racial inequity in special education by daniel j. losen © independent education consultant
TRANSCRIPT
Racial Inequity in Special Education
By Daniel J. Losen ©
Independent Education Consultant
Addressing Racial Disproportionality
The New Priority Area for OSEP Monitoring and Enforcement
Compliance versus Problem Solving
• The Data Demonstrate Real Problems and Raise Concerns About Harm to Children That “Minimum Compliance” Approach Will Only Perpetuate
• Most Educators Believe Schools Can Make a Difference
• If Both Regular and Special Educators Collaborate to Address the Challenges, Real Remedies are Possible and Children Will Be Better Off
Prevention of Inappropriate Disproportionality
• Prevention is embodied in the spirit and letter of the law.
• “Prevention” must include both regular education, and special education.
• This concept is not limited to over-identification, or just the areas within a district that the state has determined to meet the criteria for “significant disproportionality.”
Diagnostic Tool
• The Checklist: Serves as an entry point to analyzing the contributing factors in your district; and
• Helps with thinking about interventions (use of 15% for EIS).
• Three Parts:– District and school resources– Policy, Practice or Procedures– Considering Environmental and Other External Factors
Three Stages
• Develop Hypothesis
• Design Intervention Plan
• Evaluate Efforts and Outcomes
• Review List– Reconsider Hypothesis and Implementation– Discuss Additional Factors– Adjust Interventions
Consider regular education and the classroom instruction…
• Experienced with diverse learners?• Adequately trained to teach reading and math? Otherwise
highly qualified?• Having classroom management problems?• Is there a language or cultural issue confounding the
understanding of child’s behavior or performance?• Understanding the source of problematic behavior may
prevent identification later?• What is the quality of pre-referral actions, early
intervening services or response to intervention (RTI) and are students of color, in particular, benefiting?
Resources
• Distribution:
• Teacher Training:
• Administrator Training:
• Time:
• Data:
Are there systemic resource issues that contribute to inappropriate
identification?• Do minority children have equitable access to the
highly qualified teachers and resources?• Does the system adequately address the needs of
culturally diverse learners and their parents?• Does the administration demonstrate the capacity
to address issues of race and culture, or avoid discussions of racial and ethnic disparities?
List 1: Resources
• Distribution– Access to Highly Qualified Teachers (#A1)– Efficacy of ELL Program (#A3)– Distribution of Resources Inside the District
(#A4)
List 1: Resources
• Data Collection Capacity, Review, Analysis– Race data used and discussed regularly by
general and special educators?– Collection and analysis of restrictiveness and
discipline data?– All relevant staff have facility and
understanding of data?– Are data used in evaluation of interventions?
Q: Why is it important to analyze risk as well as risk ratio?A: Risk ratios alone leave out important information.
20
10
2
5
2.5 21 0.5
2
02
4
68
10
12
1416
18
20
District A District B District C
Black MR Risk
White MR Risk
Risk Ratio B/W
List 1: Resources
• Teacher Training– Supports for Inexperienced or Struggling
Teachers?– RTI– ELL– Trauma– PBS
The Legal Source Exposure to Poor Instruction or LEP
Sec 614(b)(5)Rule out, as the determinant factor: • The need for services that arise from insufficient
instruction in:– Reading – or Math – or because of LEP status.
• Was in 1997 Act, but can expect renewed attention to this provision.
Evaluation of Referring Classroom
• Adequacy of Instruction (Reading and Math)
• Classroom Management
• Appropriate Support for Teacher
• Capacity to Teach Diverse Learners (Cultural Responsive Instruction)
List 2: Policies, Practices, and Procedures
• In depth INTERNAL discussion and review, not primarily based on paper.
• Policy: (both written and unwritten ways of implementing IDEA that are driven by the central office).
• Practice: The actual decisions that are made about teachers, students, resources….
• Procedures: The established and detailed steps with regard to support, intervention, identification, placement and discipline.
What the Research And Law SaysEvaluation: Beyond Biased Tests
• The tools themselves may appear race-neutral yet have a discriminatory impact.
• Look at what measures are used, and not used, and the weight attributed to scores, classroom observations, and perspective of the parents.
• Non-compliance or inappropriate practice can result if the administration or evaluation procedure has an unintended discriminatory impact.
• What knowledge and training do district evaluators have regarding alternative and culturally responsive forms of assessment?
• The data often suggests this is one area to review carefully. Do district level staff regularly review the data on referrals and outcomes disaggregated by race?
Policy/Practice Considerations
• General Education
• Special Ed
• Centralization
• Policy Reflects a Culture of Separation or Collaboration?
• Tension Between Administrative Costs and Individualized Plans and Placements
Policy Incentives for Identification, Restrictive Placement, Discipline
• Disability Category Drives Placement and Plan
• Removal for Classroom Management
• Test Accountability
• Response to Grade Retention
LRE and Minority Exclusion
• Right to special education and related services in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate.
• Calls for an individualized determination – the category of disability should not drive the placement.
• Increased risk for being labeled CD or EBD should not mean greater exclusion from the regular education setting.
Procedural Issues
• Manifestation Determination Hearings
• Adequacy of Parental Involvement
• Pre-referral Interventions, Including RTI
• Re-evaluations Where Misidentification is Suspected
Practice (may differ by school, administrator, teacher).
• Parental Outreach• Unconscious Racial Bias• Trends in Grouping and Sorting of Children• History of Complaints• Emphasis on Poverty to the Exclusion of Race• Support for Teachers• How IEP Meetings are Conducted• Connection with General Education (or lack of)
The Civil Rights Project and The National Research Council Say…
• School policies and decisions are contributing factors.
• Inadequate teacher training and support for classroom and behavior management likely contributes to the problem of racial disproportionality.
Review and Discussion of List 2
• Select Items of Interest for Discussion
• Select Items Needing Clarification
• Discuss Contents of List 2 at Table for 15 Minutes or More
(Time Permitting)List 3: Environmental and External
Factors
• Problems with Common Explanations• Ruling Out Some Factors• Modifying Analysis for Identified Causes• Role of Schools: may contribute to environmental
factors and/or provide remedies– (lead screening, safety education, health data analysis)
Common Misconceptions
• Not race, it’s poverty
• Not us, other districts
• No non-compliance, we don’t need to change
Other Schools and Districts
• What is annual net gain or loss of identified students?
• Are there labeling and sorting disparities within the district in other areas?
• Are incoming students re-evaluated the year they enter?
Are Significant Racial Disparities Explained Away by Poverty?
• Regression analysis says no.• Blacks and Latinos have divergent patterns for
CD, ED and SLD identification, yet similar poverty and reading achievement profiles.
• Gender differences for risk for CD among Blacks are far greater than among Whites.
• Wisconsin’s state averages in some cases are among the highest in the nation.
Black Males
In the most profound example, contrary to expectations, as factors associated with wealth and better schooling increase, Black males are at greater risk of being disproportionately labeled “mentally retarded.”
(See Oswald, Coutinho and Best, “Community and School Predictors of Over Representation of Minority Children in Special Education” in Racial Inequity in Special Education)
Wisconsin Risk for Disability Category by Racial/Ethnic Groups 2003-04
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CD EBD LD OHI Hard
Amer IndA/PIBlackLatinoWhite
Minimal Racial Disproportionality in Medically Diagnosed “Hard” Categories
00.1
0.2
0.3
0.40.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
AmericanIndian
Black White
Risk
It’s All Poverty: Not Race
• Poverty cannot explain the different identification rates between Blacks and Latinos.
• Poverty cannot explain why Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be removed from the mainstream.
Restriction Risk by Disability Category
• 80-90 percent of students with CD, and over 70 percent with ED are educated in resource rooms or substantially separate settings.
• Approximately 56 percent of students with specific learning disabilities are in full inclusion placements (pulled out less than 21 percent of the school day).
• Overrepresentation for ED and CD significantly increases the risk for blacks of being educated in a substantially separate program.
What Should the Remedy Look Like?
• Change the numbers: Reduce the differential? The risk? The risk ratio?
• When are racial goals permissible? Desirable? Should the goals be driven by the context?
• Early Intervening Services?• Improve the quality of regular education?• Assuming institutional racism contributes – how
can you change that?
Problem Solving and the 15%
• A finding of significant triggers the reservation of funds.
• The funds should be spent to help solve the problem that triggered their reservation, but are not restricted to that specific issue.
Contact Information
• Daniel J. Losen
• Independent Consultant
• Home Office: 781-861-1222