disproportionality overview

Disproportionality Overview

Dan ReschlyVanderbilt University

[email protected]

March 6-7, 2013Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Education

Reschly Disproportionality 1

mailto:[email protected]

Vandy is#1 in Special Education

25 Consecutive

Losing Seasons??

But8-4 in2012

Vanderbilt Is NOT AFootball Power

2Reschly Disproportionality

Reschly, D. J. (2009). Prevention of Disproportionate Special Education Representation Using Response to Intervention. Washington DC: Learning Point Associates. http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/TQ_Issue_Paper_RTI_Disproportionality.pdf


http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/TQ_Issue_Paper_RTI_Disproportionality.pdf

http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/TQ_Issue_Paper_RTI_Disproportionality.pdf

What is the Problem?? Examples

• In US, 15% of the student population is black, but 65% of the students in the category of MR/ID are black. Similar in Iowa

• Discipline outcomes of suspension and expulsion are disproportionately minority, particularly black, Hispanic, and American Indian. Similar in Iowa.

• Is this a problem? If so, Why?

• What are the causes of this problem?

• What can be done about it?


Is this a problem? Why?

• Comments1. 2.3.4.5.6.7.


Solutions to Significant Disproportionality

• Understanding current legal requirements

• Prevention, especially improving reading– ~55% of 4th grade black students read below

basic; inexcusable! Teach Reading and Math effectively!!

• Eligibility determination procedures and decision making– Focus on RTI and needs, consider

alternatives to sp ed– Implement rigorous identification criteria

• Intensive interventions and special education exit for ~20% to 40% Implement RTI in sp ed– Torgesen et al. studies

Overview


Irony of Disproportionate Representation

• Special Education for SWD with Mild Disabilities (LD, Mild MR, ED)• Individualized educational programs with related services as

needed, based on individual evaluation• Significantly greater expenditures• Greater parent involvement• Mandated annual review• Procedural safeguards


Irony of Disproportionate Representation cont.

• Why is disproportionate representation unacceptable?

• Overrepresentation per se? Consider Head Start and Title I

• Assumptions about special education• Stigma• Poor outcomes• Limited curriculum and career options• Often segregated programs (Mild MR & ED)

• Differences in sp ed: Suburbs vs Cities


Constructive Policies and Practices Based On

• Understanding legal requirements

• Appropriate statistical analyses

• Reasonable criteria to define “significant disproportionality”

• Prevention in general education

• Early identification-Early intervention

• Non-discrimination in evaluation and placement

• Ensuring special education effectiveness


Part I: Public Policy Trends and Legal Requirements

• Trend toward reduced tolerance of differential results (NCLB, IDEA)• Reporting by group• Demands for improvement

• Trend toward fairness defined as equal results• Legal requirements changed from process to

results• System change considerations• Prevention, Early id/tmt, and sp ed exiting


Reschly Interpretation: Centrality of Outcomes:

•Judge Peckham commenting on the 1979 Trial Opinion ban on IQ tests,

“… clearly limited to the use of IQ tests in the assessment and placement of African-American students in dead end programs such as MMR.” (Crawford and Larry P., 1992, p. 15).


Reschly Interpretation: Centrality of Outcomes:

“ Despite the Defendants’ attempts to characterize the court’s 1979 order as a referendum on the discriminatory nature of IQ testing, this court’s review of the decision reveals that the decision was largely concerned with the harm to African-American children resulting from improper placement in dead-end educational programs.” (Crawford and Larry P., 1992, p.23).”


Traditional EHA/IDEA Legal Requirements re: Nondiscrimination

Process

• §300.304 Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part—

• (i) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;

• Plus extensive additional requirements in the Evaluations and Re-evaluations section

• Process focus


Problems with Non-discrimination Regulations 1975 to 1997, 2004

• No definition of discrimination

• Focus on assessment procedures (less on decision making)

• Assumption that non-discrimination can be prevented through reforms in assessment, classification, and placement

• Attempted to resolve group representation issues through individual mechanisms

• Improved assessment for all, but little overall effect on minority over-representation


Disproportionality IDEA 2004, 2006

• §300.173 Overidentification and disproportionality.

• The State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of this part and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in §300.8.


IDEA 2004, 2006 re: 34 CFR 300.646 Disproportionality

(a) General. Each State …… shall provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race is occurring in the State ……‑

• (1) The identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment described in section 602(3) of the Act; and THAT IS, CATEGORY

• (2) The placement in particular educational settings of these children. THAT IS, LRE Profile

• (3) Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspension and expulsion


Disproportionality By Category

• 13 Categories of Disability at 34 C.F.R. 300.8

• Greatest concern about MR, ED, LD, OHI, and Sp/L

• Significant disproportionality triggers policies and procedures reviews

• Disciplinary outcomes: suspension and expulsion


Disproportionality by LRE Option

• Official Federal Placement Options re: Time Outside General Education• ≤20 % Full-time General Education• 21% to 60% Part-time Special Education• >60% Full-time Special Education• Public or Private Separate Setting• Public or Private Residential• Home or Hospital

• Expect scrutiny of placement option representation in future


IDEA 2004, 2006 re: 34 CFR 300.646 Disproportionality, cont.

• (b) 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 these children,….., the State ….. shall provide for the review and, if appropriate revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification or placement to ensure that the policies, procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of Part B of the Act.


IDEA 2004, 2006 re: 34 CFR 300.646 Disproportionality, cont.

• Require any LEA identified under Section 618(d)(1) to reserve the maximum amount of funds under Section 613(f) to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the LEA, particularly children in those groups that were significantly overidentified under Section 618(d)(1); and

• Require the LEA to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures described under Section 618(d)(1)(A).

• Focused monitoring---Disproportionality listed as one of a small number of areas


Early Intervening Services

• § 300.226 Early intervening services.• LEA can use 15% of federal IDEA funds to

support prevention and early identification-treatment

• Purpose: minimize over-identification and unnecessary sp ed referrals

• Provide academic and behavioral supports• Supports professional development and provision

of interventions including early literacy instruction• Significant Disproportionality? Must spend 15% of

the IDEA monies


Context Accountability generally Sea Change in Special Education (Major

Transformation) Expectations that current results will improve OSEP compliance monitoring of states focused on

20 outcome indicators Increasing, state education agency monitoring of

local districts focused on the 20 outcome indicators Increased emphasis on students with disabilities

(SWD) performance in the general education curriculum


State Performance Indicators 20 Performance Indicators

Disseminated to States - Summer, 2006 First state rankings in 2007 Current state rankings available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/factsheet-2009.docState rankings are controversial, but highly

“motivating” to states and districtshttp://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/sppapr.htmlPart B IA “needs assistance-one yearPart C IA “meets requirements”


http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/factsheet-2009.doc

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/factsheet-2009.doc

http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/sppapr.html

Evidence on Special Education Priorities

OSEP Outcome IndicatorsAnnual Reports by SEAs to OSEP Initial publication of State Results in June

2007State Personnel Development Grants

Long standing OSEP grant program to states

Competitive grantsSEA must base grant proposal on broad

assessment of state needs over multiple constituencies 24Reschly Disproportionality

Summary: Legal Requirements

• Nondiscrimination in eligibility determination and placement still required (see Evaluation and Re-evaluation at 34 CFR 300.301 to 34 CFR 300.311

• Added requirements regarding results (consistent with results focus of NCLB)

• Applications to both category and placement option (≤20%, 21%-60%, >60%, etc.), and disciplinary actions

• Emphasis on prevention and early id/early tmt

• Mandatory revision of policies and procedures if significant disproportionality exists


Part II: Does Iowa Have Significant Disproportionality??

• Over- and Under-representation?• Is under-representation important?

• What areas are relevant?• Special Education Total and Category• Special Education Placement Option• Suspension and Expulsion in general and

special education


Part II: Does Iowa Have Significant Disproportionality??

• What statistical analysis?• What criteria

• Numerical guidelines?• Criteria varying by context?• Improvement criteria?

• Revisions in policies and practices?

What WOULD CONSTITUTE OVERREPRESENTATION IN YOUR

OPINION• Factor of 1.5 or 1.5 times rate for other groups?• Factor of 2.0 or 2 times rate for other groups• Factor of 2.5• Factor of 3.0

• How much is too much?• What statistic?

What Level is Too Much?

• Discussion:

Disproportionality Example

• Estimate the percent of African American students in the US that are in special education (all categories) age 5-17?– 5%– 15%– 30%– 50%– 70%


National Representation Statistics

• 15% of the US student population was African-American

• 33% of MR/ID students in special education in the USA were African American

• What percent of African-American students were classified as MR and placed in special education?

a. 1% b. 3% c. 10% d. 25% e. 35% f. 50%


National Representation Statistics

• 15% of the US student population was African-American

• 29% of E/BD students in special education in the USA were African American

• What percent of African-American students were classified as MR and placed in special education?

a. 1% b. 3% c. 10% d. 25% e. 35% f. 50%


What Statistic for Disproportionality?

• Risk: Percent of total group in sp ed category • 100 white in MR out of 2000 white students in

the student population, 100÷2000=5%• Risk=5%

• Composition: Percent of sp ed category by each group• Total of 150 students in MR• White composition of MR, 100 ÷ 150=67%


Illustration of Risk and Composition

• Consider gender and teaching

• Composition of educators by gender is heavily female, >80%

• “Risk” of being an educator for women is <1%

• Likewise with racial/ethnic group and special education representation• Composition sometimes appears large• Risk is relatively small


Comparing Risk Statistics Across Groups

• Relative Risk, ratio of two risk indices

• Useful for determining the severity of disproportionality

• Two methods• Risk of minority group to risk of white group• Risk of each group compared to the combined

risk of the other groups

• See calculation exercises


Disproportionality Impressions• Composition: African students constitute

15% of the US student population, but 33% of the US MR/ID population is African American.

• Risk: Approximately 1.7% of African American students are classified as MR/ID. The rate for white students is 0.6%, for all students=0.77%

• The relative risk for MR/ID for African American students compared to all other students is about 2.75 times, that is nearly three times more likely to be in MR/ID than other students


Disproportionality Impressions• Composition: African students constitute

15% of the US student population, but 29% of the US MR/ID population is African American.

• Risk: Approximately 1.33% of African American students are classified as E/BD. The rate for white students is 0.65%, for all students=0.69%

• The relative risk for MR/ID for African American students compared to all other students is 2.28, that is, over twice more likely to be in E/BD than other students


Advantages/Disadvantages of Risk Statistics

• Accurate impressions of the actual proportions of minority students in sp ed

• Directly comparable across groups

• Equally useful regardless of whether the minority group is a large or small proportion of the overall population

• Used in determining relative risk index

• “Minimizes” the problem according to some


Advantages/Disadvantages of Composition Statistics

• Dramatizes the problem, draws attention • Cannot be compared directly across groups• Always has to be interpreted in relation to population

composition• Usually misinterpreted, producing widespread distortions

and confusion about sp ed disproportionality• Supports stereotypes of minority children, suggesting that

a high proportion or even a majority have disabilities and are in sp ed

• Media favorite


N Risk Rel RiskAm/Ind 91,492 14.3% 1.6A-PI 131,099 4.7% 0.5Black 1,231,922 12.4% 1.5Hispanic 1,034,137 8.5% 0.9White 3,498,007 8.6% 0.9

Total 5,986,657 9.1%

Risk and Relative Risk All Disabilities Age 6-212006-2007 Year

N is the number of students with disabilities age 6-21The denominator is the estimated total population age 6-21


High Incidence = Speech/language, SLD, MR and ED

Low Incidence = The remaining 9 IDEA categories

Disproportionality Occurs In High Incidence Disabilities


Problem Categories: MR/id

Composition: 33% of Students in MR are African American vs. 15% of the overall student population is African-American

Risk: 1.7%% of African Americans are in MR/ID vs. 0.77% of white students;

Relative Risk: Rate for Af-Am is 2.75 times higher than the overall rate for other students.

No other groups are overrepresented in MR/ID at relative risk of >2.0


Problem Categories: ED

Composition: 29% of Students with E/BD are African American vs. 15% Af Am in general student population

Risk: 1.33% of African-American Students are in ED vs. 0.69% of White Students

Relative Risk Ratio: Af-Am rate is 2.28 times the rate for other groups of students

No other group overrepresented in E/BD at a relative risk of >2.0


Iowa Disproportionality

• AEAs with relative risks > 2.0• Large district differences in special education

enrollment: Waterloo and Burlington at >16%

• Discipline disparities• Patterns of disproportionality in Iowa?

• Ellen Help

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES:

• School districts to report student-related data by the new race and ethnicity protocols.

• Each district to survey parents/guardians to collect this information.

• Each district to use the new 2-part question format when surveying parents/guardians.

Beginning with the 2010-2011

school year, parents/guardians will be asked the

following two questions . . .

QUESTION 1• Is your child Hispanic/Latino?• This question is about ethnicity, not race.

However, if “yes” is chosen, data for this student will be reported in the Hispanic/ Latino category.

• In addition to answering question 1, please answer question 2 by marking one or more boxes to indicate what you consider your student’s race to be.

QUESTION 2What is your child’s race?

(You may choose more than one)American Indian or Alaska Native

AsianBlack or African AmericanNative Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderWhite

If “no” is chosen in response to question 1, and if more than one category is chosen in response to question 2, the data for this student will be reported in the multiracial/multiethnic category.

ETHNIC CODE CHOICESCurrent Ethnic Codes:

A – WhiteB – Black/African AmericanC – Asian/Pacific IslanderD – American Indian/Alaska NativeE – Hispanic/Latino

ETHNIC CODE CHOICESNew Ethnic Codes:

A – WhiteB – Black or African AmericanC – AsianD – American Indian/Alaska NativeE – Hispanic or LatinoP – Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderT – Multiracial/multiethnic

DEFINITIONS—FEDERAL REPORTING CATEGORIES

White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

Asian A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

DEFINITIONS—FEDERAL REPORTING CATEGORIES

American Indian or Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (includiCentral America), and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Hispanic or Latino of any race A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

Two or more races.

EXAMPLE 1:Is your child Hispanic/Latino? NOWhat is your child’s race? (You may choose more

than one)x American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

Student will be reported as American Indian / Alaska Native

EXAMPLE 2:Is your child Hispanic/Latino? YESWhat is your child’s race? (You may choose

more than one)x American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

**Student will be reported as Hispanic/Latino

EXAMPLE 3:Is your child Hispanic/Latino? YESWhat is your child’s race? (You may choose

more than one)x American Indian or Alaska Native Asianx Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

**Student will be reported as Hispanic/Latino

EXAMPLE 4:Is your child Hispanic/Latino? NOWhat is your child’s race? (You may choose more

than one) American Indian or Alaska Nativex Asianx Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanderx White

**Student will be reported as Multiracial/multiethnic

EXAMPLE 5:Is your child Hispanic/Latino? (blank)What is your child’s race? (You may choose

more than one) (blank) American Indian or Alaska Native(blank) Asian(blank) Black or African American(blank) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander(blank) White **Observer identification by school personnel will

be used to answer both questions

IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGES IN RACE/ETHNICITY POLICY?

• Prior results may change• Example: CCSD annual analysis

• Changes in population (denominator)• Reduced white• Reduced Asian/Pacific Islander• Increased Hispanic• Reduced African-American• Increased Two or More race/ethnicities

Two years, large changes, not stable yet

Criteria for Significant Disproportionality

• No precise numerical guidelines (Grutter and Gratz Supreme Court Cases)

• Tenative Guidelines:• Relative Risk of (RR) 1.0 to 1.2 acceptable• RR of 1.2 to 1.5 moderate, questionable, more

study• RR of 1.5-2.0 Clearly significant• RR > 2.0 Highly significant, nearly certain

scrutiny


IDEA on Meaning of Significant

IDEA Comments on Regulations (2006)

“With respect to the definition of significant disproportionality, each State has the discretion to define the term for the LEAs and for the State in general.”

See a technical assistance paper at:

http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf




Prevalence and Disproportionality in SEAs and LEAs

• Enormous variations across SEAs

• Enormous variations across LEAs within a state

• Variations are not easily explained

• Failures to explain prevalence variations in MR/ID and ED


Disproportionality Conclusions1. Disproportionality is an international issue2. Minority overrepresentation contributes

about 0.25% to national disability prevalence in the US, i.e., to “overidentification”

3. African-American overrepresentation a. MR affecting 2.6% of Af-Am.; 2.6 x b. ED affecting 1.6% of Af.-Am.; 1.6 x


Disproportionality Conclusions cont.

4. Native Am. Indian overrepresentation of in SLD affecting 7.3%; 1.2 x

5. Little disproportionality in Other Sp Ed Categories

6. Hispanic Students Slightly Underrepresented Nationally

7. Asian Pacific Islander Students Markedly Underrepresented nationally


Disproportionality Conclusions cont.

8. Varied Patterns for All Groups; Hispanic and Asian students overrepresented in some states and local schools

9. Minority students overrepresented in sp ed have > educational and behavioral needs than non-minority students at referral, placement, and re-evaluation

10. Changes in assessment and evaluation procedures did not affect disproportionality


Part III: Causes of Disproportionality

• National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report• http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html

• Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html

Causes of Disproportionality

• Discussion: What are the causes of disproportionality?

• 1.• 2.• 3.• 4.• 5.

Causes of Overrepresentation

• Biological factors

• Social factors

• General education experiences

• Special education system


Biological Bases-Yes• Poverty associated with greater

exposure to pre- and post-natal toxins (lead, alcohol, tobacco); more premature births, poorer health care, micronutrient deficiencies (iron) and poorer overall nutrition.

Do Biological Factors Contribute?


Many More Black Children are Born at Low Birthweight

FIGURE 3-3 Percentage of infants born at low birthweight by race and Hispanicorigin, 1980-1998. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NationalCenter for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.


Do Social Factors Contribute

• Social Bases-Yes• Less supportive environments for language and

cognitive development; poorer preparation for reading and academic achievement generally, less direct teaching

• Substantial Difference Exist at Kindergarten


Disadvantaged Children Are Less Well Prepared for Schooling

• Percent first time kindergartners by print familiarity scores

Child's race/ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 14 45 Black, non-Hispanic 29 21 Asian 15 43 Hispanic 24 27 Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander

30 23

American Indian/Alaska Native 38 17 More than one race, non-Hispanic

18 35

0 skills 3 skills


Disadvantaged Children Are Less Well Prepared for Schooling

• Percent first time kindergartners. Teacher ratings of anti-social behavior.

Fight with OthersNever Often


Special Needs Gifted

(At-Risk) (Main Population)

B A

FIGURE 3-2 Idealized representation depicting displacement ofsubgroups with regard to main population on any variable that isnormally distributed.

Main population with top and bottom2 percent identified

At-risk population identified using mainpopulation cut points

Role of Special Education Referral and Assessment

• Complex Evidence-No Clear Conclusions• Simulations Suggest Teacher Biases• Studies of Referred Students

– Minority students, especially Black students, have greater needs compared to other students

• Studies of Students in MR, LD, and ED– Minority students have greater needs

• Tentative Conclusion: Greater Deficits Required for Minority Students to be Referred and Placed


Table 6: Children in Poverty and Special Education

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Brandywine Christina Colonial Red Clay

Minority

Nonminority

23.9%

18.4% 18.5%17.6%

19.3% 19.8%19.0% 19.2%

Prevention of Disproportionate Representation

• NRC Panel Report Major Conclusion

“ There is substantial evidence with regard to both behavior and achievement that early identification and intervention is more effective than later identification and intervention.” Executive Summary, p. 5


disproportionality overview

Documents

reschly disproportionality4is

special education exit

sp edtorgesen

grade black students

legal requirementstrend

mild disabilities ld

use of iq tests

early idtmt