Transcript of NCSET Conference Call Presentation
The Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education
February 17, 2005
presented by:
Elizabeth Kozleski, Ph.D.
Co-Principal Investigator
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt)
Dr. Sharpe: Good afternoon and welcome to
“The Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special
Education.” I’m Mike Sharpe, director of the North
Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC),
housed at the University of Minnesota. This teleconference is co-sponsored by the NCRRC in
partnership with the National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition and the OSEP Exiting
TA Community of Practice.
The topic of disproportionality is of particular
interest to many states, including states in the north
central region. I’ve seen considerable evidence that
states and districts are looking for effective means of
addressing disproportionality in special education
identification, and also the impact of disproportionality on transition-related outcomes, including graduation and dropout rates. Because of the
interest of our members in disproportionality, the
NCRRC, the Exiting TA Community of Practice,
and the National Center on Secondary Education
and Transition have developed a series of teleconferences on this important topic. Mark your calendars
for the following dates:
• March 31 at 1 p.m. Central Time, Anthony
Sims of the Institute on Educational Leadership will present “Minority Disproportionality
in Special Education and the Achievement
Gap—Common Issues, Shared Solutions,” and
• April 14 at 2 p.m. Central Time, listeners will
hear about the Wimberley Project, a project to
reduce disproportionality in the Duval County, Florida public schools.
In addition, we are currently in the planning phase
of presenting a state perspective on disproportionality as part of this teleconference series.
1
Dr. Chris Bremer of the National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition will be today’s
moderator.
Dr. Bremer: Today we are pleased to have Dr.
Elizabeth Kozleski, a professor and associate dean at
the University of Colorado at Denver and Health
Sciences Center. Her expertise is in the areas of
systems change, inclusive education, and professional
development in urban education. Her research interests include teaching, teacher learning and urban
education, multicultural educational practices in the
classroom, and the impact of professional development schools on student and teacher learning. She
was a public school special education teacher for
seven years before earning her doctorate from the
University of Northern Colorado. Currently, she is
co-principal investigator for the National Center for
Culturally Responsive Educational Systems, or NCCRESt, and the National Institute for Urban School
Improvement. Dr. Kozleski’s expertise in teacher education and urban education both support her work
with the Council for Exceptional Children, Teacher
Education Division; the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education; Harvard’s Civil
Rights Project; the Colorado Partnership for Educational Renewal; the National Center for Educational
Outcomes; the American Institutes for Research,
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards;
and the Minnesota and Delaware Departments of
Education, among others. Dr. Kozleski’s research and
personnel preparation efforts have been funded by
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs; the National Education Association; and the Colorado Department of Education.
She has presented her work at conferences in the
U.S., Asia, and Europe, and has received awards for
teaching, service, and research at her university.
Superscript numbers refer to refer to the slide of the accompanying PowerPoint being discussed.
NCSET Teleconference Transcript / February 17, 2005
Dr. Kozleski: Good afternoon, everybody. I’m really glad to be here, and I am going to try as best as I
can to convey what’s on the PowerPoint, if you don’t
have an opportunity to pull it off the Web site. 2 I’m
going to walk you through an agenda today that lays
out a definition of disproportionality, the ways that
we measure it, why we should pay attention to it,
what we know about it, what should we do about
it, what is NCCRESt doing, and how can we work
together to improve outcomes for all students.
3
A 2002 report from the National Academy
of Sciences on minority students in special education and gifted education defines disproportionality
“from the enactment of the 1975 federal law requiring states to provide a free and appropriate education to all students with disabilities, children in
some racial/ethnic groups have been identified for
services in disproportionately large numbers.” The
2002 report was the second time that the National
Academy of Sciences had taken a look at the issue of
the over- and under-representation of children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
in special education. Between the ’82 report and
the 2002 report, there was very little change in the
status of disproportionality. There were particular
groups that were over-represented in 1982, and they
continued to be over-represented in 2002.
4
Disproportionate representation is not a
result of intrinsic or family-based deficits on the
part of children. 5 What we think are contributors
to disproportionality are policies at the local level,
district level, and state level that encourage the
identification and placement of children in special
education without questioning the cultural profiles
and cultural implications that children bring to the
learning process. Another contributor may be the
belief about what our teaching force brings to their
classrooms in terms of preferences for the mainstream—the dominant culture perspectives of what
constitutes achievement and success in the modern
U.S. in terms of outcomes for adults and the practices that are in place in schools and classrooms that
prefer certain kinds of behaviors and certain kinds
of academic learning styles perhaps over others. It’s
this combination that is particularly problematic in
terms of policies, beliefs, and practices that together
may create a context in which certain kids tend
2
to get selected for special education services to a
greater degree than other kinds of children.
Another issue around disproportionality is not
only its presence in over- and under-identification
in special education, but also a concomitant set
of statistics in the general education environment
that deal with things like, what’s the proportion of
children from minority backgrounds who are taking
SATs, who are in Advanced Placement classes, who
are being given opportunities for service learning
and job shadowing for career development and for
entrance into high status professions in high school.
It has both a general education and a special education component.
6
One of the things that we don’t know a great
deal about from a research perspective are the intersections of the learning research, the research on
disability, and the research on the sociocultural nature of inclusion in community groups. We need to
answer what all three of these things together do and
create for individual kids in classrooms when we try
to begin to look at what kind of classroom curriculum or classroom instruction may be preferential. We
also need to begin to look at research that has sizeable
groups of children who come from non-majority cultures in the groups who are receiving treatment and
non-treatment, so we can begin to understand which
of the kinds of curriculum, instruction, and school
supports are necessary in order to support kids from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
7
The background assumptions that we make
about learning and development are that there
are individual contributing factors to how a child
might be successful in school. 8 There are also contextual factors that are created by the institutions
themselves, and those interact in many different
ways with the family status of a particular child, the
community in which a child finds themselves, the
school, and then the social pressures that are placed
on schools in terms of being successful.
Disproportionality is a very complex issue nested inside multiple dimensions of the problem. If we
deal with disproportionality at only one level of the
complexity, we will solve problems locally but we
won’t be able to solve problems at the system level.
The National Center for Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems is interested in creating sys-
The Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education
tems responses to the issue of disproportionality.
9
In order to do that, we have to talk about how we
measure disproportionality. 10 The current best practice around measuring disproportionality is using
something called the Relative Risk Ratio, where we
compare the risk of identification for one group of
students with a particular ethnic background. For instance, students who are identified as African American, or black, compared to the risk for white students or for all other students. The way we do that
is to use two risk indexes, the relationship between
all of the black students in a school population and
the subset of students who are black and labeled for
potentially mental retardation or learning disabilities
or emotional disturbance, and we get a risk index
for that particular group. Then we compare that risk
index to the risk index for white students by taking
the population of all the white students and leveraging it against the population of white students who
have been labeled for mental retardation, and we
compare the two risk indexes. We then get a Relative
Risk Index. When that risk index rises above 1, we’re
beginning to look at an issue around over-representation. When the risk index gets to 1.2 or above,
that’s a place where a school or a district or a state
might want to begin to look at that particular issue.
11
The 2002 National Academy of Sciences report asks, “If IDEA provides extra resources and the
right to a more individualized educational program,
why would one consider the disproportionate representation of minority children a problem?” 12 They
answered, “in order to be eligible for the additional
resources a child must be labeled as having a disability, a label that signals substandard performance.
And while that label is intended to bring additional
supports, it may also bring lowered expectations on
the part of teachers, other children, and the identified student. When a child cannot learn without
the additional supports, and when the supports
improve outcomes for the child, that trade-off may
well be worth making. But because there is a tradeoff, both the need and the benefit should be established before the label and the cost are imposed.”
13
When we consider the issue of disproportionality,
we need to consider:
• Special education may not provide the supports
that a student needs
• The disability label may stigmatize a student as
inferior
• Results in lowered expectations
• Potentially separates a student from peers
• May lead to poor educational and life outcomes
• Students may be denied access to the general
education curriculum
• May result in dropout
• Students may be misunderstood or underserved
in general education
14, 15
NCCRESt offers a lot of information about
the last four years of data that states have provided
to the federal government around disproportionality. 16 The map of the U.S. on the NCCRESt Web
site shows all of the disability categories for African
American students, the lowest risk ratio to the highest risk ratio, how states compare to one another in
terms of the risk for African American students to
be labeled in any disability category, and what that
risk might be. The western states seem to be much
hotter spots for all disabilities than the eastern side
which are predominantly blue states, with a few
exceptions in North and South Carolina.
17
If you go to the next map, the color suddenly
reverses. Now the western half of the U.S. is mostly
blue, and the eastern half of the U.S., particularly
in the southeastern corridor, is predominantly red.
That’s because we asked a different question in this
map. In this map, what we’re looking at is the risk
ratio in 2002-03 for African American students to
be labeled for mental retardation. What’s happening is that maps are recalculating the risk ratio every
time we ask a different question. We can encourage
states to actually look at this data in terms of the
risk ratio for different populations of kids in their
states. The second map asked the risk ratio versus
other races for students who were African American
who were labeled for mental retardation. 18 The
third map looks at the risk ratio for students who
are labeled for mental retardation who were African
American, but the risk ratio is comparing African
Americans to whites in this case.
As the denominator in our risk ratio changes,
the maps change color; as the disability category
changes, the maps change color; as the ethnicity of
3
NCSET Teleconference Transcript / February 17, 2005
the kids changes, the maps change color. You begin
to see patterns and shifts in what’s going on in different states. This allows people who are working at
the policy level to ask questions about the policies
in those states that are creating particular patterns,
and we can begin to look at the kinds of policies
that can encourage the most equitable participation
in special education.
19
I’m now moving onto a slide that shows data
series and data groups that you can actually ask for.
We’ve grouped all of the states according to their
ethnic composition. Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and West Virginia are grouped as homogeneous whites because the preponderance of their
population has identified themselves as white in
that state. To predominantly multi-racial states, like
California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, and Texas there is no one
race in that state that is a majority.
20
By organizing states into predominantly
bi-racial states and moderately multi-racial states
we can ask questions about the risk ratio change
when we look at states who fall into these different
categories, and then we can move on and begin to
look at a set of trend graphs that show what happens when we pick particular groups or clusters of
states. I’m now looking at the trend for the identification of African American students in high incidence disabilities—emotional disturbance, learning
disability, and mental retardation—for states that
are predominantly bi-racial, including Delaware,
Alabama, and Maryland over the past four years. In
Delaware the risk ratio for African Americans to be
identified in high-incidence disabilities went from
2.59 to 2.53. They have a relatively stable trend line
showing that students who are African American
are more than twice as likely than students of other
races to be identified for high-incidence disabilities.
In Alabama the trend line increases slightly from
1.6 in 1999 to 1.73 in 2003, and Maryland’s trend
line increases moderately from 1.57 to 1.60.
21
The next trend map shows states that are
predominantly multi-racial including New Jersey,
whose trend line moved from 1.41 to 1.49 over a
4-year period; Florida, whose trend line decreased
from 1.61 to 1.57; and California, which started at
2.07, went down to 2.01, and then went back up to
4
2.14 in 2002. Multi-racial states seem to be having difficulty working in high-incidence disabilities
in terms of their identification of students who are
African American.
22
The third trend graph looks at predominantly
homogeneous white states including Maine, West
Virginia, and Iowa. Iowa is hovering at about the
2.4 level, 2.4 times as likely to identify students
who are African American in high-incidence disabilities. Maine is at 1.4 and West Virginia at 1.23
in 2003. Maine’s number went down significantly
one year, and then started to creep back up.
23
This interactive Web site shows states in relationship to each other across many different kinds of
disability categories across different ethnic groups. It
also shows trend data and data points by state, and
the data series in terms of risk ratio, and—24 look at
bar chart—disproportionality by race and disability.
The bar chart compares California, Connecticut,
Delaware, and Iowa for students who are African
American and high-incidence disabilities for the
2002/03 school year. Three of those states are more
than twice as likely to identify students who are African American as having high-incidence disabilities.
We all know that states are an amalgam of what
local education agencies actually do with their students. One of the things that we’ve also done at NCCRESt is to try and ask the question, what happens
when we actually look at the same kinds of patterns
at a local education agency level. 25 Another graph is
based on the snapshots of data from Clark County
in Nevada, which is the Las Vegas school system, the
fastest growing school system in the country; from
Denver, Colorado; from Miami, Florida; from Washington, DC; and from Chicago, Illinois. We analyzed
the data across the five school systems, and we noticed that in any given school, where there is a population that is a minority, whether the population is
white or Hispanic or African American or Asian,
and there is a dominant majority population in that
building, there is a high risk for the minority population in that school to be over-identified in special
education. The table shows us that where population
distributions are heavily weighted in terms of one
large majority and a very small minority, you get a
lot more disproportionality or disproportionate identification of students for special education.
The Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education
26
The next map shows Chicago, and it’s organized in a way that allows us to look at schools that
have census poverty levels that are greater than 20%
and schools with poverty levels that are less than
21%. It maps the hotspots of Chicago where there
seem to be sets of schools that are over-identifying
their students who are African American in particular clusters. Those hotspots where the disproportionate risk ratio seems to exist for African Americans,
we look at that in relationship to whether or not the
neighborhoods and the schools that are implicated
are high poverty or not, there seems to be very little
relationship between poverty and the disproportionate identification of African American students. This
kind of a map also appears for the other cities that
we’ve been mapping. The idea that it’s poverty as
well as race that seems to be playing out in terms of
which children are getting identified, at least in the
cities that we’re taking a look at, seems to not be as
prevalent as the data expected that it might.
27
To view your own situation, at least at the state
level, go to the NCCRESt data manager site at http://
www.nccrest.org/, click on the login button, click ‘enter the campus now,’ and then type in the username
‘nccrest learner’ and the password ‘nccrest,’ and then
click ‘data maps’ and you will be in our data map
manager, and you can play in there and take a look
at what’s going on for your particular state.
28
What should we do about disproportionality?
29
One of the things that seems to be important to
states is “Eliminating disproportionality is an adult
issue.” That’s a quote from the Superintendent of
the Seattle schools. “We must change the way we
think about ability, competence, and success and
encourage schools to redefine support so that the
need to sort children is reduced.” That’s testimony
before the President’s Commission on Special Education in 2002.
30
To provide technical assistance and dissemination to states in the search for solutions to their
widespread underachievement and disproportionate placements in special education experienced by
culturally and linguistically diverse students, NCCRESt has organized work into four key areas. One
of them, continuous improvement, is only possible
if we provide people with the data they need to help
them understand the nature of the problem in their
particular situation—the role of the data manager
maps.
We also believe that we need to synthesize the
literature, from intervention literature to socio-cultural literature to literature that helps us understand
what culturally responsive pedagogy might be, so
that we can put tools in the hands of practitioners
so that they understand things that they might
think about, practices that they might institute
in their classes, and assessment systems that they
might integrate into thinking about the nature of
student needs and what that means for instruction.
Our Web site now has eight practitioner briefs
to which we are continuing to expand by adding
a series of research-based articles in a variety of
general education and special education journals.
People need technical assistance and professional
development to make the shift in their practice,
so we have a whole strand at NCCRESt that deals
with the development of leadership academies
around culturally responsive educational practices.
Finally, we need to get the word out as much
as we possibly can, to network with other people
around the country, like Anthony Sims, who is going
to be on the next teleconference, who are doing work
around disproportionality so that we can become
more powerful together in addressing this issue. We
think it’s a systemic issue, and we need to think systemically about solutions. 31 In any educational system we have people, policies, and practices that need
to be accounted for and we cannot make progress
unless we operate in multiple arenas simultaneously.
32
The culture and language and heritage of all
students and families are valued, respected, and used
to facilitate learning and development. That is an
essential feature of any culturally responsive system.
33
Features of culturally responsive educational systems include practitioners and administrators who
assume responsibility for the learning of all students
from all cultural and linguistic backgrounds; systems
where every student benefits academically, socioculturally, and linguistically; and systems where all students have access to high quality teachers, programs,
curricula, and resources. 34 If we think about this
as a systemic change initiative, and we think about
this as simultaneous renewal at multiple levels of the
system, 35 we’ve got to think about whether or not,
5
NCSET Teleconference Transcript / February 17, 2005
at the local school level and local classrooms, every
child has access to the curriculum, whether or not
every child is able to participate in the curriculum,
and whether or not every child has equity in terms
of the instruction and the feedback and the materials that are made available for that student to learn.
36, 37
Building culturally responsive systems
requires engaging people, and one of the things that
we’ve been doing a lot of work around is focusing
on making sure that the voices of all of the students
in a building and their families are present, are
encouraged to participate and to offer thoughts that
may be unique or not expected, and let them build
a community of practice in their own buildings that
supports the kinds of traditions and heritages and
assets that those families bring into the school.
38
We want to encourage people at the school
level, the district level, the state level, and the federal
level to examine policies, to ask whether or not
the policies educate and move the agenda forward,
whether they help to inform the practice, whether
they’re equitable in terms of their distribution of
resources and opportunities, whether they emancipate, and whether or not they create access for all
students and families. 39 To do that it requires conversations like the one that we’re having today and a
set of tools.
40
What should be the focus of change? It needs
to be at the classroom, school, district, state, and
federal levels. 41 Connecting the dots, the data, and
change requires robust and sustainable change,
requiring masterful use of evidence. Effective school
improvement can only exist within a context of
clear information; clear, specific goals and outcome
measures; and information systems that provide
just-in-time information.
42
Our technical assistance strategy is to help
states build capacity around their professional development and technical assistance, 43 to build skill
sets at the state education agency level, and to work
in teams that cut across the state education agency,
advocacy, and district personnel so that we make
sure that within any given state the specific issues
that are leading to disproportionality in LEAs are
the focal point for the kinds of activities—technical
assistance and professional development—that are
going on to make a change.
6
We identify districts that are improving, that
can serve as beacons for other districts, and build
strategies to support their work, and then we identify
districts that need to learn, because they’re in the development phase, so that we can build their capacity.
There are many assumptions in the work we’re
doing—that this is not a special education problem,
but one that deals with the disproportionality issue
requiring a focus on education as it’s developed in
classrooms and schools across the population of
kids, as opposed to working on it from within the
special education milieu.
44
We do a lot of different kinds of things at
NCCRESt to facilitate this and we encourage you
to participate in those kinds of activities, to visit
our Web site, to get on our eNews subscription
list, to continue to participate in communities of
practice like this in partnerships with technical assistance and RRC centers. In September 2005, we
are in the process of developing a national forum on
disproportionality that will be an open invitation to
people around the country to come. In addition, we
are working very intensively with nine states to develop models at the state level for solving the issues
of disproportionality.
45
Working together to make a difference includes understanding the assumption that student
characteristics are both psychological and sociocultural, and that they bring both of those traditions,
those avenues to their learning that curriculum
must address. Teachers need to understand how
to work in culturally responsive ways, and schools
need to attend and respond to patterns of performance, selection, and inclusion in their buildings.
Inclusiveness in that we have not only students with
disabilities but also students who come from many
different cultural and ethnic backgrounds who we
ensure are included in all of our programs. There’s
also an acknowledgement that this is difficult work
and technical assistance needs to be geared to help
schools do this—to understand how to ask the
questions, how to look at their data, and how to
understand the kinds of skills they need to develop
in their teachers to make this work successful.
46
Keep in mind that there are factors that influence the state and district capacity to do this work:
the policy environment; the allocation of resources;
The Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education
the availability of state personnel; the integration of
information systems; the linking among organizations, programs, and projects. 47 If we’re going to
change the way that things are, we need to understand the data, we need to focus on the classroom,
we need to use whole-school improvement models,
we need to build networks of schools, and we need
to do policy review, training, and reform in order to
change the current context.
48
This presentation looked at what disproportionality is, how we measure it, how we should pay
attention to it, what we know about it, what we
should do about it, what NCCRESt is doing about
it, and potentially some activities that we could work
on together to improve outcomes for all students.
Participant: I’d like to ask who the nine states
are that you are working with?
Dr. Kozleski: Connecticut, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin,
Iowa, and one more. Why don’t we talk about
something else while I remember them?
Participant: You mentioned the importance of
knowing how to read the data. Are there particular
dangers that the data might, or typically in this
field, lead people astray?
Dr. Kozleski: I think the biggest point to make
about looking at the data around disproportionality
is to understand that if we work just to change the
data, we might work on the wrong thing. A really
quick fix to solving the problem is just simply to
stop identifying children of color. That may or may
not be the right thing to do. That thinking about
what the data means, and then the response to the
data needs to be a much deeper conversation than
just making the data the way that they should be, or
the assumption that they should be, which is kids of
all different races get identified at exactly the same
levels. The data may make us choose fixes that may
not really be deep solutions to the issue.
Participant: What is the definition of disproportionality and do we automatically assume from the
presentation that when you have a higher proportion of a particular race or gender or ethnic group,
that is automatically a problem? Do you not start
with the assumption that it’s somewhat problematic?
Dr. Kozleski: To answer the first question, I gave
you the definition from the National Academy of
Sciences. I did not give you numerical or technical
definitions of disproportionality because then we are
dealing with numbers as opposed to the root cause.
To answer the second question, you don’t know
until you look deeper into the situation what you’re
looking at, what is going on, what are the features
of the particular context that you’re looking at, how
is it that certain sets of kids are coming into special
education, what is the referral process, what are the
teaching technologies that are being used in a general
education classroom when the kids are being identified for special education, and what are the preventative measures that are being used? There is a whole
set of questions that need to be asked of the data.
Simply create the opportunity to ask those questions.
Participant: Once disproportionality is identified, as you said, it may or may not be a problem
in and of itself—it’s indicative of, perhaps, other
problems. Have you found in the states and districts
that you’re working with that there seem to be other
measurable factors closely associated with it, like
poor performance on district or statewide tests or
greater incidence of dropping out or fewer graduates? I think you mentioned participation in SAT
tests, those sorts of things?
Dr. Kozleski: We are looking at a district right
now in California where we are looking at all of
those measures together and looking at what the
relationship is between not only the negative factors—suspensions, expulsions, dropout, lower
achievement rates—but also the other side of the
equation, which is access to Advanced Placement
classes, and looking at the relationship and the predictive value for disproportionate representation.
Participant: I’m from Lawrence, Kansas, at
University of Kansas. What is the prevalence of minority children with Asperger’s/Autism, where can I
get that information, and can you use data maps to
get the answers?
Dr. Kozleski: Our data maps only map the disability categories that the feds use, because our data
comes directly from OSEP, from Westat. We don’t
track children who are labeled as autistic or Asperger’s Syndrome by themselves.
Mr. McCaim: Could the speaker talk a little bit
about under-representation of ELLs in special education? In Oregon we have a small representation of
7
NCSET Teleconference Transcript / February 17, 2005
it, lower than national norms for English Language
Learners being referred to special education. Dr.
Baca was here recently and this was a new phenomenon to him as well. I want to know if the speaker
could comment on that?
Dr. Kozleski: If you have a chance to go visit
our data maps on the NCCRESt Web site, you can
look at under-representation issues, particularly for
students who come from Hispanic categories. We
know that not all children who are identified as
Hispanic speak either Spanish or English as their
first language, so it’s not a perfect match. That is
an issue that is appearing in more than Oregon as a
phenomenon to worry about.
Ms. Autin: This is Diana Autin from the Region 1 Parent Technical Assistance Center and the
Statewide Parent Advocacy Network of New Jersey.
Parents play a critical role in helping avoid the overclassification of their children, if their children are
classified, and the over-segregation of their children.
I’m wondering if the work in the states that you’re
working with involves working with African American parents in terms of building their capacity to
make good decisions about whether or not their
children should be classified and if so, ensuring
more inclusive placements for their children?
Dr. Kozleski: Well, we agree with you that families are a real core piece of this. We have a project
that is going on here in Denver with the Latino
Statewide Family Organization that is actually working with families through a grassroots organization
to teach them about the issues of disproportionality
and to teach them about ways to think about the
conversations that they might have with teachers and
child study teams in their buildings around that very
issue. We’re hoping to develop a process with them
that we can build with other states dealing with
other ethnic groups around that particular issue.
Dr. Bremer: I’d like to thank Elizabeth for sharing her time and expertise with us. If you’re interested in learning more about transition issues and
helping youth graduate and achieve successful post
school outcomes, we invite you to join the OSEP
Exiting TA Community of Practice at http://www.
tacommunities.org/. I know Elizabeth will invite you
to continue to visit the NCCRESt Web site for all
the wonderful resources there. You might also check
8
out the NCSET Web site for recent postings. The
next NCSET Exiting TA Community teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, February 22. The
presenter will be Dr. Martha Thurlow and the topic
is the implications of standards, assessments, and
accountability on graduation requirements and diploma options. We hope to see you all then. Thank
you for joining us and have a great day.
This teleconference was coordinated by the National
Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
This transcript is copyright free. Please duplicate and
share with others.
Contact us at:
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition
Institute on Community Integration (UCEDD)
6 Pattee Hall
150 Pillsbury Drive SE
Minneapolis MN 55455
(612) 624-2097 (phone)
(612) 624-9344 (fax)
ncset@umn.edu (E-mail)
http://www.ncset.org (Web)
National Center for
Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
Addressing Disproportionality:
From Planning to Action
February, 2004
Today’s Agenda
What is Disproportionality?
How do we measure it?
Why should we pay attention to it?
What do we know about it?
What should we do about?
What is NCCRESt doing?
How can we work together to improve
outcomes for all students?
What is Disproportionality?
From the enactment of the 1975 federal
law requiring states to provide a free and
appropriate education to all students
with disabilities, children in some
racial/ethnic groups have identified for
services in disproportionately large
numbers (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp.
1).
Assumptions About the Causes of
Disproportionate Representation
What it is not:
intrinsic or family-based
deficits
Contributors
Beliefs
•Practices
•Disproportionality
•Policies
Intersections
•Learning
•Disability
•Culture
Background Assumptions about
Learning and Development
Individual
agency
Contextual
factors
•family
•community
•school
•society
Complexities of Disproportionality
•Students
•Families & Communities
•Teachers
•Schools
•School Districts
•SEA & Fed Policies
•Social Forces
How do we measure it?
Relative Risk Ratio
What is the risk of identification as MR for Black
students, compared to the risk for White students?
Black students are 2.40 more likely than White
students to be identified with MR.
Relative Risk
Calculation:
Risk for Black students:
Black MR
All Black students
205,590
11,564,606
0.0178
0.0074 =2.40 Risk for White students:
White MR
308,243
Relative Risk
1.78%
All white students Relative Risk
41,677,1580
.74%
Why should we pay attention
to
disproportionality?
If IDEA provides extra resources and the right
to a more individualized education program,
why would one consider disproportionate
representation of minority children a problem
(Dononvan & Cross, 2002, 2)?
The Cost of a Label
The answer, as every parent of a child receiving special
education services knows, is that in order to be eligible for
the additional resources a child must be labeled as having
a disability, a label that signals substandard performance.
And while that label is intended to bring additional
supports, it may also bring lowered expectations on the
part of teachers, other children, and the identified student.
When a child cannot learn without the additional supports,
and when the supports improve outcomes for the child,
that trade-off may well be worth making. But, because
there is a trade-off, both the need and the benefit should
be established before the label and the cost are imposed
(Donovan & Cross, 2002, 3).
Considerations
• Special Education may not provide the supports that a
student needs
• Disability label may stigmatize a student as inferior
• Results in lowered expectations
• Potentially separates the student from peers
• May lead to poor educational and life outcomes
• Students may be denied access to the general
education curriculum
• May result in dropout
• Students may be misunderstood or underserved in
General Education
What do we know about
disproportionality?
NCCRESt Data Manager
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
www.nccrest.org
Click login
Click enter the campus now
username: nccrest learner
password: nccrest
Data Maps
What should we do about
it?
Changing the vision…
“Eliminating disproportionality is an
adult issue.” (Joseph Olchefske, Superintendent of Seattle
Schools)
“We must change the way we think about
ability, competence and success and
encourage schools to redefine support so
that the need to sort children is reduced.”
(Testimony before the President’s Commission, 2002)
What NCCRESt Does
We are searching for solutions to the widespread
underachievement and disproportionate placement
in special education experienced by culturally and
linguistically diverse students.
Through four core teams, our work will focus on:
•
Continuous improvement, increasing knowledge and
understanding through the evaluation of current practice,
change efforts, and their impact.
•
Research and development, synthesizing and expanding
research-based practices in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy,
Literacy Instruction, Positive Behavior Supports, and Early
Intervention.
•
Professional development, leveraging the continued
improvement of schools through collaboration with existing
technical assistance networks, local asset mapping, and
leadership academies.
•
Networking and dissemination, engaging in a national
discourse across local, professional practice, and policy
communities on improving educational outcomes for culturally
What’s in an Educational
System?
People
Practices
Policies
Features of Culturally
Responsive Educational
Culture, language, heritage, and
Systems
experiences of ALL students and
families are
(1) valued;
(2) respected; and
(3) used to facilitate learning and
development.
Features of Culturally
Responsive Educational
Systems
1. Practitioners and Administrators assume
responsibility for the learning of ALL
students from ALL cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
2. Every student benefits academically,
socioculturally & linguistically.
3. Access to high quality teachers, programs,
curricula, and resources is available to
every student.
What is Systemic Change?
Simultaneous
Renewal in
Multiple Layers
of the System
People
Practices
Policies
Why Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems?
Access
Participation
Equity
Building Culturally Responsive
Systems
People
Practices
Policies
Engaging People
•Presence
•Participation
•Emancipation
Administrators
Teachers
Families
Students
Communities
Examining Policies
• Educate
• Inform
• Equitable
• Emancipate
• Create Access
Federal
State
District
School
Examining Practice
• Discourse
• Tools
• Collaboration
• Evidence
•Early Intervention in General Education
•Positive Behavior Supports
•Literacy Instruction
•Professional Development
So What Should be the Focus
of Change?
People
FEDERAL
STATE
Practices
Policies
DISTRICTS
DISTRICT
SCHOOLS
CLASSROOMS
Connecting the Dots: Data &
Change
1. Robust and sustainable change
requires masterful use of evidence
2. Effective school improvement can only
exist within a context of clear
information, specific goals, and
outcome measures
3. We need information systems that
provide just-in-time information
What is NCCRESt doing?
Provide technical assistance
and professional development to
– close the achievement gap
between students from culturally
and linguistically diverse
backgrounds and their peers, and
– reduce inappropriate referrals to
special education.
TA Strategy
• Build State Capacity to Provide
TA and PD
• Build skill sets at SEA Level
People
• Work in teams that cut across
SEA, Advocacy & District
personnel
• Identify districts that are
improving and build strategies
to support their work
• Identify districts that are
developing and build capacity
Practices
Policies
TA Delivery Model
.
9
states
Annual National
Forum
on
.
Disproportionalit
y
Partnerships w/
RRCs & TA
Centers
Monthly NCCRESt/
RRC Workgroup
Initiatives
E-News, Website,
publications/products
Working together to make a
difference
• Student characteristics are both psychological and
sociocultural
• Curriculum and Instruction must address both
• Teachers need to understand how to work in culturally
responsive ways with their students
• Schools need to attend and respond to patterns of
performance, selection, and inclusion in their buildings
• Schools need technical assistance and professional
development to become culturally responsive institutions
• Districts need technical assistance and professional
development to become culturally responsive systems.
Keep in mind factors that
influence state/district capacity
– Policy Environment
– Resource Allocation
– State Personnel
– Information Systems
– Linking Organizations
– Programs and Projects
Changing the way that things
are
Essential change strategies include:
• Understanding the data
• Focus on classroom practices
• Whole School Improvement
• Professional Development
• Technical Assistance
• Networks of Schools on the Move
• Policy Review, Tuning and Reform
Conclusion
What is Disproportionality?
How do we measure it?
Why should we pay attention to it?
What do we know about it?
What should we do about?
What is NCCRESt doing?
How can we work together to improve
outcomes for all students?