Transcript Slide 1

O S E R S
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
United States Department of Education
Disproportionality
What Is It? What Can We Do About It?
Presented by Mary Jane Pearson, SRR, Region IX
U.S. Department of Education
Acknowledgments: Dan Reschly, Chair, Department of Special
Education, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Disproportionality:
What Is It?
O S E R S
Disproportionality exists when a group is in
special education at a higher rate than the
population average.
 Over-representation of minorities is the main concern
 Questions also about under-representation
 Questions also about gender disproportionality
Indices for Calculating
Disproportionate Representation
O S E R S
Risk Index:
Percentage of all students of a given
racial/ethnic group identified in a given
disability category
Odds Ratio:
A comparative index that provides
information relative to other groups
Composition: Reflects the proportion of all children
served under a given disability category
who are members of a given racial/ethnic
group
Criteria for Concern
O S E R S
 Relative risk ratios of greater than 1.5, indicating
overrepresentation by race in any special education
category or in the overall disabilities count, would be
a concern
National
Disproportionality Patterns
O S E R S
All Disabilities, age 6-21
(National Research Council Report)
Group
Risk
Risk Ratio
 African American:
14.3%
1.2 times
 Native Am. Indian:
13.1%
1.1 times
 White:
12.1%
1.0 times
 Hispanic:
11.3%
.9 times
 Asian Pacific-Islander:
5.3%
.4 times
National
Disproportionality Patterns
O S E R S
Mental Retardation (MR)
Composition: 35% of Students served in the category of MR are
African American; 17% of the overall student
population is African-American
Risk:
2.6% of African Americans are served in the
category of MR
Odds Ratio:
Rate for African Americans is 2.4 times higher than
that of White Students
No other groups are overrepresented in MR
National
Disproportionality Patterns
O S E R S
Emotional Disturbance (ED)
Composition: 26.4% of Students served in the category of ED are
African American; 17% of the overall student
population is African-American
Risk:
1.6% of African-American Students are served in the
category of ED
Odds Ratio:
Rate for African American Students is 1.6 times
higher than that of White Students
No other group overrepresented in ED
National
Disproportionality Patterns
O S E R S
Learning Disabilities (LD)
Composition: 1.37% of Students with LD are Native American
Indian; 1.1% of the overall student population is
Native American Indian
Risk:
7.3% of Native American Indian Students are in LD
Odds Ratio:
Native American Indian Students are 1.2 times more
likely to be in LD than White Students
No other group is overrepresented in LD
Determining if
Disproportionate
Representation Exists
O S E R S
National and State Data
 See Web site, www.ideadata.org
(click annual report tables, then Part B, then Child Count, 2001,
then Table AA-13)
 Use this information to determine whether the state
(called the SEA) and the local school district (called
the LEA) disability identification rates are significantly
different from National or State patterns
Determining if
Disproportionate
Representation Exists
O S E R S
Local Educational Agency Data
All LEAs determine a child count on December 1
regarding:
 Number of students with disabilities by race, category
of disability, program placement (e.g. resource,
special class, etc.)
Criteria for Concern
O S E R S
More concern if accompanied by:
 High overall rates of disability identification in
relation to state and national averages
 Disproportionate placement by race in more
restrictive or more segregated educational settings:
 20% or less of time outside of general education
 21% to 60% outside of general education
 >60% outside of general education
 Placement outside of general education schools in special centers,
institutions, residential settings or home bound
Criteria for Concern
O S E R S
Worst case: Overrepresentation by race in a special
education category with further
overrepresentation in more restricted
settings (segregated from normal children)
State and Local Variations
O S E R S
 Yes, there is variation across states and local school
districts…
Factors Contributing to
Disproportionate Representation
O S E R S
School level factors:
 ineffective academic curriculum and behavioral
supports
 inadequate instructional and classroom management
skills
 poor support and referral systems for students at risk
 insufficient support for teachers working with
culturally diverse groups
Factors Contributing to
Disproportionate Representation
O S E R S
Other Factors:
 Effects of poverty
 Limited English proficiency
 Residence in inner cities
 Race/ethnicity factors that contribute to referrals,
testing, and incorrect placement of children from
racial and ethnic minorities in special education
classes
Disproportionality: What
Can We Do About It?
O S E R S
 Inform all educational personnel about representation
patterns and get the state’s and local district’s
commitment to improve representation patterns
 Move students from more restrictive to less restrictive
settings as soon as possible
Disproportionality: What
Can We Do About It?
O S E R S
Involve general education in representation
solutions
Disproportionality: What
Can We Do About It?
O S E R S
Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions
High quality general education instruction-scientifically
based-NCLB Principles
 Small group tutoring (3-4) in general education with
individual progress monitoring
 Individualized interventions in general education
through intense problem solving.
 Special education placement, more intense services
brought to student with goal of students exiting
special education in future
Disproportionality: What
Can We Do About It?
O S E R S
Multi-Tiered Behavioral Interventions
 School wide positive discipline
 Effective classroom organization and behavior
management
 Targeted individual interventions in general education
 Special education: More intense services brought to
students
National Research Council
(NRC) Recommendations
O S E R S
Early Intervention recommendations:
 Provide services that promote parenting, health,
cognitive, and emotional development
 Provide quality preschool programs that develop
critical cognitive and behavioral skills
 Screen children early and provide tiered
interventions, particularly in reading and behavior
NRC Recommendations
O S E R S
Integrate General and Special Education:
 Provide high quality general education interventions
before referral to special education.
 Provide special education services for students
exhibiting difficulties when there is documented
evidence of insufficient response to instruction.
 Tie assessment to intervention strategies.
 Eliminate IQ discrepancy requirements for LD
students.
NRC Recommendations
O S E R S
Teacher Quality Recommendations:
 Ensure that teacher certification and licensure
requirements include:
1. Effective intervention strategies for students across the
achievement distribution
2. Classroom management and routine behavior assessment,
3. Culturally sensitive instruction
 Provide additional supports to work with students
whose behavior is challenging for the teacher
Advocate System Change
O S E R S
Move From :
Focus on internal child characteristics and IQ tests
To
Focus on the improvement of student competencies
through empirically-validated interventions
Eligibility based on response to high-quality
interventions.
The No Child Left Behind
Act
O S E R S
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into
law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
 Most sweeping reform of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act since its enactment in 1965.
 Redefines the federal role in K-12 education.
 Requires accountability for all children, including
student groups based on poverty, race and ethnicity,
disability and limited English proficiency (LEP).
 Will help close the achievement gap between
disadvantaged, disabled and minority students and
their peers.
Why is NCLB so Important?
O S E R S
Reading Score
Percentiles
O S E R S
Grade 4
Significantly different from 2000.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992–2000 Reading Assessments.
The No Child Left Behind
Act
O S E R S
Based on Four Principles:
 Stronger accountability for results.
 Increased flexibility and local control.
 Expanded options for parents.
 Focusing on what works.
No Child Left Behind
O S E R S
…can help address disproportionate representation of
students from diverse backgrounds in special
education
No Child Left Behind
O S E R S
Title I Programs
 Reading First
 Early Reading First
 Even Start
 Libraries
No Child Left Behind
O S E R S
Title I Programs
 Migrant students
 At-risk Students
 School Reform
 Advanced Placement
 School Dropout Prevention
The No Child Left Behind Act
Expanded Options for Parents
O S E R S
 May transfer student enrolled in a low performing
school to a public school that is not low performing,
including a public charter school.
 Supplemental services for students attending Title I
schools that fail to meet state standards for at least 3
of 4 years such as:
 Tutoring
 After school services
 Summer school from provider selected by parents from stateapproved list
 Services for children with disabilities must be
consistent with goals in child’s Individualized
Education Program (IEP).
The No Child Left Behind Act
Expanded Options for Parents
O S E R S
Supplemental Services for Students with
Disabilities
 Must be consistent with the student’s IEP.
 Are not considered a part of the IEP.
 Parental consent required before developing the
supplemental services agreement.
 Some providers must be able to serve students with
disabilities.
Fulfilling Education
Reform’s Promise to Our
Children
O S E R S
“This is education's moment. For the
first time in years, our two major
parties are in agreement on education.
For these critical tasks, America's
children depend on us. We must not
thrust that burden onto our posterity.
It is ours to bear.”
-- U.S. Secretary of Education
Rod Paige,January 9, 2002
Closing the Achievement Gap in
America’s Public Schools
Presented by Mary Jane Pearson, SRR, Region IX
U.S. Department of Education 415 556 4120
[email protected]
O S E R S