disproportionate representation in special education (why some students groups are identified for...

Disproportionate Representation

In Special Education

(Why Some student groups are identified for

services more than others)

“the extent to which membership in a given ethnic group affects the probability of being placed in a specific special education disability category (e.g., students with mild mental retardation).”

Oswald et al., 1999

Disproportionate Representation:

Presented by Brent Daigle, Ph.D. (ABD)

Risk Ratio Formula

Risk -- A racial/ethnic group’s probability or risk of having a particular disability

Risk Ration – Compares the risk for one racial/ethnic group to the risk for all other groups


Part B IDEA (ages 3-5 and 6-21) Pub. L. 108-446; 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et. seq.

• Section 612 NEW: (a)(24) state plan has to include policies and procedures “designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionality…”


Evaluation, Eligibility Determinations, IEPs

Placements and Bias: 6141. Evaluation procedures (614)(b)(2)(A) The

district shall use a variety of assessment tools…2. Each district shall ensure that assessments and

other evaluation tools …(3) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis: The IDEA references unintended bias here.

3. What IDEA is calling for is for states to look at the racially disparate effects of tool selection and administration.


Beyond Biased Tests

• Tools themselves need not be biased to be discriminatory.

• Look at what measures are used, and not used, and the weight attributed to scores.

• Non-compliance can result if the administration or evaluation procedure has a discriminatory effect.


614: Exposure to Poor Instruction or LEP

(b)(5)Rule out, as the determinant factor: • The need for services that arise from bad

instruction in:– Reading – or Math – or because of LEP status.

• Was in 1997 Act, but can expect renewed attention to this provision.


Considerations could include…

• Is the referring teacher highly qualified?

• Experienced with diverse learners?

• Adequately trained to teach reading and math?

• Having classroom management problems?


LRE and Minority Exclusion

• Right to special education and related services in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate.

• Calls for an individualized determination – the category of disability should not drive the placement.

• Increased risk for being labeled MR or ED should not mean greater exclusion from the regular education setting.


Revised 618

• New Data (618)(a)• Racial and ethnic disparities in the incidence and duration

of discipline including suspensions of one day or more.• Gender and English Language Learners added for

collection and reporting.• Annual public reporting of data at the state level.


Revised 618 (d)

• New Requirements (618)(d): analyze district level data for significant disparities by race and ethnicity in identification,placement, and incidence and duration of discipline.

• Intervention required where problems are evident (similar to 1997 Act language).

• Public reporting of interventions at the district level.• Finding of significant disproportionality in identification or placement

triggers 15% spending (the maximum) on early intervention services under 613(f).

• The funds are triggered by significant disproportionality, independent of a finding of non-compliance.


613 (f) Early Intervention Services

• Up to 15% of Part B funds on students who are at risk but not deemed eligible under IDEA

• 613(f) spending for regular education triggered by significant disproportionality: Further evidence that “inappropriate” encompasses far more than a specific finding of non-compliance with IDEA.


Monitoring and Enforcement Priority Area in New Law 612 and 616 (July 2005)

• 616(a)(1)(C): The Secretary monitors the states and ensures that the States monitor the districts.

• 616: (a)(3) Monitoring Priorities: “Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification - in identification” is one of three priority areas for the U.S. Secretary of Education.

• States must develop a plan of district oversight and action withrigorous measurement and set targets

• Required state intervention where inappropriate identification is a recurring problem.

• 612: State plan covers all of 618(d) – must show that state has policies and procedures in place to address disproportionality.


What Does The New IDEA Accomplish?

• The investigation isn’t limited to the question of compliance with IDEA

• 616: Targets racial/ethnic disparities result of inappropriate identification.

• Permits state to address unconscious bias, which is certainly “inappropriate” under IDEA.

• Many other practices and deficiencies in regular education can result in “inappropriate identification.”


What does Idea Accomplish…• State Plan: 612 (a)(24) - has to include policies

and procedures “designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionality…” References 618 (d) (not a subpart)

• 616 should mean developing rigorous targets with measurable benchmarks to address the problem….

• Secretary’s monitoring of states includes how well are states monitoring the districts in the priority areas.


Legal and Policy Challenges

• Problem with focus on special education compliance when changing regular education may be the solution….

• Section 613(f) – and limited resources• How do limits on numeric racial goals –

square with NCLB? With desegregation requirements? With remediation of racial bias?


What Should States Do?

• Transparency is the best policy: Report publicly on the State and Districts with regard to each area of data collection in section 618.

• Significant racial or ethnic disparity in identification or placement, including disciplinary placements, triggers 15% Early Intervening Services expenditures.

• Look for inappropriate identification due to factors in regular education that are not specifically delineated in IDEA, including unconscious bias.


Non Compliance and Other Factors

• Discriminatory effect of method or administration of evaluation.

• Inappropriate identification due to shortcomings of regular education classroom, including instruction in reading and math, and poor classroom management.

• Consideration of LEP status• Examination of subtle and unconscious forms of

bias• Inadequate resources, overcrowded classrooms,

etc.Presented by Brent Daigle, Ph.D. (ABD)

Risk Ratios

• First calculate the risk for each racial group of having a particular disability. For example, “What percent of all the enrolled Black students have mental retardation?”

• Compare to another racial group:• 1.0 means the same risk• 2.0 means twice as likely• .5 means half as likely


Subjectivity of Evaluation and Identification

• Myth of objectivity – who is being referred?• Most referred students are identified as eligible• Controversy due to misdiagnosis: 10 out of 55 LD

misdiagnosed – and that was the most favorable study

• Who to test, what test to use, how to weigh the results, how to interpret the score

• IDEA provision bars discriminatory methods – is there much training in culturally sensitive measures?


Overidentification and IQ

• Construction of difference: the cut score: Does having an IQ cut score of 85 make sense?

• Risk of misdiagnosis is high.

• The IQ/ achievement differential – problems:– IQ is just another achievement test

– IQ measures poverty and other environmental factors

– IQ is fungible


IEP Process and Politics: Qualitative Research Indicates

• Parents voices are often ignored – especially poor and minority parents

• High degree of deference to the “experts” and their tests so that the conclusions of specialists are rarely doubted by parents or educators.

• Teachers are often reluctant to contradict team members (especially superiors).

• Behavioral issues in the general classroom may drive referral rates higher.


Are Significant Racial Disparities Explained Away by Poverty?

• Regression analysis says no.

• Blacks and Latinos have divergent patterns for MR, ED and SLD identification, yet similar poverty and reading achievement profiles.

• Gender differences for risk for MR among Blacks are far greater than among Whites


States With Extraordinarily High Percentages of Students with Mental Retardation (MR) are Mostly in the South

0 01

4

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

White Black

States where MR over5 % of enrolledStates where MR over4 % of enrolledStates where MR over2.75 % of enrolled

OSEP 2000-2001 DATA available at www.ideadata.org. The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia (8 of 13 are southern). Iowa does not use the IQ discrepancy test.

OSEP 2000-2001 DATA available at www.ideadata.org. The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia (8 of 13 are southern). Iowa does not use the IQ discrepancy test.


Black Males

In the most profound example, contrary to expectations, as factors associated with wealth and better schooling increase, Black males are at greater risk of being disproportionately labeled “mentally retarded.”

(See Oswald, Coutinho and Best, “Community and School Predictors of Over Representation of Minority Children in Special Education” in Racial Inequity in Special Education)


Risk Ratios of “Mental Retardation” and “Hard” Disability Categories for Blacks Compared to Whites

Category CT TX NJ Fl NC MS Mental Retardation 4.76 3.21 3.60 3.91 4.08 4.31 Hearing Impairment 1.22 1.22 1.09 1.31 1.09 1.57 Visual Impairment 1.60 1.08 1.09 1.12 0.94 1.44

Data from Tom Parrish - 1998/1999 school year - OSEP data.Data from Tom Parrish - 1998/1999 school year - OSEP data.


Restriction Risk by Disability Category

• 80-90 percent of students with MR, and over 70 percent with ED are educated in resource rooms or substantially separate settings.

• Approximately 56 percent of students with specific learning disabilities are in full inclusion placements (pulled out less than 21 percent of the school day)

• Overrepresentation for ED and MR significantly increases the risk for blacks of being educated in a substantially separate program


Similarly Situated?

• Few states report data on racial disparities for inclusion within a disability category.

• Can the greater risk for segregation be explained by the greater risk for MR and SED alone?

• Data from CT suggests the answer is no.


The Civil Rights Project and The National Research Council Say…

• School policies and decisions are contributing factors -

• Accountability efforts should ensure that minority students are making meaningful academic progress, while reducing racial disparities in special education.

• Inadequate teacher training and support for classroom and behavior management likely contributes to the problem of racial disproportionality.


Areas of Agreement Continued…• To focus on reducing numeric disparities alone, without

ensuring that minority students are making meaningful academic progress, is ill advised.


What Should the Remedy Look Like?

• Change the numbers: Reduce the differential? The risk? The risk ratio?

• When are racial goals be permissible? Desirable? Should the goals be driven by the context?

• Early Intervention Services?

• Improve the quality of regular education?

• Assuming institutional racism contributes – how can you change that?


disproportionate representation in special education (why some students groups are identified for...

Education

brent daigle

risk ratio formula risk

given ethnic group

mild mental retardation

servicesmore thanothers