Unpacking the Baggage of disproportionate representation of minority

Unpacking the Baggage of disproportionate representation of minority children in special education Presented by, Ben Ditkowsky, Ph. D. Mrs. Elouise Jones

Introduction • Disproportionate Representation of minority children in special education is: – Over-identification, – under-identification, or – misidentification, • Disproportionate Representation of minority children means children are: – Placed in an environment that is more restrictive than what would be in the educational best interest of the child (misserved), or – underserved • Disproportionate Representation of minority children can lead to: – inappropriate educational placement and – educational failure.

The beliefs and realities of disproportionate representation Belief All minorities are overrepresented in sp ed The data indicate: Compared to Caucasian students, African American and Native American students are overrepresented, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students are underrepresented Belief A large percentage of black and Native American students are in special education. The data indicate : Overall rates are slightly higher. Caucasian =12. 1%; Native American =13. 1% ; African American =14. 2% Belief Hispanic students are overrepresented The data indicate : Hispanic students are slightly underrepresented

The beliefs and realities of disproportionate representation Belief The greatest degree of disproportional representation occurs with African American students The data indicate: students who are Asian/Pacific Islander are underrepresented by a much larger degree that African American students are overrepresented Belief IQ tests cause overrepresentation The data indicate : Many reasons exist to eliminate IQ tests, but they have little overall effect on overrepresentation

National Status for All Disability Categories

Legal Perspective • Hobson vs. Hanson (1967) – Maintained that tracking denied equal education for minorities. • Diana vs. CA State Board Of Education (1970) – Non-discriminatory testing provision (i. e. , testing done in native language). • Guadalupe vs. Tempe (1972) – Upheld non-discriminatory testing. • Lau vs. Nichols (1974) – Again, Non-discriminatory testing; San Francisco LEP students. • Larry P. vs. Riles (1972, 1979, 1984) – Barred use of IQ scores as sole determiner of student placement.

Legal Perspective • PASE vs. Hannon (1980) – Upheld the use of IQ test scores BUT – other assessment measures used, too. • Lee vs. Macon (1967, Alabama - Paolino, 2002) – 2000 decision, mandated “mechanisms to correct: ” • African American overrepresentation in MR, ED. • Underrepresentation in areas of LD, gifted. • One of the longest active cases on record.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ACT (IDEA, 1997) 34 CFR 300. 755: Disproportionality. (a) General. Each State that receives assistance under Part B of the Act, and the Secretary of the Interior, shall providefor forthe thecollection and examination of data to to determine ififsignificant determine significant disproportionality based on race is occurring in the State or in the schools operated by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to –

Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act 2004 • IDEA 2004 requires that states have policies and procedures in effect to prevent the inappropriate identification or disproportionate representation of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity, .

What might be wrong with disproportionate representation? 1. The Potential of negative effects of stigmatizing labels, 2. Limited access to general education settings, and curriculum 3. There is no consistent and conclusive evidence that special education programs are effective! Losen & Orfield, 2002 ; Hosp & Reschly, 2003

A visual aid (to represent our children)

A visual aid (to represent our children) Students who require intensive support (i. e. , Special Education) Students who require additional support (i. e. , Title 1 etc…) General Education Students

Common indices of representation The index used depends on the question we ask… • Composition Index – What percent of Special Education students are Ethnic X? • Risk Index – What percent of Ethnic X children are in special education? • Risk Ratio – How likely is it that Ethnic X children are identified as needing special education as compared to Caucasian children?

The statistics of over - representation I think you need to be more explicit about step two?

Composition Index The composition index is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial or ethnic group by the total special education student enrollment. Students in Special Education who are Ethnic X Composition = Index ALL Students who are in Special Education

Composition Index The Composition Index only looks at the composition of Special Education Let’s say there are 80 students in special education 36 of those students are Ethnic X In this example, 45% of special education students are Ethnic X The Composition index is 45%.

Does 45% indicate disproportionate representation? If 45% of the special education population is Ethnic X, it could mean 1. There are many children who are Ethnic X in the district. 2. The children in the district who are Ethnic X are mostly in special education Do we have enough information?

Risk Index The risk index is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial or ethnic group by the total enrollment for that racial or ethnic group in the school population. Risk = Students in Special Education who are Ethnic X Students who are Ethnic X

Risk Index (example) • Let’s say 165 of students are Ethnic X • The Risk Index (for Ethnic X students) would be calculated as Ethnic X students in Sp Ed Risk = All Ethnic X students Risk = Ethnic X students in Sp Ed Risk = All Ethnic X students 36 X students in Sp Ed 165 X students Risk = 21. 8%

Does 21. 8% indicate disproportionate representation? If 21. 8% of the Ethnic X population is in special education, it could mean 1. One in five children who Ethnic X are in special education in the district. Do we have enough information?

Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio) The risk ratio is a comparative index of risk. It is the preferred indicator of disproportionate representation by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

RISK RATIO (Odds Ratio) The risk ratio is calculated by dividing the risk index of one racial or ethnic group by the risk index of another group. Risk Ratio = [ [ Ethnic X students in Sp Ed Risk index for X All Ethnic X students Caucasian students in Sp Ed Risk index for C All Caucasian students ] ]

Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio) There are proportionally more Ethnic X students in With our example data, Let’s say that Sp. Ed than Caucasian • Approximately 12. 8% of Caucasian students are in special education students. • We have seen that 21. 8% of Ethnic X students are in special education…. • The risk ratio would be calculated as… Risk Ratio = 21. 8% Ethnic X 12. 8% Caucasian 1. 70

How to Interpret the Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio) • 1. 0 means equal risk, this is ideal • Values greater than 1. 0 – begin to suggest “over-representation”, – but some variation is expected • 2. 0 or more means significant overidentification is likely • Statistics are available to determine precisely when the risk ratio can not be explained by chance.

Disproportionate representation Could this be correct?

Disproportionate representation National Trends for Mental Retardation (MR) • Composition: – 35% of students identified as MR are African American; – 17% of the overall student population is African-American • Risk: – 2. 6% of African Americans are identified as MR – 1. 1% of Caucasian students • Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio): – Rate for African Americans is 2. 4 times higher than that of Caucasian Students • No other groups are overrepresented in MR www. ideadata. org

Disproportionate representation National Trends for Emotional Disturbance (ED) • Composition: – 26. 4% of students identified as ED are African American; – 17% of the overall student population is African-American • Risk: – 1. 6% of African Americans are identified as ED • Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio): – Rate for African Americans is 1. 6 times higher than that of Caucasian Students • No other groups are overrepresented in ED www. ideadata. org

Disproportionate representation National Trends for Learning Disabilities (LD) • Composition: – 1. 37% of students identified as LD are Native American Indian; – 1. 1 % of the overall student population is Native American Indian • Risk: – 7. 3% of Native American Indian are identified as LD – 6. 1% of Caucasian students • Risk Ratio (Odds Ratio): – Rate for Native American Indians is 1. 2 times higher than that of Caucasian Students • No other groups are overrepresented in LD www. ideadata. org

What is disproportionate representation in Illinois? q To determine significant disproportionality ISBE plans to utilize multiple measures over time to identify districts with disproportionate representation q The ISBE plan is to use a Risk Ratio to determine disproportionality – A significant disproportionality is considered a weighted risk ratio of 2. 0 or higher for any racial/ethnic group (North Central Regional Resource Center; NCRRC). – weighted risk ratio for districts with an enrollment of greater than 1000 students; – and alternate risk ratio for districts with an enrollment of less than 1000 students. q Illinois plans to utilize a tiered approach to intervention with districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. http: //www. isbe. state. il. us/spec-ed/pdfs/state_performance. pdf

Trend in Illinois (African American) • Trends are fairly stable – But increasing slightly… – AA students are around 1. 2 to 1. 3 times as likely to be identified as special education compared to Caucasian counterparts BASELINE

Trend in Illinois (Hispanic) • Trends are fairly stable – Rapidly increasing – While Hispanic students less likely than thier Caucasian counterparts to be identified for Special Education, this trend appears to be changing BASELINE

Trend in Illinois (Asian) BASELINE

Trend in Illinois (Native American) BASELINE

Trend in Illinois (Caucasian) BASELINE

Trend for Emotional Disorder in Illinois (African American) BASELINE

Trend for Mental Retardation in Illinois (African American) BASELINE

Trend for Specific Learning Disability in Illinois (African American) BASELINE

Is there disproportionate representation in Illinois? • African American students appear to be far more likely to be identified as – Mentally Retarded – Emotionally Disturbed and – to a lesser extent Learning Disabled than their Caucasian counterparts

Why? Factors Contributing to Disproportionate Representation School level factors: – – ineffective academic curriculum and behavioral supports inadequate instructional and classroom management skills poor support and referral systems for students at risk insufficient support for teachers working with culturally diverse groups

Why? Factors Contributing to Disproportionate Representation Other Factors: – – Effects of poverty Limited English proficiency Residence in inner cities Race/ethnicity factors that contribute to referrals, testing, and incorrect placement of children from racial and ethnic minorities in special education classes

The Achievement Gap • Overrepresented minority students – Lower academic readiness for school, print familiarity, letter knowledge, word knowledge, vocabulary – Lower behavioral readiness for school as rated by minority and white students – Gaps in achievement persist Hart and Risley, 1995

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

HOW? ? Multi-tier academic and behavioral interventions – High quality reading and math programs – School wide positive behavior supports – Focused interventions for small groups – Effective classroom management – Intensive problem solving

Disproportionality Prevention • History of Efforts – No magic bullets – No magic tests or adjustments to tests – No simple solutions • Solutions – Early Intervention – Directly address achievement gaps, – Provide supportive behavior programs – Apply validated intervention principles