Minnesota's Comprehensive Assessments: 1998 and 1999 Participation and Performance of Students with Disabilities - NCEO Minnesota Report 32

Click here to jump to main content.WHO WE ARE    |   PUBLICATIONS   |  PRESENTATIONS   |  PROJECTS   |   RELATED SITES   |   STAFF   |   SITE MAP   |   SEARCH   |   WHAT'S NEW   |   HOME 

Minnesota's Comprehensive Assessments: 1998 and 1999 Participation and Performance of Students with Disabilities


Minnesota Report 32

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by Lynn Walz, Sandra Thompson, Martha Thurlow, and Richard Spicuzza

December 2000


This document has been archived by NCEO because some of the information it contains is out of date.


Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Walz, L., Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Spicuzza, R. (2000). Minnesota's Comprehensive Assessments: 1998 and 1999 participation and performance of students with disabilities (Minnesota Report No. 32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport32.html


Overview

This report focuses on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on the initial administration of Minnesota’s Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs). Assessments in Mathematics and Reading were initially administered to students in third and fifth grade in 1998 and 1999. The test of Written Composition was administered to fifth graders only. Data used in this report were compiled through the Minnesota Assessment Project, a four-year, federally funded project from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning, in collaboration with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota. The Minnesota Assessment Project has published many reports on the participation and performance of students with disabilities and English language learners in statewide assessments. These reports are available on-line at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO.

The participation and performance of students with disabilities within a statewide assessment process are important to study, especially in light of the 1997 reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This act sets the expectation that all students with disabilities will participate in statewide assessments, with accommodations as needed, or through participation in alternate assessments. In addition, states must report the number of students participating in the regular assessment and the performance of those students. This must be done in the same way and with the same frequency as the performance of students not receiving special education services is reported. The reauthorized IDEA has placed greater emphasis on the access of students with disabilities to the general education curriculum and their participation in it, and on district and state assessments that drive the curriculum. In Minnesota, as in most states, IDEA sets the stage for the initiation of increased participation. (See Appendix A for Assessment Provisions of IDEA.)

Title I of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) requires all states to develop high standards for the academic achievement of all students, particularly those who are low achieving. Furthermore, the law specifies that educational accountability is to be improved through the use of state assessment systems designed to show how well students are achieving the challenging state student performance standards expected of all students. According to the National Research Council (1999), standards provide a way to focus support for schools that have difficulty educating all students to the same high level. The National Research Council calls upon states to monitor the implementation of standards and to make changes where needed. Students who seem to have particular difficulty achieving high standards are students with disabilities.

Historically, many students with disabilities have been excluded from assessment and accountability systems across the United States. Although assessments have been the primary means to evaluate educational accountability, students with disabilities have been excluded to a great extent (Erickson, Thurlow, & Thor, 1995; Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998). Increasingly, states are making significant efforts to include all students and to report the performance of students with disabilities on statewide tests (see Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin & Coleman, 1998). Many states are just beginning to have the capacity to disaggregate statewide assessment data by disability, but most are still not able to calculate the percentages of students with disabilities actually participating in the assessments (Thompson & Thurlow, 1999).

 

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments

Minnesota has developed a system of high standards that are being implemented at all grade levels. Students must complete standards in specific areas during their high school years to earn a high school diploma. In order to determine whether elementary and middle school students are learning the concepts and skills needed to complete the high school standards when they are older, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) has created preparatory standards for students in kindergarten through grade eight. To assess progress toward the preparatory standards, CFL has developed and implemented statewide assessments in Reading and Mathematics in third and fifth grades, with a test of Written Composition added in fifth grade. In addition to testing third and fifth graders, the Basic Standards Tests, administered as a graduation requirement beginning in eighth grade, are also used as a measure of accountability. Comprehensive assessments are currently being developed for eleventh graders.

The Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) are criterion-referenced tests used for district accountability purposes, and as tools for making decisions about curriculum and instruction. The tests were first administered in February of the 1997-98 school year, and are to be administered on an annual basis. The MCAs represent one component of Minnesota’s educational accountability system. The tests are designed to monitor the educational system in Minnesota and in each district. Although individual student scores can be reported from the MCAs, the tests are designed for system accountability rather than individual student or teacher accountability. There is no passing score that all students are expected to achieve; rather, performance is reported at four proficiency levels. State, district, and school test results are used in several ways:

    to measure the success of schools and districts in improving student achievement over time;

    to generate information for school improvement and accountability;

    to allow for identification of programming and strategies that work; and

    to allow for comparison of schools and districts in Minnesota.

The MCAs were designed by a team of more than 200 Minnesota educators in addition to national experts in Reading and Mathematics. The Reading and Mathematics tests have multiple choice and short answer items. There are 10 forms of the test with 49 common items (58 possible points) and 11 additional items, called “matrix items,” that vary across test booklets (14 possible points). Individual student results are reported only on the common items found in every student’s test booklet. School or district results include both the common items and the matrix items. Tests are untimed, with one test given each day.

At grade 3, the Mathematics test includes questions about shape, space, and measurement; number sense; and chance and data handling. For example, to assess the number sense standard, the test may ask students questions about counting whole numbers and identifying odd and even numbers. The Reading test covers informational material (e.g., from textbooks), practical information (e.g., recipes), and literature. On average, test items are written at a third grade reading level.

At grade 5, the Mathematics test includes items in the same areas as those assessed in grade 3: shape, space, and measurement; number sense; and chance and data handling. However, the types of problems are different. For example, to assess the number sense standard at grade 5, students may be asked questions about place value, number operations, estimating, and calculator use. The Reading test covers material in the same categories as those on the third grade test (informational material, practical information, and literature), with the average passage written at a fifth grade level.

The test of Written Composition was only administered in fifth grade. Students were expected to write a short essay based on one of four types of story prompts: narrative, problem/solution, descriptive, and clarification. Each essay was rated on a four-point scale across the domains of composing, style, sentence formation, usage/grammar, and mechanics/spelling. Each of the story prompts was administered to a proportion of fifth graders.

MCA scores are reported within four proficiency levels. Raw scores are converted to scale scores and categorized within Levels I – IV, as shown in Table 1 (similar to the National Assessment of Educational Progress performance levels). Students reaching Levels III and IV have demonstrated the capacity to successfully achieve Minnesota’s high standards and are on track to achieving Minnesota’s Graduation Standards. A desired goal is to have all students performing at or above Level II. Although it is assumed that all students will benefit from the focused approach that the Graduation Standards offer, it is likely that students who score at Levels II and I are most dependent on focused, performance-based instruction. Parents and teachers of these students should weigh the assessment results against other evidence of achievement.

 

Table 1. MCA Performance Levels

Level IV: Students at this level demonstrate evidence of advanced academic performance, knowledge, and skills that exceed the level necessary for satisfactory work in the high standards in the elementary grades.

Level III: Students at this level demonstrate evidence of solid academic performance and competence in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory work in the high standards in the elementary grades.

Level II: Students at this level demonstrate evidence of partial knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory work in the high standards in the elementary grades.

Level I: Students at this level demonstrate evidence of limited knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory work in the high standards in the elementary grades.

 

Students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 Accommodation Plans (504 Plans) are expected to participate in the MCAs as generally administered or with approved accommodations (see Minnesota’s Accommodation Guidelines in Appendix B). Because data from these tests are used for system accountability, modifications to the test are not allowed. Results of these tests do not influence a student’s graduation or promotion status. Students with IEPs or 504 Plans who are unable to participate meaningfully in the MCAs will be included in the accountability system through participation in an alternate assessment designed by CFL. The alternate assessment includes various rating scales for developmental academics or functional skills and was required to be in place by July 1, 2000 (see Appendix A, Assessment Provisions of IDEA).


 Method

The CFL collected the data analyzed for this report through the Minnesota Automated Recording Student System (MARSS), Minnesota’s data management system. Statistical analyses were run by Minnesota Assessment Project (MAP) researchers. The analyses were translated into tables, discussed by the MAP team, and this report was written. Before publication, special education and assessment consultants at the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning reviewed this report.

There are several cautions to consider in the interpretation of these data. The cautions fall into four areas: reporting by grade, reporting by primary disability, reporting only students with disabilities who receive special education services, and other considerations.

Reporting by grade. The data included in this report are presented by student grade and disability. Student grade is defined as the grade a student is in during the testing year. The participation rate is calculated by dividing the number of students tested in a particular grade by the total number of students enrolled in that grade.

The official special education child count that is reported to the federal government is calculated on December 1 and reported by age. These numbers cannot be used to calculate test participation rates because tests are administered by grade, not by age. Pupil enrollment information is calculated by grade on October 1 of the testing year. This raises some concerns, since there are about five months between the child count date and the test administration date, during which time some students move in and out of districts, and in and out of the state.

Reporting by primary disability. Students are reported only by their primary disability, even though many of them have additional disabilities (e.g., students with a speech impairment and a learning disability may only be reported as having a learning disability). Using only primary disabilities reduces child count error by ensuring that no student is reported more than once. Unduplicated child count data are essential for calculating participation rates – these data become the denominator. However, the fact that a student may have more than one disability increases the number of factors that may contribute to student performance. We cannot draw inferences about the data in these more complex ways because we do not have the information needed to do so.

Reporting only students with disabilities who receive special education services. Throughout this report, we refer to the group under consideration as “students with disabilities.” However, the students counted in the report for 1998 include only those receiving special education services during the testing year. We were able to include additional information about students with 504 Accommodation Plans in 1999. Students with disabilities who do not qualify or choose not to receive special education services have not been identified.

Additional reporting considerations. There are three additional reporting considerations to take into account. The first is that data from a small number of students are not included because the data were inaccurate or incomplete. Second, there are some students who are included in the child count who did not take the MCAs because they received their education in private or home-schools. Third, students in some special education categories are not included in these analyses because the group is too small in number to maintain the anonymity of individual students.

As you view the figures and tables throughout this report, keep in mind that the numbers and percentages represent a broad number of factors. Only if all things were equal could we look at a change in percentage and say it truly represented a change in test participation or performance. Still these data are the first to portray the participation and performance of students with disabilities on Minnesota’s Comprehensive Assessments.


Results

Participation

School districts across Minnesota included nearly 85% of third and fifth graders with IEPs or 504 Plans in the 1998 and 1999 MCAs. Minnesota’s 1998 and 1999 participation rates on statewide assessments for students with disabilities are among the highest in the United States (Thompson & Thurlow, 1999). The number and percent of students participating in the third and fifth grade MCAs are reported here for 1998 and 1999, by grade and by test.

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, participation rates were fairly consistent across grades, tests, and years, with an overall participation rate of about 95% for all students tested. Students with disabilities participated at an average rate of 84%. Table 2 presents these data both by number and percent. Based on these data, it is assumed that roughly 16% of students with IEPs or 504 Plans were either exempt from testing, absent on at least one testing day, or were not tested for a variety of other reasons.

Figure 1. 1998 MCA Participation Rates

Figure 1. 1998 MCA Participation Rates

 

Figure 2. 1999 MCA Participation Rates

Figure 2. 1999 MCA Participation Rates

 

Table 2. 1998 and 1999 MCA Participation, Grades 3 and 5

 

*Number Enrolled

No. Tested Math

% Tested Math

No. Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

No. Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

63577

55549

8028

 

60646

53399

6847

 

95%

96%

85%

 

60552

53801

6751

 

95%

97%

84%

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

64725

56660

8065

 

61596

54854

6742

 

95%

97%

84%

 

61645

54964

6681

 

95%

97%

83%

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

63368

54094

9274

 

60332

52484

7848

 

95%

97%

85%

 

60465

52620

7845

 

95%

97%

85%

 

60336

52670

7666

 

95%

97%

83%

1999 - Grade 5

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

64069

54465

9604

 

61071

52970

8101

 

95%

97%

84%

 

61539

53361

8178

 

96%

98%

85%

 

61044

53046

7998

 

95%

97%

83%

* Number Enrolled is based upon enrollment count by CFL on October 1 of each school year. MCAs are administered in February of each school year.

Participation rates by disability are shown in Table 3. Enrollment remained stable across grades 3 and 5 for students representing most disability categories. The exceptions are in the categories of learning disability and emotional/behavioral disorders. The number of students receiving special education services in these categories increased by about 50% from third to fifth grade.

 

Table 3. Participation Rates by Disability

Participation of Students with Learning Disabilities

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

2990

2722

91

2667

89

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

2719

2406

88

2369

87

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

4166

3758

90

3763

90

3703

89

1999 - Grade 5

4094

3679

90

3742

91

3677

90

 

Participation of Students with Speech Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

2538

2314

91

2318

91

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

2691

2453

91

2467

92

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

2194

1842

84

1843

84

1874

85

1999 - Grade 5

2216

1919

87

1934

87

196

86

 

Participation of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

881

782

89

769

87

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

904

782

87

772

85

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

1297

1112

86

1126

87

1077

83

1999 - Grade 5

1319

1126

85

1120

85

1090

83

 

Participation of Students with Mild to Moderate Mental Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

592

340

57

333

56

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

537

289

54

287

53

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

569

392

69

384

67

347

61

1999 - Grade 5

559

341

61

329

59

309

55

 

Participation of Students with Other Health Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

414

363

88

356

86

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

452

383

85

378

84

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

453

419

92

421

93

407

90

1999 - Grade 5

622

520

84

530

85

514

83

 

Participation of Students with Moderate to Severe Mental Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

200

11

6

8

4

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

210

12

6

11

5

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

184

17

9

14

8

<10

<10

1999 - Grade 5

182

13

7

11

6

11

6

 

Participation of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

128

120

94

115

90

.

 

1999 - Grade 3

138

120

87

119

86

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

151

133

88

133

88

129

85

1999 - Grade 5

201

192

96

190

95

182

91

 

Participation of Students with Autism

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

127

78

61

73

57

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

170

101

59

94

55

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

100

54

54

53

53

50

50

1999 - Grade 5

123

71

58

74

60

69

56

 

Participation of Students with Physical Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

119

91

76

85

71

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

138

106

77

103

75

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

117

90

77

80

68

72

62

1999 - Grade 5

134

104

78

104

78

92

69

 

Participation of Students with Visual Impairments

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

21

15

71

16

76

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

25

21

84

17

68

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

22

17

77

15

68

13

59

1999 - Grade 5

35

25

71

28

80

25

71

 

Participation of Students with Traumatic Brain Injuries

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1998 - Grade 3

18

11

61

11

61

 

 

1999 - Grade 3

20

17

85

15

75

 

 

1998 - Grade 5

18

12

67

11

61

12

67

1999 - Grade 5

18

16

89

16

89

16

89

 

Participation of Students with 504 Accommodation Plans

 

*Number Enrolled

# Tested Math

% Tested Math

# Tested Reading

% Tested Reading

# Tested Writing

% Tested Writing

1999 - Grade 3

56

51

91

48

86

 

 

1999 - Grade 5

99

92

93

97

98

95

96

 

Participation rates of students across disability categories were similar in 1998 and 1999. Students with 504 Accommodation Plans participated at a rate even higher than students without disabilities. Students with learning disabilities (87% - 91%) and students with speech/language impairments (84% - 92%) also participated at very high rates, as did students with emotional/behavioral disorders (83% - 89%). Participation of students with moderate to severe mental impairments was the lowest (4% - 9%). Participation rates of students with deaf/blindness are not reported in order to protect the identity of individual students (N < 10). Figures 3 through 7 compare participation rates by disability across years, grades, and tests.

 

Figure 3. Participation: 3rd Grade Math by Disability

Figure 3. Participation: 3rd Grade Math by Disability

 

Figure 4. Participation: 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

Figure 4. Participation: 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

 

Figure 5. Participation: 5th Grade Math by Disability

Figure 5. Participation: 5th Grade Math by Disability

 

Figure 6. Participation: 5th Grade Reading by Disability

Figure 6. Participation: 5th Grade Reading by Disability

 

Figure 7. Participation: 5th Grade Written Composition by Disability

Figure 7. Participation: 5th Grade Written Composition by Disability

Performance

MCA raw scores were converted to scale scores using NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) performance guidelines. The expected mean was approximately 1400 with a standard deviation (SD) of about 200 for all students tested. Scale scores are important to study for an overall picture of average performance, but it is also important to examine the MCAs in the context through which performance is most commonly viewed; that is through proficiency levels. MCA scale scores are divided into four performance levels that vary from grade to grade and test to test, as shown in Table 4. The following section summarizes the performance of third and fifth graders using both scale scores and proficiency levels.

 

Table 4. Performance Level Scale Scores

 

Level I

Level II

Level III

Level IV

3rd Grade Mathematics

=1209

1210-1499

1500-1739

1740 =

3rd Grade Reading

=1279

1280-1499

1500-1689

1690 =

5th Grade Mathematics

=1259

1260-1499

1500-1709

1710 =

5th Grade Reading

=1239

1260-1499

1500-1709

1710 =

5th Grade Writing: Descriptive

=1029

1030-1499

1500-1919

1920 =

5th Grade Writing: Narrative

=1109

1110-1499

1500-1989

1990 =

5th Grade Writing: Problem Solving

=1129

1130-1499

1500-1969

1970 =

5th Grade Writing: Clarity

=1139

1140-1499

1500-2019

2020 =

 

Third Grade Performance

Scale Scores. Figures 8 and 9 show the mean scale scores for third graders in Mathematics and Reading across both testing years. On average, 1999 third graders scored higher than third graders in 1998, with a greater increase in Mathematics than in Reading. The performance of students across all disability categories averaged about .5 to 1 standard deviation (100 to 200 scale score points) below the expected mean. Students receiving speech and language services nearly met the expected mean, while students with mild to moderate and moderate to severe mental impairments averaged 1.5 to 2.5 standard deviations below the expected mean. Note that the number of students with moderate to severe mental impairments tested was very low (<15), limiting interpretation of the results.

Figure 8. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 3rd Grade Math by Disability

Figure 8. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 3rd Grade Math by Disability

 

Figure 9. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

Figure 9. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

Proficiency Levels. As expected, between 70% and 80% of all third graders tested scored within Levels II or III on both tests, both years (Table 5). The percent of all students, including students with disabilities, scoring at Level IV increased from 1998 to 1999. In 1998, 45% of students with disabilities scored at Level I in Mathematics and 59% scored at Level I in Reading. By 1999, the percent of students with disabilities scoring at the lowest level dropped by 10% in Mathematics and 4% in Reading.

 

Table 5. 1998 and 1999 Grade 3 Performance Levels

 

No. Level I

% Level I

No. Level II

% Level II

No. Level III

% Level III

No. Level IV

% Level IV

1998 - Grade 3 Math

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

10774

7683

3086

 

18

14

45

 

28541

25753

2788

 

47

48

41

 

17765

16956

809

 

29

32

12

 

3566

3404

162

 

6

6

2

1999 - Grade 3 Math

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

7479

5142

2323

 

12

9

35

 

28144

25052

3066

 

46

46

46

 

20528

19444

1076

 

33

35

16

 

5445

5216

226

 

9

10

3

1998 - Grade 3 Reading

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

13720

9711

4009

 

23

18

59

 

25460

23555

1893

 

42

44

28

 

17930

17123

716

 

30

32

11

 

3442

3319

122

 

6

6

2

1999 - Grade 3 Reading

all students

students without disabilities

students with disabilities

 

12746

9070

3652

 

21

17

55

 

24250

22268

1967

 

 

39

41

30

 

19834

18980

846

 

32

35

13

 

4815

4646

168

 

8

8

3

Figures 10 and 11 show the proficiency levels of third graders by disability in 1999. Students receiving speech and language services were the highest performing group of students with disabilities on both tests. Figure 10 shows that about 30% of students with speech impairments, emotional/behavioral disorders, deaf/hard of hearing, and visual impairments scored within the lowest proficiency level in Mathematics. Forty to fifty percent of students with autism, learning disabilities, other health impairments, physical disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries scored at Level I in Mathematics, with 90% to 100% of students with mild to moderate and moderate to severe mental impairments scoring at this level. Except for these last two groups, about the same percent of students across disability categories scored at Level II, with fewer at Level III, and a very small number reaching Level IV.

 

Figure 10. Performance: 1999 Proficiency Levels 3rd Grade Math by Disability

Figure 10. Performance: 1999 Proficiency Levels 3rd Grade Math by Disability

 

Figure 11. Performance: 1999 Proficiency Levels 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

Figure 11. Performance: 1999 Proficiency Levels 3rd Grade Reading by Disability

 

Overall, more students scored within Level I on the Reading Test than on the Math test. Over 40% of third graders with all disabilities except speech impairments scored at Level I in Reading. The percent of students reaching Level II was lower than the percent at Level I.  Fewer than 20% of students across most disability categories scored above Level II in Reading. No students with mild to moderate or moderate to severe disabilities scored above Level II. Even though many of the mean scale scores improved from 1998 to 1999, few of the increases were great enough to increase overall proficiency levels.

 

Fifth Grade Performance

Scale Scores. Figures 12 to 14 show the mean scale scores for fifth graders in Mathematics, Reading, and Written Composition across both testing years. The average performance of all fifth graders tested set the expected mean at about 1400. As a group, students with disabilities averaged about .75 SD below the expected mean.

 

Figure 12. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 5th Grade Math by Disability

Figure 12. Performance: Mean Scale Scores 5th Grade Math by Disability