Reschly 1

Disproportionality in Special Education

Daniel J. ReschlyDepartment of Special Education

Vanderbilt UniversityNational Research Center on Learning

Disabilities

For more information

dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu

Reschly 2

Disproportionality in Special Education

Rich History over Last Century Different groups affected Concerns emerged in late 1960s OCR data collection since 1968 Legal requirements: litigation and

legislation Focus on tests used to determine

eligibility Slight improvement since 1968, but

general patterns persist

Reschly 3

Disproportionality in Special Education

Disproportionality: more concern in sp ed about over than under-representation

Many stereotypes, confusion, misunderstandings

Underlying assumption: All groups should be represented in sp ed proportionate to population proportions

Reschly 4

Disproportionality in Special Education

MYTH: All minorities are overrepresented in sp edFACT: Compared to white students, black and American

Indian students are overrepresented, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students are underrepresented

MYTH: A large percentage of black and American Indian students are in special education.

FACT: Overall rates are slightly higher. White=12.1%; American Indian=13.1% ; Black=14.2%

MYTH: Hispanic students are overrepresentedFACT: Hispanic students are slightly underrepresented

Reschly 5

Disproportionality in Special Education

MYTH: The greatest degree of disproportionality occurs with black students

FACT: Asian-PI students are underrepresented by a much larger degree that black students are overrepresented

MYTH: IQ tests cause overrepresentationFACT: Good reasons exist to eliminate IQ tests, but

they have little overall effect on overrepresentation

SEE TABLE THAT FOLLOWS

Reschly 6

Disproportionality Data and Facts

• Composition Index: Proportion of special education category or placement by group

• Risk Index: Proportion of sociocultural group in a special education category or placement

• Consider Women and Teaching:– Composition: 75% of teachers are women– Risk: <2% of women are teachers

Reschly 7

Disproportionality Results

Risk-All Disabilities, age 6-21 Group %-sch age Rel.

RiskAfrican American 14.3% 1.2 timesNative Am. Indian 13.1% 1.1 timesWhite 12.1% 1.0 timesHispanic 11.3% .9 timesAsian Pac-Islander 5.3% .4 times

Rel=Relative

Reschly 8

Problem Categories:MR

Composition: 35% of Students in MR are African American vs. 17% of the overall student population is African-American

Risk: 2.6% of African Americans are in MR vs. 1.1% of white students;

Odds Ratio: Rate for Af-Am is 2.4 times higher than white rate.

No other groups are overrepresented in MR

Reschly 9

Problem Categories: ED

Composition: 26.4% of Students with ED are African American vs. 17% Af Am in general student population

Risk: 1.6% of African-American Students are in ED vs. 1.0% of White Students

ODDS Ratio: Af-Am rate is 1.6 times white rate

No other group overrepresented in ED

Reschly 10

Problem Categories: LD

Composition: 1.37% of Students with LD are Native American Indian vs. 1.1% of Indian Students in the General Population

Risk: 7.3% of Indian students are in LD vs. 6.1% of White Students

Odds Ratio: Indians are 1.2 times more likely to be in LD than white students

No other group is overrepresented in LD

Reschly 11

Disproportionality Effects

Large numbers of students are affected

Assuming the white rate of disability identification Excess number black students=

172,675 (of 7.7 million black students) Excess number of American Indian

students= 5500 out of approx. 500,000

Reschly 12

Equal Treatment Studies Referred students:

More minority students referred, have more problems, of greater severity

Students in Sp Ed Lower achievement than white students in

the same placements White and black teachers generally

agree on existence of problems and severity of problems for black and white students Black students rated lower by teachers

regardless of race

Reschly 13

Current Legal Requirements

Disproportionality Regulation in IDEA (1997)34 CFR 300.755: Disproportionality.(a) General. Each State that receives assistance under Part B of the Act, and the Secretary of the Interior, shall provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race is occurring in the State or in the schools operated by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to - (1) The identification of children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment described in section 602(3) of the Act; and

Reschly 14

Current Legal Requirements

2) The placement in particular educational settings of these children.(b) Review and revision of policies, practices, and procedures. In the case of a determination of significant disproportionality with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, or the placement in particular educational settings of these children, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the State or the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the review and, if appropriate revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification or placement to ensure that the policies, procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of Part B of the Act.

Reschly 15

Equal Classification and Placement Outcomes

Required Must NOT have significant

disproportionality in classification Must NOT have significant

disproportionality in placement settings What is “significant” Will be determined Multiple Gating

HOW? HOW? HOW? HOW?

Reschly 16

Reschly 17

Disproportionality Prevention

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

“ There is substantial evidence with regard to both behavior and achievement that early identification and intervention is more effective than later identification and intervention.” Executive Summary, p. 5

Reschly 18

HOW?? Multi-tiered academic interventions

High quality reading and math programs

Focused interventions for small groups Intense problem solving

Multi-tiered behavioral interventions School-wide positive behavior supports Effective classroom management Intense individual interventions

Reschly 19

Achievement Gap

Overrepresented minority students Lower academic readiness for school,

print familiarity, letter knowledge, word knowledge, vocabulary

Lower behavioral readiness for school as rated by minority and white students

Gaps in achievement persist

Reschly 20

Prevention: Preschool

Prenatal care and parenting support Head State programs—improve re:

literacy Intense preschool interventions work Early, intense, structured, broad

• Abecedarian Project reports sp ed reduction of 75% (12% program children, 48% controls)

Reschly 21

Prevention: Early School

• Multi-tiered Academic and Behavioral Interventions PRIOR to Special Education Placement

Success for All evaluation data suggest: reduction in placements of 50% or more 2.2% of SFA 3rd graders two years behind

compared to 8.8% of control children Classroom management + Structured

reading and math curricula

Reschly 22

Prevention: GE Interventions

Not Prereferral-Referral-Test

Widely endorsed as part of prevention, but NOT prereferral-referral-test; Must change

Existing practices reflect poor quality 80% not guided by behavioral definition 80% do not have a direct measure in the

natural setting 75% do not compare pre and post

intervention data Do they work???? Of course not!!

Reschly 23

Issues: Quality of problem solving IF used for eligibility

1. Precise Definition of the Problem in Terms of Observable Behavior

2. Valid and Reliable Measure of the Behavior in the Natural Setting

3. Validate the Existence of the Problem; Estimate the Severity (Age Norms/Peer Comparisons)

4. Establish Intervention Goals in Terms of the Target Behavior

5. Analysis of Antecedent (including prior knowledge), Situational, and Consequent Conditions

Reschly 24

Issues: Quality of problem solving IF used for eligibility

6. Formulate an Intervention Plan Based on Principles of Behavior Change or Instructional Design

7. Systematic Implementation of the Intervention with Treatment Integrity and Frequent Monitoring of Progress

8. Revision of the Intervention as Needed According to Progress Toward Goals

9. Evaluation of the Intervention with Further Problem Solving as Needed

10. Support for Continued Academic Growth and Behavioral Competencies

Reschly 25

Implementation

Early screening in kindergarten and periodic screening thereafter on Academic skills—DIBELS Behavior

Early interventions in General Education to address academic and behavioral problems

Reschly 26

Outcomes High quality academic and behavioral

interventions (multi-tiered) Improve achievement and behavior

outcomes for all children Reduce the number of students with

very low achievement Prevent special education placement

and reduce disproportionality Issue: Ensuring high quality for all

students

Reschly 27

Special Education Eligibility

Response to Intervention Standard protocol treatments, e.g.,

reading Problem solving Combinations of both

Demise of IQ in LD Decisions made on the basis of

local norms, using educational measures from the curriculum

Reschly 28

Special Education Eligibility

Special education only after Documented insufficient response to

high quality interventions Use of direct measures of skills in

natural settings Focus on learning rates and

differences from peer averages Sp Ed as a last resort and a

temporary service

Reschly 29

Disproportionality Prevention

History of Efforts No magic bullets No magic tests or adjustments to tests No simple solutions

Solutions Address achievement gaps, supportive

behavior programs Apply validated intervention principles