1. Disproportionality Overview Dan Reschly Vanderbilt University dan.reschly@gmail.com 615-708-7910 March 6-7, 2013 Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Education Reschly Disproportionality 1

2. Vandy is #1 in Special Education 25 Consecutive Losing Seasons?? But 8-4 in 2012 Vanderbilt Is NOT A Football Power 2Reschly Disproportionality

3. 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_Iss ue_Paper_RTI_Disproportionality.pdf http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/TQ_Iss ue_Paper_RTI_Disproportionality.pdf 3Reschly Disproportionality

4. 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 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. 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? Is this a problem? If so, Why? What are the causes of this problem? What are the causes of this problem? What can be done about it? What can be done about it? Reschly Disproportionality4

5. Is this a problem? Why? CommentsComments1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Reschly Disproportionality5

6. Solutions to Significant Disproportionality Understanding current legal requirements Prevention, especially improving reading –~55% of 4 th 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 6Reschly Disproportionality

7. Irony of Disproportionate Representation Special Education for SWD with Mild Disabilities (LD, Mild MR, ED) Special Education for SWD with Mild Disabilities (LD, Mild MR, ED) Individualized educational programs with related services as needed, based on individual evaluation Individualized educational programs with related services as needed, based on individual evaluation Significantly greater expenditures Significantly greater expenditures Greater parent involvement Greater parent involvement Mandated annual review Mandated annual review Procedural safeguards Procedural safeguards 7Reschly Disproportionality

8. Irony of Disproportionate Representation cont. Why is disproportionate representation unacceptable? Why is disproportionate representation unacceptable? Overrepresentation per se? Consider Head Start and Title I Overrepresentation per se? Consider Head Start and Title I Assumptions about special education Assumptions about special education Stigma Stigma Poor outcomes Poor outcomes Limited curriculum and career options Limited curriculum and career options Often segregated programs (Mild MR & ED) Often segregated programs (Mild MR & ED) Differences in sp ed: Suburbs vs Cities Differences in sp ed: Suburbs vs Cities 8Reschly Disproportionality

9. Constructive Policies and Practices Based On Understanding legal requirements Understanding legal requirements Appropriate statistical analyses Appropriate statistical analyses Reasonable criteria to define “significant disproportionality” Reasonable criteria to define “significant disproportionality” Prevention in general education Prevention in general education Early identification-Early intervention Early identification-Early intervention Non-discrimination in evaluation and placement Non-discrimination in evaluation and placement Ensuring special education effectiveness Ensuring special education effectiveness 9Reschly Disproportionality

10. Part I: Public Policy Trends and Legal Requirements Trend toward reduced tolerance of differential results (NCLB, IDEA) Trend toward reduced tolerance of differential results (NCLB, IDEA) Reporting by group Reporting by group Demands for improvement Demands for improvement Trend toward fairness defined as equal results Trend toward fairness defined as equal results Legal requirements changed from process to results Legal requirements changed from process to results System change considerations System change considerations Prevention, Early id/tmt, and sp ed exiting Prevention, Early id/tmt, and sp ed exiting 10Reschly Disproportionality

11. Reschly Interpretation: Centrality of Outcomes: Judge Peckham commenting on the 1979 Trial Opinion ban on IQ tests, 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). 11Reschly Disproportionality

12. 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).” 12Reschly Disproportionality

13. Traditional EHA/IDEA Legal Requirements re: Nondiscrimination Process §300.304 Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part— §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; (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 Plus extensive additional requirements in the Evaluations and Re-evaluations section Process focus Process focus 13Reschly Disproportionality

14. Problems with Non-discrimination Regulations 1975 to 1997, 2004 No definition of discrimination No definition of discrimination Focus on assessment procedures (less on decision making) Focus on assessment procedures (less on decision making) Assumption that non-discrimination can be prevented through reforms in assessment, classification, and placement Assumption that non-discrimination can be prevented through reforms in assessment, classification, and placement Attempted to resolve group representation issues through individual mechanisms Attempted to resolve group representation issues through individual mechanisms Improved assessment for all, but little overall effect on minority over-representation Improved assessment for all, but little overall effect on minority over-representation 14Reschly Disproportionality

15. Disproportionality IDEA 2004, 2006 §300.173 Overidentification and disproportionality. §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. 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. 15Reschly Disproportionality

16. 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 (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 (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 (3) Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspension and expulsion 16Reschly Disproportionality

17. Disproportionality By Category 13 Categories of Disability at 34 C.F.R. 300.8 13 Categories of Disability at 34 C.F.R. 300.8 Greatest concern about MR, ED, LD, OHI, and Sp/L Greatest concern about MR, ED, LD, OHI, and Sp/L Significant disproportionality triggers policies and procedures reviews Significant disproportionality triggers policies and procedures reviews Disciplinary outcomes: suspension and expulsion Disciplinary outcomes: suspension and expulsion 17Reschly Disproportionality

18. Disproportionality by LRE Option Official Federal Placement Options re: Time Outside General Education Official Federal Placement Options re: Time Outside General Education ≤20 % Full-time General Education ≤20 % Full-time General Education 21% to 60% Part-time Special Education 21% to 60% Part-time Special Education >60% Full-time Special Education >60% Full-time Special Education Public or Private Separate Setting Public or Private Separate Setting Public or Private Residential Public or Private Residential Home or Hospital Home or Hospital Expect scrutiny of placement option representation in future Expect scrutiny of placement option representation in future 18Reschly Disproportionality

19. 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. (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. 19Reschly Disproportionality

20. 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 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). 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 Focused monitoring---Disproportionality listed as one of a small number of areas 20Reschly Disproportionality

21. Early Intervening Services § 300.226 Early intervening services. § 300.226 Early intervening services. LEA can use 15% of federal IDEA funds to support prevention and early identification-treatment LEA can use 15% of federal IDEA funds to support prevention and early identification-treatment Purpose: minimize over-identification and unnecessary sp ed referrals Purpose: minimize over-identification and unnecessary sp ed referrals Provide academic and behavioral supports Provide academic and behavioral supports Supports professional development and provision of interventions including early literacy instruction Supports professional development and provision of interventions including early literacy instruction Significant Disproportionality? Must spend 15% of the IDEA monies Significant Disproportionality? Must spend 15% of the IDEA monies 21Reschly Disproportionality

22. 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 22Reschly Disproportionality

23. 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/fa ctsheet-2009.doc State rankings are controversial, but highly “motivating” to states and districts http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/sppapr.html Part B IA “needs assistance-one year Part C IA “meets requirements” 23Reschly Disproportionality

24. Evidence on Special Education Priorities  OSEP Outcome Indicators Annual Reports by SEAs to OSEP Annual Reports by SEAs to OSEP Initial publication of State Results in June 2007 Initial publication of State Results in June 2007  State Personnel Development Grants Long standing OSEP grant program to states Long standing OSEP grant program to states Competitive grants Competitive grants SEA must base grant proposal on broad assessment of state needs over multiple constituencies SEA must base grant proposal on broad assessment of state needs over multiple constituencies 24Reschly Disproportionality

25. 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 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) 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 Applications to both category and placement option (≤20%, 21%-60%, >60%, etc.), and disciplinary actions Emphasis on prevention and early id/early tmt Emphasis on prevention and early id/early tmt Mandatory revision of policies and procedures if significant disproportionality exists Mandatory revision of policies and procedures if significant disproportionality exists 25Reschly Disproportionality

26. Part II: Does Iowa Have Significant Disproportionality?? Over- and Under-representation? Over- and Under-representation? Is under-representation important? Is under-representation important? What areas are relevant? What areas are relevant? Special Education Total and Category Special Education Total and Category Special Education Placement Option Special Education Placement Option Suspension and Expulsion in general and special education Suspension and Expulsion in general and special education 26Reschly Disproportionality

27. Part II: Does Iowa Have Significant Disproportionality?? What statistical analysis? What statistical analysis? What criteria What criteria Numerical guidelines? Numerical guidelines? Criteria varying by context? Criteria varying by context? Improvement criteria? Improvement criteria? Revisions in policies and practices? Revisions in policies and practices?

28. What WOULD CONSTITUTE OVERREPRESENTATION IN YOUR OPINION Factor of 1.5 or 1.5 times rate for other groups?Factor of 1.5 or 1.5 times rate for other groups? Factor of 2.0 or 2 times rate for other groupsFactor of 2.0 or 2 times rate for other groups Factor of 2.5Factor of 2.5 Factor of 3.0Factor of 3.0 How much is too much?How much is too much? What statistic?What statistic?

29. What Level is Too Much? Discussion:Discussion:

30. 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% 30Reschly Disproportionality

31. National Representation Statistics 15% of the US student population was African- American 15% of the US student population was African- American 33% of MR/ID students in special education in the USA were 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? 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% 31Reschly Disproportionality

32. National Representation Statistics 15% of the US student population was African- American 15% of the US student population was African- American 29% of E/BD students in special education in the USA were 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? 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% 32Reschly Disproportionality

36. What Statistic for Disproportionality? Risk: Percent of total group in sp ed category 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% 100 white in MR out of 2000 white students in the student population, 100÷2000=5% Risk=5% Risk=5% Composition: Percent of sp ed category by each group Composition: Percent of sp ed category by each group Total of 150 students in MR Total of 150 students in MR White composition of MR, 100 ÷ 150=67% White composition of MR, 100 ÷ 150=67% 36Reschly Disproportionality

37. Illustration of Risk and Composition Consider gender and teaching Consider gender and teaching Composition of educators by gender is heavily female, >80% Composition of educators by gender is heavily female, >80% “Risk” of being an educator for women is <1% “Risk” of being an educator for women is <1% Likewise with racial/ethnic group and special education representation Likewise with racial/ethnic group and special education representation Composition sometimes appears large Composition sometimes appears large Risk is relatively small Risk is relatively small 37Reschly Disproportionality

38. Comparing Risk Statistics Across Groups Relative Risk, ratio of two risk indices Relative Risk, ratio of two risk indices Useful for determining the severity of disproportionality Useful for determining the severity of disproportionality Two methods Two methods Risk of minority group to risk of white group Risk of minority group to risk of white group Risk of each group compared to the combined risk of the other groups Risk of each group compared to the combined risk of the other groups See calculation exercises See calculation exercises 38Reschly Disproportionality

39. 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 39Reschly Disproportionality

40. 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 40Reschly Disproportionality

41. Advantages/Disadvantages of Risk Statistics Accurate impressions of the actual proportions of minority students in sp ed Accurate impressions of the actual proportions of minority students in sp ed Directly comparable across groups Directly comparable across groups Equally useful regardless of whether the minority group is a large or small proportion of the overall population Equally useful regardless of whether the minority group is a large or small proportion of the overall population Used in determining relative risk index Used in determining relative risk index “Minimizes” the problem according to some “Minimizes” the problem according to some 41Reschly Disproportionality

42. Advantages/Disadvantages of Composition Statistics Dramatizes the problem, draws attention Dramatizes the problem, draws attention Cannot be compared directly across groups Cannot be compared directly across groups Always has to be interpreted in relation to population composition Always has to be interpreted in relation to population composition Usually misinterpreted, producing widespread distortions and confusion about sp ed disproportionality 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 Supports stereotypes of minority children, suggesting that a high proportion or even a majority have disabilities and are in sp ed Media favorite Media favorite 42Reschly Disproportionality

43. N RiskRel Risk Am/Ind91,49214.3%1.6 A-PI131,0994.7%0.5 Black1,231,92212.4%1.5 Hispanic1,034,1378.5%0.9 White3,498,0078.6%0.9 Total5,986,6579.1% Risk and Relative Risk All Disabilities Age 6-21 2006-2007 Year N is the number of students with disabilities age 6-21 The denominator is the estimated total population age 6-21 43Reschly Disproportionality

44. High Incidence = Speech/language, SLD, MR and ED Low Incidence = The remaining 9 IDEA categories Disproportionality Occurs In High Incidence Disabilities Reschly Disproportionality 44

45. 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 Reschly Disproportionality 45

46. 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 46Reschly Disproportionality

47. Iowa Disproportionality AEAs with relative risks > 2.0AEAs with relative risks > 2.0 Large district differences in special education enrollment: Waterloo and Burlington at >16%Large district differences in special education enrollment: Waterloo and Burlington at >16% Discipline disparitiesDiscipline disparities Patterns of disproportionality in Iowa?Patterns of disproportionality in Iowa? Ellen HelpEllen Help

48. FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES: School districts to report student-related data by the new race and ethnicity protocols.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 survey parents/guardians to collect this information. Each district to use the new 2-part question format when surveying parents/guardians.Each district to use the new 2-part question format when surveying parents/guardians.

49. Beginning with the 2010- 2011 school year, parents/guardians will be asked the following two questions...

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

51. QUESTION 2 What is your child’s race? ( You may choose more than one ) ( You may choose more than one ) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White 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.

52. ETHNIC CODE CHOICES Current Ethnic Codes: A – White B – Black/African American C – Asian/Pacific Islander D – American Indian/Alaska Native E – Hispanic/Latino

53. ETHNIC CODE CHOICES New Ethnic Codes: A – White B – Black or African American C – Asian D – American Indian/Alaska Native E – Hispanic or Latino P – Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander T – Multiracial/multiethnic

54. 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. 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.

55. 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.

56. EXAMPLE 1: Is your child Hispanic/Latino? NO What is your child’s race? ( You may choose more than one ) x American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Asian Black or African American Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White White Student will be reported as American Indian / Alaska Native

57. EXAMPLE 2: Is your child Hispanic/Latino? YES What is your child’s race? ( You may choose more than one ) x American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Asian Black or African American Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White White **Student will be reported as Hispanic/Latino

58. EXAMPLE 3: Is your child Hispanic/Latino? YES What is your child’s race? ( You may choose more than one ) x American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Asian x Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White White **Student will be reported as Hispanic/Latino

59. EXAMPLE 4: Is your child Hispanic/Latino? NO What is your child’s race? ( You may choose more than one ) American Indian or Alaska Native American Indian or Alaska Native x Asian x Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander x White **Student will be reported as Multiracial/multiethnic

60. 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

61. IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGES IN RACE/ETHNICITY POLICY? Prior results may changePrior results may change Example: CCSD annual analysisExample: CCSD annual analysis Changes in population (denominator)Changes in population (denominator) Reduced whiteReduced white Reduced Asian/Pacific IslanderReduced Asian/Pacific Islander Increased HispanicIncreased Hispanic Reduced African-AmericanReduced African-American Increased Two or More race/ethnicitiesIncreased Two or More race/ethnicities Two years, large changes, not stable yet

62. Criteria for Significant Disproportionality No precise numerical guidelines (Grutter and Gratz Supreme Court Cases) No precise numerical guidelines (Grutter and Gratz Supreme Court Cases) Tenative Guidelines: Tenative Guidelines: Relative Risk of (RR) 1.0 to 1.2 acceptable Relative Risk of (RR) 1.0 to 1.2 acceptable RR of 1.2 to 1.5 moderate, questionable, more study RR of 1.2 to 1.5 moderate, questionable, more study RR of 1.5-2.0 Clearly significant RR of 1.5-2.0 Clearly significant RR > 2.0 Highly significant, nearly certain scrutiny RR > 2.0 Highly significant, nearly certain scrutiny 62Reschly Disproportionality

63. 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%20Tech nical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Tech nical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf 63Reschly Disproportionality

64. Prevalence and Disproportionality in SEAs and LEAs Enormous variations across SEAs Enormous variations across SEAs Enormous variations across LEAs within a state Enormous variations across LEAs within a state Variations are not easily explained Variations are not easily explained Failures to explain prevalence variations in MR/ID and ED Failures to explain prevalence variations in MR/ID and ED 64Reschly Disproportionality

65. Disproportionality Conclusions 1.Disproportionality is an international issue 2.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 65Reschly Disproportionality

66. 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 66Reschly Disproportionality

67. 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 67Reschly Disproportionality

68. Part III: Causes of Disproportionality National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html 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. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 68Reschly Disproportionality

69. Causes of Disproportionality Discussion: What are the causes of disproportionality?Discussion: What are the causes of disproportionality? 1.1. 2.2. 3.3. 4.4. 5.5.

70. Causes of Overrepresentation Biological factors Biological factors Social factors Social factors General education experiences General education experiences Special education system Special education system 70Reschly Disproportionality

71. 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? 71Reschly Disproportionality

72. Many More Black Children are Born at Low Birthweight 72Reschly Disproportionality

73. Do Social Factors Contribute Social Bases-Yes Social Bases-Yes Less supportive environments for language and cognitive development; poorer preparation for reading and academic achievement generally, less direct teaching Less supportive environments for language and cognitive development; poorer preparation for reading and academic achievement generally, less direct teaching Substantial Difference Exist at Kindergarten Substantial Difference Exist at Kindergarten 73Reschly Disproportionality

74. Disadvantaged Children Are Less Well Prepared for Schooling Percent first time kindergartners by print familiarity scores 0 skills 3 skills 74Reschly Disproportionality

75. Disadvantaged Children Are Less Well Prepared for Schooling Percent first time kindergartners. Teacher ratings of anti- social behavior. Fight with Others Never Often 75Reschly Disproportionality

77. 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 77Reschly Disproportionality

80. Prevention of Disproportionate Representation NRC Panel Report Major Conclusion 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 80Reschly Disproportionality