Transcript Dodging A Perfect Storm: RTI, Disproportionality & IDEA

Racial/Ethnic Inappropriate
Identification: Are SPP Indicators
Making a Difference?
Leadership for Equity and
Excellence Forum
Sue Gamm, Esq.
 Context
 SPP 9 & 10 Data
 Monitoring Model
 Failure to Identify
Illinois State Board of Education
2
More than 30 Years Later
AA Students Increasingly
Overrepresented in ID/EI
Intellectual Disability increased by 3%:
 AA increased by 7%
 Hispanic, Asian increased some
but usually underidentified
Emotional Disability
AA increased by 71%
Hispanic, Asian, American Indian:
Not much risk increase
Due to Poverty?
 The largest gender gap is
between African American girls
and boys
 There are relatively little or no
racial/ethnic differences among
students with medically
diagnosed disabilities
Early Access
To Language?
Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences
 Average number of words
children heard per hour ranged
from 2,153 to 616
 Extrapolated out, by 4 years of
age children heard 13 M to 48 M
words
Talkative v Taciturn Parents
 Talkative Parents: Children
heard they were right 750,000
times & wrong 120,000 times
 Taciturn Parents: Children
heard they were right 120,000
times & wrong 250,000 times
Due to Academic Performance?
 Most students are referred for
IDEA evaluation because of
academics and then behavior
 AAs/Hispanics average NAEP
scores are significantly lower
than whites in reading, writing,
math & science
Lessons from Research
In practice, it can be difficult to
distinguish internal child traits that
require the ongoing support of
special education from
inadequate opportunity or contextual
support for learning behavior.
Many children are
“instructional casualties” of
failed or poor reading
instruction.
2000 National Reading Panel
 Reading deficits often reflect an
inadequate opportunity to learn &
correlated sped referral rates for
mild disability areas reflect quality of
instruction.
 Reading failure rates as high as 38-
40% can be reduced to ≤6% through
early identification & multitiered
intervention.
Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)
Disability
or
ABT?
Designing
Change
IDEA Standards for
Appropriate Instruction
1. Data showing prior to/part of
evaluation process, student is
given:
 Appropriate instruction in
regular education settings
 Delivered by qualified
personnel
Appropriate Instruction
 Reading essential components: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary &
comprehension (2001 ESEA)
 Math essential components: conceptual
understanding, procedural fluency,
strategic competence, adaptive reasoning,
& productive response (2001 National
Research Council)
2. Documented Progress
Data-based documentation of
repeated achievement assessments
 Reasonable intervals
 Reflecting formal assessment of
student progress during
instruction
 Provided to parents
Potential Eligibility

One District: Reading
95 AA students not proficient
compared to 15 white (15% to
1%)
AA students 15 times more likely
than white students to score
below proficiency
Math
89 AA students not proficient
compared to 11 white (14% to
1%)
Black students 20 times more
likely than white students to
score below proficiency
Proficient
Students Scoring Below Proficient
African
Amer
White Hispanic Others All
No. RR
No. RR No. RR No. RR No.
No IEP
IEP
ü By School
ü By School & Grade
ü Districtwide By Grade
Black Male Performance
2009 NAEP comparison of large city black
males without disabilities to nationwide
white males with disabilities:
 Average reading scale score
• Grade 4, 2 points higher
• Grade 8, 5 points higher
 Average math scale score
• Grade 4, 2 points lower
• Grade 8, 2 points lower
http://www.cgcs.org/publications/achievement.aspx
How Do You Know?
 If poor performance or behavior
is due to inadequate general
education instruction & support
or a disability?
 Are there standards for knowing
the difference?
IF:
 NO provision of research & standards
based core curriculum/instruction
 NO scientific research-based
interventions implemented with
fidelity
 NO periodic & appropriate progress
monitoring
 NO regular review of data & analysis
Can team determine underachievement
is based on a disability?
Must Initiate LD Evaluation When:
 No adequate progress
 Appropriate period of time
 Provided appropriate instruction
 Progress monitored
Looking at the Data
Data Accountability Center
Dec. 2010
SY 2008-2009 Data
29
Indicator 9
 71% (37) states, DC & VI with LEAs
having DR
 4.8% (671) of all LEAs have DR (except
for DC/DE that reported no # of LEAS)
 VA: 100% (132) of LEAs with DR; none
found to have inappropriate ID
 10 states found LEAs with inapprop ID
 .5% (68) LEAs have innapprop ID
Indicator 9: Inappropriate ID
State
CA
CO
CT
DE
ID
No.
42
1
1
1
2
%
5.0%
2.7%
1.7%
2.8%
1.5%
State No. %
IN
1 0.3%
KY
2 1.1%
MI
1 0.1%
NJ
9 1.5%
NY
8 1.2%
Number of States with
NO Inappropriate ID
2005-6: 26 states
2006-7: 38 states
2007-8: 42 states
2008-9: 40 states
Percent of LEAS in State with
Inappropriate ID
%
LEAs
05-6
06-7
07-8
08-9
0%
26
38
42
40
0.1 2.9%
13
7
6
9
3.0 –
5.9%
3
4
1
1
6.08.9%
3
1
1
0
9%
or >
2
0
0
0
Indicator 10
 83% (48) states, DC & VI with DR
 9.8% (1379) of all LEAs (except for DC
that reported no # of LEAS)
 17 states found LEAs with inapprop ID
 .8% (116 LEAs) with innapprop ID and
2.9% of all LEAs with DP
LEAs with DR & All Approp ID
AL: 127 (96%)
VA: 110 (83%)
MD: 15 (63%)
RI: 23 (46%)
NH:
SC:
WA:
WI:
52 (34%)
26 (32%)
64 (22%)
87 (20%)
LEAs with DR & 1 Inappropriate ID
LA: 55 (52%)
CT: 38 (22%)
Indicator 9: Inappropriate ID
State
CA
CO
CT
FL
GA
HI
ID
IN
KY
No.
42
2
2
1
2
1
3
14
8
%
5.0%
3.4%
3.4%
1.4%
1.1%
100%
2.3%
4.0%
4.5%
State
LA
MI
NJ
NM
NY
RI
WI
WV
No.
1
11
8
5
11
3
1
1
%
0.9%
1.5%
1.3%
5.4%
1.6%
6.0%
0.2%
1.8%
Percent of LEAS in State
having Inappropriate ID
% LEAs
0%
0.1- 3.9%
4.0- 7.9%
8.0- 11.9%
12% or >
05-6
21
11
3
6
4
06-7
27
13
3
3
2
07-8
34
12
1
1
1
08-9
33
11
5
0
1
Number of LEAs with DR
having Inapprop ID
Oregon
 Indicator 9: 47% (8) of 17 LEAs
 Indicator 10: 61% (11) of 18 LEAs
New Jersey
 Indicator 9: 38% (9) of 24 LEAs
 Indicator 10: 50% (8) of 16 LEAs
Number of States with
NO Inappropriate ID
2005-6: 21 states
2006-7: 27 states
2007-8: 34 states
2008-9: 33 states
Celebration Time!!
For Discussion
Why do some states identify no
LEAs - or a very small percentage
of LEAs – with DR?
Compare: One state (VG) with all
LEAs found to have DR.
What is at play when a large
percentage of LEAs in a state are
identified with DR but NONE or few
are found to have inappropriate
identification?
Compare: Only two states (OR &
NJ) have a high percentage of LEAs
with DR that are found to have
inappropriate identification.
What has been the impact of
Indicators 9 & 10? Has there
been real progress?
Percent of states with no
inappropriate ID (’06 to ‘09)
9: 26 to 40
10: - 6 to 33
Model for Monitoring for
Inappropriate Identification
http://www.shoplrp.com/product/p-300604.html
Decisions
Failure
to Identify
Child Find Hearing Decision #1
 Provided 504 accommodations,
additional tutoring & Saturday
tutoring camps
 No positive academic benefits
 Continued to struggle: reading, math
& science
El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R (W.D. Tx. 2008)
“Why [the district’s assistance team]
would have suggested these
measures, knowing that [the student]
had undertaken each of these steps
in the past three years and that none
had helped him achieve passing
[state test] scores, simply baffles this
court.”
HO Decision #2
 15 year-old student was retained
twice and in 8th grade
 Referred 3 times for evaluation;
denied in 2nd & 8th grades
 5th grade: team determined no LD
because of lack of adequate
instruction in reading and math
Chicago Public Schools, JF 2009-0318 (8/7/09)
HO Finding
 No evidence to support conclusion that
lack of inappropriate instruction caused
poor performance
 Student received same instruction as
other students who were not failing.
 Alternatively, it would be obvious that
he needed different instruction, based
on his lack of progress
Order
 Private school recommended by independent
evaluators for children with severe LD that has
such appropriate methodology as Orton
Gillingham, Wilson or other multi-sensory,
sequential systematic intensive reading program
 AT based on expert’s recommendations, e.g.,
Inspiration, Draft builder, Earobics Step 1, Lexia,
Co:Writer and Write Outloud, screen
reading/scanning software; and laptop that
includes all such programs needed for
homework.
Compensatory Services
 1:1 tutoring (2 times/week for 60
minutes each) after the regular school
day by a certified special educator
trained in scientific research based
interventions for nonreaders
 1:1 speech/language and OT services
(each 60 minutes/week)
Court Approved Interventions
Sensible for LEAs to explore
options in regular ed before
determining need for special ed
 Improved with interventions
 Passed statewide assessment
without accommodation
A.P. v Woodstock Bd of Ed (D. Conn 2008)
Class Action
 Federal class action ruling:
Milwaukee Public Schools
violated child find (SEA failed to
oversee)
 Compensatory ordered for
nonidentified students
September, 2000 to June, 2005
State’s Agreement
MPS will implement system of
early intervention services to:
 Address behavior resulting in
suspensions; and
 Consider possibility of IDEA
evaluation
Monitoring Standard Consider Referral for:
 95% of students in k–5
suspended 10 or > or days
 95% of students in 6–12
suspended 20 or > days
7th Circuit Stayed
Order
Further information
[email protected]