s r o o m s , school b u i l d i n g s , o r school systems as t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c s k i l l s attainm ent. The a ss ess me nt r e s u l t s f o r handicapped s t u d e n t s should n o t be used f o r t h i s purpose because comparisons among small u n i t s and numbers o f s t u d e n t s a r e even l e s s v a l i d th a n among l a r g e u n i t s such as g en eral e d u c a t i o n . One a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r t o t a k e i n t o acc ou nt i s t h a t t h e ass e ss m e nt t e s t s a r e o f t e n given a t t h e beg innin g o f t h e school y e a r , and t h e t e a c h e r s may have had ve ry l i t t l e op po r­ t u n i t y t o t e a c h t h e i r s t u d e n t s t h e b a s i c s k i l l s being t e s t e d . R e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s r e f l e c t t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t from t h e s t u d e n t s ' pre v io u s y e a r s o f e d u c a t i o n and no t from t h e c u r r e n t year. 2. Making comparisons among t e a c h e r s t o judge t h e i r e f f e c ­ t i v e n e s s , based on t h e i r s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t . This re a s o n in g i s no t v a l i d because t e a c h e r s do no t r e c e i v e s t u d e n t s who have equal amounts o f b a s i c - s k i l l s knowledge o r p o t e n t i a l t o l e a r n the basic s k i l l s . Once a g a i n , i t i s im p o r ta n t t o p o i n t o u t t h a t a s t u d e n t ' s p r e s e n t t e a c h e r can no t be he ld a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h a t s t u d e n t ' s b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t w it h o u t t a k i n g i n t o acc ou nt t h e pr e vi ou s i n s t r u c t i o n t h e c h i l d has r e c e i v e d . 3. po ses . Using t h e t e s t r e s u l t s f o r promotion o r g r a d u a t i o n p u r ­ The assumption behind us in g t e s t r e s u l t s f o r such purposes 143 i s t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s a r e c a p a b le o f a c h i e v i n g a c e r t a i n minimum standard. 4. Using t h e t e s t r e s u l t s t o de ter mi ne wh et her a given s t u ­ d e n t needs s p e c i a l h e l p o r r e m e d i a t i o n . This purpose i s e f f e c t i v e f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e g en er al o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n p r o ­ gram. However, i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r e d u c a t o r s t o use t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l p la nn in g c o m m i t t e e 's i n f o r m a t i o n along w it h t h e s t a t e a sse ss m e nt t e s t d a t a t o o b t a i n a t o t a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n s t u d e n t ' s f u n c t i o n i n g and th u s a p p r o p r i a t e l y plan f o r how th e s t u d e n t can most e f f e c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment. The purposes f o r which t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s d a ta on a l l s t u d e n t s a r e used can he lp de te r m in e f o r whom t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be o f g r e a t e s t value. I f t h e r e s u l t s a r e used f o r some of t h e p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d p u r p o s e s , handicapped s t u d e n t s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , may l o s e o u t j u s t so t e a c h e r s , b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and s c h o o l - d i s t r i c t personnel can re p o rt higher b a s i c - s k il l s - a t ta i n m e n t information. The l a s t f a c t o r t o be a d d re s s e d r e g a r d i n g e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers s u c c e s s f u l l y i n c l u d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s i n an ass e ss m e nt o r minimum competency t e s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f both t h e s t u d e n t and t h e d i s t r i c t i s e v a l u a t i o n o f handicapped s t u d e n t s ’ performance on t h e a s s e s s m e n t t e s t and how such e v a l u a t i o n r e l a t e s to the in s tr u c tio n they a re receiv in g . as i t r e l a t e s to the p re sen t study. This f a c t o r w i l l be d i s c u s s e d To r e i t e r a t e some o f t h i s s t u d y ' s fin d in g s, a m ajority o f the special education students received t h e i r r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n a lm os t t o t a l l y in e i t h e r t h e s p e c i a l 144 o r general e d u c a ti o n program. Also, t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s mainly p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n r e a d in g a n d / o r math program s cor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP t e s t . These r e s u l t s may be a t t r i b u t e d t o s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s . One f a c t o r may be t h a t t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s who a r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n program a r e more c ap a bl e than t h o s e n o t i n t e g r a t e d i n t o gener al e d u c a t i o n . This may be t h e c a s e , but f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s t o perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r th e y must have been exposed t o t h e i n fo r m a t io n t e s t e d thro ugh t h e i r c u r ­ ric ul um program. This may be more e a s i l y accomplished in t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n clas sr oom t h a n i n t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c las sr oo m. Several f a c t o r s may a f f e c t t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n t e a c h e r s ' a b i l i t y t o i n c l u d e t h e same b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n as t h e i r g en er al e d u c a ti o n c o u n t e r ­ parts. Some o f t h e s e might be: 1. Spec ial e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s may have s t u d e n t s from v a r i o u s grades and a b i l i t y l e v e l s , wit h s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l n e e d s , t h u s r e q u i r i n g them t o de vote s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o be h av io r al s t r a t e g i e s , s p e c i a l remedial i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s and a c t i v i t i e s , and so on, which may i n t e r f e r e w ith a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e a d in g a n d / o r math c u r ­ riculum t h a t complements t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n program and th u s su p p o r ts t h e items t e s t e d on t h e MEAP. 2. A la c k o f c o n t i n u i t y may e x i s t between t h e s p e c i a l and gen­ eral education c u r r i c u l a . The s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c u r r ic u lu m must complement t h e g e ner al e d u c a t i o n c u r r ic u lu m so t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s can have a smooth t r a n s i t i o n i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n program, when a p p r o p r i a t e . This p o i n t i s very i m p o r ta n t because t h e 145 gen era l e d u c a ti o n c u r r ic u lu m emphasizes t h e b a s i c s k i l l s a s s e s s e d in t h e MEAP, and u n l e s s t h e c u r r i c u l a a ll ow a smooth t r a n s i t i o n f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , t h e s e c h i l d r e n may no t e n t e r t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n classroom o r t h e MEAP w ith t h e b a s i c s k i l l s needed f o r them t o have a s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i e n c e . 3. Spec ial e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s may n o t be f a m i l i a r w it h t h e b a s i c s k i l l s t e s t e d in t h e MEAP o r emphasize i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e s e s k i l l s i n t o t h e i r c u rr ic u lu m because only a few o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e MEAP t e s t i n g . Furth ermo re, s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s may no t f e e l t h e MEAP t e s t i s a v a l u a b l e to ol f o r them because s e v e r a l o t h e r asse ssm en t measures a r e used w it h t h e i r s t u d e n t s , on which c u r r ic u lu m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s a r e ba sed . There a r e s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e rea so ns why s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s who were h ig h ly i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g e ner al e d u c a ti o n program scor ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on t h e MEAP t e s t tha n th o s e s t u ­ de n ts r e c e i v i n g a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c la s s ro om s . 1. Some o f t h e s e re a so ns might be as f o l l o w s : The h ig h e r c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e i n t e g r a t e d s p e c i a l e duca­ tio n student. 2. The MEAP b a s i c - s k i l l s emphasis in t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n r e a d i n g and math c u r r i c u l a . 3. The general e d u c a ti o n classroom e x p e c t a t i o n s , c h a l l e n g e , s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n , and o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t may heip a s p e c i a l e duc a­ t i o n s t u d e n t develop a s t r o n g s e l f - i m a g e , which might a ll ow him/her t o perform t o t h e f u l l e s t c a p a c i t y . 146 4. The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r g en er al e d u c a ti o n t e a c h e r s t o review and re-e mp ha siz e t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s a r e a s because o f moving more r a p i d l y through t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n c u rr ic u lu m . Several f a c t o r s have been mentioned t h a t may have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e f a c t t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s who were h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n re a di n g a n d / o r math programs s cor ed s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e MEAP r e a d in g a n d / o r math t e s t than th o s e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r re a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c ­ tio n in special education. One could r a t i o n a l i z e and a c c e p t t h e s e r e s u l t s ; however, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t more s p e c i a l e duc a­ t i o n s t u d e n t s could p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e MEAP t e s t and t h a t e d u c a t o r s could narrow t h e performance gap between t h o s e who do and do not p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e MEAP. This stu dy has provided a base o f in fo r m a ­ t i o n from which f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s and a c t i o n can begin t o accomplish such a g o a l . 1. Two b a s i c s u g g e s t i o n s a r e : The s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c u r ri c u lu m should be an al yz e d t o i d e n t i f y where, when, and how t h e b a s i c s k i l l s a s s e s s e d in t h e MEAP are taught. 2. S t r a t e g i e s should be e s t a b l i s h e d t o a n alyz e t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s and c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e g en eral and s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c u r ­ ricula. Once t h e s e elem ent s a r e r e a l i s t i c a l l y d e f i n e d and t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs complement and s u p p o rt t h e gener al e duc a­ t i o n programs, more s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s w i l l have an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o g e ne r al e d u c a ti o n and th u s be a b l e t o be s u c c e s s ­ f u l l y in vo lv e d in t h e s t a t e a sse ssm en t program. 147 I f one were t o expand on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y , i t could be s a i d t h a t t h e more i n s t r u c t i o n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e in g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n r e a d i n g a n d / o r math c l a s s e s , t h e b e t t e r t h e i r MEAP s c o r e s w i l l be. Thi s phenomenon may be t r u e , b u t c e r t a i n academic, b e h a v i o r a l , and s o c i a l s k i l l s a r e needed f o r s u c c e s s f u l in te g ra tio n to take place. Major e f f o r t s need t o be made t o f a c i l i ­ t a t e t h e s e accomplishments so t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s can p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n program and perhaps a c q u i r e t h e b a s i c s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r them t o f u n c t i o n comparably w it h t h e i r gen er al e d u c a t i o n p e e r s . Several f a c t o r s t h a t may have an i n f l u e n c e on making an ass ess me nt o r minimum competency t e s t a v a l u a b l e e x p e r i e n c e f o r both t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t and school d i s t r i c t s t a f f were d e s c r i b e d in t h i s s e c tio n . These f a c t o r s were d i s c u s s e d because s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n s t u d e n t s w i l l be p a r t i c i p a t i n g in s t a t e a ss ess me nt o r minimum competency t e s t i n g programs. These r e l a t e d i s s u e s were inc lu de d in an a t t e m p t t o o f f e r an a d d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e i n f o r m a t io n r e p o r t e d in t h i s s tu d y . Recommendations The f o l l o w i n g recommendations a r e p r e s e n t e d in two s p e c i f i c categories: recommendations f o r t h e S t a t e o f Michigan Educational Assessment Program and recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 148 Recommendations f o r t h e S t a t e o f Michigan Educational Assessment Program One purpose o f t h i s s t u d y was t o a n a ly z e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e level. The recommendations t h a t fo ll o w a d d r e s s s e v e r a l a s p e c t s o f t h e i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a and pr ovide s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t may enhance handicapped s t u d e n t s ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e a p p r o p r i a t e l y in t h e MEAP t e s t . 1. The p r e s e n t c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f s p e c i a l edu ­ c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t should be m a i n t a i n e d . Thi s recom­ mendation i s based on t h e f o l l o w i n g major d i s c o v e r i e s o f t h e s t u d y : A m a j o r i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s from each impairment c a t e g o r y were r e p o r t e d t o be r e c e i v i n g a l a r g e amount o f t h e i r math a n d / o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n a t e i t h e r t h e minimal (0-9%) o r t h e maximal (90-100%) i n s t r u c t i o n l e v e l s . This i n d i c a t e s t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in Michigan a r e being s erv ed a lm os t t o t a l l y in s p e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n o r almost t o t a l l y in ge ner al e d u c a t i o n f o r math and r e a d in g instruction. Because a m a j o r i t y o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e two e x t r e m e s , comparisons between mean MEAP math and r e a d in g s c o r e s t o de te rm in e a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP co uld only be conducted between e m o t i o n a l l y impaired (El) and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g 0-49% versu s 50-100% math o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . The 149 s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s i n t h e s e comparisons co uld no t d i s c o u n t t h e c u r ­ r e n t MEAP i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a f o r s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g more th a n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g e ne r al e d u c a ti o n bu t could only s u g g e s t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c r i t e r i a a r e t h e f a i r e s t . However, some d i s a b i l i t y g ro u p s , such as e duc ab le m e n t a l l y im paired (EMI) s t u d e n t s , may c o n t i n u o u s l y be excluded from p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP because a m a j o r i t y o f t h e EMI p o p u l a t i o n i s minimally i n t e g r a t e d i n t o general e d u c a t i o n . I t was found in t h i s s tu d y t h a t onl y 2.5% o f t h e EMI p o p u l a t i o n r e c e i v e d more th a n 50% o f t h e i r r e a d i n g / E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n in g e ner al e d u c a t i o n and th u s met t h e r e qu ir e m e nt f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e MEAP t e s t . This means t h a t 97.5% o f t h e EMI s t u d e n t s a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e l e v e l th ro u g h o u t Michigan would n o t t a k e t h e MEAP test. Only t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s (speech and language imp a ire d- -9 0. 3% , p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h impaired--70%, and v i s u a l l y i m p a i r e d - 100%) o u t o f seven had more t h a n 50% o f t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n q u a l i f y f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e MEAP. E f f o r t s need to be made t o al lo w t h o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s be ing excluded from t h e MEAP t e s t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be exposed t o t h e MEAP and a l s o p ro v id e e d u c a t o r s with d a t a on how th e y a r e f u n c t i o n i n g in comparison w it h t h e i r gen­ eral education peers. I f more s t u d e n t s a r e going t o be in c lu d e d in t h e MEAP, n o t o n ly f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n but f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , e f f o r t s should be made t o exten d t h e lower ra nge o f t h e t e s t t o i n c l u d e t h o s e s k i l l and competency a r e a s t h a t may be p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e p r e s e n t MEAP. At t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , w i t h o u t t h i s lower e x t e n s i o n , t o r e q u i r e c e r t a i n handicapped s t u d e n t s t o t a k e t h e MEAP would onl y s e r v e t o co nfirm t h e self-concept of fa ilu r e . 150 2. S ta te w id e e f f o r t s must c o n ti n u e t o be made t o pro vid e i n t e g r a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s , th u s a l l o w ­ ing them t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e with t h e i r gener al e d u c a ti o n p e e r s and a l s o in t h e MEAP t e s t . One o f t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s in t h i s st ud y was t h a t minimal i n t e g r a t i o n o f f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i s t a k i n g p la c e in Michigan. Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y , on ly 33.7%of t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in Michigan met t h e c r i t e r i a t o be in c lu d e d in th e MEAP t e s t . I f special education s t u ­ d e n ts do n o t p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e MEAP t e s t a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e l e v e l , th e y may n o t be exposed t o t h e t e s t u n t i l th e seve nth o r t e n t h g r a d e . This does n o t al low f o r an a c c u r a t e asse ssm en t o f t h e s e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t in comparison t o t h e i r general e d u c a ti o n p e e r s u n t i l midway o r l a t e i n t o t h e i r e d u c a ti o n a l program. The major purpose o f t h e MEAP i s t o allow e d u c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers t o o b t a i n in f o r m a t io n on t h e s t a t u s and p r o g r e s s o f M ichig an' s b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n . I f a l a r g e number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s do n o t t a k e t h e t e s t , what i n d i c a t i o n does t h e s t a t e have r e g a r d i n g t h o s e s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t ? The i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l plan ni n g committee r e p o r t pr o v id e s an i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' programming and p r o g r e s s , bu t i t does no t a d d r e s s how t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t i s o b t a i n i n g b a s i c s k i l l s in comparison w it h h i s / h e r gener al e d u c a ti o n p e e r s . If s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e t o f u n c t i o n in t h e mainstream once th e y g r a d u a te o r complete t h e i r high school c a r e e r , t h e r e must be c on tin uo us a ss e ss m e nt o f t h e i r b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t a t t h e e a r l i e s t 151 p o s s i b l e s t a g e o f t h e i r e d u c a t i o n , and i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s must be implemented t o b u i l d upon t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c s k i l l s along with a l l o t h e r be h av io r al and s o c i a l s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s t o be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e general e d u c a ti o n program. With more i n t e n s e w e l l - p l a n n e d and c o o r d i n a t e d i n t e g r a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s developed between general and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , s t u d e n t s w i l l be more s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e general e d u c a ti o n program, thu s a llo w in g e d u c a t o r s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o mon itor t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n ­ ment f o r more s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s a l s o . 3. S ta te w id e e f f o r t s should be made t o expose s p e c i a l ed uca­ t i o n s t u d e n t s t o t h e t e s t - t a k i n g components o f t h e g en eral e d u c a ti o n program, in c l u d i n g t h o s e o f t h e MEAP. A s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g i n t h i s study was t h a t MEAP p r o c t o r s could a c c u r a t e l y make a judgment a bou t whether t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t were a p p r o p r i a t e o r n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p a r t i c u l a r s t u d e n t s taking the t e s t . The p r o c t o r s were i n s t r u c t e d t o obser ve s t u d e n t s rea din g t h e d i r e c t i o n s , working a l o n e , and marking answers on t h e answer s h e e t w it h o u t sk ip pi ng o r double-marking. Almost 72% o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h i s stu dy were judged n o t a b l e t o handle t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t , and t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s c o r e s o f th o s e s t u d e n t s judged unab le t o handle t h e t e s t mechanics s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e p r o c t o r s ' judgment. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o te t h a t app rox imate ly 30% o f t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s in t h e s t a t e o f Michigan met t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e MEAP t e s t , and t h e p r o c t o r s judged ap pro xim atel y 30% o f t h e s p e c i a l educa­ t i o n s t u d e n t s to be c a p a b le o f ha ndl ing t h e mechanics o f t h e MEAP t e s t . 152 Although not a l l o f t h e s t u d e n t s judged a b l e to handle t h e t e s t mechanics met t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n , a l a r g e p e r c e n ta g e d i d . In t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s o p i n i o n , exposure t o t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n c l a s s ­ room atmosphere and b a s i c t e s t t a k i n g pr o v id e s s t u d e n t s , both general and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o become f a m i l i a r wit h gen­ e r a l e d u c a ti o n t e s t t a k i n g ( l a r g e gr ou ps , l e s s i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , on a more r o u t i n e b a s i s ) and th u s b u i l d s t h e s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e t o be a b l e to handle t h e mechanics o f t e s t t a k i n g . I f special education students a r e more exposed t o b a s i c t e s t - t a k i n g s k i l l s , s i m i l a r t o t h e i r general e d u c a ti o n p e e r s , th e y can gain knowledge in an a r e a t h a t w i l l help them be b e t t e r pre pa red t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 4. A s tu dy should be conducted on a s t a t e w i d e b a s i s as t o what e f f o r t s need t o be made t o i n c r e a s e t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e MEAP t e s t a t t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e l e v e l . Of t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in Michigan, 69.3% do not meet t h e re q u ir e m e n t t o be inc lud ed in t h e MEAP t e s t . S ta te w ide e f f o r t s must be made t o i d e n t i f y t h e f a c t o r s t h a t cause this. E xt ens ive a n a l y s i s as t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e s p e c i a l e d u ca ti o n and gener al e d u c a t i o n c u r r i c u l a would be a s t a r t . I f the s t a t e ' s u l t i m a t e goal i s t r u l y t o i n t e g r a t e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a ti o n mainstream, p o l i c y makers, t e a c h e r s , and p a r e n t s must a n a ly z e e ver y a s p e c t o f t h e c u r r ic u lu m a t t h e e a r l i e s t s t a g e s o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n t o i n f u s e whatever s t r a t e g i e s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make t h i s happen. The i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n ­ ning committee i s a component a l r e a d y in p la c e t h a t could f a c i l i t e an aspect of th is a nalysis. I t may be t h a t a much l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e of 153 s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s have t h e c o g n i t i v e , b e h a v i o r a l , and s o c i a l s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y t o be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e general e d u c a ti o n program, bu t some f a c t o r s a r e n o t a ll ow in g t h i s t o happen. I t i s v e ry impor­ t a n t f o r t h e s e f a c t o r s t o be i d e n t i f i e d , a n a l y z e d , and s t r a t e g i e s implemented t o a l t e r them so s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s can more a c t i v e l y and s u c c e s s f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e with t h e i r general e d u c a ti o n p e e r s , th u s maximally p r e p a r i n g them t o be mainstreamed i n t o s o c i e t y more equipped t o be p r o d u c t i v e and c o n t r i b u t i n g c i t i z e n s . For t h o s e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s whose i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e gener al e d u c a t i o n program i s t o t a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e , s t a t e w i d e program o b j e c t i v e s should be e s t a b l i s h e d along wit h an asse ssm en t model so t h a t t h e s t a t e can a l s o see how t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s and o b j e c ­ t i v e a t t a i n m e n t i s p r o g r e s s i n g f o r th o s e s t u d e n t s a l s o . Therefore, t h e s t a t e w i l l have f u l f i l l e d i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a s s u r i n g t h a t b a s i c - s k i l l s e d u c a ti o n i s t a k i n g p l a c e t o t h e maximum e x t e n t pos­ s i b l e f o r a l l s t u d e n t s on a s t a t e w i d e b a s i s . 5. S t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c ie s should use t h e r e s u l t s g a th e r e d from s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP t e s t t o b e n e f i t in t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f handicapped s t u d e n t s , th u s p ro v id i n g them w ith t h e maximum o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment. Teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s can use d a ta g a th er ed from t h e MEAP t e s t summary r e p o r t s , which p ro vid e i n d i v i d u a l s tu d e n t - p e r f o r m a n c e d a t a along wit h t o t a l c l a s s , b u i l d i n g , and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t o b je ctiv e-atta in m e n t information. These d a t a can pr ovi de i n s i g h t i n t o how s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each general e d u c a ti o n r e a d in g a n d / o r math clas sr oom a r e a c q u i r i n g t h e b a s i c s k i l l s 154 measured by t h e MEAP. Having a c c e s s t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e handicapped, can p ro vid e feedback t o g en eral e d u c a t i o n t e a c h ­ e r s as t o th e v a lu e t h e i r c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s a r e having f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s . A l t e r a t i o n s in c u r r ic u lu m management, i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s , cl assroom t e c h n i q u e s , o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t f o r t h e handicapped s t u d e n t s may be i n o r d e r , based on t h e i r MEAP r e s u l t s . The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d from t h i s st ud y as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e MEAP and t h e t e s t r e s u l t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l impairment c a t e g o r i e s a l s o may provid e v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t f o r e d u c a t o r s . The f a c t t h a t onl y 33% o f t h e f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s meet t h e MEAP i n c l u ­ si on c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t e s t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e n o t being i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g en er al e d u c a t i o n r e a d in g a n d / o r math programs. A change o f phil os oph y based on communication and c u r ri c u lu m c o n t i n i t y between t h e gener al and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs should improve t h e i n t e g r a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s . For El and LD s t u d e n t s , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e h i g h e r t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f gener al e d u c a t i o n r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n t h e y r e c e i v e , t h e b e t t e r t h e i r performance i s on t h e MEAP. However, t h e s e two c a t e g o r i e s have t h e l a r g e s t number o f s t u ­ d e n t s a t t h e b o r d e r l i n e o f being i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n r e a d in g a n d / o r math programs. Because o f t h e i n t e n s e l e a r n i n g and emotional needs o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s and t h e i r MEAP s c o r i n g p a t t e r n , e x t e n s i v e communication has t o t a k e p la c e between t h e g e ne r al and s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t a f f t o be s u r e t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s u p p o rt 155 t h e s e b o r d e r ! i n e - i n t e g r a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e r e c e i v i n g h i g h l y complements t h e c u r r ic u lu m being pro vid ed in t h e g en eral e d u c a t i o n c la s s ro o m . Both gener al and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s have t o u n d e r s ta n d each o t h e r ' s program o p e r a t i o n so t h a t s u p p o r t and c o n t i n u i t y a r e o f maximum bene­ f i t to the student. Once t h e communication and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s employed by both t e a c h e r s a r e an aly z e d r e g a r d i n g t h e i r e f f e c t on t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t i n t h e general e d u c a ti o n s e t t i n g , more s p e c i f i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s w i l l be developed t h a t w i l l enhance s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s n o t only t o p a r t i c i p a t e and o b t a i n t h e b a s i c s k i l l s a c q u i r e d in t h e general edu­ c a t i o n jDrogram but a l s o t o a c h ie v e a t a r a t e much more comparable wit h t h a t o f t h e i r g e ne r al e d u c a t i o n p e e r s . In an e f f o r t t o o b t a i n a s p e c i f i c s t a t e w i d e r e p o r t on t h e b a s i c - s k i l l s a t t a i n m e n t o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e MEAP, t h e s t a t e may e n t e r t a i n t h e id e a o f mandating a s e p a r a t e MEAP r e p o r t each y e a r t h a t i n d i c a t e s how a l l t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s who q u a l i f y f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e MEAP under t h e p r e s e n t c r i ­ t e r i a a r e f u n c t i o n i n g on t h e MEAP t e s t . These d a t a could pro vid e edu­ c a t o r s and p o l i c y makers s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n as t o how t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e f u n c t i o n i n g on t h e MEAP as compared t o t h e i r gener al e d u c a t i o n p e er s as a whole. I f such were done, concerns r e g a r d i n g t h e r e d u c t i o n o f o v e r a l l d i s t r i c t MEAP s c o r e s by i n c l u d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s would be eliminated. I t i s re c o g n iz e d t h a t some d i s t r i c t s a r e a f f e c t e d by a t y p i c a l numbers o f handicapped s t u d e n t s who a r e s er ve d in t h e i r 156 d i s t r i c t programs. In a d d i t i o n , i f t h e r e were re aso n f o r combining t h e d a t a , such could be e a s i l y accomplished. Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research 1. A r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s st ud y should be conducted a t t h e f o u r t h - , s e v e n t h - , and t e n t h - g r a d e l e v e l s t o compare t h e p e r c e n t a g e - o f i n s t r u c t i o n p a t t e r n s i n s p e c i a l and g en eral e d u c a t i o n along w ith t h e MEAP s c o r e s o f t h e seven c a t e g o r i e s o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y may allow Michigan e d u c a t o r s t o a s s e s s s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' involvement in and performance on t h e MEAP t e s t and t o pursu e a p p r o p r i a t e a d ju st m e n ts t o a l l o w t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' t h e maximum o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e MEAP t e s t . 2. A s tu d y should be conducted t o a n a ly z e t h e re a so ns why a m ajority o f the fourth-grade special education population is d i s ­ t r i b u t e d between t h e minimal (0-9%) and maximal (90-100%) math a n d / o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n tim e s in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d from t h i s st ud y should he lp i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s t h a t a r e r e s p o n ­ s i b l e f o r t h e extreme gap in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n i n t e g r a t i o n . If a m a j o r i t y o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e e v e r going t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e MEAP t e s t , o r a r e going to have e x p e r i e n c e s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f t h e i r general e d u c a t i o n p e e r s , t h i s i n t e g r a t i o n gap must be n a r ­ rowed, e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e e a r l i e s t s t a g e s in t h e s t u d e n t s ' e d u c a t i o n . 3. A s tu d y sho uld be conducted t o a n a ly z e t h e number o f MEAP o b j e c t i v e s t h a t a r e be ing t a u g h t t o s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s b e fo re 157 t h e MEAP t e s t - t a k i n g d a t e . Such a s tu dy could be conducted in t h e f o u r t h , s e v e n t h , and t e n t h g r a d e s . I t i s i m p o r ta n t t o d e t e r m i n e , f o r s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g p o r t i o n s o f t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n in both general and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , whether th e y a r e being exposed t o t h e MEAP o b j e c t i v e s on which th e y may be t e s t e d . Analyses o f t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n c u r r i c u l a , i n p a r t i c u l a r , w i l l p ro vid e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e c u r r i c u l u m match w it h t h e MEAP o b j e c t i v e s . I f there is a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g t h a t s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a r e no t being exposed t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e MEAP t e s t b e f o r e t e s t i n g , e f f o r t s can be made t o enhance t h e c u r r i c u l a r exposure f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s and th u s improve t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o perform t o t h e i r maxi­ mum a b i l i t y on t h e MEAP t e s t . The two major a r e a s t h a t should be a dd re ss ed in t h i s s t u d y , which a r e very im p o r ta n t in s t a t e asse ssm en t t e s t i n g , a r e t h e c u r r i c u l a r and i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a l i d i t y r e l a t i n g t o t h e MEAP. 4. A stu dy should be conducted t o a nal yz e t h e i n f l u e n c e s o f s t u d e n t s ' s e x , r a c e , economic s t a t u s , p a r e n t s ' e d u c a ti o n a l l e v e l , and community ty pe in r e l a t i o n t o s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s ' performance on t h e MEAP t e s t . Such in f o r m a t io n may pr o v id e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o f a c t o r s t h a t might be c o r r e l a t e d w it h s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s ' performance on t h e MEAP t e s t . I f t h e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between s t u d e n t s ' MEAP t e s t performance and t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d , i n t e r v e n t i o n o r s u p p o r t s t r a t e g i e s might be employed t o a s s i s t s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and performance on t h e MEAP t e s t . 5. A r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s tu d y should be conducted with s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g v a r i o u s p e r c e n ta g e s o f gener al a n d / o r 158 s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n i n s t r u c t i o n . This s tu dy would expand beyond t h e p e r c e n ta g e s o f r e a d i n g a n d / o r math i n s t r u c t i o n and would i n c l u d e a l l s u b j e c t s o r a s t u d e n t ' s t o t a l day. 6. A l o n g i t u d i n a l st ud y should be conducted with t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h i s s t u d y , both i n d i v i d u a l l y and by impairment c a t e g o r y . Data t h a t have been g a th e r e d on t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s i n t h i s s tu d y co uld be g a th e r e d a t t h e s e v e n t h and t e n t h - g r a d e l e v e l s testing. once t h e students reach t h o s e p o i n t s o f MEAP Inf or ma tio n g a th e r e d from such a s tu d y would i n d i c a t e whether s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s i n d i v i d u a l l y , c a t e g o r i c a l l y , o r as a t o t a l grade l e v e l a r e improving in t h e i r MLAP performance. A ddi tio na l a n a l y s e s could be conducted on how t h e s t u d e n t s ' i n t e g r a ­ t i o n and s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n e l i g i b i l i t y have changed, along wi th t h e i r p ro g r e s s o r la ck o f p r o g r e s s a c a d e m ic a ll y as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e t h r e e o r s i x - y e a r p e r io d from t h e i r i n i t i a l MEAP t e s t . The recommendations s t a t e d f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a r e by no means i n c l u s i v e . However, s i n c e ve ry l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been con­ ducted r e g a r d i n g handicapped s t u d e n t s ' involvement i n t h e MEAP t e s t , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l b u i l d a s t r o n g f o u n d a t i o n f o r more s p e c i f i c future studies to take place. APPENDICES 159 APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF SELECTION PROCESS, LIST OF 97 DISTRICTS CHOSEN FOR STUDY, AND LETTER TO DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS ABOUT DISTRICT SELECTION 160 161 S e l e c t i o n o f School D i s t r i c t s The m a s t e r l i s t o f Michigan school d i s t r i c t s i n c l u d e s a l l s c h o o ls t h a t have f o u r t h - g r a d e s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s in t h e i r system, as v e r i f i e d by t h e i r 1981 f o u r t h F ri d ay c o u n t. Schools were d e s i g n a t e d on t h e l i s t by county and school d i s t r i c t numbers. The random sampling began w i t h t h e f o u r t h school d i s t r i c t on t h e l i s t being p i c k e d , based on t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e number f o u r from a random-number t a b l e . A f t e r t h e f o u r t h school d i s t r i c t was chosen as t h e s t a r t o f t h e sample s e l e c t i o n , e ver y s i x t h d i s t r i c t was s e l e c t e d to al low f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e number o f c a t e g o r i c a l s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n s t u d e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d t o w a r r a n t a c o nfi de nc e i n t e r v a l o f 97% w it h 3% error tolerated. This sample was s e l e c t e d in a way t h a t en sured t h a t a l l s t a t e school d i s t r i c t subgroups in t h e p o p u la ti o n would be r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e sample in p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r numbers in t h e p o p u l a t i o n i t s e l f . 162 1982-83 Grade Four Special Education Sample 02-010 03-060 05-010 06-010 07-040 Autrain-On ota P u bl i c Schools Mar tin P u bl i c Schools Alba P ubli c Schools Arenac E a s te r n School D i s t r i c t L'Anse Township School D i s t r i c t 08-050 09-050 11-300 11-320 12-040 Thornapple Kellogg School D i s t r i c t E s s e x v i l l e Hampton School D i s t r i c t N il e s Community School D i s t r i c t W a t e r v l i e t School D i s t r i c t Quincy Community School D i s t r i c t 03-030 14-010 15-050 17-010 18-010 S p r i n g f i e l d C ity School D i s t r i c t C as s op ol is Pu bli c Schools Char lev oi x Pu bli c Schools S a u l t S te Marie Area Schools C la re P u b li c Schools 19-010 21-060 22-030 23-010 23-490 DeWitt P ub li c Schools Rapid R iver Pub lic Schools B re it u n g Township School D i s t r i c t B el lev ue Pu bli c Schools Oneida Township School D i s t r i c t #3 24-070 25-100 25-150 25-200 27-070 P u b li c Schools o f Petoskey Fenton P ubli c Schools C lio Area School D i s t r i c t Lake Fenton Schools Wakefield Township School D i s t r i c t 29-050 29-100 30-070 31-020 31-130 F ult o n Schools S t . Louis P u b li c Schools Reading Community Schools Adams Township School D i s t r i c t Lake Linden Hubbell School D i s t r i c t 32-090 32-540 33-020 33-060 33-220 Ownedale-Gagetown Area School D i s t r i c t Sheridan Township School D i s t r i c t #5 Lansing P ub li c School D i s t r i c t H a s l e t t Pu bl ic Schools W eb be rv ill e P u b li c Schools 34-010 34-360 36-015 38-090 38-150 Io n ia Pu bl ic Schools Io n ia Township School D i s t r i c t #2 F o r e s t Park School D i s t r i c t East Jackson P ub li c Schools S p r i n g p o r t Pu bl ic Schools 163 39-010 39-130 40-040 41-050 41-090 Kalamazoo C ity School D i s t r i c t Parchment School D i s t r i c t Kalkaska P ub li c Schools Caledonia Community Schools Ea st Grand Rapids P ub li c Schools 41-160 44-060 45-040 46-090 46-140 Kentwood P ub li c Schools Imlay C it y Community School D i s t r i c t North P o r t Pu bli c School D i s t r i c t Madison School D i s t r i c t Tecumseh Pu bl ic Schools 47-060 49-070 50-080 50-170 50-230 Harland C onso li da te d Schools Moran Township School D i s t r i c t Chippewa Va lley Schools New Haven Community Schools Warren Conso li dated Schools 51-070 52-110 53-030 55-100 58-070 Manistee Area P ub li c Schools Republic Michigamme Schools F r e e s o i l Community School D i s t r i c t Menominee Area Pu bli c Schools Ida P u b li c School D i s t r i c t 59-080 60-010 61-020 61-060 61-210 Tri County Area Schools A t l a n t a Community Schools Muskegon Heights C ity School D i s t r i c t Mona Shores School D i s t r i c t Ravenna Pu bli c Schools 61-240 62-080 63-070 63-140 63-210 Whitehall School D i s t r i c t Pineview School D i s t r i c t Avondale School D i s t r i c t Madison Heights School D i s t r i c t Holly Area School D i s t r i c t 63-270 64-080 66-070 68-030 70-350 Clawson City School D i s t r i c t Shelby Pu b li c Schools White Pine School D i s t r i c t Fa irview School D i s t r i c t Zeeland Pu bli c School D i s t r i c t 71-080 73-190 73-230 75-030 75-080 Rogers C it y Area Schools Frankenmuth School D i s t r i c t M e r r i l l Community School D i s t r i c t C e n t r e v i l l e Pu bl ic Schools Three Rivers P ub li c School D i s t r i c t 164 76-060 76-210 79-010 79-145 80-120 Brown C ity Community School D i s t r i c t Sandusky Community School D i s t r i c t Akron F airg ro v e Schools U n io n v ille Sebawaing Schools H a rtfo rd P u b lic School D i s t r i c t 80-130 81-010 81-100 82-010 82-010 Lawrence P u b lic School D i s t r i c t Ann Arbor P u b lic Schools Milan Area sch o ols D e t r o i t P u b lic Schools/R egion 1 D e t r o i t P u b lic Schools/R egion 7 82-030 82-100 82-120 82-220 82-320 Dearborn C ity School D i s t r i c t Plymouth Community Schools R iver Rouge C ity Schools North Dearborn H eights School D i s t r i c t C ity o f Harper Woods Schools 82-430 83-070 Van Buren P u b lic Schools Mesick C o n so lid ate d Schools 97 Total D i s t r i c t s 165 E x p lan atio n o f S t r a t a Geographic Area Community Type METROPOLITAN CORE AREAS & CITIES Region 1 Region 2 Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4 Regions 3 & 4 TYPES I & II TOWNS & URBAN FRINGE TYPES I I I & IV RURAL COMMUNITY Stratum 5 Stratum 6 TYPE V X \ = No s c h o o ls in t h i s c e l l Note: The Michigan map on th e fo llo w in g page e x p la i n s th e v a rio u s re g io n s and t y p e s . 166 REGION AHO COMMUNITY TY?E CATEGORIES R c f o n i . w . „ n e . O .M iI.utd a n i l H .icw m |< C o u n t i e s . 2 • A ll C t f u n i i r i m S u u th v r n t h a t a r e s o u t h o f im d i n c l u d i n g M v i h i |w > , K e n t, M o n t c a l m . G r a t i o t . M id la n d a n d f ta y c o u n t i e s . T h is o c c l u d e s R e g io n I. 3 • All* c o u n t i e s t h a t arc* n o u n o f t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d l i n e e n d t h a t a r e i n t h e lo « * e r P v m n s u l* . 4 • A ll c o u n t i e s t h a t w e i n t h e U p p e r P e n i n s u l a . J y p g \ • M e tro p o lita n C o re : O n e o r m o re a d j a c e n t c i l i t t <*ith a p o p u l a t i o n o f $ 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re » n - e h s e r v e a* t h e e c o n o m ic f o c a l p o i n t o f tn e < r e n v i r o n s . II* C ity C o m m u n ity o f 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 0 ,0 0 0 t h a t s e r v e s a * t h e e c o n o m ic l o c a l p o i n t o f i t * e n v i r o n s . III Tow n; IV - U rb an C o m m u n ity o f I , $ 0 0 t o 1 0 .0 0 0 t h a t v e r v e * a * A c o m m g n riy o f a n y p o p u l a t i o n s i t e C hat h a s a s i t s e c o n o m i c f o c a l p o i n t a m e t r o p o l i t a n A u r a l C w iv tu M iily : A convi *n 2.S00- 167 STATE O F MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lansing. M ichigan 46909 STATt BOARD OR SOUCATION BARBARA m i M u U l ' H H . U fr r iW r t r DR O U M F t I N D n SALA S V f f f lflW rA I B A R B A R A R l l B f its m a s o n RHILL1R t J u l y 16. 1932 RUNRIL Sw M nM tatfoM Jet tnm ry NORM AN O T T n S T 'K K M I Y IR \* t f N k l K iM I N t U i * DR IPM U N D F V A N D tfT t N ASBf DAVID LAIO ANNHTA M IILII JOHN WATANFN. IR Dear Superintendent UIIV w i l i j a m a WUXI* IN In a l e t t e r dated June, 1982, you were informed o f the plans for the 1982-83 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAD. Included in these plans i s a S pecial Education Study, Involving s p e c ia l education stu d e n ts normally excluded from the HEAP t e s t s . The purpose of t h i s study I s to determine which s p e c i a l education stu d e n ts should p a r t i c i p a t e in f u tu re MEAP t e s t i n g . Approximately 400 schools, s e le c te d by d i s t r i c t , w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e In the study. All of the schools contain in g fourch grade in your d i s t r i c t are Included in t h i s study. In enrh Hchnol, a l l fo u rth grade s p e c ia l education stu d e n ts in c e r t a i n c a te g o rie s vil'. be t e s t e d , r e g a rd le s s of how r .ch of t h e i r reading i n s t r u c t i o n Is given In r e g u la r education (the cu rren t b a s is fo r deciding who p a r t i c i p a t e s In MEAP). A fter t e s t i n g , someone f a m i lia r with the student w i l l answer f i v e b r i e f q u estio n s on a s p e c ia l s e c ti o n of che answer sh e e t: 1) the s t u d e n t ' s prlsiary s p e c ia l education ca te gory, 2) the amount of mathematics I n s t r u c t i o n received in s p e c ia l education, 3) the amount of T r a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n received In s p e c ia l ed u c atio n , 4) whether to ln c lu d e the s t u d e n t ' s r e s u l t s in th e re g u la r school and d i s t r i c t summaries, and 5) whether th e MEAP t e a t was a p p ro p ria te to the stu d e n t. R esults w i l l be used to determine whether the c u r r e n t c r i t e r i o n fo r in c lu s io n of s p e c ia l education stu d e n ts In MEAP t e s t i n g la v a l i d . The r e s u l t s w i l l be analyzed to determine i f s tu d e n ts who r e c e iv e d i f f e r e n t le v e l s o f I n s t r u c t i o n In s p e c i a l education or who have d i f f e r e n t Impairments show d i f f e r e n t le v e l s of performance on the MEAP t e s t w i l l be compared to s t u d e n t s ' performance to see i f te a c h e rs can judge which stu d e n ts should or should not take the MEAP t e s t . Dir­ e c tio n s fo r the study w i l l be given in the School C o o rd in a to r's Manual and the Grade 4 Assessment A dm inistration Manual, and mention of the study Is made In the D i s t r i c t C o o rd in a to r's Manual. These manuals w i l l be mnlled to your D i s t r i c t Assessment Coordinator in e a r ly August. Ind iv id u a l Student Reports and Parent Pamphlets w i l l be prepared for n i l s tu d e n ts . However, d i s t r i c t s w ill use the c u r r e n t c r i t e r i a for In clu sio n to determine which stu d e n ts to Include in school and d i s t r i c t summaries. T herefore, p a r t i c i p a t i n g sc h o o ls' MEAP summaries w ill be based on the performance of stu d e n ts th a t would have u su a lly p a r t i c i p a t e d . I f you have any q uestions about t h i s study or your p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i t , please c o n ta c t an Assessment s t a f f member At (317) 373-8393. Thank you for your co ntinuing cooperation. S incerely c cc: Assessment Coordinators Edward D. Roebcr, Supervisor Michigan Educational Assessment Program DLDme •Ea s lldMw d ' lw Puutijsu, M r e c t o r Research, E valuation and Assessment Services APPENDIX B ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, GRADE 4 168 PLEASE NOTE: C o p y rig h te d m a t e r i a l s i n t h i s document have n o t been f ilm e d a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e a u t h o r . They a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n , however, in t h e a u t h o r ' s u n iv e rsity lib r a ry . These c o n s i s t o f p a g e s : 169-184 186-201 203-204 University Microfilms International 3 0 0 N. ZEEB RD.. A N N A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 1313) 7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 APPENDIX C SCHOOL COORDINATOR'S MANUAL, FALL 1982 185 APPENDIX D MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ANSWER SHEET, GRADE 4 202 APPENDIX E TABLES 205 206 Table E - l . —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s tu d e n t s in d i s a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s , by sampled Michigan school d i s t r i c t s . D istric t Tn+al Nn Number o f S p e c ial E ducation S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI p a tin g " T o ta l NO. N o n p a rtic ip a tin g S tu d e n ts ^ tJd e n ts^ Stratum 1: M e tro p o lita n Core Areas and C i t i e s —Region 1 1. D e t r o i t P u b lic S c h o o ls/ Regional 2. D e t r o i t P u b lic S ch o o ls/ Region 7 (1 & 2 combined) 3. Plymouth Community Schools 37 1 7 1 19 35 1 39 140 S tratum 2: M e tro p o lita n Core Areas and C i t i e s —Region 2 4. N ile s Com­ munity School D istric t 5. Lansing P u b lic Schools 15 6. Kalamazoo C ity School D i s t r i c t 7. Muskegon H ts. C ity School D is t. 8. Ann Arbor P u b lic Schools 6 13 40 2 46 4 1 18 1 2 12 1 1 16 1 178 207 Table E - l. —Continued. Number o f S p e c ial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g D istric t EMI SLI El POHI VI LD 1HI T otal No. P a rtic ip o ti ng S tu d e n ts Total No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d en ts S tratum 3: Towns and Urban Fringe'—Region 3 9. Chippewa V alley Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 10. New Haven Comm. Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 11. Warren Con­ sol i d a te d Schools 8 49 12. Avondale School D i s t r i c t No i n f o , r e p o r te d 13. Madison H ts. School D i s t r i c t 1 1 8 14. H olly Area School D i s t r i c t 2 3 20 15. Clawson C ity School D i s t r i c t 16. Dearborn C ity School D i s t r i c t No i n f o , r e p o rte d 5 17. R iv er Rouge C ity Schools 24 39 3 1 2 2 18. North Dear­ born H eights School D i s t r i c t 5 No in f o , r e p o rte d 19. C ity o f Har­ p e r Woods Schools 20. Van Buren P u b lic Schools 3 15 1 1 43 236 Stratum 4: Towns and Urban F r i n g e - -Region 2 21. E s s e x v il le Hampton School D istric t 22. S p r i n g f i e l d C ity School D istric t No i n f o , r e p o r te d 2 208 Table E - l. —Continued. D istric t Number o f S p ecial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total No. P a rtic i­ p a tin g S tu d e n ts Total No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d e n ts Stratum 4 —Continued No i n f o , re p o r te d 23. DeWitt P u b lic Schools ** 24. Oneida Town­ s h ip School D is­ t r i c t No. 3 No s p . ed. program 25. Fenton Area P u b lic Schools 4 26. Lake Fenton Schools 1 27. S t. Louis P u b lic Schools 4 9 2 No i n f o , re p o rte d 28. H a s l e t t P u b lic Schools 29. Io n ia P u b lic Schools 1 30. E ast Jackson P u b lic Schools 7 31. Parchment School D i s t r i c t 32. E ast Grand Rapids P u blic Schools 33. Kentwood P u b lic Schools 34. Tecumseh P u b lic Schools 35. Mona Shores School D i s t r i c t 36. W hitehall School D i s t r i c t 37. Zeeland P u blic School D i s t r i c t 38. Frankenmuth School D i s t r i c t 3 1 3 10 209 Table E - l. —Continued. D istric t Number o f Sp ecial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total No. P a rtic i­ p a tin g S tu d e n ts T otal No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d e n ts Stratum 4 —Continued 39. Three R ivers P u b lic School D istric t 1 40. H a rtfo rd P u b lic School D istric t 2 1 14 1 6 No i n f o , r e p o r te d 41. Milan Area Schools 100 S tratum 5: Rural Community--Region 2 No i n f o , r e p o r te d 42. M artin P u b lic Schools 43. Thornapple Kellogg School D istric t 1 44. W a te rv lie t School D i s t r i c t 3 4 1 45. Quincy Com­ munity School D istric t 46. C asso p o lis P u b lic Schools 47. B ellevue P u b lic Schools 48. C lio Area School D i s t r i c t No i n f o , re p o r te d 1 4 2 12 49. Fulton Schools No i n f o , re p o rte d 50. Reading Com­ munity Schools No in f o , re p o r te d 51. OwendaleGagetown Area School D i s t r i c t No s p . ed. program 210 Table E-l . —Continued. D istric t Number o f Sp ecial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total No. P a rtic i­ p a tin g S tu d e n ts Total No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d e n ts Stratum 5--C ontinued 52. Sheridan Township School D i s t r i c t No. 5 No s p . e d . program 53. W ebberville P u b lic Schools « 2 54. Io n ia Town­ s h ip School D i s t r i c t No. 2 No s p . ed. program 55. S p r in g p o rt P u b lic Schools 1 No s p . ed. program 56. Kalkaska P u b lic Schools 57. C aledonia Comm. Schools 5 58. Imlay C ity Community School D istric t 59. Madison School D i s t r i c t 60. H artla n d C o n so lid ate d Schools No s p . ed. program ■, 1 1 1 61. Ida P u b lic School D i s t r i c t 5 2 5 No i n f o , r e p o rte d 62. Tri County Area Schools 63. Ravenna P u b lic Schools 64. M e r r ill Com­ m unity School D istric t 65. C e n t r e v i l l e P u b lic Schools 3 1 1 3 1 211 Table E - l. —Continued. Number o f Sp ecial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g D istric t EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total No. P a rtic ip a t i ng S tu d e n ts Total No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d e n ts S tratum 5—Continued 66. Brown C ity Community School D istric t 2 1 67. Sandusky Community School D istric t 3 68. Akron F a i r grove Schools No in f o , r e p o r te d 69. U n io n v ille Sebewaing Schools 3 70. Lawrence P u b lic School D istric t 1 73 Stratum 6: Rural Community—Regions 3 & 4 71. A utrain-O nota P u b lic Schools No s p . ed. program 72. Alba P u b lic Schools No s p . ed. program 73. Arenal E a stern School D i s t r i c t No i n f o , re p o r te d 74. L'Anse Town­ s h ip School D istric t 1 75. C harlevoix P u b lic Schools No i n f o , re p o rte d 76. S a u lt S te Marie Area Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 77. C la re P u b lic Schools 78. Rapid R iver P u b lic Schools 1 3 4 212 Tabl e E - l. —Conti nued. D istric t Number o f S p ecial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total no . P a rtic iS t ad er nt ts s S tu DSitu s tdr ei cn ttss / Stratum 6—Continued 79. B re itu n g Township School D istric t 80. P u b lic Schools o f Petoskey No i n f o , r e p o r te d 2 6 81. W akefield Township School D istric t No s p . e d . s tu d e n t s in 4 th grade 82. Adams Town­ s h ip School D istric t No s p . e d . s tu d e n t s in 4 th grade 83. Lake Linden Hubbell School D istric t No s p . e d . program 84. F o r e s t Park School D i s t r i c t 1 85. North P o rt P u b lic School D istric t No s p . ed . program 86. Moran Town­ s h ip School D is tric t No s p . ed. program 87. M anistee Area P u b lic Schools 1 88. Republic Michigamme Schools 1 89. F r e e s o il Com­ munity School D istric t No s p . ed. program 90. Menominee Area P u b lic Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 213 Tab!e E - l. --Continued. Number o f S p e c ial Education S tu d e n ts P a r t i c i p a t i n g D istric t EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI Total No. P a rtic i­ p a tin g S tu d e n ts Total No. N o n p a rtic ­ ip a tin g D istric ts/ S tu d e n ts Stratum 6—Continued 91. A tla n ta Community Schools No s p . ed. program 92. Pineview School D i s t r i c t No s p . ed. program 93. Shelby P u b lic Schools 2 No s p . ed. program 94. White Pine School D i s t r i c t 95. F airview School D i s t r i c t 2 95. Rogers C ity Area Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 97. Mesick Con­ s o l i d a t e d Schools No i n f o , r e p o r te d 24 Column t o t a l s Key: EMI SLI El POHI VI LD HI * = = = = = = 82 31 138 10 4 475 11 751 40a Educable m e n ta lly im paired Speech & language im paired E m otionally im paired P h y s ic a l ly o r o th e rw is e h e a l t h im paired V is u a lly im paired L earning d is a b l e d Hearing im paired b re a k d o w n o f 40 n o n p a r t i c i p a t i n g d i s t r i c t s i s as fo llo w s : 14 = no program s, 2 = no 4 th - g r a d e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n s t u d e n t s , 24 = d id not r e p o r t in fo r m a tio n . T a b l e E - 2 . - - M e a n MEAP math and r e a d i n g s c o r e s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , by n t p q o r y . Mean MEAP Math S c o re s , by P e rc e n t a g e o f S pecial Edu cation Math I n s t r u c t i o n Category 10-29" 0 -9? N X Educable m e n ta lly im paired (EMI) 0 Speech A language im p aired (SLI) 28 24 .17 E m otionally im paired (E l) 35 P h y sically o r o th e r w i s e h e a l t h im paired (POHI) SD N X 50-6)' 30-49" SD N X sn N X 90-100T. 70-89". SD N X SD N 7 .0 0 70 5.81 4 .9 9 2 22 .50 3.5 3 80 13.02 8 .1 0 13.00 10.31 161 11.63 6.96 19.88 7.28 0 10 5 .6 0 5.4 4 0 1 4 .4 9 0 1 24 .00 0 0 0 16.88 7.73 9 5 16.00 6 .4 0 6 5 19.00 5.83 0 0 0 0 5 V is u a l ly im paired (VI) 4 19.50 10.37 0 0 0 0 0 learn in g d isab led (LD) 179 18.88 6.4 3 59 17.93 6 .3 5 1 25 .00 0 1 22 .00 0 Hearing im paired (HI) T o ta ls 252 69 18.77 8.34 46 17.08 6.3 9 20 12.00 14.30 4 .89 7.22 3 5 17.33 14.40 5.R5 9.12 0 0 0 9 6? 26 9 327 X SD T able £ - 2 . --C o n tin u e d . Mean MEAP Reading S c o r e s , by P e rc e n ta g e o f S pecial E d ucation Math I n s t r u c t i o n Category 0-97, N X Educable m e n ta lly im paired (EMI) 0 Speech * language im p aired (SLI) 28 20 .00 E m otionally im paired (E l) 35 P hy sically or o th e r w i s e h e a l t h im paired (POHI) 10-297 SD N X SD 11 30-497 5 0-69 - X SD N X 70-897 SD 90-1007 N X SD N 0 0 70 3.61 4.41 2 12.00 15.55 80 8 .42 7.9 8 6 .0 0 7.17 161 6.57 5.74 15.00 8.0 7 0 10 4 .8 0 2.8 5 0 1 6.3 5 0 1 8 .0 0 0 0 0 12.65 6 .6 8 9 5 13 .80 9.6 2 6 5 15.20 3.27 0 0 0 0 5 V i s u a l l y im paired (VI) 4 11 .25 8.8 4 0 0 0 0 0 L earning d i s a b l e d (LD) 179 11 .37 7.1 2 59 11.67 6 .9 8 1 24.0 0 0 1 4 .0 0 0 H earing im paired (HI) T o ta ls 252 69 14.22 9.3 3 46 12.34 7.41 20 7 .0 9 .5 9.6 2 7.94 3 5 9.6 6 1 2 .4 0 5 .50 11.05 0 0 0 9 62 26 9 327 X SD Table E - 2 . - - C o n t i n u e d . Mean MEAP Math Scores , by P e rc e n ta g e o f S p e c ia l F d u c atio n Reading I n s t r u c t i o n Category 0-9% 10-29% N X SD M Educable m e n ta lly im paired (EMI) 1 1 9.00 0 Speech X language im paired (SLI) 28 24.17 Emotional ly im paired (E l) 30 50-69', 30-493 90-100',; 70-89% X 0 1 16.00 4 .4 9 0 0 16.73 8 .1 2 5 19.20 8 .4 3 5 4 21.25 6 .2 9 3 16.66 8 .5 0 0 0 V i s u a l l y im paired (VI) 3 24.66 1.15- 1 4 .0 0 0 0 0 Learninq d i s a b l e d (LD) 71 18.57 6.7 3 54 18.51 2 22.00 4.2 4 0 0 0 0 9 63 46 6? 18 418 P h y sic ally or o th e r w i s e h e a l t h im paired (P0H1) Hearing im paired (HI) T o ta l s 139 SD 6 .0 0 40 16.60 18.87 SD N X SD N 0 8 3.1 2 1.72 0 71 1 24.00 0 0 2 22.50 3.53 8 16.50 0.31 2 18 R8 I T . 25 7.81 0 3 8 .3 3 7.0 9 0 0 6.21 45 1 ' /3 7.65 16 13.50 15.62 SD X SD 8.4 3 X N N > 2.12 7.78 4 .8 2 7.46 245 20.22 7.31 T ab le £ - 2 . --C o n tin u e d . Mean MERP Reading S c o r e s , by P e rc e n ta g e o f S p ecial E ducation Reading I n s t r u c t i o n Category 10-297 0-97 N X SD N Educable m e n t a ll y im paired (EM!) 1 12 .0 0 Speech 8 language im paired (SLI) 28 20 .0 E m otion ally im p aired (E l) 30 P h y sically or o th e r w i s e h e a l t h im paired ( POHI) X 50-697 32-497 SD N 0 8 4.1 2.47 0 71 3.5 3 4 .3 5 1 8 0 0 0 2 12.00 15.50 8 12.7 8.8 4 2 88 8 .2 0 7.74 0 3 3.33 5.7 7 0 0 245 7.1 3 5.91 0 9 13.13 8.6 7 18 418 1 5 .0 6 .3 5 0 0 13.5 6.37 5 1 7 .0 9.1 9 5 4 14.7 2.87 3 12.3 8.1 4 0 0 V i s u a l l y im paired (VI) 3 13 .6 9.07 1 4 .0 0 0 0 L earn in g d i s a b l e d (LD) 71 15.3 6 .8 0 54 12.5 6 .5 0 2 2 1.5 3 .5 3 0 0 0 63 46 62 T o ta l s 139 40 11.4 12.5 SD X 0 7.26 7.21 45 9 .0 7.18 16 6.0 0 11.25 SD X N X X N SD N H earing im paired (HI) sn 90-1007 70-897 1.41 7 .9 2 Table E-3.--M ean MEAP math and re a d in g s c o r e s f o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n s t u d e n t s , by c a te g o r y , judged a b le o r unable to handle th e mechanics o f th e MEAP t e s t . Mean MEAP Math Scores Total Category N Able Mean MEAP Reading Scores Unable Able Unable Able Unable Educable m e n ta lly im paired (EMI) 82 1 81 19.0 5 .8 12.0 3 .7 Speech & language im paired (SLI) 31 25 6 2 4.9 20.3 2 0 .8 1 1.6 138 52 86 18.5 12.1 15.4 6 .7 P h y s ic a l ly o r o th e rw is e h e a lt h im paired (POHI) 9 5 4 2 2.8 8 .5 1 4.0 5 .2 V is u a lly im paired (VI) 4 3 1 24.6 4 .0 13 .6 4 .0 Learning d is a b l e d (LD) 467 116 351 19 .0 1 4 .9 13.9 8 .5 11 8 3 23.2 13 .3 1 8.6 4 .6 742 210 532 E m otionally im paired (E l) Hearing im paired (HI) T o ta ls BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY B lau, Theodore H. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g : P sy ch olo gical Im p li­ c a ti o n s f o r S tu d e n ts ." Paper p re s e n te d a t th e AERA Topical Conference on Minimal Competency Achievement T e s tin g , W ashington, D .C ., O ctober 13, 1978. In Richard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. Cohen, Sandra B ., and S a f r a n , Joan Polloway. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g : I m p lic a tio n s f o r M ildly Retarded S tu d e n ts ." Education and T ra in in g o f t h e M entally Retarded (December 1980): 251. D a n ielso n , Louis C. "E d ucation al Goals and Competency T e s tin g f o r t h e H andicapped." Paper p re s e n te d a t t h e AERA Topical C onfer­ ence on Minimal Competency Achievement T e s t i n g , Washington, D .C ., O ctober 13, 1978. In Richard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. E b e l, Robert L. "The Case f o r Minimum Competency T e s t i n g ." D elta Kappan (A pril 1978): 548. Phi D atabank--E ducation Week. "How Minimum-Competency T e s ts Are Used in 35 S t a t e s . " Education Week, January 19, 1982, p . 7. D iv isio n o f S p e c ial and Compensatory E d ucatio n. Department o f Edu­ c a t i o n . Commonwealth o f V i r g i n i a . "Minimum Competencies and th e Handicapped." Department o f Education G u id e lin e s . October 1980. Ewing, Norma J . , and Sm ith, James E ., J r . "Minimum Competency T e s tin g and t h e H andicapped." E xceptional C h ild re n (A pril 1981): 523. F eld m esser, Robert A. "Minimum Competency a s an In d iv id u a l R ig h t." Paper p re s e n te d a t t h e AERA Topical Conference on Minimum Compe­ te n cy Achievement T e s t i n g , W ashington, D .C ., O ctober 13 , 1978. In Richard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. Fenton, Kathleen S. "Competency T e s tin g and th e Handicapped: Some Legal Concerns f o r School A d m in is tr a to r s ." Paper p re s e n te d a t th e AERA Topical Conference on Minimum Competency T e s tin g , W ashington, D .C ., O ctober 13 , 1978. In Richard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. 220 221 Howell, J . F. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g (MCT): Some Remarks." Paper p re s e n te d a t th e 62nd Annual Meeting o f th e American Edu­ c a ti o n a l Research A s s o c ia tio n , March 2 7 -3 1 , 1978. In S e c h r e s t , M e lv ille Lee. "The A p p ro p ria te n e ss o f t h e North C a ro lin a Minimum Competency T e st f o r M en tally Handicapped S t u d e n t s . " Ph.D. d i s ­ s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r s ity o f North C a r o lin a , 1981. Jensema, C a r l. " C o n sid e ra tio n in U t i l i z i n g Achievement T e s ts f o r Hearinq Im p a ire d ." American Annals o f t h e Deaf (June 1980): 497. Johnson, Carl I . "The New J e r s e y Minimum B asic S k i l l s T e s tin g Program: Accommodating Handicapped P u p i l s . " New J e r s e y S t a t e Department o f Education Guidebook, n .d . Kennedy, Mary M. "T e st Scores and In d iv id u a l R ig h ts ." Paper p r e ­ s e n te d a t th e AERA Topical C onference on Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g , Washington, D .C ., O ctober 13, 1978. In Richard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. McCarthy, Martha M., and Wolf, R obert. "Use o f Competency T e s ts S u b je c t t o Legal C h a lle n g e ." Education Week, February 1 0, 1982, p. 16. McClung, Merle S te v e n , and Pull i n , Diana. "Competency T e s ts and Handicapped S tu d e n ts ." C learin gh ou se Review (March 1978): 922-27. Michigan Department o f E ducation. Program Handbook. 1982. Michigan E ducational Assessment _________. Vol. 1 . MEAP Technical R e p o rt. 1982. Michigan S t a t e Board o f E d u c a tio n . "Michigan E ducational Assessment Program." School C o o rd in a to r Manual. 1982-83. M o rrisse y , P a t r i c i a A. "A daptive T e s tin g : How and When Should Handicapped S tu d e n ts Be Accommodated in Competency Achievement T e s tin g Programs?" Paper p re s e n te d a t th e AERA Topical Con­ f e r e n c e on Minimal Competency Achievement T e s t i n g , W ashington, D .C ., O ctober 13, 1978. In R ichard M. J a e g e r and Carol Kehr T i t t l e . Minimum Competency Achievement T e s t i n g . 1980. N ational School Boards A s s o c ia tio n . Minimum Competency. Research r e p o r t 1978-3. W ashington, D.C.l NSBA, 1 9 /8 . In S z a f r a n l e e , C arlee n . "The Minimum Competency T e s tin g Program With High School S p ecial E ducation S tu d e n ts : A Study o f S tu d e n t P a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n and School S t a f f P e r c e p t i o n s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , George Peabody C ollege f o r Teachers o f V a n d e rb ilt U n iv e r s ity , December 1981. 222 NEA 1978 p o s i t i o n . In "Minimum Competencies and th e H andicapped." Department o f E d u c a tio n , Commonwealth o f V i r g i n i a , O ctober 1980. S e c tio n I , p. 4. N e i l l , S h ir le y Boes. "A Summary o f I s s u e s in t h e Minimum Competency Movement." Phi D elta Kappan (F ebruary 1979): 453. Ravich, D. C. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g : The Consumer Movement in E d u c a tio n ." The Jo u rn a l (The I n s t i t u t e f o r Socioeconomic S t u d i e s , White P l a i n s , NY) 3 (197’8 ) : 7. R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973, S e c tio n 504. C o d ifie d a t 29 USC s e c . 794 and i t s implementing r e g u l a t i o n s a t 45 CFR s e c . 81 and 84. R osewater, A. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g Programs and Handicapped S tu d e n ts : P e r s p e c tiv e s on P o lic y and P r a c t i c e . W ashington, D.C.: I n s t i t u t e f o r E ducational L e a d e rsh ip , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. Schenck, Susan J . , and Welch, F ra n c is C. "The Role o f th e IEP in th e Minimum Competency Movement." Paper p re s e n te d a t t h e Second Annual South C a r o lin a Educational Research M eeting, Columbia, South C a r o lin a , O ctober 5 -6 , 1980. S e c h r e s t, M e lv ille Lee. "The A p p ro p ria te n e ss o f th e North C aro lin a Minimum Competency T e s t f o r M entally Handicapped S tu d e n ts ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e r s ity o f North C a r o lin a , 1981. Sevene, Don. "U.S. Judge Upholds Use o f 'E x i t T e s t s ' f o r Handi­ c ap ped." E ducation Week, A pril 7, 1982, p. 16. S w artz, S ta n le y L. "Competency T e s tin g and th e E xceptional C h ild ." Paper p re s e n te d a t th e A s s o c ia tio n f o r th e Study o f P e rc e p tio n Annual C on feren ce, Chicago, I l l i n o i s , December 1979. Wise, A rth u r E. "Minimum Competency T e s tin g : Another Case o f H y p e r - R a t io n a li z a tio n ." Phi D elta Kappan (May 1978): 596.