NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NELS:88 Statistical Analysis Report June 1997

Profiles of Students with 

Disabilities as Identified

in NELS:88

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97–254
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NELS:88 Statistical Analysis Report June 1997

Profiles of Students with 

Disabilities as Identified

in NELS:88

Robert Rossi

Jerald Herting

Jean Wolman

American Institutes for Research

Peggy Quinn, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97–254
U.S .Departmen tofEducation

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Offic eofEducationa lResearc handImprovement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

Nationa lCente rforEducatio nStatistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

Survey sandCooperativ eSystem sGroup

Paul D. Planchon

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to

collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United

States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics;

assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on

education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data

to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data

users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety

of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively.

If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to

hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

June 1997

Contact:

Peggy Quinn

(202) 219-1743

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16-049099-5
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 iii

Highlights

About NELS:88

& The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), conducted by the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), began with a base-year survey of

8th-grade students in 1988, followed up at 2-year intervals in 1990, 1992, and 1994.

Because of its broad scope and longitudinal design, NELS:88 provides an important source

of data by which to examine the status and experiences of students as they progress from

middle school through the high school years.

& The NELS:88 base-year sample consisted of all U.S. public and private schools containing

eighth grades. Excluded from this sample, however, were special education schools,

ungraded classrooms, and students determined by local staff to be incapable of

participation in the survey for reasons of language or of mental or physical disability. As a

result, as many as one-half of the children with disabilities who are served under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were likely excluded from the

NELS:88 base-year sample. Further information about how the counts of students with

disabilities in the NELS sample compare to counts of students with disabilities under the

IDEA and in national longitudinal studies can be found in Appendix A (see also OSEP

1994; Wagner et al. 1993).

& The primary purposes of this report are to identify those students in NELS:88 who had or

may have had a disabling condition or received services related to such a condition, and to

examine their characteristics and their educational experiences and outcomes, as they

progressed from the eighth grade in 1988 into and out of high school in 1992. Another

purpose is to examine the alternative perceptions of disability status that are available

from the four different respondent groups in NELS:88 (parents, teachers, students, and

school officials) and to assess the extent to which these various perceptions affect

descriptions of the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of students with disabilities.

Using NELS:88 to Define Disability Status

& NELS:88 provides four different sources of information related to disability

status—parents, teachers, students, and school officials. Each of these sources responded to

different items relating to students’ disability status. For example, teacher perceptions of

students’ disability status was linked to students’ classroom performance, whereas parental

identification was linked to whether or not a student had ever received disability-related

services. As a result, all of these data sources produce different estimates of the disabled

population of students in grades 8-12.
iv Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

& The degree of overlap among students who identify themselves or are identified by parents,

teachers, or school officials as disabled is often quite low—that is, the populations of

students identified as disabled by these different sources appear to be somewhat separate

and distinct groups of students. Nonetheless, the patterns of difference between the

various disabled and nondisabled student groups that can be identified using NELS:88 data

appear rather similar to one another in many respects.

Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

& Students identified by teachers or parents as disabled in NELS:88 were more often male,

had lower scores on locus of control psychological measures, and were slightly older than

students not so identified. Students identified as disabled by teachers were more likely to

come from households headed by single females, to have lower individual socioeconomic

status (SES) and lower self-esteem, and to have parents with lower levels of education

than nondisabled students.

& Similar percentages of parent-identified disabled students and students in the nondisabled

population were members of minority groups (23.7 and 26.9 percent, respectively).

Among students identified as learning disabled by parents and teachers, teacher-identified

students were more likely to be black than were parent-identified students (16.6 percent

versus 7.9 percent, respectively). Black students were actually underrepresented among

those students classified by parents as learning disabled.

& Students who identified themselves as disabled were more likely than their nondisabled

counterparts to be male (60.8 percent versus 49.7 percent). Self-identified disabled

students also scored lower on locus of control psychological measures than did nondisabled

students. However, students who identified themselves as disabled were proportionally

represented in terms of race and had similar SES status as those students who did not

identify themselves as disabled.

The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

& Compared to students not identified as disabled in NELS:88, students identified by

teachers and parents as disabled took more remedial mathematics and English courses, had

earned fewer units in core curriculum areas, had more often repeated a grade prior to the

eighth grade, and were more likely to have participated in dropout prevention programs.

However, these students evidenced relatively low levels of participation in “special

education programs for the educationally or physically handicapped” (between 2.0 and

11.2 percent). In addition, students identified by teachers as disabled participated in

extracurricular activities to a lesser extent than nondisabled students.

& Students who identified themselves as disabled reported higher levels of participation in

remedial English and mathematics programs than did their nondisabled counterparts

(32.1 percent versus 18.7 percent and 42.9 percent versus 20.3 percent, respectively).

These students also reported that they and their parents participated in school-related

activities as frequently as parent-identified disabled students.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 v

Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

& Students identified by teachers and parents as disabled in NELS:88 earned lower high

school grades in core courses, scored lower on mathematics and reading proficiency tests,

and were more likely to drop out of school than their nondisabled counterparts. In

addition, these students reported lower educational expectations, for themselves and for

them by their parents, and were less prepared for higher education than their nondisabled

counterparts by virtue of not having taken the ACT or the SAT.

& Among the different disability categories, students identified by their parents as having

emotional problems recorded the lowest grades and the highest levels of school dropout.

Teacher- and parent-identified students with multiple disabilities and learning disabilities

recorded the lowest mathematics and reading proficiency levels.

& Self-identified students with disabilities reported comparable grades to nondisabled

students with the exception of English, but reported higher dropout rates and lower

mathematics and reading proficiency levels.

General Observations

& Students identified in NELS:88 as disabled tended to have greater difficulties in school and

realized fewer of the positive outcomes of schooling. These students were more often retained

in grade, enrolled in remedial classes, and placed in dropout prevention programs. Perhaps

as a result, they earned fewer credits in core curriculum areas, had lower educational

expectations, and had higher dropout rates than nondisabled students on average. The

severity of these sorts of education-related problems for disabled students did appear to

vary by type of disabling condition. For example, students with emotional problems were

shown to have among the highest dropout rates, while students with health problems

compared most favorably with nondisabled students with respect to several types of

outcomes. For these reasons, when the school experiences and outcomes of disabled

students are examined, it continues to be important to collect information and carry out

analyses separately for various specific disability categories.

& Relatively small percentages of students with disabilities as identified in NELS:88 perceived

themselves or were identified by school officials as having received special education services during

high school. The low reported participation rates in “programs for the educationally or

physically handicapped” and in special education programs may raise questions concerning

the adequacy with which students with special needs are identified and served in our

nation’s high schools, and the extent to which these students are being served in more

inclusive environments that might affect their awareness of being in a “special” program.

It should be noted, however, that not all children with disabilities need special school

services; for example, a child with a purely physical disability who receives the proper

medical services for that disability may not require special services. In addition, NELS:88

sampling procedures and instrumentation effectively may have removed from

consideration many students who would typically receive services under the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and may have led to the identification of students

at risk of educational failure generally as disabled students.
vi Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

& Teachers in NELS:88 were perceptive judges of which students were failing to perform well in the

classroom, but linking the identification of disability status to classroom performance may blur the

distinction between students with disabilities and students at risk. In NELS:88, teachers

identified students as disabled only if their condition affected their school work. As a

result, students whose disabilities did not affect their work would likely not have been

classified by teachers as disabled, and students whose disability status might have been

questionable but whose work in school was poor may have been classified by teachers as

disabled. Despite this vagueness in disability definitions, teacher reports of student

disability status often “overlapped” the reports made by different NELS:88 respondents.

And, the students identified by teachers as disabled (in contrast to those identified by

parents) also were found to have more of the sorts of personal characteristics, educational

experiences, and records of achievement one might associate with students in need of

special services (e.g., lower SES, higher participation in dropout prevention programs,

lower gains in reading proficiency). In the future, however, it will be important for survey

research efforts to separate perceptions of student disability status from their classroom

performance.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 vii

Table of Contents

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Chapter 1: Introduction .........................................................1

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 ..............................1

Purposes of This Report ......................................................3

Organization of This Report ..................................................3

Chapter 2: Identifying Students with Disabilities .....................................7

Federal Classification ........................................................7

International Classification ...................................................8

Classification of Students with Disabilities in National Longitudinal

Studies ................................................................9

Defining Disability Status Using NELS:88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Overlap Among Various NELS:88 Definitions of Disability Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3: Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Demographic and Family Characteristics of Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Psychological Profiles of Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Characteristics of School Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Characteristics of Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter 4: The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Retention and Participation in Remedial and Dropout

Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Participation in Special Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Participation of Base-Year Ineligible Students in Remedial,

Dropout Prevention, and Special Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Academic Experiences of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Experiences of Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
viii Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Chapter 5: Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Academic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Educational Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Dropout Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Outcomes for Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Characteristics of Populations Identified as Disabled by

Both Parents and Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Characteristics of Populations Identified as Disabled Only

by Teachers, Not by Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix A: NELS:88 Indicators of Disability and Comparisons with Other

National Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: NELS:88 Disability Estimates Based on Alternative Disability

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Standard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1— Alternative definitions of disability status using NELS:88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2.2— Overlap among populations identified as disabled by various data sources,

for students present for NELS:88 base-year, first, and second follow-up

surveys (unweighted percentages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 3.1— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who were male, the percentage who were minority, and

average age (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who were of various races (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who were in each SES quartile and had parents with various

education levels (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 3.4— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who lived in single female-headed households (NELS:88

Base-Year Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 3.5— Mean locus of control scores, over time, of students with disabilities

(NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys),

as identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.6— Mean self-concept scores, over time, of students with disabilities

(NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as

identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who were in different school environments and who received

free or reduced-price lunch (NELS:88 Base-Year School Survey) . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 3.8— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who were

male, members of minority groups, and in various SES quartiles

(NELS:88 Base-Year Student and Parent Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3.9— Mean self-concept and locus of control scores of students who identified

themselves as disabled (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . 29

Table 4.1— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and
x Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

teachers, who ever repeated a grade prior to eighth grade (NELS:88

Base-Year Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 4.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who reported ever having participated in remedial English or

mathematics programs during high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 4.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who reported having participated in high school dropout

prevention programs (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . 34

Table 4.4— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who reported having participated in programs for the

educationally or physically handicapped (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 4.5— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who participated in special education (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Transcript Component) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 4.6— Total units in core subjects completed by students with disabilities

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript Component), as identified

by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 4.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who were involved in school sports and extracurricular

activities and whose parents were involved in PTA (NELS:88

Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.8— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who

participated in remedial English or remedial math programs in high

school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 4.9— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who

were involved in school sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents

were involved in PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and

Second Follow-up Student Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 5.1— Average high school grade in English, mathematics, and science of

students with disabilities (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript

Component), as identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 5.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who achieved various levels of twelfth-grade proficiency in

mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 5.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who achieved various levels of proficiency in reading
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 xi

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 a

Table 5.4— Gains in IRT-estimated number right for reading and mathematics

tests, Base Year to Second Follow-up, among students with disabilities

(NELS:88 Base-Year and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as

identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 5.5— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who held or whose parents held various levels of educational

expectations (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student and Parent Surveys) . . . 50

Table 5.6— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who reported that they had completed or intended to

complete the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American

College Test (ACT) (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . 52

Table 5.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and

teachers, who dropped out of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 5.8— Average high school grade in English, mathematics, and science, and

percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who

dropped out of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up and Second

Follow-up Transcript Component) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5.9— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who

achieved various levels of proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5.10— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who

achieved various levels of proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix Tables

Table A.1— Primary indicators of disability in NELS:88 (variable name and items) . . A-3

Table A.2— Comparison of disability indicators in NELS:88 and High School and

Beyond (HS&B) with federal disability categories and NLTS . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Table A.3— Data sets on disability prevalence among children in the United States . A-8

Table A.4— Distribution of students with disabilities being served by special

education programs, by disability category ......................... A-11

Table B.1— Alternative approaches to definition disability status using the

NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
xii Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table B.2— Definition of clusters of disabilities based on problems and services

reported by parents during the NELS:88 Base-Year Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Table B.3— Alternative approaches to defining disability using NELS:88

Base-Year and First Follow-up Teacher Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4

Table B.4— Alternative approaches to defining disability status using NELS:88

First Follow-up Teacher Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6

Table B.5— Alternative approaches to defining disability status using NELS:88

First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7

Table B.6— Comparison of (unweighted) students’ responses regarding special

education placements in high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8

Table C.3.1— Standard errors (for table 3.1) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who were male, the percentage who

were minority, and average age (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student

Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

Table C.3.2— Standard errors (for table 3.2) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who were of various races

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4

Table C.3.3— Standard errors (for table 3.3) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who were in each SES quartile

and had parents with various education levels (NELS:88 Base-Year

Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C.3.4— Standard errors (for table 3.4) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who lived in single female-headed

households (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6

Table C.3.5— Standard errors (for table 3.5) of mean locus of control scores,

over time, of students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year, First,

and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by parents

and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

Table C.3.6— Standard errors (for table 3.6) of mean self-concept scores, over time,

of students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second

Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . C-8
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 xiii

Table C.3.7— Standard errors (for table 3.7) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who were in different school

environments and who received free or reduced-price lunch

(NELS:88 Base-Year School Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9

Table C.3.8— Standard errors (for table 3.8) of percentage of students who identified

themselves as disabled, who were male, members of minority groups,

and in various SES quartiles (NELS:88 Base-Year Student and Parent

Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10

Table C.3.9— Standard errors (for table 3.9) of mean self-concept and locus of control

scores of students who identified themselves as disabled (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11

Table C.4.1— Standard errors (for table 4.1) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who ever repeated a grade prior to

eighth grade (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12

Table C.4.2— Standard errors (for table 4.2) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who reported ever having

participated in remedial English or mathematics programs during

high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . C-13

Table C.4.3— Standard errors (for table 4.3) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who reported having participated

in high school dropout prevention programs (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14

Table C.4.4— Standard errors (for table 4.4) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who reported having participated

in programs for the educationally or physically handicapped (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15

Table C.4.5— Standard errors (for table 4.5) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who participated

in special education (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript

Component) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16

Table C.4.6— Standard errors (for table 4.6) of total units in core subjects completed

by students with disabilities (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript

Component), as identified by parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17

Table C.4.7— Standard errors for (table 4.7) of percentage of students with disabilities,

as identified by parents and teachers, who were involved in school

sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents were involved

in PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up

Student Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18

Table C.4.8— Standard errors (for table 4.8) of percentage of students who identified

themselves as disabled who participated in remedial English or
xiv Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

remedial math programs in high school (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19

Table C.4.9— Standard errors (for table 4.9) of percentage of students who

identified themselves as disabled who were involved in school

sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents were

involved in PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and Second

Follow-up Student Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-20

Table C.5.1— Standard errors (for table 5.1) of average high school grade in English,

mathematics, and science of students with disabilities (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Transcript Component), as identified by parents

and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-21

Table C.5.2— Standard errors (for table 5.2) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who achieved

various levels of twelfth-grade proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-21

Table C.5.3— Standard errors (for table 5.3) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who achieved

various levels of proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-23

Table C.5.4— Standard errors (for table 5.4) of gains in IRT-estimated number

right for reading and mathematics tests, Base Year to Second

Follow-up, among students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year

and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by

parents and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-24

Table C.5.5— Standard errors (for table 5.5) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who held or

whose parents held various levels of educational expectations

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student and Parent Surveys) . . . . . . . . . . . C-25

Table C.5.6— Standard errors (for table 5.6) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who reported that

they had completed or intended to complete the Scholastic

Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT)

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-26

Table C.5.7— Standard errors (for table 5.7) of percentage of students with

disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who dropped

out of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . . . . . C-27

Table C.5.8— Standard errors (for table 5.8) of average high school grade in

English, mathematics, and science and percentage of students who

identified themselves as disabled who dropped out of high school

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up and Second Follow-up Transcript

Component) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-28
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 xv

Table C.5.9— Standard errors (for table 5.9) of percentage of students who

identified themselves as disabled, who achieved various levels

of proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-29

Table C.5.10— Standard errors (for table 5.10) of percentage of students who

identified themselves as disabled, who achieved various levels of

proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey) . . C-30
xvi Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 xvii

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to the production of this report. Among

staff of the John C. Flanagan Research Center, American Institutes for Research, special

mention goes to Thuy Thanh Dao, Katie Goya, and Grace Wu for their capable production of

tables; Gur Hoshen for his programming assistance; and Shannon Daugherty, Phyllis DuBois,

and Michelle Bullwinkle for their editorial assistance. Thanks also must go to Donald

McLaughlin for his careful review of methodology and insightful comments on the conclusions

drawn.

We are also grateful to Diane Krasner, The Foundation for Employment & Disability; William

D. Frey, American Institutes for Research; Maggie McLaughlin, University of Maryland; and

Deborah Spitz and Greg Frane, Office of the Undersecretary, for sharing their ideas and work

during this task.

The project officer was Peggy Quinn of the Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group of the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The authors also gratefully acknowledge

the comments and suggestions of the NCES reviewers: Robert Burton, Marilyn McMillen, and

Jim Houser.
xviii Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
 P.L. 94-142 was initially enacted as the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and 1

succeeded earlier federal legislation to provide grants to states to support the education of children with

disabilities. P.L. 94-142 has undergone a series of amendments, including P.L. 101-476, the Education

of the Handicapped Amendments of 1990, which renamed the earlier legislation the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and, among other things, substituted the term “disabilities” for

“handicapped” throughout the Act.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), providing special programs and services 1

for students with disabilities has become a major component of the nation’s overall education

enterprise. As a result, education practitioners, researchers, and policymakers at all levels have

been keenly interested in better understanding the characteristics, educational experiences,

and outcomes of students with disabilities. These practitioners have also been interested in

better assessing the degree to which the spirit and mandates of the IDEA are being carried out

by state and local education agencies to meet the needs of this specially challenged population

of youth. Of particular interest is the quality of the educational experiences of these students

in the context of their transition from school to work or to postsecondary education.

A decade ago, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of

Education published a report entitled Characteristics of High School Students Who Identify

Themselves as Handicapped (Owings and Stocking 1985), based on data from the High School

and Beyond (HS&B) surveys of high school sophomores and seniors in 1980 and 1982. This

report provided the basis for examining the status and experiences of secondary students with

disabilities at the national level and for meeting the information needs described above. With

the development of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), the means

are available to update and expand upon this earlier report with nationally representative,

longitudinal data on students in grades 8 through 12.

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988

In accordance with its congressional mandate to collect and disseminate statistics and

statistical analyses, and in response to the need for policy-relevant, longitudinal data on

nationally representative samples of elementary and secondary students, NCES initiated a

continuing, long-term program called the National Education Longitudinal Studies (NELS).

The goal of this program is “to study the educational, vocational, and personal development of

students at various grade levels, and the personal, familial, social, institutional, and cultural

factors that may affect that development” (NCES 1994). NELS:88 represents the third major
Introduction

 A fourth follow-up is tentatively scheduled for 1998. 2

2 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

study in the NELS program, and follows the National Longitudinal Study of the High School

Class of 1972 (NLS-72) and the High School and Beyond (HS&B) study of 1980.

NELS:88 began with a base-year survey of eighth-grade students in 1988, followed up at 2-year

intervals in 1990, 1992, and 1994. NELS:88 collected data from more than 20,000 students, 2

as well as their parents, teachers, school principals, and high school transcripts. The study

entails a complex sampling design, which includes such features as augmentation (through

“freshening”) to provide a representative sample of students at each phase of the survey (i.e., to

represent the tenth-grade population in 1990 and the twelfth-grade population in 1992); the

follow-up and subsequent inclusion of students who were not eligible to participate during the

base year (base-year-ineligible, or BYI students) or who dropped out of school; and a complex

set of case weights that support longitudinal analyses and combinations of data from student,

parent, and teacher surveys.

The target population for the NELS:88 base-year survey consisted of all public and private

schools containing eighth grades in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Excluded from

the NELS:88 sample were Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools, special education schools for

the disabled, area vocational schools that did not enroll students directly, and schools for

dependents of U.S. personnel overseas. Within eligible schools, ungraded classrooms were not

included in the NELS:88 sample.

The population of sampled eighth-grade students excluded students with severe mental

disabilities, students whose command of the English language was not sufficient for

understanding the survey materials (especially the cognitive tests), and students with physical

or emotional problems that would have made it unduly difficult for them to have participated

in the survey. Eligibility decisions for students were made on an individual basis by school

staff; school coordinators were told that when there was doubt, they should consider the

student capable of participating in the survey.

By these procedures, a total of 5.35 percent of the potential student sample was excluded for

reasons of mental disability (3.04 percent), limited English proficiency (1.90 percent), and

physical or emotional problem (0.41 percent). Students thus excluded from base-year

participation were followed and many were included in subsequent follow-up surveys.

As a result of the exclusions discussed above, as many as one-half of the children with

disabilities who are served under the IDEA were likely excluded from the NELS:88 base-year

sample. For this reason, the NELS:88 data should not be considered representative of children

with disabilities as identified under the IDEA. At the same time, the NELS:88 data set does

allow for comprehensive examination of students perceived by parents, teachers, school

officials, and by students themselves as having disabilities and the roles that school and home

environments play in promoting their growth and achievement of positive (or negative)

outcomes.
Introduction

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 3

Purposes of This Report

The primary purposes of this report are (1) to identify those students in NELS:88 who had or

may have had a disabling condition or received services related to such a condition and (2) to

examine their personal and family characteristics and their educational experiences and

outcomes as they progress from the eighth grade in 1988 into and out of high school in 1992.

Several data sources available in NELS:88 are used to identify and describe these students in

this report. In particular, parent surveys in the base year (1988), teacher surveys in the first

follow-up (1990), student surveys in the first and second (1992) follow-ups, and information

related to special education participation collected from high school officials for inclusion in

the high school transcript file are used to identify students with disabilities. In addition, select

data from the base-year and first and second follow-up surveys are used to describe the

populations of students identified as disabled by these various sources. A third purpose of this

report is to examine the alternative definitions of disability that are available from these

diverse data sources in NELS:88 and to assess the extent to which these various definitions

influence descriptions of the characteristics, educational experiences, and outcomes of students

with disabilities.

This report is one of a series of NCES reports analyzing NELS:88 data in order to address key

policy issues and fundamental questions related to the development of our nation’s youth and

their educational infrastructure. This particular report—on the profiles of youth with

disabilities as identified in NELS:88—is designed to provide useful information to federal,

state, and local policymakers and agency program staff, and to education researchers,

practitioners, and advocacy groups concerned about improving services for students with

disabilities. Collectively, these audiences will be interested in deriving meaningful estimates of

the numbers of students with specific disabilities, discerning trends over time related to this

population, and describing the education-related experiences of students with disabilities and

the effects of these experiences on students’ educational performance and expectations.

Organization of This Report

The remainder of this report is organized around key topics and related research questions that

must be addressed to achieve the objectives described above. In the discussion of a particular

topic (e.g., demographic characteristics), comparisons are made between populations of

students with and without disabilities as a whole, focusing on two primary sources of

information regarding disability status—parents and teachers of the students surveyed in

NELS:88. These sources permit further comparisons to be made between students identified as

having specific types of disabilities (e.g., learning disability, physical disability, sensory

disability) and those students not identified as disabled. Supplementing the data based on

parent and teacher reports are selected comparisons based on student self-definitions of

disability status. Each chapter is described briefly below.

Chapter 2. Identifying Students with Disabilities addresses questions such as the following:

How is the disability status of children and youth determined in NELS:88 and other major national

surveys, such as HS&B? Which of the alternative definitions of disability status available in NELS:88

provides useful bases from which to examine educational experiences and outcomes? To what extent

are there overlaps among these various disability definitions? To address these questions, chapter 2

outlines various ways students with disabilities have been identified and classified for eligibility

in federal programs and data collection activities; reviews the indicators in NELS:88 related to
Introduction

4 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

disability status and disability-related services received, providing rationales for use of a

selected set of these indicators in subsequent analyses; and describes the extent of overlap

among these NELS:88 indicators.

Chapter 3. Personal and Family Characteristics of Students with Disabilities answers the

following questions in terms of the NELS:88 data set: How can students with disabilities be

described in terms of key demographic characteristics, family background and socioeconomic level, and

self-concept; and do these descriptions vary across data sources? More specifically, chapter 3

examines ascribed characteristics such as age, sex, and minority status; contextual

characteristics including socioeconomic status, family status (i.e., single-parent household),

and parent education; and personal psychological characteristics including self-concept and

locus of control.

Chapter 4. Educational Experiences of Students with Disabilities primarily addresses this

question: What types of curricular, extracurricular, and special programs (including special

education) comprise the educational experiences of students with and without disabilities?

Specifically, this chapter describes the educational and school-based experiences of these

students in terms of significant course-taking patterns (e.g., course enrollment and units

taken), grade-level retention, and participation in special or alternative high school programs

and extracurricular activities. Where analyses involve data from student transcripts, the

eighth-grade to twelfth-grade transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT) rather than the eighthgrade to twelfth-grade panel weight (F2PNLWT) is used. Exploratory analyses of the

participation in special programs of students who were initially excused from NELS:88 because

of mental disability (the Base-Year Ineligible, or BYI, sample) and subsequently returned to the

sample in the first and second follow-up surveys are unweighted; weights were never developed

for students who were not actually sampled.

Chapter 5. Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities focuses on these important

questions: What is the academic performance of students with disabilities? To what extent do these

students disengage from education entirely? What are their expectations with respect to high school

graduation and continued education? In addressing these questions, chapter 5 focuses on the

educational outcomes of students identified in NELS:88 as disabled, including educational

achievement, expectations, and disengagement (i.e., dropout status).

Chapter 6. Conclusion and Implications summarizes the key findings of this report related to

the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of students identified in NELS:88 as disabled. It

also summarizes findings related to definitions of this population based on NELS:88, and it

provides suggestions to help researchers and practitioners who are involved in studying

students with disabilities to make effective use of the NELS:88 data set.

Technical Appendices are also included at the end of the report to assist readers of the report

and researchers who use NELS:88 data to examine students with disabilities.

Appendix A. NELS:88 Indicators of Disability Status and Comparisons with Other

National Data Sets examines the following questions: How do the national estimates of student

disability status provided by major data sets differ? What are the implications of the policy of excluding

respondents, including students with disabilities, from national surveys or standardized tests, in terms

of potential bias and underrepresentation? This appendix supplements the discussion of chapter 2

by providing a list of the actual indicators in NELS:88 related to disability status and
Introduction

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 5

disability-related services received. It then compares estimates based on NELS:88 and other

sources of the prevalence of students with disabilities in the general population and estimates

of the distribution of disabled students among various special education service categories.

Appendix B. NELS:88 Disability Estimates Based on Alternative Disability Definitions

addresses primarily these questions: How consistent are student, parent, teacher, and transcript

reports of disability status—with each other and over time? What are the implications of different

reports of disability status for the analyses presented in this report? This appendix supplements

chapter 2 as it describes the unweighted sample sizes and the weighted population percentages

for the student populations that can be defined from various NELS:88 data sources

(i.e., parents, teachers, students, and school officials).

Appendix C. Standard Errors provides the standard errors to accompany each of the data

tables presented in the report. Note that these standard errors apply to the point estimates

included in the tables; they may not be used to assess statistical significance of particular

comparisons, as special standard error estimates were developed in these cases to adjust for

nonindependence of the groups being compared.

Appendix D. Technical Notes provides a description of NELS:88 and of the statistical

procedures used for this report.
6 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
 Deafness is sometimes included with hearing impairment as a single category. 3

 Autism and traumatic brain injury (TBI) were added to the list of federal categories in 1990. 4

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 7

Chapter 2

Identifying Students with Disabilities

One of the challenges of characterizing students as having disabilities, particularly when using

extant data sources, is defining the population of interest. Since a standardized definition of

disability status does not currently exist, various working definitions of disability status have

been used to establish eligibility for special education programs, to guide research activities,

and to describe specific populations (e.g., in terms of their characteristics and outcomes).

Federal Classification

Currently, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the following

disability categories are used for eligibility and reporting:

1. specific learning disability

2. speech or language impairment

3. mental retardation

4. serious emotional disturbance

5. multiple disabilities

6. hearing impairment3

7. deafness3

8. orthopedic impairment

9. other health impairment

10. visual impairment or blindness

11. autism4

12. traumatic brain injury4

13. deaf-blindness

Despite the apparently distinct nature of these federal categories, in practice state and local

education agencies may apply these definitions differently in determining eligibility for special

education services. In fact, the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) found

considerable variation in the use of these categories across 19 national data collection

programs that it studied (see OSEP 1994, table 5.8, as cited in Ingels 1995). These differences

result in substantial variations among states in the percentages of students identified as eligible

for special education services and in the proportions of students identified within the different

disability categories. For example, the 16th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of
Identifying Students with Disabilities

 These data were abstracted from table AA25 (OSEP 1994). See Appendix A for more details. 5

8 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (OSEP 1994) reported, for the 1991-92 school

year, overall percentages of students with disabilities ranging from a low of 5.2 percent in

Hawaii to a high of 11.5 percent in Massachusetts; and percentages of students with specific

learning disabilities ranging from a low of 2.2 percent in Florida to a high of 7.0 percent in

Massachusetts.5

Although some amount of these regional variations may reflect actual differences in the

relative sizes of disabled populations, much of the variation may be attributed to “differences

in either formal or practical definitional criteria, or both” for identifying students with

disabilities (Owings and Stocking 1985). Under the IDEA, for example, the term “children

with disabilities” refers to children who have been evaluated and found to have a disabling

condition that causes them to need special education services; however, many children with

impairments do not require special education services, although they may receive remedial

education services, accommodations, or other specialized services or instruction. In addition,

the variation in the estimated sizes of disabled populations is true particularly for those

disability categories that involve greater subjective judgments for classification, such as specific

learning disabilities and serious emotional disturbance. (In fact, a controversial plan to change

the definition of “serious emotional disturbance” has been under debate for several years—e.g.,

The Special Educator, March 4, 1995.)

In part because of these definitional ambiguities, the very concept of categorizing disabilities

has increasingly become a subject of debate. The U.S. Department of Education, for example,

has recommended that the collection of state-reported data on children by disability categories

be eliminated. This recommendation also includes a provision stating that the law does not

require children to be classified by their impairment.

Despite the fact that existing definitions of disability may be applied in various ways, there is

an extensive research base on the issues surrounding disability classification for educational

purposes. Furthermore, all of the policies mentioned above do share a common construct of

disability—i.e., that students must demonstrate a functional disability in one or more major

life functions.

International Classification

The definition of disability status is a challenge that goes beyond U.S. boundaries. For

example, the World Health Organization has taken steps to develop the International

Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH) in order to define and

record the incidence of disabilities worldwide in a standardized fashion. The ICIDH represents

an ambitious undertaking to distinguish among impairments (i.e., chronic health conditions),

disabilities (i.e., limitations in performing specific activities), and handicaps (i.e., disadvantages

resulting from these conditions or limitations). Although currently the United States is far

from formally adopting this system as a guide to monitoring and reporting on disability status,

the impetus provided by the ICIDH to reconsider disability classifications has led to U.S.

efforts to clarify the ICIDH system (e.g., Frey et al. 1994). Development of the ICIDH has also

prompted efforts to estimate disability rates based on extant national data sources in

accordance with the ICIDH framework (Westat, Inc. 1994).
Identifying Students with Disabilities

 The 1982 HS&B student survey used the following response categories to determine disability status: 6

visual handicap (not correctable by glasses), hard of hearing, deafness, speech disability, orthopedic

handicap, other physical disability or handicap, specific learning disability, and none of these conditions.

In the first 1980 HS&B survey, because of ambiguous wording, only five categories could be used to

identify disability status: hard of hearing, deafness, speech disability, orthopedic handicap, and specific

learning disability.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 9

Classification of Students with Disabilities in National Longitudinal

Studies

National longitudinal studies are a potentially rich source of information about students with

disabilities. However, since the approaches used to assess disability status in these studies may

vary considerably, it is often not possible to compare their results. Consider the differences in

approach of three of the most prominent studies undertaken since 1980: the National

Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), High School and

Beyond (HS&B), and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). In

addition to the discussion below, appendix A contains more details on these national studies.

National Longitudinal Transition Study

The NLTS was a federally mandated, 5-year study that began in 1987. It was the first national

study designed specifically to describe the characteristics and transition experiences of

secondary school students with disabilities over time. The NLTS included a nationally

representative sample of 8,000 secondary special education students, ages 13-21. The student

sample was selected from rosters of special education students, classified by federal disability

category, which were provided by school districts. Broad in scope, the NLTS gathered baseline

and follow-up data on these students in 1987 and 1990 on a wide range of variables including

individual and family characteristics, parental expectations, school programs and services,

school achievement and completion, and characteristics of employment and postsecondary

educational experiences. The study has yielded numerous papers and publications focusing on

the secondary and postsecondary experiences of youth with disabilities in general and of

specific subpopulations such as youth with serious emotional disturbances and learning

disabilities (Wagner et al., 1993).

High School and Beyond

HS&B relied on student self-reports as the primary indicators of disability status, using eight

specific disability categories. Secondary indicators were provided by teacher reports that 6

students had or may have had a “physical or emotional handicap that affected [their]

schoolwork.” In a 1985 NCES report entitled Characteristics of High School Students Who

Identify Themselves as Handicapped, Owings and Stocking used HS&B data to examine the

stability over time of student reports of disability status. They also associated disability status

at points in time with indicators of psychological status and school performance to determine

the individual-level correlates of perceived disability status. In the course of this work, the

self- versus other-definition of disability status emerged as a topic worthy of further study,

along with interest in comparing the experiences of students classified as disabled by self-report

and by teacher appraisal.
Identifying Students with Disabilities

 The NELS:88 parent survey used the following response categories to determine disability status: 7

visual handicap (not correctable by glasses), hearing problem, deafness, speech problem, orthopedic

problem, other physical disability, specific learning problem, emotional problem, mental retardation, and

other health problem. The survey did not provide a definition for the last category, “other health

problem”; see Appendix A for the exact wording of this item. The parent survey used the same

categories to probe for receipt of disability-related services.

 Teachers were not asked at the second follow-up in NELS:88 whether students may have had 8

disabilities or health problems that were affecting their schoolwork.

 The variable F2RSPFLG is included in the NELS:88 database to indicate whether the student had 9

participated in a special education program during high school. During the second follow-up (Fall 1992),

personnel in approximately 1,500 sampled schools assembled transcripts for students in the NELS:88

sample, following specifications provided by NCES. A “Student Program Identification Sheet” was used

to identify students who had been enrolled in a special education program (or a bilingual or gifted

program) during high school.

10 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988

NELS:88 did not ask students directly about their disability status. Rather, parents in the baseyear NELS:88 survey were the primary source of information related to specific disability status

and special services received by eighth-grade students (using 10 disability status and

10 disability service categories, similar though not identical to the federal eligibility

categories). On a more limited basis and using different indicators, two teachers for each 7

student also provided their perceptions of whether students may have had disabilities that were

affecting their schoolwork. At base year and first follow-up, teachers were asked to indicate

whether students had ever fallen behind in school work because of a health problem, and

whether students currently had a physical or emotional handicap that was affecting their

school work. At first follow-up only, teachers were asked whether students currently had a

learning disability that was affecting their school work.8

Although not asked to report directly on disability status, students at the first and second

follow-ups were asked to report whether they had ever been in a “special program for the

educationally or physically handicapped” in high school. In addition, students at the second

follow-up were asked whether they were currently in a special education program. School staff

at the second follow-up also were asked to provide information on whether a student had been

enrolled in a special education program at some time during high school.9

Defining Disability Status Using NELS:88

NELS:88 provides four different sources of information related to the disability status of

students surveyed: parents, teachers, students, and school officials responsible for providing

student transcripts. A variety of survey items and indicators drawn from these sources may be

used alone or in combination to define disability status for further analyses. This wealth of

data makes it possible to compare estimates derived from different disability definitions and to

select definitions for use that meet a range of conceptual and sample-size requirements.
Identifying Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 11

Students Identified by Parents as Disabled

Parents in the base-year survey were the only respondents in NELS:88 to be asked whether

students had a specific disability-related problem and whether they had ever received special

services for that problem. Parents could indicate that their child had any one or more of the

following 10 disability-related problems and/or services received: visual handicap (not

correctable by glasses), hearing problem, deafness, speech problem, orthopedic problem, other

physical disability, specific learning problem, emotional problem, mental retardation, or other

health problem. In addition, during the base year, parents were asked whether students

currently were receiving services for problems related to a learning disability or an orthopedic

problem.

Although parents may not be trained professionals in diagnosing disability conditions, their

perceptions of their children matter a great deal (i.e., these perceptions may affect their

expectations for their children and can shape students’ attitudes about themselves). For this

reason, these parent-derived indicators of disability status are important to consider. More

specifically, these indicators can be used to define populations of disabled students in four

ways:

1. having one or more disability-related problems

2. having ever received one or more disability-related services

3. having one or more disability-related problems OR having ever received one or more

disability-related services

4. having one or more disability-related problems AND having ever received one or

more disability-related services

As has been argued in the literature (e.g., Hodapp and Krasner 1994), the fourth definition

may well lessen the inadvertent errors that parents might have made in identifying their

children as disabled. In addition, this definition provides some implied indication of

agreement on disability status by parents and schools, in that parents indicate disability-related

problem(s) and related services received, and such services would be provided only if school

staff identify the legitimate need for such service(s). For these reasons, this definition of disability

status likely provides a more reliable basis from which to explore population differences and is the one

based on parents’ responses that we use for purposes of analysis in this report.

Students Identified by Teachers as Disabled

In the base-year and the first follow-up NELS:88 surveys, each of two teachers was asked to

identify (1) students who had ever fallen behind in school work because of health problems,

and (2) students who had physical or emotional handicaps that were affecting their school

work. It is important to keep in mind that this method of identification of disability status

directly links a student’s disability status with his/her classroom performance—a method of

identification that differs from the other NELS:88 sources considered in this report and that

likely affects the numbers of students that teachers perceived to be disabled.

During the first follow-up only, these two teachers were also asked to identify students who had

a learning disability that affected their school work. (In the second follow-up, teachers were

not asked any questions related to students’ disability or health status.) The teacherrespondents at each of these time-points were not special educators; rather, they were
Identifying Students with Disabilities

12 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

instructional staff selected from the following four subject areas: mathematics, English, science,

and social studies.

For this study, teacher responses at the first follow-up were of greatest interest because they included

the identification of learning disabled students. Because learning disabilities, for example, may

manifest themselves in the contexts of specific subject-matter areas, a student was considered

as learning disabled if either teacher described him or her in this way. This approach was also

followed for health problems and physical or emotional handicaps; that is, these disabilities

were attributed to students if either teacher reported them.

Student Self-identification of Disability Status

Although parents and, to a somewhat lesser degree, teachers are the primary identifiers of

student disability status in specific disability categories in NELS:88, the data set does include

several disability-related indicators based on student self-reports. Specifically, NELS:88 asked

students to report (1) at the first and second follow-ups whether they had ever been in a

“special program for the educationally or physically handicapped” in high school (separate

indicators for educational and physical handicap), and (2) at the second follow-up whether

they were currently enrolled in a special education program. Although these indicators do not

provide any sense of the types of disabilities that might have served as the basis for students’

responses, they may be used to describe the characteristics of students who perceived

themselves (or who may have perceived that others considered them) as disabled in some way.

Since the wording of the student indicators in the first and second follow-ups was identical, it

might be expected that responses at the second follow-up would “include” the responses made

earlier (i.e., that students surveyed in both follow-ups who responded positively to either item

in 1990 would also have responded positively to the identical item in 1992, as both refer to

having ever been placed in a special program). The data in this case, however, suggest that the

two measures are more independent than would be expected. For example, in the case of

either reported placement, over one-half of the students who responded to both surveys and

reported at first follow-up that they had ever been in a special program no longer reported any

such placement by their senior years. This inconsistency may be the result of students’ not

remembering their earlier high school experiences, or it may be additional evidence of the

transitory nature of selected disability self-identifications (see, for example, Owings and

Stocking 1985). In any case, the responses from students to these items at either follow-up

appear to provide independent evidence of disability status.

Separate examination of student-defined disabled populations based on NELS:88 first and second

follow-up data collections permits interesting comparisons with the data on students’ disability status

from other sources. For example, the disability population defined by students’ first follow-up

responses can be compared to the populations defined by the responses of first follow-up

teachers. In a similar vein, the population defined by students’ second follow-up responses can

be compared to the indicator of special education program participation provided by the

NELS:88 transcript file, which was based on school officials’ judgment (see below). By

combining student samples at each point in time (i.e., sophomores at first follow-up and

seniors at second follow-up) who reported participating in programs for either the physically or

educationally handicapped in high school, we can compare (1) the population estimates

derived from these indicators to those based on the first follow-up teacher and second followup transcript file indicators, (2) the extent to which these definitions overlap for particular
Identifying Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 13

students, and (3) the school-related experiences and outcomes of “self-defined” versus “otherdefined” special education students. This latter type of comparison is of particular interest

because HS&B used student self-defined measures of disability status, and the differential

characteristics of self-defined versus other-defined disabled populations were examined

(e.g., Owings and Stocking 1985). In the following chapters, we limit our focus in this report to

the student-defined disabled population identified at the NELS:88 first follow-up, since it is the

definition most proximate in time to those provided by parents and teachers.

Students Identified by School Officials as Disabled

At the time of the NELS:88 second follow-up in 1992, transcripts were requested from all

participating students in a sample of 1,500 public and private high schools. At the time

transcripts were collected from each school, school officials were asked to complete a checklist

for each participating student and to indicate, among other things, whether the student had

ever participated in special education programs during high school. The estimates of students

participating in special education based on these checklist responses are drawn from two

categories: students judged to have participated in special education, and students judged to

have participated in both special education and bilingual education. At the same time of the

second follow-up, 555 students were reported as having been special education participants in high

school, and 8 additional students were reported as having been identified as both special education and

bilingual education participants (i.e., a total, when these categories are combined and the

transcript weight (F2TRSCWT) is applied, of approximately 4 percent of enrolled high school

seniors in 1992). As suggested earlier for future exploratory studies, the population of disabled

students identified by school officials may be compared to the population of students at the

second follow-up who reported they had ever participated in programs for the educationally or

physically handicapped while in high school. This indicator provided by school officials of

high school participation in special education programs also provides a measure of the special

education services received by students defined as disabled from other data sources

(i.e., parents at the base year, and teachers or students at the first follow-up).

Overlap Among Various NELS:88 Definitions of Disability Status

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide information on (1) the different sources and definitions of

disability status in NELS:88, and (2) the overlap among the populations identified as disabled

by the various NELS:88 sources.

Table 2.1 summarizes the alternative definitions of disability status based on NELS:88 that are

featured in this report. For each source of disability status (i.e., parents, teachers, students, and

school officials), the table indicates both the unweighted number and the weighted

percentages of disabled and nondisabled students from each of two samples: (1) the nationally

representative cross-sectional sample taken separately at each NELS survey point, and (2) the

longitudinal sample of the same cohort of students in each NELS wave. Please note that the

clustering of disabilities shown in table 2.1 as identified by parents is based on consideration of

both the similarities of particular disability types and the need for comparability with the other

disability indicators available from NELS:88. Also note that a “multiple problems” category

has been added to both the parent and teacher definitions so that students identified as having

more than one disabling condition can be examined separately, in addition to being included

in those disability categories for which they were (also) identified—i.e., a student identified as
Identifying Students with Disabilities

14 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

having two disabling conditions would be counted in two separate disability categories, as well

as in the “multiple problems” category.

When these definitions are examined, it is important to keep in mind the differences in the

sources of the definitions (i.e., parent, teacher, and school official), the item-wordings that

were used to elicit responses from these sources, and the timing of the survey administrations.

Differences in perceptions of disability status, for example, and perceived and actual changes in

disability status over time can be expected to occur and have been documented (e.g., Owings

and Stocking 1985). In short, these different methods of identifying disabled students might

be expected to produce rather distinctive student groups, and table 2.2 confirms this by crossreferencing the populations defined in table 2.1.

Table 2.2 strongly suggests that this report examines separate and distinct populations of

students and that comparisons among these populations should be made with care. For

example, about one-half of the 1,602 students identified by parents in the base year as disabled

were similarly identified by teachers at the time of the first follow-up. Of those students

identified as disabled by teachers at first follow-up, only 6.3 percent identified themselves at

the first follow-up as having been served in special programs for the educationally or physically

handicapped. In addition, about one-fifth of the 188 BYI students with mental disabilities (see

appendix A) who participated in the first or second follow-up reported having been served in

special education programs in high school, while just over half of these students were reported

by school officials to have been served.

In this chapter, we have set the stage for the remainder of this report, which will describe the

characteristics, educational experiences, and outcomes of students who participated in

NELS:88 and were identified as disabled. We have reviewed the differences in the ways

various national data sets identify and classify students with disabilities, and we have suggested

various indicators from NELS:88 that can be used to describe the experiences of disabled

populations. The presentations in appendices A and B supplement the discussion of this

chapter by providing additional detail about the NELS:88 indicators related to disability.

Specifically, appendix A lists the actual items included on the various NELS:88 surveys that

might be used to define disability status or services received and compares disability prevalence

estimates based on NELS:88 to those estimated from other selected national surveys and

federal disability categories. Appendix B compares estimates based on alternative disability

definitions that may be developed for various NELS:88 data sources (i.e., parents, teachers, and

students).
Identifying Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 15

Table 2.1— Alternative definitions of disability status using NELS:88

Cross-sectional Longitudinal a a

Source and Disability Variable(s) Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. %

Parent (base year) (BYQWT) (F2PNLWT)

Not identified 19,517 88.3 13,594 88.7

Identified BYP47 and BYP48 2,519 11.7 1,602 11.3

Multiple problems (MULT) More than one of 321 1.5 181 1.4 b

LD, HP, or PE

Learning disabled (LD) g or i 1,164 5.4 763 5.3

Health problem (HP) j 446 1.9 283 1.9

Phys’l/Emot’l problem (PE) a, b, c, d, e, f, or h 1,257 5.7 754 5.3

Physical disability (P) e or f 239 1.1 154 1.1

Emotional problem (E) h 434 2.0 213 1.9

Sensory disability (SE) a, b, c, or d 668 3.1 429 2.7

Teacher (1st follow-up) (F1QWT) (F2PNLWT)

Not identified 12,337 77.0 11,005 78.0

Identified At least one teacher reporting 3,534 23.0 2,913 22.0

Multiple problems (MULT) More than one of 1,011 6.8 798 6.2 b

LD, HP, or PE

Learning disabled (LD) F1T1_9 1,606 10.7 1,313 10.2

Health problem (HP) F1T1_8 1,176 7.5 971 7.1

Phys’l/Emot’l problem (PE) F1T1_10 1,895 12.8 1,531 12.0

Student (1st follow-up) (F1QWT) (F2PNLWT)

Not identified 17,375 96.8 15,045 97.3

Identified F1S34f or F1S34g 493 3.2 362 2.7

(2nd follow-up) (F2QWT) (F2PNLWT)

Not identified 16,090 97.2 14,102 97.7

Identified F2S13f or F2S13g 380 2.8 286 2.3

School official (2nd follow-up) (F2TRSCWT) (F2TRPIWT)

Not identified 16,370 96.1 13,689 97.3

Identified F2RSPFLG = 1 or 4 563 3.9 368 2.7

Base-year-ineligibles due to

mental disability (BYI) (Unwgt. %) c

BYI present in 1st follow-up BYI Flag 133 0.7 -- --

BYI present in 2nd follow-up 156 0.8 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) “Cross-sectional” refers to the nationally representative sample of students taken at each NELS survey point (i.e., base

year, first follow-up, and second follow-up); “Longitudinal” refers to the sample of the same cohort of students followed

through each survey wave.

(b) A “multiple problems” category has been added to both the parent and teacher definitions so that students identified as

having more than one disabling condition can be examined separately, in addition to being included in those disability

categories for which they were (also) identified.

(c) This group includes only those BYI students who were excluded from NELS:88 in the base year for reasons of mental

disability. As explained in appendix A, other students were BYI for reasons of physical disability, limited-English

proficiency, and unknown factors.

SOURCE: NELS:88 Parent, Teacher, Student Surveys, and Second Follow-up Transcript Component.
Identifying Students with Disabilities

16 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 2.2— Overlap among populations identified as disabled by various data sources, for students present

for NELS:88 base-year, first, and second follow-up surveys (unweighted percentages)a

Also Identified by:

Parent Teacher Student Student School official BYI

Of those identified by: (BY) (1st FU) (1st FU) (2nd FU) (2nd FU) (1st or 2nd FU)

Parent (BY) N = 1,602 * 47.0 9.1 9.5 12.4 --

Teacher (1st FU) N = 2,913 22.4 * 6.3 6.2 8.2 --

Student (1st FU) N = 362 37.8 55.7 * 26.7 18.2 3.9

Student (2nd FU) N = 286 45.1 59.8 28.6 * 22.4 5.8

School off. (2nd FU) N = 368 49.6 69.2 17.9 19.9 * 8.2

BYI (1st or 2nd FU) N = 188 -- -- 17.0 22.0 51.1 *

(*) Not applicable.

(--) Neither the base-year parent survey nor the first follow-up teacher survey included this BYI sample of students (see

appendix A).

(a) All included cases have values of the variable F2PNLWT greater than zero.

SOURCE: NELS:88 Parent, Teacher, Student Surveys, and Second Follow-up Transcript Component.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 17

Chapter 3

Background Characteristics of Students with

Disabilities

Overview

This chapter describes the background characteristics of students with disabilities, using

various definitions of disability status available in NELS:88, as described in chapter 2.

Specifically, this chapter compares the background characteristics of these students with the

characteristics of students not identified as having a disability, and focuses on two primary

sources of information regarding disability status—parents and teachers of the students

surveyed in NELS:88. In addition, comparisons are made among students identified as having

specific types of disabilities (e.g., learning disability, physical disability, sensory disability) and

between parent and teacher reports and student self-definitions of disability status. These

comparisons are similar to ones presented in a report on the characteristics of high school

students with self-reported disabilities, based on HS&B (Owings and Stockings 1985). In

combination, these NELS:88 and HS&B data highlight the differences found between disabled

and nondisabled student populations and suggest how different sources of information on

disability status may influence findings.

As indicated in chapter 2, the questions posed to parents about their children’s disability status

at the base year (1988) permit students to be identified according to several specific disability

categories, in addition to being identified as having or not having a disability-related problem.

These parent estimates of disability status, shown in table 2.1, allow the following comparisons

to be made: (1) comparisons between students identified as disabled versus students not

identified as disabled; (2) comparisons between students in four specific categories of

disability—learning disabled (LD), health problems (HP), physical and emotional (PE)

problems, and a category for more than one problem or multiple problems—versus students

not identified as disabled; and (3) comparisons among students in three specific categories of

disability that comprise the more general PE category: physical (P), emotional (E), and

sensory-impaired (SE) versus other categories of disabled and nondisabled students.

The questions in NELS:88 posed to teachers regarding their perceptions of students’ disability

status provide the same categorization as those provided by parents except that the teacher

questions do not allow the physical and emotional (PE) category to be described in terms of

three discrete categories. It is important to note that parent and teacher identifications of

disability status are not strictly comparable, as described in chapter 2, because (1) parents’

responses are from the base-year survey and teachers’ responses are from the first follow-up; and

(2) parents and teachers responded to different questions in their respective NELS:88 surveys

(e.g., teacher perceptions of students’ disability status was linked to their classroom
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

 Fluctuations in the samples are minimized by using the panel of students present in each of the 10

surveys (base year, first and second follow-up). However, there will be differences in the samples of

students identified as disabled by parents and the samples of students identified by teachers due to

differences in missing data. In addition, the sample sizes may differ slightly within each definition across

different characteristics due to some responses having more missing data than others (e.g., there are no

missing data for sex, but there are missing data for parents’ education).

SUDAAN (SUrvey DAta ANalysis) is a statistical analysis software designed for working with data 11

from complex samples.

 Based on student self-reports of disability status, approximately 59.4 percent of the 1982 HS&B 12

sophomore cohort of students with disabilities were male (Owings and Stocking 1985). According to

the 1990 NLTS, 68.5 percent of secondary students enrolled in special education programs were male.

18 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

performance, whereas parental identification was linked to whether or not a student received

disability-related services).

Analyses in this chapter include only those students who were present in all three NELS:88

surveys (i.e., base year, first follow-up, and second follow-up), weighted to represent students

and dropouts who “survived” and participated in the first and second follow-up surveys. Thus,

the analyses in this chapter (and chapters 4 and 5) represent a cohort analysis of 8th-graders

from 1988 to 1992. The cohort analysis assures us that the differences observed between

disabled students as identified by parents versus those identified by teachers are not due to

sampling fluctuations across the three surveys. All comparisons that are made in this and in 10

following chapters utilize SUDAAN procedures. Where comparisons might involve 11

“overlapping” cases (e.g., when disabled students identified by parents are compared to those

identified by teachers), those cases (i.e., the students identified by both sources as disabled)

were removed prior to computation of the statistical tests. See Appendix D for a description of

the procedures used in computation of statistical tests for this report. It is important to note that

the standard errors presented in Appendix C are those that correspond to the percentage estimates

shown in the report tables (i.e., they include the overlapping cases); they are not the standard errors

that were used in the computation of statistical tests when overlapping cases were removed.

Demographic and Family Characteristics of Students

Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 show the distributions of students identified as disabled, and those

not identified, across several key demographic and family characteristics.

Sex

Consistent with previous reports on the sex distribution of students with disabilities

(e.g., HS&B, NLTS), male students were typically overrepresented in the population of

students with disabilities compared to their proportion in the nondisabled group (table 3.1).

For example, 57.8 percent of students identified as disabled by parents were male—by teachers,

54.3 percent, almost the same. Overall, male students represented about one-half 12

(49 percent) of the nondisabled population. Generally, teachers and parents were more likely

to identify male students than female students as having disabilities, except in the category of

health problems, where teachers reported that only 36.7 percent of students with health

problems were male, while parents reported 52.1 percent.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

 For purposes of analyses of NELS:88 data, minority status is defined to include those students who did 13

not report being “White, not of Hispanic origin” (i.e., students who reported they were Asian or Pacific

Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race; black, not of Hispanic origin; or American Indian or Alaskan

Native). We also examine results in which we separate black, not of Hispanic origin, from other

minorities. Although it has been suggested (e.g., Ingels et al., 1994) that undercoverage bias due to

base-year exclusion of students with severe disabilities may affect certain estimates for racial subgroups, it

has also been noted that, by the first follow-up survey, coverage of these populations was improved when

just about one-half of the excluded disabled students with mental or physical disabilities were returned

to the sample.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 19

Table 3.1— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who were male,

were members of an ethnic/racial minority group, and average age (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Sex Race Sex Race

Male Minority Age Male Minority Age bc bc

Disability status d

Not identified 49.4 26.9 14.4 48.8 25.0 14.3

Identified 57.8 23.7 14.7 54.3 27.5 14.5

Multiple problems 55.0 28.0 14.6 55.1 27.5 14.6

Learning disabled 63.3 18.3 14.8 63.5 30.5 14.7

Health problem 52.1 29.0 14.5 36.7 23.2 14.4

Physical/emotional problem 53.3 27.9 14.6 55.7 26.0 14.5

Physical disability 48.1 23.9 14.6 -- -- --

Emotional problem 57.0 27.9 14.5 -- -- --

Sensory disability 53.9 27.3 14.6 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Minority includes Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, black, and American Indian or Alaskan Native.

(c) Mean age is calculated using the BIRTHYR variable; that is, subtracting a student’s birthyear from 1988.

(d) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Minority Status13

Similar percentages of parent-identified disabled students and students in the nondisabled

population were members of minority groups (23.7 and 26.9 percent, respectively) (table 3.1).

Similarly, the minority representation for students identified as disabled by teachers was about

the same as their proportion in the nondisabled population (27.5 and 25.0 percent,

respectively). This finding holds when looking at differences across white, black, and other

minority categories (table 3.2); there appears to be no difference in the identification of

students with disabilities and no overrepresentation of minorities in the disabled category

generally.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

 Age is calculated using the BIRTHYR variable; that is, subtracting a student’s birthyear from 1988. 14

20 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

The observed proportionate representation of minorities overall in the disabled population in

NELS:88 is interesting and would appear to be at odds with current views that minorities are

often overrepresented in special education categories (e.g., Special Education Report 1995).

However, NELS:88 data do show an overrepresentation of minorities in the learning disabled

(LD) category, as defined by the perceptions of teachers. The minority representation among

LD students when identified by teachers was 30.5 percent, compared to 18.3 percent when

identified by parents. The former result suggests an overrepresentation of minorities in the LD

category when identified by teachers and compared to the percentage of minorities among the

teacher-defined nondisabled population, while the latter result suggests an underrepresentation

of minorities in this category when identified by parent responses and compared to the

percentage of minorities among the parent-defined nondisabled population.

Further analyses suggest that these findings for minorities in the LD category were the result of

differential identification rates for black students in particular (table 3.2). Additional analyses

show that the percentages of students with learning disabilities as identified by parents, for

either black students (7.9 percent) or other minority students (10.4 percent), were lower than

the percentages of students in the nondisabled category who are black (12.5 percent) or other

minority (14.4 percent). In contrast, black students were overrepresented among these students

identified as LD by teachers. The percentage of students with teacher-identified learning

disabilities who are black was 16.6, compared to 11.3 percent of students in the teacheridentified nondisabled group; 13.9 percent of students identified as LD by teachers were

members of other minority groups, compared to 13.8 percent in the nondisabled category.

These findings suggest differential perceptions between teachers and parents with regard to

disability status and indicate a potential problem for studying students with learning

disabilities; namely, the distribution of outcomes may depend on which source of information

(parents or teachers) is used to define students with learning disabilities.

Age14

Age patterns showed little variation among students perceived to be disabled by either parents

or teachers (table 3.1). These disabled populations appeared to be slightly older in eighth

grade than their nondisabled peers (about 0.3 years difference for both parents and teachers).

For both cases, students identified as LD were the oldest (14.8 and 14.7 years as identified by

parents and teachers, respectively). This finding may reflect the higher retention rates of these

students in earlier grades, a topic that is discussed in chapter 4.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

 These percentages are similar to the finding in HS&B (Owings and Stocking 1985) that 29.5 percent 15

of students with self-reported disabilities were in the lowest SES quartile (1982 HS&B sophomore

cohort).

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 21

Table 3.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who were of

various races (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Race Race

Black White Other Black White % Other

Disability status b

Not identified 12.5 73.1 14.4 11.3 74.9 13.8

Identified 12.3 76.3 11.4 13.2 72.4 14.3

Multiple problems 16.3 72.0 11.7 13.5 72.5 13.9

Learning disabled 7.9 81.7 10.4 16.6 69.5 13.9

Health problem 18.6 71.0 10.5 9.8 76.8 13.4

Physical/emotional problem 15.0 72.1 12.9 12.2 74.1 13.7

Physical disability 8.4 76.0 15.6 -- -- --

Emotional problem 18.8 72.1 9.1 -- -- --

Sensory disability 13.8 72.7 13.5 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Parent Socioeconomic Status and Education Level

Table 3.3 shows the distribution of students identified by parents and teachers as disabled

among levels of parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) and highest education obtained. The data

in this table suggest that SES may play a role in the identification of disability status as

reported by teachers but not as reported by parents.

Among students identified as disabled by either parents or teachers, the percentages of students

from families in the lowest SES quartile were 27.9 and 27.7 percent, respectively. The 15

distributions of disabled and nondisabled students across SES and education categories were

rather similar when looking at the parent-identified students. For the population of students

identified as disabled by teachers, the differences in SES and parent education between the

disabled and nondisabled groups were more pronounced. Most striking in this teacheridentified population is SES: fewer disabled students than nondisabled students were from

families in the upper SES quartiles, and greater numbers of the disabled students were in the

lower SES categories, compared to the nondisabled students. Similarly, fewer of these teacheridentified disabled students than nondisabled students had parents with higher levels of

education.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

22 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Within specific disability categories as defined by parents, however, there were some notable

differences in the SES distributions of disabled and nondisabled students. For example, the

physical disability and sensory impairment categories each included more students in the

lowest SES group than did the nondisabled student category (38.5 percent and 31.7 percent,

respectively, versus 23.0 percent). These two disability categories also had fewer students in

the highest SES group than did the nondisabled category. For students identified by their

teachers as having health problems, there were almost no differences in the distributions of

disabled and nondisabled students for either SES or for parents’ education.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 23

Table 3.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who were in each SES quartile an

various education levels (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-uVariable SES Quartile Parents’ Highest Education SES Quartile Paren

Low High Some 4yr + Low High 

1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q < HS HS College College 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q < HS 

Disability status bNot identified 23.0 24.6 25.6 26.9 10.1 19.9 42.1 27.9 20.0 24.3 25.7 30.0 7.9 Identified 27.9 25.1 22.1 25.0 10.9 21.5 43.1 24.4 27.7 27.6 24.7 20.0 10.6 

Multiple problems 35.4 22.5 23.2 19.0 14.5 17.6 45.9 22.0 30.6 29.5 20.9 19.0 12.3 Learning disabled 24.4 26.6 20.8 28.2 9.1 22.7 41.1 27.2 31.4 28.5 21.0 19.1 12.2 Health problem 32.0 24.9 18.6 24.6 13.5 16.2 46.3 23.9 20.9 25.6 28.1 25.3 9.0 Physical/emotional problem 31.9 22.5 24.7 20.8 12.2 20.8 45.5 21.5 29.4 27.5 24.5 18.6 11.0 

Physical disability 38.5 17.0 30.9 13.6 12.3 20.8 48.0 18.9 -- -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 31.6 20.1 26.8 21.5 13.1 20.2 47.9 18.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 31.7 25.5 21.3 21.4 11.5 21.4 44.2 23.0 -- -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); Base

Follow-up Teacher Survey.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

24 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Family Head of Household

The percentages of disabled students and nondisabled students who live in households headed

by single females was about the same when identifications were derived from parent reports

(17.0 versus 14.5 percent) (table 3.4). When disability status is based on teacher perceptions,

however, students with disabilities generally were more often found in single female-headed

households (16.6 versus 12.4 percent). This was true particularly for students identified by

teachers as having physical and/or emotional problems.

Table 3.4— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who lived in

single female-headed households (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Female-headed % Female-headed

household at BY household at BY

Disability status b

Not identified 14.5 12.4

Identified 17.0 16.6

Multiple problems 20.0 17.6

Learning disabled 14.6 14.3

Health problem 14.2 15.6

Physical/emotional problem 20.0 18.0

Physical disability 16.2 --

Emotional problem 28.9 --

Sensory disability 17.9 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey.

Psychological Profiles of Students

Given the special challenges many students with disabilities face at school, it is interesting to

assess their psychological well-being and to compare it to that of their nondisabled

counterparts. Measures such as self-concept and locus of control may reveal attitudes that

importantly affect performance, including creative risk-taking on classroom assignments and

confidence in tackling new subject areas (Strube and Roemmele 1985). One might expect

that the psychological health of students with disabilities is lower than that of nondisabled

students, as a result of both perceiving themselves to be different from other students and

feeling themselves to be regarded as less able by others, teachers and parents as well as students.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

 Self-concept refers to an individual’s positive or negative perceptions of self, also referred to as self- 16

esteem. Locus of control refers to an individual’s perceptions of the relationship between his or her own

actions and the events in his or her life. 

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 25

NELS:88 asked students to respond to a series of questions intended to measure their

psychological state—specifically, questions related to their self-concept and locus of control.16

Students responded to this series of questions at three successive points in time: as 8th- graders

during the NELS:88 base-year survey, as sophomores during the first follow-up, and as seniors

during the second follow-up.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 provide measures at these three points in time for locus of control and selfconcept, respectively. Both measures reflect students’ scaled responses to the items related to

each of the two psychological variables, which were designed to be comparable with similar

scales used in HS&B. In NELS:88, the locus of control scale was an average of six items

(e.g., “Chance and luck are very important for what happens in my life”), which were

standardized separately to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1; all nonmissing

components were averaged. A higher positive score on this scale indicates a higher level of

internal control (i.e., the sense of having some control of one’s life).

Those students identified as disabled by either their parents or teachers evidenced lower levels

of internal control than students not so identified, and this difference was reasonably stable

from 1988 to 1992 (table 3.5). Interestingly, students identified by parents as having either

health problems or physical disabilities did not differ from nondisabled students in their

responses to the locus of control items.

The NELS:88 self-concept scale was an average of a different set of seven items (e.g., “I feel

good about myself”), which were also standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation

of 1. As with locus of control, higher scores on this scale represent higher levels of selfconcept.

The pattern of self-concept scores among students identified as disabled by teachers was similar

to that found for locus of control (table 3.6). Students perceived to be disabled by their

teachers evidenced consistently lower levels of self-concept than did nondisabled students.

Lower self-concept scores were also found for teacher-identified disabled students (when

compared to students not so identified) in each of the specific disability categories over time.

For students identified as disabled by parents, the pattern of these scores was less consistent

across specific disability categories and across time. Only in the LD category, for example, was

there a consistent pattern of difference over time between disabled and nondisabled students.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

26 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 3.5— Mean locus of control scores, over time, of students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year,

First, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Base First Second Base First Second

Variable Year Follow-up Follow-up Year Follow-up Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.11

Identified -0.19 -0.17 -0.20 -0.12 -0.19 -0.17

Multiple problems -0.34 -0.10 -0.34 -0.20 -0.27 -0.24

Learning disabled -0.24 -0.28 -0.27 -0.22 -0.26 -0.28

Health problem -0.11 0.07 -0.17 0.01 0.00 -0.03

Physical/emotional problem -0.21 -0.14 -0.19 -0.17 -0.25 -0.20

Physical disability -0.10 -0.09 -0.11 -- -- --

Emotional problem -0.38 -0.11 -0.28 -- -- --

Sensory disability -0.15 -0.18 -0.20 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Locus of control score is standardized; mean = 0, s.d. = 1.0. Positive locus of control scores indicate greater internal

control, while negative scores indicate less internal control.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.

Table 3.6— Mean self-concept scores, over time, of students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year, First,

and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Base First Second Base First Second

Variable Year Follow-up Follow-up Year Follow-up Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04

Identified -0.09 -0.07 -0.14 -0.08 -0.13 -0.10

Multiple problems -0.14 0.04 -0.10 -0.13 -0.25 -0.12

Learning disabled -0.13 -0.12 -0.19 -0.11 -0.14 -0.13

Health problem -0.01 0.09 -0.04 -0.08 -0.09 -0.12

Physical/emotional problem -0.08 -0.06 -0.11 -0.11 -0.18 -0.09

Physical disability -0.15 -0.15 -0.14 -- -- --

Emotional problem -0.14 0.00 -0.06 -- -- --

Sensory disability -0.05 -0.05 -0.15 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Self-concept score is standardized; mean = 0, s.d. = 1.0. Positive self-concept scores indicate greater internal control,

while negative scores indicate less internal control.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 27

The results from analyses of locus of control and self-concept measures for students identified

as disabled by teachers were consistent with reports from the HS&B data, which showed that

students who identified themselves as “handicapped” had lower locus of control and selfesteem scores than students who did not identify themselves in this way (Owings and Stocking

1985). In contrast, for students identified as disabled by parents, consistently lower scores

were found only for locus of control. Interestingly, results presented later in this chapter (see

table 3.9) for students who identified themselves as disabled in NELS:88 correspond to the results

based on parent perceptions; although differences between disabled and nondisabled students

exist for locus of control, differences in self-concept scores are not apparent.

Characteristics of School Environment

Table 3.7 shows the distribution of students with and without disabilities across two general

measures of school environment—urbanicity and SES (as expressed by the percentage of

students receiving free or reduced-price lunches at school). As shown, few differences were

found between disabled and nondisabled students in terms of the school’s geographic context

or SES. According to both parent and teacher perceptions, students with and without

disabilities were similarly distributed in rural, urban, and suburban locations, and the

proportion of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches was about the same: just under

one-quarter for both groups. The similarity between the nondisabled and disabled populations

persists within the specific disability categories, except for students identified by parents as

having emotional or physical disabilities. Students whose parents said they have emotional

problems and have ever received services for these problems were less likely to be found in

rural schools (20.9 percent) and were slightly more likely to be found in urban (29.1 percent)

and suburban (50.0 percent) schools than their nondisabled counterparts.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

28 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 3.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who were in

different school environments and who received free or reduced-price lunch (NELS:88 BaseYear School Survey)a

 Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Avg. % of Avg. % of

students in students in

school lunch school lunch

Urban Suburban Rural program Urban Suburban Rural program b b

Disability status c

Not identified 25.0 43.4 31.5 23.9 22.6 44.7 33.1 22.8

Identified 23.8 45.7 30.5 24.0 23.0 43.7 33.4 24.3

Multiple problems 27.2 40.8 32.0 28.1 22.7 44.4 33.0 24.4

Learning disabled 24.2 43.7 32.2 20.9 21.7 45.0 33.3 23.4

Health problem 24.1 43.5 32.4 26.0 23.8 42.5 33.7 22.1

Physical/emotional problem 24.0 47.4 28.6 26.8 22.8 43.3 33.9 25.0

Physical disability 16.2 51.6 32.1 23.5 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 29.1 50.0 20.9 28.2 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 22.5 44.4 33.1 26.6 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) “School lunch program” refers to free or reduced-price school lunch program.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Base-Year School Survey.

Characteristics of Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled

The previous tables in this chapter described students in NELS:88 who were identified by

parents and teachers as having disabilities, compared to students not identified in these ways.

Tables 3.8 and 3.9 examine some of these same characteristics—specifically, sex, race, SES,

locus of control, and self-concept—for those students who identified themselves as disabled.

The distributions of these students in terms of sex and minority status were similar to the

distributions shown in table 3.1 for either parent- or teacher-identified students (table 3.8).

Regardless of which of these respondents identified a student as disabled, disproportionately

more were male. Of the students who identified themselves as disabled, 60.8 percent were

male, compared to 49.7 percent of the nonidentified group. In addition, this self-identified

population had about the same percentage of minority students as the nondisabled population

(25.9 versus 27.2 percent). Finally, in terms of socioeconomic status, self-identified students

were distributed similarly across SES quartiles to nondisabled students.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 29

Table 3.8— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who were male, members of

minority groups, and in various SES quartiles (NELS:88 Base-Year Student and Parent

Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable SES Quartiles

Sex Race Low High

% Male % Minority 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q

Disability status b

Not identified 49.7 27.2 22.0 24.9 25.5 27.6

Identified 60.8 25.9 24.5 28.8 24.0 22.6

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Base-Year Student and Parent Surveys.

Table 3.9 displays the self-concept and locus of control scores of students who identified

themselves as disabled. As discussed earlier, these results are generally consistent with the

patterns observed for disabled students identified by parents, but not by teachers. For example,

the self-concept scores of self-identified disabled (-0.03) and nondisabled (0.01) students were

about the same. For the locus of control measure, however, students who self-identified as

disabled clearly scored lower on average than their nondisabled counterparts

(-0.18 versus 0.06). This pattern is consistent with the one observed for students perceived to

be disabled by either parents or teachers.

Table 3.9— Mean self-concept and locus of control scores of students who identified themselves as disabled

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Self-concept Locus of control

at 2nd Follow-up at 2nd Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.01 0.06

Identified -0.03 -0.18

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Self-concept and locus of control scores are standardized; means for both = 0, s.d. = 1.0.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Background Characteristics of Students with Disabilities

30 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Summary

Differences in the background characteristics among the various disabled and nondisabled

student populations in NELS:88 are apparent across several important dimensions, and the

nature of these differences depends upon the source of information (parent, teacher, or

student) used to identify students as disabled or nondisabled. In addition, results vary

depending upon whether comparisons are made between the overall population of students

identified as disabled or nondisabled or among selected disability categories.

For example, students identified as disabled by their teachers or parents, as well as students

who identified themselves as disabled, were more likely to be male than their nondisabled

counterparts. For the specific category of health problems, however, teachers identified fewer

males than were represented in the nondisabled population (36.7 percent versus 48.8 percent,

respectively). In the case of minority status, the percentage of teacher-, parent-, and selfidentified disabled students who were minorities was proportionate to the nondisabled

population. At the same time, teachers were more likely than parents to identify minority

students as learning disabled (30.5 percent versus 18.3 percent, respectively). Finally, the

psychological profiles of students identified as disabled by parents, teachers, and students

themselves evidenced a consistent pattern over time of lower scores on locus of control

measures. In contrast, measures of self-concept were consistently lower over time only for

students whose teachers perceived them to be disabled, as compared to nondisabled students.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 31

Chapter 4

The School Experiences of Students with

Disabilities

Overview

Chapter 3 examined how the background characteristics of students with disabilities differed

from the population of nondisabled students in NELS:88, and showed that the distributions of

students with these characteristics depend upon the source of information used to define

disability (e.g., whether parent or teacher responses were used to identify the student). In this

chapter, a similar approach is used to examine the high school experiences of students

perceived to have disabilities. Four general areas of the high school experience are the focus of

discussion: (1) students’ retention and participation in remedial and dropout prevention

programs; (2) students’ participation in programs designed to meet special educational needs;

(3) students’ academic experiences; and (4) students’ and parents’ involvement in

extracurricular activities at school. As in chapter 3, this discussion highlights comparisons

between populations of students with and without disabilities as a whole as identified by

different sources, and across distinct disability categories. The comparison of students

identified and not identified with disabilities in terms of their participation in special

education programs serves two purposes: (1) it provides an estimate of the overall proportion

of students served in these special programs, and (2) it provides a further check on the

reliability of disability identifications made by parents and teachers.

Retention and Participation in Remedial and Dropout

Prevention Programs

The high school experiences of students with disabilities are likely to be affected by students’

successes and failures in earlier grades. Retention in grades prior to high school, for example,

may result in students’ being older than their peers in high school. Retention may also have a

stigmatizing effect, from which some students undoubtedly find it difficult to recover.

Table 4.1 shows the distribution of students whose parents reported they had ever repeated a

grade prior to the eighth grade. Students identified as disabled by either parents or teachers

more often repeated a grade than did students not identified. Parents reported that

40.7 percent of the identified students had repeated one or more grade levels prior to eighth

grade, compared to 17.0 percent of the students not identified as disabled. Similar findings

hold for those students identified by teachers as disabled: 30.8 percent of these students were

reported to have repeated grades, compared to only 11.5 percent of the students not identified.

Examining specific categories of disability, it appears that students identified as learning
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

32 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

disabled (LD) by either parents or teachers showed a higher incidence of retention than

students in other disability categories or in the overall population of students identified as

disabled. Among students identified as LD by their parents and teachers, 52.8 percent and

42.8 percent, respectively, had been retained prior to eighth grade.

Table 4.1— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who ever repeated

a grade prior to eighth grade (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Repeated grade before eighth grade % Repeated grade before eighth grade

Disability status b

Not identified 17.0 11.5

Identified 40.7 30.8

Multiple problems 43.0 37.6

Learning disabled 52.8 42.8

Health problem 25.0 19.7

Physical/emotional problem 35.6 30.5

Physical disability 35.8 --

Emotional problem 43.4 --

Sensory disability 33.2 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey.

Table 4.2 shows data for students identified as disabled by their parents or teachers who

reported themselves to have been in a remedial course or program for English and/or

mathematics during high school. Once again, students identified as disabled were more likely

than nondisabled students to report participation in high school remedial mathematics and

English programs. Approximately 35 percent of parent-identified disabled students reported

having participated in remedial mathematics and remedial English programs, compared to

fewer than 20 percent of the nondisabled students. For teacher-identified students with

disabilities, 35.3 percent had participated in remedial mathematics courses, compared to

17.5 percent of the nondisabled students.

Examining specific categories of disability, students identified as LD by parents or teachers

showed a higher incidence of participation in remedial courses than students in other disability

categories. From 40 to 50 percent of these students had been in high school remedial

programs. Students identified as having a health problem (HP) appear to be different from

other disabled students and more similar to nondisabled students in terms of having

participated in remedial mathematics or English courses; that is, 19.5 percent of the parentidentified HP group had participated in a remedial English program, compared to 17.8 percent

of the nondisabled students. The level of participation in remedial programs for teacheridentified HP students was higher than that for nondisabled students but lower than that for
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 33

students in the other disability categories. These data suggest that students with health

problems may have had educational experiences that were distinct from those of students

identified in other disability categories.

Table 4.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who reported ever

having participated in remedial English or mathematics programs during high school (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Ever in remedial % Ever in remedial

English Math English Math

Disability status b

Not identified 17.8 19.9 15.7 17.5

Identified 34.9 36.3 33.0 35.3

Multiple problems 37.9 47.8 38.1 37.5

Learning disabled 49.6 50.3 43.1 41.0

Health problem 19.5 23.3 24.1 26.1

Physical/emotional problem 27.7 32.1 32.0 37.1

Physical disability 23.7 24.7 -- --

Emotional problem 35.6 50.0 -- --

Sensory disability 27.6 27.7 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

In addition to participation in high school remedial programs, students at the second follow-up

were asked if they had ever been in a dropout prevention program in high school. Students

identified as disabled reported a higher level of participation in dropout prevention programs

than did their nondisabled counterparts (table 4.3). This difference in reported participation is

most pronounced among students perceived by their teachers to be disabled. Among students

identified by teachers, 4.2 percent reported participation in dropout prevention programs,

compared to 1.1 percent of those not identified. For students identified by parents, the

participation rates between disabled and nondisabled students were about the same:

2.9 percent versus 2.1 percent, respectively. Students reported lower levels of participation in

dropout prevention programs than in the remedial programs shown in table 4.2, a finding that

may be partly explained by the fact that remedial courses and programs are typically more

available than dropout prevention programs in high schools.
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

34 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 4.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who reported

having participated in high school dropout prevention programs (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Ever participated in program Ever participated in program

for dropout prevention for dropout prevention

Disability status b

Not identified 2.1 1.1

Identified 2.9 4.2

Multiple problems 4.7 5.8

Learning disabled 3.0 4.2

Health problem 5.4 3.4

Physical/emotional problem 2.6 5.1

Physical disability 3.9 --

Emotional problem 5.4 --

Sensory disability 1.4 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Participation in Special Education Programs

Of particular interest to groups concerned about the educational well-being of students with

disabilities is the extent to which these students participate in school-based programs designed

specifically to meet their special needs. NELS:88 provides information to address this issue

from student self-reports, the reports of school officials, and the reported experiences of

students excused from the base-year survey for reasons of disability who had returned to the

study by the time of the second follow-up.

At the second follow-up, NELS:88 participants were asked to report whether they had ever

participated in a “special program for the educationally handicapped” or a “special program for

the physically handicapped” during high school. Table 4.4 summarizes students’ self-reported

participation in these special programs. As might be expected, students with disabilities

reported having participated in these special programs to a greater extent than did their

nondisabled counterparts. This finding holds true for students identified as disabled by their

parents or teachers, although the levels of participation in programs for the educationally

handicapped, for example, appear to be higher for students identified by parents. Nondisabled

students reported a low level of participation in these special programs (from 0.5 percent

participation in programs for the physically handicapped to 1.1 percent participation in

programs for the educationally handicapped). In contrast, 11.2 percent of parent-identified

disabled students and 4.5 percent of teacher-identified disabled students reported participation

in programs for the educationally handicapped. Differences in the reported participation in
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

 These comparisons involve no “overlapping” cases, but they do include students with other 17

disabilities in addition to the focal disability in the focal group for the comparison (see the discussion in

Appendix D).

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 35

programs for the physically handicapped between the disabled and nondisabled as identified by

teachers were less striking.

Examining disabled versus nondisabled differences across specific disability categories

identified by parents and teachers reveals consistently higher levels of participation in

programs for the educationally handicapped among learning disabled students and students

with multiple problems. About 22 percent of students identified by parents in each of these 17

two disability groups, and between 7 and 8 percent of students identified by teachers in each

group, reported having participated in a program for the educationally handicapped while in

high school.

Table 4.4— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who reported

having participated in programs for the educationally or physically handicapped (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Ever participated in program for: Ever participated in program for:

Educationally Physically Educationally Physically

handicapped handicapped handicapped handicapped

Disability status b

Not identified 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.5

Identified 11.2 4.5 5.3 2.0

Multiple problems 22.1 4.4 7.0 4.4

Learning disabled 21.8 7.3 8.0 3.1

Health problem 2.5 1.5 2.8 1.3

Physical/emotional problem 7.7 2.7 4.5 2.3

Physical disability 7.9 8.3 -- --

Emotional problem 13.5 0.8 -- --

Sensory disability 5.3 1.8 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

 The NELS:88 second follow-up transcript file includes a flag (F2RSPFLG) that indicates whether the 18

student ever participated in a special education program (i.e., had an Individualized Education Plan, or

IEP) during high school.

36 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

As discussed in chapter 2, school officials were asked, as part of the NELS:88 second follow-up,

to identify those students who had ever been enrolled in high school special education

programs, and a flag indicating such participation was entered in the students’ second followup transcript file. Table 4.5 shows the percentages of students by disability status reported by 18

school officials to have participated in special education during high school. The pattern of

participation in special education for these students, across disability categories based on

parent and teacher reports, is similar to the pattern shown in table 4.4, although the levels of

participation are different. The NELS:88 transcript files indicate participation in special

education programs by 11.9 percent of students identified as disabled by parents, and by

7.8 percent of students identified by teachers. The levels of participation were highest for

students with learning disabilities or multiple problems: about 20 percent participation for

both groups of students identified by parents, and, among students identified by teachers,

13.7 percent for students with learning disabilities and 12.1 percent for students with multiple

problems.

Table 4.5— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who participated

in special education (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript Component)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Participated in special education Participated in special education

Disability status b

Not identified 1.5 1.0

Identified 11.9 7.8

Multiple problems 20.2 12.1

Learning disabled 20.3 13.7

Health problem 7.8 2.8

Physical/emotional problem 9.7 6.2

Physical disability 9.3 --

Emotional problem 13.2 --

Sensory disability 11.3 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade

transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.

Interestingly, the data presented in table 4.4 indicate relatively low levels of high school

participation in special programs for the educationally and physically handicapped, as

perceived and reported by students who were identified by parents or teachers as disabled
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

 The low participation rates of disabled students identified by parents do not reflect the base-year- 19

ineligible (BYI) students who would likely have accounted for a substantial proportion of those students

enrolled in explicitly designated special education programs. For teacher-identified disabled students,

BYI students who returned to the NELS:88 sample at the first follow-up would have been included in

the calculation of these rates.

This base-year ineligible, or BYI, sample who participated in NELS:88 follow-up surveys included 188 20

students who were identified during the base year as ineligible to participate in NELS on the basis of

mental disability. As described in chapter 3 this population likely represents students with mental

retardation or severe learning disabilities.

 Analyses involving BYI students in this report are based on the sample of these students; that is, case 21

weights are not used. Weights were never developed for students who were not actually sampled.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 37

(i.e., from 2.0 to 11.2 percent of identified students). School officials identified similarly low 19

percentages of these students as having participated in special education (table 4.5). In

contrast, a much larger proportion of these identified students reported having participated in

remedial English and mathematics courses during high school (i.e., from 33.0 to 36.3 percent).

These differences in reported participation rates for special education and remedial courses

might be attributed to several factors, such as more numerous offerings of remedial courses

than designated special education programs in high schools; increased inclusion or

“mainstreaming” of special education students into general education programs, including

remedial courses; the accuracy and completeness with which school officials identified students

who had been enrolled in special education programs during high school; and students’

knowledge and perceptions of the specific courses and programs in which they are enrolled.

For example, students may simply not be aware of the specific programs or services they are

receiving. Alternately, they may be more likely to identify a special education class as a

remedial class, either because that is the way the class appears to them or because doing so

enables them to feel less labeled, segregated, or different from other students.

Participation of Base-Year Ineligible Students in Remedial,

Dropout Prevention, and Special Education Programs

Another way of examining the extent to which students with disabilities appear to participate

in special programs in high school is provided in NELS:88 by the population of 188 students

who were excused from participation in the base-year NELS:88 survey on the basis of mental

disability, but who returned to participate in the first or second follow-up. Of this sample of 20

base-year ineligible (BYI) students, 42 percent reported having participated in a remedial

English class, 44.6 percent participated in a remedial mathematics class, and 4.5 percent

participated in a dropout prevention program. These levels of participation in remedial 21

classes and dropout prevention programs appear generally higher than the levels of

participation reported for students who were identified as disabled by their parents and

teachers. This may not be too surprising since the BYI students might be assumed to have had

more significant cognitive impairments than the overall population of students with

disabilities; as a result, they might well have been expected to need additional special services

in school. It is interesting to note, however, that only 17.9 percent of these BYI students
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

 Only 2.7 percent of these BYI students reported having participated in a special program for the 22

physically handicapped; however, this group of students had been excused from NELS:88 participation

because of mental disability, and therefore would not be expected to participate in such programs.

38 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

reported ever having been in a special program for the educationally handicapped. This 22

percentage is in the range of the 21.8 percent participation among parent-identified LD

students, and would appear to be higher than the 8.0 percent among teacher-identified LD

students.

Academic Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Table 4.6 shows the distribution of students in terms of total high school credit units in math,

English, and science for students in the twelfth grade in 1992, as reported on their high school

transcripts. Students identified as disabled by parents or teachers consistently earned fewer

units in all three areas compared to nondisabled students. The magnitude of these differences

was greater for students identified as disabled by teachers than it was for students identified by

parents; the difference between teacher-identified disabled students and the nondisabled was

about 0.7 units on average, while the difference was about 0.5 units for those identified by

their parents as disabled. This finding is likely due to the fact that teachers’ identifications of

disability status were tied to their assessments of students’ classroom performance.

Differences across specific disabilities were not great; however, students identified by parents as

having an emotional disability or multiple problems attained fewer credits in each academic

area compared to students in the other disability categories. Students with health problems, as

identified by teachers, earned slightly more credits in each area compared to students in the

other disability categories. When compared to nondisabled students, however, these teacheridentified HP students also earned fewer units in each of the three subject areas.

Participation in Extracurricular and PTA Activities

Participation in school activities is another facet of the high school experience in which

disabled and nondisabled students may differ. On the one hand, the very nature of some

specific disabilities may preclude disabled students from extracurricular activity participation;

on the other hand, the possible stigma of having been identified as disabled may preclude these

students from selection or acceptance in the activities by their peers. Participation of parents

in school-related activities, such as parent-teacher associations (PTA), may also be affected by

students’ disability status. In this case, however, it is as easy to predict active parental

involvement owing to greater concerns for disabled sons or daughters as it is to predict reduced

or noninvolvement resulting from a recognition that their sons and daughters may not be

active participants in the “social” life of the school.

Table 4.7 explores students’ participation in sports and in school clubs or school government

at the time of the NELS:88 second follow-up survey, and parents’ participation in PTA

activities at the time of the base-year survey. Parents’ activities reflect whether they attended

PTA meetings regularly and whether they were active participants. For students, the values

represent the number of sports in which they participated (summed over three possible sports

activities in which students might have indicated they had taken part) and the number of
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 39

school clubs or programs to which they belonged (summed over nine possible school

activities).

Table 4.6— Total units in core subjects completed by students with disabilities (NELS:88 Second Followup Transcript Component), as identified by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up

Average Average Average Average Average Average

English math science English math science

units units units units units units

Disability status

Not identified 3.7 2.9 2.7 4.0 3.1 2.9

Identified 3.2 2.4 2.2 3.3 2.3 2.2

Multiple problems 2.7 2.5 1.9 3.0 2.1 2.0

Learning disabled 3.1 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.2 2.1

Health problem 3.0 2.4 2.1 3.5 2.6 2.4

Physical/emotional problem 3.2 2.6 2.1 3.1 2.2 2.1

Physical disability 3.2 2.6 2.3 -- -- --

Emotional problem 2.9 2.5 1.8 -- -- --

Sensory disability 3.1 2.4 2.2 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade transcript panel

weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.

The results show relatively similar levels of participation on the parts of both parents and

students regardless of disability status when disability was identified by parents (table 4.7). In

contrast, for disabled students identified by teachers, there was a consistent lower level of

participation by parents of the disabled and by the disabled students themselves.

Within the specific disability groups identified by parents, two differences emerge regarding

parental participation in schools and student participation in activities. First, parents of

students with multiple problems and parents of students with emotional problems were less

active participants in PTA programs than were the parents of students in the other disability

categories. Fewer than 15 percent of parents of students with these disabilities reported active

PTA involvement, as compared to the near-to-above 20 percent participation rates for the

parents of other disabled students. Second, while students with physical disabilities evidenced

significantly lower levels of participation in sports, they were as active in school activities (e.g.,

participation in government and clubs) as students with other disabilities.
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

40 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 4.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who were

involved in school sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents were involved in

PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Parent involvement Student involvement Parent involvement Student involvement

% % Avg. # Avg. # % % Avg. # Avg. #

Attend Active sport school Attend Active sport school

PTA PTA activities activities PTA PTA activities activities

Disability status b

Not identified 36.4 26.2 0.6 1.5 37.3 27.9 0.6 1.6

Identified 35.3 23.8 0.5 1.2 33.4 23.6 0.5 1.3

Multiple problems 31.5 13.3 0.5 1.0 34.3 24.3 0.4 1.1

Learning disabled 32.4 23.5 0.6 1.0 34.8 25.9 0.6 1.2

Health problem 39.8 29.0 0.4 1.4 33.1 22.2 0.4 1.4

Physical/emotional problem 35.8 19.3 0.5 1.3 32.4 24.1 0.4 1.2

Physical disability 36.9 20.9 0.3 1.7 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 30.6 14.5 0.6 1.0 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 37.4 21.4 0.5 1.2 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.

Experiences of Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled

Table 4.8 examines students’ participation in remedial programs from the perspective of

students who identified themselves as disabled. The results are similar to those reported in

table 4.2. As with those students identified as disabled by parents and teachers (see table 4.2),

this self-identified group of students reported higher levels of participation in remedial English

and remedial mathematics programs than did the nondisabled population. They also were

more likely to be in a mathematics (42.9 percent) versus an English remedial program

(32.1 percent), while for students identified by both parents and teachers (see table 4.2),

participation rates in remedial mathematics and English programs were about the same

(e.g., 35.3 percent versus 33.0 percent for students identified by teachers).
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 41

Table 4.8— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who participated in remedial

English or remedial math programs in high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at 1st Follow-up

Variable % Ever participated in:

Remedial Remedial

English math

Disability status b

Not identified 18.7 20.3

Identified 32.1 42.9

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

It is interesting also to look at the levels of participation in sports and other school activities

among students who identified themselves as disabled, as well as the participation of their

parents in school-related activities like PTA. Table 4.9 shows the reported involvements in

extracurricular activities and PTA of these students and their parents. In general, it appears

that this self-identified group of students and their parents participated in school-related

activities to a similar extent as those students identified by their parents as disabled (see table

4.7).

Table 4.9— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who were involved in school

sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents were involved in PTA (NELS:88 BaseYear Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Parent involvement Student involvement

Avg. # Avg. #

% Attend % Active sport school

PTA PTA activities activities

Disability status b

Not identified 36.8 26.7 0.6 1.5

Identified 31.4 27.2 0.6 1.2

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities

42 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Summary

Just as chapter 3 indicated differences in the background characteristics of students identified

as disabled and those not identified, this chapter also shows consistent differences between the

high school experiences of disabled and nondisabled students. These differences were largest

in the areas of participation in special and remedial high school programs (disabled students

participated more), and in credits accumulated in the core curriculum (disabled students

earned fewer credits). Although some differences appear in the school experiences of students

perceived to be disabled by different individuals (e.g., parents, teachers, school officials, or the

students themselves), these differences were much less evident here than in chapter 3.

One of the more interesting findings in this chapter concerns the extent to which students

identified as disabled actually participated in special education programs during high school.

The data suggest that relatively small percentages of these students reported themselves or were

reported by school officials to have participated in programs designed to meet their special

needs (i.e., programs for the educationally or physically handicapped, or special education

programs in general); while substantially higher percentages reported having participated in

remedial courses. It should be noted, however, that not all children with disabilities need

special school services; for example, a child with a purely physical disability who receives the

proper medical services for that disability may not require special school services. Under the

IDEA, the term “children with disabilities” refers to children who have been evaluated and

found to have a disabling condition that causes them to need special education services;

however, many children with impairments do not require special education services, although

they may receive remedial education services, accommodations, or other specialized services or

instruction. Furthermore, for those students identified as disabled by their teachers in

NELS:88, the linking of disability status to classroom performance may have caused many

students to be identified as disabled who were, in fact, merely performing poorly on academic

tasks.

These data actually raise more questions than they answer about the services students with

disabilities are receiving in the nation’s high schools: What is the nature and quality of the

services students with special needs are receiving—whether or not the students correctly

identify these services? Are these services—whether “remedial” or “special

education”—adequately meeting these students’ needs? Do the low levels of self-reported

participation in special education programs, in fact, reflect a high level of underserved students

with disabilities, or rather an increased inclusion of students with disabilities into general

education programs, or merely the perceptions and misperceptions of students regarding the

services they actually received at some time during high school?
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 43

Chapter 5

Educational Outcomes of Students with

Disabilities

Overview

In this chapter, we examine the educational outcomes of students identified by parents,

teachers, and others as disabled. Three major outcome areas are highlighted: (1) academic

performance (i.e., grades in selected areas and proficiency in mathematics and reading),

(2) educational expectations (i.e., highest expected education level), and (3) high school

dropout rates. The tables that are presented highlight data from the NELS:88 second followup survey, conducted in 1992. The sample remains the cohort of 8th-graders who completed

all three NELS:88 surveys (base year, first and second follow-ups), including graduates and

dropouts of this original cohort. Following the approach used in the previous chapters, this

chapter compares educational outcomes between populations of students with and without

disabilities as a whole, across these populations as identified by different sources, and across

specific disability categories.

Academic Performance

Academic performance is a fundamental outcome indicator of schooling. Of particular interest

to this report is how students identified as having disabilities—overall and by specific disability

category—compared in achievement to students without disabilities. As data from HS&B and

the NLTS have indicated, students perceived to have disabilities might be expected to

demonstrate lower academic performance than their nondisabled counterparts. As described

below, data from NELS:88 show similar findings.

Average Grades in English, Mathematics, and Science

Table 5.1 presents an overview of the average grades during students’ last year in high school

in three basic areas of the curriculum. (The averages that are shown are based on a 1-to-13

point scale, where 1 = A+ and 13 = F.) Generally in all three subject areas, students identified

as disabled by either parents or teachers earned lower grades (i.e., higher scores on the 13-point

scale) than nondisabled students. For those identified with any disability by teachers, for

example, the averages for each subject (English 8.48, mathematics 8.88, and science 8.80) were

lower than those for students not identified as disabled (English 6.54, mathematics 7.22, and

science 6.92). In general, the finding of lower grades for disabled students is consistent with

earlier findings based on the HS&B population, where self-reported grades of students
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

 Multiple-choice cognitive tests were administered in four areas: reading comprehension, 23

mathematics, science, and history/citizenship/geography. Groups of test questions that were identified as

being similar in content and difficulty reflected specific proficiency levels. Students achieved a specific

proficiency level if they correctly answered at least three of the four questions within a proficiency level. 

Students at particular skill levels were assumed to have mastered the lower skill levels; likewise, students

were assumed not to have mastered higher skill levels. Only students with complete and consistent

response patterns were assigned proficiency levels.

44 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

identified as disabled by teachers and/or students themselves were significantly lower than

those of nondisabled students (Owings and Stocking 1985).

Among the specific disability conditions described in table 5.1, only students with health or

physical problems as identified by parents reported grade averages close to those of nondisabled

students. For all other disability categories, students perceived to have disabilities earned

lower grades than did their nondisabled counterparts.

Table 5.1— Average high school grade in English, mathematics, and science of students with disabilities

(NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript Component), as identified by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable English Mathematics Science English Mathematics Science b b

Disability status

Not identified 7.09 7.63 7.43 6.54 7.22 6.92

Identified 8.13 8.37 8.32 8.48 8.88 8.80

Multiple problems 8.45 8.27 8.70 8.93 9.18 9.22

Learning disabled 8.45 8.51 8.60 8.72 9.10 9.04

Health problem 7.95 8.07 8.06 7.95 8.45 8.40

Physical/emotional problem 7.94 8.26 8.25 8.83 9.11 9.09

Physical disability 7.24 7.98 7.89 -- -- --

Emotional problem 8.55 8.67 8.92 -- -- --

Sensory disability 7.80 8.12 8.08 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade transcript panel

weight (F2TRP1WT).

(b) Grade is based upon a 1-13 scale, where 1.0 = A+ and 13 = F.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.

Proficiency in Mathematics and Reading

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 report students’ proficiency levels in math and reading, respectively. The

proficiency measures shown are based upon standardized cognitive tests administered to all

NELS:88 student participants in 1988, 1990, and 1992. Like the findings reported for 23

cognitive test scores in HS&B (Owings and Stocking 1985), the math proficiency levels

indicate a consistent negative relationship between disability status and level of proficiency
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 45

(table 5.2). Whether identified by parents or teachers, disabled students were more likely to

perform below level 1 or at levels 1 or 2 than were nondisabled students. This same pattern of

lower performance for disabled students was also found for proficiency in reading (table 5.3).

Of particular note in both tables 5.2 and 5.3 are the generally lower performance levels in

reading and mathematics achieved by students identified as having learning disabilities or

multiple problems. In mathematics, between 58.2 and 61.1 percent tested below level 1 or at

level 1 (out of five levels). In reading, between 58.3 and 71.3 percent of these students tested

below level 1 or at level 1 (out of three proficiency levels). In contrast, and consistent with

findings reported earlier, students identified by either parents or teachers as having health

problems scored at about the same proficiency levels in mathematics and in reading (for those

identified by parents only) as did nondisabled students generally.

Table 5.4 shows the changes in the estimated numbers of correct responses on reading and

mathematics tests from the NELS:88 base year to the second follow-up survey. Although

differences in these gain scores for disabled and nondisabled students may certainly be

attributed to factors highly correlated with, but other than, disability conditions, they

nevertheless provide insights into the important area of educational development. For

students identified as disabled by parents, gains in mathematics proficiency fell short of those

made by nondisabled students. At the same time, the gains in reading made by these disabled

students were comparable to those made by nondisabled students over the same period.

Comparing specific disability categories identified by parents to not identified students, LD

students in particular evidenced lower gains in both reading and mathematics, from 1988 to

1992. In contrast, HP students performed about the same as not identified students.

A pattern of more pronounced differences in gain scores between disabled and nondisabled

students emerges for students perceived by their teachers to be disabled. For reading, test-score

gains were generally smaller for most teacher-identified categories of disability than were the

gains for nondisabled students. For example, those identified as LD showed an average

increase of 3.94 in reading from 1988 to 1992 compared to 5.86 for the nondisabled group. For

mathematics, the gains of nondisabled students outpaced those made by teacher-identified

disabled students in any of the disability categories shown in the table. In this case for

example, LD student gains over the 4-year period were less than two-thirds those of

nondisabled students.
46 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 5.2— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who achieved various levels of twe

in mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up Variable Math proficiency at 2nd Follow-up Math proficiency at 2nd Follow

Below Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Lev

Disability status bNot identified 6.5 20.8 14.4 24.2 30.0 4.1 4.3 17.0 14.3 25.9 3Identified 14.9 33.3 17.9 17.2 13.4 3.3 13.4 34.4 14.2 20.2 

Multiple problems 19.9 38.1 15.7 15.9 9.9 0.5 18.3 39.9 15.0 14.5 Learning disabled 22.9 38.2 17.6 15.1 5.7 0.4 20.3 38.9 14.4 16.9 Health problem 7.2 27.1 16.2 20.0 20.7 8.7 8.4 31.1 14.7 22.8 2Physical/emotional problem 12.1 32.0 16.3 18.8 17.0 3.8 12.7 35.0 15.5 17.9 

Physical disability 16.2 29.1 12.9 18.2 15.1 8.6 -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 11.7 41.6 9.9 26.4 8.6 1.8 -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 11.9 32.2 19.6 13.0 20.8 2.5 -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); BaseFollow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 47

Table 5.3— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who achieved

various levels of proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Reading proficiency at 2nd Follow-up Reading proficiency at 2nd Follow-up

Below Below

Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Disability status b

Not identified 6.8 30.6 39.6 22.9 5.6 28.3 41.2 24.9

Identified 17.0 39.4 31.4 12.2 13.9 39.7 32.6 13.7

Multiple problems 19.2 51.4 25.1 4.3 16.8 41.5 32.8 8.8

Learning disabled 25.9 45.4 24.5 4.2 22.8 45.2 23.3 8.7

Health problem 7.2 31.8 43.7 17.3 8.8 32.6 40.7 17.9

Physical/emotional problem 12.3 39.8 31.6 16.3 12.8 40.0 33.8 13.4

Physical disability 11.2 35.0 31.8 22.0 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 5.4 53.8 28.2 12.5 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 16.4 36.9 32.7 14.0 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Taken together, these data for teacher-identified disabled students suggest that the differences

in proficiency by disabled and nondisabled students observed in table 5.3 cannot be attributed

entirely to initial differences between these students when they entered high school. Rather,

the disparities in reading and mathematics test-score gains for disabled and nondisabled

students may also be related to (1) the fewer units of mathematics and English accumulated by

the disabled group; (2) the greater likelihood of these students being assigned to high school

remedial English and mathematics programs, as was observed in the previous chapter; and

(3) the fact that teachers’ disability identifications are directly linked to students’ classroom

performance.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

48 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 5.4— Gains in IRT-estimated number right for reading and mathematics tests, Base Year to Second a

Follow-up, among students with disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year and Second Follow-up

Student Surveys), as identified by parents and teachersb

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Change in Change in Change in Change in

reading: mathematics: reading: mathematics:

Base Year to Base Year to Base Year to Base Year to

2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up

Disability status c

Not identified 5.65 11.75 5.86 12.45

Identified 4.92 9.98 4.80 9.38

Multiple problems 4.55 8.85 4.51 7.97

Learning disabled 4.16 8.72 3.94 8.34

Health problem 6.24 11.86 5.48 10.09

Physical/emotional problem 5.34 10.58 5.16 9.23

Physical disability 5.50 12.22 -- --

Emotional problem 6.44 10.63 -- --

Sensory disability 4.73 9.73 -- --

(--) Not available. (a) “IRT-estimated number right” refers to test scores adjusted for individuals’ patterns of responses to test items. “IRT” is

Item Response Theory.

(b) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Educational Expectations

Course-taking patterns and academic performance during high school can be expected to

reflect and influence educational expectations following high school graduation. Given the

differences so far observed between the high school experiences and performance of disabled

and nondisabled students in NELS:88, we might expect to find differences among those

students with respect to their educational expectations. In this section, we consider two

different indicators of these expectations: students’ and parents’ estimates of eventual

educational attainments and students’ taking of college entrance examinations.

Expectations for Highest Education Level

At the NELS:88 second follow-up, both students and their parents were asked to indicate how

much schooling they expected the students to attain. For students identified as disabled by

parents, the educational expectations of both students and their parents were slightly lower

than the expectations for the nondisabled students (table 5.5). The educational expectations

of students identified as disabled by teachers also were lower than the expectations of

nondisabled students. Similarly, the parents of these teacher-identified disabled students had

lower expectations for their sons and daughters than did the parents of nondisabled students.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 49

Taking parent-identified LD students as an example, slightly more than 30 percent of students

had parents that expected them to attain less than a B.A. degree; for nondisabled students,

fewer than 25 percent of their parents had set their expectations this low. For teacheridentified LD students, 12.5 percent of these students expected only to complete high school

or less, compared to only 4.3 percent of the nondisabled group. Furthermore, more teacheridentified LD students had lower educational expectations than did the disabled group overall

(12.5 percent versus 11.1 percent).

Despite the pattern of lower educational expectations among disabled students, it is important

to note that many of these students did aspire to college and beyond. For example, almost

50 percent of the students identified as learning disabled by their parents or teachers in 1992

expected to obtain at least 4 years of college education. The parents of these students were

even more optimistic; more than 60 percent of the parents of teacher- or parent-identified LD

students expected their sons and daughters to complete 4 or more years of college in 1992.
50 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 5.5— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who held or whose parents held variou

expectations (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student and Parent Surveys)a Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up Variable Student’s expectations Parent’s expectations Student’s expectations Parent’s ex

b HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 

less college BA BA less college BA BA less college BA BA less college 

Disability statuscNot identified 5.8 24.7 33.2 36.6 3.9 16.8 42.3 37.0 4.3 23.0 35.5 37.2 3.2 15.2 Identified 9.8 31.5 29.3 29.4 7.7 18.7 37.8 35.8 11.1 35.3 23.1 30.7 7.4 24.5 

Multiple problems 13.6 33.5 22.4 30.5 6.0 25.7 29.3 39.0 16.4 33.8 20.2 29.6 9.1 24.8 Learning disabled 13.2 37.1 22.5 27.2 10.1 23.5 36.5 29.9 12.5 40.6 19.2 27.6 9.3 27.9 Health problems 8.2 27.0 37.7 27.0 8.4 16.4 40.0 34.7 11.0 26.1 27.2 35.7 5.8 19.3 Physical/emotional problem 8.9 27.2 30.7 33.2 4.9 15.6 36.5 41.8 12.2 35.5 23.0 29.3 8.8 23.9 

Physical disability 8.8 26.2 29.2 35.9 6.2 16.4 35.4 42.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 9.2 30.2 21.5 32.0 4.7 13.0 35.6 46.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 8.5 27.8 35.7 28.0 4.2 19.5 36.9 39.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth grade panel population.(b) Data from the Parent Survey are weighted using the Second Follow-up panel weight (F2PNLWT). (c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); BaseFollow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student and Parent Surveys.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 51

Completion of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT)

Program

NELS:88 provides an additional indicator of students’ expectations related to higher

education—students’ reports of completion or of their intention to take the SAT or ACT

during the current academic year. This indicator reveals differences between disabled and

nondisabled students (table 5.6). For example, while almost one-half of the nondisabled

students had taken or reported that they intended to take the SAT exam, 39.2 percent of the

disabled students identified by parents and 30.1 percent of those students identified by teachers

reported they had done so or planned to take the exam. For those students identified by

teachers, students in each of the disability categories less frequently reported having taken or

made plans to take the SAT exam than did nondisabled students. Even those students

identified by teachers as having health problems were less likely than nondisabled students to

have completed or planned for this exam.

In contrast, students perceived by their parents to be disabled were more similar to nondisabled

students when it came to completing or planning for the SAT. Parent-identified students in

most of the disability categories reported a similar status to nondisabled students with respect

to the SAT except for students with learning problems. Parent-identified LD students less

often reported that they had completed or intended to complete the SAT.

The results for the ACT generally follow the same patterns as for the SAT, especially for those

students identified by teachers. Parent-identified students with disabilities generally evidenced

lower levels of higher education preparation using the ACT indicator than with the SAT

indicator. Across all disability groups except for health problems, and for both the SAT and

ACT, disabled students were less prepared testwise for higher education than were nondisabled

students.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

52 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table 5.6— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who reported that

they had completed or intended to complete the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the

American College Test (ACT) (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable SAT ACT SAT ACT

% completed % completed % completed % completed

or intended or intended or intended or intended

this year this year this year this year

Disability status b

Not identified 47.9 41.3 49.7 42.5

Identified 39.2 34.9 30.1 29.3

Multiple problems 45.5 26.8 24.2 23.4

Learning disabled 30.1 31.7 25.9 22.6

Health problem 50.4 38.8 36.2 35.8

Physical/emotional problem 45.7 34.2 27.9 29.7

Physical disability 51.1 37.1 -- --

Emotional problem 39.8 22.6 -- --

Sensory disability 46.3 37.2 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Dropout Rate

Another important and often-reported indicator of educational outcomes is school

disengagement, typically represented by dropout behavior. Table 5.7 shows the percentages of

students identified by parents and teachers as disabled who dropped out of high school

(i.e., since March of their ninth-grade year) as reported in the second follow-up survey. In

reviewing this table, it is important to note that the lower dropout rates for students identified

by teachers may be explained by the particular teacher definition of disability/nondisability

status used in this report. Specifically, students had to be enrolled in tenth grade (i.e., at the

NELS:88 first follow-up) to be classified under this definition. Since teachers identified

students with disabilities in the tenth grade, the dropout measure for those students effectively

covers grades 10-12 only. Since parents identified students with disabilities in the eighth

grade, the dropout measure for these students covers grades 9-12.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 53

Table 5.7— Percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, who dropped out

of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % ever dropped out % ever dropped out b b

since March 1989 since March 1989

at 2nd follow-up at 2nd follow-up

Disability status c

Not identified 14.8 6.2 d

Identified 26.8 19.5

Multiple problems 34.1 26.0

Learning disabled 26.0 16.5

Health problem 28.5 16.8

Physical/emotional problem 29.5 23.8

Physical disability 27.6 --

Emotional problem 49.9 --

Sensory disability 18.3 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) “Ever dropped out” is based on the variable F2EVDOST, which indicates whether or not the sample member ever

dropped out in the first follow-up or second follow-up survey. The variable is based on a sample member’s dropout

history since the beginning of the first follow-up in March 1989.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

(d) The dropout percentages for teacher-identified disabled and nondisabled students do not include students who had

dropped out between the ninth and tenth grades (i.e., between spring 1989 and spring 1990).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.

About one-quarter of the students identified as disabled by parents and almost one-fifth of the

students identified as disabled by teachers reportedly dropped out of high school during this

period. The dropout rates for students under each disability definition were much higher than

those for the respective populations of nondisabled students, who reportedly dropped out at

rates ranging from 6.2 to 14.8 percent. The dropout rates were high for every disability

category, particularly for students identified by parents as having emotional problems

(49.9 percent).

Outcomes for Students Who Report Themselves to be Disabled

This section compares several key educational outcomes of students who identified themselves

as disabled to those who did not. The patterns of average grades in the three core curriculum

areas and dropout rates for these self-identified students are similar to those observed in tables

5.1 and 5.7 for students identified as disabled by their parents or teachers (table 5.8). In

contrast to parent- or teacher-identified disabled students, however, self-identified students

with disabilities in NELS:88 had lower grades than did nondisabled students only in English;

their grades in mathematics and science were comparable to those of nondisabled students.

These self-identified disabled students had higher dropout rates than nondisabled students.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

54 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

The comparative proficiency levels in mathematics and reading of students who identified

themselves as disabled also were lower than for nondisabled students (tables 5.9 and 5.10).

Table 5.8— Average high school grade in English, mathematics, and science and percentage of students who

identified themselves as disabled who dropped out of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

and Second Follow-up Transcript Component)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Percent ever dropped

out since March 1989

English Mathematics Science at 2nd Follow-up b

Disability status c

Not identified 7.06 7.63 7.38 10.9

Identified 7.89 7.73 7.92 18.4

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Grade is based upon a 1-13 scale, where 1.0 = A+ and 13 = F.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade

transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey, and Second Follow-up Transcript

Component.

Table 5.9— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who achieved various levels of

proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

% in each level of proficiency

Variable Below

Level 1 1 2 3 4 5

Disability status b

Not identified 6.3 21.0 14.7 24.3 29.5 4.2

Identified 10.7 37.6 15.2 24.3 11.0 1.1

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Educational Outcomes of Students with Disabilities

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 55

Table 5.10— Percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled, who achieved various levels of

proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

% in each level of proficiency

Variable Below

Level 1 1 2 3

Disability status b

Not identified 7.4 31.0 38.7 22.9

Identified 17.3 40.3 35.4 7.0

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.

Summary

It is clear from the results presented in this chapter that disability status is associated with less

positive educational outcomes. Whether identified by teachers or parents, or by their reported

participation in special education programs, students perceived to have disabilities recorded

lower grades, lower scores on proficiency tests and lower gains in these test scores over time,

and lower educational expectations beyond high school than did nondisabled students. The

percentages of disabled students who dropped out during high school were almost twice to

three times the percentages for nondisabled students. Given this overall pattern of findings, it

remains important to identify differences in the outcomes achieved by students with different

disabling conditions. For example, for many of the performance outcomes reviewed, students

with health problems (as identified by parents or by teachers) were similar to nondisabled

students. In contrast, students identified as having multiple disabilities and those with

learning disabilities often recorded the lowest performance levels (e.g., as indicated by

proficiency in mathematics or reading or by lower educational aspirations). Finally, students

identified by their parents as having emotional problems recorded the lowest grades and the

highest levels of school dropout. Taken together, these findings suggest different sets of

problems and the need for different responses from schools to ameliorate them.
56 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 57

Chapter 6

Summary and Conclusions

For this report, several different definitions of disability status were developed based on

NELS:88 survey information collected from parents, teachers, students, and school officials.

Despite the lack of overlap across the populations of students identified in each of these ways,

the patterns of difference between the various disabled and nondisabled student groups were

similar to one another in many respects and were consistent with findings from previous

studies (e.g., High School and Beyond and the National Transition Longitudinal Study).

When identification of disability status was based on teachers’ reports, the differences between

disabled and nondisabled students were more extensive. These findings are reviewed below and

are followed by a brief discussion of three general observations based on this work.

Characteristics of Populations Identified as Disabled by

Both Parents and Teachers

Students who identified themselves as disabled or were so identified by their teachers or their

parents more often were male, had lower scores on locus of control psychological measures,

took more remedial courses in high school, earned lower high school grades in core courses,

scored lower on proficiency tests, and had higher dropout rates than their nondisabled

counterparts. For each of the disabled populations defined by these NELS:88 respondents,

there was no evidence of the overrepresentation of minorities; however, black students were

overrepresented and underrepresented, respectively, in the teacher-identified and parentidentified learning disabled populations (compared to their distributions within the respective

nondisabled populations). Findings for participation in remedial mathematics and reading

programs mirrored those for students who had been excused from the base-year survey by

school officials for reasons of mental disability; students perceived to have disabilities were

more likely to participate in these courses than were others.

Teacher- or parent-identified disabled students more often were older than others in their

grades and more often had repeated a grade prior to the eighth grade (hence the tendency for

them to be older) than nondisabled students. Teacher- or parent-identified disabled students

were more likely to report having been in special education classes, had earned fewer units in

core curriculum areas, and evidenced lower rates of gains on mathematics proficiency tests.

These students reported lower educational expectations, for themselves and for them by their

parents, and they were less prepared for higher education than their nondisabled counterparts

by virtue of not having taken or planned to take either the SAT or ACT. The urbanicity and

socioeconomic status (SES) of the school as a whole did not seem to be related to teacher and

parent perceptions of disability status.
Summary and Conclusions

58 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Characteristics of Populations Identified as Disabled Only

by Teachers, Not by Parents

Teacher-identified disabled students were more likely to have lower individual SES, lower selfesteem, and to have participated to a lesser extent in extracurricular activities than their

nondisabled counterparts. In these respects, teacher-identified disabled students differed from

either parent-identified or self-identified disabled students. In addition, teacher-identified

disabled students were more likely to come from households headed by single females, to have

participated in a dropout prevention program in high school, and to have evidenced lower

rates of gain on reading proficiency tests than nondisabled students. In these ways, they also

differed from parent-identified disabled students. With respect to participation in dropout

prevention programs, the participation rates of these teacher-identified students approached

those of the BYI students who were excused from the base-year NELS:88 survey on the basis of

mental disability but who returned to the sample in the first or second follow-up.

General Observations

Across the various NELS:88 respondent-identified populations of students with disabilities, there is

clear evidence that students with disabilities tended to have greater difficulties in school and realized

fewer of the positive outcomes of schooling.

Students with disabilities as identified in NELS:88 were more often retained in grade, enrolled

in remedial classes, and placed in dropout prevention programs. Perhaps as a result, they

earned fewer credits in core curriculum areas, had lower educational expectations, and had

higher dropout rates than nondisabled students on average. Given this general pattern of less

positive experiences for disabled students, the severity of these sorts of education-related

problems for disabled students did appear to vary by type of disabling condition. Throughout

the chapters in this report, the distinctive needs and problems of learning disabled students

and of students with multiple handicaps were noted. Students with emotional problems were

also shown to have among the highest dropout rates, while students with physical problems

were most similar to nondisabled students in overall grade averages. Students with health

problems compared most favorably with nondisabled students with respect to several types of

outcomes. For these reasons, when the school experiences and outcomes of disabled students

are examined, it continues to be important to collect information and carry out analyses

separately for various specific disability categories.

Relatively small percentages of students with disabilities perceived themselves or were identified by

school officials to have received special education services during high school.

Overall, fewer than one-tenth of those students identified by parents or teachers as disabled

reported ever having participated in a program for the educationally or physically handicapped

during high school. School officials reported higher, but still relatively low, participation rates

for these students in special education programs during high school. As discussed in chapter 4,

these low reported participation rates may raise questions concerning the adequacy with which

students with special needs are identified and served in our nation’s high schools, and the

extent to which these students are being served in more inclusive environments that might

affect their awareness of being in a “special” program. It should be noted, however, that the

NELS:88 base-year sample likely excluded many children with disabilities who are served
Summary and Conclusions

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 59

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Similarly, NELS:88 parent and

teacher survey items related to disability status may have led to the identification of many

students who would not be considered disabled under the IDEA.

Teachers in NELS:88 were perceptive judges of which students were failing to perform well in the

classroom, but linking the identification of disability status to classroom performance may blur the

distinction between students with disabilities and students at risk.

In NELS:88, teacher perceptions of disability status were linked to students’ classroom

performance—i.e., teachers identified students as disabled only if their condition affected their

school work. Nevertheless, teacher reports of students’ disability status often “overlapped” the

reports made by different NELS:88 respondents. For example, more than 70 percent of the

students identified by school officials as having participated in special education in high

school were also (and independently) identified as disabled by teachers. In addition, more than

one-half of all students who reported their own participation in special high school classes for

the educationally or physically handicapped were also identified as disabled by teachers, and

almost one-half of the students identified as disabled by parents were so identified. At the

same time, as summarized above, the students identified by teachers as disabled (in contrast to

those identified by parents) also were found to have more of the sorts of personal

characteristics, educational experiences, and records of achievement one might generally

associate with students at risk of educational failure (e.g., lower SES, higher participation in

dropout prevention programs, lower gains in reading proficiency). For this reason, in the

future, it will be important for survey research efforts to separate teachers’ perceptions of

disability status from students’ classroom performance. That is, although this form of

identification allows us to benefit from teachers’ perceptions of which children are performing

poorly, as a method of identification for disability status, it may (1) include children who are

performing poorly in the classroom but who are not necessarily disabled, or (2) exclude

children who are disabled but whose school work is not affected by their disability.
60 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 61

References

Feds eye major changes to IDEA. (1995, March). California Special Education Alert, 1(8).

Frey, W., Ficke, R., Behe, K., & Brown, S. (1994, August 24). Recognizing the need of children

with disabilities: A constructive response to the ICIDH (Ad Hoc Committee Review

Draft—not for distribution).

Hodapp, R. & Krasner, D. (1994-95). Reflections on using large, national data bases in special

education research. Exceptionality, 5(2).

Ingels, S.J. (1995, January). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Second Follow-up:

Sample exclusion and undercoverage in NELS:88: Characteristics of base year ineligible

students; changes in eligibility status after four years. (Technical Report). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics. [unreleased as of 5/95]

Ingels, S.J., Dowd, K.L., Taylor, J.R., Bartot, V.H., & Frankel, M.R. (1994). National Education

Longitudinal Study of 1988: Second Follow-up: Transcript Component Data File User’s

Manual. (User’s Manual). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education. (1994).

Sixteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act. Washington, DC.

Owings, J. & Stocking, C. (1985). High School and Beyond, a national longitudinal study for the

1980's: Characteristics of high school students who identify themselves as handicapped.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

SED definition change dropped in feds plan. (1995, March 4). The Special Educator, 10(15).

Strube, M.J. & Roemelle, L.A. (1985). Self-enhancement, self-assessment, and self-evaluative

task choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4): 981-993.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L. (1993). The transition

experiences of young people with disabilities: A summary of findings from the National

Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.
References

62 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Westat, Inc. (1994, June 22). Extant data sets and disability classifications for children. Submitted

to Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Rockville, MD:

Author.

Westat, Inc. (1994). Manual for assessment administrators: 1994 Trial state assessment.

Rockville, MD: Author.
 The primary indicators presented in table A.1 reflect those items in NELS:88 that are most directly 1

related to disability status and disability-related services and therefore of key relevance to this report. 

The NELS:88 data set includes other indicators that may also be related to disability status and services

(e.g., academic/learning problems, enrollment in at-risk/remedial programs, discipline/attendance

problems). Many of these indicators are used as dependent variables in this report.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–1

Appendix A

NELS:88 Indicators of Disability and

Comparisons with Other National Data Sets

Since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), efforts have been made to estimate the

numbers of students with disabilities in the population. These efforts have involved the use of

data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP), as well as various surveys and national studies. For example, the Current Population

Survey (CPS), the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health (NHIS/CH), High

School and Beyond (HS&B), and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988

(NELS:88) have all been used to provide these estimates. In addition, the National

Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), begun in 1987, was

commissioned to describe the characteristics and experiences of students with disabilities.

Across these varied data collection efforts, the criteria used to identify students with

disabilities have been varied, ambiguous, and inconsistent. Because definitions of disability are

often subjective, prevalence estimates based on one definition may differ substantially from

estimates using another definition. This appendix supplements the discussion of chapter 2 by

providing a listing of the actual indicators in NELS:88 related to disability status and disability-related

services received. It then compares estimates based on NELS:88 and other sources of the prevalence

of students with disabilities in the general population and estimates of the distribution of disabled

students among various special education service categories.

NELS:88 Indicators of Disability Status and Services Received

Table A.1 summarizes the primary indicators of disability status and disability-related services

received, used in the NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second Follow-up Surveys (Parent,

Student, and Teacher Questionnaires) and available from transcript data collected during the

Second Follow-up. Table A.2 compares these NELS items with items used in HS&B to 1

indicate disability status, and with the disability categories used for federal eligibility

determination and for sampling by the NLTS. Like HS&B, NELS:88 was designed to survey

broadly the education-related experiences of American youth; it was not designed to address
Appendix A

A–2 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

specific issues related to the population of students with disabilities in depth. Nevertheless,

the NELS:88 dataset is an important resource for describing this population because of its

nationally representative samples of middle and high school students, its long period of

coverage, its extensive and varied data collections, and the possibility of replicated data

collections in the future.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–3

Table A.1— Primary indicators of disability in NELS:88 (variable name and items)

Baseline Follow-up 1 F

Parent BYP47. In your opinion, does your 8th-grader have No items No item

any of the following problems? a. Visual handicap (not correctable by glasses) b. Hearing problemc. Deafnessd. Speech probleme. Orthopedic problem (for example: club foot, absence of arm or leg, cerebral palsy, amputation, polio)f. Other physical disability g. Specific learning problem (for example: dyslexia or other reading, spelling, writing, or math disability)h. Emotional problemi. Mental retardationj. Other health problemBYP48. Has your 8th-grader ever received special services for any or all of the following? (10 problems specified-same as item 47) BYP49. Is your 8th-grader currently enrolled in any of the following special programs/services?c. Special services for orthopedically  handicapped students d. Special education services for students  with learning disabilities

Student No items F1S34. Have you ever been in any of the F2S12A. Which 

following kinds of courses or programs describes your prein high school? school program? f. Special program for the educationally e. Special Educat handicapped F2S13. Have you g. Special program for the physically following kinds o handicapped programs in high F1S99h. I became seriously ill or disabled f. Special program (in the last 2 years) educationally h

g. Special program  handicappedF2S96. I became (in the last 2 yea

Teacher BYT_9. Has this student ever fallen behind F1T1_8. Has this student fallen behind in No items

in school work because of a health school work because of a health problem?problem? F1T1_9. Do you feel this student has a learning BYT_10. Currently, has this student a physical disability that affects his or her school or emotional handicap that is affecting work? his or her school work? F1T1_10. Do you feel this student has a physical or

emotional handicap that affects his or herschool work?

Transcript F2RSPFLG. Has 

[special educationgifted] programs? SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); Base

Follow-up Surveys.
A–4 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table A.2— Comparison of disability indicators in NELS:88 and High School and Beyond (HS&B) with federal disability ca

Federal 

NELS:88 HS&B:80 HS&B:82 Categories 

Transcript Data

F2RSPFLG- Student has participated in any [special education, bilingual education, 

 or gifted] programs.

Parent Items Student Items Student Items

In your opinion, does your eighth Do you have any of the Do you have any of thegrader have any of the following following conditions? following conditions?problems? (BYP47) Visual handicap* Visual handicap (not correctable Visual impair

Visual handicap (not correctable Hard of hearing by glasses) Hearing impaby glasses) Deafness Hard of hearing DeafnessHearing problem Speech disability Deafness Speech or lanDeafness Orthopedic handicap Speech disability Orthopedic iSpeech problem Specific learning disability Orthopedic handicap Other health Orthopedic problem (for example: Other health impairment* Other physical disability or handicap Specific learnclub foot, absence of arm or leg, Specific learning disability Mental retardcerebral palsy, amputation, polio) None of these conditions Serious emotOther physical disability Deaf-BlindneSpecific learning problem (for Autismexample: dyslexia or other reading, Traumatic brspelling, writing, or math disability) Multiple disaEmotional problemMental retardationOther health problemHas your 8th-grader ever received special services for any or all of the following? (10 problems specified--same as item BYP47) (BYP48)Is your 8th-grader currently enrolled in oneof the following special programs/services?c. Special services for orthopedically

 handicapped students (BYP49c)

d. Special education services for studentswith learning disabilities (BYP49d) 

* These categories were not used to define disability status in analysis of HS&B data.** The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), begun in 1987, sampled special education students from withfederal disability categories. It did not use Autism or Traumatic Brain Injury, which were added in 1990. 
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–5

Table A.2— Comparison of disability indicators in NELS:88 and High School and Beyond (HS&B) with federal disability c

(continued)

Federal 

NELS:88 HS&B:80 HS&B:82 Categorie

Student Items

Have you ever been in any of the Have you ever been in a [see below] Have you ever been in a [see below]following kinds of courses or programs in high school/ in your junior or in high school/ in your junior orin high school? senior year? senior year?Special program for the educationally handicapped (F1S34f/F2S13f)Special program for the physically [special program for the physically [special program for the physicallyhandicapped (F1S34f/F2S13g) handicapped] handicapped]

Which of the following best describesyour present high school program?e. Special Education Program(F2S12Ae)I became seriously ill or disabled (in the last 2 years). (F1S99h/F2S96)Teacher Items Teacher Items *** Teacher Items ***[Student] currently has a physical [Student] had or may have had a [Student] had or may have had aor emotional handicap that is physical or emotional handicap that physical or emotional handicap thataffecting his or her school was affecting his or her school work. was affecting his or her school work.work? (BYT10)Do you feel this student has a physical or emotional handicap that is affecting his or her school work? (F1T10)[Student has] ever fallen behind in school work because of a health problem? (BYT9)Has this student fallen behind in school work because of a health problem? (F1T8)

*** In Owings and Stocking (1985), at least two or a majority of teacher respondents had to respond “Yes” for the students to b e identified as disable
A–6 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table A.2— Comparison of disability indicators in NELS:88 and High School and Beyond (HS&B) with federal disability ca

(continued) Federal R

NELS:88 HS&B:80 HS&B:82 Cateogorie

Do you feel this student has a learning disability that isaffecting his or her schoolwork? (FIT9)

Do you feel that you have a physical Do you feel that you have a physicalcondition that limits the kind or amount condition that limits the kind or amountof work you can do on a job, or affects of work you can do on a job, or affectsyour chances for more education? your chances for more education?Do you plan to use funds from the Do you plan to use funds from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Division of Vocational RehabilitationEducational Benefits for further study Educational Benefits for further studybeyond high school? beyond high school?

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); Base-Follow-up Surveys and HS&B 1980 and 1982 Student and Teacher Surveys, NCES, U.S. Department of Education; Sixteenth Annual Report to Congrthe Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1994), OSEP, U.S. Department of Education.
Appendix A

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–7

Estimates of the Numbers of Students with Disabilities

Keeping in mind that not all students with disabilities were included in the NELS:88 base-year

sample, two types of estimates of the numbers of students with disabilities can be derived from

NELS:88: (1) estimates of the proportion of students who have or are reported to have a

disability at a specific point in time (i.e., prevalence estimates), and (2) estimates of the

distribution of students with disabilities among the various special education service

categories. Comparisons of each of these types of estimates derived from NELS:88 and from

other data sources provide insight into the effects of alternative measurement strategies.

Prevalence Estimates of Students with Disabilities

Table A.3 presents national estimates of the prevalence of students with specific disabilities in

the population, based on various national assessments, census counts, and surveys. The table

notes summarize important variations in procedures across the data sets. For example, note 4

explains that the total NAEP estimate does not reflect the entire population of students with

disabilities associated with the NAEP data collection; rather, it includes only those students

excluded from NAEP on the basis of disability and does not include students with disabilities

who participated in NAEP, since NAEP did not collect specific disability data on included

students in 1988.

In comparing the prevalence estimates in table A.3, it is important to note the differences in

the disability categories, the age ranges of the populations, and the data collection procedures

and sources of information represented by each data set. As shown in table A.3, there is

considerable variation across data sets in prevalence estimates overall and by specific disability.

With the exception of NAEP as explained above, overall estimates range from a low of 8.0

percent for OSEP to a high of 23.5 percent for NHIS/CH. Estimates for specific learning

disability (LD), the largest disability category with more than half of all students served under

the IDEA (see table A.4), range from 1.7 percent in 1982 HS&B to 7.6 percent in NELS:88,

reflecting parent reports of students who had ever received services for a specific learning

disability. (The OSEP estimates, including an overall estimate of about 8 percent and an LD

estimate of about 4 percent, might be considered a basis for comparison, since they are the only

data that were collected specifically to provide counts of the numbers of students identified as

eligible to receive special education services under the IDEA.) These variations underscore

the difficulty of obtaining reliable and consistent disability prevalence estimates from data sets

using different data collection procedures and definitions. The differences in estimates

between NELS:88 and the other data sets also provide a context for understanding the

definitions of disability status that are used in this report for describing populations of students

with disabilities, using NELS:88.
Appendix A

A–8 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 TABLE A.3— Data sets on disability prevalence among children in the United States 1 1988 NELS (eighth grade)2 HS & B (tenth grade)3 1988 NAEP (Age 13)4 1992 CPS (Age 5-17) 1988 NHIS/CH (Under Age 18)5 1994 OSEP (Age 6-21)6 Classification (Parent report)

%

with

condition

%

received

services

Classification 

(Student

report)

%

1980

%

1982

Classification % Classification % Classification % Classification %

Mentalretardation

0.1

[3.1]7 0.0 Mentally retarded 1.0 [20.4] Mental retardation 0.7 Delay in growth or development 4.0 Mental retardation 0.9

Specificlearningproblem

6.1 7.6 Specific

learningdisability

2.6 1.7 Learning disabled 2.1

[43.5]

Learningdisability

4.3 Learning disability 6.5 Specific learning

disability

4.1

Emotionalproblem

2.8 2.6 Emotionally

disturbed

0.3

[6.1]

Seriousemotionaldisturbance

0.9 Emotional or

behavioral problem(age 3-17)

6.1 Serious

emotionaldisturbance

0.7

Speechproblem

1.6 6.9 Speech

disability

1.6 1.1 Speech impaired 0.1

[1.3]

Speechimpairment

2.5 Speech impairment 2.6 Speech or

languageimpairment

1.7

HearingproblemDeafness

2.20.4

1.90.3

Hard ofHearingDeafness

2.20.4

1.80.5

Hard of hearingDeaf

 0.0

[0.5]

0.0

[0.2]

Other hearingimpairmentDeafness

1.20.4

Deafness andhearing loss

1.5 Hearing

impairment

0.1

Visualhandicap (notcorrectablewith glasses)

1.6 1.1 Visual

handicap8 1.6 1.5 Visual handicap/blind 0.0 [0.2] Other visual impairment

Blindness

1.80.3

Blindness andvision impairment

1.3 Visual impairment <0.1

Deaf/blind 0.0

[0.1]

Deaf-blindness 0.0

Orthopedicproblem

0.9 1.1 Orthopedic

handicap

1.3 0.9 Orthopedically

impaired

0.0

[0.7]

Orthopedicimpairment

1.0 Musculoskeletal

impairments

1.5 Orthopedic

impairment

0.1

Other physicaldisabilityAny otherhealth problem

1.1

0.47

3.7

0.82.3

Other healthImpairment

2.0 2.6 Multidisabled

Other

 0.2

[3.2]

 0.3

[5.5]

Other healthimpairment

1.9 Multiple

impairmentOther healthimpaired9

0.20.1

Total 15.9 10 19.510 11.7 10.1 4.0 15.0 23.5 8.0
Appendix A

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–9

Table A.3 - Notes

Data sets include: National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), 1988; High School and Beyond 1

(HS&B), 1980 and 1982 sophomore cohort; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1988, 13 yearolds; Current Population Survey (CPS), 1992 October Supplement on School Enrollment; National Health Interview

Survey on Child Health (NHIS/CH), 1988; Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State-reported data. Data

and notes for NAEP, CPS, and NHIS/CH were abstracted from Westat, Inc. (1994).

NELS:88 data are derived from the base-year parent survey as follows: Weighted percentages in first column 2

(% with condition) are derived from variable BYP47; weighted percentages in the second column (% received services)

are derived from variable BYP48. The unbracketed percentages in these columns include only those students who

were included in the 1988 base-year parent survey. They do not include students who were judged ineligible to

participate in the base-year survey (i.e., the base-year ineligible, or BYI, students described in the last section of this

appendix). These students are shown in the bracketed percentages, as explained in note 7 below.

HS & B data abstracted from Owings, J. and Stocking, C. (1985). 3 

Bracketed figure is the disability prevalence among the approximately 5 percent of students excluded from NAEP 4 

because of physical disability, mental disability, or language problem. Approximately 79 percent of excluded 13 yearsolds had a disability; the remainder had only a language problem. The first, unbracketed, percentage figure is the

number of excluded students with a disability as a percent of total students. (In 1988, NAEP collected no data on the

specific disability categories of included students.)

The first three items—Delay in growth and development, Learning disability, and Emotional or behavioral 5

problem—include children who have ever had the condition (lifetime prevalence). Concerning the third, when two

additional questions are included: Has the child ever been treated for any emotional, mental, or behavioral problem or

ever had anyone suggest that the child needed such treatment, the rate increases to 13.4 percent. The remaining items

come from the Child Health questionnaire for chronic conditions, and the rates are conditions per 100 persons rather

than percent of persons. A person may have more than one condition per category, especially Musculoskeletal

impairments, which consists of many subgroups; so the condition rate may exceed the number of separate individuals

involved.

Data from Table AA25 in the Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with 6 

Disabilities Education Act (OSEP 1994). Data are based on counts of students, ages 6-21, served in special education

programs under IDEA, Part B, and chapter 2 of ESEA (SOP/State Operated Programs), as a percentage of U.S. Census

Bureau estimates of resident populations, by state, for July 1992. This excludes children and disabilities unrelated to

special education needs as defined by the federal disability categories.

The bracketed percentages for the categories Mental retardation and Other physical problem reflect the percent of 7

students, in terms of the total population, who were judged to be ineligible to participate in the base-year NELS:88

survey on the basis of mental or physical disability (i.e., BYI sample).

In the 1982 survey, “not correctable with glasses” was added to the definition. 8 

Other health impairments include Autism and Traumatic brain injury (categories added under IDEA in 1990). 9 

Each NELS:88 “total” is the total weighted percentage of students whose parents indicated they have one or more 10 

disability-related problems (first column) or have ever received services for one or more disability-related problems

(second column). These percentages are smaller than the sums of the individual column percentages because parents

attributed more than one disability-related problem to some students (i.e., adding the column percentages would have

produced duplicated counts).
Appendix A

 Each year, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education, is 2

required under P.L. 94-142 (IDEA) to collect, analyze, and report data to Congress to “assess the extent

to which all students with disabilities are receiving a free, appropriate public education.” According to

OSEP’s most recent report, approximately 4.6 million, or 8 percent, of the nation’s children, ages 6-21,

received special education services during the 1992-93 school year (under IDEA, Part B, and Chapter

1/ESEA.SOP). OSEP’s total estimate is similar to the service population estimate of 7.9 percent,

provided in 1980 by the Office of Civil Rights and reported by NCES in its 1985 report on disabilities

based on HS&B (Owings and Stocking 1985). 

 The actual percentage of learning disabled students in NELS:88 is higher because, according to 3

NELS:88 parent reports, about 54 percent of the students classified under “multiple disabilities” had

learning disability-related problems.

A–10 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Estimates of the Distribution of Students with Disabilities

Table A.4 presents estimates of the distribution of students with specific disabilities among

special education service categories. These estimates are derived from three sources:

(1) OSEP’s most recent estimates of students, ages 6-21, served in special education programs

under IDEA, Part B, and ESEA, Chapter 1 (SOP) during the 1992-93 school year; (2) data 2

from the NLTS on secondary school students with disabilities; and (3) parent reports from the

NELS:88 base-year survey regarding whether eighth-grade students had a specific disabilityrelated problem(s) and whether they had ever received special services for the problem(s). As

shown in table A.4, students with specific learning disabilities represent a large proportion of

the total population with disabilities: More than half of the populations reported by OSEP and

NLTS are learning disabled as are more than one-quarter of the students with disabilities in

NELS:88. The data also confirm that relatively small percentages of students fall within the 3

disability categories that are generally considered to be “low incidence” categories (e.g.,

hearing impairments/deafness, visual impairments, deaf-blindness, other health impairments,

orthopedic impairments). However, significant variations can be seen across the data sets,

which may be attributed to different definitional criteria and data collection procedures. For

example, the proportion of students with mental retardation (a relatively “high-incidence”

category) is negligible in NELS:88 because the parent reports upon which these percentages

are based did not include those students who were excused from participating in NELS:88 due

to “mental disability” in the base year. In contrast, the proportion of students with multiple

disabilities (a “low-incidence” category) in NELS:88 is disproportionately high because it

includes all students whose parents indicated they had more than one disability-related

problem or had ever received services for more than one problem.

The proportions of special education students with speech and language impairments also

show variation across data sets (3.4 percent in NLTS to 21.7 percent in OSEP), probably due

in part to the different age ranges of the populations and the fact that higher proportions of

elementary school children have speech and language impairments and receive services for

them than secondary school students do. (The OSEP data include students ranging in age

from 6 to 21, while the NLTS and NELS:88 data include students 13 or more years of age.)

Probably for similar age-related reasons, the speech and language impairment category includes

a much higher proportion of eighth-grade students in NELS:88 whose parents report them to

have ever received services for “speech problems” (24.4 percent) than to currently have a “speech

problem” (5.6 percent). These varied estimates of the distribution of students with disabilities

across special education service categories again underscore the complicated nature of the

population of students with disabilities who are the focus of this report.
Appendix A

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–11

Table A.4— Distribution of students with disabilities being served by special education programs, by

disability category

OSEP NLTS NELS:88 12 3

(6 - 21) (13 - 21) (grade 8)

Received services Has disability

All disabilities 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Specific learning disabilities 51.3 55.7 27.3 26.7

Speech or language impairments 21.7 3.4 24.4 5.6

Mental retardation 11.3 23.9 0.0 0.1

Serious emotional disturbances 8.8 10.5 7.6 9.3

Multiple disabilities 2.3 1.6 20.4 20.1 4

Hearing impairments/deafness 1.3 2.1 5.2 8.8

Other health impairments 1.4 1.3 6.5 15.9

Orthopedic impairments 1.1 1.2 4.8 6.8

Visual impairments 0.5 0.7 3.6 6.7

Autism 0.4 -- -- --

Traumatic brain injury 0.1 -- -- --

Deaf-Blindness 0.0 < 0.1 -- --

(--) Indicates that estimates are not available because these low-incidence disability categories, added under the IDEA in

1990, were not included in either the NLTS or NELS:88 surveys.

Modified presentation of data from table AA25, Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with 1

Disabilities Education Act (1994). U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Data from SRI International (December 1993). The Transition Experiences of Young People with Disabilities: A Summary of 2

Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Two weighted percentage columns are provided for NELS:88 data. The first, “Received services,” presents the distribution of 3

percentages of students reported by parents to have ever received services for a disability-related problem (BYP48) in the

base-year survey. The second, “Has disability,” presents the distribution of percentages of students reported by parents to have a

disability-related problem (BYP47) in the base-year survey.

The “Multiple disabilities” category in the OSEP and NLTS data sets represents a separate and discrete disability category. It is 4

a low-incidence disability category that includes students who are generally severely impaired and low functioning. “Multiple

disabilities” was not a separate disability response category in the NELS:88 parent survey; rather, it is a composite category that

includes students whose parents indicated they had more than one disability-related problem or had received services for more

than one problem—hence, the relatively high proportion of students with “multiple disabilities” in NELS:88.

Students with Disabilities Excused from National Studies

As described in the 1995 NCES report, Sample Exclusion and Undercoverage in NELS:88, some

students have been systematically excused from participation in cross-sectional assessments

such as NAEP and from longitudinal studies including HS&B and NELS:88. Traditionally,

students have been excused from participation in these studies primarily on the basis of mental

or physical disability or limited-English proficiency. For example, the “exclusion criteria” for

NAEP from 1990 to 1994 specified that a student identified as having an Individualized

Education Program (IEP) or equivalent classification may be excluded from the assessment if

(1) “the student is mainstreamed less than 50 percent of the time in academic subjects and is

judged incapable of participating meaningfully in the assessment,” OR (2) “the IEP team or

equivalent group has determined that the student is incapable of participating meaningfully in

the assessment” (Westat, Inc. 1994). Similarly, NELS:88 excused “mentally handicapped

students and students not proficient in English, for whom the NELS:88 tests would be

unsuitable; and students having physical or emotional problems that would make participation

in this survey unwise or unduly difficult.”
Appendix A

 The BYI population is described in detail in the most recent NCES report related to sample exclusion: 4

Ingels, S.J. (1995) National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Second Follow-up—Sample Exclusion and

Undercoverage in NELS:88: Characteristics of Base Year Ineligible Students; Changes in Eligibility Status After

Four Years (Technical Report).

 In the base year, parents identified less than 0.1 percent of students as having “mental retardation.” 5

According to OSEP’s most recent report to Congress, students with mental retardation represent

approximately 0.9 percent of the population (see table A.3).

 Data are also available for the BYI sample of students excluded for reasons of physical disability (23 in 6

the original BYI sample, and 13 who returned in the follow-up).

A–12 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

This policy of selective exclusion and its impact on resulting data, due to undercoverage bias,

have been the subject of recent debate. For example, efforts are underway, under Section

421(c)(3) of the Perkins Act, to facilitate appropriate assessments of these traditionally

excluded students to “ensure valid and reliable comparisons with the general student

population...” (Ingels 1995). Similarly, NAEP is currently re-evaluating its criteria for

excusing students from participation, and NELS:88 has taken steps to follow up BYI students

and to reassess their eligibility for participation as described below.

To develop a comprehensive picture of students with disabilities using any additional data set,

it is important to consider the potential bias resulting from the exclusion of students who were

judged ineligible to participate on the basis of disability. To permit examination of this issue,

NELS:88 procedures included (1) collection of descriptive data on students excused from this

study (i.e., base-year ineligible, or BYI, students), and (2) periodic review of the survey

eligibility of these students and their inclusion in subsequent follow-ups to the extent possible.

As a result of these periodic reviews, almost 200 students who were BYI on the basis of judged

mental or physical disability subsequently became eligible to participate in NELS:88 followups.4

Which students were excused from NELS:88? During the base year, some 584 8th-graders,

representing 4.7 percent of the entire eighth-grade population, were excluded from NELS:88

for reasons of physical, mental, or language barriers. As shown in figure A.1, most of these

students were excused for reasons of mental disability (331 students, or 66 percent). This

group likely included students with mental retardation who were otherwise missing from the

NELS:88 database. Demographic data are available for this entire BYI sample, and more 5

extensive data are available for the approximately 188 BYI students with mental disabilities

who subsequently were judged by school personnel as eligible to participate in the NELS

follow-up surveys.6
Appendix A

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 A–13
A–14 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 B–1

Appendix B

NELS:88 Disability Estimates Based on

Alternative Disability Definitions

Chapter 2 of this report reviews the alternative definitions of disability status available in

NELS:88 and provides rationales for the definitions used in the later chapters of this report.

This appendix expands upon the discussion of chapter 2, providing estimates and unweighted sample

sizes based on alternative definitions of disability for the primary NELS:88 data sources: parents,

teachers, students, and school officials.

Students Identified by Parents as Disabled

Table B.1 describes the unweighted sample sizes and the (base-year) weighted population

percentages associated with each of four alternative disability definitions based on the 10

disability-related problems reported by parents in the base year. Students identified by parents

as having more than one disability-related problem under any of these four definitions are

additionally classified as having “multiple problems” and are reported in a separate “multiple

problems” category (in addition to being reported within each single disability category with

which they have been identified). Although “multiple problems” in this case describes a

different population from the one identified by the “multiple disabilities” category used for

federal reporting under IDEA, it has been argued that those students with more than a single

reported disability in NELS:88 are likely to have different outcomes and characteristics than

those with a single type of disability (e.g., Hodapp and Krasner 1994). It should be noted that

the multiple problems category in table B-1 differs in definition from the one used in the body

of this report. Throughout the body of the report, the multiple problems category is defined in

terms of three disability categories: LD, HP, and PE. In table B-1, Multiple problems is defined

in terms of the 10 specific problems that are listed.

The use of one or another of the four definitions presented in table B.1 depends upon the aims

and scope of the analyses that are planned. In generating the prevalence estimates in appendix

A, for example, only the first two definitions were used, as they were likely the indicators most

comparable to those used to describe disability status in the other national surveys and data

sets presented (e.g., in tables A.3 and A.4). If extensive analyses were planned using data from

all three NELS:88 surveys (i.e., the base year and first and second follow-ups), then the third

definition might be preferable, as it is the one that provides the largest sample sizes. (This

would most likely be the case if the research questions being examined with these over-time

data were rather broad-ranging—e.g., identifying possible factors affecting parental aspirations

for their children.) Alternatively, the fourth definition, which requires both identification of a

problem and description of a service received for that problem, may be preferred as it likely

increases the accuracy of parents’ judgments of disability status.
Appendix B

B–2 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table B.1— Alternative approaches to definition disability status using the NELS:88 Base-Year Parent

Survey

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Problems Services Problem or Problem and

reported reported services reported services reported

Unwgt. N. Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. %

Not Identified 18,687 82.4 17,556 78.9 16,872 73.9 19,517 88.3

Identified - Total 3,901 17.6 4,494 21.1 5,724 26.1 2,519 11.7

Visual handicap 398 1.8 284 1.3 525 2.4 157 0.7

Hearing problem 536 2.5 434 2.0 728 3.3 242 1.2

Deafness 93 0.4 65 0.3 113 0.5 45 0.2

Speech problem 406 1.8 1,468 7.3 1,557 7.4 317 1.5

Orthopedic problem 201 0.9 247 1.2 318 1.4 130 0.6

Other physical disability 256 1.2 194 1.0 326 1.5 124 0.6

Specific learning problem 1,471 6.6 1,750 8.3 2,061 9.4 1,160 5.5

Emotional problem 744 3.4 759 3.5 1,069 4.8 434 2.0

Mental retardation 19 0.1 11 0.0 24 0.1 6 0.0

Other health problem 926 4.2 591 2.7 1,071 4.8 446 1.9

Multiple problems 841 3.9 971 4.5 1,351 6.2 419 1.9 a

(a) “Multiple problems” is a composite category including those students whose parent(s) indicated had more than one

disability-related problem/service received.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

For the present report, both the accuracy of parental identification and the adequacy of sample

sizes for comparing education-related outcomes of disabled and nondisabled students are

concerns. Although it appears from columns 1 and 2 in table B.1 that the largest discrepancies

in parents’ reports of problems and services were related to speech, specific learning, and other

health problems, columns 3 and 4 of the table indicate the considerable lack of overlap

between reports of problems and services received over all the disability categories. Since our

aim is to identify students with disabilities in the base year, the data from column 1 of table B.1

are the most pertinent; however, there is a marked gain in confidence about the accuracy of

these estimates when they are associated with the data from column 2. (Note that students

identified in column 2 may include those who either outgrew or had ameliorated for them a

previously detected disability.) Simply put, the students identified in column 4 (i.e., those who

were reported to have disability-related problems in 1988 and to have ever received services for

those problems) are those who seem most likely to have had a disability at the time of the

base-year survey.

To provide sufficient sample sizes for analysis, it is useful to combine the disability categories

in a meaningful way. Table B.2 presents the unweighted sample sizes and (base-year) weighted

population percentages associated with the categorization scheme used in this report. The

clustering of disabilities shown in table B.2 is based on consideration of both the similarities of

particular disability types and the need for comparability with the other disability indicators

available from NELS:88. As shown, the sample sizes for learning disability (LD) and other

health problems (HP) are sufficient for these disability types to be presented and analyzed

separately, although the few cases of mental retardation have been added into the LD category

because both are cognitive disabilities. Physical disability (P) includes orthopedic problem and
Appendix B

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 B–3

other physical disability; emotional problem (E) represents a single disability-related problem

in NELS:88; and sensory problem (SE) includes visual handicap, hearing problem, deafness,

and speech problem. A composite category, physical or emotional problem (PE), has been

created to provide comparability between the samples of students identified by parents and

those identified by teachers, since the NELS:88 teacher surveys combine these two disability

categories, as discussed below.

Table B.2— Definition of clusters of disabilities based on problems and services reported by parents during

the NELS:88 Base-Year Survey

Problem(s) and service(s) reported at base year

Unwgt. N Wgt. %

(BYQWT)

Not identified 19,517 88.3

Identified 2,519 11.7

Multiple problems 321 1.5

Learning disability (LD) 1,164 5.4

Health problem (HP) 446 1.9

Physical or emotional problem (PE) 1,257 5.7

Physical disability (P) 239 1.1

Emotional problem (E) 434 2.0

Sensory problem (SE) 668 3.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

Students Identified by Teachers as Disabled

Table B.3 presents the unweighted sample sizes and weighted population percentages of

students identified as disabled by at least one teacher during the base year or first follow-up. Table

B.3 is designed to create comparability of teacher data across the base year and first follow-up;

it provides consistent teacher definitions of disability status over time, which can be used for

either cross-sectional or panel analyses of data. Column 1 of this table provides the (base-year)

weighted population percentages in each disability category included on that year’s survey.
Appendix B

 The first follow-up panel weight is used in deriving these estimates because generalization in these 7

cases is to the population of U.S. eighth-graders in 1988 who participated in NELS:88 as sophomores in

1990.

 Requiring both respondent teachers to agree on disability status would provide a more rigorous 8

definition than the criterion “at least one teacher.” However, the sample sizes were not adequate to use

the more stringent definition, due to missing data.

B–4 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table B.3— Alternative approaches to defining disability using NELS:88 Base-Year and First Follow-up

Teacher Surveys

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Reported at Reported at Reported BY or Reported BY or Reported BY and

base year (BY) 1st follow-up 1st follow-up 1st follow-up 1st follow-up

(BY cross-section) (1st cross-section) (1st cross-section) (panel BY-FI) (panel BY-FI) a

Unwgt. N. Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. %

Not identified 21,698 95.5 14,782 92.9 15,652 91.0 15,652 91.0 13,697 99.6 b

Identified 970 4.5 1,069 7.1 1,439 9.0 1,439 9.0 53 0.4

Health problem (HP) 502 2.4 468 3.1 692 4.6 692 4.6 22 0.1

Physical or emotional

handicap (PE) 602 2.8 738 5.0 977 6.0 977 6.0 33 0.3

Mult. prob. 134 0.6 137 0.9 230 1.5 230 1.5 2 0.0 c

(a) The population listed in parentheses is the reference population (i.e., sample estimates refer to these populations).

(b) For purposes of comparability over time, students identified by teachers as having a learning disability (LD) at the first

follow-up are not included in this table under “Identified.” They would be included in the “Not identified” samples in

columns 2,3, and 4.

(c) “Multiple problems” includes those students whose teacher(s) indicated had both a health problem and a physical or

emotional handicap. The label “Multiple problems” is used to provide comparability with other NELS:88 indicators.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

Column 2 provides the (first follow-up) weighted population percentages in the three

disability categories covered by the survey in 1990 (e.g., health problem, physical or emotional

handicap, and both [multiple problems]). Column 3 describes students in the first follow-up

cross-sectional sample, including students in the “freshened” sample who were reported as

having either of these problems in the base year or first follow-up (i.e., those students who were

ever identified as disabled in the base year or first follow-up). Columns 4 and 5 show the (first

follow-up-panel) weighted population percentages of the students who were identified by at 7

least one teacher as having ever fallen behind due to a health problem or as currently having a

physical or emotional handicap in either (column 4) and both (column 5) time periods.8

Together, the columns in table B.3 describe five possible approaches to using comparable

teacher data to define students’ disability status between the base year and first follow-up.

Columns 1 and 2 are the most straightforward definitions of disability status. However, use of

column 1 provides no opportunity to examine students with teacher-identified learning

disabilities because the base-year teacher survey did not include an indicator for learning

disability. Similarly, columns 4 and 5, which may respectively provide the most inclusive and
Appendix B

 It is possible that some teachers at base year identified some students they perceived as having a 9

learning disability as having a physical or emotional handicap, but it is more likely that most teachers

did not identify LD students at all.

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 B–5

stable estimates based on over-time measurement of teachers in NELS:88, offer no such

opportunities with respect to learning disabilities.9

Students with learning disabilities represent the largest segment of the target population of

students with disabilities across virtually all national data sets, as discussed in appendix A (see

table A.4). The definitions of disability presented in table B.3 do not include this important

population, and it should be considered when characterizing the experiences and outcomes of

students with disabilities. Therefore, it appears preferable to rely solely on first follow-up data

from teachers, which includes those students identified by teachers as having learning

disabilities.

Table B.4 presents alternative approaches to defining disability status using first follow-up

teacher surveys. Because NELS:88 relied on data reported from pairs of teachers at first followup, it is also important to consider whether teacher agreements on disability status may be used

to bolster the reliability of the identifications that were reported. As shown in column 1,

requiring at least one teacher to identify a student as disabled provides the largest sample size,

but as the least stringent criterion for defining disability status, it might be thought to provide

the least reliability. In fact this is not the case, given that (1) teacher-respondents were

selected from core curriculum areas (i.e., mathematics, English, social studies, and science)

rather than from special education, and (2) learning disabilities, for example, may be

manifested differentially as a function of subject matter. For these reasons, the opinion of

either teacher as to a student’s disability status must be regarded seriously—whether or not

there is agreement across teachers. Column 1, therefore, describes the definition used in this

report. Requiring the agreement of both teachers, as shown in column 2, is not useful due to

the many cases missing one teacher’s report on disability status. And, basing a definition of

disability on the agreement of all respondent teachers concerning a student’s disability status

(column 3) overlooks the possibility of a disability being detected in only a particular core

subject area.
Appendix B

B–6 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table B.4— Alternative approaches to defining disability status using NELS:88 First Follow-up Teacher

Surveys

(1) (2) (3)

At lease one Both teachers All respondent

teacher reporting reporting teachers reporting

Unwgt. N. Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. %

Not identified 12,337 77.0 11,473 94.8 14,310 89.7

Identified 3,534 23.0 610 5.2 1,561 10.3

Health problem (HP) 1,176 7.5 186 1.5 468 3.1

Physical or emotional handicap (PE) 1,895 12.8 231 2.0 738 5.0

Learning disability (LD) 1,606 10.7 284 2.5 711 4.7

Multiple problems 1,011 6.8 87 0.7 326 2.2 a

(a) “Multiple problems” includes those students whose teacher(s) indicated had more than one category of problem.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

Students Who Self-Identify Themselves as Disabled

Table B.5 summarizes the various ways items on special program participation from the first

and second follow-up student surveys might be used to define populations of disabled students.

Columns 1 and 2, respectively, present the sample sizes and (first and second follow-up)

weighted population percentages based on students’ responses to items at each follow-up.

Columns 4 and 5 present the sample sizes and (first and second follow-up-panel) weighted

population percentages based on the responses from students at both follow-ups (i.e., either

indicating special program participation at one or the other time-point or at both time-points).

Finally, column 3 presents weighted sample percentages and describes students from the first or

second follow-up cross-sectional samples who reported themselves as “ever” having been in

special programs in high school.
Appendix B

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 B–7

Table B.5— Alternative approaches to defining disability status using NELS:88 First and Second Follow-up

Student Surveys

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Reported at Reported at Reported 1st or Reported 1st or Reported 1st and

1st follow-up (F1) 2nd follow-up 2nd follow-up 2nd follow-up 2nd follow-up

(1st cross-section) (2nd cross-section) (2nd cross-section) (panel BY-F2) (panel F1-F2) a

Unwgt. N. Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. % Unwgt. N Wgt. %

Not identified 17,375 96.8 16,090 97.2 17,648 95.4 16,110 95.5 14,627 99.3

Identified 493 3.2 380 2.8 731 4.6 641 4.5 87 0.7

Educationally

handicapped (LD) 385 2.6 319 2.5 592 3.9 517 3.8 71 0.6

Physically

handicapped (P) 249 1.5 130 0.9 348 2.1 304 2.1 20 0.1

Mult. prob. 141 0.9 69 0.6 209 1.4 180 1.4 4 0.0 b

(a) The population listed in parentheses is the reference population (i.e., sample estimates refer to these populations).

(b) “Multiple problems” includes those students who indicated that they had participated in special programs for both

educational and physical handicaps during high school. The label “multiple problems” is used to provide comparability

with other NELS:88 indicators.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

The strength of the rationale for use of any of the definitions in columns 3 through 5 of table

B.5 depends on the suspected accuracy of students’ reports, the overlap between the reported

information for individual students at the two time-points, and the comparisons to be made

with disability definitions from other sources. Owings and Stocking (1985), for example, note

that student self-reports of disability status are subject to change over time, suggesting that the

first and second follow-up NELS:88 items on special program participation might define two

distinct disability populations. In fact, table B.6 shows that this is the case. In addition, the

comparisons that might be made with disability estimates based on other NELS:88 data sources

favor keeping these populations separate in analysis. For example, the population defined by

students’ responses at first follow-up can be compared to the population defined by teachers’

first follow-up responses. Similarly, the population defined by students’ responses at second

follow-up can be compared to the population defined by school officials’ judgments of

students’ disability status, as described below. In this report, we limit our focus to the studentdefined disabled population identified at the NELS:88 first follow-up, since it is the definition

most proximate in time to those provided by parents and teachers.
Appendix B

B–8 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table B.6— Comparison of (unweighted) students’ responses regarding special education placements in high

school

2nd follow-up

Educationally handicapped

Missing Not identified Identified

1st follow-up

Educationally handicapped

Missing 8,363 1,329 51

Not identified 2,669 14,600 191

Identified 101 207 77

2nd follow-up

Physically handicapped

Missing Not identified Identified

1st follow-up

Physically handicapped

Missing 8,369 1,353 15

Not identified 2,702 14,806 94

Identified 69 159 21

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Survey.

Students Identified as Ineligible to Participate Due to Disabilities

As discussed in chapter 2, about 5 percent of 8th-graders in the NELS:88 base-year sample of

schools were excused from participation by school officials due to limitations in language

proficiency or to mental or physical disabilities. Of these excluded students, about two-thirds

(66 percent) were excused due to mental disability. In NELS:88 follow-up surveys, special

efforts were made to reassess whether these and other excused students should be allowed to

participate. These efforts resulted in the return of 133 BYI students with mental disabilities to

the NELS:88 first follow-up and 156 such students to the second follow-up. The progress of

these students through the education system provides yet another perspective on the

educational experiences of disabled students for this report. In fact, BYI students who

participated in NELS:88 follow-up surveys may already be included in analyses of data for

disabled populations defined by teachers, students, and school officials.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–1

Appendix C

Standard Errors
C–2 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–3

Table C.3.1— Standard errors (for table 3.1) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who were male, the percentage who were members of an ethnic/racial

minority group, and average age (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Sex Race Sex Race

Male Minority Age Male Minority Age bc b c

Disability status d

Not identified 0.70 1.17 0.010 0.66 1.14 0.014

Identified 1.89 1.89 0.039 1.23 1.45 0.019

Multiple problems 5.80 5.85 0.182 2.34 2.44 0.034

Learning disabled 2.61 2.23 0.070 1.94 2.29 0.035

Health problem 4.74 5.15 0.066 2.17 2.11 0.026

Physical/emotional problem 2.73 2.79 0.067 1.81 1.89 0.027

Physical disability 5.33 4.80 0.065 -- -- --

Emotional problem 6.17 6.28 0.162 -- -- --

Sensory disability 3.05 2.85 0.055 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Minority includes Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, black, and American Indian or Alaskan Native.

(c) Mean age is calculated using the BIRTHYR variable; that is, subtracting a student’s birthyear from 1988.

(d) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–4 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C3.2— Standard errors (for table 3.2) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who were of various races (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Race Race

Black White Other Black White Other

Disability status b

Not identified 0.89 1.17 0.83 0.79 1.14 0.87

Identified 1.61 1.89 1.10 1.11 1.45 1.09

Multiple problems 5.96 5.85 2.71 1.97 2.44 1.87

Learning disabled 1.58 2.23 1.63 1.93 2.29 1.63

Health problem 5.26 5.15 2.33 1.71 2.11 1.55

Physical/emotional problem 2.71 2.85 1.56 1.45 1.89 1.45

Physical disability 2.54 4.80 4.54 -- -- --

Emotional problem 6.43 6.28 2.41 -- -- --

Sensory disability 2.31 2.85 1.84 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–5

Table C.3.3— Standard errors (for table 3.3) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, w

quartile and had parents with various education levels (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-uVariable SES Quartile Parents’ Highest Education SES Quartile Paren

Low High Some 4yr + Low High 

1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q < HS HS College College 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q < HS 

Disability status bNot identified 0.84 0.66 0.65 0.96 0.61 0.61 0.76 0.96 0.74 0.64 0.61 1.01 0.52 

Identified 1.76 1.55 1.48 2.29 2.29 1.51 1.92 2.20 1.23 1.02 1.09 1.12 0.74 

Multiple problems 5.85 3.76 3.67 5.59 5.63 3.21 5.50 5.71 2.20 2.15 1.74 2.04 1.41 Learning disabled 5.36 3.14 2.79 3.74 3.18 2.90 4.48 3.73 1.78 1.84 2.01 2.15 1.32 Health problem 2.22 2.32 1.92 3.86 3.46 2.16 2.82 3.79 1.84 1.58 1.56 1.90 1.14 Physical/emotional problem 2.71 2.14 2.43 2.61 2.20 2.26 2.79 2.59 1.81 1.62 1.72 1.54 1.05 

Physical disability 5.47 3.15 5.02 3.25 3.56 4.58 5.54 3.95 -- -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 5.98 3.57 5.20 5.88 5.51 5.03 6.09 5.67 -- -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 2.96 2.92 2.46 2.72 1.70 2.35 3.27 2.73 -- -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); BaseFollow-up Teacher Survey.
Appendix C

C–6 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.3.4— Standard errors (for table 3.4) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who lived in single female-headed households (NELS:88 Base-Year

Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Female-headed % Female-headed

household at BY household at BY

Disability status b

Not identified 0.65 0.54

Identified 1.45 1.04

Multiple problems 5.09 2.36

Learning disabled 1.94 1.60

Health problem 3.09 1.78

Physical/emotional problem 2.45 1.84

Physical disability 3.64 --

Emotional problem 6.48 --

Sensory disability 3.28 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–7

Table C.3.5— Standard errors (for table 3.5) of mean locus of control scores, over time, of students with

disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified

by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Base First Second Base First Second

Variable Year Follow-up Follow-up Year Follow-up Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.011

Identified 0.028 0.036 0.039 0.020 0.023 0.021

Multiple problems 0.071 0.129 0.127 0.042 0.041 0.040

Learning disabled 0.036 0.046 0.062 0.033 0.044 0.034

Health problem 0.070 0.103 0.115 0.038 0.040 0.036

Physical/emotional problem 0.043 0.056 0.053 0.033 0.030 0.036

Physical disability 0.096 0.093 0.135 -- -- --

Emotional problem 0.092 0.142 0.119 -- -- --

Sensory disability 0.046 0.052 0.054 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Locus of control score is standardized; mean = 0, s.d. = 1.0. Positive locus of control scores indicate greater internal

control, while negative scores indicate less internal control.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
Appendix C

C–8 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.3.6— Standard errors (for table 3.6) of mean self-concept scores, over time, of students with

disabilities (NELS:88 Base-Year, First, and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified

by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Base First Second Base First Second

Variable Year Follow-up Follow-up Year Follow-up Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.028 0.030 0.034 0.010 0.010 0.012

Identified 0.028 0.030 0.034 0.017 0.019 0.020

Multiple problems 0.073 0.103 0.091 0.034 0.039 0.045

Learning disabled 0.035 0.040 0.048 0.026 0.033 0.037

Health problem 0.066 0.090 0.090 0.031 0.038 0.042

Physical/emotional problem 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.025 0.029 0.031

Physical disability 0.109 0.075 0.081 -- -- --

Emotional problem 0.100 0.112 0.095 -- -- --

Sensory disability 0.044 0.045 0.058 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Self-concept score is standardized; mean = 0, s.d. = 1.0. Positive self-concept scores indicate greater internal control,

while negative scores indicate less internal control.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–9

Table C.3.7— Standard errors (for table 3.7) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who were in different school environments and who received free or

reduced-price lunch (NELS:88 Base-Year School Survey)a

 Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Avg. % of Avg. % of

students in students in

school lunch school lunch

Urban Suburban Rural program Urban Suburban Rural program b b

Disability status c

Not identified 1.59 1.84 1.75 0.85 1.54 1.90 1.84 0.88

Identified 2.59 2.66 2.22 1.39 1.79 2.17 2.07 0.95

Multiple problems 6.14 5.90 4.63 4.40 2.69 2.93 2.75 1.30

Learning disabled 5.44 4.76 4.25 1.60 2.69 2.88 2.74 1.28

Health problem 3.91 3.74 3.06 3.86 2.53 2.92 2.70 1.16

Physical/emotional problem 3.10 3.35 2.56 2.07 2.24 2.67 2.60 1.16

Physical disability 4.19 5.73 4.74 2.77 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 6.54 6.45 3.63 4.43 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 3.11 3.54 3.20 1.90 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) “School lunch program” refers to free or reduced-price school lunch program.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Base-Year School Survey.
Appendix C

C–10 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.3.8— Standard errors (for table 3.8) of percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled,

who were male, members of minority groups, and in various SES quartiles (NELS:88 BaseYear Student and Parent Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable SES Quartiles

Sex Race Low High

% Male % Minority 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q

Disability status b

Not identified 0.63 1.13 0.76 0.62 0.58 0.91

Identified 3.95 3.38 2.79 3.88 3.42 4.94

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Base-Year Student and Parent Surveys.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–11

Table C.3.9— Standard errors (for table 3.9) of mean self-concept and locus of control scores of students who

identified themselves as disabled (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Self-concept Locus of control

at 2nd Follow-up at 2nd Follow-up

Disability status b

Not identified 0.011 0.011

Identified 0.072 0.058

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Self-concept and locus of control scores are standardized; means for both = 0, s.d. = 1.0.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–12 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.4.1— Standard errors (for table 4.1) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who ever repeated a grade prior to eighth grade (NELS:88 Base-Year

Parent Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Repeated grade before eighth grade % Repeated grade before eighth grade

Disability status b

Not identified 0.72 0.46

Identified 2.07 1.21

Multiple problems 5.37 2.33

Learning disabled 3.35 2.22

Health problem 3.65 1.74

Physical/emotional problem 2.72 1.72

Physical disability 5.21 --

Emotional problem 5.72 --

Sensory disability 3.18 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–13

Table C.4.2— Standard errors (for table 4.2) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who reported ever having participated in remedial English or

mathematics programs during high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % Ever in remedial % Ever in remedial

English Math English Math

Disability status b

Not identified 0.68 0.68 0.56 0.56

Identified 2.00 2.19 1.36 1.34

Multiple problems 5.09 6.63 2.48 2.45

Learning disabled 3.99 4.01 2.21 2.20

Health problem 2.81 3.30 2.03 2.02

Physical/emotional problem 2.29 3.05 2.03 2.02

Physical disability 4.24 4.22 -- --

Emotional problem 5.70 7.26 -- --

Sensory disability 2.75 2.76 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–14 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.4.3— Standard errors (for table 4.3) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who reported having participated in high school dropout prevention

programs (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Ever participated in program Ever participated in program

for dropout prevention for dropout prevention

Disability status b

Not identified 0.29 0.15

Identified 0.62 0.52

Multiple problems 2.34 1.06

Learning disabled 0.77 0.83

Health problem 2.64 0.72

Physical/emotional problem 0.85 0.88

Physical disability 1.61 --

Emotional problem 2.66 --

Sensory disability 0.65 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–15

Table C.4.4— Standard errors (for table 4.4) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who reported having participated in programs for the educationally or

physically handicapped (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Ever participated in program for: Ever participated in program for:

Educationally Physically Educationally Physically

handicapped handicapped handicapped handicapped

Disability status b

Not identified 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.11

Identified 2.57 2.32 0.53 0.33

Multiple problems 7.75 1.58 1.12 1.04

Learning disabled 4.91 4.79 0.96 0.68

Health problem 1.04 0.75 0.64 0.44

Physical/emotional problem 2.86 0.74 0.84 0.58

Physical disability 2.44 2.85 -- --

Emotional problem 9.46 0.82 -- --

Sensory disability 1.18 0.71 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–16 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.4.5— Standard errors (for table 4.5) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who participated in special education (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Transcript Component)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Participated in special education Participated in special education

Disability status b

Not identified 0.17 0.16

Identified 1.36 0.68

Multiple problems 5.48 1.57

Learning disabled 2.73 1.40

Health problem 2.99 0.79

Physical/emotional problem 1.99 0.92

Physical disability 4.60 --

Emotional problem 4.78 --

Sensory disability 2.72 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade

transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–17

Table C.4.6— Standard errors (for table 4.6) of total units in core subjects completed by students with

disabilities (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript Component), as identified by parents and

teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up

Average Average Average Average Average Average

English math science English math science

units units units units units units

Disability status

Not identified 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03

Identified 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03

Multiple problems 0.32 0.55 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.06

Learning disabled 0.13 0.24 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06

Health problem 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.05

Physical/emotional problem 0.14 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.05

Physical disability 0.22 0.25 0.18 -- -- --

Emotional problem 0.33 0.57 0.31 -- -- --

Sensory disability 0.14 0.10 0.09 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade transcript panel

weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.
Appendix C

C–18 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.4.7— Standard errors for (table 4.7) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who were involved in school sports and extracurricular activities and

whose parents were involved in PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up

Student Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Parent involvement Student involvement Parent involvement Student involvement

% % Avg. # Avg. # % % Avg. # Avg. #

Attend Active sport school Attend Active sport school

PTA PTA activities activities PTA PTA activities activities

Disability status b

Not identified 0.87 0.90 0.01 0.02 0.90 0.91 0.01 0.02

Identified 2.10 1.67 0.04 0.06 1.29 1.22 0.02 0.04

Multiple problems 5.84 2.53 0.10 0.17 2.50 2.22 0.04 0.07

Learning disabled 2.97 2.57 0.09 0.08 2.23 2.14 0.03 0.06

Health problem 5.08 4.01 0.05 0.19 2.24 2.03 0.03 0.07

Physical/emotional

problem 2.92 1.95 0.04 0.09 1.93 1.73 0.03 0.05

Physical disability 6.09 4.55 0.06 0.19 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 6.09 2.88 0.08 0.18 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 3.30 2.50 0.06 0.09 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student

Surveys.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–19

Table C.4.8— Standard errors (for table 4.8) of percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled

who participated in remedial English or remedial math programs in high school (NELS:88

Second Follow-up Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at 1st Follow-up

Variable % Ever participated in:

Remedial Remedial

English math

Disability status b

Not identified 0.57 0.55

Identified 3.74 5.23

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–20 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.4.9— Standard errors (for table 4.9) of percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled

who were involved in school sports and extracurricular activities and whose parents were

involved in PTA (NELS:88 Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Parent involvement Student involvement

Avg. # Avg. #

% Attend % Active sport school

PTA PTA activities activities

Disability status b

Not identified 0.88 0.85 0.01 0.02

Identified 3.71 3.51 0.06 0.15

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Base-Year Parent and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–21

Table C.5.1— Standard errors (for table 5.1) of average high school grade in English, mathematics, and

science of students with disabilities (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Transcript Component), as

identified by parents and teachersa

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable English Mathematics Science English Mathematics Science b b

Disability status

Not identified 0.059 0.056 0.057 0.049 0.053 0.051

Identified 0.137 0.180 0.160 0.069 0.067 0.070

Multiple problems 0.408 0.411 0.292 0.107 0.105 0.117

Learning disabled 0.168 0.366 0.288 0.104 0.092 0.104

Health problem 0.400 0.236 0.286 0.122 0.111 0.126

Physical/emotional problem 0.229 0.180 0.183 0.098 0.103 0.106

Physical disability 0.492 0.261 0.429 -- -- --

Emotional problem 0.478 0.438 0.446 -- -- --

Sensory disability 0.234 0.223 0.188 -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade transcript panel

weight (F2TRP1WT).

(b) Grade is based upon a 1-13 scale, where 1.0 = A+ and 13 = F.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Transcript Component.
C–22 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.5.2— Standard errors (for table 5.2) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, w

levels of 12th-grade proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Math proficiency at 2nd Follow-up Math proficiency at 2nd Follow

Below Below

Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Lev

Disability status bNot identified 0.56 0.7 0.59 0.64 0.85 0.29 0.31 0.64 0.52 0.63 0.Identified 1.58 2.60 2.72 2.10 1.34 1.03 0.95 1.38 0.98 1.22 1

Multiple problems 4.71 6.46 4.62 9.07 3.40 0.45 2.13 2.69 2.09 2.15 1Learning disabled 2.89 4.25 5.10 3.68 1.17 0.23 1.91 2.23 1.71 2.12 1Health problem 2.66 4.78 3.22 3.92 3.72 4.30 1.29 2.60 1.93 2.32 2Physical/emotional problem 2.18 3.47 2.31 3.42 2.25 1.50 1.49 2.20 1.71 1.78 1

Physical disability 6.03 6.06 3.61 5.39 3.78 5.6 -- -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 3.94 8.87 2.71 9.75 2.50 1.08 -- -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 2.69 3.46 3.40 2.08 3.20 1.18 -- -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); BaseFollow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–23

Table C.5.3— Standard errors (for table 5.3) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who achieved various levels of proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Reading proficiency at 2nd Follow-up Reading proficiency at 2nd Follow-up

Below Below

Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Disability status b

Not identified 0.39 0.83 0.77 0.68 0.34 0.74 0.71 0.71

Identified 2.63 2.41 2.16 1.40 0.91 1.42 1.32 1.06

Multiple problems 4.83 6.55 4.44 1.41 1.85 2.65 2.56 1.28

Learning disabled 4.80 4.08 3.24 0.92 1.80 2.31 2.03 1.66

Health problem 2.43 4.80 4.64 3.83 1.29 2.32 2.49 2.10

Physical/emotional

problem 1.94 3.58 2.84 2.30 1.31 2.10 1.95 1.56

Physical disability 3.16 6.65 5.55 6.08 -- -- -- --

Emotional problem 1.99 7.97 6.05 3.97 -- -- -- --

Sensory disability 3.07 3.53 3.30 2.37 -- -- -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–24 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.5.4— Standard errors (for table 5.4) of gains in IRT-estimated number right for reading and

mathematics tests, Base Year to Second Follow-up, among students with disabilities a

(NELS:88 Base-Year and Second Follow-up Student Surveys), as identified by parents and

teachersb

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable Change in Change in Change in Change in

reading: mathematics: reading: mathematics:

Base Year to Base Year to Base Year to Base Year to

2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up 2nd Follow-up

Disability status c

Not identified 0.110 0.140 0.114 0.141

Identified 0.360 0.383 0.196 0.230

Multiple problems 1.422 1.528 0.377 0.459

Learning disabled 0.540 0.557 0.304 0.395

Health problem 0.534 0.786 0.329 0.346

Physical/emotional

problem 0.579 0.603 0.296 0.335

Physical disability 0.715 1.027 -- --

Emotional problem 1.376 1.143 -- --

Sensory disability 0.745 0.870 -- --

(--) Not available. (a) “IRT-estimated number right” refers to test scores adjusted for individuals’ patterns of responses to test items. “IRT” is

Item Response Theory.

(b) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–25

Table C.5.5— Standard errors (for table 5.5) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by parents and teachers, w

parents held various levels of educational expectations (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student and Parent Survey

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-upVariable Student’s expectations Parent’s expectations Student’s expectations Parent’s ex

b

HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 4 yr Post- HS or Some 

less college BA BA less college BA BA less college BA BA less colleg

Disability statuscNot identified 0.49 0.63 0.74 0.67 0.29 0.55 0.68 0.77 0.26 0.63 0.75 0.65 0.24 0.53 Identified 0.95 1.94 2.44 1.91 0.98 1.41 2.12 2.68 0.83 1.24 1.10 1.20 0.79 1.13 

Multiple problems 3.36 5.35 4.01 7.47 1.92 4.79 5.16 8.14 1.94 2.39 1.79 2.48 1.68 2.52 Learning disabled 1.59 3.27 4.47 3.18 1.74 2.47 3.61 5.21 1.24 2.16 1.87 1.95 1.24 2.1Health problem 2.52 3.73 4.33 3.74 2.52 3.13 4.36 4.40 1.75 2.03 1.99 2.22 1.26 1.90 Physical/emotional  problem 1.35 2.40 2.78 3.03 0.88 1.88 2.84 3.29 1.30 2.00 1.61 1.84 1.41 1.80 

Physical disability 2.57 4.42 5.07 5.95 2.29 3.74 6.31 6.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- Emotional problem 2.43 5.52 4.56 8.07 1.74 2.92 6.64 8.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- Sensory disability 1.92 3.06 3.46 2.73 1.05 2.72 3.30 3.64 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

(--) Not available.(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.(b) Data from the Parent Survey are weighted using the Second Follow-up panel weight (F2PNLWT). (c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988 (NELS:88); BaseFollow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student and Parent Surveys.
Appendix C

C–26 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.5.6— Standard errors (for table 5.6) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who reported that they had completed or intended to complete the

Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT) (NELS:88 Second

Follow-up Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable SAT ACT SAT ACT

% completed % completed % completed % completed

or intended or intended or intended or intended

this year this year this year this year

Disability status b

Not identified 1.05 1.00 0.99 0.97

Identified 2.28 2.46 1.82 1.95

Multiple problems 6.86 4.34 3.60 3.31

Learning disabled 3.55 4.27 2.55 2.18

Health problem 4.33 4.45 3.30 3.28

Physical/emotional

problem 3.16 2.89 2.61 3.21

Physical disability 6.23 5.94 -- --

Emotional problem 8.01 4.75 -- --

Sensory disability 3.42 3.43 -- --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–27

Table C.5.7— Standard errors (for table 5.7) of percentage of students with disabilities, as identified by

parents and teachers, who dropped out of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up Student

Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Parent Base Year Teacher First Follow-up

Variable % ever dropped out % ever dropped out b b

since March 1989 since March 1989

at 2nd follow-up at 2nd follow-up

Disability status c

Not identified 0.74 0.38

Identified 1.90 1.77

Multiple problems 5.90 4.34

Learning disabled 2.42 2.55

Health problem 5.41 2.91

Physical/emotional problem 2.92 2.79

Physical disability 5.40 --

Emotional problem 6.12 --

Sensory disability 2.64 --

(--) Not available.

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) “Ever dropped out” is based on the variable F2EVDOST, which indicates whether or not the sample member ever

dropped out in the first follow-up or second follow-up survey. The variable is based on a sample member’s dropout

history since the beginning of the first follow-up in March 1989.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); Base-Year Parent Survey, First Follow-up Teacher Survey, First and Second Follow-up Student Surveys.
Appendix C

C–28 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.5.8— Standard errors (for table 5.8) of average high school grade in English, mathematics, and

science and percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled who dropped out

of high school (NELS:88 Second Follow-up and Second Follow-up Transcript

Component)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

Variable Percent ever dropped

out since March 1989

English Mathematics Science at 2nd Follow-up b

Disability status c

Not identified 0.049 0.048 0.048 0.54

Identified 0.208 0.438 0.402 3.24

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Grade is based upon a 1-13 scale, where 1.0 = A+ and 13 = F.

(c) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status; percentages are derived using the 8th-12th grade

transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey, and Second Follow-up Transcript

Component.
Appendix C

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 C–29

Table C.5.9— Standard errors (for table 5.9) of percentage of students who identified themselves as disabled,

who achieved various levels of proficiency in mathematics (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey)a

Source of Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

% in each level of proficiency

Variable Below

Level 1 1 2 3 4 5

Disability status b

Not identified 0.35 0.68 0.57 0.57 0.76 0.28

Identified 2.42 6.18 3.66 6.58 2.43 0.86

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Appendix C

C–30 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Table C.5.10— Standard errors (for table 5.10) of percentage of students who identified themselves as

disabled, who achieved various levels of proficiency in reading (NELS:88 Second Follow-up

Student Survey)a

Source of Disability Information Student-Identified Disability at First Follow-up

% in each level of proficiency

Variable Below

Level 1 1 2 3

Disability status b

Not identified 0.45 0.76 0.68 0.64

Identified 2.93 5.61 5.72 2.21

(a) Data represent the eighth-grade panel population.

(b) Percentage represents the distribution within each disability status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study,

1988 (NELS:88); First Follow-up Student Survey, Second Follow-up Student Survey.
Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 D–1

Appendix D

Technical Notes

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)

In response to the need for policy-relevant, longitudinal data on nationally representative

samples of elementary and secondary students, the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) instituted the National Education Longitudinal Studies (NELS) program, a

continuing, long-term project. The general aim of the NELS program is to study the

educational, vocational, and personal development of students at various grade levels, as well

as the personal, familial, social, institutional, and cultural factors that may affect that

development.

The NELS program has consisted of three major studies: The National Longitudinal Study of

the High School Class of 1972 (NLS-72), High School and Beyond (HS&B), and the

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). The NELS:88 study included a

base-year component in 1988, a first follow-up in 1990, and a second follow-up in 1992; the

data collected from these three cycles of NELS:88 are the basis for this report. (A third followup took place in 1994.)

The major features of NELS:88 include the integration of student, dropout, school, parent, and

teacher studies; the initial concentration on an eighth-grade student cohort with follow-ups at

2-year intervals; the inclusion of supplementary components to support analyses of

geographically or demographically distinct subgroups; and the design linkages to previous

longitudinal studies and other current studies.
Appendix D

D–2 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

Base-Year Sample

As part of the NELS program, a baseline of data on school experiences was collected in 1988

by NCES on a sample of 24,599 eighth-grade students in 1,057 schools across the United

States (Owings 1994). First, a two-stage stratified random sample design was used to select

nationally representative schools and students. A list of 40,000 public and private schools was

obtained from Quality Education Data, Inc. The list contained information about whether a

school was urban, suburban, or rural. Additional information about the listed schools

concerning racial-ethnic composition was also obtained from the Office of Civil Rights. These

schools were then stratified by region, type (public and private), urbanicity, and minority

percentage prior to sampling. The number of schools selected for the sample were

proportionally representative of geographic regions and urbanization. This process resulted in

the selection of the sample described above.

The second stage of the sampling process was the selection of students within schools.

Students judged by a representative from the school as unable to complete the survey due to

mental or emotional incompetence or limited English proficiency were excluded. These

students represented about 5 percent of the original population sampled. A set of computergenerated random numbers were then used to select a first sample of students, with each

participating school represented by approximately 24 students. Added to this original sample

of students was a supplementary sample of Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students,

including their parents and teachers, increasing the number of students per school to 26 on

average.

Base-Year Survey

Four components constituted the base-year study design. The first component consisted of

student questionnaires designed to gather information pertaining to basic background, as well

as their attitudes about school, grades, self-esteem, future expectations, and social

relationships. Students were also administered cognitive tests in reading, mathematics,

science, and social studies.

The second component consisted of parent questionnaires. One parent of each student was

asked to fill out a questionnaire pertaining to educational expectations for their child, the

amount of support they give to their child, and other family characteristics relevant to

achievement, such as size of family, income, and so forth.

The third component consisted of selecting two teachers for each student from among four

core subject areas (i.e., mathematics, reading, science, and history) to complete a questionnaire

designed to collect information about classroom practices, as well as school and teacher

characteristics.

The fourth component consisted of a school administrator questionnaire that was completed

by the designated school administrator. The purpose of the administrator questionnaire was to

gather descriptive information about the teaching staff, school climate, student body

characteristics, and school policies.
Appendix D

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 D–3

NELS:88 Follow-ups

First Follow-up Core Study and Sample Design

The first follow-up of NELS:88 comprised the same components as the base-year study, with

the exception of the parent survey, which was not repeated in the 1990 round. In addition,

three new components—the dropout study, base-year ineligible study, and school effectiveness

study—were initiated in the first follow-up, and a freshened sample was added to the student

component. As in the base year, students were asked to complete a questionnaire and

cognitive test. The cognitive test was desinged to measure tenth-grade achievement and

cognitive growth between 1988 and 1990 in the subject areas of mathematics, science, reading,

and social studies (history/geography/civics). The student questionnaire collected basic

background information, and asked stdents about such topics as their school and home

environments, participation in classes and extracurricular activities, current jobs, their goals

and aspirations, and opinions about themselves. Following the base-year design, two teachers

of each student were asked to complete a teacher questionnaire, and a school administrator

questionnaire was completed by school principals. First-time participants in

NELS:88—including students just added to the cohort through the sample freshening process,

base-year ineligibles who became eligible in the first follow-up, and base-year nonrespondents

who did participate in the first follow-up—completed a new student supplement, containing

basic demographic items which were asked in the base year but not repeated in the first followup. The first follow-up also surveyed and tested youths who had dropped out of school at some

point between the spring term of the 1987-88 school year and that of the 1989-90 school year.

The dropout questionnaire collected information on a wide range of subjects, including

reasons for leaving school, school experiences, absenteeism, family formation, plans for the

future, employment, attitudes and self-concept, and home environment.

The selection of students was implemented in two stages. The first stage of sampling involved

the selection of 21,474 students who were in the eighth-grade NELS:88 sample in 1988. This

includes students who were base-year nonrespondents, as well as approximately 2,400 U.S.

Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs

(OBEMLA) sponsored sample members. Because some sophomores in 1990 were not in the

country or were not in the eighth grade in the spring term of 1988, the representative

subsample of the eighth-grade cohort was augmented through a process called freshening. The

goal was to provide a representative sample of students enrolled in the tenth grade in the 1989-

90 school year. Freshening added an additional 1,229 10th-graders (of whom 1,043 were found

to be eligible and still retained after final subsampling) who were not contained in the baseyear sampling frame.

Several components were added to the first follow-up to increase its analytic power. One of

these enhancements, the base-year ineligible (BYI) study, was added to the first follow-up in

order to ascertain the 1990 school enrollment status and the 1990 NELS:88 eligibility status of

students who were excluded from the base-year survey due to a language barrier or physical or

mental disability which precluded them from completing a questionnaire and cognitive test.

Any eligible students were included in both the first and second follow-ups.

In addition to the BYI study, the school effectiveness study (SES) was added to the first followup to provide a probability sample of tenth-grade schools, with a sizable and representative

within-school sample of students, through which longitudinal school-level analysis
Appendix D

D–4 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

(comparable to 1980-82 HS&B sophomore cohort analysis) could be conducted. In the first

follow-up SES, permission to conduct the study was gained from 251 schools; 248 of those

schools were final SES participants. The within-school student sample of 248 participating

first follow-up high schools in the 30 largest metropolitan statistical areas was augmented to

increase the number of students per school to a value appropriate for school-effects analyses.

Second Follow-up Core Study and Sample Design

The NELS:88 second follow-up repeats all components of the first follow-up study. In

addition, the parent component is included once again in the second follow-up. Two new

components—the transcript and course offerings components—were initiated in the second

follow-up. The course offerings component was undertaken for sample members as described

in section 1.3.5. Sample freshening was also carried out during the spring term of the 1991-

1992 school year.

As in the previous waves, students were asked to complete a questionnaire and cognitive test.

The cognitive test was designed to measure twelfth-grade achievement and cognitive growth

between 1988 and 1992 in the subject areas of mathematics, science, reading, and social

studies (history/citizenship/geography). The student questionnaire asked students about such

topics as academic achievement, student perceptions and feelings about their curriculum and

school, family structure and environment, social relations, aspirations, attitudes, and values,

especially as they relate to high school and occupational or postsecondary educational plans.

The student questionnaire contained a supplement for early graduates, the intent of which was

to document the reasons for and circumstances of early graduation.

In a departure from the base-year and first follow-up teacher survey designs, only one teacher

(either a mathematics or science teacher) of each student was asked to complete a teacher

questionnaire. If a student was not enrolled in either a mathematics or science class, no

teacher questionnaire was administered. During the spring term of 1992, 10,961 students, 69.2

percent of the students in the contextual components sample, were enrolled in a mathematics

class, a science class, or both. A school administrator questionnaire, as in the first follow-up,

was completed by the school principal. If a student was a first-time participant in NELS:88, he

or she also completed a new student supplement, containing basic demographic items which

were asked in the base year but not repeated in the second follow-up.

The second follow-up, in addition to surveying students who were enrolled in school, surveyed

and tested youths who had dropped out of school at some point between the spring term of the

1987-88 school year and the spring term of the 1991-92 school year. The dropout

questionnaire collected information on a wide range of subjects, including reasons for leaving

school, school experiences, absenteeism, plans for the future, employment, attitudes and selfconcept, and environment.

Each student and dropout selected for the first follow-up was included in the second follow-up.

From within the schools attended by the sample members, 1,500 twelfth-grade schools were

selected as sampled schools. Of the 1,500 sampled schools, the full complement of component

activities occurred in 1,374 schools. For students attending schools other than those 1,374

schools, only the student and parent questionnaires were administered. Retaining the entire

first follow-up sample in the 1992 round provides a maximally efficient sample for the
Appendix D

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 D–5

NELS:88 second follow-up while satisfying researchers who are interested in maximizing the

presence in the study of rare policy-relevant populations.

The student sample was then augmented through freshening at the NELS:88 selected schools,

the aim of which was to provide a representative sample of students enrolled in the 12th grade

during the spring term of the 1991-92 school year. Freshening added an additional 364 12thgraders (of whom 243 were deemed eligible) who were not contained in either the base-year or

first follow-up sampling frames. Of the 364 freshened students, 76 were sampling errors and

became ineligible through questionnaire data; 15 dropped out of school between the sampling

effort and data collection (these 15 are found only on the restricted use file); 13 were out of

scope due to language barrier, moved out of the country, or were deceased; 9 were ineligible

due to mental or physical incapacity; and the status could not be collected for 8 cases.

Additional information about the second follow-up sample design is provided in the

forthcoming NELS:88 Second Follow-Up Sample Design Report. Most in-school survey sessions

were held in the period from January through March 1992, though a few took place as late as

June 1992. Dropout data collection occurred between January and October 1992.

Two new components, the transcript and the course offerings components, were added to the

NELS:88 second follow-up. These components provide archival data which describe the

academic experience of high school students and the curricula offered by their schools. The

complete high school transcript record was collected for (1) the contextual sample—students

attending sampled schools in the spring of 1992; (2) all dropouts, dropouts in alternative

programs, and early graduates, regardless of school affiliation; and (3) triple ineligibles enrolled

in the twelfth grade in the spring of 1992, regardless of school affiliation. Triple ineligibles are

1988 8th-graders who were ineligible for the base-year, first follow-up, and second follow-up

surveys due to mental or physical disability or language barrier. NELS:88 course-taking data

will provide not only a baseline against which future student outcome measures can be

compared, but will illuminate trends when contrasted to the 1982 HS&B high school

transcript study, the 1987 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) transcript

study, and the 1990 NAEP transcript study. The course-offerings component provides

curriculum data from second follow-up school effectiveness study schools through which

school effects on student outcomes can be studied.

The second follow-up school effectiveness study returned to 247 of the 251 cooperating first

follow-up SES schools, conducting freshening on both longitudinal and SES sample members,

and selecting additional students from the pool, including students who transferred into the

school since the 1989 selection of SES students. The second follow-up school effectiveness

study was enhanced by the addition of archival data collected by the new course-offerings

component and was further augmented by the administration of free response science and

mathematics cognitive test items in SES schools.

The third follow-up (1994) provides information about employment and postsecondary

education. A fourth follow-up is planned for 2000.

Sample Weights

The general purpose of the NELS:88 weighting scheme is to compensate for unequal

probabilities and to adjust for the effects of nonresponse. Weights are often calculated in two
Appendix D

D–6 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

main steps. In the first step, unadjusted weights are calculated as the inverse of the

probabilities of selection, taking into account all stages of the sample selection process. In the

second step, these initial weights are adjusted to compensate for nonresponse; such

nonresponse adjustments are typically carried out separately within multiple weighting cells.

This is the process that was applied to weighting NELS:88 data in all rounds.

For the base-year survey, two different weights (BYQWT and BYADMWT) were calculated to

adjust for the fact that not all sample members had data for all instruments. Two weights were

also developed for the overall NELS:88 first follow-up sample. The first, or cross-sectional,

weight (F1QWT) applies to all members of the first follow-up sample who completed a first

follow-up questionnaire, regardless of their participation status in the base year. The second,

or panel, weight (F1PNLWT) applies to all members of the first follow-up sample with

complete data from both base-year and first follow-up rounds of the study. For the second

follow-up, eight weights were developed for inclusion on the data files, including (1) a crosssectional weight (F2QWT) that applies to all members of the second follow-up sample who

completed a second follow-up questionnaire, regardless of their participation status in previous

rounds; and (2) a panel weight (F2PNLWT) that applies to sample members who completed a

questionnaire in all three rounds of NELS:88.

For this report, the majority of the analyses include only those students who were present in all

three NELS:88 surveys (i.e., base year, first follow-up, and second follow-up). The second

follow-up panel weight (F2PNLWT) was used in most of the analyses described in chapters 3

through 5. Similarly, the eighth-grade to twelfth-grade transcript panel weight (F2TRP1WT)

was used in chapters 4 and 5 when the variables of interest were drawn from student transcripts

(e.g., total units earned in core subjects). This cohort analysis ensures that the differences

observed between disabled students as identified by parents versus those identified by teachers

are not due to sampling fluctuations across the three surveys. In chapter 2, where description is

provided of unweighted sample sizes and weighted percentages for each defined disability

category, various cross-sectional weights as well as panel weights were used. In chapter 2, as

well as in chapter 4, analyses involving the BYI sample were carried out using unweighted data.

Variables Used in This Report

Disability Definitions:

Parent Definition of Disability Status:

BYP47—Student(s) has one or more of the following problems—visual handicap

(not correctable by glasses), hearing problem, deafness, speech problem, orthopedic

problem, other physical disability, specific learning problem, emotional problem,

mental retardation, other health problem

BYP48—Student(s) has ever received services for one or more of the following

problems—visual handicap (not correctable by glasses), hearing problem, deafness,

speech problem, orthopedic problem, other physical disability, specific learning

problem, emotional problem, mental retardation, other health problem

Teacher Definition of Disability Status:

F1T1_8—Student has ever fallen behind in school work because of health problems

F1T1_9—Student has a learning disability that affects his/her school work

F1T1_10—Student has a physical or emotional handicap that affects his/her school

work

Student Definition:
Appendix D

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 D–7

F1S34f—Ever been in a program for educationally handicapped

F1S34g—Ever been in a program for physically handicapped

Chapter 3:

F2SEX—Sex

F2RACE1—Race, coded as Asian/Pacific Islander; Hispanic; black, not Hispanic;

white, not Hispanic; and American Indian, Alaskan native. In this report, F2RACE1

is recoded both to compare minority to nonminority students and to distinguish

white, black, and other students

F2BIRTHY—Birth year. In this report, F2BIRTHY was subtracted from 1988 to

estimate the student’s age at the time of the base-year survey

BYSESQ—Quartile coding of variable BYSES. BYSES is the socioeconomic status

composite developed based on responses to the base-year parent survey

BYPARED—Parents’ highest education level

FAMCOMP—1988 adult composition of the household (first follow-up variable

constructed using base-year parent survey data). In this report, FAMCOMP used to

identify students living in female-headed households

BYLOCUS1—Locus of control 1 (base year)

F1LOCUS1—Locus of control 1 (first follow-up)

F2LOCUS1—Teen locus of control, version 1 (second follow-up)

BYCNCPT1—Self-concept 1 (base year)

F1CNCPT1—Self-concept 1 (first follow-up)

F2CNCPT1—Teen self-concept, version 1 (second follow-up)

G8URBAN—Urbanicity composite of school site

G8LUNCH—Percent free lunch in school

Chapter 4:

BYP44—8th-grader ever held back a grade

F2S13A—Ever been in remedial English class

F2S13B—Ever been in remedial math class

F2S13H—Ever been in dropout prevention program

F2S13F—Ever been in educationally handicapped program

F2S13G—Ever been in physically handicapped program

F2RSPFLG—Specialized courses or programs. In this report, “special education” and

“special education and bilingual education” codes were used to designate student

participation in special education

F2RHEN_C—Units in English (HS&B)

F2RHMA_C—Units in mathematics (HS&B)

F2RHSC_C—Units in science (HS&B)

BYP59B—Attend parent-teacher organization meeting

BYP59C—Take part in parent-teacher organization activities

F2S30AA-F2S30AC—Participated on a team sport at school, an individual sport at

school, in cheerleading/pompom/drill team at school. In this report, the sum of

positive responses to each of these three items, coded as 1, is used to estimate the

number of sports in which the student participates at school

F2S30BA-F2S30BI—Participated in school music group, school play or musical,

school government, academic honor society, school yearbook or newspaper, school

service clubs, school academic clubs, school hobby clubs, school FTA, FHA, FFA. In
Appendix D

D–8 Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88

this report, the sum of positive responses to each of these nine items, coded as 1, is

used to estimate the number of school activities in which the student participates

Chapter 5:

F2RHENG2—Average grade in English (HS&B)

F2RHMAG2—Average grade in mathematics (HS&B)

F2RHSCG2—Average grade in science (HS&B)

F22XRPRO—Overall reading proficiency

F22XMPRO—Overall math proficiency

BY2XRIRR and F22XRIRR— Reading IRT-estimated number right for base year

(rescaled for comparability to the second follow-up) and second follow-up. In this

report, the difference in these measures is used to estimate gains in reading

performance

BY2XMIRR and F22XMIRR— Mathematics IRT-estimated number right for base

year (rescaled for comparability to the second follow-up) and second follow-up. In

this report, the difference in these measures is used to estimate gains in mathematics

performance

F2S42A and F2S42B—How far in school father or mother wants R to go. In this

report, the higher value of either F2S42A or F2S42B was used as the indicator of

parents’ highest educational expectation for student(s)

F2S44B—Has R taken the College Board SAT test. In this report, students

responding either “Yes, I’ve already taken it” or “Yes, I plan to take it this year” are

coded as having taken the SAT

F2S44C—Has R taken the ACT test. In this report, students responding either “Yes,

I’ve already taken it” or “Yes, I plan to take it this year” are coded as having taken the

ACT

F2EVDOST—Ever dropped out status. Indicates whether or not the sample member

has ever dropped out in the first follow-up or second follow-up. F2EVDOST is based

on a sample member’s dropout history since the beginning of the first follow-up in

March 1989

Computation of Statistical Tests for This Report

For continuous education outcomes and differences in proportions, t-tests were derived by

dummy variable regression in which the outcome of interest was regressed on group

membership [e.g. GPA = a + (b)membership, where membership = 1 if identified as disabled

by parent, 0 if not identified]; the t-test evaluates the slope coefficient of group membership,

which can also be interpreted as the mean difference between the groups. For categorical

variables, such as SES, chi-square tests were carried out. All analyses were performed using

SUDAAN regress or chi-square procedures.

A comparison in this report is statistically significant if the difference between statistics for

two groups is greater than 1.96 times the standard error of the difference, approximated as the

square root of the sum of squares of the standard errors of the statistics for each of the groups.

That is, the large scale approximation to Student’s t statistic is used, with a two-tailed alpha

level of .05. When multiple statistical tests of significance are made, the Bonferroni correction

is applied to adjust for the increased likelihood of finding some difference significant. This

correction involves definition of a “family” of comparisons and division of the alpha level (for

reporting significance) by the number of comparisons in that family. A family is defined here
Appendix D

Profiles of Students with Disabilities as Identified in NELS:88 D–9

as comparisons involving a single column of a table in the report; typically, eight (8) when

comparing specific parent-identified disability categories to the not identified group and five

(5) when comparing specific teacher-identified disability categories to the not identified

group.

There were three different types of comparisons:

Type 1: When the “difference” of interest was between disabled versus nondisabled

students at the most general level (e.g., for outcomes comparing students identified as disabled

by parents to students not so identified)—the dummy variable regression or cross-tabulation

procedure (described above) was used (i.e., no special treatment was required in constructing

the comparison groups).

Type 2: When the “difference” of interest involved comparison of students with a specific

disability (e.g., students with learning disabilities as identified by parents) to those not

identified as disabled, the following were compared: (a) all individuals who had the specific

disability with (b) all individuals who had not been identified with any disability using

regression or cross-tabulations. The inclusion of individuals with other disabilities in addition

to the focal disability in the focal group for the comparison is in line with the decision to

specify overlapping disability groups (i.e., to include individuals in both specific disability and

multiple disability categories as indicated by their reported disability conditions) and is

appropriate for addressing issues concerned with specific disabilities because it ensures all

individuals with the disability are included in the analysis.

Type 3: When the “difference” involved comparing students identified as disabled by

parents to students identified as disabled by different sources (e.g., parents or teachers)—the

overlapping students (i.e., those students identified by both sources as disabled) were removed,

and the t-test was computed on the remaining groups. This reduces the data used for the

significance test substantially, resulting in reduced degrees of freedom for the t-tests and a loss

of precision in the standard error estimates. However, the overlapping students in this case do

not contribute to the observed differences, and since the groups are not mutually exclusive, the

degrees of freedom based on the total n or total number of comparisons is inappropriate in any

case. Moreover, using the entire group to add precision to the standard error estimates can be

questioned because the measures may not be homoscedastic across the “overlap” and

“nonoverlap” groups.