Transcript Slide 1
How to Determine if Racial Disproportionality is Based in Policy, Procedures or Practice NCCRESt National Forum Leadership for Equity and Excellence: Transforming Education February 2007 Sue Gamm, Esq. Public Consulting Group [email protected] Today’s Discussion Brief overview IDEA 2004 regulation Policies, procedures & practices Model forms and protocols Designs for strategic change and resources Brief Overview Judgmental Disabilities Children are almost always identified after starting school By school personnel rather than a medical professional. Almost 40 Years Later AA students overrepresented as MR/ED MR 3%: AA 7%; risk 38% Hispanic/Asian but risk slightly & underidentified ED 83%: AA 71%; risk 41% Hispanic/Asian/American Indian substantially, somewhat for whites only AA substantial risk Indiana Study Disproportionality increased inversely with severity AA mild MR = 3.29 risk; 1.91= severe MR Hard to sort by severity when data isn’t collected Learning Disabilities No minority disproportionately Intervention & referral disparities? 80-90% of students = reading problems Problem more extreme than data suggests? Academic Performance Most students referred for academics Mean differences in achievement could support differential rates AAs/Hispanics average NAEP scores = significantly whites in reading, writing, math & science (controlled for parent $ and housing) We Believe All Children Can Learn… Except for Felicia Rosie Bubba Carlos … Judy Elliott Importance of Context The same child can perform very differently depending on the level of teacher support. Aggressive behavior can be reversed or exacerbated by effective or ineffective classroom management. Importance of Context In practice, it can be quite difficult to Distinguish internal child traits that require the ongoing support of special education from Inadequate opportunity or contextual support for learning behavior. Systemwide Data Analysis By subgroups and grade: Compare students with LD & without IEPs not proficient in reading: • Discrepant scores • Disproportionality: students without IEPs • Potential growth for LD eligibility Receipt of early intervening services Evaluation referrals & interventions tried IDEA 2004 Regulation I5% IDEA Financial Consequence Significant disproportionality Students with IEPs/disability areas Educational settings Incidence, duration & disciplinary actions (including suspensions & expulsions) IDEA 2004 Regulation Early intervening services Are for students most likely to need Additional reinforcement to core curriculum In regular classrooms Conference Report Significant Disproportionality No national method to analyze disproportionality or significance Common model with tiers of risk 1.2 - 1.99: at-risk 2.0 - 2.99: disproportionate 3.0 - 3.99: significant Over 4.0: most significant Dr. Alexa Posney, OSEP Director Priority State Monitoring Disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education/related services To extent representation results from inappropriate identification No required monitoring for disproportionate placements State Performance Plans 4: Rates of suspension & expulsion 9: Racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education/RS & disability categories resulting from inappropriate identification State Performance Plans Define disproportionality Method for determining whether it’s result of inappropriate identification OSEP: Use multiple methods to calculate disproportionality to reduce risk of overlooking potential problems. Federal Oversight of SPPs Powerful new enforcement tools USDE Secretary decides if state: Meets requirements & purposes Needs assistance Needs intervention Needs substantial intervention LEAs: Align data reports to state SPP New LD Eligibility Given new IDEA regulatory framework for LD eligibility: Lack of attention to systemic & fidelity-based general education interventions Could lead to greater minority disproportionality 1st Requirement Student doesn’t Achieve adequately for age or Meet grade-level standards … with learning experiences & instruction that’s age or gradelevel appropriate 2ND Requirement Insufficient progress to meet age or grade-level standards…with response to scientific research-based intervention (RTI) or Pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance or achievement – Age – Grade-level standards or – Intellectual development 3rd Requirement Eligibility isn’t primarily result of – Visual, hearing, or motor disability; mental retardation; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or LEP Lack of Appropriate Instruction 1. Data showing prior to/part of referral process, student given: Appropriate instruction in regular education settings Delivered by qualified personnel Lack of Appropriate Instruction 2. Data-based documentation of Repeated assessment of achievement At reasonable intervals Formal assessment of student progress During instruction Provided to the student’s parents Mandated Evaluation Must promptly request parental consent for evaluation if child hasn’t Made adequate progress After appropriate period of time When provided appropriate instruction OCR’s Approach OCR Methodology 1. Significantly disproportionate data 2. Differences in treatment based on race or ethnicity 3. Legitimate reasons for different treatment 4. Pretext 5. Is unexplained or pretextual different treatment usual & pervasive? Two Approaches Must inappropriate ID factors be linked to disproportionality group? YES: If no linkage, IDEA noncompliance but no finding of inappropriate ID NO: Regardless of linkage to targeted group, finding of inappropriate ID Implications for Policy Procedure & Practice Implications for PP&P States must have policies & procedures designed to prevent inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation By race/ethnicity of students with disabilities, including those in particular disability areas Review & Revise PP&P LEAs/SEAs with signif. disproportionality review & (if appropriate) revise policies, procedures & practices LEAs publicly report on revisions until eliminate significant disproportionality USDE Comments Placement in educational settings Incidence, duration & type of discipline ID of students with disabilities & areas New General Ed Focus Defined lack Systemic processes: universal screening & of approp. early intervention instruction $ for early intervening services Progress monitoring Data-driven decisionmaking Considerations for P & P Data to collect & analyze Determining disprop. & signif. Consequences for significance Monitoring approach Development/review of p p & p Considerations for P & P Compliance or need for improvement Monitoring or self-review Next steps TA resources Model by Sue A Model for Analysis Focus: Early intervening services in reading & behavior Other areas: Referral, evaluation, eligibility & placement Disproportionality in Special Education: Identifying Where & Why Overidentification of Minority Students Occurs (4/07- LRP Publications) A Model for Analysis Analytical overview Student file review format Analysis of student file review Systemic practices rubric Designing Change Designing Change Strategies for Change Use data from analytical review To target specific areas of need Population of students impacted Vancouver WA K-11 Standards Universal screening tool Criteria for determining levels: Benchmark, intensive, strategic & advanced support Standards at each level for: • Focus • Program parameters • Delivery model (no. minutes per day & group size) • Monitoring progress Strategies for Change Active leadership & ownership of general & special educators & those involved with ELL students Student support structure must be unified system that collaboratively addresses needs of all students Websites Some really smart person… If you always do What you’ve always done, You’ll always get What you’ve always gotten. Thank you Judy Elliott!