Disproportionate Representation in Special Education

1. Disproportionate Representation in Special Education Megan Gardella Intern, Office of Special Education, Program Accountability

2. About my Experience • I had the opportunity to work as an intern under the Program Accountability department of the Office of Special Education • Through this experience, my eyes were opened to the realities and intricate details that are woven into special education • At Michigan State University I am a member of the Urban Educators Cohort Program, but we often did not talk about Special Education • With this research, I was able to connect both aspects of education that interest me • I am able to use this information while working in special education classrooms in urban areas

3. Background • In 2004, IDEA reauthorizations required each state to create a six year State Performance Plan (SPP) to establish goals and strategies to improve upon the indicators OSEP provided. • Two of those addressed disproportionate representation • Indicator 9: disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education • Indicator 10: disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups of a specific disability

4. State Performance Indicator 9 • For the purpose of this presentation, most of the data provided as well as the points discussed are in relation to indicator 9. • Indicator 9 offered a more general look into disproportionate representation as a whole in education rather than specific information about disabilities. • What can occur or change about indicator 9 will in effect be changing indicator 10 as well, which is another reason I chose to focus on it.

5. Definition • Disproportionate Representation: both over-representation and under-representation of specific demographic groups of students in special education or related services or programs that is the result of inappropriate identification. • IDEA reauthorizations also required states to create their own definitions of significant disproportionality for identification, placement and discipline based on race and ethnicity.

6. Identification Definitions • According to one study done by inForum, states define their identification processes by: • Monitoring process of LEAs • Data Analysis • Disaggregated data • Analysis of means

7. Placement Definitions • Within this same study, 25 of 33 states responded that they use a risk ratio to analyze significant disproportionality • Some said they only analyze self-contained placements • One analyzed both • Students outside the classroom for more than 60% of the day • Relative risk of a student of a specific race being placed in a separate facility • Another analyzed three placement categories • Removed from general education 20% of the day • Removed from general education for more than 60% of the day • All separate setting combined

8. Discipline Definitions • 21 SEAs reported having procedures developed for analyzing with respect to discipline • Eight use a form of risk ratio • Two look at • Suspension data • Expulsion data • Three stated only suspension data • Another three other claimed they would review data in relation to the states rate of disciplinary action

9. Michigan Definitions • Students ages 6-21 with IEPs are counted to calculate disproportionate representation • Calculations are performed for all of the following racial/ethnic groups if their total enrollment for all racial/ethnic groups in the operating district is greater than 100 • American Indian • Asian • Black • Hispanic • Native Hawaiian • Two or more races

10. Michigan Procedures • A risk ratio is used to determine disproportionate representation when the racial/ethnic distribution of the district’s student population varies significantly from the state distribution. The risk ratio compares identification rates by race/ethnic groups against the districts total population. • For indicator 9, if the number of white or black students with an IEP in a given district is equal to zero, the MDE will forego use of the WRR in favor of the risk ratio in that district. • When the number of white or black students with an IEP in a given district is fewer than three, if the weighted risk ratio is greater than or equal to 2.5 and the risk ratio value is less than or equal to 1.5, MDE will forego the use of the weighted risk ratio in favor of the risk ratio in that district. • Risk Ratio (RR) = Risk (%) for [racial/ethnic group] students • Risk (%) for comparison group (all other students)

11. Michigan Procedures • An alternate risk ratio is used to determine disproportionate representation for a particular racial/ethnic subgroup when there are fewer than 10 students with an IEP in all other racial/ethnic subgroups • Per Indicator 9, the comparison group is all students with an IEP of any other racial/ethnic subgroup • Alternate Risk Ratio (ARR) = District risk (%) for [racial/ethnic group] students • State risk (%) for comparison group (all other racial/ethnic groups)

12. Michigan Procedures • A weighted risk ratio is used to determine disproportionate representation for a particular racial/ethnic subgroup when the district’s population is similar to the state racial/ethnic distribution and there are 10 students in the given disability category in all other racial/ethnic subgroups • Per Indicator 9, the comparison group is all students with an IEP in any other subgroup • Weighted Risk Ratio (WRR) = [1-p(i)] * R(i) • Σ [ p(j) R(j) ] • Where… • p(i) = State-level proportion of students from racial/ethnic group (i) • R(i) = District-level risk for racial/ethnic group (i) • p(j) = State-level proportion of students from the (j)-th racial/ethnic group • R(j) = District-level risk for the (j)-th racial/ethnic group

13. Michigan Procedures • Two sets of the three ratios are then calculated, using operating district and resident district data for each racial/ethnic group across all disabilities • Operating district is defined as where students attend school • If there is an operating district ratio but no resident district ratio, the operating district ratio is used to determine disproportionate representation • If there is no operating district ratio, but there is a resident district ratio, the operating district is not considered for disproportionate representation.

14. Michigan Definitions • Districts are considered to have under-representation when the appropriate ratio is less than 0.4 for two consecutive years for any racial/ethnic groups across disabilities. • Districts are considered to have over-representation when the appropriate ratio is greater than 2.5 for two consecutive years per any racial/ethnic group across disabilities.

15. Proceeding Actions • When disproportionate representation is present: • MDE-OSE will conduct a site visit to the school to determine if there are inappropriate policies, procedures or practices • In some cases, OSE will help create and implement an improvement plan that is monitored for evidence of change

16. Identifying The Problem • As our country continues to have a greater minority population-the rise of minority students has increased greatly. • Because of this, we can expect a larger percentage of minority students within special education. • However, when the percentage of minority students significantly outweighs non minorities within special education, then there is a problem. • This problem causes inequitable educations and improper labels.

17. Consequences • Limited access to the general education curriculum with appropriate supports • Lowered expectations • Poor school attendance • High dropout rates • Low graduation rates • Higher rates of unemployment • Increased likelihood of incarceration • Increased discipline

18. What Michigan Currently Does • Per Michigan’s 2010-2011 State Performance Plan, Michigan created the following Improvement Activities: • • The OSE works to improve districts’ awareness of the impact of disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification policies, procedures, or practices. • • The OSE continues to provide technical assistance to improve identification policies, procedures, and practices for all students. • • Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) provides districts with technical assistance to implement a tiered approach to working with students facing challenges in the general education classroom prior to considering a referral for special education services.

19. Causes • Difference vs. disability • Gaps in curriculum and instructional implementation • Inconsistent pre-referral process • Limited beliefs about ability • Negative assumptions about what special education entails

20. Difference vs. Disability • Each student learns differently and although most may learn one particular way if one does not it does not automatically mean that he/she may be in need of special education • The idea of learning in a unique way would be a difference • The belief that every student responds identically to a certain pedagogy creates a high risk and dangerous environment for students with differences

21. Gaps in Curriculum and Instructional Implementation • Minimally articulated core curriculum and consistent support of teaching ability • If a curriculum is not reaching standards, students continuously do poor on state exams, and are often automatically considered for special education • Too many interventions for struggling learners • Overabundance of interventions indicates that staff may not be proficient enough to differentiate their instruction per student • Inconsistent knowledge of the purpose and implementation of assessments • Interventions and strategies are not tailored to meet specific needs of students • Poorly structured intervention services for struggling learners • Implementation of interventions may be inconsistent and unorganized, causing the referrals to be an “easy out”

22. Inconsistent Pre-Referral Process • Inconsistency in referral process; including referral forms • Communication between general education and special education can be difficult; therefore providing no consistent direction with referrals and processes/forms • Limited information regarding intervention strategies • Many teachers ideas of strategies are not feasible or competent due to lack of thought and time, these could include moving a student’s seat, matching them with a buddy or providing the content again

23. Limited Beliefs About Ability • Special education is viewed as fixing struggling students • Many general education teachers look to special education teachers as their out for trouble students and a way to magically “fix” their students • Poor and racial/ethnic students are viewed as “not ready” for school • Preconceived notions and biases held toward low-income minority groups were often aimed towards the students already being behind before they begin

24. Negative Assumptions About What Special Education Entails • Within our history, special needs students have been looked upon as “animals” • Although we have progressed significantly throughout the years, the negative stigma within special education today is still present • Many still refer to the special education classroom as the “retards,” “dummies,” or “idiots” • Don’t realize that the idea of special education may be the extra push to help a student make their way back to general education

25. Interviews with Teachers • As I was conducting my research, I also thought it would be interesting to interview general education teachers as well • Four questions that I asked • When a student is misbehaving what is the first thing you may ask them to do? The most severe discipline? • What if that student is a special education student? • What behaviors or characteristics influence your decision to refer a student to special education? • What factors through your head when you are trying to decide whether or not to refer a student to special education? • I sent an email out to several teachers from two districts that I come from because each represents a different population; • Primarily whitevs. diverse

26. Interview Results • None of the teachers were able to get back to me • Several emailed me asking what disproportionate representation was • When I explained I received responses consistent with: • “oh…ok” • “oh, that again” • “what exactly does that mean” • Although I did not conduct a thorough survey, the information I received was an interesting take and I would love to delve into it with more time

27. What To Do As An Administrator • Use this research and information as a tool to better educate your teachers • Be sure that you are keeping up to date with information provided by you to the state • Educate all teachers on this topic, not simply special education teachers, because this issue involves everyone • Consider taking the following steps: • Develop a district/school wide team to collect, examine, interpret and outline causes in your district • Conduct an analysis of disproportionality rates • Conduct a survey of culturally relative pedagogies

28. What To Do As ATeacher • Make sure you are educated on the concept of disproportionate representation • If you have questions, ASK • Many resources on the office of special education website • Before referring a student to special education, stop and ask yourself: • Have I been compliant with my district’s policies on disproportionate representation? • Has this student had an equitable chance to learn the material? • Have I used appropriate RTI services to help this student? • Are there any preconceived notions or assumptions involved in my referral? Do I hold any personal or cultural biases? • Remember all students learn differently! Just because one student comprehends material one way, another may benefit from a different pedagogical technique, this does not automatically mean they are in need of special education!

29. Why I Chose What On The Handout • Definition • Why the state is required to monitor disproportionate representation • What happens when a district is non-compliant • Why there is a problem • Causes and Effects of the problem • What administrators and teachers can do to prevent this

30. Thank You! • ?

31. Citations • Burdette, P. (2007). InForum. In State Definitions of Significant Disproportionality. Brief Policy Analysis. Retrieved December 14, 2012 • Michigan Makes a Strong Commitment to Correct Significant Disproportionality for Discipline (2012, April). In Focus On Results. Retrieved December 14, 2012 • Memorandum from Office of Special Education Programs. OSEP 07-09. Disproportionate representation. AlexaPosny, Retrieved November 30th, 2012. • Wayne State University, Center for Urban Studies. (2009, May 29). In Special Education disproportionate representation simulation project: final report. Retrieved December 9, 2012 • Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education. Procedures for calculation of LEA disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity in Special Education, April 2012 revision. Retrieved December 5th, 2012. • Westat. “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionate Representation in Special Education: A Technical Assistance Guide” (prepared for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED01CO0082/0008) (2004). Rockville, MD: Author. • White, E. and Trevino, J. (2010). Disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality Office of Special Education and Early Intervening Services. Retrieved from Adobe PDF, December 12th, 2012. • Michigan Department of Education. Disproportionate representation in special education and related services. Annual Performance Report 2010-2011. Michigan’s State Performance Plan, Indicator 9. Retrieved December 3rd, 2012. • White, E and Trevino, J.(2012). Stair stand alone instructional resource module. Significant Disproportionality, Retrieved from PowerPoint, December 4th, 2012.