A Tale of Two Cities:

1. A Tale of Two Cities: Disproportionality As a Change Event: What We Know and the Challenges and Results of Applying that Knowledge and Learned Experiences in a Local School District and Two Parishes Presentation made to the National Forum--NCCREST by: Dr. James Patton (jmpatt@wm.edu) Arlington, VA February 8, 2007

2. A Tale of Two Cities • “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…” Dickens, Charles, (1859). A Tale of Two Cities

3. A Tale of Two Cities • Introductions • Agenda and Contexts • A Brief Review of Known Evidence Re: Disproportionality in Schools and other Systems • The Challenge—It’s There!! • A Psychosocial Framework For Understanding Disproportionality As A Change Event — Local School Districts’ Reactions to Disproportionality • The Response—Of One Local School Division and the Ongoing Response of Two LA Parishes • Your Response and the Future—We shall See!!

4. Contexts and Perspectives • Historical, Social, Cultural, Political and Economic Contexts • Upstream and Downstream Knowledge and Responses—The Story of Dr. Zhivago • Disproportionality and Achievement/Discipline Gaps—Seeing the Forests and the Trees

5. 38 Years Ago… Lloyd Dunn (1968): “We must face the reality – we (special education teachers) are asked to take children that others cannot teach, and a large percentage of these are from ethnically and/or economically disadvantaged backgrounds” (p. 20).

6. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council results of the Committee on Special Education.

7. NAS 1982 and 2002 and The Persistenceof the Problem • In 1982 Disproportionality was found to be a problem as reported by the NAS. (Heller, Holtzman & Messick, 1982) • …“Twenty years later, Disproportionality in special education persists.” (Donovan & Cross, 2002)

8. National Research Council (2002) Recommendations that States provide: • “Course work and practicum experiences to prepare teachers to deliver culturally responsive instruction. More specifically, teachers should be more familiar with the beliefs, values, culturalpractices, discourse styles, and other features of student’s lives…” (p.373).

9. National Research Council (2002) • In response to disproportionality, the NRC calls for extensive changes in training and roles of teachers, administrators, and related service personnel in order to makeeducation professionals responsive to a diverse population. In particular, this body suggests that “recognizing and working with implicit and explicit racial stereotypes should be incorporated in training programs” (p. 317).

10. What Is The Status of Such Training? • Although 41 states require some form of diversity training for teacher licensure and certification, specific requirements, definitions, and standards vary significantly and are routinely not enforced (Ewing, 1997).

11. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education • The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) found that only 56% of the institutions surveyed addressed cultural diversity adequately in their pre-service professional education curricula (Goodwin, 1997).

12. Disproportionality: From A Cradle to Grave Perspective • Disproportionate Low Pre-and Para-Natal Care and Low Life Expectancy at Birth-Born in 1998—All-78.7;WM-76.5;AAW-66.6; WF-81; AAF-76 • Disproportionate Infant Mortality Rates, Abandonment at Birth; Foster Care Placements • Disproportionality in Special and Gifted Education • Disproportionate High School Dropout Rates—Whites 61.9% in Public Schools/% of HS dropout rate 7.9%; AA 16.5%/14.6%; Hispanics 17.3%/28.5%—Even Worse for Students with Disabilities- website dropoutprevention.org/NDPC-SD

13. Disproportionality: From Cradle to Grave Perspective, Cont. • Disproportionate Educational Attainment • Disproportionate Income • Disproportionate Incarceration Rates-White 76.0%/66.1% in prison; AA13.2%/43.0%; Hispanics 13.5%/32.8% • Disproportionate % on Death Row-Whites 76.0% US Pop/49% on death row; AA 13.2%/45% Hispanics 13.5%/11%

14. Disproportionality Well then what does that elephant in the room look like?

15. What is Disproportionality? • Disproportionate representation is defined as “the extent to which membership in a given group affects the probability of being placed in a specific special education disability category” (Oswald, et. Al. 1999).

16. What is Disproportionality? • “Disproportionality is the over or underrepresentation in special and gifted education of a given population group often defined by racial and ethnic backgrounds, but also defined by socioeconomic status, national origin, English proficiency, gender, and sexual orientation in a specific population category.” (EMSTAC: www.emstac.org,’04)

17. National Disproportionality • Although African Americans account for 14.8% of the school aged population, they account for 26% and 33% of all students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance and Mild Mental Disabilities, respectively (USDOE, 2000).

18. Relative Risk or Odds Ratio--National • What is the risk of identification as MR for African American students, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 2.40 more likely than White students to be identified with MR. (NCCREST, 2004)

19. Louisiana/Rapides MR Risk Ratios • What is the risk of identification as MR for African American students in LA, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 2.53 more likely than White students to be identified with MR in LA and double digits in some Parishes. • African American students are 3.06more likely than White students to be identified with MR in Rapides Parish Schools. (LA APR, “03-”04;LANSER IDEA, 2003)

20. Louisiana/Calcasieu MRRisk Ratios • What is the risk of identification as MMR for African American students in LA and Calcasieu Parish, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 2.53 more likely than White students to be identified with MMR in LA. • African American students are 3.41more likely than White students to be identified with MMR in Calcasieu Parish Schools. (LA Dec.,”04;LANSER IDEA)

21. Learning Disabilities--National • Odds ratios are lowest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.37) and highest for American Indian/Alaskan Native students (1.24). • Odds ratios for Black and Hispanic students are close to 1.0. • The most significant pattern is the dramatic increase of children from all racial/ethnic groups in this category. • States with the highest RI for Black students are Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Montana. • States with the highest RI for Hispanic students are Delaware, New York, and Rhode Island. (NCCREST, 2004)

22. Learning Disabilities – LA/Calcasieu Parish • What is the risk of identification as LDfor African American students in LA and Calcasieu Parish, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 1.50more likely than White students to be identified with LD in LA. • African American students are 1.52more likely than White students to be identified with LD in Calcasieu Parish Schools. (LA LANSERDec. ‘04; IDEA)

23. Learning Disabilities—LA/Rapides Parish • What is the risk of identification as LDfor African American students in LA, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 1.50more likely than White students to be identified with LD in LA. • African American students are 1.82more likely than White students to be identified with LD in Rapides Parish Schools. (LA APR, “03-”04; LANSER IDEA, 2003)

24. Emotional Disorders-National • African American students are most at risk for identification (RI=1.45%, OR = 1.59), followed by American Indian/Alaskan Native students (RI=1.03, OR =1.12). • For Hispanic students are less at risk (RI= .55, OR =.60). • For all ethnic groups the risk of being classified as ED has gradually increased over the years. • States with the highest RI for African American students are Minnesota, Montana, Iowa, and Vermont. • States with the highest RI for Hispanic students are Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and Minnesota. (NCCREST, 2004)

25. Emotional Disorders—LA/Calcasieu Parish • What is the risk of identification as EDfor African American students in LA and Calcasieu Parish, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 2.41more likely than White students to be identified with ED in LA. • African American students are 1.70more likely than White students to be identified with ED in Calcasieu Parish Schools. (LA LANSER Dec. ‘04; IDEA)

26. Emotional Disorders—LA/Rapides Parish • What is the risk of identification as EDfor African American students in LA, compared to the risk for White students? • African American students are 2.41more likely than White students to be identified with ED in LA and double digits in some Parishes. • African American students are 2.88more likely than White students to be identified with ED in Rapides Parish Schools. (LA APR, “03-”04; LANSER IDEA, 2003)

27. What is the Risk of An African American Student with a Disability Being Identified and Being Placed in Regular Class, Resource and Self-Contained Compared to White Students in Calcasieu Parish Regular Class Resource Self Contained AA= .68 AA= 1.34 AA= 1.64 White= 1.44 White= .74 White= .63 (LA LANSER Dec. ‘04; IDEA)

28. What is the Risk of Being in Gifted Education in Calcasieu Parish • AA=.17; Whites=4.40 (LA LANSER Dec. ‘04; IDEA)

29. What Else Do We Know? • Poor African American children are 2.3 times more likely to be identified by their teacher as having mental retardation than their white counterparts, and African American males 2.5 times more likely to be identified with an emotional/ behavioral disability (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999).

30. So What?Why is Disproportionality a Problem? • If we find bias or inappropriate practice at any phase of the referral and placement process that leads to disproportionate representation, then we must treat disproportionality as a problem (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982).

31. What Do We Know?Research, Evidence and Data Show That: • Disproportionality is Janus-like in nature, form, and structure (USDOE, 1998). • The problem is pervasive and has gotten better for some, but not for others – especially African American males (Artiles, A., and Trent, S., 1998). • The problem is with false positive youngsters in special education an false negative students in gifted education (Patton, J., 1998). • The problem is national and most apparent in the south, in cities with large concentrations of African Americans and on some school districts where blacks are conspicuous (Patton, J., 1998).

32. What Else do We Know?Research, Evidence, and Data Show That: • Disproportionality is Janus-like in nature, form, and structure (USDOE, 1998). • The problem is pervasive and has gotten better for some, but not for others – especially African American males (Artiles, A., and Trent, S., 1998). • African American males are overrepresented in all high incidence categories (MR+ED+LD) of special education and especially overrepresented in all suspension and expulsion categories. (NCCREST, 2004)

33. What Else do We Know?Research, Evidence, and Data Show That: • In Elementary Schools, males, especially African American males, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities as females and twice as likely to be placed in special education classes. • 40% of males are being raised without their biological dad. • More than half of African American males who start high school do not finish. (Tyre, P., The Trouble with Boys, Newsweek, January, 30. 2006)

34. What Do We Know About Disproportionality? • Problems often lie primarily in special education categories that tend to rely on subjective judgments. • As a result, African American students and certain other minority students tend to be overrepresented in classrooms for students with mild mental disabilities and emotional and behavioral disabilities (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999).

35. Research, Evidence and Data Show That: • Disproportionality is not a special education problem alone. Its problems and symptoms cannot be removed from the general education, gifted education, and higher education discourses (Artiles, A., 1998). • Civil rights concerns and ethical issues around equity and justice are involved – i.e. resegregation after Brown v. Board of Education poses neo-challenges (Patton, J., 1998).

36. Disproportionality AS:

37. What Do We Know? (continued) • African Americans, especially males, who engage in certain behaviors that represent artifacts of their culture — such as language (Ebonics), movement patterns (verve), and certain “ethnic” appearance – have been found to be over-represented in false positive referrals for special education placement (Neal, L., McCray, A. & Webb-Johnson, G. 2001).

38. A Tale of Two Cities • Recent Federal Mandate Addressing Overidentification and Disproportionality.

39. A Tale of Two Cities • IDEIA ’04 • Overidentification and Disproportionality • New: • States must have policies and procedures designed to prevent inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race or ethnicity of children with disabilities, including particular disability categories. (One of IDEIA’s Quality Indicators) • States can use 15% of funds for early intervention/prereferral activities

40. A Tale of Two Cities… • A Psycho-social Framework For Understanding Disproportionality As A Change Event — LEA Reactions to Disproportionality As a Change Event

41. A Tale of Two Cities...Disproportionality and Stages of Organizational Reactions to Change INTRODUCTION • The change agent must first determine if the organization promotes a climate or culture of change. The responsibility of leaders in organizations is to determine how to manage change when faced with an obvious need. Change-avoidance organizations will progress through several stages in a somewhat recognizable sequence before finally making the required change. Some stages may be more intense than others, or the sequence may vary somewhat. Some stages may be revisited more than once as the organization works through the need for change. Organizational reaction to change is usually closely akin to the way individuals within the organization react to change. Reactions to change are not limited only to the upper echelons of an organization -- these stages may be seen at all levels of the organization from mailroom to boardroom and every level in between. • Given these organizational parameters, it has been my experience that school systems often respond to disproportionality as a change event, and in ways that can be predicted, given the manner in which individuals and organizations traditionally respond to change. Below one will find some stages of organizational response to “change” i.e., disproportionality. These stages represent an amalgam of “stages” that individuals go through in response to “grief”, determining that their child has a disability, and other significant change events, that generally parallel organizational responses to change.

42. Stage I – Denial/Resistance • “Oh No!” “It can’t be!” “There must be some mistake!” • The individual refuses to accept that there is a need for change, or that a problem even exists. This is a way of protecting one’s self and the organization from the shock of bad news and to keep the emotional pain at a distance. The length of time spent at this stage can vary, but with time and presentation of evidence, most people can move through this stage successfully. Change agents should expect this whenever the need for change is first openly addressed.

43. Stage II – Anger • “Why me?” “It’s not fair!” “Who says?” • Emotional Intelligence literature notes that individuals are often emotionally attached to their organizations. As a result, the emotional response of the individual often mirrors the response of the “organization”. • Fury, Bitterness and Betrayal form the “emotional triad.” This triad may be seen in organizations upon initial notification of bad news. • Coming to understand the reality of a bad situation may stir up emotional turmoil that manifests itself as anger. This is a necessary part of the process and it relieves some of the emotional pressure. People in organizations dealing with change may see others as not being supportive of them, or not understanding the need for change. • Those who would be organizational change agents should view this stage as a natural part of organizational progression, even though they may find themselves the unenviable targets of this anger. Harbingers of bad news often become the foil of the “don’t shoot the messenger” axiom.

44. Stage III – Shock/Depression/Guilt/Anxiety • “I’m a failure. I can’t do this.” “What did I do to cause this situation? What should I have done to avoid it?” • The realization that an outcome or resolution may not occur may bring on depression. It may appear in the form of diminished resolve or outright despair. There may be overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness or self-pity. • Change agents will recognize this as a sign that the reality of the situation has set in, a needed step before truly corrective change can occur.

45. Stage IV – Concealment/Resistance/Confusion/Bargaining • “O.K, but don’t reveal this problem to anyone” or “What’s the minimum I can do to address the problem?” “We’ll try to fix it, but I doubt it will work.” • Once they recognize there is a problem, there may be an effort to conceal it. Organizations may relegate the problem’s solution to an ineffective individual, thereby paying only lip-service to the effort.In this manner one can say they he/she is addressing a problem, albeit ineffectively. Sometimes, if the need for change is evident, individuals may try to strike bargains to avoid or minimize the impact of the problem. It is a form of emotional negotiation, designed to achieve some sense of control, or to effect an internal reconciliation. • Change agents should recognize this stage as one of the most challenging to move beyond, since there may be merely the appearance of change, void of actual substance.

46. Stage V – Acceptance/Commitment/Integration/Reconstruction/Hope/“Malicious Compliance” • “O.K., I guess this is how it will be.” “Let’s get on with it.” • This phase generally brings a degree of peace to a tumultuous process. The individual or organization has achieved an “emotional rebalancing” needed to move forward with life. There is a difference between acceptance and resignation or “uneasy acceptance”. There is a final recognition that change is something that is needed, not just tolerated. Additionally, organizations can respond maliciously as a reaction to change. This could be manifested by engaging in actions that are an “exaggeration” of the resolution to the problem. The organization may accept and make changes that may respond to the problem but do so in “malicious” ways. • Change agents know that it is only after an individual or organization reaches this stage that meaningful change is possible.

47. Rapides and Calcasieu Parish • Their Proactive Posture and its Effect

48. How We Began and What We Did in TN Then and What We Are Currently Doing in Rapides Parish: Strategies, Processes and Partnerships Used • In TN--We moved along the continuum of change-denial-anger-shock-anxiety-blaming-concealment-confusion to acceptance and commitment…--Rapides moved along in some of these stages prior to my arrival!! • In TN we came off that river in Egypt, identified problems and opportunities while stubbornly resisting finger pointing • In Both Places we hired an outside consultant…More later!! • In Both Places we developed an Action Plan in response to the OCR’s investigation in TN and Proactive Actions in Rapides • In Both Places we clarified roles, responsibilities and expectations of team members and stakeholder groups • In Both Places we immediately involved diverse stakeholders and groups in the development and execution of the plan

49. How We Began and What We Did…. (continued) • Who Were These Stakeholders: • In TN--The State Director of Exceptional Education—The “Blocker/Enforcer” and One Who Led the First Wave of “Interference” In Rapides—Bill Crumby and later Debbie Morrison along with Bill • In TN-- The “New” District Superintendent—The Person who gave us the Green light and “Greased all of the Skids”; in Rapides strong support from the Superintendent (especially in reading-DI) and Assistant Superintendents • In TN--District Board Leadership—Nurtured and Developed Three “Sponsors” via the Superintendent who served as “Guides and Protectors” • In TN--District Board of Supervisors—Nurtured and Developed One “Sponsor”—the Power Broker • In TN--Our OCR “Partners”—in Rapides “Preventive” Action before OCR • In Both Places---Partnered with Building Level and General Education Leadership—Whose Involvement was “Strongly Recommended” from Board and Superintendent • In Both Places--Partneredwith Related Service Providers—Whose Involvement was “Strongly Recommended” from Board and Superintendent

50. Who Were Additional Stakeholders In TN, Calcasieu and Rapides?