1. Disproportionality

2. A History of Disproporitionality
Throughout our history there has been concerns regarding an over identification of African Americans and minorities in special education, the welfare system and within our prisons.
It has been only in the past decade that the federal government has stepped in and mandated states to look at the issue of disproportionality within the school system.

3. Government Involvement
The first mandate by the federal government occurred in 1997 when President Clinton passed the reauthorization of Individual with disabilities Act (IDEA '97).
As an attempt to address the issue of disproportionality in special education the federal government mandated that all states collect and report enrollment data by race/ethnicity, in the areas of special education, school discipline and school enrollment.

4. What is disproportionality?
What is race? What is ethnicity?
Is this a problem in 2009?
Why has America continued to struggle with race / ethnicity long after the civil rights movement?
What are the origins of disproportionality?
How does the race issue apply to education today?

5. US Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and U. S
US Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and U.S. Office of Special Programs (OSP) concerns
Students may be unserved or receive services that do not meet their needs.
Students may be misclassified or inappropriately labeled
Placement in special education classes may be a form of discrimination.

6. Nationally, African Americans and Latinos once identified as eligible for special education services
ARE:
Far less likely than whites to be educated in a fully inclusive general education classroom
Far more likely to be educated in a substantially separate setting.
Once referred for a special education evaluation, African Americans have a 60%-70% chance of being labeled with a disability.
“Racial Inequity in Special Education” Losen & Orfield.

7. Impact on Life Course and Social Development of African and Latino Students
Increased suspension/expulsion
Lower graduation rates
Lower college entrance / completion
Increased involvement in Juvenile Justice System
Decreased employment
Continued cycle of disproportionate poverty
On and on….

8. African-Americans exceed the percentage of their resident population in 10 of the 13 disability categories.
Boston Public Schools statistic:
African American students comprise 49% of the BPS population
71% of students in substantially separate placements for Emotional Impairment are African Americans.

9. Consider This:
Many of the students in substantially separate placements will not be considered disabled once they leave school….

10. The IDEA regulation states:
(1)IN GENERAL - Each State that receives assistance under this part, and the Secretary of the Interior, shall provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproporitionality based on race is occurring in the State with respect to -
A) 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 6032(3); and
(B) the placement in particular educational settings of such children 20 U.S.C. Section 1418(c)(1)

11. States were instructed to collect and examine data to assess whether any racial/ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in special education disability and educational environment categories.
States were not requiring school districts to analyze the data and correct identified areas of under or overrepresentation.
Neither the law nor the implementing regulations specify what criteria should be used to determined significant disproporitionality.

12. In fiscal years and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) OSEP reviewed State Biennial performance reports. disproporitionality. If information was not found in their reports, states were contacted by telephone and electronic mail between August and December 2001.
As a result of these reports OSEP discovered that as of 1999 only twenty nine states had specific criteria for determining disproporitionality.
Twenty six states have a single criterion and three states have multiple criteria.
The most common criteria was percentage point discrepancy on an intelligence test. There were vast differences between states. For example, ten states used a percentage point discrepancy for determining disproporitionality.
Results of the January 5, 2000 Biennial performance Report indicates that Arkansas used an 8.5 percentage point discrepancy, and Pennsylvania uses a 5 point discrepancy. In addition to the two states that use a percentage point discrepancy, four states use slightly different discrepancy criteria based on percentages of raw numbers.

13. Connecticut: disproporitionality exists if the actual prevalence is less than one half or more than two times that racial/ethnic group’s representation in the total student population.
West Virginia: the criterion for overrepresentation is two times the percentage of students in a racial/ ethnic group found in the school district’s total enrollment.
Delaware: the percentage of a racial/ethnic group in the total population is calculated and multiplied by .2.That product (in percentage) is the maximum percentage point discrepancy.
Ten states apply a statistical significance test to determine if their data are disproportionate. This means that a statistical test determines if the actual number from a racial/ethnic group differs from the percentage of that racial/ethnic group in the total student population; more than would be expected by chance.
Maryland, Missouri, New York, Oregon and Texas use a chi-square test. Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Dakota use z scores.
Colorado uses a t-test3.
One state, Wyoming uses a confidence interval to determine disproporitionality.
Alabama, North Dakota and Tennessee calculate disproporitionality using an odds ratio.
California and Idaho determine disproporitionality using the E-formula. (Markowitz 2002).

14. In conjunction with OSEP and Project FORUM’s work on its Cooperative Agreement with OSEP, state criteria were examined and analyzed. As a result of their report, many concerns and issues were raised during the course of the analysis. Six major concerns that were addressed are as follows: (U.S. DOE Cooperative Agreement no.H326F )
There was concern about the accuracy and utility of race/ethnicity data in light of the increasing number of children with mixed race heritage.
There is concern about the assignment of race/ethnicity category to individual students because the procedure is often not standard within a state or LEA. In some schools, an office staff person assigns a student’s race/ethnicity based on observation, whereas in other schools parents/guardians are asked to designate the race/ethnicity of the child they are enrolling.

15. There is concern about the commitment of resources based on data collections plagued by inaccuracy and inconsistency.
Determination of disproporitionality in an LEA usually triggers the release of state education agency funds in the form of technical assistance or increased monitoring.
Some states reported that disproporitionality criteria were set to identify only districts with the most blatant disproporitionality because there are limited state resources to address the problem.
Some states’ criteria for determining disproporitionality identify overrepresentation but not under representation
It is not clear whether state criteria for determining racial/ethnic disproporitionality take factors such as income, education, health, culture, and demographics into consideration as noted in the IDEA implementing regulations.

16. Respondents, both states with and without state guidelines communicated informally that their states struggle with how to apply criteria in light of the fact that school district size and racial/ethnic composition may vary greatly within a state. When the number of students involved is very small, the use of percentages can be very misleading.
As a result OSEP convened a task force in January 2003 to discuss methodologies for calculating disproporitionality.
States received assistance from the (OSEP) and Westat in developing methods for assessing racial / ethnic disproporitionality in Special Education.

17. OSEP's taskforce, Westat, developed a technical assistance guide
OSEP's taskforce, Westat, developed a technical assistance guide. While there are many different methods of calculating disproporitionality, OSEP trained states on two of the more common methods: composition and risk.
While each method represents a different way of reporting the same data, each answers a different question about racial /ethnic disproporitionality.
Both suggest methods have strengths and limitations. OSEP recommended that states use enrollment data rather than population data. This data is available at the school and district level and have significantly higher degrees of accuracy than population data.
OSEP requires that states examine disproporitionality at the district level. As a result states should use a denominator that is comparable for all levels of analysis. Massachusetts compares district data to state enrollment data.
Both methods will be briefly reviewed. (Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproporitionality in Special Education; A Technical Assistance Guide)

18. Composition Method
The Composition Method for calculating disproporitionality answers the question:
"What percentage of students receiving special education and related services either for a particular disability or in a particular educational environment are from a specific racial / ethnic group?“
The equation for composition is:
Composition = (Number of students from racial/ethnic groups in disability or educational environment category / Number of students in disability or educational environment category) * 100

19. Composition Method Limitation
Is that states and districts which have extremely homogeneous racial/ethnic distributions. When a state or district's student enrollment is composed almost entirely of one racial/ethnic group, it can become impossible to demonstrate racial/ethnic disproportionality using composition.
Thus, states which have homogeneous racial/ethnic distributions should not use the composition method under these circumstances.

20. Risk Method
The Risk Method for calculating disproporitionality, when applied to a disability category answers the question:
"What percentage of students from a specific racial/ethnic group receives special education and related services for a particular disability?"
Risk, when applied to an educational environment category answers the question:
"What percentage of students with disabilities from a specific racial/ethnic group receives special education and related services in a particular educational environment?"
To answer this question, the risk denominator is students with disabilities rather than student enrollment. This denominator is used because only students with disabilities receive special education and related services in the educational environment categories.
The equation for Risk is:
Risk = (Number of students from racial/ethnic group in disability category / Number of enrolled students from racial/ethnic group) *100.

21. Strength of the Risk Method
It is useful when discussing a racial/ethnic group's probability of receiving special education and related services either for a particular disability or in a particular educational environment.
Unlike composition, risk does not vary with a state or district's underlying racial/ethnic distribution. The risk for each racial/ethnic group, however, is directly related to overall special education identification rates.

22. Risk Ratio
The risk ratio, when applied to disability category, answers the question, "What is a specific racial/ethnic group's risk of receiving special education and related services for a particular disability as compared to the risk for all other students.
The equation for the risk ratio is:
Risk ratio = Risk for racial/ethnic group for disability category / Risk for comparison group for disability category.
The risk ratio, when applied to an educational environment category, answers the question, "Given the risk for special education, what is a specific racial/ethnic group's risk for receiving special education and related services in a particular educational environment as compared to the risk for all other students.
Risk ratio = Risk for racial/ethnic group for educational environment category / Risk for comparison group for the educational environment category.

23. From 1997 to 2004
States had to determine criteria for defining significant disproportionality and apply these criteria to all analysis.
States were required to identify any significant disproportionality identified by the criteria for review and as appropriate, revise policies procedures and practices.
States were required to assess disproportionality at both the state and district levels. Disproportionality may be widespread at the district level even when there is no significant disproportionality at the state level.

24. OSEP’s Advice to States
When addressing disproportionality not to set targets that include numerical goals based on race/ethnicity.
For examples states should not set targets stating that they will reduce risk ratios to a certain value.
Nor should they set targets stating they will reduce disproportionality so the race/ethnic composition of the disability or educational environment category is more similar to the racial/ethnic composition of the total student enrollment.
Targets that include numerical goals based on race/ethnicity raise serious concerns under federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution

25. OSEP Recommendations to States
Instead of setting targets that include numerical goals based on race/ethnicity, states should set targets that focus on what will be done if significant disproportionality is identified.
For example, a state could set a target stating, “The state will provide technical assistance when noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices are identified. Any non compliant policies, procedures, and practices will be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year of identification”.
Or, the state could set a target stating, “The state will examine the policies, procedures, and practices in the 10 or 15 districts where disproportionality is most serious to ensure that these districts are complying with the requirements stated in Part B of the IDEA”.
Targets such as these do not raise concerns about civil rights violations.

26. March 2004
Westat reconvened the task force to continue discussion issues related to assessing racial/ethnic disproportionality.
The criterion and elements which states must now look at disproportionality is continuously expanding at the state level. This is a direct result of NCLB.

27. When President Bush signed into law a second reauthorization of IDEA in December of 2004, states were given until July 2005 to implement the new regulation requirements identified in “Section 618(d).
States are required to have policies and procedures designed to prevent disproportionality by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in Section 602(Definitions) 612(a) (24). “

28. (OSERS alignment with the No Child Left behind Act)
Each state that receives federal funds under IDEA must provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality, based on race and ethnicity, is occurring in the state and the local educational agencies (LEAs) of the state with respect to

29. . The identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with disabi8lities in accordance with a particular impairment described in Section 602(3);
2. The placement in particular educational setting of such children; and
3. The incidence, duration and type of disciplinary actions, including suspension and expulsions. (IDEA (d) (1)
This law also mandates that states have a process in place to review policies and procedures. In instances where significant disproportionality exists the law requires states to:
1. Provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures and practices to ensure these policies, procedures and practices comply with the requirements of IDEA:
2. Require any LEA identified under Section 613(f) to reserve the maximum amount of funds under Section 613(f), to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services, particularly to service children in those groups that are significantly over identified under Section 681(d)(1) An
3. Require the LEA to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices and procedures described under Section 618(d) (1) (A).
The statute also authorizes technical assistance, demonstration projects, dissemination of information and implementation of scientifically based research.

30. Activities that may be carried out under Section 663 include activities to improve services provided under IDEA, including the practices of professionals and others involved in providing such services to children with disabilities through demonstrating models of personnel preparation to ensure appropriate placements and services for all students, and to reduce disproportionality in eligibility, placement and disciplinary actions for minority and limited English proficient children and disseminating information on how to reduce inappropriate racial and ethnic disproportionalities identified under Section 618(663(c)(9)- (10).

31. References Bibliography Idea - Reauthorized Statute
Minority Disproportionality, meeting the Mandates of IDEA 97: Minority Overrepresentation and School Discipline, February 12, 2004 Safe and Responsive Schools Project
National Association of State Directors of Special Education Project Forum
Markowitz, J. State Criteria for Determining Disproportionality. February 2002 Project Forum
Coutinho, M. Disproportionate representation in special education; A synthesis and recommendations. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9,
Saywitz, K. J., Mannarion, A. P., Berliner, L., & Cohen, J. A.
(2000). Treatment for sexually abused children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 55,