The Effectiveness of the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree of 2003 with African Americans and Special Needs Students in Alabama?s Schools by Andrew Charles Foster, Jr. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 6, 2011 Key words or phases: Lee vs Macon Consent Decree, structural violence, emotionally and behaviorally disturbed, special education, Copyright 2011 by Andrew Charles Foster, Jr. Approved by Ivan Watts, Chair, Associate Professor of Educational Foundation, Leadership and Technology David DiRamio, Associate Professor of Educational Foundation, Leadership and Technology James Wright, Professor of Educational Foundation, Leadership and Technology Jared Russell, Associate Professor of Kinesiology, Department of Kinesiology ii Abstract The idea of an inclusive setting is far from being a new theory in education. Various provisos with a great deal of narrations include integration, least restrictive environment, mainstreaming, deinstitutionalization, regular education initiative and normalization. These ideas are synonymously used to categorize the educational setting of students with special needs. Terminology commonly used to express important differences in the placement of student with special needs differ in meaning. Some of the common terms such as inclusion, mainstreaming and integration have perplexed the issues involving providing access to the general education curriculum. Inclusion implies that students with disabilities will receive academic instruction in a classroom setting with non-disabled peers (Danforth & Rhodes, 1997). In Alabama?s Black Belt and other areas of the State of Alabama student have been too long segregated based on their specific disability. Research has shown that students regardless of the severity of the disability receive both social and education benefit from the general education setting. According to IDEA, the goal of inclusion is to ensure that students with disabilities are educated in the appropriate least restrictive environment (2001). According the Alabama State Department of Education Director of Student Assessment Dr. Gloria Turner stated in a speech to the Alabama Association of Federal Program Education Program Administrators that, ?As a result of inclusion and No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 special education student are significantly closing the achievement gaps.? (Ivey & Sanders, 2004) iii In many of the counties across the State of Alabama schools have been placed on the list of schools in need of school improvement. In most cases this is a result of lack of students meeting the standards set by No Child Left Behind and student with special needs are usually the cause of new schools being added to the list of school in school improvement (Ivey & Sanders, 2004). The results are far less in counties where inclusion has become a practice. One example of this is Central High School in Lowndes County, Alabama. The students in this school not only met the standard but 100% of students in last year?s senior class passed the graduation exam and received a high school diploma. During the 2003-2004 school year Central High School met ten of the thirteen goals set by No Child Left Behind the three goals not met was a result of participation. This was a direct result of lack of participation of special need students participating in the Alabama High School Graduation Exam administration. The next year the school realized that more students must be included in the administration and fully included all students in the general education setting. During the 2004-2005 school year, all academic and participation goals were met along with a 100% graduation rate for all special education children. The only goal not met by the school was anticipated dropout rate. The dropout numbers did not include any special education students. Although the schools in Alabama?s Black Belt are still falling behind many schools in the state there are some who can be shining examples for the others. Inclusive environments are painstaking in the beginning; however, the final result for the school and the individual student is tremendous. When students are exposed to the general education curriculum the end result is a win-win for all parties involved. iv Acknowledgments I would like to first than my Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ for setting me on this wonderful journey called life. He created me to accomplish this goal and to help others see His love in me. He has given me undeserved love, kindness and grace. Thank you God for all of your blessings and please continue to bless me. I am deeply indebted to Dr. James Wright for all of your encouragement, admittance into this program and countless hours of reading and rereading. Dr. Ivan Watts thank you for your countless hours of reading, rereading, communicating, and being patience with me through this process. Dr. David DiRamio for all of your leadership with the data and technical process involved with this project. Thank you, Dr. J.Wm. Covington for being a great mentor. This dissertation would not be possible without two very special beautiful young ladies in my cohort Tamura and Tonya . I know that I would not have been able to complete this journey without the two of you encouraging me. I would like to thank my family sisters Arnetria (Nita) Foster-Crum and Tammi Foster, brothers, Andre and Mario Foster, sister and brother-in-law Dontrell Foster and Bennie Crum, nieces Raven, Aaliyah, and DiMayah Foster, and nephew, Dradon Foster for all of your love and support. You guys have always been there for me with more love and support than I can have ever hoped for in a family. I would like to give a special thank you to the second man in my life second only to God my wonder father, A.C. Foster, Sr. Your love and support of me has always been felt although v you do not talk or express it a great deal it has always been felt. You are and have always been a great father. I love you, Daada!!! Thank you, Mama (Nettie Mae) for sharing your body with me for the nine mothers that you carried me in your womb and for the 12 beautiful years that God allowed you to be in my presence. Those last weeks before you was told to rest by God until he return were the times where I learned more about love and acceptance than I have in my life time. The day that you told God if he would promise that he would take care of your babies (Andre, Nita and I), that you was ready to go and the courage you displayed by not accept no from Him. Well mama he answered your prayers! God has truly blessed your children and I?m sorry for listen to your prayers! Your life was the perfect example of how I should live my life by loving everybody, honoring God and loving your family even when your family abused you and God know yours abused you. Thank you mama for your example and continue to rest in peace!!! I would like to give some very sincere thanks to some great friends in my life. Thank you to my very best friend Gerald Holden, man you have been there for me praying for me, listening to my foolishness, providing spiritual and emotional support and just being a wonderful person. Thank you, Darryl ?Debo? Washington the best big adopted brother anyone could have thank you man. I love you, Nupe! A very special thanks to my new friends Maurice Cook and Mike Midgette you two brothers have helped me to grow in ways that I never thought that I would be able to grow. Thank you for showing me freedom, love and self acceptance. Ladonnis Perry thank you for being a very special part of my life for a very long time you are a very good man. Thank you, Ulester Douglas for all of your countless hours of encouragement and guidance. My Georgia adopted mother Mrs. Shirley Carr and sassy sister Dr. Kenya Johnson you two have made the last past 5 years great and this process so much better. Harlan Smith, thank you for vi being a new light in my life, thank you for encouraging me to stop procrastinating and complete this process already. I love you! Lastly, I owe a great deal of thanks to my ex-wife Melissa Williams and my two beautiful children Andrienne ?Dree? Brown-Foster and Christian Foster. Melissa you are a great mother and friend. Your love and support of me and our son, Christian is a tribute to single mothers everywhere. You are the best! Dree and Christian thank you for being two of the best children a father could pray for and I am grateful for all of you guys love and support. I pray that I am being a good example of how to live your life in love. I dedicated this work to the two of you. Your beautiful faces have been a beacon of light at the end of the tunnel that helped me to complete this work. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vi List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 State of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 4 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 6 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 7 Assumption of the Study ................................................................................................. 7 Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 7 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 Review of Literature ................................................................................................. 10 Students with Special Needs ......................................................................................... 10 African American and Education .................................................................................. 24 Structural Violence ....................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 Methods .................................................................................................................... 46 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 46 viii Research Questions and Design .................................................................................... 47 Data Sources and Variables .......................................................................................... 48 Reliability and Validity Issues ...................................................................................... 48 Chapter 4 Results ...................................................................................................................... 52 Overview/Analysis .......................................................................................................... 52 Respondents/Alabama Data .......................................................................................... 52 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................ 53 Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................... 61 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 61 Restatement of the Study Procedures ........................................................................... 62 Interpretations and Conclusion ..................................................................................... 63 Discussion of conclusions ............................................................................................. 64 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 66 References ................................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix A Protocol Research Approval Letter from Auburn University ............................ 74 Appendix B Students Exiting Special Education in Alabama 1998-2008 ............................... 75 Appendix C Students Environment in Special Education in Alabama 1998-2008 ............... 124 ix List of Tables Table 1. Special Education Students ..................................................................................... 54 Table 2 SPED in Regular Classes 80% of the Day ................................................................ 55 Table 3 SPED Exiting ........................................................................................................... 55 Table 4A African Students with an MR Classification ............................................................ 56 Table 4B African Students with an EBD Classification ........................................................... 56 x List of Figures Figures 1 Trends in Inclusive Education in Alabama ............................................................ 57 Figures 2 Trends in Graduation Rates of SPED Students ..................................................... 58 Figures 3 Trends in Percentages of AA Students in EBD and MR Classes .......................... 60 xi List of Abbreviations EBD Emotional Behavior Disturbed MR Mental Retardation HI Hearing Impairments SL Speech or Language Impairments VI Visual Impairments OI Orthopedic Impairments OHI Other Heath Impairments SLD Specific Learning Disabilities DB Deaf-Blindness MD Multiple Disabilities A Autism TBI Traumatic Brain Injury DD Developmental Delay SPED Special Education AA African American/Black AP Asian-Pacific Islander W White H Hispanic AL Alabama xii SE Social/Economic Status ALL All Disabilities ENV Environment DIA Disability ECS Early Childhood Setting ECSES Early childhood Special Education Setting H Home PTCH Part-time Early Childhood/Part-Time Special Education RF Residential Facility SS Separate School ISOHS Itinerant Service Outside the Home RMS Reverse Mainstream Setting TOTAL All Special Education Students OS<21% Outside Regular Class<21% of School Day OS21-60% Outside Regular Class 21-60% of the School Day OS>60% Outside Regular Class > 60% of School Day PUBLIC SS Public Separate School PRIVATE SS Private Separate School PUBLIC RF Public Residential Facility PRIVATE RF Private Residential Facility H/H Homebound/Hospital CFDC Correctional Facility (Duplicated Count) IN PRIVATE SCH In Private School ?Not Placed in Public Agency (Duplicated Count) xiii X No Longer Receives Special Education REG Graduated with Regular High Scholl Diploma CERT Received a Certificate MAX Reached Maximum Age DIED Death Before Graduation MOVE Moved Known to be Continuing NOT Moved Not Known to be Continuing OUT Dropped Out TX Total Exiting 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Lawson (1989) indicated that, ?to be young, African American and gifted is a blessing, but to be young, African American and educated is even more remarkable! The latter is an achievement, something within your reach. Being educated is a gift to bestow upon yourself.? However prior to Plessey v. Ferguson and even after the Brown v. the Board of Education, America?s public schools have continually failed a high percentage of it African-American students and even a higher number of African-American children with disabilities. African-American students drop out of school, are suspended, expelled, and assigned to special education programs at significantly higher rates than Caucasians or than from other ethnic backgrounds (Cook, 2004). Failure of African-American students at higher rates continues to increase at alarming rates and signs of their failure are more visible in rural and urban school districts with a high percentage of poverty and poorly funded schools (Cook, 2004). According to data reported in the No Child Left Behind documentation, only half of American high school students can read on the 6th grade level or perform junior high school mathematics (2002). Danforth and Rhodes states, the picture is even bleaker for African Americans who are ill prepared for the high tech jobs of the future. The numbers are even bleaker when special education children are ?placed in the mix.? The disparity in interest and achievement are extremely high for African-American and even higher for African-American students with disabilities (1997, pg. 361). 2 The biggest problem facing parents of special needs children, especially minority parents, is a lack of access to the ?System.? Due to a lack of formal education, inflexible work hours, limited transportation, and not knowing who to call to cut through the bureaucratic ?red tape? frequently caused parents to fail to become active in their children?s education. Ivey and Sanders postulates that the Black Belt region of Alabama has always been a land of contrasts; a land of haves and have-nots. Prior to the Civil War, cotton ruled and made fortunes for some slaves owners. It?s still a land of contrasts. Poverty grinds away at many of its citizens. Unemployment is often doubled-digit in some counties, 59 percent of all births are to un-wed mothers and opportunities seem out of reach (2004). Archibald and Hansen (2005) further states, while the population of the Black Belt, both white and black, believes that it is overall a good place to live, the ?outsider? perception exists that Black Belt counties are worse off than other Alabama counties and there is substantial concern about the children who live there. The major problems identified are lack of jobs, a poor economy, bad roads, and inadequate education. Often called the state?s ?Third World, the problems of the Black Belt impact all of Alabama?s citizens (2005). The Black Belt Action Commission (2005) provides the following statistical data: Alabama?s Black Belt is a rural, almost totally minority (African American) geographic area. The area is composed of thirteen counties that spans throughout Central Alabama. The Black Belt Counties Schools employs approximately 2,964 faculty members and administrators, with 42 percent holding advanced degrees. The average number of years of experience of teachers is 13. Currently, these counties serve approximately 34, 450 students with a 99+% minority population. A single parent heads 78% of the families represented in the region. Ninety-two percent of the students are economically disadvantaged and qualify for free or reduced lunches, 3 compared to the Alabama average of 57%. Fifteen percent of the students are under the auspice of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act where 2% of the total population is gifted. The dropout rate of 22.3% far surpasses the state average of 15.3%. A large majority of the schools qualified for Title I funding (2006, pg. 3-4). A major case began in one of the counties in Alabama?s Black Belt which sparked some severe changes in the way that African-American and other minorities are placed in to special education. The case began in Macon County, Alabama known as Lee vs. Macon, where civil rights attorneys appealed to the federal court to integrate the schools of Macon County (ALSDE, 2002, pg 2). The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) memorandum went on to explain that after six months of deliberations, on Aug. 13, 1963, Federal Judge Frank Johnson ordered Macon County to integrate its schools. Although this case began as an integration law suit it has greatly been expanded to determine how student with disabilities in Alabama are placed (2002). The following is an excerpt from the Alabama State Department of Education (2002) to ensure that a screening process is utilized and the needs of all students including African-American are met. The goal is to guarantee that students are not over-represented in special education and to increase the representation of minorities in gifted programs. In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree, which provided for the closure of two K-12 schools and the consolidation of the student into central school zones. One of the K-12 schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed the school board voted to rescind its consent. The section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree, arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree. On May 13, 4 2003, the district court accepted all of the Section?s arguments and entered an order (1) denying the Board?s motion to enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the 2003- 04 school year. The two groups of unsuccessful interveners appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications. This consent decree, approved by the court on August 30, 2000, involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. Parties to the decree include the United States, private plaintiffs, and the Alabama State Department of Education. (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 2005). Statement of the Problem The current trend across the nation, Alabama and especially in the Black Belt Counties of Alabama is to diminish the access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. These students are not exposed to basic science, mathematics, social studies and technology courses resulting in great measure from inadequate teacher preparation and insufficient counseling and student/teacher support services. Many of these students in numerous circumstances cannot read on a third grade level, which is a result of using instructional methods that are inappropriate for various learning styles, including hands-on activities; failing to link reading to science, social studies and basic English to real life situations; 5 lacking instructional materials, supplies and equipment for effective instruction; providing derisory counseling activities to guide students into the pursuit of careers that are appropriate to the students ability levels; and a lack of parental involvement---all contributed to the problem. Although attempts have been made to bridge the achievement gap between students with disabilities and other students, school systems in the Black Belt do not meet the needs of the many students that they serve especially students with special needs. In the Black Belt Counties of Alabama, the science curriculum is organized into the following three domains earth and space science, physical science and biological science. Emphasis was placed on the interrelationship of the curricula is encouraged. Social Studies is organized into the following domains Alabama History, World History, American History and American Government and Economics. The Language Arts Curriculum focus on Reading, Writing, Grammar and American and World Literature The Secondary school mathematics curriculum includes: Applies Mathematics, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Algebra II with Trigonometry and some districts offer Calculus taught every other year, due to low enrollment. Teachers were encouraged to utilize a variety of resources and methodologies with problem solving as method of inquiry and application. Throughout the districts, science and technology laboratory equipment was very limited. No elementary schools had science laboratories, and secondary school had little space and virtually no equipment for scientific hands-on experimentation and students consistently performed far below state average on the ACT. The numbers are not able to be compared for students with special needs due to the fact that very few if any take the ACT or college entrance exams. 6 No district or state in the United States prescribes a Special Education Curriculum for students with special needs. These students are expected to master the same skills if they are to graduate from high school in the state with a regular high school diploma. Therefore, based on the foregoing there is a need to determine the effectiveness of students acquiring academic instruction in the general education setting. This research will address the issue of inclusion in Alabama?s Black Belt region. Significance of the Study The significance of this study is rooted in the attempt to provide the reader with a historical background for low achievement levels of African American male and special education (Gifted Services included in Special education) placement for African American male students and pertinent data relating to students with special needs, while concurrently conveying avenues by which effective instructional programs can be developed and implemented to address their diverse learning needs. The results of the study may provide valuable information in the area of inclusive environments in the core academic subjects. Public school educators (central office and school based administrators, teachers and curriculum specialists) can use the findings of this study to ascertain whether the issues concerning special education students in the area of reading, mathematics, science and social studies are meeting the requirements placed on their students. Parents and students can use this research to assist with monitoring and insuring that curriculum offerings are effectively addressing students? needs. Research Questions What effects have the Lee v. Macon and inclusive practices had on African American students with special needs in Alabama Schools? The purpose of this study is: 7 1. Has there been any change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree? 2. Is there a difference in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama? 3. Is there a difference in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications? Methodology The data were obtained from the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, with additional district data on racial demographics taken from the Alabama Department of Education. All questions were satisfied using applicable frequency counts and percentages, with totals provided to give perspectives. Delimitations of the Study There are several notable limitations of this study which are as follow: 1. The research is limited to the State of Alabama. 2. This research is limited to the 1998-2008 academic school years. 3. This study is limited to grades three through twelve. 4. This study is limited to the state reported data. Assumptions of the Study Based on the current academic performance of African American students and research, there is a need to restructure placement of African-American students (grades three through twelve) and access to the general curriculum in order to ensure greater support for students with disabilities in the State of Alabama. 8 Definition of Terms Accommodations - supports or services provided to help a student access the general curriculum and validly demonstrate learning. Adaptations - any procedure intended to meet an educational situation with respect to individual differences in ability or purpose. Annual Goal - a statement in a student's Individual Education Program (IEP) that describes what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12-month period in the student's special education program. There should be a direct relationship between the annual goals and the present levels of educational performance. Free Appropriate Public Education ? one provision of IDEA; states that students with disabilities must receive necessary education and services without cost to the child and family. Full Inclusion ? means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom / program full time. All services must be taken to the child in that setting. General Curriculum - the standards and benchmarks adopted by a Local Education Agency (LEA) or schools within the LEA that applies to ALL children. It is applicable to children with disabilities as well as non-disabled children and related to the content of the curriculum and not to the setting in which it is used. It is the basis of planning instruction for all students. Individualized Education Program (IEP) - a written statement for a child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised. Instructional Services - specially designed instruction and accommodations provided by instructional personnel to eligible individuals. Least Restrictive Environment - to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled. Modifications - changes made to the content and performance expectations for students. Present Level of Educational Performance - an evaluation and a summary statement which describes the student's current achievement in the areas of need. 9 Organization of the Study The research questions provide the organizational structure to guide the collection and reporting of data. The following chapter outline provided a systematic overview of the research findings: Chapter I provide an introduction and the statement of the problem. The chapter highlights the research question, the delimitations and assumption of the study. Additionally it provides definitions of terms and expound on the organization and importance of the study. Chapter II provides a review of the related literature relative to placement of students with special needs. It further provides critical historical background on the educational struggles of African Americans since arriving in America. It highlights the early struggles for educational struggles of the African people in America. It also discusses the importance of structural and institutional violence perpetrated against African American as a result of superior feels of the Europeans who colonized the United States of America. Chapter III describes the research design of the study, it methodology, procedures, and results. Chapter IV provides a detailed analysis and interpretation of the data. Chapter V offers the summary, findings, conclusion, and recommendations based upon the findings of the study. 10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Writing a century ago, the noted African American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois felt the oppression of marginality in American society as both a gift and a curse. In 1991, an African American high school student from the ?other world? of special educations echoes Du Bois?s feelings of oppression: ?Everyone has problems and alter-eagles to maintain. And mine is to success in life and not let anyone else be pulling me down.? Du Bois?s question??How does it feel to be a problem???is still unasked today of the 4,000,000 students labeled as learning disabled in American schools and shunted off to special education classes where they are reminded in small and large ways every day that they are a problem. The reminders manifest themselves in jeers from other students who call them ?loco-dummies,? in embarrassing announcements over the school intercom system (?Will the special ed students please report for their field trip?), and in the school counselor?s belief in the ? superiority of grouping students according to ability? with the subsequent low expectations that the students feel acutely. (Franklin, 1998 pg. 99) Students with Disabilities A conference held in the White House in 1810 was the first time that the United States government attempted to address the needs of what would be later called special education students. (Yell, Rodgers, & Lodge, 1998). The first really litigation around fair treatment of all students who attend public school in all state in the United States did not occur until 1954 with 11 the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education. This case began as a legal fight by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) against the injustice of separate but equal school benefited all students attending public and private school in the U.S. The United State Supreme Court ruled that the separate but equal doctrine had no place in education in the U.S. This statement appears intended t end not only racial discrimination but also any other form or discrimination that might exist against a minority group, such as student with disabilities (Laski, 1995). The way that children are trained and schooled is a critical demonstration of the way that they are perceived and treated in a society. Many complex treads-social, political, economics and even religious-must interweave to create a propitious climate that respects the rights of all individuals in a certain society (Winzer, 1993, pg xi). Alongside gender and ethnicity, disability is recognized and studied as a social cultural and historical construction (Drenth, 2005, pg 107). According to Winzer (1993), a history of special education and a history or exceptionality are not the same. One deals with educational and institutional arrangement first formally established in the eighteenth century, the other, with people who have been present in society since its beginnings. Nevertheless, the two histories are inextricably messed, and the essential themes of both is the varying treatment afforded the disabled population (pg 3). Today, disability studies are many-sided and basically interdisciplinary, extending the new social history?s attention to marginalized groups, while espousing a cultural studies contention of the implicit political orientation of research and pedagogy (Drenth, 2005, pg 109). Drenth (2005) further postulates that down the centuries, the visibility in the public domain of person with malformations of the body increased considerably through public exposure of 12 individuals for their queer and freak characteristics. Subsequently, the disabled were also exposed to the public view for their educational achievements (pg 109). In the case of Brown v. Board of Education the central contention was the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution. The amendment is clear-states may not deny and person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law. The Civil Rights Movement sought changes in society that would allow minorities, particularly African Americans, equality of opportunity, led to litigation and changes in legislation. This legislation provide greater constitutional protection for minorities and eventually persons with disabilities (Yell, Rodgers, & Lodge, 1998). According to Yell, Rogers, & Lodge (1998) the Brown decision not only had a tremendous impact on societal rights for minorities, but allow affected many aspects of educational law and procedure. Although it took time the precedents set by Born resulted in sweeping changes in the schools policies and approaches to students with disabilities (pg3). In 1948 only 12 percent of all children with disabilities received special education services (Ballard, Ramirez, and Weintraub, 1982, pg 15). As late as 1962, only 16 states had laws that included special education students in the regular classroom with even mild mental retardation under mandatory school attendance requirements (Roos, 1970, pg 5). According to Deutsch-Smith, ?after years of exclusion, segregation, and denial of basic educational opportunities, students with disabilities and their families made imperative a national civil rights law guaranteeing these students access to the education system.? (2006, pg 9). Deutsch-Smith believed that congress, when first considering passage of a national special education law, recognized the importance of special education for children with disabilities. The new law under consideration was also concerned about widespread discrimination (2006, pg 15). Deutsch-Smith thought that the research pointed out that many 13 students with disabilities were excluded from attending school and that frequently, those who did attend school failed to benefit because their disabilities went undetected or ignored. Congress realized that special education, with proper financial assistance and educational support, could make a positive difference in the lives of these children and their families (2006). Reynolds used the term ?progressive inclusion? to describe the evolution of services to those with various disabilities. He pointed out that as the United States emerged as a nation, no educational services were available to people with disabilities (1988). He further suggested that in the early 1800s, residential institutions (mental facilities), or asylums, began to emerge in order to accommodate those with hearing, visual, mental, or emotional impairments. Reynolds stated that the access to those facilities were far from universal; mental institutions remained the primary educational option for the disabled until special day schools came into fashion in the early 1900s. Schools allowed greater, more localized access and somewhat better services to individuals with disabilities (1988). The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development asserted that during the 1950s and 1960s, parents of children with disabilities organized to pressure courts and legislatures for changes in educational services available to their children. They began to seek access to public school as an issue of civil rights for those with disabilities (1995). They believed that the nations? policymakers reacted to injustices by passing laws to protect the civil rights of individuals with disabilities (Deutsch-Smith, 2006). In 1973 Congress passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which required accommodations, such as access to public buildings, for people with disabilities (Deutsch-Smith, 2006). Section 504 also set the stage for IDEA, because it included some protection of the rights of students with disabilities to public education. Most other laws address children?s rights to an 14 education separately from laws that address adults? civil rights and access to American society (Deutsh-Smith, 2006). Deutsch-Smith also believed that among the results of these efforts was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which mandated that all children, regardless of the disability, had the right to a free appropriate public education in those with disabilities expanded in public schools. Before the law was passed, students with disabilities were either not provided an education at all, were educated in their homes, or were provided an inferior education in a separate setting, apart from their age-mate and separate from their community schools (2006). Kelman and Lester (1997) declared that legal issues laid the groundwork for Congress?s 1975 passage of PL 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, which significantly amended the EHA and gave public schools in the United States what is essentially the current federal law. (It has since been renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA.) PL 94-142 dramatically enhanced all protections provided before 1975. It contained a number of substantive mandates, including the requirement that districts create an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) for each child in special education; The requirement that states affirmatively undertake to identify and locate all underserved children with disabilities; and the obligation to educate children with disabilities with regular education students to the maximum extent possible, in particular demanding that disabled students be placed in the ?least restrictive environment?(1997). Deutsch-Smith declared that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was reauthorized the first time in 1986. Congress added services to infants, toddlers, and their families in this version of the special education law. In its next reauthorization, Congress changed the name of the law to PL 101-476, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 15 (IDEA). In addition, changing the name, Congress called out two conditions (autism and traumatic brain injury) as special education categories and strengthened transitional services for adolescents with disabilities (Deutsch-Smith, 2006). IDEA reauthorized in 1990 and 1997, spawned the delivery of services to millions of student previously denied access to an appropriate education. (Pardini, 2002, pg 51) Pardini also contended that between 1990 and 1997 students with special needs were not only in school, but also, in the best case scenarios, assigned to small classes where specially trained teachers tailored their lessons to each student?s individuals needs. Schools also were required to provide any additional services ? such as interpreters for the deaf or computer-assisted technology for the physically impaired- that students needed in order to reach their full potential. In more and more cases, special education students began spending time every day in regular classroom settings with their non-special education peers (pg. 52-53). Ziegler observed that IDEA was once again reauthorized (extended, sanctioned, and updated) in 2004. Issues like access to the general education curriculum, participation in statewide and district-wide testing, discipline, and streamlining the Individual Education Plan (IEP) assumed prominence in these versions of the law (2002 pg 21). In the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is known as the ?No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, student with disabilities were included in many ways. This law requires that 95 percent of all school children be full participants in state and district testing. It also includes as a goal that all students demonstrate proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2012 as suggested by Ziegler (2002, pg 23). Thus this law ties ?No Child Left Behind? and IDEA together due to the inclusion of special needs students into states academic testing programs. 16 According to Kochhar, Taymans, & West (2000), special education and civil rights laws have promoted the practice of educating students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable. School are now required to assure that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the student has such a severe disability that his or her education in regular classes cannot be achieved even with the use of supplementary aids and services (Kochhar, Taymans, & West, 2000, pg 4). Sailor (1991) proposed six major components for inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms. Component 1: Home school placements. This means that students are educated in their community schools. No students are educated in their community schools. No students are educated in separate special schools, or magnet schools, or enclaves with high concentrations of students with disabilities. Neighborhood schools provide opportunities for social inclusion at the school and in the community. Component 2: Natural proportion at each school. Each school and each class contain the same proportion of students with disabilities found in the general community. For example, in a community with 10 percent disabilities among the population, an inclusive classroom would contain no more than 10 percent students with disabilities (or 2 to 3 for a 25 to 30 student classroom). Components 3: A zero- reject philosophy. A zero-reject philosophy exists so that no student will be excluded on the basis of type or extent of disability. In other words, every school serves all children within its district. This philosophy helps develop a sense of community and fosters belongingness, interdependence, and relationships that value diversity. Components 4: Age- and grade- appropriate placements. School and general education placements are age and grade appropriate so that no self-contained special education classes will exist. There is no cascade of services or 17 continuum of placements for students with differing needs. Components 5: Cooperative learning and peer instructional methods. Cooperative learning and peer instruction are replacing traditional teaching as the preferred methods for inclusive classrooms. Components 6: Special education in integrated environments. Special education supports exist within the general education class and in other integrated environments (Sailor, 1991). This means that in the inclusive class, special education resources, such as personnel, supplies, and equipment, are redistributed for use by all students in the classroom. Also team teaching arrangements (a general education and a special education teacher) can be used to individualize instruction for students with disabilities (Sailor, 1991). Sailor (2004) believes that the six components of special education and its inclusive efforts remain a great deal of controversy among inclusion advocates about how to implements these components. Inclusion model are effective when they take into consideration (1) the expectations that the student can benefit for the educational program into which the student is being placed, (2) the conditions and resources needed to attain such benefits, and (3) the actual impacts of the placement on the total classroom. It is these models of effective inclusion which provide all educators with an understanding of the possibilities and potential of the inclusion movement (2004, pg 26). It is impossible to ignore the fact that special education is controversial in America and other industrialized nations (Horn & Tynan, 2001, pg 4). Criticisms come from all sectors of society. Special education programs, which had once been so widely acclaimed, appear to be falling out of favor (Rouse & Florian, 2001). Although schooling is no longer denied to any child in the U.S., and the outcomes of students with disabilities are significantly improved over the last 100 years, complaints about special education, its costs, and its practices continue to be 18 pervasive in the press, in public conversations, and in Congress (Gotsch, 2001, pg. 60). Gotsch deemed that special education is blamed for many problems found in the public schools (2001). Deutsch ?Smith concluded that the fairly recent but overwhelmingly negative feelings about special education held by many in American society are one of the significant legacies of the 20th Century. Here are some of the major concerns and issues that must be resolved. 1) Is ineffective and unnecessary? 2) Is IDEA discriminatory? 3) IDEA unnecessarily segregates students with disabilities from their non-disabled peers. 4) Some states or school districts include too many students. 5) IDEA is too costly and places too great a financial burden on states and local schools. 6) IDEA imposes on administrative burden when school officials must address disruptive or violent behavior (2006, pg 76). Debates about special education?s effectiveness are often emotional and irrational. There is great confusion about what standards should be applied to measure special education?s effectiveness. The goals for special education are implied, not specific. Many policymakers, educators, and parents also seem unclear about their expectations for special education. Many of them believe that special education is effective only if it ?cures? or ?fixes? disabilities ? if it makes them go away (Lovitt & Cushing, 1999). If this becomes the standard by which to measure the effectiveness of special education services, then possibly the graduation rate of students with disabilities is the outcome to watch. These data are dismal: although this figure is gradually increasing, only 57 percent of students with disabilities presently leave the educational system with a standard high school diploma, compared to some 83 percent of students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Smith surmised that graduation rates vary considerably by disability category (e.g., 75 percent for students with visual disabilities, 63 percent for those with learning disabilities, 47 19 percent for students with autism, and 42 percent for those with mental retardation (2006). Remember, the ?No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? requires that eventually all children become proficient in reading and mathematics. As indicated by Zeigler five percent of students can be excused from state and district assessments (2001). Will this ambitious goal become an unreasonable expectation for special education, resulting in its always being judged ineffective? The related attitude of minimizing the impact of disabilities leads to arguments that ?good teaching? and ?high expectations? in general education classes alone can meet the needs of students with disabilities. Others, however, recognize that special education teachers work with students who are ?difficult to teach? and who present some of the most serious challenges to the educational system, but the goals for their efforts are not clearly articulated. For example, some experts believe that general education teachers have been asked to include too many students who are increasingly diverse in learning abilities, particularly students with emotional or behavioral disorders (White et al., 2001). Regardless, evidence does exist that the long-term effects of educating students with disabilities are positive (Hehir, 1996). There is no question that this was historically a problem; to many, it remains a problem today (Danforth & Rhodes, 1997). When the field of special education began, the few services that were available were offered primarily in segregated settings. The students were often in classroom separated from other students in the building or completely removed from the regular school building all together. Sometimes these services were provided in residential schools, which in many cases became terrible institutions, geographically isolated in the rural parts of a state. As public school programs became more readily available and inclusion was limited, students with disabilities often found themselves in separate schools or separate classes, removed from their peers. The concepts of least restrictive environment (review again the IDEA box 20 about LRE) and fully inclusive education are guided by the principle of normalization. The result is that most students with disabilities (some 96 percent) attend neighborhood schools, and almost half receive more than 79 percent of their education in the general education class (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The percentage of students with disabilities who are being included for the vast majority of the school day has consistently increased since 1985, growing from 25 percent in 1985 to 47 percent in 1999 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Many professionals and parents believe that this participation rate is insufficient. However, views on placement (where students receive their education) vary wildly, ranging from support for full inclusion in general education classes to endorsement of full-time placement in center (residential) schools. On the one hand, the argument is that being educated in classes with non-disabled peers of the same age providing students who have disabilities with the opportunity to learn age or the goal to provide opportunities for the disabled students to acquire appropriate social skills from their classmates. The extremely opposite position centers on the impossibility of offering a truly individualized education entirely within the constraints of the general education classroom and curriculum (Hallahan, Hockenbury, &,Kauffman, 1999-2000). As debate continues about placement, particularly among professionals and federal policymakers, it is important to listen to the other voices. For example, according to a Gallup/Kappan public opinion poll, two-thirds (66 percent) of Americans believe that students with learning problems belong in separate classes (Rose & Gallup, 1998). Many special needs students prefer to receive their instruction outside of the general education setting (Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm et al., 1998; Lovitt, Plavins, & Cushing, 1999). Clearly, the number of students participating in special education has increased since the initial passage of IDEA in 1975. While the overall student population in America increased in 21 the last decade of the 20th Century by some 14 percent, special education enrollment increased by 30 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Is this growth unreasonable? First, let?s think about students identified as having disabilities. Prevalence is the term professionals use to refer to the total number of cases at a given time, but to make fair comparisons, it is usually better to think in terms of the proportion or percentage of these individuals, rather than in terms of absolute numbers. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, estimates were that special education would not serve any more than 12 percent of schoolchildren (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). According to the federal government, 5,383,009 children and youth from age 6 through age 17 are currently served in special education programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). This total represents more than 11 percent of all children and youth in this age group. Although the percentage of students served through special education is still below researched estimates, many administrators and policymakers think the number served is too high (Berman et. al, 2001). Some fear that the number and proportion will rise for the following reasons: a) Medical advances are resulting in the survival of more infants with moderate and severe disabilities, b) More children with disabilities who might formerly have been educated at state-run residential institutions have been shifted to local public schools, c) Increasing numbers of preschoolers with disabilities will age into regular school programs, d) Raising general education standards and expectations will lead to more school failure. Concerns about the growth in the number of students receiving special education could result in lower cap or limit, for the percentage of students who can be included or could lead to more alternatives to the present general education and special education options (Berman, 2001, pg 7). 22 Many state and school district officials believe that the costs for special education services reduce funding available for general education students because the current federal contribution toward special education costs is insufficient. In 1975 when IDEA was first passed, Congress authorized the federal government to pay up to 40 percent of the extra funds, excess cost, needed to provide special education services. Although federal appropriations have increased considerably over the last few years, the federal share of costs is only about 12 percent (Chambers, Parrish, & Harr, 2000). Many school administrators and the media believe that schools are left with an unfair burden (Clayton, 2001). Today, the cost of educating a student with disabilities is about 1.9 times to 2.08 times greater than to educate regular education students. Thus, the nation spends about twice as much to educate a student with a disability as it does to educate a typical learner. Of course, the costs vary by state and also by the severity of the student?s disability. It is interesting that these costs have actually decreased over recent years: In 1985, the cost of educating a student with disabilities was 2.28 times greater than the cost of educating a student without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Arguments supporting inclusion generally center around the benefits derived both academically and socially for children with disabilities. Academic achievement is enhanced, advocates contend, when children with disabilities are expected to adhere to the higher standards that usually exist in the-regular classroom setting. To further this argument, supporters stress that these higher standards are necessary because special education students are far less likely than their nondisabled peers to graduate from high school, successfully maintain employment, or live without assistance provided from a variety of sources (O?Neil, 1993). Models of appropriate social behavior are more readily available in regular education classrooms; students have the 23 opportunity to form friendships with nondisabled peers as well as with those who live in surrounding neighborhoods (O?Neil, 1993). Advocates for full inclusion endorse the practice of placing all students with disabilities in a regular education classroom housed in their neighborhood school regardless of the nature of severity of their exceptionalities. Full inclusionists favor the abolishment of placement options, advocating instead that all special education students should receive instruction in the regular education classroom. This environment, supporters stress, more appropriately reflects mainstream society and establishes a supportive, humane atmosphere for all students (Johnson, Proctor & Corey, 1995; Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Advocates further implies that special education provided outside the regular education classroom is cost ineffective; student potential is limited when labels are applied; students frequently endure long bus rides to locations housing special education programs; and the special education curriculum lacks continuation and flow (O?Neil, 1993). Researchers have found several positive aspects of inclusion. One such finding is that inclusion allows students to interact in adverse environments (Godwin & Watkinson, 2000). One of the most positive outcomes from this type of interaction is that students without disabilities experience a shift to more positive attitudes about students with disabilities (Slininger, Sherrill & Jankowski, 2000). The positive aspects of these interactions may be explained through contact theory. The contact theory states that students tend to learn from each other and by including special needs student in the regular classroom they will have a great opportunity to learn a concept. There are several other positive aspects of appropriately implemented inclusion. First, research has indicated that students? social skills can be improved when they are educated in an inclusive environment (Suomi, Collier & Brown, 2003). Students 24 with and without disabilities have demonstrated favorable attitudes toward peers, coaches, and teachers as a result of inclusion. Furthermore, when games are appropriately modified to create successful experience for all learners, children without disabilities are more receptive to accommodating children disabilities (Kalyvas & Reid, 2003). Reynolds (1988) suggested that supporters argue the educational merits of inclusion form two perspectives. First, the weaknesses of special education, as it currently is structured, are highlighted (1988). Reynolds (1988) states , ?Generally speaking, literature reviews of special education efficacy studies suggest ?no advantages for special education placements (pg. 76). More specifically, the National Association of State Boards of Education (1992) reports that 43 percent of students in special education do not graduate; youth with disabilities have a significantly higher likelihood of being arrested than their non-disabled peers (12 percent versus 8 percent); only 13.4 percent of youth with disabilities are living independently two years after leaving high school (compared to 33.2 percent of their non-disabled peers); and less than half of all youth with disabilities are employed after having been out of school one to two years. According to the Kids County Data Book, in contrast to these statistics about students with disabilities, ?the overall high school dropout rate is estimated to be between 18 and 21 percent (1994). Further, the overall unemployment rate of high school dropouts in 1992 was 11.4 percent, while students who graduated but did not go on to college had an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent? (1994). African American and Education A commonly held belief and a widely held concern is that too many students of color are placed in special education programs (Artiles, Aguirre-Munoza, & Abedi, 1998; Townsend & Patton, 2001). The concern stems from the belief that special education is equivalent to 25 placement in a lower academic track, to removal from the academic mainstream, and to a renewing of a cycle of poverty (Ewing, 2001). It is a fact that students of color have rates of placement in special education that exceed their proportions in the school populations. Many different explanations for their disproportionate representation exists, ranging from documentation of these youngsters? low academic achievement and disruptive behaviors, to expected outcomes of being raised in poverty and having limited access to health care, to institutional racism, and to white teachers having limited understanding or tolerance for diverse students? culture and behavior patterns (Carledge, Tillman, & Johnson, 2001pg 5). Thus to some educators, special education is being provided to students who are not succeeding in the general education curriculum, and it giving them the extra assistance and supports they require. To others, special education is a means to remove disruptive or undesirable students from the general education classroom. And still others perceive it as a student to low achievement and a ?watered down? curriculum guaranteeing poor lifetime opportunities (Carledge, Tillman, & Johnson, 2001, pg 5). . Tyson (2002) states the entire nation is painfully cognizant that an increasing number of students experiencing school failure are African-American. African-American students drop out of school, are suspended, expelled, and assigned to special education programs at significantly higher rates than Caucasians or than from other ethnic backgrounds. Failure of African- American students at higher rates continues to increase at alarming rates and signs of their failure are more visible in rural and urban school districts with a high percentage of poverty and poorly funded schools. Curriculum areas where African-American students usually fall short are in the areas of mathematics and science (Tyson, 2002). 26 According to the national studies (A Nation at Risk and Goals 2000), reduced participation in pre-college science, mathematics and technology courses has contributed to a crisis in education. Science in Education reports that students in the United States rank near the bottom of industrialized countries in science and mathematics achievement. According to recent data reported in the No Child Left Behind documentation, only half of American high school students can perform junior high school mathematics. The picture is even bleaker for African Americans who are ill prepared for the high tech jobs of the future. The disparity in interest and achievement in science, mathematics, and technology is also observed at the postsecondary level (Project GEms, 2000). Almost from the beginning of the American republic, African-Americans have struggled for the right of self-determination and of full participation in the political, social, and economic life of the nation (Cooper, 1995, pg 6). Brought from the African wilds to constitute the laboring class of a pioneering society in the new world, the heathen slaves had to be trained to meet the needs of their environment. It required little argument to convince intelligent masters that slaves who had some conception of modern civilization and understood the language of third owners would be more valuable than rude men with whom one could not communicate. The questions, however, as to exactly what kind of training these Negroes should have, and how far it should go were up to the white race then as much a matter of perplexity as they are now. Yet believing that slaves could not be enlightened without developing in them a longing for liberty, not a few masters maintained that the more brutish the bondmen the more plaint they become for purposes of exploitation. It was this class of slaveholders that finally won the majority of southerners to their way of thinking and determined that Negroes should not be educated. (Woodson, 1919,2004) 27 South Carolina Prohibits the Teaching of Slaves to Write 1740? And whereas, the having of slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all and every person or persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach, or cause any slave or slaves to be taught, to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe in any manner of writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons, shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds current money (McCord, 1740, VII, pg.413). No goal has been more important to this struggle than education. This is true more than ever today, since efforts to renew American public education, while paying lip service to equality and excellence for all, have largely ignored the needs and concerns of African-American students (Cooper, 1995, pg 6). It is crucial for an understanding of American educational history, however, to recognize that within American democracy there have been classes of oppressed people and that there has been essential relationships between popular education and politics of oppression. Both schooling for democratic citizenship and schooling for second-class citizenship have been basic traditions in American education. (Anderson, 1988, pg 1) Anderson (1988) went on to explain that it was believed that Virginia?s peace, prosperity, and ?civilization? depended as much, if not more, on the containment and repression of literate culture among its enslaved population as it did on the diffusion of literate culture among its free population (pg 1). As a result according to Kaestle (1994) the South?s literacy rate lagged behind the North?s wile in all areas, women, blacks, Native Americans, and poor whites where to differing degrees excluded from the culture of the printed English word (pg 4). 28 Blacks emerged from slavery with a strong belief in the desirability of learning to read and write. Anderson (1988) quoted a former slave who stated, ?There is one sin that slavery committed against me, which I will never forgive. It robbed me of my education. (pg. 5). Anderson went on to explain, in 1879 Harriet Beecher Stowe said of the freedmen?s campaign for education: ?They rushed not to the grog-shop but to the schoolroom---they cried for the spelling-books as bread, and pleaded for teachers as a necessity of life (pg 5). Booker T. Washington described most vividly his people?s struggle for education: ?Few people who were not right in the midst of the scenes can form any exact idea of the intense desire which the people of my race showed for education. It was a whole race trying to go to school. Few were too young, and none too old, to make the attempt to learn? (Anderson, 1988, pg. 5) Before Northern benevolent societies entered the South in 1862, before President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and before Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, freedmen and Abandoned Lands (Freedmen?s Bureau) in 1865, Slaves and free persons of color had already begun to make plans for the systematic instruction of their illiterates. Early black schools were established and supported largely through the Afro- American?s own efforts (Anderson, 1988, pg 7). Kaestle argues that public schools in the early republic were primarily designed to protect the ideology of an Anglo-American Protestant culture. Spring (2007) suggested that the English beliefs in their cultural and racial superiority over Native Americans and later, enslaved Africans, Mexican American, Puerto Ricans and Asians were not born on American soil. They were part of the cultural baggage English colonists brought to North America. English beliefs in their cultural and racial superiority were reinforced by the justifications given for taking over Native American lands. North American acted as a hot-house for the growth of white racism and 29 cultural chauvinism. This phenomenon was not unique to North America, but it followed the British flag around the world (pg 5). Philanthropic northerners, perturbed by the social and economic hindrances placed on black southerners by white southerners sought to cushion the Negro against the shock of racism and to keep public education open as an avenue of Negro against the shock of racism and to keep public education open as an avenue of Negro advancement (Anderson, 1988, pg 79). Anderson further held that they were deflected for their original aim to challenge racism by good will, tact, and hard work, and they compromised with the region?s white supremacist to save for the former slaves what could be salvaged. What could be salvaged, the story continues, was a system of universal common schooling for black children which would serve as the last avenue of black advancement in an otherwise oppressive society. According to Spring (2007) plantation owners were in constant fear of slave revolts and, consequently, denied their workers any form of education. As a result between 1800 and 1835, southern state passed laws making it a crime to educate slaves (pg. 42). The most oppressive feature of black education was that southern local and state governments, though maintaining and expanding the benefits of public education for white children, fused to provide public schools facilities for black children (Anderson, 1988, pg. 186). After the civil war , African Americans faced many attempts to limit their educational opportunities through underfunding of their schools or by educational segregation (Spring, 2007, pg. 42). According to Spring (2007) northern schools by the 1820s, the African American community realized that a segregated education was resulting in an inferior education for their children. In 1849, the protest over segregated schools finally reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when Benjamin Roberts sued the city for excluding his 5-year-old daughter for the 30 schools. In this particular case, his daughter passed fie white primary schools before reaching the black school. Consequently, Rober decided to enroll her in one of the closer, white schools. He lost the case on a decision by the Court that the school system had provided equal schools for black children (pg 49). The concepts of race and racism are rather vague. Race is primarily a social construction. Defining racism in concrete terms as citizenship laws, education laws , and court rulings that are prejudicial toward a particular group of students (Spring, 2007, pg 6). Spring (2007) declared that colonial powers developed a variety of methods of dealing with captured cultures. For instance, in Malaysia in the nineteenth century, the British tried to assimilate ethic Chinese into Anglo-Saxon culture by providing them with an English education while attempting to control the indigenous Malay population by denying them an education so that they would remain hunter and gatherers and not threaten British rule. Similarly in the United States, Southern states made it illegal to educate enslaved Africans so that they would be denied the knowledge that might lead them to revolt against the slave system (pg. 7). Deculturalization was also considered key to making enslaved African dependent on their owners. One of the first things planters did after purchasing enslaved Africans was to take away their identities by giving them new names. Because plantation owners made little effort to provide organized instruction in English enslaved African on plantation had to create a language of communication that would be understood by owners and overseers and by their fellow slaves. The enslaved African had to create new modes of interaction since they came from a variety of African cultures and had been separated from traditional cultural patterns related to marriage, family relations, property, child rearing friendships, and social status (Spring, 2007, pg. 50). 31 Ira Berlin Describes the result of this deculturalization and cultural transformation as not being ?assimilation to a European ideal. Black people kept their African ways as they understood them, worshiping in manner that white observers condemned a s idolatry and superstition. If a new generation of American-born peoples was tempted toward Christianity, an older generation would have nothing of it. Indeed, the distinctive nature of African-American culture led some white observers to conclude there could be no reconciliation of African and European ways (Spring, 2007, pg. 51). Literacy was a punishable crime for enslaved Africans in the South. However, by the outbreak of the Civil War in 1860, it is estimated that 5 percent of slaves had learned how to read, sometimes at the risk of life or limb (Spring, 2007, pg. 52). Anderson (1988) quoted a former slave, Fereve Rogers, about her husband?s educational work prior to the Civil War: ?On his dying bed he said he been de death o? many a nigger ?cause he taught so may to read and write (pg 17). Between 1800 and 1835, most of the southern states enacted legislation making it a crime to teach enslaved children to read or write (Anderson, 1988, pg. 2). Blacks were specifically denied U.S. citizenship and the political rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott Decision. As a result of a complicated set of events, Dred Scott, an African American, sued to win recognition as a free person, a citizen of the state of Missouri, and a U.S. citizen. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were not intended to provide protection for political rights of blacks. In addition, U.S. citizenship could only be achieved through naturalization, birth on U.S. soil, or birth to an American father (Spring, 2007, pg. 53-54) 32 As postulated by Spring (2007) ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment with its clause providing equal protection under the laws has had an enormous impact on public schools. Section 1. All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law (Microsoft, 2009). In 1896, the protection under the fourteenth amendment was severely restricted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared segregation of blacks for whites, including segregation of schools, constitution. In the 1896 Plessy decision, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation did not create a badge of inferiority if segregated facilities were equal and the law was reasonable. In establishing the ?separate but equal doctrine,? the Supreme Court failed to clearly define what constitutes equal facilities and what is reasonable. Concurrent with the ?separate but equal ruling,? the citizenship rights of African Americans in the1880 and 1890s swiftly disappeared in southern states as state laws curtailed the right of black citizens to vote, created segregated public institutions and restricted judicial rights (Spring, 2007, pg. 55) In contrast, a massive campaign to achieve popular schooling for free American developed between 1830 and 1860, and out of this campaign emanated designs for state systems of public education (Anderson, 1988, pg 2) Despite school segregation and harassment from the white population, the African American population of the United States made one of the greatest educational advancements in the history of education. Denied an education by law in slave states and facing inequality of educational opportunities in free states, only seven percent of the 33 African American population was literate in 1863. Within a 90-year period, the literacy rate jumped to 90 percent (Spring, 2007, pg. 55). Spring (2007) provides the following approaches to the interception of cultures resulting from globalization: Culture Genocide---the controlling power uses education to attempt to destroy the culture of the dominated group. In the United States, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican American have been the major target of attempts at cultural genocide; Deculturalization---is the education process of destroying a people?s culture (cultural genocide) and replacing it with a new culture. Language is an important part of culture. In the case of the United States, schools have used varying forms of this method of this method in attempts to eradicate the cultures of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Eastern Europe and Asia. Believing that Anglo-American culture was the superior culture and the only culture that would support republican and democratic institutions, educators forbade for speaking of non-English languages, particularly Spanish and Native American tongues, and forced students to learn an Anglo- American centered curriculum; Assimilation---education programs designed to absorb and integrate cultures into the dominant culture. American schools have primarily used assimilation programs to integrate immigrant groups into mainstream American culture; Cultural Pluralism-- -educational practices designed to maintain the languages and cultures of each cultural group. After World War II, many Native Americans, Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans wanted schools to maintain their languages and cultures. They envisioned a pluralistic society with each different culture existing harmoniously side by side; Denial of Education---attempt by a ruling group to control another culture by denying it an education. The assumption is that education will empower a group to throw off the shackles of its domination. This method was used in the 34 United States to attempt to control enslaved Africans, and sometimes used with other groups, such as Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans; Hybridity---is the term often used to describe the cultural changes resulting from the intersection of two differing cultures. Social psychologists Daphna Oyerman, Izumi Sakanoto, and Armand Lauffer write, ?Hybridization involved the melding of cultural lenses or frames such that values and goals that were focused on in one context are transposed to a new context; Cultural hybridization may be said to occur when an individual or group is exposed to an influenced by more than one cultural context. The process of hybridization has affected most cultures in the United States. Contact with students from differing cultures promoted cultural hybridization (pg. 8). Anderson (1988) stated, in 1863, the enslaved American were emancipated whereby they temporarily joined the ranks of the nation?s free citizens at the very moment that public educational systems were being developed into their modern form. For a brief period during the late 1860s and 1870s, as free laborers, citizens and voters, and the ex-slaves entered into a new social system of capitalism, Republican government, and wage labor. Their campaign for first- class citizenship, however, was successfully undermined by federal and state governments and by extralegal organizations and tactics. Soon after the late 1870s, blacks were ruthless disfranchised; their civil and political subordination was fixed in southern law, and they were trapped by statutes and social customs in an agricultural economy that rested heavily on coercive control and allocation of labor. From the end of Reconstruction until the late 1960, black southerners existed in a social system that virtually denied them citizenship, the right to vote, and the voluntary control of their labor power. They remained an oppressed people. Black education developed within this context of political and economic oppression, Hence, although black southerners were formally free during the time when American popular education was 35 transformed into a highly formal and critical social institution, their schooling took a different path (pg. 2). Structural Violence The entire history of this country has been driven by violence. The whole power structure and economic system was based essentially on the extermination of the native populations and the bringing of slaves. The Industrial Revolution was based on cheap cotton, which wasn?t kept cheap by market principles but by conquest. It was kept cheap by the use of land stolen from the indigenous populations and then by the cheap labor of those exploited in slavery (Davrian, Sherlolom & Szulc, 1995, pg. 128). According to dictionary.com violence is defined as, swift and intense force: the violence of a storm, rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence, an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence, a violent act or proceeding, rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred, damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text, physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence, the act or an instance of violent action or behavior, intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado, abusive or unjust exercise of power, abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text, and vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor (2009). Leech (2007) Galtung?s uses of the terms of violence and conflict have specific meanings to go beyond the traditional dictionary definition of the words. According to Galtung conflict is a triadic construct (71 Galtung, 1996) it is therefore made up of three aspects that are interdependent (conflict: attitudes/assumptions + behavior + contradiction/content) and which 36 cannot be properly understood as individuals independent of the whole. Leech goes on to postulate that the term violence is explained in general terms as ?Violence of needs deprivation? (200 Galtung, 1996) or violence is ?avoidable insults to basic human needs? (197 Galtung, 1996). In more detail Galtung?s understanding of violence is comprehendible with reference to three subgroups or supertypes. Galtung offers a metaphor that is extremely useful for explaining the three supertypes. The analogy is when we consider an earthquake we first think of a physical event ? the shaking of the earth ? that is quantifiable and obvious. However this not the whole story, the point at which the quake occurs is usually centered upon a fault line. Fault lines are constant and not themselves deadly ? it is possible to conceive to a fault line that exists yet has never been the site of an earthquake. The relationship between the fault line and the event of a quake is tied together by means of a process. This process is a tectonic shift. It is important to note here that none of the three aspects of an earthquake are the same as each other. Rather, they are possible to view as three substantive parts of a grater whole, and it is allow possible to student and examine them as independent phenomenon (199 Galtung, 1996 taken from Leech, 2007 , pg 2). Gewalt (1993) states that, ?I understand violence as the avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or, the impairment of human life, which lower the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their need below that which would otherwise be possible. The threat of violence is also violence. (pg 106)? Gewalt goes on to state that this understanding of violence goes far beyond direct violence in which one or more people inflict violence on other people. In addition to direct violence, Galtung emphasizes another form of violence structural violence, which is not carried out by individuals but is hidden to a greater or lesser extent in structures (pg 106). 37 Leech (2007) goes on to define direct violence, cultural violence and structural violence. Direct violence is an event. It is characterized by coercion, the use of force or the treat of forces. Direct violence is what we mean by warfare; however its definition is not limited to this. Cultural violence is the unchanging difference between people?s perhaps ethnic or economic divides that make one group of people obviously distinct for another. Structural violence is an ostensive label that may be applies to a broad range of phenomena. Structural violence is the process of deprivation of needs. Each part of the violence equation depends o the existence of the other two before the violent conflict become truly serious and sustained (197-200 Galtung, 1996 as taken from Leech, 2007). It need not be consistent or radical. Simply put, it is violence embodies by a structure, or violence that operates regardless of intent (93 Galtung, 1996 as taken from Leech, 2007). It is characterized politically as repression, and economically by exploitation (Leech, 2007 pg 3). As put forward by Grewal (2003) Galtung defines violence as being ?present when human being are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realization (pg. 168). This definition is much wider than violence as being merely somatic or direct and includes structural violence (pg. 2). In structural violence, ?violence is built into the structure, and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances.? It is the unequal distribution of resources, and the unequal distribution of the ?power to decide over the distribution of resources? that give rise to structural violence. In this interpretation, resources are seen as not only material or economic, but also non-material, such as education, health care, etc. (Galtung 1969, 171). In ?Typologies of Violence,? Galtung argues that violence can also be defined in terms of the kind of harm it produces, in terms of what human needs it limits. Both direct and structural 38 violence hamper bodily and psychological integrity, basic material needs (such as the need for sleep, nutrition, movement, health, love, etc.), classical human rights (freedom of expression, need for mobilization, need for work, etc.), and nonmaterial needs (such as solidarity, friendship, happiness, self-actualization, and so on. Galtung 1981, 271-272). Nohlen (1991) believes that violence is built into the social system and expresses itself in the unequal distribution of power and , as a result, unequal opportunities i.e. inequality in the distribution of income, education opportunities etc. He goes on to state that as far as Galtung is concerned structural violence is synonymous with social injustice (Nohlen, 1991 pg 621-622). Ford (2009) asks the question, ?Why haven?t the problems of the ghettos improved along with race relations generally?? His answer is conservatives have a ready answer. Racism is not the problem; instead, a pervasive culture of instant gratification, violence and loose morals ? think gangsta rap ? keeps poor blacks for enjoying the American dream, not white racists. Liberals have a more charitable, but unfortunately more obscure, rejoinder (pg. 8). Galtung maintain that resources are unevenly distributed, as when income distributions are heavily skewed, literacy/education unevenly distributed, medical services existent in some districts and for some groups only, and so on. Above all, the power to decide over the distribution of resources is unevenly distributed. The situation is arrogated further if the persons low on income is also low on education, low on health, and low on power as in frequently the case because these rank dimension tend to be heavily correlated due to the way they are tied together in social structure (pg. 464). He goes on to contend that violence with a clear subject-object relation is manifest because it is visible as action. It is easily captured expressed verbally since it has the same structure as elementary sentences in languages: subject-verb-object, with bother subject and 39 object being persons. Violence without this relation is structural, built into but when one million husbands keep one million wives in ignorance there is structural violence (Galtung, 1969, pg.464 - 465). Ford (2009) goes on to explain poor blacks suffer from covert racism, unconscious racism, institutional racism, environmental racism and a host of other theoretically abstruse ?racism? that don?t involve cross-burning white supremacists or crude Archie Bunker-style bigots ? and may not even involve racial animus or discrimination. Each side has little patience for the claims of the other. Conservatives reject the idea of structural and institutional racism (violence) as an intellectual?s way of playing the race card. Liberals attack any emphasis on the dysfunctional culture of the poor as ?blaming the victim? ( pg 8). It?s an absolute farce, except that it?s serving its purpose. Its purpose in this country is to criminalize Blacks and other marginalized groups, to treat them like a population under military occupation, to lock them up in effect without constitutional rights, and race and class are closely enough correlated in the United States, so that this is also part of the class war (Davrian, Sherlolom & Szulc, 1995, pg. 136). For example the drug war, which was almost completely phony, was simply used as a technique of incarceration. There was a huge increase in imprisonment during the Regan years, and some enormous percentage of it, like two-thirds, was for drug use. And most of it isn?t even crime its victimless crime, like catching somebody with a joint in their pocket. In fact, if you look in the federal prisons, you don?t find many bankers and chemical corporation executives and so on, although they?re involved in the drug racket. Banks are involved in money laundering and government agencies pointed out years ago that the big chemical corporations are exporting chemicals to Latin America way beyond any industrial use. What they?re exporting, in fact, is 40 what?s used for commercial production of drugs. But the idea is to go after the Black kid on the corner in the ghetto, because he?s the one you want to get rid of. The drug most often used in the ghettos is crack; in the White suburbs, it?s power. Well you know, the way the laws are crafted, powdered cocaine gets much less of a sentence than crack cocaine. That?s social policy (violence) it?s parrot of criminalizing the ?irrelevant? population; even drugs are used for that purpose. Thus incarceration is a technique for social control. It?s the counterpart in a rich society of the death squads in a poor society (Davrian, Sherlolom & Szulc, 1995, pg. 135). State enforced racial discrimination created the ghettos: in the early 20th century local governments separated the races into segregated neighbor hoods by force of law, and later, whites used private agreements and violent intimidation to deep blacks out of white neighborhoods. Worst, and most surprising of all the federal government played a major role in encouraging the racism of private actors and state governments. Until the 1960s, federal housing agencies engaged in racial redlining, refusing to guarantee mortgages in inner-city neighborhoods; private lenders quickly followed suit (Ford, 2009, pg. 8). Galtung (1969) maintain that violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential. Violence is defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is (pg. 426). The National Index of Violence and Harm defines violence as an action of structural arrangement that results in physical or non-physical harm to one or more persons. Such action or hierarchies need to be purposely done, perpetuated, or condoned. However, violence occurs whether harm is intended or not, whether the action is justified or not, can be psychological, and need not be recognized by the perpetrator or the receiver of the harm (Brumbaugh-Smith, Gross, Wollman, & Yoder, 2006, pg. 3). Thus if a person died from 41 tuberculosis in the eighteenth century it would have been hard to conceive of this as violence since it might have been quite unavoidable, but id he dies from it today, despite all the medical resources in the world, then violence is present according to our definition. Correspondingly, the case of people dying from earthquakes today would hot warrant an analysis in terms of violence, but he day after tomorrow, when earthquakes may become avoidable, such deaths may be seen as the result of violence. In other words, when the potential is higher than the actual the difference is by definition avoidable and when it is avoidable, then violence is present. Curtin and Litke (1999) subscribes to the theory of Robert Audi who proposes that violence is a vigorous attack or abuse of persons in physical or psychological ways. He supports his proposal by showing that we can carry force against people in a variety of physically and psychologically devastating ways (pg. 439). Violence is causing injury through the use of vigorous physical force and the injury must be intended or foreseen (Curtin &Litke, 1999, pg. 439). Garver and Robert Holmes suggest, the meaning of violence by focusing on the idea of violating person. People can be violated in both physical and psychological ways. Garver provides the taxonomy of violence as occurs in several markedly different forms, and can be usefully classified into four different kinds based on two criteria, whether the violence is personal or institutionalized, or whether the violence is overt or covert and quiet (Curtin & Litke, 1999, pg. 440). If a pervasive assumption is made within a school district that boys, but not girls, should take additional years of science or mathematics, this is cover institutional violence. If a retail store hire only Caucasian clerks because it operates on the assumption that its customers will not feel comfortable being waited on by persons of color, this is covert institutional violence (Curtin & Litke, 1999, pg. 440). Curtin and Litke suggested that when institutional violence becomes 42 the status quo, it generally moves from overt forms to covert forms. When institutional violence takes on the character of the status quo the institutions that create and facilitate violence become synonymous with justice. Before the elimination of apartheid in South Africa, racist legal institutions were so pervasive that justice was equated with racist oppression. Institutional violence is violence made possible and facilitated by social organizations having relatively explicit rules and formal status within a culture i.e. the States educational system, the military, the police force, and the judicial system. Ford, Obiakor, and Patton (1995) indicated that the entire nation is painfully aware that a growing number of students experiencing school failure are African American. Statistics indicate that every seven seconds of the school day an African-American student is suspended from public school. Every forty-seconds of the school day an African-American student drops out of school (p. 85). According to Tyson (2002), many of the prevailing theories concerning the relatively low academic performance of African American Students tend to center on the attitudes of adolescents. Much less research attention has been paid to the attitudes of younger students. As a result, the image of African American adolescents who, like most American adolescents, exhibit oppositional attitudes ? has come to represent much of what we know and take for granted about African American students as a group. A considerable measure of academic peril for these students is created by teachers? diverse cultural ineptness, improper attitudes, and differential behaviors toward African American students (Nieto, 1992, pg 203). The National Council on Educating African American Children (1998) states its case of self-determination in clear and direct language: ??A Blueprint for Action is predicated on a whole village? concept; a collaborative effort where the 43 stakeholders-parents and families, teachers, administrators, churches, and students themselves? take part.? The African-American community must ultimately rely upon itself to reinforce a substantive and relevant education for its children (Cooper, 1995). Murrell (2002) pointed out that in the midst of national conversations and initiatives concerning how to improve curriculum in our increasingly diverse urban school, African American children continue to be the most severely shortchanged. It is not news that in every major urban school system, African American children, particularly males, fare less well than their European American counterparts. Murrell emphasized that somewhere between the first and the fourth grade, African American children, especially male, begin to disengage and lose enthusiasm for learning in school. They gradually give up expecting school to make sense in the context of their lives. African American children, more than their European American counterparts, begin to experience schools as places that encourage learning, inspire creativity, and enable thinking. The National Coalition of Advocates for Students (1986) reported that American African children generally fall below grade level as early as elementary school, and the gap rapidly increase as they get older. American African children are tracked into slow learner groups at disproportionate rates, and they are three times as likely as their American European counterparts to be placed into classes for the educable mentally retarded, the behaviorally disturbed, and the emotionally impaired. Conversely, African American youth are half as likely to be placed in classes for gifted and talented students. Furthermore, they are often encouraged by school staff to employ courses of study that are less academically rigorous and less challenging and which tend to leave them trapped in general or vocational track much more often than American 44 European students. Irvine (1990) stated that African American students, compared to American Europeans are twice as likely to drop out of high school and are suspended three times as often. Wilson (1987) argued that living in socially isolated neighborhoods will have a negative effect on educational attainment, due to the influence of adult role models. In socially isolated neighborhoods, he argues, a lack of positive role models makes dropping out of high school more likely. Wilson also argues that institutional factors play a role. In particular, school quality may be higher in wealthy neighborhoods leading to the predicted relationship. Others argue that the influence of peers may lead to this relationship (Wilson, 1987). Young people tend to do what their peers are doing, and since children from wealthy families are more likely than those from poor families to do well in school, having wealthy neighbors will have a negative effect on the high school dropout rate and a positive effect on the college graduation rate. Whatever the mechanism, the social isolation theory predicts that neighborhood quality, as measured primarily by wealth, will have a positive effect on educational attainment. Murrell (2002) stated that public school systems are still failing African American children in epidemic proportions. Nationwide, African American students are disproportionately expelled, suspended, and referred to special education programs in urban public schools. African American students lag behind Euro-American students in high school completion and employment. Murrell concluded that the statistics belie the fact that huge numbers of African American students are not even in this test-taking picture. He further indicated that significant numbers of African American students, and other students of color, drop out of school?as much as one-half to two thirds in some city districts. Fewer than 10 percent of African American men go to college, yet they constitute 76 percent of the nation?s prison population. More African American young people drop out of high school than graduate. 45 Cooper (1995) argued that the obstacles confronting African-Americans?under-funded urban school, a decline in the number of minority teachers and principals who can serve as role models, a Euro-centric curriculum?call for new initiatives determined by the African-American community. Cooper (1995) further indicated that the National Council for the Education of African-American Children responds by detailing over 200 ?implementation activities? offered to all of the stakeholders in the African-American community. Peterson and Scott suggest that the black community must mobilize itself to confront not only the institutional (violence) barriers but also the familial and cultural impediments to academic achievement. Poor blacks would benefit greatly from systems that systems that provide an extended day for students, keeping them occupied until parents get home from work and centering primarily on academic support and secondarily on recreational activities. 46 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This study analyzes existing data to investigate potential impacts of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama. More specifically, this study seeks to address the following three research questions: 1. Has there been any change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms in the State of Alabama since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree? 2. Has there been any change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama? 3. Has there been any change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications in the State of Alabama? The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis associated with research question one are: H10: There has not been any significant change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms in the State of Alabama since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. H1A: There has been a significant change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms in the State of Alabama since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. 47 The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis associated with research question two are: H20: There has not been any significant change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama. H2A: There has been a significant change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama. The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis associated with research question three are: H30: There has not been any significant change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications in the State of Alabama. H3A: There has been a significant change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications in the State of Alabama. In this chapter, the research methodology used to address the research questions is outlined, including research design and approach, data sources and variables. In addition, plan for data analysis and limitations are discussed. Research Design and Approach A quantitative study, analyzing archival data (or a secondary analysis of existing data), will be conducted. Given that the purpose and the research questions of this study are quantitatively oriented, qualitative methods were not used. The major source of data will come from the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and the Alabama Department of Education. The study is longitudinal in nature, examining data from 10 years (1998 -- 2008). The Lee vs. Macon Decree was first enforced in 2002 (Alabama State 48 Department of Education, 2002, pg 1). This study examines data 4 years prior to the enforcement of the Decree and 6 years after the Decree. Data Sources and Variables Data for this study will be retrieved from The United State Department of Education and the Alabama State Department of Education. The State of Alabama is one of 52 states and territories that receives funds from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, thus the state is required to provide data each year to the United State Department of Education. The United State Department of Education data is reported by the number of children with disabilities based on race, gender and ethnicity (Section 618 of IDEA, 2001). During the months between October 1 and December 1, states are responsible for counting students ages 3 through 21 who receive special education services. The child count data must be reported to the state departments of education with disabilities by age and race/ethnicity with the age. This data is then reported in two separately age groups 3 through 5 and 6 through 21 to the United States Department of Education (Section 618 of IDEA, 2001). Dimensions of Data Alabama is one of 50 states and territories that are responsible for reporting data to the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. This data includes age, disability (mental retardation, hearing impairments including deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairments including blindness, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, multiple disabilities, deaf-blindness, specific learning disabilities, and developmental delay), and race/ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American (not Hispanic), Hispanic or Latino, and White (not Hispanic). 49 The main focus variable for research question 1 is the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms. This variable can be found in part B of the environment data set compiled by the Alabama Department of Education. Since this study looks at the State of Alabama only, only the State of Alabama?s data reported between the years of 1998-2008 will be used. The main focus variable for research question 2 is the graduation rate of special education students in the state of Alabama. This variable can be found in part B of the existing data set complied by the state department of education. The data for this variable was collected between the years of 1998-2008. The main focus variable for research question 3 is part B child count students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications in the State of Alabama. This variable data was collected between the years of 1998-2008 and can be found in part B of the child count data set complied by the state department of education. Data Analysis Plan As indicated earlier, a total of 10 years of data will be collected. Given that this study focuses only on the State of Alabama and uses data at the state level, it coincides with a single- system research design with 10 data points. Data analysis method appropriate for single-system research design, therefore, will be used to analyze the data for this study. More specifically, data will be analyzed with the conservative dual-criteria (CDC) approach (Stewart, Carr, Brandt & McHenry, 2007). The CDC approach is a relatively new and simple approach to the analysis single-system design data. This approach has been found to work quite well when there is autocorrelation in data typically found in single-system research design (Wambaugh & Ferguson, 2007). A CDC chart will be presented for each of the three focus variables related to each of the 50 three research questions. Baseline mean, regression and adjusted regression lines will then be computed. The alternative hypothesis will be accepted if the results indicate a statistically significant change. Significance (?) level for the study is set at the .05 level (Bloom, Fischer & Orme, 2009; Stewart et al., 2007). Limitations There are several limitations associated with the research methodology employed in this study. The first limitation has to do with the nature of a secondary analysis. Given that this study will use archival data collected and managed by the United State Department of Education and the Alabama Department of Education, the researcher does not have control over the quality of the data. Any potential errors in the data that could not be detected by the researcher in data collection and management processes could lead to biased results. Second, there is several notable limitation of this study. The study is limited to the State of Alabama with the reporting dates between the 1998-2008 academic school years. The study is also limited to the grades of three through twelve. All of the data is self reported data from the Alabama State Department of Education to the United States Department of Education. The first limitation relates to the collection of the data by the State of Alabama and the United State department of Education is each school and district involved in the state collect data individually report it to the state, thus the data can be manipulated by individual organizations. Each of the districts in the state has its own system for assessing, referring and placement of students in the special education program this data cannot be determined by the researcher. This do not create a serious limitation to the researcher due to the fact that the Lee v. Macon Decree does set some guidelines for the assessing, referring and placement of student in special education. 51 The second limitation of this study is the data being collected from one state and thus cannot be universally used to apply to other states or populations. The only state included in this study is the State of Alabama. In the event that there is an attempt to compare this study to other populations it should be done with caution and concern. With that in mind, the methodology used in this study can be used with any data set contain data pertaining to special education children. Thus, this research cannot provide data on the type of services provided to the student served under IDEA in the state or districts. The data is limited to the time in the classroom, graduation/exiting, and placement category. The types of classroom instructional strategies and didactic theories used to assist students to be successful can do be determined using the data sets. 52 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS This chapter summarizes the research findings of this dissertation study. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects that the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree of 2003 has had on education for African American Students and students with special needs in the State of Alabama. More specifically, the research questions for this dissertation study were as follows: 1. Has there been any change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree? 2. Has there been any change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama? 3. Has there been any change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama? Analyzing archival data, this study reports the findings in relation to the above research questions. First, descriptive data are presented to provide an overview of special education in the State of Alabama. Then, analysis findings, using the conservative dual-criteria (CDC) approach (Stewart, Carr, Brandt & McHenry, 2007) to address the research questions, are reported. Alabama?s Data All school in all states are required to report data regarding special education students in their perspective state to the United State Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in what is known as a December 1 Child Count. The OCR works in conjunction with the United 53 State Department of Education (USDOE) to coordinate and publish the state reported data. The OCR compiles the data for compliance with federal laws i.e. Federal Consent Decrees and Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that was reauthorized in 2004 by President George W. Bush. The OCR and USDOE is a partnership that serves as a oversight organization due to the passage of the Tenth Amendment giving the rights of education to the states. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is dedicated to improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities ages birth through 21 by providing leadership and financial support to assist states and local districts. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes formula grants to states, and discretionary grants to institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance and dissemination, technology and personnel development and parenting-training (2010, pg. 1). The research period includes the school years ranging from 1998-2008 with all school in the state reporting data on all students that range from a low of 726,367 in 2001 to a high of 743,704 in 2007. Table 1 is an overview of all the students in Alabama?s Special Education program and the total number of students in the state. The table lists the students by race/ethnicity and the total number of student in each category. This table also includes the total number of students in the state per year. Students served under IDEA may attend regular public school between the years of 6 and 22 thus the data in the table is also reported based on this criterion. Table 1. Number of Students in Special Education in Alabama per each year 54 Years American Indian or Alaska Native Age 6 to 21 Asian or Pacific Islander Age 6 to 21 Black (not Hispanic) Age 6 to 21 Hispanic Age 6 to 21 White (not Hispanic) Age 6 to 21 Age 22 Age 6 to 22 Total number student in the State 1998 500 199 38,041 452 53,094 1 92,315 735,979 1999 499 218 38,641 530 52,456 0 92,417 730,092 2000 475 216 39,230 621 51,663 0 92,274 728,511 2001 495 261 37,662 717 49,816 0 88,951 726,367 2002 502 265 37,312 835 48,426 0 87,340 730,169 2003 497 291 36,549 967 46,909 0 85,213 731,483 2004 536 291 36,785 1,129 46,391 0 85,132 732,458 2005 529 310 36,693 1,320 45,565 0 84,417 733,971 2006 517 319 34,899 1,490 43,762 0 80,987 739,552 2007 528 324 32,989 1,587 42,233 0 77,661 743,704 2008 513 337 31,871 1,705 41,356 0 75,782 742,789 Table 2 contains the total number of students in special education in the State of Alabama who spend 80% of the school day in the regular education classroom. One of the requirements of IDEA is the placement of special needs students in the least restrictive environment. This means that these students should be included in the regular classroom as much as possible. This table records the data based on race/ethnicity.. The data for the year 1998 was not reported properly by the state thus it was exclude from this table. Table 2. Number of Students in Special Education per year in Regular Classes 80% of the day years American Indian Asian Black (not Hispanic) Hispanic White (not Hispanic) Total 1998 No Data for this Year 1999 251 115 17,285 278 30,241 48,170 2000 225 108 15,960 245 27,533 44,071 2001 232 119 14,130 259 25,354 40,094 2002 204 110 13,566 325 23,801 38,006 2003 213 145 14,922 432 25,094 40,806 2004 312 160 18,276 604 28,653 48,005 2005 387 194 22,388 843 32,788 36,600 2006 417 214 24,254 1,072 34,025 59,982 2007 448 227 24,958 1,224 34,449 77,661 2008 437 246 25,054 1,348 34,283 75,782 55 Table 3 presents the number of students in special education in the State of Alabama who graduated with a regular high school diploma or exited through other means. This table descriptions of data is based on exiting totals, maximum age reached (22 in the state of Alabama), received a certificated of attendance, died or dropped out. Table 3. Number of Students Exiting Special Education per School Year in the State of Alabama State Exiting Total Graduated with HS Diploma Received a certificate Reached Maximum Age Died Dropped out yr98-99 Alabama 8,586 1,513 2,154 86 38 1,910 yr99-00 Alabama 5,282 1,252 2,077 216 29 2,086 yr00-01 Alabama 9,544 1,260 2,097 68 43 1,977 yr01-02 Alabama 8,001 1,110 2,243 56 25 1,512 yr02-03 Alabama 9,344 1,050 2,503 287 29 1,624 yr03-04 Alabama 6,222 1,105 2,522 216 38 2,335 yr04-05 Alabama 5,764 1,138 2,342 154 32 2,098 yr05-06 Alabama 9,357 1,438 2,251 76 40 2,169 yr06-07 Alabama 8,608 1,371 2,229 145 30 1,615 yr07-08 Alabama 8,561 1,584 2,113 172 30 1,387 Tables 4A and 4B show the amount of African American Students in special education in the State of Alabama who had a classification of Mental Retardation and Emotional and Behaviorally Disturbed. Table 4A. Total Number of African American Students per year with a Mental Retardation Classification in the State of Alabama 1998 Alabama Mental Retardation 14,516 1999 Alabama Mental Retardation 13,956 2000 Alabama Mental Retardation 13,349 2001 Alabama Mental Retardation 10,687 2002 Alabama Mental Retardation 9,352 2003 Alabama Mental Retardation 7,804 2004 Alabama Mental Retardation 6,333 2005 Alabama Mental Retardation 5,324 2006 Alabama Mental Retardation 4,424 2007 Alabama Mental Retardation 3,746 2008 Alabama Mental Retardation 3,387 56 Table 4B. Total Number of African American Students per year with an Emotional Disturbance Classification in the State of Alabama 1998 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 2,195 1999 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 2,127 2000 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 1,958 2001 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 1,741 2002 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 1,518 2003 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 1,193 2004 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 1,009 2005 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 868 2006 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 705 2007 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 605 2008 Alabama Emotional Disturbance 585 Special Education Students Spending 80% or More Time a Day in Regular Classrooms To explore if there has been any change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree (research question 1), data from Table 1 and Table 2 were used. Following the approach described in Chapter 3, Figure 1 shows the CDC chart of the trends in inclusive education, represented by the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms, from 1999-2008. Data from 1999-2001 (first 3 years) were used for the baseline phase (before the enforcement of the Decree), and the remaining data (years 2002- 2008) were used for the intervention phase (after the enforcement of the Decree). The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been a statistically significant change (p = < .001) in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. The trends indicate an upward change (increase) in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. 57 Figure 1. Trends in Inclusive Education in the State of Alabama 1999-2008 Graduation Rate of Special Education Students To explore if there has been any change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree (research question 2), data from Table 1 and Table 3 were used. Following the approach described in Chapter 3, Figure 2 shows the CDC chart of the trends in graduation rate of special education students for school years of 1998-2008. Data from 1998-2001 (first 3 years) were used for the baseline phase (before the enactment of the Decree), and the remaining data (years 2002-2008) were used for the intervention phase (after the enactment of the Decree). The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been no statistically significant change (p = .75) in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. 0 5 10 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 % of stu den ts in reg ular cl as sr oo m 80 % Year Trends in Inclusive Education Adj. regression line (A) Adj. mean line (A) 58 Figure 2. Trends in Graduation Rate of Students in Special Education in the State of Alabama 1998-2008 African Americans Students Classified as Emotional Behavior Disturbed or Mental Retardation To explore if there has been any change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree (research question 3), data from Table 1 and Table 3A and Table 3B were used. Following the approach described in Chapter 3, Figure 3 shows the CDC chart of the trends in the percentage of African American students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications, from 1999-2008. Data from 1998- 2001 (first 4 years) were used for the baseline phase (before the enforcement of the Decree), and the remaining data (years 2002-2008) were used for the intervention phase (after the enforcement of the Decree). The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been a statistically significant change (p = .04) in the percentage of African American students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation since the enforcement of the Lee vs. G r a d u a t i o n R a t e o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n S t u d e n t s i n A l a b a m a 0 0 . 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 W e e k s G r a d u a t io n r a t e A dj . re g re s s i o n l i n e ( A ) A dj . m e a n l i n e ( A ) 59 Macon Decree. The trends indicate an downward change (decrease) in the 30 percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation since the enforcement of Lee vs. Macon. Figure 3. Trends in Percentage of African American Students Classified as Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation in the State of Alabama 1998-2008 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 % Year African American Students in Mental Retardation and Emotional Disturbance Adj. regression line (A) Adj. mean line (A) 60 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will draw conclusions and report the findings that were provided by the data analysis collected throughout this research. The need to determine the effectiveness of the Lee vs Macon Consent Decree and all of it mandates was examined followed by an interpretation, conclusions and recommendations. The demographic data was reviewed alone with an analysis of the individual research questions. The conclusion were explored and the recommendations on how to improve the implementations of the consent decree. The current state of education in the United States and the number of African American and Hispanic males that dropout of schools this study is a critical component of any self reflection for the State of Alabama. The need to examine the effectiveness of the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree and any other practice in the Alabama States? Departments of Education is critical to improving the success rate of minority students in all of the country?s public schools. The consent decree was examined to determine the effectiveness of the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree put forth by the federal courts in 2002. Introduction This study examined the effects of the Lee v. Macon Consent Decree and inclusive practices have on African American students with special needs in Alabama Schools. The Decree resolved Alabama place procedures for students served under IDEA in the state. A major issue in the Lee vs. Macon litigation is the overrepresentation of African American students 61 classified as mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed and a underrepresentation of these same students with a specific learning disability and gifted and talented classifications. The Consent Decree was settled by the federal court in 2000 but allowed the state three years to provide teacher training, establish a program to improve reading achievement and to make changes to administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. The full implementation of the Consent Decree did not occur until the fall of 2003. Many advocates of special education services and civil rights in the State of Alabama applauded the Consent Decree because the assumption was that it would provide reform for African American students in the state. Most parents agree with Kaufman, McGee and Brigham (2004) when they stated that schools need demanding and distinctive special education that is clearly focused on instruction and habilitation (pg. 613). Restatement of the Procedures In order to study the effectiveness of the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree it was determined that data reported to the United State Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in the December 1 child count data would be the appropriate for this study. The initial data was reported to the Alabama State Department of Education by every district in the state and all state department of education including Alabama must report their data to the US Department of Education. The data was collected over a three week period from the US Department of Education?s IDEA website. A total of 10 years of data was collected. Given that this study focuses only on the State of Alabama and uses data at the state level, it coincides with a single-system research design with 10 data points. Data analysis method appropriate for single-system research design, 62 therefore, was used to analyze the data for this study. More specifically, data was analyzed with the conservative dual-criteria (CDC) approach (Stewart, Carr, Brandt & McHenry, 2007). The CDC approach is a relatively new and simple approach to the analysis single-system design data. This approach has been found to work quite well when there is autocorrelation in data typically found in single-system research design (Wambaugh & Ferguson, 2007). A CDC chart was presented for each of the three focus variables related to each of the three research questions. Baseline mean, regression and adjusted regression lines will then be computed. The alternative hypothesis was accepted due to the results indicating a statistically significant change. Significance (?) level for the study is set at the .05 level (Bloom, Fischer & Orme, 2009; Stewart et al., 2007). Interpretations and Conclusions The reported data for the school districts in the State of Alabama between the years of 1998-2008 ranges from a high of 743,704 in 2007 to a low of 726,367 in 2001. Included in this number of total students attending schools in Alabama 92, 417 for a high in 1999 were served under the auspicious of IDEA and a low of 75, 782 in 2008 with 2008 being the second large number of total students attending schools in Alabama. The study attempted to determine if the Consent Decree was making a significant difference in Alabama?s Schools for students served under IDEA using three research questions. This section includes the findings from the analysis of data for each of the research questions. Research Question 1: Has there been any change in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms in the State of Alabama since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree? 63 The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been a statistically significant change (p = < .001) in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. The trends indicate an upward change (increase) in the portion of special education students spending 80% or more time a day in regular classrooms since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. Research Question 2: Has there been any change in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree in the State of Alabama? The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been no statistically significant change (p = .75) in the graduation rate of special education students since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. Research Question 3: Has there been any change in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation classifications in the State of Alabama? The results of the analysis, based on the CDC approach, show that there has been a statistically significant change (p = .04) in the percentage of African American students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. The trends indicate a downward change (decrease) in the percentage of African Americans students placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation since the enforcement of the Lee vs. Macon Decree. 64 Discussion of Conclusions Research Question number one (1) results indicates that there was a significant statistical change in the portion of the school day that special education students are spending in the regular classroom. This suggests that the Consent Decree for the State of Alabama is working to assist schools and students in the state to be place in the least restrictive environments during the majority of the school day. One of the major requirements of IDEA and the Consent Decree was the placement of African Americans in the regular classroom, thus it appears as if the current mandate is working to accomplish this goal. No statistically significant change was made with result to research question number two (2). This research question addressed the graduation rate of special education students in the State of Alabama during the period of the enforcement of the Consent Decree. This suggest that although there is a change in the placement of students in the regular classroom many of the students served under IDEA is having a difficult time passing the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. There are some bright spots in the State of Alabama where the graduation rate is up for many of the students served under IDEA in the schools in the Black Belt region of the state i.e. Lowndes County Public Schools? Central High School. Research Question number three (3) results indicates that there is a statistically significant change in the percentage of African American students being placed in Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retardation since the enforcement of the Consent Decree. A major component of the Consent Decree and the legal issue behind the consent is the number of African American students classified as Emotional Behavior Disturbed and Mental Retarded. Over the past ten years the numbers has been reduced significantly. 65 Recommendations To continue to improve the academic expansion for students served under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) the State of Alabama has made over the past 10 years it is important the state department of education continue to support the reforms set into motion by the Lee vs. Macon Consent Decree. As in most cases with federal consent decree the decree will end and it is up to the state to continue to follow the law. In many cases in the south with reforms involving minorities the states have been known to revert back to the old practices set forth before the intervention by the federal government. It is this authors recommendation that the state continue the reforms and attempt to find new way to improve on the success made thus far. The graduation rates can be improved in this area by looking at those schools where success in taking place with special education students specifically Central High School in Lowndes County Alabama. This small poverty rich school has shown that it is possible to educate all students regardless of their economic background. 66 REFERENCES Archibald, J & Hansen, J. (2005). The Black Belt: Alabama?s Third Word. The Birmingham News, Birmingham, AL. Artiles, A., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Abedi, J. (1998). Predicting placement in learning disabilities programs: Do predictors vary by ethnic group? Exceptional Children, 64, 543- 559. Alabama State Department of Education. (2002) Lee v. Macon Overview. Alabama State Department of Education. www.alsde.edu. Ballard, J., Ramirez, B. A., & Weintraub, F. J. (1982). Special education in America: Its legal and governmental foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Bloom, M, Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating practice: Guideline for the accountable professional. (6th. Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brumbaugh-Smith, J., Gross, H., Wollman, N. & Yoder, B. (2006). NIVAH: a Composite index measuring violence and harm in the U.S. Received 23 September 2006/Accepted 4 February / Published online 5 April 2007 ? Springer and Science Media B.V. 2007. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k751734623060g23/ Bentley, M., Day, S. & Sanders, H. (2005). The Black Belt. Black Belt Action Commission Newsletter, 1, 3-4. Berman, S., Davis, P., Koufman-Frederick, A., & Urion, D. (2001). The Impact of 67 Special Education on Education Reform: A Case Study of Massachusetts. In C. Finn Jr. & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute and Fordham Foundation. Cartledge, G., Tillman, L.C., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2001). Professional ethics within the context of student discipline and diversity. Teacher Education Special Education, 24, 25-37. Chambers, J.G. , Parrish, T., & Harr, J.J. (2002, March). What are we spending on special education services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance report #1. American Institutes for Research: special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP). Clayton, J. (2001). The thicket of Special Ed. Los Angeles Times, p. B10. Cook, G. ?Resources on Brown v. Board of Education.? American School Board Journal April 2004. http://www.asbj.com/BrownvBoard/resources.html Curtin, D. & Litke, R. (1999). Institutional Violence. Rodopi Publishers, Value Inquiry Book Series, New York, NY. Danforth, S., & Rhodes, W. C. (1997). Deconstructing disability: A philosophy for inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 357-366. Ewing, N.J. (2001). Teacher education: ethics, power, and privilege. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 13-24. Ford, R. T. (2009) Why the poor stay poor? The New York Times, Late Edition (BR) (o) New York, NY. pg. 8 Franklin, B.M. (1998) When children don?t learn: Student failure and the culture of teaching. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 99 &102. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and research. Sage Publications, Ltd. Reprinted 68 from Journal of Peach Research 23 no. 9. Galtung, J. (1988). Typologics of Violence. In transamoment and the cold war. Essays in peach research vol. VI Copenhagen Christian Ejlers. Galtung, J & Gewalt, K. (1993). Peace Education. Der Burger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106. Goodwin, D., & Watkinson, J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 289-303 Gotsch, T. (2001). Court: Emotionally disabled entitled to IDEA service. Indiana Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families. Special Education Report, 24(4). Hallahan, D.P. , Hockenbury, J.C., & Kauffman, J.M. (1999-2001). What is right About special education. Exceptionality, 8, 3-11. Hehir, T. (1996, September). The achievement of people with disabilities because of IDEA. Paper presented at the meeting of Project Success for annual project directors, Washington, D.C. Horn, W., & Tynan, D. (2001). Time to make special education ?special? again. Inc. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham, and C.R. Hokanson, Jr., (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century. (pp. 23-52). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute. Ivey, K.& Sanders, H. (2004). Black Belt Action Commission. State of Alabama Government Printing Office. Johnston, D., Proctor, W., & Corey, S. (1995). Not a way out: A way in. Educational 69 Leadership, 42(4), 46-49. Kaestle, C. F. (1994). Pillars of the republic: common schools and American society, 1780-1860. Hill and Wang, New York, New York, 4-5. Kalyvas, V., & Reid, G. (2003). Sport adaptation, participation, and enjoyment of students with and without disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 1882- 199. Kelman, M. & Lester, G. (1997) Jumping the queue : an inquiry into the legal Treatment of students with learning disabilities. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. KF4215 .K45 1997). Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being. (1994). Greenwich, CT: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kochhar, C. A., West, L. L., & Taymans, J. M. (2000). SUCCESSFUL INCLUSION: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lawson, H. H. (1998). College Bound African Americans: How to Succeed In College (2nd ed). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Dubuque, Iowa. Leech, P. (2007). Galtung?s ?structural violence? and the Sierra Leone Civil War c.1985-1992. Resolve: The People and Planet Network Journal. Lovitt, T.C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. (1999). What do pupils with disabilities have To say about their experience in high school? Remedial and Special 70 Education, 20, 2, 67-76. McCord, D.J.. (1740). The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, VII, 413. Microsoft, Encarta (2009) constitution of the United States. Microsoft: Encarta 09 Encyclopedia ? 1993-2007. Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Nohlen D. (1991). The Encyclopedia Article War and Peace. p. 621-622. http://www.dadalos.org/frieden_in/grundkurs/2typologie.htm O'Neil, J. (1993, November). Inclusive education gains adherents. ASCD Update, 35(9), pp. 1, 3-4. Pardini, P. (2002). The History of Special Education. Rethinking Schools Online 16(3) Spring 2002. www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Hist163.shtml - 16k Patton, James M. and Townsend, B. L. (2001). The Discourse on Ethics, Power, and Privilege and African American Learners: Guest Editors' Post Notes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, (1), 48-49. Peterson, K.C. & Scott, M.V. (2008) The new black leadership. The Boston Globe,3rd edition OP-ED; pg A19. Reynolds, M.C. (1988). Past, present, and future of school integration. Minnesota UAP Impact, 1(2), 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 081). Rose, L. C., and Gallup, A.C. (1998) "The 30th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll Of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 80, 1 (September 1998): 41-56. Roos, P. (1970). Trends and Issues in special education for the mentally retarded. 71 Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1970. Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (2001). Editorial. Cambridge Journal of Education. Sailor, W. (1991). Special education in the restructured school. Remedial and Special Education, 12, (6), 8-22. Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., & Jankowski, C.M. (2000). Children?s attitudes towards Peers with severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 176-196. Smith, D. D. (2006). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of opportunity. Pearson Education, Inc. Spring, J. (2007). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: a brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. Queens College, City University of New York, NY. McGraw-Hill High Education, Boston, MA. Stewart, K. K., Carr, J. E., Brandt, C. W., & McHenry, M. M. (2007). An evaluation of the conservative dual-criterion method for teaching university students to visually inspect AB-design graphs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 713-718. Suomi, J., Collier, D., & Brown, L. (2003). Factors affecting social experiences of students in elementary physical education classes. Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 22, 186-202. U.S. Department of Education (2001). The twenty-third annual report to congress on the implementation of IDEA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 72 U.S. Department of Education (2010). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Home page. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html 9/28/10 White, R., Algozzine, B., Audette, R., Marr, M. B., & Ellis, E. D. Jr. (2001). Unified discipline: A school-wide approach for managing problem behavior. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(1), 3-8. Ziegler, D. Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Arlington, VA: The council for Exceptional children, Public Policy Unit, 2002. 73 APPENDIX A PROTOCOL RESEACH APPROVAL LETTER FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY 74 APPENDIX B STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ALABAMA 1998-2008 Year Code Dis AGE_14 AGE_15 AGE_16 AGE_17 AGE_18 AGE_19 AGE_20 AGE_21 22 14- 22 AP AA H W 1998 X MR 5 10 5 7 1 2 1 0 0 31 . . . . 1998 X HI 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 1998 X SL 26 10 7 5 4 4 5 0 0 61 . . . . 1998 X VI 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1998 X EBD 9 26 17 23 7 6 4 0 0 92 . . . . 1998 X OI 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 1998 X OHI 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 1998 X SLD 61 61 57 43 21 13 4 0 2 262 . . . . 1998 X DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 X MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 X A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 X TBI 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1998 X ALL 108 111 91 81 36 25 14 0 2 468 1 175 1 290 1998 REG MR 0 0 0 5 46 30 1 1 0 83 . . . . 1998 REG HI 0 0 0 2 23 7 2 0 0 34 . . . . 1998 REG SL 0 0 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 11 . . . . 1998 REG VI 0 0 0 0 12 2 2 1 0 17 . . . . 1998 REG EBD 0 0 0 15 62 26 5 0 0 108 . . . . 1998 REG OI 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0 0 14 . . . . 1998 REG OHI 0 0 0 11 42 16 0 0 0 69 . . . . 1998 REG SLD 0 0 0 138 653 329 39 3 0 1162 . . . . 1998 REG DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 REG MD 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1998 REG A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 REG TBI 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 11 . . . . 75 1998 REG ALL 0 0 0 180 856 421 51 5 0 1513 1 346 3 1128 1998 CERT MR 0 0 0 81 501 438 102 68 0 1190 . . . . 1998 CERT HI 0 0 0 0 10 6 9 1 0 26 . . . . 1998 CERT SL 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 1 0 8 . . . . 1998 CERT VI 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 . . . . 1998 CERT EBD 0 0 1 6 26 17 6 0 0 56 . . . . 1998 CERT OI 0 0 0 0 5 4 2 1 0 12 . . . . 1998 CERT OHI 0 0 0 1 8 11 6 1 0 27 . . . . 1998 CERT SLD 0 0 0 46 375 310 47 3 0 781 . . . . 1998 CERT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 . . . . 1998 CERT MD 0 0 0 0 6 7 6 12 5 36 . . . . 1998 CERT A 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 7 . . . . 1998 CERT TBI 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1998 CERT ALL 0 0 1 138 935 803 179 92 6 2154 3 1166 11 874 1998 MAX MR 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 30 2 35 . . . . 1998 MAX HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 MAX SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1998 MAX VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 MAX EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8 . . . . 1998 MAX OI 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 . . . . 1998 MAX OHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 MAX SLD 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 10 . . . . 1998 MAX DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 MAX MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 24 . . . . 1998 MAX A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1998 MAX TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 . . . . 1998 MAX ALL 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 72 5 86 0 30 0 56 1998 DIED MR 2 1 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 12 . . . . 1998 DIED HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 DIED SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 76 1998 DIED VI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 1998 DIED EBD 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 DIED OI 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1998 DIED OHI 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 DIED SLD 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 14 . . . . 1998 DIED DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 DIED MD 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 DIED A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 DIED TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 DIED ALL 9 5 6 9 7 1 1 0 0 38 0 12 0 21 1998 MOVE MR 102 120 125 54 38 8 2 1 0 450 . . . . 1998 MOVE HI 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 . . . . 1998 MOVE SL 9 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 . . . . 1998 MOVE VI 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1998 MOVE EBD 113 96 98 54 16 4 1 0 0 382 . . . . 1998 MOVE OI 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 . . . . 1998 MOVE OHI 5 9 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 29 . . . . 1998 MOVE SLD 241 217 180 124 52 19 2 0 8 843 . . . . 1998 MOVE DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 MOVE MD 1 6 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 11 . . . . 1998 MOVE A 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1998 MOVE TBI 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1998 MOVE ALL 478 456 423 246 111 32 6 2 8 1762 5 629 13 1036 1998 NOT MR 30 29 35 23 36 18 10 0 0 181 . . . . 1998 NOT HI 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 NOT SL 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1998 NOT VI 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 . . . . 1998 NOT EBD 9 25 17 21 16 15 13 2 0 118 . . . . 1998 NOT OI 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 NOT OHI 4 3 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 15 . . . . 77 1998 NOT SLD 65 48 57 48 39 37 20 1 1 316 . . . . 1998 NOT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 NOT MD 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 8 . . . . 1998 NOT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 NOT TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 NOT ALL 115 108 119 98 95 72 44 3 1 655 0 262 14 378 1998 OUT MR 8 17 164 153 142 74 22 4 0 584 . . . . 1998 OUT HI 0 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 8 . . . . 1998 OUT SL 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 . . . . 1998 OUT VI 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 5 . . . . 1998 OUT EBD 4 9 88 56 41 14 4 0 1 217 . . . . 1998 OUT OI 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 . . . . 1998 OUT OHI 0 1 6 7 7 2 0 0 0 23 . . . . 1998 OUT SLD 8 26 330 299 263 108 12 2 1 1049 . . . . 1998 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1998 OUT MD 0 0 1 5 2 0 1 0 0 9 . . . . 1998 OUT A 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1998 OUT TBI 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1998 OUT ALL 20 55 595 524 463 203 42 6 2 1910 1 673 8 1135 1998 TX MR 147 177 332 328 764 570 142 104 2 2566 . . . . 1998 TX HI 4 4 4 6 37 15 13 1 0 84 . . . . 1998 TX SL 37 16 17 11 13 12 6 2 0 114 . . . . 1998 TX VI 4 3 7 3 18 3 4 2 0 44 . . . . 1998 TX EBD 136 157 221 175 169 82 33 8 3 984 . . . . 1998 TX OI 6 2 1 4 15 11 4 3 0 46 . . . . 1998 TX OHI 11 16 20 27 61 30 6 1 0 172 . . . . 1998 TX SLD 378 353 627 701 1410 817 124 15 12 4437 . . . . 1998 TX DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 . . . . 1998 TX MD 5 6 3 14 10 8 7 36 6 95 . . . . 1998 TX A 0 0 1 0 3 3 1 4 0 12 . . . . 78 1998 TX TBI 2 1 2 7 8 7 0 3 0 30 . . . . 1998 TX ALL 730 735 1235 1276 2508 1558 340 180 24 8586 11 3293 50 4918 1999 X MR 7 6 8 3 10 5 0 0 0 39 . . . . 1999 X HI 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1999 X SL 36 26 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 74 . . . . 1999 X VI 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 X EBD 19 19 13 11 2 0 0 0 0 64 . . . . 1999 X OI 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 X OHI 3 7 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 17 . . . . 1999 X SLD 108 100 86 62 34 8 2 1 0 401 . . . . 1999 X DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 X MD 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 . . . . 1999 X A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 X TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 X ALL 174 162 113 90 50 13 4 1 0 607 2 184 4 414 1999 REG MR 0 0 0 3 34 23 5 0 0 65 . . . . 1999 REG HI 0 0 0 5 23 6 0 1 0 35 . . . . 1999 REG SL 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1999 REG VI 0 0 0 5 4 1 3 0 0 13 . . . . 1999 REG EBD 0 0 0 14 37 14 0 0 0 65 . . . . 1999 REG OI 0 0 0 2 9 8 2 0 0 21 . . . . 1999 REG OHI 0 0 0 10 47 14 2 0 0 73 . . . . 1999 REG SLD 0 0 0 110 553 267 35 1 0 966 . . . . 1999 REG DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 REG MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1999 REG A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 1999 REG TBI 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 7 . . . . 1999 REG ALL 0 0 0 150 717 335 47 3 0 1252 3 299 1 936 1999 CERT MR 0 0 0 81 463 388 73 49 24 1078 . . . . 1999 CERT HI 0 0 0 1 8 16 14 1 0 40 . . . . 79 1999 CERT SL 0 0 0 6 2 1 1 1 0 11 . . . . 1999 CERT VI 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 8 . . . . 1999 CERT EBD 0 0 0 12 26 19 3 0 0 60 . . . . 1999 CERT OI 0 0 0 2 4 4 3 1 0 14 . . . . 1999 CERT OHI 0 0 0 3 12 22 6 2 0 45 . . . . 1999 CERT SLD 0 0 0 58 349 308 52 6 0 773 . . . . 1999 CERT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 CERT MD 0 0 0 1 3 2 6 15 0 27 . . . . 1999 CERT A 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 7 0 13 . . . . 1999 CERT TBI 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 8 . . . . 1999 CERT ALL 0 0 0 165 875 768 160 85 24 2077 5 1193 12 851 1999 MAX MR 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 81 34 116 . . . . 1999 MAX HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1999 MAX SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1999 MAX VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 MAX EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 22 . . . . 1999 MAX OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 MAX OHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 MAX SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 48 . . . . 1999 MAX DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 MAX MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 . . . . 1999 MAX A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 . . . . 1999 MAX TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1999 MAX ALL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 180 35 216 1 130 0 85 1999 DIED MR 0 2 0 4 4 1 0 1 0 12 . . . . 1999 DIED HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED EBD 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 DIED OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 80 1999 DIED OHI 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 DIED SLD 0 2 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 11 . . . . 1999 DIED DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED MD 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 DIED A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 DIED ALL 3 6 6 5 5 3 0 1 0 29 0 11 0 17 1999 MOVE MR 130 104 98 71 41 16 3 0 0 463 . . . . 1999 MOVE HI 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 1999 MOVE SL 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 1999 MOVE VI 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 . . . . 1999 MOVE EBD 98 81 87 46 13 5 0 1 0 331 . . . . 1999 MOVE OI 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 MOVE OHI 7 12 8 3 2 0 0 0 0 32 . . . . 1999 MOVE SLD 275 228 209 132 51 18 1 0 0 914 . . . . 1999 MOVE DB 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 MOVE MD 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 . . . . 1999 MOVE A 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1999 MOVE TBI 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 1999 MOVE ALL 522 437 411 257 109 40 4 1 0 1781 1 651 12 1107 1999 NOT MR 43 70 75 46 30 25 24 16 0 329 . . . . 1999 NOT HI 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . 1999 NOT SL 3 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 . . . . 1999 NOT VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 NOT EBD 49 55 47 31 27 27 7 1 0 244 . . . . 1999 NOT OI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 1999 NOT OHI 3 2 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 14 . . . . 1999 NOT SLD 116 130 134 96 56 43 35 12 1 623 . . . . 1999 NOT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 NOT MD 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 81 1999 NOT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 NOT TBI 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1999 NOT ALL 217 263 266 178 116 97 68 29 1 1235 0 634 9 590 1999 OUT MR 11 28 136 156 156 82 32 8 0 609 . . . . 1999 OUT HI 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 . . . . 1999 OUT SL 0 2 1 4 4 1 0 0 0 12 . . . . 1999 OUT VI 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 OUT EBD 6 12 93 78 50 21 4 0 0 264 . . . . 1999 OUT OI 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 1999 OUT OHI 0 2 7 16 8 3 1 0 0 37 . . . . 1999 OUT SLD 20 38 315 324 255 135 42 6 0 1135 . . . . 1999 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 OUT MD 0 0 4 2 3 1 0 0 0 10 . . . . 1999 OUT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 1999 OUT TBI 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 8 . . . . 1999 OUT ALL 37 82 561 584 482 246 80 14 0 2086 1 776 7 1282 1999 TX MR 191 210 317 364 739 540 137 155 58 2711 . . . . 1999 TX HI 2 2 9 9 32 24 15 3 0 96 . . . . 1999 TX SL 42 33 7 20 11 3 2 2 0 120 . . . . 1999 TX VI 0 7 1 6 7 5 3 3 0 32 . . . . 1999 TX EBD 172 168 241 192 155 86 14 23 1 1052 . . . . 1999 TX OI 2 2 2 4 14 13 5 1 0 43 . . . . 1999 TX OHI 14 24 19 39 73 39 10 2 0 220 . . . . 1999 TX SLD 519 498 749 783 1299 781 167 74 1 4871 . . . . 1999 TX DB 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 1999 TX MD 8 3 8 5 7 3 8 41 0 83 . . . . 1999 TX A 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 9 0 20 . . . . 1999 TX TBI 2 1 3 5 14 7 0 1 0 33 . . . . 1999 TX ALL 953 950 1357 1429 2355 1502 363 314 60 9283 13 3878 45 5282 2000 X MR 27 30 21 13 26 5 1 0 0 123 . . . . 82 2000 X HI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 . . . . 2000 X SL 25 12 16 5 3 0 0 0 0 61 . . . . 2000 X VI 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2000 X EBD 25 28 14 17 6 3 1 0 0 94 . . . . 2000 X OI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 X OHI 10 5 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 26 . . . . 2000 X SLD 138 124 118 74 57 16 6 0 0 533 . . . . 2000 X DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 X MD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 X A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 X TBI 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2000 X ALL 231 200 176 112 94 25 8 2 0 848 2 378 5 462 2000 REG MR 0 0 0 10 44 28 3 2 0 87 . . . . 2000 REG HI 0 0 0 2 12 6 0 0 0 20 . . . . 2000 REG SL 0 0 0 2 15 0 1 0 0 18 . . . . 2000 REG VI 0 0 0 3 12 0 1 0 0 16 . . . . 2000 REG EBD 0 0 0 10 36 11 2 0 0 59 . . . . 2000 REG OI 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 8 . . . . 2000 REG OHI 0 0 0 8 38 17 0 0 0 63 . . . . 2000 REG SLD 0 0 0 118 604 225 23 4 0 974 . . . . 2000 REG DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 REG MD 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 REG A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 REG TBI 0 0 0 2 8 3 1 0 0 14 . . . . 2000 REG ALL 0 0 0 157 774 291 32 6 0 1260 1 316 5 928 2000 CERT MR 0 0 0 85 445 335 115 84 3 1067 . . . . 2000 CERT HI 0 0 0 0 4 7 8 5 1 25 . . . . 2000 CERT SL 0 0 0 2 11 6 1 0 0 20 . . . . 2000 CERT VI 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2000 CERT EBD 0 0 0 6 27 22 6 0 0 61 . . . . 83 2000 CERT OI 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 4 0 11 . . . . 2000 CERT OHI 0 0 0 5 19 20 9 2 0 55 . . . . 2000 CERT SLD 0 0 0 57 391 293 52 5 0 798 . . . . 2000 CERT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 CERT MD 0 0 0 3 5 4 9 15 1 37 . . . . 2000 CERT A 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 0 9 . . . . 2000 CERT TBI 0 0 0 1 3 4 2 0 0 10 . . . . 2000 CERT ALL 0 0 0 162 910 696 206 118 5 2097 0 1152 7 935 2000 MAX MR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2 35 . . . . 2000 MAX HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . . . . 2000 MAX SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 MAX VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 . . . . 2000 MAX EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 . . . . 2000 MAX OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 MAX OHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 . . . . 2000 MAX SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 . . . . 2000 MAX DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 MAX MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 . . . . 2000 MAX A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 . . . . 2000 MAX TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 MAX ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 4 68 2 29 0 37 2000 DIED MR 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 10 . . . . 2000 DIED HI 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 DIED SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 DIED VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 DIED EBD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 DIED OI 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2000 DIED OHI 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2000 DIED SLD 1 6 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 16 . . . . 2000 DIED DB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 84 2000 DIED MD 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 7 . . . . 2000 DIED A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 DIED TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 DIED ALL 3 11 8 8 7 5 0 1 0 43 0 19 0 24 2000 MOVE MR 136 151 109 96 45 11 1 0 0 549 . . . . 2000 MOVE HI 0 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 . . . . 2000 MOVE SL 9 5 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 24 . . . . 2000 MOVE VI 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 . . . . 2000 MOVE EBD 127 151 117 52 10 7 1 0 0 465 . . . . 2000 MOVE OI 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 2000 MOVE OHI 27 18 13 11 3 1 0 0 0 73 . . . . 2000 MOVE SLD 320 317 298 152 62 20 4 1 0 1174 . . . . 2000 MOVE DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 MOVE MD 5 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 12 . . . . 2000 MOVE A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 MOVE TBI 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 2000 MOVE ALL 627 655 549 323 126 40 6 1 0 2327 5 764 29 1525 2000 NOT MR 28 32 50 39 31 21 24 8 1 234 . . . . 2000 NOT HI 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2000 NOT SL 1 4 6 1 2 0 2 0 0 16 . . . . 2000 NOT VI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 . . . . 2000 NOT EBD 21 24 29 35 25 20 18 9 1 182 . . . . 2000 NOT OI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 NOT OHI 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 . . . . 2000 NOT SLD 53 79 89 88 63 34 41 23 2 472 . . . . 2000 NOT DB 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 NOT MD 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 . . . . 2000 NOT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 NOT TBI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2000 NOT ALL 104 143 177 166 127 76 85 41 5 924 1 373 6 542 85 2000 OUT MR 13 24 163 140 139 66 12 5 1 563 . . . . 2000 OUT HI 0 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 9 . . . . 2000 OUT SL 0 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 11 . . . . 2000 OUT VI 1 0 3 1 3 2 0 0 0 10 . . . . 2000 OUT EBD 16 17 72 65 45 16 6 0 0 237 . . . . 2000 OUT OI 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 . . . . 2000 OUT OHI 2 1 7 15 12 10 4 0 0 51 . . . . 2000 OUT SLD 19 55 324 295 239 119 27 2 0 1080 . . . . 2000 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 OUT MD 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 . . . . 2000 OUT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2000 OUT TBI 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 7 . . . . 2000 OUT ALL 52 97 580 527 445 215 53 7 1 1977 5 740 6 1219 2000 TX MR 204 239 345 384 731 469 156 133 7 2668 . . . . 2000 TX HI 2 6 6 5 22 15 9 8 1 74 . . . . 2000 TX SL 35 21 32 18 33 7 4 0 0 150 . . . . 2000 TX VI 6 5 4 6 18 3 1 2 2 47 . . . . 2000 TX EBD 189 220 233 185 149 79 34 11 2 1102 . . . . 2000 TX OI 0 1 1 6 9 3 5 4 0 29 . . . . 2000 TX OHI 41 26 28 45 77 48 13 7 0 285 . . . . 2000 TX SLD 531 581 832 786 1420 707 153 38 2 5050 . . . . 2000 TX DB 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 . . . . 2000 TX MD 8 3 6 10 9 8 9 31 1 85 . . . . 2000 TX A 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 6 0 13 . . . . 2000 TX TBI 1 2 3 7 13 7 5 0 0 38 . . . . 2000 TX ALL 1017 1106 1490 1455 2483 1348 390 240 15 9544 16 3771 58 5672 2001 X MR 10 11 21 18 17 11 4 1 0 93 . . . . 2001 X HI 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2001 X SL 33 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 49 . . . . 2001 X VI 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 86 2001 X EBD 17 16 12 11 4 1 0 0 0 61 . . . . 2001 X OI 3 4 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 . . . . 2001 X OHI 9 2 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 24 . . . . 2001 X SLD 132 106 103 76 36 13 4 3 3 476 . . . . 2001 X DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 X MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 X A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 X TBI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2001 X ALL 207 148 155 119 59 25 8 4 3 728 0 282 9 433 2001 REG MR . . 0 7 23 15 2 0 0 47 . . . . 2001 REG HI . . 0 2 11 4 0 0 0 17 . . . . 2001 REG SL . . 0 5 14 2 1 0 0 22 . . . . 2001 REG VI . . 0 4 11 1 3 0 0 19 . . . . 2001 REG EBD . . 0 12 25 16 0 1 0 54 . . . . 2001 REG OI . . 0 3 13 3 1 0 0 20 . . . . 2001 REG OHI . . 0 21 31 9 0 0 0 61 . . . . 2001 REG SLD . . 0 113 513 205 25 0 1 857 . . . . 2001 REG DB . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 REG MD . . 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2001 REG A . . 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2001 REG TBI . . 0 2 7 0 0 1 0 10 . . . . 2001 REG ALL . . 0 169 650 256 32 2 1 1110 4 302 6 795 2001 CERT MR 0 0 0 83 410 289 73 81 0 936 . . . . 2001 CERT HI 0 0 0 1 4 8 7 2 0 22 . . . . 2001 CERT SL 0 0 0 3 14 7 1 0 0 25 . . . . 2001 CERT VI 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 6 . . . . 2001 CERT EBD 0 0 0 14 31 13 5 0 0 63 . . . . 2001 CERT OI 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 10 . . . . 2001 CERT OHI 0 0 0 21 30 13 12 0 0 76 . . . . 2001 CERT SLD 0 0 0 97 521 376 50 4 2 1050 . . . . 87 2001 CERT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 CERT MD 0 0 0 1 9 4 7 9 4 34 . . . . 2001 CERT A 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 11 . . . . 2001 CERT TBI 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 3 0 10 . . . . 2001 CERT ALL 0 0 0 226 1027 719 158 106 7 2243 3 1241 13 979 2001 MAX MR . . . . . . 0 33 5 38 . . . . 2001 MAX HI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX SL . . . . . . 0 0 1 1 . . . . 2001 MAX VI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX EBD . . . . . . 0 0 1 1 . . . . 2001 MAX OI . . . . . . 0 1 0 1 . . . . 2001 MAX OHI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX SLD . . . . . . 0 2 0 2 . . . . 2001 MAX DB . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX MD . . . . . . 0 11 2 13 . . . . 2001 MAX A . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX TBI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MAX ALL . . . . . . 0 47 9 56 0 23 1 32 2001 DIED MR 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2001 DIED HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 DIED SL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2001 DIED VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 DIED EBD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2001 DIED OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 DIED OHI 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 2001 DIED SLD 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 6 . . . . 2001 DIED DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 DIED MD 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 6 . . . . 2001 DIED A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 DIED TBI 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 88 2001 DIED ALL 1 2 3 9 6 2 2 0 0 25 0 10 0 15 2001 MOVE MR 86 101 107 52 35 6 3 0 0 390 . . . . 2001 MOVE HI 2 0 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 12 . . . . 2001 MOVE SL 14 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 32 . . . . 2001 MOVE VI 4 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 . . . . 2001 MOVE EBD 77 71 80 54 17 6 2 0 0 307 . . . . 2001 MOVE OI 4 6 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 22 . . . . 2001 MOVE OHI 18 11 15 20 2 0 2 0 0 68 . . . . 2001 MOVE SLD 226 223 202 137 58 17 6 1 0 870 . . . . 2001 MOVE DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 MOVE MD 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 7 . . . . 2001 MOVE A 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2001 MOVE TBI 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 . . . . 2001 MOVE ALL 437 426 430 275 121 33 13 1 0 1736 4 630 19 1077 2001 NOT MR 9 12 28 30 24 11 8 10 1 133 . . . . 2001 NOT HI 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2001 NOT SL 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 . . . . 2001 NOT VI 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2001 NOT EBD 10 21 22 17 7 2 8 5 0 92 . . . . 2001 NOT OI 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2001 NOT OHI 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 . . . . 2001 NOT SLD 53 56 77 63 53 21 4 11 0 338 . . . . 2001 NOT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 NOT MD 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2001 NOT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 NOT TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 NOT ALL 81 94 135 114 86 34 20 26 1 591 0 216 15 359 2001 OUT MR 9 13 113 122 102 57 11 3 0 430 . . . . 2001 OUT HI 0 1 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 9 . . . . 2001 OUT SL 0 1 6 3 3 3 0 0 0 16 . . . . 89 2001 OUT VI 0 0 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 12 . . . . 2001 OUT EBD 4 10 44 46 20 14 7 1 0 146 . . . . 2001 OUT OI 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 10 . . . . 2001 OUT OHI 3 2 7 10 9 8 1 1 0 41 . . . . 2001 OUT SLD 11 33 232 226 220 92 21 4 0 839 . . . . 2001 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 OUT MD 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2001 OUT A 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 . . . . 2001 OUT TBI 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2001 OUT ALL 27 60 416 417 362 178 40 12 0 1512 0 544 10 950 2001 TX MR 114 137 271 313 612 390 101 128 6 2072 . . . . 2001 TX HI 2 2 11 8 16 15 7 2 0 63 . . . . 2001 TX SL 50 15 22 21 33 12 2 0 1 156 . . . . 2001 TX VI 7 7 9 9 17 4 3 2 0 58 . . . . 2001 TX EBD 108 118 158 155 104 53 22 7 1 726 . . . . 2001 TX OI 8 10 17 15 21 7 1 3 1 83 . . . . 2001 TX OHI 34 18 30 83 73 30 15 1 0 284 . . . . 2001 TX SLD 422 418 614 715 1403 724 111 25 6 4438 . . . . 2001 TX DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2001 TX MD 1 2 2 5 16 7 8 20 6 67 . . . . 2001 TX A 0 1 2 0 4 2 3 6 0 18 . . . . 2001 TX TBI 7 2 3 5 12 3 0 4 0 36 . . . . 2001 TX ALL 753 730 1139 1329 2311 1247 273 198 21 8001 11 3248 73 4640 2002 REG MR . . 0 2 21 22 9 0 0 54 . . . . 2002 REG HI . . 0 2 10 8 1 0 0 21 . . . . 2002 REG SL . . 0 4 16 6 1 1 0 28 . . . . 2002 REG VI . . 0 4 8 1 0 0 0 13 . . . . 2002 REG EBD . . 0 7 29 5 3 0 0 44 . . . . 90 2002 REG OI . . 0 1 5 2 1 0 0 9 . . . . 2002 REG OHI . . 0 20 71 16 1 2 0 110 . . . . 2002 REG SLD . . 0 95 439 199 20 3 1 757 . . . . 2002 REG DB . . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 REG MD . . 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 REG A . . 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 . . . . 2002 REG TBI . . 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 8 . . . . 2002 REG ALL . . 0 136 610 259 37 7 1 1,050 5 289 3 745 2002 CERT MR 0 0 0 83 432 290 92 67 0 964 . . . . 2002 CERT HI 0 0 0 2 13 13 6 4 0 38 . . . . 2002 CERT SL 0 0 0 3 15 11 0 2 0 31 . . . . 2002 CERT VI 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 1 0 11 . . . . 2002 CERT EBD 0 0 0 8 32 20 7 1 0 68 . . . . 2002 CERT OI 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 5 . . . . 2002 CERT OHI 0 0 0 7 39 25 7 0 0 78 . . . . 2002 CERT SLD 0 0 0 90 592 479 70 7 0 1,238 . . . . 2002 CERT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 CERT MD 0 0 0 2 9 3 12 19 0 45 . . . . 2002 CERT A 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 5 0 13 . . . . 2002 CERT TBI 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 1 0 12 . . . . 2002 CERT ALL 0 0 0 198 1,144 849 202 110 0 2,503 1 1,342 15 1,138 2002 MAX MR . . . . . . 0 71 54 125 . . . . 2002 MAX HI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 MAX SL . . . . . . 0 1 3 4 . 91 2002 MAX VI . . . . . . 0 1 0 1 . . . . 2002 MAX EBD . . . . . . 0 12 32 44 . . . . 2002 MAX OI . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 MAX OHI . . . . . . 0 3 0 3 . . . . 2002 MAX SLD . . . . . . 0 25 58 83 . . . . 2002 MAX DB . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 MAX MD . . . . . . 0 15 7 22 . . . . 2002 MAX A . . . . . . 0 4 0 4 . . . . 2002 MAX TBI . . . . . . 0 1 0 1 . . . . 2002 MAX ALL . . . . . . 0 133 154 287 0 188 2 97 2002 Transferred to regular education MR 13 8 9 9 10 4 0 0 0 53 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education HI 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education SL 36 22 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 76 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education EBD 15 19 19 7 4 3 0 0 0 67 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education OHI 12 20 17 9 8 0 1 0 0 67 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education SLD 148 121 122 90 43 12 6 1 0 543 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 92 2002 Transferred to regular education MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education A 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education TBI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . . . . 2002 Transferred to regular education ALL 230 192 177 123 69 19 7 1 0 818 1 240 6 567 2002 Died MR 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 6 . . . . 2002 Died HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Died SL 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 Died VI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 Died EBD 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 Died OI 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 Died OHI 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . 2002 Died SLD 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2002 Died DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Died MD 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 . . . . 2002 Died A 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 Died TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Died ALL 3 4 7 5 4 2 1 3 0 29 0 11 0 18 2002 Moved, known to be continuing MR 106 101 91 67 46 16 2 2 0 431 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing HI 5 8 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 . . . . 93 2002 Moved, known to be continuing SL 11 3 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 22 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing VI 2 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 9 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 85 90 78 58 27 4 1 0 0 343 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing OI 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 26 25 18 18 4 2 0 0 0 93 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 313 257 250 185 118 36 3 1 2 1,165 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing DB 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing MD 2 2 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 11 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing A 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 8 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing TBI 2 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 12 . . . . 2002 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 560 491 451 343 210 59 8 3 2 2,127 4 862 22 1,230 2002 Moved, not known to be MR 13 26 29 25 19 22 29 32 0 195 . . . . 94 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing HI 1 0 1 4 4 1 2 0 0 13 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing SL 5 4 4 2 1 3 2 1 0 22 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing VI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing EBD 20 13 21 19 20 17 19 23 2 154 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing OI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing OHI 4 5 6 5 4 0 1 3 0 28 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing SLD 36 59 88 77 79 42 54 49 1 485 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing MD 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing A 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be continuing TBI 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 . . . . 2002 Moved, not known to be ALL 80 107 152 132 129 85 109 109 3 906 0 425 11 466 95 2002 OUT MR 1 10 80 83 91 62 14 8 0 349 . . . . 2002 OUT HI 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 7 . . . . 2002 OUT SL 0 0 2 9 3 1 1 1 0 17 . . . . 2002 OUT VI 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 7 . . . . 2002 OUT EBD 2 2 43 36 40 12 6 9 0 150 . . . . 2002 OUT OI 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 . . . . 2002 OUT OHI 1 2 17 13 12 7 3 0 0 55 . . . . 2002 OUT SLD 4 25 267 288 298 113 25 7 1 1,028 . . . . 2002 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 OUT MD 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 OUT A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 2002 OUT TBI 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . 2002 OUT ALL 9 39 413 433 452 201 51 25 1 1,624 3 565 8 1,042 2002 TX MR 133 146 209 270 620 417 146 182 54 2,177 . . . . 2002 TX HI 9 8 9 13 34 24 10 4 0 111 . . . . 2002 TX SL 52 30 16 29 40 21 4 6 3 201 . . . . 2002 TX VI 2 0 3 12 16 5 3 2 0 43 . . . . 2002 TX EBD 122 125 161 136 153 61 36 45 34 873 . . . . 2002 TX OI 3 0 1 4 9 5 1 3 0 26 . . . . 2002 TX OHI 46 53 58 72 138 50 13 8 0 438 . . . . 2002 TX SLD 501 462 732 825 1,569 881 178 93 63 5,304 . . . . 2002 TX DB 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 . . . . 2002 TX MD 2 2 4 4 15 5 15 35 7 89 . . . . 96 2002 TX A 3 4 3 3 4 2 7 9 0 35 . . . . 2002 TX TBI 4 3 4 1 20 3 2 4 0 41 . . . . 2002 TX ALL 882 833 1,200 1,370 2,618 1,474 415 391 161 9,344 14 3,922 67 5,303 2003 REG MR x x x x 19 24 x x x x 2003 REG HI x x x x 10 7 x x x x 2003 REG SL x x x x 11 5 x x x x 2003 REG VI x x x x 10 5 x x x x 2003 REG EBD x x x 8 15 x x x x x 2003 REG OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 REG OHI x x x 11 43 22 x x x x 2003 REG SLD x x x 89 505 235 x x x x 2003 REG DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 REG MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 REG A x x x x 7 x x x x x 2003 REG TBI x x x x 7 x x x x x 2003 REG ALL x x x 119 634 314 33 5 x x 2003 CERT MR x x x 79 373 342 103 56 x x 2003 CERT HI x x x x 16 10 x x x x 2003 CERT SL x x x x 36 16 x x x x 2003 CERT VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 CERT EBD x x x x 20 17 6 x x x 2003 CERT OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 CERT OHI x x x x 49 24 5 x x x 97 2003 CERT SLD x x x 89 588 495 65 10 x x 2003 CERT DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 CERT MD x x x x 8 8 6 21 x x 2003 CERT A x x x x x x x 5 x x 2003 CERT TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 CERT ALL x x x 190 1,106 924 199 103 x x 2003 MAX MR x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX HI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX SL x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX EBD x x x x x x x x x 34 2003 MAX OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX OHI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX SLD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX A x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 MAX ALL x x x x x x x x 115 216 2003 Transferred to regular education MR 8 10 6 14 8 7 6 9 x x 2003 Transferred to regular education HI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education SL 16 11 x x x x x x x x 98 2003 Transferred to regular education VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education EBD 18 15 11 7 6 x 9 x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education OHI 13 7 x 5 5 x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education SLD 154 135 121 73 45 19 10 10 x x 2003 Transferred to regular education DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education A x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Transferred to regular education ALL 210 179 147 102 67 30 28 24 x x 2003 Died MR x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died HI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died SL x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died EBD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died OHI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died SLD x x x x x x x x x x 99 2003 Died DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died A x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Died ALL x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing MR 85 90 84 61 49 12 x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing HI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing SL 10 7 14 x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 81 73 81 51 18 x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 38 39 26 17 11 x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 235 282 247 177 66 16 x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing DB x x x x x x x x x x 100 2003 Moved, known to be continuing MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing A x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 459 501 462 317 156 40 7 5 x x 2003 OUT MR x x 91 106 89 86 43 23 x x 2003 OUT HI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT SL x x x 6 x x x x x x 2003 OUT VI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT EBD x x x 53 41 10 25 20 x x 2003 OUT OI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT OHI 6 8 13 20 25 x x x x x 2003 OUT SLD 76 x 328 324 337 163 77 x x x 2003 OUT DB x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT MD x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT A x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT TBI x x x x x x x x x x 2003 OUT ALL 113 170 492 514 515 273 152 106 x x 2003 TXS MR 9 36 95 187 482 453 147 123 36 1,568 2003 TXS HI x x x 7 33 18 6 5 x x 101 2003 TXS SL x x 8 11 57 25 5 x x x 2003 TXS VI x x x x 12 10 5 x x x 2003 TXS EBD 19 17 46 64 77 34 33 34 25 349 2003 TXS OI x x x 7 14 x x x x x 2003 TXS OHI x 9 14 39 118 52 10 x 5 255 2003 TXS SLD 78 101 329 507 1,431 896 165 93 47 3,647 2003 TXS DB x x x x x x x 5 x x 2003 TXS MD x x x x x 10 7 36 x x 2003 TXS A x x x x 13 8 x 9 x x 2003 TXS TBI x x x x 13 5 x x x x 2003 TXS ALL 119 173 500 830 2,262 1,516 385 316 121 6,222 2004 REG MR x x x x x 13 x x x 41 . . . . 2004 REG HI x x x x 7 6 x x x 17 . . . . 2004 REG SL x x x x 16 x x x x 30 . . . . 2004 REG VI x x x 6 10 x x x x 17 . . . . 2004 REG EBD x x x x 30 x x x x 45 . . . . 2004 REG OI x x x x 10 x x x x 15 . . . . 2004 REG OHI x x x 9 64 21 x x x 96 . . . . 2004 REG SLD x x x 105 515 197 x x x 847 . . . . 2004 REG DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 REG MD x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 REG A x x x x 7 x x x x 12 . . . . 2004 REG TBI x x x x x 6 x x x 16 . . . . 2004 REG ALL x x x 139 693 270 31 5 x 1,138 x 316 45 771 102 2004 CERT MR x x x 76 366 275 56 58 x 831 . . . . 2004 CERT HI x x x x 9 11 7 x x 28 . . . . 2004 CERT SL x x x 8 27 19 x x x 58 . . . . 2004 CERT VI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 CERT EBD x x x x x 16 x x x 38 . . . . 2004 CERT OI x x x x 5 10 x x x 21 . . . . 2004 CERT OHI x x x 10 42 26 5 x x 86 . . . . 2004 CERT SLD x x x 107 605 404 54 x x 1,174 . . . . 2004 CERT DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 CERT MD x x x x 8 x 8 30 x 55 . . . . 2004 CERT A x x x x 10 7 x 5 x 27 . . . . 2004 CERT TBI x x x x 8 x x x x 15 . . . . 2004 CERT ALL x x x 211 1,101 782 143 105 x 2,342 9 1,320 13 991 2004 MAX MR x x x x x x x x x 58 . . . . 2004 MAX HI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX SL x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX VI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX EBD x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX OI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX OHI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX SLD x x x x x x x x x 46 . . . . 2004 MAX DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX MD x x x x x x x x x 12 . . . . 103 2004 MAX A x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX TBI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 MAX ALL x x x x x x x x x 154 x 104 x 50 2004 Transferred to regular education MR 6 x 9 13 15 x x x x 53 . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education HI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education SL 34 9 7 x x x x x x 58 . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education VI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education EBD 15 10 11 8 x x x x x 45 . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education OI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education OHI 15 12 6 12 x x x x x 50 . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education SLD 97 72 79 57 32 8 x x x 348 . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education MD x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education A x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education TBI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Transferred to regular education ALL 170 109 113 93 54 17 x x x 559 x 201 x 348 2004 Died MR x x x x x x x x x 6 . . . . 104 2004 Died HI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died SL x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died VI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died EBD x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died OI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died OHI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died SLD x x x x x x x x x 13 . . . . 2004 Died DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died MD x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died A x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died TBI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Died ALL x x x x x x x x x 32 x 15 x 17 2004 Moved, known to be continuing MR 75 69 75 75 42 15 x x x 353 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing HI 8 x x x x x x x x 13 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing SL 29 13 18 11 6 x x x x 79 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing VI x x x x x x x x x 7 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 74 60 71 49 28 7 x x x 290 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to OI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 105 2004 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 39 39 36 25 9 5 x x x 153 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 325 329 310 245 124 39 x x x 1,372 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing MD 5 x x x x x x x x 18 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing A x x x x x x x x x 8 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing TBI x x x x x x x x x 16 . . . . 2004 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 565 522 521 416 213 72 x x x 2,315 x 942 25 1,339 2004 OUT MR 7 12 82 84 94 38 x x x 346 . . . . 2004 OUT HI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 OUT SL x x x 20 x 11 x x x 64 . . . . 2004 OUT VI x x x x x x x x x 5 . . . . 2004 OUT EBD x x x 29 33 15 34 7 x 175 . . . . 2004 OUT OI x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 OUT OHI 7 x x 31 x x 5 x x 98 . . . . 2004 OUT SLD 41 76 353 336 324 x 72 x x 1,367 . . . . 2004 OUT DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 106 2004 OUT MD x x x x x x x x x 11 . . . . 2004 OUT A x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 OUT TBI x x x x x x x x x 15 . . . . 2004 OUT ALL 69 107 519 508 495 219 146 35 x 2,098 x 836 x 1,242 2004 TXS MR 8 13 84 164 485 327 80 121 x 1,282 . . . . 2004 TXS HI x x x 5 21 18 9 x x 56 . . . . 2004 TXS SL x x 16 33 53 39 5 7 x 158 . . . . 2004 TXS VI x x x 8 15 x x x x x . . . . 2004 TXS EBD 11 9 37 34 81 40 36 30 x 278 . . . . 2004 TXS OI x x x x 16 15 x x x 38 . . . . 2004 TXS OHI 8 x 24 51 129 50 12 x x 285 . . . . 2004 TXS SLD 42 81 355 552 1,445 746 153 73 x 3,447 . . . . 2004 TXS DB x x x x x x x x x x . . . . 2004 TXS MD x x x 6 x 7 14 42 x 87 . . . . 2004 TXS A x x x x 19 12 5 9 x 48 . . . . 2004 TXS TBI x x x 7 15 13 x 7 x 52 . . . . 2004 TXS ALL 73 116 524 866 2,291 1,273 322 299 x 5,764 12 2,591 66 3,071 2005 REG MR x 0 0 x 37 25 x x 0 71 - - - - 2005 REG HI 0 0 0 x 11 x x 0 0 27 - - - - 2005 REG SL 0 0 0 6 32 11 0 0 0 49 - - - - 2005 REG VI 0 0 0 x 10 x x 0 0 18 - - - - 2005 REG EBD 0 0 0 x 17 9 x x 0 36 - - - - 2005 REG OI 0 0 0 x 11 7 0 x 0 21 - - - - 107 2005 REG OHI 0 0 0 20 76 40 5 0 0 141 - - - - 2005 REG SLD 0 0 0 128 574 304 x x x 1,044 - - - - 2005 REG DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 REG MD x 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 REG A 0 0 0 0 x x x 0 0 16 - - - - 2005 REG TBI 0 0 0 5 x x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 REG ALL 0 0 0 177 781 420 50 10 x 1,438 x 468 21 933 2005 CERT MR x 0 0 76 275 218 x 66 x 690 - - - - 2005 CERT HI 0 0 0 x 11 11 x x 0 35 - - - - 2005 CERT SL 0 0 0 x 34 20 x x 0 62 - - - - 2005 CERT VI 0 0 0 x x x x x 0 20 - - - - 2005 CERT EBD 0 0 0 x 20 15 x 0 0 40 - - - - 2005 CERT OI 0 0 0 0 x x x x x x - - - - 2005 CERT OHI 0 0 0 x 47 34 x 5 x 95 - - - - 2005 CERT SLD 0 0 0 81 583 450 x x 0 1,187 - - - - 2005 CERT DB x 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 x - - - - 2005 CERT MD 0 0 0 0 10 7 6 29 0 52 - - - - 2005 CERT A 0 0 0 0 10 x x 12 x 38 - - - - 2005 CERT TBI 0 0 0 x x x x x 0 17 - - - - 2005 CERT ALL 0 0 0 173 1,008 778 164 128 10 2,251 x 1,305 33 890 2005 MAX MR - - - - 0 0 x x 0 34 - - - - 2005 MAX HI - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX SL - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 108 2005 MAX VI - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 MAX EBD - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX OI - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX OHI - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX SLD - - - - 0 0 0 12 0 12 - - - - 2005 MAX DB - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 MAX MD - - - - 0 0 0 12 0 12 - - - - 2005 MAX A - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX TBI - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2005 MAX ALL - - - - 0 0 x x 0 76 0 35 0 41 2005 Transferred to regular education MR x 8 x x x 0 0 0 0 22 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education HI 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education SL 34 23 9 6 x 0 x 0 0 74 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education VI x 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education EBD 8 x x 10 x 0 0 0 0 46 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education OI x x x 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education OHI 17 15 14 x x x 0 0 0 66 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education SLD 85 90 x x x x x 0 0 341 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 109 2005 Transferred to regular education MD x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education TBI x 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Transferred to regular education ALL 153 156 101 98 45 x x 0 0 562 x 193 7 352 2005 Died MR 0 x x x x x 0 x 0 8 - - - - 2005 Died HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 Died SL 0 0 0 x x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died VI x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died EBD x 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 Died OHI x 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died SLD 0 6 x x x x 0 0 0 18 - - - - 2005 Died DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 Died MD x x x 0 0 0 x x 0 6 - - - - 2005 Died A x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died TBI x 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 Died ALL x 10 8 6 7 x x x 0 40 0 16 0 24 2005 Moved, known to be continuing MR 72 108 92 67 36 x x x x 400 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing HI x x x 6 x 0 0 0 0 18 - - - - 110 2005 Moved, known to be continuing SL 21 18 16 14 x x 0 0 0 77 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing VI x x x x 0 0 0 0 0 8 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 91 92 65 65 32 5 0 0 0 350 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing OI 0 0 x x x x 0 0 0 8 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 57 74 58 21 x x 0 0 0 226 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 346 459 398 255 145 55 10 0 0 1,668 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing MD x 7 x x x x x x 0 27 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing A 10 5 x x x 0 0 x 0 22 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing TBI x x x x x 0 0 0 0 17 - - - - 2005 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 609 770 644 442 244 91 x x x 2,821 13 1,105 68 1,596 2005 OUT MR x x 69 68 76 32 21 23 0 308 - - - - 111 2005 OUT HI 0 x x x x x 0 x 0 8 - - - - 2005 OUT SL 0 0 9 10 12 x x x 0 46 - - - - 2005 OUT VI 0 x x x x 0 0 0 0 7 - - - - 2005 OUT EBD x x 37 33 29 12 13 17 0 148 - - - - 2005 OUT OI x x x 0 x x 0 0 0 10 - - - - 2005 OUT OHI x 7 30 29 23 10 x x x 110 - - - - 2005 OUT SLD 32 91 334 373 363 196 76 46 0 1,511 - - - - 2005 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2005 OUT MD x 0 x 0 x x 0 0 0 12 - - - - 2005 OUT A x 0 x x 0 x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 OUT TBI 0 0 x 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2005 OUT ALL x 122 490 518 514 267 117 x x 2,169 19 896 34 1,200 2005 TXS MR 81 133 167 218 427 296 85 126 7 1,533 - - - - 2005 TXS HI x 6 x 14 26 20 11 6 0 92 - - - - 2005 TXS SL 55 41 34 41 87 41 8 6 0 313 - - - - 2005 TXS VI x x 5 9 21 11 x x 0 58 - - - - 2005 TXS EBD 100 115 108 116 104 41 18 25 0 627 - - - - 2005 TXS OI x x 5 x 25 14 x x x 58 - - - - 2005 TXS OHI 81 96 102 86 164 91 13 9 x 642 - - - - 2005 TXS SLD 463 646 802 905 1,697 1,012 186 70 x 5,781 - - - - 2005 TXS DB x 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 x - - - - 2005 TXS MD 9 8 x x 14 16 11 43 0 112 - - - - 2005 TXS A 12 x x 6 20 12 12 16 x 85 - - - - 112 2005 TXS TBI x x 7 12 14 11 x x 0 x - - - - 2005 TXS ALL 815 1,058 1,243 1,414 2,599 1,565 354 309 13 9,357 41 4,018 163 5,036 2006 REG MR x x 0 x 16 23 5 x 0 50 - - - - 2006 REG HI x 0 0 x 15 x 0 0 0 19 - - - - 2006 REG SL 0 0 0 x 14 x 0 0 0 29 - - - - 2006 REG VI 0 0 0 x x x 0 0 0 13 - - - - 2006 REG EBD 0 0 0 x 18 13 x 0 x 38 - - - - 2006 REG OI 0 0 0 0 11 x x x 0 17 - - - - 2006 REG OHI 0 0 0 21 81 41 7 0 0 150 - - - - 2006 REG SLD 0 0 0 151 544 289 x x x 1,030 - - - - 2006 REG DB x x 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 REG MD 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 REG A 0 0 0 x x x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 REG TBI 0 0 0 x 11 x 0 x 0 14 - - - - 2006 REG ALL 0 0 0 197 725 386 54 9 6 1,371 0 466 20 874 2006 CERT MR x 0 0 49 250 195 55 x x 588 - - - - 2006 CERT HI 0 0 0 x 15 16 13 x 0 48 - - - - 2006 CERT SL 0 0 0 13 40 24 x x 0 79 - - - - 2006 CERT VI 0 x 0 x x x 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 CERT EBD 0 0 0 x x 9 x x 0 28 - - - - 2006 CERT OI 0 0 0 x x 6 x x x x - - - - 2006 CERT OHI 0 0 0 17 56 31 x x 0 115 - - - - 2006 CERT SLD 0 0 x 127 599 421 65 x 0 1,224 - - - - 2006 CERT DB x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 113 2006 CERT MD 0 0 0 x 10 8 x 28 0 51 - - - - 2006 CERT A 0 0 0 x 15 14 x x 0 54 - - - - 2006 CERT TBI 0 0 0 0 10 x x x 0 19 - - - - 2006 CERT ALL 0 0 x 220 1,013 732 157 x 7 2,229 x 1,205 20 990 2006 MAX MR - - - - x x 6 52 6 64 - - - - 2006 MAX HI - - - - 0 0 0 0 x 0 - - - - 2006 MAX SL - - - - 0 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2006 MAX VI - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 MAX EBD - - - - x 0 0 x x 8 - - - - 2006 MAX OI - - - - 0 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2006 MAX OHI - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2006 MAX SLD - - - - x 0 x 37 x 43 - - - - 2006 MAX DB - - - - x 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2006 MAX MD - - - - 0 0 x x x 14 - - - - 2006 MAX A - - - - 0 0 x x x 6 - - - - 2006 MAX TBI - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 MAX ALL - - - - x x 13 120 21 145 x x 0 x 2006 Transferred to regular education MR x x x x x 0 0 0 x 16 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education HI 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education SL 38 18 9 x x 0 0 0 0 76 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education VI 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 114 2006 Transferred to regular education EBD x x 6 x x 0 0 0 0 30 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education OI 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education OHI x 13 x 10 x x x 0 0 70 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education SLD 85 77 69 47 23 x x 0 0 311 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education A 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education TBI 0 x 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Transferred to regular education ALL 162 121 106 67 43 x x 0 x 513 0 170 8 335 2006 Died MR x 0 0 x 0 x x x 0 6 - - - - 2006 Died HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died SL x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Died VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died OHI x x x 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Died SLD x x x 5 x x 0 0 0 14 - - - - 2006 Died DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died MD 0 0 0 x x 0 0 0 0 x - 115 2006 Died A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Died TBI x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 Died ALL x x x 7 x x x x 0 30 0 x 0 x 2006 Moved, known to be continuing MR 53 64 79 66 45 10 x x 39 328 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing HI x 7 x 6 x x 0 0 0 25 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing SL x x 15 13 x x 0 0 0 57 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing VI x x x 0 0 x 0 0 0 9 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 60 77 64 47 28 6 0 0 0 282 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing OI x x x 0 x x x 0 0 13 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 40 50 54 50 20 x x 0 0 218 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 319 378 435 320 200 63 5 0 0 1,720 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing MD x x x x x x x 0 0 24 - - - - 2006 - 116 2006 Moved, known to be continuing TBI x x 0 x x 0 0 0 0 7 - - - - 2006 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 503 604 667 511 306 91 x x 39 2,705 7 1,015 45 1,623 2006 OUT MR x x x 50 46 31 18 x 0 196 - - - - 2006 OUT HI 0 0 x 0 x x 0 0 x x - - - - 2006 OUT SL 0 x 5 8 14 15 x x 0 52 - - - - 2006 OUT VI 0 x x 5 x 0 0 0 0 8 - - - - 2006 OUT EBD x x 22 21 26 23 21 9 0 130 - - - - 2006 OUT OI x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 OUT OHI 0 x 21 16 21 11 x x 0 75 - - - - 2006 OUT SLD x x 257 292 247 173 87 22 0 1,132 - - - - 2006 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2006 OUT MD x x 0 x 0 0 x x 0 8 - - - - 2006 OUT A 0 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 OUT TBI 0 x x 0 x x 0 0 0 5 - - - - 2006 OUT ALL x x 346 396 358 255 137 38 x 1,615 x 679 26 894 2006 TXS MR 61 74 119 172 367 262 92 101 52 1,248 - - - - 2006 TXS HI x 7 8 9 35 21 13 x x 96 - - - - 2006 TXS SL 50 32 29 47 77 48 9 7 0 299 - - - - 2006 TXS VI x x 5 9 10 7 0 0 0 x - - - - 2006 TXS EBD 72 91 92 81 86 51 23 20 x 516 - - - - 2006 TXS OI 5 x x x 18 12 5 x x 51 - - - - 117 2006 TXS OHI 65 68 93 114 184 89 x x 0 637 - - - - 2006 TXS SLD 421 494 769 942 1,620 956 199 73 14 5,474 - - - - 2006 TXS DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 x - - - - 2006 TXS MD x 8 x 7 14 11 13 38 x 100 - - - - 2006 TXS A x 7 8 11 23 17 x 22 x 98 - - - - 2006 TXS TBI x x x x 25 6 x x 0 48 - - - - 2006 TXS ALL 693 790 1,130 1,398 2,459 1,480 383 275 75 8,608 16 3,639 119 4,786 2007 REG MR 0 x 0 x x x x 0 0 54 - - - - 2007 REG HI x 0 0 0 11 x x 0 x 20 - - - - 2007 REG SL 0 0 0 9 22 11 x x 0 44 - - - - 2007 REG VI 0 0 0 x 14 x x 0 0 20 - - - - 2007 REG EBD 0 0 0 x 18 x 0 0 x 31 - - - - 2007 REG OI x 0 0 x 13 x 0 x x 17 - - - - 2007 REG OHI 0 0 0 x 67 40 x 0 x 139 - - - - 2007 REG SLD 0 0 x 166 639 363 47 x x 1,220 - - - - 2007 REG DB x x x 0 x 0 x x 0 x - - - - 2007 REG MD 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 REG A 0 0 0 x x x x x 0 23 - - - - 2007 REG TBI 0 0 0 x 5 x 0 0 x x - - - - 2007 REG ALL 0 0 x 226 831 460 59 x x 1,584 7 576 20 972 2007 CERT MR x 0 0 x 247 187 50 46 0 576 - - - - 2007 CERT HI 0 0 0 x 8 14 12 x x 37 - - - - 2007 CERT SL 0 x 0 x 35 17 0 0 0 64 - - - - 118 2007 CERT VI 0 0 0 x x x x x 0 10 - - - - 2007 CERT EBD 0 0 x x 17 13 x x 0 39 - - - - 2007 CERT OI 0 0 0 x x x x x 0 11 - - - - 2007 CERT OHI 0 0 0 17 58 39 x x x 128 - - - - 2007 CERT SLD 0 0 x 149 555 366 68 x 0 1,150 - - - - 2007 CERT DB x x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 CERT MD 0 0 x x 8 10 6 12 0 38 - - - - 2007 CERT A 0 0 0 x 16 9 x 14 0 46 - - - - 2007 CERT TBI 0 0 0 x 6 x x x 0 14 - - - - 2007 CERT ALL 0 0 6 236 957 665 156 93 x 2,113 6 1,186 13 892 2007 MAX MR - - - - - - 9 35 x 44 - - - - 2007 MAX HI - - - - - - x 0 0 x - - - - 2007 MAX SL - - - - - - 0 x 0 x - - - - 2007 MAX VI - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 MAX EBD - - - - - - 0 10 x 10 - - - - 2007 MAX OI - - - - - - 0 x 0 x - - - - 2007 MAX OHI - - - - - - 0 x 0 x - - - - 2007 MAX SLD - - - - - - x x x 85 - - - - 2007 MAX DB - - - - - - x x 0 0 - - - - 2007 MAX MD - - - - - - x x x 22 - - - - 2007 MAX A - - - - - - 0 x 0 x - - - - 2007 MAX TBI - - - - - - 0 0 x 0 - - - - 2007 MAX ALL - - - - - - 12 160 19 172 0 x x x 119 2007 Transferred to regular education MR x x 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 6 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education HI x 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 5 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education SL 34 x x x x 0 x 0 0 72 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education VI x 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education EBD 9 x x x x x 0 0 0 31 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education OI x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education OHI x 19 13 x x 0 0 0 0 58 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education SLD 92 62 48 x x x x 0 0 259 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Transferred to regular education ALL x 110 81 53 24 x x 0 0 435 x 155 x 269 2007 Died MR 0 x x 0 x x x 0 0 6 - - - - 2007 Died HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Died SL 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 Died VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 120 2007 Died EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Died OI 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 Died OHI 0 x 0 x x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 Died SLD 0 0 x x x x x 0 0 9 - - - - 2007 Died DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Died MD 0 x x x x x x 0 0 10 - - - - 2007 Died A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Died TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Died ALL 0 x x 9 6 x x 0 0 30 0 x 0 x 2007 Moved, known to be continuing MR 48 63 82 81 42 32 x x 0 353 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing HI x x x x 6 x x 0 0 31 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing SL x 19 x 8 x x 0 0 0 60 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing VI 0 x x 0 x x 0 0 0 6 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing EBD 46 60 56 50 30 5 x x 0 249 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing OI x x x 0 x 0 0 0 0 12 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing OHI 57 45 61 44 20 x 0 x 0 235 - - - - 121 2007 Moved, known to be continuing SLD 292 402 464 353 235 71 6 0 0 1,823 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing MD x x 5 6 x x 0 x 0 25 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing A 7 6 x 6 x x 0 0 0 30 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing TBI x 5 x x x 0 x 0 0 16 - - - - 2007 Moved, known to be continuing ALL 491 611 693 557 346 125 x x 0 2,840 x 1,171 56 1,599 2007 OUT MR x x x 24 34 35 23 x 0 155 - - - - 2007 OUT HI 0 0 x 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT SL x 0 x x x x 18 0 0 35 - - - - 2007 OUT VI 0 0 x 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT EBD 0 x 17 10 x 10 16 x 0 74 - - - - 2007 OUT OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT OHI x x 24 34 25 x 9 0 0 113 - - - - 2007 OUT SLD 7 35 198 225 252 159 96 10 0 982 - - - - 2007 OUT DB 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT MD 0 0 x x x x x 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT A 0 0 x x 0 x x x 0 x - - - - 122 2007 OUT TBI 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 OUT ALL x x 280 301 343 226 165 16 0 1,387 x 591 19 763 2007 TXS MR 52 72 114 158 346 279 89 84 x 1,194 - - - - 2007 TXS HI 11 x 6 8 30 23 16 x 0 99 - - - - 2007 TXS SL 57 37 21 39 68 33 x x 0 278 - - - - 2007 TXS VI x x 5 x 21 x 5 x 0 44 - - - - 2007 TXS EBD 55 70 83 71 83 38 19 15 x 434 - - - - 2007 TXS OI 6 x x x 19 x x 5 x 46 - - - - 2007 TXS OHI 73 68 98 135 174 102 19 8 x 677 - - - - 2007 TXS SLD 391 499 717 932 1,697 965 221 106 15 5,528 - - - - 2007 TXS DB 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x - - - - 2007 TXS MD x x 9 12 20 16 10 34 x 108 - - - - 2007 TXS A 7 6 8 12 34 14 8 20 0 109 - - - - 2007 TXS TBI x 5 x 8 x 6 x x x x - - - - 2007 TXS ALL 661 769 1,066 1,382 2,507 1,485 412 279 25 8,561 24 3,794 114 4,581 123 APPENDIX C STUDENTS ENVIROMENT IN SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ALABAMA 1998-2008 YEAR ENV DIA AGE 3 AGE 4 AGE 5 AGE 3 TO 5 AN 3 TO 5 A 3 TO 5 W AGE 3 TO 5 AGE 6 TO 11 AGE 12 TO 17 AGE 18 TO 21 AA 6 TO 21 H 6 TO 21 W 6 TO 21 1998 ECS ALL 710 1650 3337 5697 13 15 3492 . . . . . . 1998 ECSES ALL 57 100 241 398 1 2 219 . . . . . . 1998 H ALL 40 59 32 131 . . 44 . . . . . . 1998 PTCH ALL 240 350 343 933 . 1 566 . . . . . . 1998 RF ALL 10 8 9 27 . . 7 . . . . . . 1998 SS ALL 72 72 56 200 . . 96 . . . . . . 1998 ISOHS ALL 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 1998 RMS ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 TOTAL ALL 1129 2239 4018 7386 14 18 4424 . . . . . . 1998 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 1257 1242 248 . . . 1998 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 212 156 28 . . . 1998 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 14219 1007 24 . . . 1998 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 101 122 9 . . . 1998 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 856 1194 118 . . . 1998 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 203 112 14 . . . 1998 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 745 605 53 . . . 1998 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 7585 10018 992 . . . 1998 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 8 0 . . . 1998 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 48 21 5 . . . 1998 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 85 18 3 . . . 1998 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 26 41 6 . . . 1998 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 372 . . . . . 1998 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 25709 14544 1500 16076 306 43299 124 1998 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 3419 6209 1119 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 113 96 13 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 519 64 0 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 24 30 2 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 672 1203 113 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 82 69 6 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 524 502 37 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 7725 11120 1366 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 2 0 0 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 73 64 12 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 75 27 5 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 23 47 10 . . . 1998 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 147 . . . . . 1998 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 13398 19431 2683 15570 193 21010 1998 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 2769 4582 755 . . . 1998 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 68 41 8 . . . 1998 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 76 19 2 . . . 1998 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 8 13 1 . . . 1998 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 456 549 26 . . . 1998 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 52 49 20 . . . 1998 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 152 114 18 . . . 1998 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 452 1271 122 . . . 1998 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 1 3 1 . . . 1998 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 330 333 109 . . . 1998 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 144 62 6 . . . 1998 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 16 18 4 . . . 1998 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 93 . . . . . 1998 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 4617 7054 1072 7740 42 5152 1998 PUBLIC SS MR . . . . . . . 132 245 136 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS HI . . . . . . . 18 19 1 . . . 125 1998 PUBLIC SS SL . . . . . . . 4 0 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS VI . . . . . . . 17 19 2 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS EBD . . . . . . . 44 78 2 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS OI . . . . . . . 4 2 1 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS OHI . . . . . . . 23 14 5 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS SLD . . . . . . . 13 31 5 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS MD . . . . . . . 87 77 22 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS A . . . . . . . 31 19 8 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS TBI . . . . . . . 3 0 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS DD . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . 1998 PUBLIC SS ALL . . . . . . . 384 504 182 543 4 566 1998 PRIVATE SS MR . . . . . . . 2 32 6 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS HI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS EBD . . . . . . . 15 4 3 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS SLD . . . . . . . 2 1 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS MD . . . . . . . 0 2 1 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS A . . . . . . . 11 21 9 . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE SS ALL . . . . . . . 31 60 19 73 . 37 1998 PUBLIC RF MR . . . . . . . 1 8 3 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF HI . . . . . . . 48 99 43 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF VI . . . . . . . 18 45 9 . . . 126 1998 PUBLIC RF EBD . . . . . . . 14 19 4 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF OHI . . . . . . . 3 0 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF SLD . . . . . . . 1 8 1 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF MD . . . . . . . 40 56 19 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PUBLIC RF ALL . . . . . . . 125 237 79 226 1 259 1998 PRIVATE RF MR . . . . . . . 13 50 2 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF HI . . . . . . . 0 1 2 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF SL . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF EBD . . . . . . . 20 189 1 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF OHI . . . . . . . 0 3 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF SLD . . . . . . . 6 48 2 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF MD . . . . . . . 1 12 6 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF A . . . . . . . 1 9 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 PRIVATE RF ALL . . . . . . . 41 314 13 148 3 216 1998 H/H MR . . . . . . . 8 21 7 . . . 1998 H/H HI . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 1998 H/H SL . . . . . . . 11 0 0 . . . 1998 H/H VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 2 52 7 . . . 1998 H/H OI . . . . . . . 0 2 0 . . . 127 1998 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 9 20 7 . . . 1998 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 3 33 2 . . . 1998 H/H DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 H/H MD . . . . . . . 6 11 3 . . . 1998 H/H A . . . . . . . 1 1 1 . . . 1998 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 0 7 1 . . . 1998 H/H DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 40 148 29 74 2 140 1998 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 26 . 12 1998 IN PRIVATE SCHOOL- NOT PLACED BY PUBLIC AGENCY (DUPLICATED COUNT) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 42 . 128 1999 ECS ALL 333 765 1,397 2,495 6 7 1,311 . . . . . . 1999 ECSES ALL 588 892 1,348 2,828 5 16 1,884 . . . . . . 1999 H ALL 56 39 36 131 1 0 42 . . . . . 128 1999 PTCH ALL 192 466 1,153 1,811 5 5 1,225 . . . . . . 1999 RF ALL 2 14 9 25 0 0 11 . . . . . . 1999 SS ALL 10 18 17 45 0 1 27 . . . . . . 1999 ISOHS. ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 1999 RMS ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 1999 Total ALL 1,181 2,194 3,960 7,335 17 29 4,500 . . . . . . 1999 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 1,456 2,456 513 . . . 1999 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 255 206 17 . . . 1999 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 13,569 1,049 27 . . . 1999 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 99 110 13 . . . 1999 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 941 1,379 164 . . . 1999 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 190 121 14 . . . 1999 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 915 851 48 . . . 1999 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 8,849 13,024 1,310 . . . 1999 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 3 0 . . . 1999 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 39 24 8 . . . 1999 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 108 30 5 . . . 1999 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 26 55 7 . . . 1999 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 332 . . . . . 1999 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 26,779 19,308 2,126 17,285 278 30,241 1999 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 4,026 6,670 986 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 114 86 11 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 712 117 6 . . . 129 1999 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 31 26 4 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 653 1,039 76 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 108 82 21 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 616 531 51 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 6,791 9,282 884 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 141 129 33 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 141 47 3 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 21 50 7 . . . 1999 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 151 . . . . . 1999 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 13,505 18,060 2,082 15,785 191 17,368 1999 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 1,707 2,349 462 . . . 1999 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 44 17 4 . . . 1999 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 56 20 1 . . . 1999 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 1 7 1 . . . 1999 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 251 338 16 . . . 1999 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 39 33 5 . . . 1999 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 118 86 22 . . . 1999 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 285 928 118 . . . 1999 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 1 2 0 . . . 1999 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 318 256 93 . . . 1999 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 146 73 11 . . . 1999 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 17 11 5 . . . 130 1999 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . 1999 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 3,054 4,120 738 4,288 54 3,506 1999 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 90 214 95 . . . 1999 Public SS HI . . . . . . . 19 21 5 . . . 1999 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 1 1 0 . . . 1999 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 17 17 2 . . . 1999 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . 35 74 4 . . . 1999 Public SS OI . . . . . . . 2 1 0 . . . 1999 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 6 26 1 . . . 1999 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . 27 69 2 . . . 1999 Public SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 61 66 22 . . . 1999 Public SS A . . . . . . . 27 14 4 . . . 1999 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . 3 1 0 . . . 1999 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . 1999 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 299 504 135 484 3 444 1999 Private SS MR . . . . . . . 6 30 7 . . . 1999 Private SS HI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS SL . . . . . . . 3 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . 14 56 5 . . . 1999 Private SS OI . . . . . . . 2 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 131 1999 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS MD . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1999 Private SS A . . . . . . . 6 23 9 . . . 1999 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private SS DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 1999 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 32 110 21 87 0 75 1999 Public RF MR . . . . . . . 43 106 6 . . . 1999 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 55 104 45 . . . 1999 Public RF SL . . . . . . . 121 2 0 . . . 1999 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 18 50 8 . . . 1999 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . 18 14 1 . . . 1999 Public RF OI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1999 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . 7 3 0 . . . 1999 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . 56 79 9 . . . 1999 Public RF DB . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 1999 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 38 59 21 . . . 1999 Public RF A . . . . . . . 7 1 0 . . . 1999 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 2 0 . . . 1999 Public RF DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 1999 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 364 422 91 499 3 374 1999 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 8 24 3 . . . 1999 Private RF HI . . . . . . . 0 2 0 . . . 132 1999 Private RF SL . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private RF VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 29 162 3 . . . 1999 Private RF OI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1999 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . 1 10 0 . . . 1999 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 3 30 0 . . . 1999 Private RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 Private RF MD . . . . . . . 1 10 8 . . . 1999 Private RF A . . . . . . . 3 6 0 . . . 1999 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 1999 Private RF DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 1999 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 45 246 14 98 0 206 1999 H/H MR . . . . . . . 6 25 10 . . . 1999 H/H HI . . . . . . . 2 0 0 . . . 1999 H/H SL . . . . . . . 10 1 0 . . . 1999 H/H VI . . . . . . . 0 2 0 . . . 1999 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 6 49 8 . . . 1999 H/H OI . . . . . . . 0 6 2 . . . 1999 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 15 14 6 . . . 1999 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 6 46 8 . . . 1999 H/H DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 1999 H/H MD . . . . . . . 14 9 8 . . . 1999 H/H A . . . . . . . 3 1 0 . . . 133 1999 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 0 2 2 . . . 1999 H/H DD . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . 1999 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 63 155 44 87 1 171 1999 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 287 . 60 1999 In private school, not placed by public agency (duplicated count) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 30 . 80 1999 Total ALL . . . . . . . . . . 38,613 530 52,385 2000 ECS MR . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS HI . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 134 2000 ECS SL . . . 1493 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS VI . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS OI . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS OHI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS SLD . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS DB . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS MD . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS A . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS TBI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS DD . . . 475 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECS ALL 307 705 1057 2069 3 5 1027 . . . . . . 2000 ECSES MR . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES HI . . . 49 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES SL . . . 1490 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES VI . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES OI . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES OHI . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES SLD . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES MD . . . 75 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES A . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES TBI . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES DD . . . 983 . . . . . . . . . 2000 ECSES ALL 603 884 1285 2772 7 26 1814 . . . . . . 2000 H MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 H HI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H SL . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H VI . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 135 2000 H EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 H OI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H OHI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 H DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 H MD . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H A . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 H DD . . . 65 . . . . . . . . . 2000 H ALL 56 48 28 132 1 1 72 . . . . . . 2000 PTCH MR . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH HI . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH SL . . . 1955 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH VI . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH OI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH OHI . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH SLD . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH MD . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH A . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH TBI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH DD . . . 486 . . . . . . . . . 2000 PTCH ALL 284 669 1595 2548 16 11 1743 . . . . . . 2000 RF MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF HI . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF SL . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF VI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 136 2000 RF OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF MD . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF DD . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2000 RF ALL 4 5 13 22 0 0 9 . . . . . . 2000 SS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS HI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS SL . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS DD . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 2000 SS ALL 3 3 2 8 0 0 5 . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2000 ISOHS DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 ISOHS ALL . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . 2000 RMS MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 RMS ALL . . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . 2000 TOTAL ALL 1257 2314 3980 7551 27 43 4670 . . . . . . 2000 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 1132 1733 349 . . . 2000 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 230 189 12 . . . 2000 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 13396 1050 22 . . . 2000 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 109 105 6 . . . 2000 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 754 1202 157 . . . 2000 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 187 108 6 . . . 2000 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 981 997 50 . . . 2000 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 7502 11851 1212 . . . 2000 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 3 0 . . . 138 2000 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 47 28 10 . . . 2000 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 117 37 2 . . . 2000 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 26 67 11 . . . 2000 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 416 . . . . . 2000 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 24897 17370 1837 15960 245 27533 2000 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 3817 6922 1029 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 115 115 13 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 939 292 10 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 34 39 3 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 573 994 75 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 99 86 17 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 760 738 57 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 7450 11154 1075 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 109 127 34 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 138 63 10 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 30 56 7 . . . 2000 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 201 . . . . . 2000 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 14265 20587 2330 17486 310 19070 2000 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 1659 2673 388 . . . 2000 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 43 18 2 . . . 2000 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 116 22 3 . . . 2000 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 7 7 4 . . . 2000 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 271 367 18 . . . 2000 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 41 34 4 . . . 2000 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 158 128 24 . . . 2000 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 321 1188 121 . . . 2000 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2000 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 320 280 94 . . . 2000 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 190 102 13 . . . 139 2000 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 17 13 8 . . . 2000 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . 2000 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 3251 4833 680 4836 49 3820 2000 PUBLIC SS MR . . . . . . . 88 214 105 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS HI . . . . . . . 16 24 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS SL . . . . . . . 3 1 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS VI . . . . . . . 18 17 2 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS EBD . . . . . . . 39 86 2 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS OI . . . . . . . 4 4 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS OHI . . . . . . . 9 29 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS SLD . . . . . . . 13 53 4 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS MD . . . . . . . 49 55 22 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS A . . . . . . . 21 18 3 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS TBI . . . . . . . 1 4 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS DD . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . 2000 PUBLIC SS ALL . . . . . . . 279 505 141 440 4 472 2000 PRIVATE SS MR . . . . . . . 6 25 13 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS HI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS SL . . . . . . . 6 1 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS EBD . . . . . . . 0 45 1 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS OI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS OHI . . . . . . . 0 3 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS SLD . . . . . . . 0 10 1 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS MD . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS A . . . . . . . 7 19 8 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE SS DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 140 2000 PRIVATE SS ALL . . . . . . . 19 104 23 74 0 72 2000 PUBLIC RF MR . . . . . . . 2 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF HI . . . . . . . 51 96 44 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF SL . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF VI . . . . . . . 19 44 13 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF EBD . . . . . . . 8 9 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF OHI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF SLD . . . . . . . 5 18 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF DB . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF MD . . . . . . . 38 53 20 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF A . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 2000 PUBLIC RF ALL . . . . . . . 125 221 80 76 3 165 2000 PRIVATE RF MR . . . . . . . 2 32 4 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF HI . . . . . . . 1 2 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF SL . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF EBD . . . . . . . 29 157 6 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF OI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF OHI . . . . . . . 1 9 1 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF SLD . . . . . . . 3 50 2 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF MD . . . . . . . 6 19 14 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF A . . . . . . . 2 7 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 2 0 . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF DD . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 2000 PRIVATE RF ALL . . . . . . . 47 279 27 213 4 207 2000 H/H MR . . . . . . . 3 16 7 . . . 141 2000 H/H HI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2000 H/H SL . . . . . . . 7 4 0 . . . 2000 H/H VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 2 47 9 . . . 2000 H/H OI . . . . . . . 4 5 0 . . . 2000 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 15 28 3 . . . 2000 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 0 40 5 . . . 2000 H/H DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2000 H/H MD . . . . . . . 15 8 8 . . . 2000 H/H A . . . . . . . 3 2 2 . . . 2000 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 0 4 5 . . . 2000 H/H DD . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 2000 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 52 154 39 130 6 214 2000 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 289 0 88 2000 IN PRIVATE SCHOOL- NOT PLACED BY PUBLIC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 15 0 111 142 2000 TOTAL ALL . . . . . . . . . . 39215 621 51553 2001 ECS MR . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS HI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS SL . . . 1,743 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS VI . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS OI . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS OHI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS SLD . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS MD . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS A . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS TBI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS DD . . . 432 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECS ALL 324 694 1,281 2,299 8 11 1,226 . . . . . . 2001 ECSES MR . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES HI . . . 38 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES SL . . . 1,574 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES VI . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES OI . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES OHI . . . 52 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES SLD . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . 143 2001 ECSES DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES MD . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES A . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES TBI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES DD . . . 1,016 . . . . . . . . . 2001 ECSES ALL 653 985 1,257 2,895 13 26 2,037 . . . . . . 2001 H MR . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H HI . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H SL . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H VI . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H EBD . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H OI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H OHI . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H MD . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H A . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H DD . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . 2001 H ALL 47 37 32 116 2 1 59 . . . . . . 2001 PTCH MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH HI . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH SL . . . 1,671 . . . . . . . . . 144 2001 PTCH VI . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH OI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH OHI . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH SLD . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH MD . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH A . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH TBI . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH DD . . . 417 . . . . . . . . . 2001 PTCH ALL 258 643 1,287 2,188 7 11 1,418 . . . . . . 2001 RF MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF HI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF SL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF MD . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 145 2001 RF DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RF ALL 0 6 8 14 0 0 5 . . . . . . 2001 SS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS HI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS SL . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS DD . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2001 SS ALL 4 5 4 13 0 0 5 . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 2001 ISOHS. SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 ISOHS. ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 RMS ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2001 Total ALL 1,286 2,370 3,869 7,525 30 49 4,750 . . . . . . 2001 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 636 1,153 204 . . . 147 2001 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 185 192 10 . . . 2001 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 12,837 1,142 34 . . . 2001 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 130 103 5 . . . 2001 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 537 996 94 . . . 2001 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 165 134 9 . . . 2001 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 981 1,142 60 . . . 2001 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 5,864 11,324 1,100 . . . 2001 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2001 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 43 22 3 . . . 2001 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 116 49 2 . . . 2001 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 25 57 7 . . . 2001 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 732 . . . . . 2001 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 22,251 16,315 1,528 14,130 259 25,354 2001 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 2,952 6,258 976 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 117 141 15 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 1,313 538 18 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 38 43 8 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 479 1,014 80 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 89 96 14 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 868 913 66 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 7,367 12,345 1,219 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 0 2 0 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 85 100 34 . . . 148 2001 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 205 70 9 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 33 59 12 . . . 2001 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 483 . . . . . 2001 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 14,029 21,579 2,451 17,884 371 19,482 2001 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 1,237 2,444 413 . . . 2001 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 53 23 1 . . . 2001 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 131 64 5 . . . 2001 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 12 4 2 . . . 2001 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 227 342 19 . . . 2001 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 38 30 6 . . . 2001 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 185 181 22 . . . 2001 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 349 1,244 142 . . . 2001 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2001 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 310 305 118 . . . 2001 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 199 117 28 . . . 2001 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 17 15 9 . . . 2001 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 181 . . . . . 2001 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 2,939 4,769 766 4,637 71 3,706 2001 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 85 196 94 . . . 2001 Public SS HI . . . . . . . 20 25 6 . . . 2001 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 6 0 0 . . . 2001 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 18 17 3 . . . 2001 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . 31 91 3 . . . 149 2001 Public SS OI . . . . . . . 2 0 1 . . . 2001 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 20 26 0 . . . 2001 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . 15 46 2 . . . 2001 Public SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 73 70 27 . . . 2001 Public SS A . . . . . . . 28 20 4 . . . 2001 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . 1 3 1 . . . 2001 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . 2001 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 332 494 141 464 5 485 2001 Private SS MR . . . . . . . 3 26 10 . . . 2001 Private SS HI . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2001 Private SS SL . . . . . . . 7 2 0 . . . 2001 Private SS VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . 2 33 1 . . . 2001 Private SS OI . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2001 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2001 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . 1 10 0 . . . 2001 Private SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Private SS MD . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2001 Private SS A . . . . . . . 7 20 12 . . . 2001 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Private SS DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 2001 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 20 92 26 69 0 69 150 2001 Public RF MR . . . . . . . 0 3 4 . . . 2001 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 43 104 41 . . . 2001 Public RF SL . . . . . . . 4 0 1 . . . 2001 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 21 36 16 . . . 2001 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . 4 12 0 . . . 2001 Public RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . 1 2 0 . . . 2001 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . 2 19 3 . . . 2001 Public RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2001 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 37 51 26 . . . 2001 Public RF A . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2001 Public RF DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 2001 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 113 227 92 217 3 209 2001 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 5 57 3 . . . 2001 Private RF HI . . . . . . . 1 1 0 . . . 2001 Private RF SL . . . . . . . 1 3 0 . . . 2001 Private RF VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 29 147 7 . . . 2001 Private RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . 2 9 2 . . . 2001 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 8 56 3 . . . 2001 Private RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 151 2001 Private RF MD . . . . . . . 5 21 16 . . . 2001 Private RF A . . . . . . . 2 7 3 . . . 2001 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2001 Private RF DD . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 2001 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 55 302 35 155 6 229 2001 H/H MR . . . . . . . 2 28 14 . . . 2001 H/H HI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2001 H/H SL . . . . . . . 8 4 0 . . . 2001 H/H VI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2001 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 1 41 12 . . . 2001 H/H OI . . . . . . . 4 4 3 . . . 2001 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 14 24 5 . . . 2001 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 3 37 12 . . . 2001 H/H DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2001 H/H MD . . . . . . . 13 10 3 . . . 2001 H/H A . . . . . . . 3 2 0 . . . 2001 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 1 5 5 . . . 2001 H/H DD . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 2001 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 53 156 54 93 1 167 2001 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2001 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 177 0 55 2001 In private school, not placed by public agency (duplicated count) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 13 0 112 2001 Total ALL . . . . . . . . . . 37,649 716 49,701 2002 ECS MR . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS HI . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS SL . . . 1,561 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS VI . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS EBD . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS OI . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS OHI . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS SLD . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS DB . . . 153 2002 ECS MD . . . 35 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS A . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS TBI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS DD . . . 419 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECS ALL 281 636 1,224 2,141 5 8 1,172 . . . . . . 2002 ECSES MR . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES HI . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES SL . . . 1,646 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES VI . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES EBD . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES OI . . . 31 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES OHI . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES SLD . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES MD . . . 56 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES A . . . 84 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES TBI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES DD . . . 1,036 . . . . . . . . . 2002 ECSES ALL 662 1,030 1,302 2,994 14 28 2,115 . . . . . . 2002 H MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H HI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H SL . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H VI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 154 2002 H EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H OI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H OHI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H SLD . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H MD . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H A . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H DD . . . 37 . . . . . . . . . 2002 H ALL 31 30 18 79 1 1 47 . . . . . . 2002 PTCH MR . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH HI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH SL . . . 2,020 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH VI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH OI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH OHI . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH SLD . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH MD . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH A . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 PTCH DD . . . 511 . . . . . . . . . 155 2002 PTCH ALL 332 749 1,539 2,620 4 14 1,712 . . . . . . 2002 RF MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF HI . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF SL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF VI . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF MD . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF A . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RF ALL 6 3 8 17 0 0 8 . . . . . . 2002 SS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS HI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS SL . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 156 2002 SS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 SS ALL 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 ISOHS. ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 2002 RMS VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 RMS ALL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2002 Total ALL 1,312 2,451 4,091 7,854 24 51 5,057 . . . . . . 2002 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 489 986 164 . . . 2002 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 187 191 17 . . . 2002 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 12,618 1,259 34 . . . 2002 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 124 103 9 . . . 2002 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 377 867 85 . . . 2002 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 153 124 8 . . . 2002 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 974 1,256 86 . . . 2002 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 4,842 10,835 971 . . . 2002 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 29 14 3 . . . 2002 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 151 58 2 . . . 158 2002 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 25 48 5 . . . 2002 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 912 . . . . . 2002 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 20,881 15,741 1,384 13,566 325 23,801 2002 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 2,427 5,633 976 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 103 136 21 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 1,520 741 43 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 31 52 8 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 423 907 74 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 79 100 13 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 952 1,117 93 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 6,963 13,272 1,461 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 1 1 0 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 89 92 31 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 223 113 10 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 30 73 9 . . . 2002 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 765 . . . . . 2002 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 13,606 22,237 2,739 18,262 408 19,561 2002 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 922 2,210 487 . . . 2002 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 58 33 1 . . . 2002 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 152 102 5 . . . 2002 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 13 6 4 . . . 2002 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 159 318 60 . . . 2002 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 31 33 6 . . . 159 2002 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 210 231 23 . . . 2002 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 336 1,306 187 . . . 2002 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2002 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 310 321 118 . . . 2002 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 258 142 31 . . . 2002 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 13 21 11 . . . 2002 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 298 . . . . . 2002 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 2,760 4,724 933 4,487 84 3,781 2002 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 70 223 96 . . . 2002 Public SS HI . . . . . . . 13 22 6 . . . 2002 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 3 1 0 . . . 2002 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 16 20 3 . . . 2002 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . 35 89 2 . . . 2002 Public SS OI . . . . . . . 2 0 1 . . . 2002 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 24 30 4 . . . 2002 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . 16 68 4 . . . 2002 Public SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 75 74 42 . . . 2002 Public SS A . . . . . . . 26 24 4 . . . 2002 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 2 . . . 2002 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . 2002 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 314 552 164 476 4 521 2002 Private SS MR . . . . . . . 5 23 15 . . . 160 2002 Private SS HI . . . . . . . 2 1 0 . . . 2002 Private SS SL . . . . . . . 99 6 0 . . . 2002 Private SS VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . 2 19 1 . . . 2002 Private SS OI . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . 2002 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . 3 6 1 . . . 2002 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . 5 10 2 . . . 2002 Private SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Private SS MD . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2002 Private SS A . . . . . . . 6 21 8 . . . 2002 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2002 Private SS DD . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 2002 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 127 87 29 64 1 176 2002 Public RF MR . . . . . . . 0 3 6 . . . 2002 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 45 101 29 . . . 2002 Public RF SL . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . 2002 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 20 35 11 . . . 2002 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . 2 4 1 . . . 2002 Public RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . 3 2 0 . . . 2002 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . 2 11 4 . . . 2002 Public RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 1 . . . 2002 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 37 52 28 . . . 161 2002 Public RF A . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2002 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 1 0 . . . 2002 Public RF DD . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . 2002 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 113 209 81 207 8 183 2002 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 3 30 2 . . . 2002 Private RF HI . . . . . . . 2 1 1 . . . 2002 Private RF SL . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2002 Private RF VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 31 158 11 . . . 2002 Private RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . 4 22 1 . . . 2002 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 6 60 2 . . . 2002 Private RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 Private RF MD . . . . . . . 4 22 10 . . . 2002 Private RF A . . . . . . . 3 6 4 . . . 2002 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2002 Private RF DD . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . 2002 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 54 301 32 170 3 214 2002 H/H MR . . . . . . . 3 24 2 . . . 2002 H/H HI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2002 H/H SL . . . . . . . 8 0 0 . . . 2002 H/H VI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2002 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 3 32 11 . . . 162 2002 H/H OI . . . . . . . 4 8 1 . . . 2002 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 17 33 6 . . . 2002 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 5 33 11 . . . 2002 H/H DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2002 H/H MD . . . . . . . 22 16 8 . . . 2002 H/H A . . . . . . . 2 3 0 . . . 2002 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 1 7 7 . . . 2002 H/H DD . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 2002 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 69 157 46 80 2 189 2002 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 212 1 62 163 2002 In private school, not placed by public agency (duplicated count) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 16 1 109 2002 Total ALL . . . . . . . . . . 37,312 835 48,426 2003 ECS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS HI . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS SL . . . 1,350 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS VI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS EBD . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS OI . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS OHI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS SLD . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS MD . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS A . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS TBI . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS DD . . . 417 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECS ALL 313 608 978 1,899 6 14 1,189 . . . . . . 2003 ECSES MR . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES HI . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES SL . . . 1,801 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES VI . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES EBD . . . 164 2003 ECSES OI . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES OHI . . . 40 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES SLD . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES MD . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES A . . . 98 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES TBI . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES DD . . . 889 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ECSES ALL 665 977 1,365 3,007 10 22 2,017 . . . . . . 2003 H MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H HI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H SL . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H VI . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H OI . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H OHI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H MD . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H TBI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H DD . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . 2003 H ALL 31 30 14 75 1 2 47 . . . . . . 165 2003 PTCH MR . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH HI . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH SL . . . 2,155 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH VI . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH EBD . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH OI . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH OHI . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH SLD . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH MD . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH A . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH TBI . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH DD . . . 556 . . . . . . . . . 2003 PTCH ALL 359 767 1,700 2,826 14 24 1,926 . . . . . . 2003 RF MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF HI . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF SL . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF VI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 166 2003 RF MD . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF TBI . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RF ALL 4 8 11 23 0 0 9 . . . . . . 2003 SS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS HI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS SL . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS A . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS DD . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2003 SS ALL 3 5 5 13 0 0 7 . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. HI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. SL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 167 2003 ISOHS. EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 ISOHS. ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . 2003 RMS MR . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS HI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS SL . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS VI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS EBD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS OI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS OHI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS SLD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS DB . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS MD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS A . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS TBI . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 2003 RMS DD . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 168 2003 RMS ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . 2003 Total ALL 1,375 2,395 4,073 7,843 31 62 5,195 . . . . . . 2003 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 468 1,222 183 . . . 2003 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 183 214 15 . . . 2003 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 12,227 1,354 37 . . . 2003 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 111 92 13 . . . 2003 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 371 919 79 . . . 2003 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 135 122 8 . . . 2003 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 1,113 1,580 66 . . . 2003 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 5,323 12,437 1,109 . . . 2003 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2003 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . 23 17 1 . . . 2003 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 201 83 3 . . . 2003 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 31 55 10 . . . 2003 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 1,000 . . . . . 2003 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 21,186 18,096 1,524 14,922 432 25,094 2003 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 1,931 4,686 781 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 111 132 19 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 1,592 839 62 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 35 40 8 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 300 666 55 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 85 102 21 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 949 1,141 97 . . . 169 2003 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 6,626 11,965 1,336 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . 1 1 1 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 85 80 30 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 255 131 17 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 29 66 14 . . . 2003 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 882 . . . . . 2003 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 12,881 19,849 2,441 16,967 443 17,436 2003 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 648 1,753 462 . . . 2003 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 48 38 3 . . . 2003 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 102 92 8 . . . 2003 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . 12 11 1 . . . 2003 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 89 179 51 . . . 2003 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 37 39 5 . . . 2003 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 176 205 20 . . . 2003 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 252 1,090 179 . . . 2003 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2003 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 287 325 112 . . . 2003 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 284 189 35 . . . 2003 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 15 19 9 . . . 2003 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 314 . . . . . 2003 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 2,264 3,941 886 3,682 70 3,256 2003 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 58 227 83 . . . 2003 Public SS HI . . . . . . . 10 19 5 . . . 170 2003 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 6 6 0 . . . 2003 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 14 16 1 . . . 2003 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . 17 65 3 . . . 2003 Public SS OI . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . 2003 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 30 26 3 . . . 2003 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . 15 68 3 . . . 2003 Public SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 67 85 33 . . . 2003 Public SS A . . . . . . . 31 28 4 . . . 2003 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 2 1 . . . 2003 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . 2003 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 290 542 137 482 7 464 2003 Private SS MR . . . . . . . 0 20 22 . . . 2003 Private SS HI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS SL . . . . . . . 8 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . 2 7 0 . . . 2003 Private SS OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . 0 2 1 . . . 2003 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . 0 1 1 . . . 2003 Private SS DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS MD . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS A . . . . . . . 3 18 13 . . . 171 2003 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private SS DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 2003 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 13 48 37 49 0 49 2003 Public RF MR . . . . . . . 1 3 1 . . . 2003 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 34 93 25 . . . 2003 Public RF SL . . . . . . . 1 2 1 . . . 2003 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 18 44 8 . . . 2003 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . 4 8 0 . . . 2003 Public RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . 2 10 0 . . . 2003 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . 1 15 4 . . . 2003 Public RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 34 47 30 . . . 2003 Public RF A . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . . . 2003 Public RF DD . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 2003 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 96 222 69 198 10 176 2003 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 7 52 7 . . . 2003 Private RF HI . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . 2003 Private RF SL . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private RF VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 19 160 8 . . . 2003 Private RF OI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 172 2003 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . 6 21 0 . . . 2003 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 6 85 3 . . . 2003 Private RF DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 Private RF MD . . . . . . . 4 19 8 . . . 2003 Private RF A . . . . . . . 6 7 4 . . . 2003 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . 0 3 1 . . . 2003 Private RF DD . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . 2003 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 50 347 32 176 3 249 2003 H/H MR . . . . . . . 1 18 5 . . . 2003 H/H HI . . . . . . . 0 1 0 . . . 2003 H/H SL . . . . . . . 8 3 0 . . . 2003 H/H VI . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 H/H EBD . . . . . . . 1 26 9 . . . 2003 H/H OI . . . . . . . 3 3 0 . . . 2003 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 21 44 4 . . . 2003 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 2 33 7 . . . 2003 H/H DB . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 2003 H/H MD . . . . . . . 21 18 6 . . . 2003 H/H A . . . . . . . 3 4 0 . . . 2003 H/H TBI . . . . . . . 2 8 8 . . . 2003 H/H DD . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 2003 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 65 158 39 73 2 185 2003 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 2003 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 208 0 57 2003 In private school, not placed by public agency (duplicated count) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 27 0 166 2003 Total ALL . . . . . . . . . . 36,549 967 46,909 2004 ECS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS HI . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS SL . . . 1,311 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS VI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS OI . . . 174 2004 ECS OHI . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS SLD . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS MD . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS DD . . . 457 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECS ALL 281 587 1,022 1,890 x x 1,126 . . . . . . 2004 ECSES MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES HI . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES SL . . . 1,684 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES VI . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES EBD . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES OI . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES OHI . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES SLD . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES MD . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES A . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES TBI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES DD . . . 968 . . . . . . . . . 2004 ECSES ALL 668 1,026 1,242 2,936 9 32 2,049 . . . . . . 2004 H MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 175 2004 H HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H SL . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . 2004 H VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H MD . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 2004 H A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 H DD . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2004 H ALL 30 34 18 82 x x 44 . . . . . . 2004 PTCH MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH HI . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH SL . . . 2,457 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH VI . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH OI . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH OHI . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH SLD . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH MD . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 176 2004 PTCH A . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH DD . . . 717 . . . . . . . . . 2004 PTCH ALL 430 940 1,966 3,336 15 32 2,213 . . . . . . 2004 RF MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RF ALL x 9 x 20 x x 11 . . . . . . 2004 SS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 177 2004 SS OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS DD . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2004 SS ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 ISOHS. ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 178 2004 RMS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 RMS ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 MR . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 HI . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 SL . . . 5,499 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 VI . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 OI . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 OHI . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 SLD . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 179 2004 T 3-5 MD . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 A . . . 174 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 TBI . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 DD . . . 2,168 . . . . . . . . . 2004 T 3-5 ALL 1,414 2,599 4,257 8,270 33 75 5,444 . . . . . . 2004 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 593 1,733 192 . . . 2004 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 200 217 22 . . . 2004 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 12,827 1,608 52 . . . 2004 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 105 109 7 . . . 2004 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 336 886 70 . . . 2004 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 143 123 16 . . . 2004 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 1,375 2,013 101 . . . 2004 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 6,889 15,251 1,378 . . . 2004 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 290 129 11 . . . 2004 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 34 81 13 . . . 2004 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 1,155 . . . . . 2004 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 23,976 22,164 1,865 18,276 604 28,653 2004 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 1,360 3,387 629 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 87 124 22 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 1,204 759 57 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 180 2004 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 201 471 48 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 83 85 25 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 806 1,016 79 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 5,499 9,866 1,172 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 76 101 25 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 262 148 26 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . 32 50 13 . . . 2004 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 815 . . . . . 2004 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 10,451 16,052 2,101 14,325 444 13,571 2004 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 466 1,508 411 . . . 2004 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 54 30 5 . . . 2004 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 104 77 8 . . . 2004 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 70 147 50 . . . 2004 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 33 39 8 . . . 2004 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 160 191 18 . . . 2004 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 194 850 180 . . . 2004 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 282 310 112 . . . 2004 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 306 230 40 . . . 2004 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . 17 21 11 . . . 2004 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 268 . . . . . 181 2004 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 1,965 3,415 847 3,104 60 2,988 2004 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 47 192 73 . . . 2004 Public SS HI . . . . . . . x 19 x . . . 2004 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 6 x x . . . 2004 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 23 x x . . . 2004 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . x 48 x . . . 2004 Public SS OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 34 48 5 . . . 2004 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . x 97 x . . . 2004 Public SS DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 72 109 33 . . . 2004 Public SS A . . . . . . . 27 39 8 . . . 2004 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . 2004 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 302 572 131 506 x 482 2004 Private SS MR . . . . . . . x 23 x . . . 2004 Private SS HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS SL . . . . . . . 15 x x . . . 2004 Private SS VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . x 5 x . . . 182 2004 Private SS DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS MD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS A . . . . . . . 6 10 17 . . . 2004 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private SS DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2004 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 31 53 34 64 x 53 2004 Public RF MR . . . . . . . x 9 x . . . 2004 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 36 87 34 . . . 2004 Public RF SL . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 14 43 5 . . . 2004 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . x 12 x . . . 2004 Public RF OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . x 34 x . . . 2004 Public RF DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 35 45 33 . . . 2004 Public RF A . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Public RF DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2004 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 98 240 75 207 11 193 2004 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 6 61 10 . . . 2004 Private RF HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private RF SL . . . . . . . x x x . . . 183 2004 Private RF VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 16 135 7 . . . 2004 Private RF OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . x 34 x . . . 2004 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 5 116 8 . . . 2004 Private RF DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private RF MD . . . . . . . x 11 x . . . 2004 Private RF A . . . . . . . x 12 x . . . 2004 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 Private RF DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2004 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 47 376 38 205 x 252 2004 H/H MR . . . . . . . x 21 x . . . 2004 H/H HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 H/H SL . . . . . . . 13 x x . . . 2004 H/H VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 H/H EBD . . . . . . . x x 17 . . . 2004 H/H OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 20 49 9 . . . 2004 H/H SLD . . . . . . . 6 43 5 . . . 2004 H/H DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 H/H MD . . . . . . . 23 x x . . . 2004 H/H A . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 H/H TBI . . . . . . . x 11 x . . . 184 2004 H/H DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2004 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 78 174 47 98 x 199 2004 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 162 x x 2004 In private school, not placed by public agency (duplicated count) ALL . . . . . . . . . . 29 x 150 2004 T 6-21 MR . . . . . . . 2,475 6,934 1,334 . . . 2004 T 6-21 HI . . . . . . . 385 479 87 . . . 2004 T 6-21 SL . . . . . . . 14,170 2,456 119 . . . 2004 T 6-21 VI 179 228 x . . . 185 2004 T 6-21 EBD . . . . . . . 657 1,727 195 . . . 2004 T 6-21 OI . . . . . . . 264 253 50 . . . 2004 T 6-21 OHI . . . . . . . 2,405 3,361 215 . . . 2004 T 6-21 SLD . . . . . . . 12,624 26,262 2,749 . . . 2004 T 6-21 DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2004 T 6-21 MD . . . . . . . 519 605 217 . . . 2004 T 6-21 A . . . . . . . 901 576 105 . . . 2004 T 6-21 TBI . . . . . . . x x 44 . . . 2004 T 6-21 DD . . . . . . . 2,277 . . . . . 2004 T 6-21 ALL . . . . . . . 36,948 43,046 5,138 36,785 1,129 46,391 2005 ECS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS HI . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS SL . . . 1,281 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS OI . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS OHI . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS MD . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS A . . . 38 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECS DD . . . 460 . . . . . . . . . 186 2005 ECS ALL 274 559 1,038 1,871 x x 1,141 . . . . . . 2005 ECSES MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES HI . . . 40 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES SL . . . 1,739 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES VI . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES OI . . . 39 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES OHI . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES MD . . . 49 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES A . . . 88 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES TBI . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES DD . . . 1,017 . . . . . . . . . 2005 ECSES ALL 705 1,060 1,275 3,040 7 36 2,117 . . . . . . 2005 H MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H SL . . . 42 . . . . . . . . . 2005 H VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H OHI . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2005 H SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 187 2005 H DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 H DD . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . 2005 H ALL 25 25 22 72 x x 45 . . . . . . 2005 PTCH MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH HI . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH SL . . . 2,329 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH VI . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH OI . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH OHI . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH SLD . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH MD . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH A . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH DD . . . 716 . . . . . . . . . 2005 PTCH ALL 420 935 1,837 3,192 10 42 1,984 . . . . . . 2005 RF MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 188 2005 RF VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF MD . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RF ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 2005 SS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS SL . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 189 2005 SS DD . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 2005 SS ALL x x 12 24 x x 14 . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 ISOHS. ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 2005 RMS MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS HI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS SL . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS VI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS EBD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS OI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS OHI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 190 2005 RMS SLD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS MD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS A . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS TBI . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS DD . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 RMS ALL x x x x x x x . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 MR . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 HI . . . 85 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 SL . . . 5,401 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 VI . . . 37 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 EBD . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 OI . . . 77 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 OHI . . . 86 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 SLD . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 DB . . . x . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 MD . . . 92 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 A . . . 178 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 TBI . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 DD . . . 2,223 . . . . . . . . . 2005 T 3-5 ALL 1,430 2,595 4,193 8,218 21 94 5,308 . . . . . . 2005 OS<21% MR . . . . . . . 751 2,184 301 . . . 2005 OS<21% HI . . . . . . . 227 266 24 . . . 191 2005 OS<21% SL . . . . . . . 13,425 1,821 75 . . . 2005 OS<21% VI . . . . . . . 122 127 9 . . . 2005 OS<21% EBD . . . . . . . 349 853 66 . . . 2005 OS<21% OI . . . . . . . 165 139 23 . . . 2005 OS<21% OHI . . . . . . . 1,647 2,440 159 . . . 2005 OS<21% SLD . . . . . . . 8,847 18,526 1,820 . . . 2005 OS<21% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 OS<21% MD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 OS<21% A . . . . . . . 382 212 8 . . . 2005 OS<21% TBI . . . . . . . 30 95 18 . . . 2005 OS<21% DD . . . . . . . 1,405 . . . . . 2005 OS<21% ALL . . . . . . . 27,389 26,704 2,507 22,388 843 32,788 2005 OS 21-60% MR . . . . . . . 936 2,294 451 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% HI . . . . . . . 71 83 18 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% SL . . . . . . . 786 567 52 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% VI . . . . . . . 22 x x . . . 2005 OS 21-60% EBD . . . . . . . 116 295 25 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% OI . . . . . . . 73 65 15 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% OHI . . . . . . . 565 827 64 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% SLD . . . . . . . 3,384 7,010 828 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 OS 21-60% MD . . . . . . . 87 94 17 . . . 2005 OS 21-60% A . . . . . . . 273 187 22 . . . 192 2005 OS 21-60% TBI . . . . . . . x 40 x . . . 2005 OS 21-60% DD . . . . . . . 571 . . . . . 2005 OS 21-60% ALL . . . . . . . 6,901 11,491 1,504 10,412 359 8,946 2005 OS >60% MR . . . . . . . 387 1,248 438 . . . 2005 OS >60% HI . . . . . . . 40 26 9 . . . 2005 OS >60% SL . . . . . . . 96 66 16 . . . 2005 OS >60% VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 OS >60% EBD . . . . . . . 48 113 35 . . . 2005 OS >60% OI . . . . . . . 39 41 11 . . . 2005 OS >60% OHI . . . . . . . 151 186 27 . . . 2005 OS >60% SLD . . . . . . . 120 610 146 . . . 2005 OS >60% DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 OS >60% MD . . . . . . . 285 324 116 . . . 2005 OS >60% A . . . . . . . 327 256 50 . . . 2005 OS >60% TBI . . . . . . . x 20 x . . . 2005 OS >60% DD . . . . . . . 306 . . . . . 2005 OS >60% ALL . . . . . . . 1,825 2,900 859 2,748 91 2,683 2005 Public SS MR . . . . . . . 32 179 76 . . . 2005 Public SS HI . . . . . . . x 20 x . . . 2005 Public SS SL . . . . . . . 7 x x . . . 2005 Public SS VI . . . . . . . 21 x x . . . 2005 Public SS EBD . . . . . . . x 44 x . . . 2005 Public SS OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 193 2005 Public SS OHI . . . . . . . 34 56 5 . . . 2005 Public SS SLD . . . . . . . 26 145 16 . . . 2005 Public SS DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public SS MD . . . . . . . 72 96 46 . . . 2005 Public SS A . . . . . . . 30 40 13 . . . 2005 Public SS TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public SS DD . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . 2005 Public SS ALL . . . . . . . 291 604 170 580 x 468 2005 Private SS MR . . . . . . . 5 26 12 . . . 2005 Private SS HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS SL . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS EBD . . . . . . . x 10 x . . . 2005 Private SS OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS OHI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS SLD . . . . . . . x 8 x . . . 2005 Private SS DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS MD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS A . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private SS DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2005 Private SS ALL . . . . . . . 34 51 20 57 x 47 2005 Public RF MR . . . . . . . x 13 x . . . 194 2005 Public RF HI . . . . . . . 38 84 33 . . . 2005 Public RF SL . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public RF VI . . . . . . . 19 35 10 . . . 2005 Public RF EBD . . . . . . . x 18 x . . . 2005 Public RF OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public RF OHI . . . . . . . 7 x x . . . 2005 Public RF SLD . . . . . . . x 36 x . . . 2005 Public RF DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public RF MD . . . . . . . 35 49 27 . . . 2005 Public RF A . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public RF TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Public RF DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2005 Public RF ALL . . . . . . . 109 242 78 216 14 197 2005 Private RF MR . . . . . . . 5 62 17 . . . 2005 Private RF HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF SL . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF EBD . . . . . . . 25 117 11 . . . 2005 Private RF OI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF OHI . . . . . . . x 32 x . . . 2005 Private RF SLD . . . . . . . 6 91 8 . . . 2005 Private RF DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF MD . . . . . . . x x x . . . 195 2005 Private RF A . . . . . . . 11 29 12 . . . 2005 Private RF TBI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 Private RF DD . . . . . . . x . . . . . 2005 Private RF ALL . . . . . . . 55 340 59 183 6 264 2005 H/H MR . . . . . . . x 23 x . . . 2005 H/H HI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 H/H SL . . . . . . . 14 x x . . . 2005 H/H VI . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 H/H EBD . . . . . . . x 22 x . . . 2005 H/H OI . . . . . . . x 5 x . . . 2005 H/H OHI . . . . . . . 18 39 13 . . . 2005 H/H SLD . . . . . . . x 40 x . . . 2005 H/H DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 H/H MD . . . . . . . 17 x x . . . 2005 H/H A . . . . . . . x 6 x . . . 2005 H/H TBI . . . . . . . x 11 x . . . 2005 H/H DD . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . 2005 H/H ALL . . . . . . . 71 165 48 109 x 172 2005 CFDC MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC EBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 2005 CFDC OI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC OHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC SLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC TBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005 CFDC ALL . . . . . . . . . . 149 x x 2005 PSPAD# ALL . . . . . . . . . . 18 x 144 2005 T 6-21 MR . . . . . . . 2,118 6,029 1,301 . . . 2005 T 6-21 HI . . . . . . . 379 480 91 . . . 2005 T 6-21 SL . . . . . . . 14,345 2,459 145 . . . 2005 T 6-21 VI . . . . . . . 197 218 x . . . 2005 T 6-21 EBD . . . . . . . 574 1,472 147 . . . 2005 T 6-21 OI . . . . . . . 281 253 51 . . . 2005 T 6-21 OHI . . . . . . . 2,426 3,586 271 . . . 2005 T 6-21 SLD . . . . . . . 12,393 26,466 2,837 . . . 2005 T 6-21 DB . . . . . . . x x x . . . 2005 T 6-21 MD . . . . . . . 538 626 219 . . . 2005 T 6-21 A . . . . . . . 1,028 736 110 . . . 2005 T 6-21 TBI . . . . . . . x x 39 . . . 2005 T 6-21 DD . . . . . . . 2,331 . . . . . 197 2005 T 6-21 ALL . . . . . . . 36,675 42,497 5,245 36,693 1,320 45,565 2006 H MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H SL - - - 74 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H OHI - - - 12 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H A - - - 31 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 H DD - - - 236 - - - - - - - - - 2006 H ALL 127 160 85 372 x x 238 - - - - - - 2006 RF MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF HI - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF SL - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF VI - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 198 2006 RF DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF MD - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF A - - - 13 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF DD - - - 42 - - - - - - - - - 2006 RF ALL x x 36 140 0 0 110 - - - - - - 2006 SS MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS SL - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS OHI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS MD - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS A - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SS ALL x x 8 16 0 0 10 - - - - - - 2006 Total MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total HI - - - 84 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total SL - - - 5,163 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total VI - - - 29 - - - - - - - 199 2006 Total EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total OI - - - 63 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total OHI - - - 93 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total SLD - - - 17 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total MD - - - 100 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total A - - - 195 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total TBI - - - 16 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total DD - - - 2,256 - - - - - - - - - 2006 Total ALL 1,420 2,490 4,116 8,026 30 69 5,257 - - - - - - 2006 REC80 MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 HI - - - 32 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 SL - - - 3,414 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 VI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 OI - - - 34 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 OHI - - - 32 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 SLD - - - 14 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 MD - - - 26 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 A - - - 76 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC80 DD - - - 1,078 - - - - - - - - - 200 2006 REC80 ALL 750 1,326 2,647 4,723 19 29 3,034 - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 HI - - - 14 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 SL - - - 538 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 OI - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 OHI - - - 16 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 MD - - - 35 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 A - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 DD - - - 429 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40-79 ALL 131 359 602 1,092 x x 727 - - - - - - 2006 REC40 MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 SL - - - 123 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 OHI - - - 10 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 201 2006 REC40 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 MD - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 DD - - - 39 - - - - - - - - - 2006 REC40 ALL 86 76 27 189 x x 135 - - - - - - 2006 SPC MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC HI - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC SL - - - 691 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC OI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC OHI - - - 17 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC MD - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC A - - - 35 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC DD - - - 395 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPC ALL 148 358 669 1,175 5 14 735 - - - - - - 2006 SPL MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL SL - - - 274 - - - - - - - - - 202 2006 SPL VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2006 SPL ALL 125 152 42 319 0 x 268 - - - - - - 2006 REG80 MR - - - - - - - 851 2,153 329 - - - 2006 REG80 HI - - - - - - - 261 274 30 - - - 2006 REG80 SL - - - - - - - 12,945 1,895 97 - - - 2006 REG80 VI - - - - - - - 140 122 8 - - - 2006 REG80 EBD - - - - - - - 330 806 47 - - - 2006 REG80 OI - - - - - - - 186 173 23 - - - 2006 REG80 OHI - - - - - - - 1,701 2,648 187 - - - 2006 REG80 SLD - - - - - - - 9,603 20,358 2,098 - - - 2006 REG80 DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 REG80 MD - - - - - - - 65 53 5 - - - 2006 REG80 A - - - - - - - 551 305 18 - - - 2006 REG80 TBI - - - - - - - 41 94 19 - - - 203 2006 REG80 DD - - - - - - - 1,566 - - - - - 2006 REG80 ALL - - - - - - - 28,240 28,881 2,861 24,254 1,072 34,025 2006 REG40-79 MR - - - - - - - 616 1,581 317 - - - 2006 REG40-79 HI - - - - - - - 54 59 19 - - - 2006 REG40-79 SL - - - - - - - 454 333 36 - - - 2006 REG40-79 VI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 REG40-79 EBD - - - - - - - 80 184 18 - - - 2006 REG40-79 OI - - - - - - - 54 55 11 - - - 2006 REG40-79 OHI - - - - - - - 356 621 57 - - - 2006 REG40-79 SLD - - - - - - - 1,978 4,696 638 - - - 2006 REG40-79 DB - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 REG40-79 MD - - - - - - - 69 78 17 - - - 2006 REG40-79 A - - - - - - - 257 177 20 - - - 2006 REG40-79 TBI - - - - - - - x 33 x - - - 2006 REG40-79 DD - - - - - - - 412 - - - - - 2006 REG40-79 ALL - - - - - - - 4,357 7,839 1,143 7,101 294 5,822 2006 REG40 MR - - - - - - - 364 1,153 332 - - - 2006 REG40 HI - - - - - - - 38 x x - - - 2006 REG40 SL - - - - - - - 73 x x - - - 2006 REG40 VI - - - - - - - 19 x x - - - 2006 REG40 EBD - - - - - - - x 82 x - - - 2006 REG40 OI - - - - - - - 46 46 7 - - - 2006 REG40 OHI - - - - - - - 124 185 30 - - - 204 2006 REG40 SLD - - - - - - - 106 418 45 - - - 2006 REG40 DB - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2006 REG40 MD - - - - - - - 278 327 116 - - - 2006 REG40 A - - - - - - - 362 266 64 - - - 2006 REG40 TBI - - - - - - - 12 19 6 - - - 2006 REG40 DD - - - - - - - 309 - - - - - 2006 REG40 ALL - - - - - - - 1,776 2,566 616 2,305 95 2,499 2006 SS MR - - - - - - - 38 185 100 - - - 2006 SS HI - - - - - - - x 17 x - - - 2006 SS SL - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 SS VI - - - - - - - x 22 x - - - 2006 SS EBD - - - - - - - x 43 x - - - 2006 SS OI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 SS OHI - - - - - - - x 54 x - - - 2006 SS SLD - - - - - - - 20 130 15 - - - 2006 SS DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 SS MD - - - - - - - 57 109 45 - - - 2006 SS A - - - - - - - 36 63 13 - - - 2006 SS TBI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 SS DD - - - - - - - 42 - - - - - 2006 SS ALL - - - - - - - 303 630 190 566 x 531 2006 RF MR - - - - - - - x 65 x - - - 2006 RF HI - - - - - - - 36 81 37 - - - 205 2006 RF SL - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 RF VI - - - - - - - 16 47 6 - - - 2006 RF EBD - - - - - - - 28 103 10 - - - 2006 RF OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 RF OHI - - - - - - - 8 38 5 - - - 2006 RF SLD - - - - - - - 8 149 9 - - - 2006 RF DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 RF MD - - - - - - - 40 54 23 - - - 2006 RF A - - - - - - - x 12 x - - - 2006 RF TBI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 RF DD - - - - - - - x - - - - - 2006 RF ALL - - - - - - - x 552 x 368 13 425 2006 H/H MR - - - - - - - x 15 x - - - 2006 H/H HI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 H/H SL - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 H/H VI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 H/H EBD - - - - - - - x 14 x - - - 2006 H/H OI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 H/H OHI - - - - - - - 21 x x - - - 2006 H/H SLD - - - - - - - 5 53 6 - - - 2006 H/H DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 H/H MD - - - - - - - x x 5 - - - 2006 H/H A - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 206 2006 H/H TBI - - - - - - - x 7 x - - - 2006 H/H DD - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - 2006 H/H ALL - - - - - - - x 161 x 111 x 182 2006 CF MR - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 2006 CF HI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF SL - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2006 CF VI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF EBD - - - - - - - 0 0 21 - - - 2006 CF OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF OHI - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2006 CF SLD - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 2006 CF DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF MD - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF A - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 CF TBI - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2006 CF DD - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2006 CF ALL - - - - - - - 0 x x 160 0 49 2006 PPPS MR - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 PPPS HI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 PPPS SL - - - - - - - 220 9 0 - - - 2006 PPPS VI - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 2006 PPPS EBD - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 PPPS OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 207 2006 PPPS OHI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 PPPS SLD - - - - - - - 9 x x - - - 2006 PPPS DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 PPPS MD - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 PPPS A - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2006 PPPS TBI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2006 PPPS DD - - - - - - - x - - - - - 2006 PPPS ALL - - - - - - - 244 x x 34 x 229 2006 Total MR - - - - - - - 1,875 5,155 1,114 - - - 2006 Total HI - - - - - - - 396 457 95 - - - 2006 Total SL - - - - - - - 13,721 2,285 138 - - - 2006 Total VI - - - - - - - 210 220 x - - - 2006 Total EBD - - - - - - - 514 1,232 114 - - - 2006 Total OI - - - - - - - 294 281 45 - - - 2006 Total OHI - - - - - - - 2,247 3,583 299 - - - 2006 Total SLD - - - - - - - 11,729 25,812 2,968 - - - 2006 Total DB - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 Total MD - - - - - - - 539 636 211 - - - 2006 Total A - - - - - - - 1,216 836 126 - - - 2006 Total TBI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2006 Total DD - - - - - - - 2,349 - - - - - 2006 Total ALL - - - - - - - 35,160 40,654 5,173 34,899 1,490 43,762 2006 H MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 208 2006 H HI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 H SL - - - 118 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H OI - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H OHI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 H DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H MD - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 H TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 H DD - - - 46 - - - - - - - - - 2007 H ALL 81 73 37 191 0 x 147 - - - - - - 2007 RF MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF HI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF SL - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF OHI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 209 2007 RF DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF A - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 RF ALL x 7 x 14 0 0 x - - - - - - 2007 SS MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS SL - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS OHI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SS ALL x 18 x 47 0 x x - - - - - - 2007 Total MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total HI - - - 80 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total SL - - - 4,278 - - - - - - - - - 210 2007 Total VI - - - 30 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total OI - - - 64 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total OHI - - - 83 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total SLD - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total DB - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total MD - - - 88 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total A - - - 228 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total TBI - - - 16 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total DD - - - 2,233 - - - - - - - - - 2007 Total ALL 1,232 2,175 3,704 7,111 21 67 4,598 - - - - - - 2007 REC80 MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 HI - - - 50 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 SL - - - 3,565 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 VI - - - 14 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 OI - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 OHI - - - 53 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 DB - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 MD - - - 29 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 A - - - 136 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 TBI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 211 2007 REC80 DD - - - 1,473 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC80 ALL 821 1,593 2,957 5,371 14 47 3,405 - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 HI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 SL - - - 121 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 OHI - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 MD - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 A - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 DD - - - 193 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40-79 ALL 49 102 208 359 x x 247 - - - - - - 2007 REC40 MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 HI - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 SL - - - 146 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 VI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 OHI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 212 2007 REC40 SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 MD - - - 21 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 A - - - 28 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 DD - - - 220 - - - - - - - - - 2007 REC40 ALL 47 94 303 444 x x 284 - - - - - - 2007 SPC MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC SL - - - 58 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC VI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC OI - - - 10 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC OHI - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC MD - - - 13 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC A - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC TBI - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC DD - - - 244 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPC ALL 119 154 113 386 x x 240 - - - - - - 2007 SPL MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 213 2007 SPL SL - - - 247 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL OHI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL DD - - - 40 - - - - - - - - - 2007 SPL ALL 101 134 64 299 x x 237 - - - - - - 2007 REG80 MR - - - - - - - 829 2,001 334 - - - 2007 REG80 HI - - - - - - - 265 286 38 - - - 2007 REG80 SL - - - - - - - 12,524 1,895 101 - - - 2007 REG80 VI - - - - - - - x 142 x - - - 2007 REG80 EBD - - - - - - - 332 718 44 - - - 2007 REG80 OI - - - - - - - 178 174 21 - - - 2007 REG80 OHI - - - - - - - 1,745 2,821 202 - - - 2007 REG80 SLD - - - - - - - 9,592 21,481 2,316 - - - 2007 REG80 DB - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 REG80 MD - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 REG80 A - - - - - - - 746 407 23 - - - 214 2007 REG80 TBI - - - - - - - 42 84 11 - - - 2007 REG80 DD - - - - - - - 1,675 - - - - - 2007 REG80 ALL - - - - - - - 28,125 30,073 3,108 24,958 1,224 34,449 2007 REG40-79 MR - - - - - - - 475 1,196 282 - - - 2007 REG40-79 HI - - - - - - - 43 36 9 - - - 2007 REG40-79 SL - - - - - - - 288 197 27 - - - 2007 REG40-79 VI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 REG40-79 EBD - - - - - - - 54 112 19 - - - 2007 REG40-79 OI - - - - - - - x 53 x - - - 2007 REG40-79 OHI - - - - - - - 251 410 58 - - - 2007 REG40-79 SLD - - - - - - - 1,110 2,944 465 - - - 2007 REG40-79 DB - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 REG40-79 MD - - - - - - - 70 77 18 - - - 2007 REG40-79 A - - - - - - - 230 178 23 - - - 2007 REG40-79 TBI - - - - - - - x 35 x - - - 2007 REG40-79 DD - - - - - - - 393 - - - - - 2007 REG40-79 ALL - - - - - - - 2,981 5,254 908 4,753 230 4,073 2007 REG40 MR - - - - - - - 344 982 352 - - - 2007 REG40 HI - - - - - - - x 28 x - - - 2007 REG40 SL - - - - - - - 68 x x - - - 2007 REG40 VI - - - - - - - 18 x x - - - 2007 REG40 EBD - - - - - - - x 82 x - - - 2007 REG40 OI - - - - - - - 48 44 13 - - - 215 2007 REG40 OHI - - - - - - - 127 171 26 - - - 2007 REG40 SLD - - - - - - - 100 264 46 - - - 2007 REG40 DB - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2007 REG40 MD - - - - - - - 246 324 137 - - - 2007 REG40 A - - - - - - - 345 322 74 - - - 2007 REG40 TBI - - - - - - - 11 21 6 - - - 2007 REG40 DD - - - - - - - 348 - - - - - 2007 REG40 ALL - - - - - - - 1,726 2,283 668 2,081 103 2,424 2007 SS MR - - - - - - - 27 142 77 - - - 2007 SS HI - - - - - - - x 8 x - - - 2007 SS SL - - - - - - - 10 6 0 - - - 2007 SS VI - - - - - - - 23 x x - - - 2007 SS EBD - - - - - - - x 50 x - - - 2007 SS OI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 SS OHI - - - - - - - 23 48 7 - - - 2007 SS SLD - - - - - - - x 137 x - - - 2007 SS DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 SS MD - - - - - - - 44 78 41 - - - 2007 SS A - - - - - - - 30 56 18 - - - 2007 SS TBI - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2007 SS DD - - - - - - - 35 - - - - - 2007 SS ALL - - - - - - - 253 545 171 498 x 451 2007 RF MR - - - - - - - 8 88 19 - - - 216 2007 RF HI - - - - - - - 29 91 31 - - - 2007 RF SL - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 RF VI - - - - - - - 11 46 6 - - - 2007 RF EBD - - - - - - - 35 111 13 - - - 2007 RF OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 RF OHI - - - - - - - 13 41 6 - - - 2007 RF SLD - - - - - - - x 133 x - - - 2007 RF DB - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 RF MD - - - - - - - x 33 x - - - 2007 RF A - - - - - - - x 24 x - - - 2007 RF TBI - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 2007 RF DD - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2007 RF ALL - - - - - - - 136 571 112 423 14 376 2007 H/H MR - - - - - - - x 12 x - - - 2007 H/H HI - - - - - - - 0 x x - - - 2007 H/H SL - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 H/H VI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 H/H EBD - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 H/H OI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 H/H OHI - - - - - - - 16 x x - - - 2007 H/H SLD - - - - - - - x 52 x - - - 2007 H/H DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 H/H MD - - - - - - - 26 x x - - - 217 2007 H/H A - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 H/H TBI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 H/H DD - - - - - - - x - - - - - 2007 H/H ALL - - - - - - - 67 161 46 95 6 173 2007 CF MR - - - - - - - 0 0 17 - - - 2007 CF HI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF SL - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2007 CF VI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF EBD - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2007 CF OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF OHI - - - - - - - x 0 x - - - 2007 CF SLD - - - - - - - 0 8 137 - - - 2007 CF DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF MD - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF A - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF TBI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 CF DD - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2007 CF ALL - - - - - - - 0 8 164 146 0 26 2007 PPPS MR - - - - - - - x 9 x - - - 2007 PPPS HI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 PPPS SL - - - - - - - 223 13 0 - - - 2007 PPPS VI - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 PPPS EBD - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 218 2007 PPPS OI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 PPPS OHI - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 PPPS SLD - - - - - - - 12 11 0 - - - 2007 PPPS DB - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 PPPS MD - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 PPPS A - - - - - - - x x 0 - - - 2007 PPPS TBI - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 2007 PPPS DD - - - - - - - x - - - - - 2007 PPPS ALL - - - - - - - 251 41 9 35 x 261 2007 Total MR - - - - - - - 1,687 4,430 1,096 - - - 2007 Total HI - - - - - - - 373 452 90 - - - 2007 Total SL - - - - - - - 13,118 2,148 135 - - - 2007 Total VI - - - - - - - 201 235 x - - - 2007 Total EBD - - - - - - - 492 1,085 90 - - - 2007 Total OI - - - - - - - 273 281 43 - - - 2007 Total OHI - - - - - - - 2,178 3,534 315 - - - 2007 Total SLD - - - - - - - 10,850 25,030 3,002 - - - 2007 Total DB - - - - - - - x x x - - - 2007 Total MD - - - - - - - 460 600 226 - - - 2007 Total A - - - - - - - 1,369 996 144 - - - 2007 Total TBI - - - - - - - x x 23 - - - 2007 Total DD - - - - - - - 2,465 - - - - - 2007 Total ALL - - - - - - - 33,539 38,936 5,186 32,989 1,587 42,233 219 2008 H MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 H SL - - - 142 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 H EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H OI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H OHI - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H MD - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 H TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 H DD - - - 43 - - - - - - - - - 2008 H ALL 80 88 48 216 x x 187 - - - - - - 2008 RF MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF HI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF SL - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF OHI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 220 2008 RF MD - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF A - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF TBI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 RF ALL x x 9 16 0 0 7 - - - - - - 2008 SS MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS HI - - - 12 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS SL - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS A - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS DD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SS ALL x x 23 68 0 x 42 - - - - - - 2008 Total MR - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total HI - - - 85 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total SL - - - 4,067 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total VI - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - 221 2008 Total EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total OI - - - 53 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total OHI - - - 83 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total MD - - - 70 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total A - - - 285 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total TBI - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total DD - - - 2,374 - - - - - - - - - 2008 Total ALL 1,373 2,285 3,421 7,079 36 82 4,636 - - - - - - 2008 REC80 MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 HI - - - 49 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 SL - - - 3,382 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 VI - - - 16 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 OI - - - 32 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 OHI - - - 58 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 SLD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 MD - - - 28 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 A - - - 187 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 TBI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC80 DD - - - 1,826 - - - - - - - - - 222 2008 REC80 ALL 918 1,772 2,903 5,593 30 60 3,550 - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 SL - - - 47 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 VI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 OI - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 MD - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 A - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 DD - - - 122 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40-79 ALL 42 49 105 196 x x 138 - - - - - - 2008 REC40 MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 SL - - - 69 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 OHI - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 223 2008 REC40 DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 MD - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 A - - - 21 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 DD - - - 137 - - - - - - - - - 2008 REC40 ALL 44 57 150 251 0 7 164 - - - - - - 2008 SPC MR - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC HI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC SL - - - 55 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC VI - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC EBD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC OI - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC MD - - - 13 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC A - - - 30 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC DD - - - 155 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPC ALL 87 105 87 279 x x 185 - - - - - - 2008 SPL MR - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL HI - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL SL - - - 364 - - - - - - - - - 224 2008 SPL VI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL EBD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL OI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL OHI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL SLD - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL DB - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL MD - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL A - - - 16 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL TBI - - - x - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL DD - - - 64 - - - - - - - - - 2008 SPL ALL 175 189 96 460 x x 363 - - - - - - 2008 REG80 MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 888 2008 REG80 HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 282 2008 REG80 SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 11,958 2008 REG80 VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 134 2008 REG80 EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - 361 2008 REG80 OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 187 2008 REG80 OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,053 2008 REG80 SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 9,759 2008 REG80 DB - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 REG80 MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 58 2008 REG80 A - - - - - - - - - - - - 930 2008 REG80 TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 225 2008 REG80 DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,836 2008 REG80 ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 28,491 2008 REG40-79 MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 423 2008 REG40-79 HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 2008 REG40-79 SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 180 2008 REG40-79 VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 2008 REG40-79 EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 REG40-79 OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 2008 REG40-79 OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 227 2008 REG40-79 SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 874 2008 REG40-79 DB - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 REG40-79 MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 72 2008 REG40-79 A - - - - - - - - - - - - 266 2008 REG40-79 TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 REG40-79 DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 339 2008 REG40-79 ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,533 2008 REG40 MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 358 2008 REG40 HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 2008 REG40 SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 2008 REG40 VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 2008 REG40 EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 2008 REG40 OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 2008 REG40 OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 125 226 2008 REG40 SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 84 2008 REG40 DB - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 REG40 MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 266 2008 REG40 A - - - - - - - - - - - - 383 2008 REG40 TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 2008 REG40 DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 367 2008 REG40 ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,756 2008 SS MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 2008 SS HI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 SS SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 2008 SS VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 2008 SS EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 SS OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 2008 SS OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 2008 SS SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 2008 SS DB - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 SS MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 57 2008 SS A - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 2008 SS TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 SS DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 2008 SS ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 303 2008 RF MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 2008 RF HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 227 2008 RF SL - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF VI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 2008 RF OI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 2008 RF DB - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 2008 RF A - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF DD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 RF ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H MR - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 H/H SL - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 H/H EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H OI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 2008 H/H SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H DB - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 H/H MD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H A - - - - - - - - - - - - x 228 2008 H/H TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 H/H DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 2008 H/H ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 CF MR - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 CF HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF SL - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 CF VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 CF OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF DB - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF A - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 CF ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 PPPS MR - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS HI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 225 2008 PPPS VI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS OI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 229 2008 PPPS OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS DB - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 PPPS MD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS A - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2008 PPPS DD - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 PPPS ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 254 2008 Total MR - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,711 2008 Total HI - - - - - - - - - - - - 397 2008 Total SL - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,420 2008 Total VI - - - - - - - - - - - - 191 2008 Total EBD - - - - - - - - - - - - 493 2008 Total OI - - - - - - - - - - - - 282 2008 Total OHI - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,466 2008 Total SLD - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,759 2008 Total DB - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 Total MD - - - - - - - - - - - - 509 2008 Total A - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,645 2008 Total TBI - - - - - - - - - - - - x 2008 Total DD - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,596 2008 Total ALL - - - - - - - - - - - - 33,543