discipline and disproportionality in the new ideia russ skiba center for evaluation and education...

QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Discipline and Disproportionality in the New IDEIA

Russ SkibaCenter for Evaluation and Education PolicyIndiana University

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children

Salt Lake City, Utah April 6, 2006

QuickTime™ and a


Prologue: How Do You Spell IDEA?

``PART A--GENERAL PROVISIONS``SEC. 601. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1400.>> SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS;

FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

``(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the `Individuals with Disabilities Education Act'.

QuickTime™ and a


New Reporting Requirements Under IDEA 2004 Under Section 618, States must provide

data on: Incidence and duration of disciplinary actions

by race, ethnicity, limited English proficiency status, gender, and disability category, of children with disabilities, including suspensions of 1 day or more

Number & percentage removed to IAES compared to children w/o disabilities removed to alt. ed.

QuickTime™ and a


New Reporting Requirements Specific to Disproportionality Each state shall provide for “collection and

examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and LEA’s with respect to: A) Identification and B) Placement C) Incidence, duration and type of disciplinary actions,

including suspensions and expulsions 15% rule:

Requires LEA’s identified as significantly overidentified to reserve maximum funds (15%) for early intervention

Does this apply to discipline?

Minority Disproportionality in School Discipline

QuickTime™ and a


Non-Discriminatory Application: 30 Years of Study

CDF (1975): Black students suspended 2-3x as frequently

Studies since find disproportionality in: Office referrals Suspension & Expulsion Corporal Punishment

Evidence of disproportionality by economic status, gender, and disability designation

QuickTime™ and a


The Interaction of Race and Gender

Middle School Out-of-School Suspension (Raffaele Mendez, 2003) Black Males: 50% suspended Black Females: 33% White Males: 25% White Females: 9.3%

Black males 16x as likely as white females to be suspended (Gregory, 1996)

Raffaele Mendez (2003)QuickTime™ and a


Race, Gender, and Special Education

Black + Male + Special Ed + Poor = 67% suspension rate

These students are 5% of population, but: 24% of 3-5 suspensions 34% of 6-8 suspensions 48% of 9-11 suspensions 56% of 12-14 suspensions 100% of 14+ suspensions

Skiba (2000)QuickTime™ and a


Disproportionality Starts in the Classroom

52

45

66.1

30

68.5

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

en

t

Enrolled Referred Suspended

AfricanAmerican

White

Rausch & Skiba, 2004QuickTime™ and a


Disproportionality is Greatest at Suburban Schools

39.21

52.39

38.89

28.15

9.976.60

13.9019.0319.19

16.90

10.3810.01

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Urban Suburban Town Rural

Incid

en

t R

ate

Per

100 S

tud

en

ts

AfricanAmericanHispanic

White

Rausch & Skiba, 2004QuickTime™ and a


Disproportionality Begins Early and Persists

6.19

1.76

3.65

2.12

3.97

2.33

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Lik

elih

ood

Rati

o C

om

pare

d t

o W

hit

e S

tud

en

ts

Elementary Middle High

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

QuickTime™ and a


Used Heavily and Disproportionately on African American Males

42.20

5.93

23.14

43.96

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

African American Males White Males

Incid

en

t R

ate

Per

100 S

tud

en

ts

Percent ofSchoolPopulation

Percent ofOSSPopulation

QuickTime™ and a


Overall Incident Rate Comparison: African American and White Males

55.82

14.90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

African American Males White Males

Inci

den

t R

ate

Per

100 S

tud

en

ts

Out-of-SchoolSuspensionIncident Rate

Relative Risk for African American

Males Compared to White Males: 3.75x

QuickTime™ and a


Alternative Explanations of Disciplinary Alternative Explanations of Disciplinary DisproportionalityDisproportionality

Disproportionality is related to SES SES and disproportionality correlate, but… Effects of race remain after control

Do black students misbehave more? No supporting evidence May in fact be treated more severely for same

offenses

QuickTime™ and a


What Behaviors are Students What Behaviors are Students Referred For? By RaceReferred For? By RaceWhat Behaviors are Students What Behaviors are Students Referred For? By RaceReferred For? By Race

White students referred more for:

Smoking

Vandalism

Leaving w/o permission

Obscene Language

Black students referred more for:

Disrespect

Excessive Noise

Threat

Loitering

Of 32 infractions, only 8 significant differences:Of 32 infractions, only 8 significant differences:

QuickTime™ and a


Improved Student Behavior? 30-50% of students suspended are repeat

offenders “Suspension functions as a reinforcer...rather than as a

punisher” (Tobin, Sugai & Colvin,1996)

Use of suspension correlates with School dropout (school level) (Raffaele-Mendez; Ekstrom,

1986) Juvenile incarceration (state level) (Skiba et al)

Dropout or pushout? (Bowditch, 1994)

QuickTime™ and a


Percent Passing ISTEP by School Disciplinary Use (Adjusted for Demographic and Economic Indicators)

58.3557.51

49.9148.59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

en

tag

e o

f S

tud

en

ts P

assin

g B

oth

M

ath

an

d E

ng

lish

Assessm

en

t

Low Usage High Usage

School Rate of Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion

OSSEXP

Disproportionality of Students with Disabilities

in School Discipline

QuickTime™ and a


Students with Disabilities are Suspended Disproportionately

Leone et al (2000) Kentucky: 14% of enrolled, 20% of susps. Maryland: 13.1% of enrolled, 24% of susps. Similar in Minn., Del. Kansas (2.7 x as likely)

But 21st Annual Report to Congress (2000) finds no evidence of disciplinary disproportionality, based on 1994 OCR Report

QuickTime™ and a


Students with ED are Really Over-Represented

% of Students Reporting Susp/Exp (Wagner et al., 2005) Elem/Mid: 47.7% of ED HS: 72.9% ED El/Mid: 11.7% of other HS: 27.6% Other

Kansas: ED 7.5X to be suspended as likely as others with disability; 12x as likely as all students (Cooley, 1995)

QuickTime™ and a


Are There Disparities in Behavior? More severe:

GAO (2001): Serious misbehavior for SpEd at 50 incidents/1000 students vs. 15/1000 for gen.ed.

Fiore & Reynolds (1996): Discrepancies in Weapons, Other Dangerous Behaviors, Violence Against Staff

Less severe: McFadden et al. (1992): Students with disabs less likely

to be truant; more likely for bothering others, defiance Cooley (1995): No differences in reasons for referral

Leone et al. (2000): Do students with disabilities just get caught more often?

QuickTime™ and a


Disparities in Treatment McFadden et al. (1992): Students w/

disabs. more likely to receive harsh, less likely to receive mild punishment

GAO (2001) survey: Principals report equal treatment for special/general ed.

Do students with disabilities account for disproportionate disciplinary effort? GAO: 31% agree Skiba et al.: 33% agree

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Figure 1. Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion Comparison for Indiana General and

11.58

0.64

25.55

0.48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Out-of-School Suspension Expulsion

Ris

k R

ate

(In

cid

ent

Rat

e P

er 1

00 S

tud

ents

)

General Education

Special Education

Relative Disciplinary Risk for Special Education:Out-of-School Suspension: 2.21Expulsion: 0.75



Table 1. Indiana IDEA Discipline Totals and Categories: 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 School Year 2000-2001 School Year 2004-2005 School Year

Disability Enrollment

Number Receiving Discipline

Percent Receiving Discipline

Disability Enrollment



Percentage Change

Total

140,153

1,554

1.11%

155,132

2,081

1.34%

20.72

Removed for Drug or

Weapon

140,153

412

0.29%

155,132

496

0.32%

10.34

Removed based on

Hearing Officer Determination

140,153

46

0.03%

155,132

13

0.008%

-73.33

Other

Suspension/Expulsion > 10 Days

140,153

1,096

0.78%

155,132

1,572

1.01%

29.49



Table 2. Indiana IDEA Discipline by Disability Category: 2004-2005 school year

IDEA Disability Category Disability

Enrollment Number of Students Receiving Discipline

Percent of Students Receiving Discipline

Relative Disciplinary Risk a

Multiple Disabilities 1,569 4 0.25 0.18 Orthopedic Impairment 1,479 2 0.14 0.10 Visual Impairment 739 8 1.08 0.77 Hearing Impairment 1,697 8 0.47 0.33 Emotional Disability Full Time 6,994 740 10.58 11.13 Learning Disability 62,686 909 1.45 1.06 Communication Disorder 37,200 11 0.03 0.02 Mild Mental Disability 17,151 252 1.47 1.05 Moderate Mental Disability 3,705 14 0.38 0.26 Severe Mental Disability 799 0 0.00 0.00 Deaf-Blind 13 0 0.00 0.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder 5,558 19 0.34 0.24 Traumatic Brain Injury 553 9 1.63 1.16 Other Health Impaired 7,925 105 1.32 0.94

Note: Some disability categories (e.g. Developmental Delay) were omitted due to zero enrollments and zero number of students receiving discipline under IDEA a The relative disciplinary risk is the relative likelihood of one disability category being disciplined under IDEA relative to all other students with disabilities (i.e., all other disability categories). A ratio of one is equal likelihood, greater than one is more likely, and less than one is less likely for removal. For example, students identified as having an emotional disability full time, are 11.13 times as likely as their disabled peers to be disciplined under IDEA. Students identified with a communication disorder are 0.02 times as likely to be disciplined under IDEA compared to their disabled peers.



Table 3. Indiana IDEA Discipline by Race: 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 School Yea r 2000-2001 School Year 2004-2005 School Year



Relative

Risk



Relative

Risk

Percent Change

Native American

9

3.57% 3.23

4

1.41%

1.05

-60.5%

Asian/Pacific Islander

5

1.27% 1.15

3

0.48%

0.36

-62.2%

Hispanic

29

0.98% 0.88

67

1.35%

1.01

37.76%

Black

342

1.93% 1.95

622

3.03%

2.80

57.00%

Multiracial

29

2.18% 1.98

50

1.62%

1.22

-25.67%

White

1,140

0.97% 0.53

1,335

1.06%

1.06

9.23%

Total

1,554

1.11%

---

2,081

1.34%

---

20.72%

QuickTime™ and a


Do We Have the Capability to Collect This Data?

Fiore & Reynolds (1996): Only 6 states and 16 districts provided

breakdown of discipline of students with disabilities by race

Indiana Data General education: By incident Special education: By individual

QuickTime™ and a


What Do We Do with Disproportionality? (2) Review and revision of policies, practices, and

procedures.--In the case of a determination of significant disproportionality with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, or the placement in particular educational settings of such children, in accordance with paragraph (1), the State or the Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be, shall-- ``(A) provide for the review and, if appropriate,

revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in such identification or placement to ensure that such policies,[[Page 118 STAT. 2740]] procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of this title;



Local Equity Action Development (LEAD) Projects

ONGOING QUESTIONS What do we know about disproportionality in our district? What changes in school-based processes will have the greatest impact on disproportionality in our

schools? How do we involve others in the process of creating ownership for and bringing about change? How will we know if our efforts are working? What impact will this have on other issues of equity?

PROCESS STEPS

Form a Planning Te am Form a preliminary planning team Review existing data Name the issue Expand the planning team to include other key stakeholders Gather and analyze new information

Identify the Action of Greatest

Potential Impact Hold focus groups to explore the issue & approaches from diverse perspectives Examine and discuss input from the focus groups Gather research and information on best practices and models Engage in honest conversations on equity, opportunities and expectations for ALL students and staff

Develop a Plan

Design a LEAD pilot Provide professional development, time, and other supports Develop an Action Plan for Implementation Pilot in a few places Gather feedback Adapt the pilot Plan for expanded implementation

Implement, Assess, Adapt

Expand the team to include representatives from all sites to assure two-way communication Provide professional development as needed for best practice & cultural competency Clarify links and communicate with other district initiatives and ELL, Title, School Improvement etc. Use data consistently to inform decisions Deepen conversations about equity and culturally responsive pedagogy Include parents and community in the process Ongoing assessments continue to inform implementation

QuickTime™ and a


Studying Equity at Home: The LEAD Process What is the Nature of the Problem?

What does the data tell us? Courageous Conversations

Identify Actions of Greatest Potential Impact Develop a Plan Implement, Assess, Adapt

QuickTime™ and a


LEAD Projects Implementation Ten districts currently participating in Equity

Action Projects Pre-Referral Process Peer Coaching K-2 Instructional Project Family Involvement

QuickTime™ and a


Deficit Thinking: Disproportionality due primarily to characteristics of minority populations (e.g. Herrnstein & Murray)

Critical Race Theory: Disproportionality as a decision to maintain the structure of white privilege (e.g. Bell, Delgado)

Cultural Reproduction: Racial/economic inequity maintained by roles and actions of individuals within institutions, perhaps unconciously (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, Oakes)

...Maybe We Shouldn’t Talk About It...

Responses to InequityResponses to Inequity

QuickTime™ and a


The Difficulty of Talking About Race

“When you say minorities, are you, what are you speaking of?...[INTERVIEWER: Ethnic and racial minorities]...Oh....OK...Alright...We have like...I guess we have about half and half. I don’t know that I’ve ever really paid attention to it .”

--Classroom Teacher

Race and the Relief EffortRace and the Relief Effort

"The storm didn't discriminate, and neither did the recovery effort.” --George W. Bush

"There is a historical indifference to the pain of poor people, and black people ... we seem to adjust more easily to black pain.”

--Rev. Jesse Jackson

"The storm didn't discriminate, and neither did the recovery effort.” --George W. Bush

"There is a historical indifference to the pain of poor people, and black people ... we seem to adjust more easily to black pain.”

--Rev. Jesse Jackson

QuickTime™ and a


Perspectives on Katrina: Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 9/13/05

QuickTime™ and a


What’s Your Theory?

Poverty? Systemic inadequacies? Community contributions? Cultural incompetence? Negative peer culture? Historical discrimination?

QuickTime™ and a


What We Need:

Need formats that enable collection of the needed data WESTAT/OSEP calculation package

Need more research on intersection of race, disability, and discipline

Need models of change Leadership on the topic of race

Russ SkibaRuss Skiba

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

509 E. Third St.

Bloomington, IN 47401

812-855-1240

fax: 812-856-8440

[email protected]

discipline and disproportionality in the new ideia russ skiba center for evaluation and education...

Documents

classroom slide

school discipline slide

significant disproportionality

disproportionality correlate

minority disproportionality

black males

disability designation

race white students