This study examined the participation rates and performance of students classified with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in a statewide reading assessment. Gender, ethnicity, cognitive ability, school-level socioeconomic status, and instructional setting are analyzed as factors correlated with performance. Findings indicate that only 56% of students with EBD participate in statewide assessment. Only 44% of those met proficiency standards. Implications relate to classification of differences by subgrouping of students with EBD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton-ArwoodS. M., WehbyJ. H., & FalkK. B. (2005). Reading instruction for elementary-age students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Academic and behavioral outcomes.Exceptional Children, 72, 7–27.
2.
BullockL. M., & CableR. A. (2006). Programs for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders in the United States: A historical overview, current perspectives and future directions.Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 7–13.
3.
CohenJ., CohenP., WestS. C., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
CoutinhoM. J., OswaldD. P., & BestA. M. (2002). The influence of sociodemographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 23, 49–59.
5.
CrawfordL., & TindalC. (2006). Policy and practice: Knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment.Remedial and Special Education, 27, 208–217.
6.
ElliottJ. L., EricksonR. N., ThurlowM. L., & ShrinerJ. G. (2000). State-level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change?Journal of Special Education, 34, 39–47.
7.
FahertyV. (2007). Compassionate statistics: Applied quantitative analysis for social services.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
FuchsD., & YoungC.L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction.Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
9.
GableR. A., HendricksonJ. M., TonelsonS. W., & AckerR. V. (2002). Integrating academic and non-academic instruction for students with emotional/behavioral disorders.Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 459–475.
10.
CoertzM. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states.Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 73–79.
11.
HardmanM. L., & DawsonS. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the classroom.Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5–11.
12.
HospJ. L., & ReschlyD. J. (2002). Predictors of restrictiveness of placement for African-American and Caucasian students.Exceptional Children, 68, 225–238.
13.
HospJ. L., & ReschlyD. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors.Exceptional Children, 70, 185–199.
14.
KatsiyannisA., ZhangD., RyanJ. B., & JonesJ. (2007). High stakes testing and students with disabilities.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 160–167.
15.
LandrumT. J., TankerslyM., & KauffmanJ. M. (2003). What is special about special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders?Journal of Special Education, 37, 148–156.
16.
MalmgrenK. W., McLaughlinM. J., & NoletV. (2005). Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments.Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 86–96.
17.
NeelR. S. (2006). Consider the opportunities: A response to No Child Left Behind.Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 533–547.
18.
NelsonJ. R., BennerG. J., LaneK., & SmithB. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73.
19.
NguyenL., ArganzaG. F., HuangL. N., & LiaoQ. (2007). The influence of race and ethnicity on psychiatric diagnoses and clinical characteristics of children and adolescents in children's services.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 18–25.
20.
ObiakorF. E., & WilderL. K. (2003). Disproportionate representation in special education.Principal Leadership, 4(2), 17–21.
21.
PollowayE. A., EpsteinM. H., & BursuckW. D. (2003). Testing adaptations in the general education classroom: Challenges and directions.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 189–192.
22.
ReidR., GonzalezJ. E., NordessP. D., TroutA., & EpsteinM. H. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with emotional/behavioral disturbance.Journal of Special Education, 38, 130–143.
23.
RoachA. T., & ElliottS. N. (2006). The influence of access to the general education curriculum on alternative assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 181–194.
24.
SabornieE. J., CullinanD., OsborneS. S., & BrockL. B. (2005). Intellectual, academic, and behavioral functioning of students with high-incidence disabilities: A cross-categorical meta-analysis.Exceptional Children, 72, 47–63.
25.
ShrinerJ. G., & WehbyJ. H. (2004). Accountability and assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. In RutherfordR. B., QuinnM. M., & MathurS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of research in behavior disorders (pp. 216–231). New York: Guilford Press.
26.
ShrinerJ. G., YsseldykeJ. E., ThurlowM. L., & HonetschlagerD. (1994). “All” means “all”—including students with disabilities.Educational Leadership, 51(6), 38–42.
27.
SimpsonR. L. (2004). Inclusion of students with behavior disorders in general education settings: Research and measurement issues.Behavioral Disorders, 30, 19–31.
28.
SutherlandK. S., Lewis-PalmerT., StichterJ., & MorganP. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233.
29.
Texas Education Agency. (2002). Policy guidance for No Child Left Behind Public Law 107–110.Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Texas Education Agency. (2007). 2005–2006 academic excellence indicator system download of selected data [State Report]. Austin: Texas Education Agency. Internet site: http:www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/index.html (Accessed March 15, 2007).
33.
ThurlowM. (2002). Positive educational results for all children: The promises of standards-based reform.Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195–202.
34.
ThurlowM. L., HouseA. L., ScottD. L., & YsseldykeJ. E. (2000). Students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: State participation and accommodation policies.Journal of Special Education, 34, 154–163.
35.
ThurlowM. L., LazarusS. S., ThompsonS. J., & MorseA. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education, 38, 232–240.
36.
ThurlowM. L., & WileyH. I. (2006). A baseline perspective on disability subgroup reporting.Journal of Special Education, 39, 246–254.
37.
TroutA. L., NordnessP. D., PierceC. D., & EpsteinM. H. (2003). Research on the academic status of children with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961 to 2000.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 198–210.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
VannestK. J., HarveyK. T., & MasonB. A. (2009). Meeting annual yearly progress through better teaching for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Preventing School Failure, 53(2), 73–84.
42.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
43.
WehbyJ. H., LaneK. L., & FalkK. B. (2003). Academic instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 194–197.
44.
YsseldykeJ., NelsonR. J., ChristensonS., JohnsonD. R., DennisonA., & TriezenbergH. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 71, 75–94.
