Transcript Students Labeled with Mental Retardation in Connecticut

Students Labeled with Mental
Retardation in Connecticut
Analyses of the ISSIS Database:
Patterns of Labeling and Placement
Testimony of James W. Conroy, Ph.D.
The Center for Outcome Analysis
The ISSIS Database
• Integrated Special Student Information System
• Data going back to 1986-87
• Contents: ID, age, grade, ethnicity, gender,
disability type, special services, classroom
placement, proportion of time spent with
nondisabled peers, etc.
• In 1998-99, 99,632 students in special education
are represented (excluding gifted/talented)
• Among them, there are 4,965 students with the
Mental Retardation label
Disability Breakdowns Over Time
AUTISTIC
DEAF-BLIND
HEARING
HEARING: HARD
LD
MR, ALL
MR TRAINABLE
MR SEVERE
MR PROFOUND
MULTI-HC
NEUROLOGICAL
ORTHOPEDIC
OTHER HEALTH
SOC-EMOT MALADJ
SPEECH: ARTIC
SPEECH: LANG
SPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
VISUALLY HC
VISION PLUS OTHER
86-87
0.2%
0.1%
1.2%
95-96
0.6%
0.0%
1.1%
98-99
1.1%
0.1%
1.1%
48.8%
7.0%
49.3%
5.5%
46.8%
5.4%
1.3%
1.1%
0.5%
0.6%
22.3%
16.2%
2.5%
2.3%
0.3%
4.6%
16.5%
16.4%
2.6%
0.4%
8.3%
12.7%
20.9%
0.0%
0.7%
0.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.5%
Findings from ISSIS
• There are 169 school “districts”
• The proportion of students assigned the
label “mental retardation” varies greatly
across districts
– This shows that the label cannot possibly be
reliable
– In turn, it thus becomes possible for nonobjective influences to affect the labeling
process (chance, ethnicity, gender, parent
preferences, district ‘style’ and leadership)
View Data in Excel Spreadsheet
File Name = CERPT99m.xls
Variations in Labeling
• These variations cannot be explained by
“social class” or ERG (Educational
Reference Group)
– [View Excel %MR by ERG]
• Labels do in fact vary strongly according to
ethnicity and gender
Once Students Enter Special Education,
Which Labels Do They Receive?
Percentage of Each Group Entering Special Ed
Who Are Assigned the Mental Retardation Label
16.0%
13.9%
14.0%
11.7%
12.0%
10.0%
8.4%
8.0%
6.7%
6.0%
4.9%
4.0%
2.5%
2.0%
0.0%
Black
male
White
male
Hispanic
male
Black
female
White
female
Hispanic
female
What Can Possibly Explain This
Pattern of Selective Labeling?
• There is no clear explanation for this pattern of
selective labeling and wide variations
• We can conclude that it cannot be explained by
poverty or social class
– By district, %MR is correlated with %Minority,
even when “controlling for” ERG via partial
correlation r=.47, then controlled r=.44;
– Data organized by district/ERG show the same
conclusion
Labels Influence Placement
(Regular Class Experiences)
• The facts show that placement is strongly
influenced by label (right or wrong, this is
simply a fact shown by the data)
– Percent of students in “regular class,” now
defined as 80% or more time spent with
nondisabled peers, is a consistent measure
– (We could also use % time directly, or hours per
week, but for consistency, we stick to one
measure in this presentation)
Percent of Students in “Regular
Class” by Disability Group, 1998-99
80.0
70.3
70.0
56.5
60.0
60.8
75.4
64.3
49.6
50.0
41.8
40.0
31.5 32.0 33.3
30.0
17.1
20.0
21.2
9.1
10.0
M MR
ul
ti
Di
Au s
tis
m
De E
af D
/B
lin
d
T
Un B I
c
He ate
ar g
Im
Vi p
sI
m
p
Ot L
h
He D
Or al
th th
oI
m
Sp p
ee
ch
0.0
More Than Just Disability Group
Influences Placement
• There are also direct effects of ethnicity and
gender
• The percentage of students experiencing
segregated settings
– (by the Federal definition of less than 40% of
time is spent with nondisabled peers)
• varies by ethnicity and gender, within the
mental retardation group
Variations in Classroom Segregation
(Students with the Mental Retardation Label)
Hispanic female
75.6%
White female
60.4%
Black female
68.3%
Hispanic male
77.9%
White male
61.9%
Black male
71.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Summary To This Point
• Hence regular classroom experience is strongly
affected by ethnicity and gender, and also by
which district the student happens to live in
• Students with mental retardation are far less likely
to experience regular classrooms than students
with other disabilities
• Hence the ethnic/gender bias in mental retardation
labeling, plus the tendency to exclude students
with mental retardation, constitutes “double
jeopardy” for minorities and females
Regular Class Experiences for
Students with Mental Retardation
• Segregation of students with mental
retardation varies tremendously across
school districts
– [See Excel MR Place x LEA]
• Even within Education Reference Groups
(ERGs), the variations are huge, and
therefore ERG cannot “explain” practices of
exclusion
– [See Excel MR Place x LEA x ERG]
Bias Unchanged Over Time
• The pattern of ethnic and gender bias in labeling
has not changed much since 1986-87
• The regular classroom experiences of students
with mental retardation has not changed much
since 15 years ago
– But the regular classroom experiences of other
students with disabilities have changed
radically for the better
– Students with mental retardation have simply
been “left behind”
Ethnic and Gender Bias in MR
Labeling is Stable Over Time
18.00%
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Caucasian AfricanMale
American
Male
Hispanic
Male
1986-87
Caucasian AfricanFemale
American
Female
1995-96
1998-99
Hispanic
Female
Have Students with Mental
Retardation Become “More Severe”?
• The claim by state’s experts is that there
have been increases in severity since mid1970s
• This is trivial; many students with mental
retardation, particularly severe, were not in
the public education system at all in the
mid-1970s
• From 1987 to 1996, the claim is patently
untrue
Changes in Severity of Mental
Retardation Over Time
Changes in Severity Of MR Over 10 Years:
Connecticut's ISSIS Data
1986-87 N=4173, 1995-96 N=3837
% With Each Label
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
78.0%
65.1%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
26.7%
19.1%
30.0%
20.0%
8.2%
10.0%
2.9%
0.0%
MR "Educable"
MR "Trainable"
86-87
95-96
MR "Sev/Prof"
How Has Regular Class Participation
Changed in CT Over 15 Years?
• For students with disabilities in general,
considerable progress has been made
• (As estimated from “Regular Classroom” in
1987-87, and 80% or more time with
nondisabled in 1999)
• But for students with the Mental
Retardation Label, …..
Percent of Students in Regular Class:
MR and Other, “Then and Now”
55.1
60
50
40
30
20
10
9.1
8.8
8.4
0
1987
1999
MR
Other
Progress Toward Regular Classes
in Special Ed Has Been Made
• Overall in CT
• For students with most disabilities
• But students with the Mental Retardation
label have been “left behind”