Trends in Access to the General Education Curriculum from 199 8 -2005

1. Trends in Access to the General Education Curriculum from 1998-2005 Veera Sidhwa Kristi Hagans, Ph.D. Brandon Gamble, Ed.D. Cal-State University Long Beach

2. Overview of presentation • Why over-representation is problematic • Measurements of disproportionality • Looking at disproportionality in two ways • Over-representation in special education • Over-representation in restrictive environments • Limitations • Refocus on the solutions • Resources • Q & A

3. Why disproportionate placement is problematic. (i.e. why you should care.) • Less challenging curriculum • Lower expectations/achievement • Post school outcomes • Less interactions with non-disabled peers • Stigmatization of label

4. Different ways to look at the same issue • The same data can be analyzed in various ways that yield different interpretations. Examples: • Composition index: What percentage of children classified as ED are African American? • Calculation: number of students labeled ED that are African American/number of students labeled ED • Risk index: What percentage of African American school-age childrenare classified as ED? • Calculation: number of students labeled ED that are African American/number of all African Americans • Risk ratio: Are African American school-age children more likely to be labeled ED than children from other ethnic backgrounds? • Calculation: risk index of minority group/risk index of comparison group

5. Different ways to look at the same issue (2) • For Example, in California duringthe 2006-2007 school year: • African Americans made up 7.6% of the K-12 population. • African Americans made up 22.3% of those classified as ED (composition index). • 1.3% of African Americans were labeled ED (risk index). • African Americans were 1.86 times as likely to be labeled ED when compared to Whites (risk ratio). • Source: California Department of Education http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

6. Worst Case Scenario • A group is over-represented in special education and over-represented in more restrictive environments • Risk ratios for children receiving special education service in Fall of 2003. Comparison group is all other racial/ethnic groups (OSEP, 2005) • Risk ratios for children receiving sp. Education services in 2003-2004 school year (California Department of Education, 2007). Comparison group is Whites

7. Worst Case Scenario (2) • It is importance to not just look at disproportionate representation in special education and disability labels but also on the settings in which students receive special education services. • Social/emotional benefits • Fryxell and Kennedy (1995) found evidence to suggest that inclusive settings provide children with environments that promote better social outcomes • Students were fully included had more social contacts with non-disabled peers, participated in more activities with non-disabled peers, perceived quality of social contacts was higher, and received and provided higher levels of social support. • Academic outcomes • Measurements of academic success of children who are fully included in general education are comparable or better than those in pullout programs or separate classrooms (Marston, 1996; Shinn, Powell-Smith, Good, & Baker, 1997; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002).

8. OSEP (2005) Report to Congress The percentage of children with disabilities educated outside of the regular class for less than 21% of the day has increased from 43.4% in 1993 to 49.9% in 2003. OSEP has not disaggregated this information by race.

9. Research questions • What are the current relative risk ratios by ethnicity group on restrictiveness of education placement as measured by percentage of time spent outside of the general education classroom in California and the United States? • Has the risk of being placed in the least restrictive and most restrictive placement for minority groups increased, decreased, or remained stable from 1998-2005 in the Unites States? Are there similar trends in California from 2003-2005?

10. Data • Data were retrieved from the USDoE Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) website, www.ideadata.org, a publicly accessible database. • These data are collected annually by OSEP from state departments of education and include counts of all children and youth ages 6-21 served under IDEA by race and special education placement.

11. Findings • National risk ratios in 2005 for students served under IDEA • All minority groups are under represented in the lease restrictive setting. • Comparison group was Whites

12. National trends Findings (2)

13. Main Findings • National • African Americans are the most likely to be placed in separate settings and the least likely to spend less than 21% of the school day outside of a general education setting. • The national risk ratio for African Americans with disabilities served outside the regular classroom for more than 60% of the day has decreased from 2.06 in 1998 to 1.94 in 2005. • In separate environments (public separate facility, private separate facility, public residential facility, private residential facility, or hospital environment) African Americans are the only group to be grossly overrepresented. Nationally, the risk has increased from 1.47 in 1998 to 1.49 in 2005. • For Asian-Americans with disabilities, the risk of spending more than 60% of the day outside the regular class has grown from 1.46 to 1.78. Findings (3)

14. Findings (4) • California’s risk ratios in 2005 for students served under IDEA • All minority groups except Asians are under represented in the least restrictive setting. • Comparison group was Whites.

15. Findings (5) California trends

16. Findings (6) Main Findings In California In CA, the risk for spending more than 60% of the school day outside of the general education classroom has decreased for all minority groups. However, all minority groups remain over-represented in this category. The risk for spending less than 21% of the day outside the general education classroom has been slightly increasing for all minority groups. African Americans are the only minority group to be overrepresented in separate environments and they are the least likely to be represented in the least restrictive environment.

17. Limitations • These data are a point in time count and do not reflect all students served throughout the entire school year (OSEP, 2006). • The data do not reflect intensity or quality of services provided (OSEP, 2006). • Children were classified into one racial category. Bi-racial children may have not been properly classified.

18. There is a lack of attempted solutions documented in the literature and an over focus on the problem • Although there hasn’t been much research on how to decrease over-representation, there are resources available and recommendations based on the research that is focused on a solution. • Collect and gather data at your school/district • Be aware of over-representation at your school, district, and state • Analyze selection process: from student identification by teachers to placement to determine where/if biases exist. • Start a dialogue • Provide early interventions, don’t wait for a child to fail (NEA, 2007)/ Have a good pre-referral process in place • Example: Problem Solving Student Success Team • Make sure that teachers understand and are able to utilize it Refocus on the solutions:

19. Refocus on solutions (2) • When eligibility is determined: • Establish a set of standards for student progress and readiness to exit special education. • Increase family involvement • Identify and address obstacles that prevent families from being active • Make parents aware of their rights and clarify family roles/expectations • Promote cultural competence to self, staff, and fellow school psychologists • Increase academic language pr0ficiency (NEA, 2007) • School wide positive behavioral support programs (NEA, 2007)

20. Example Districts • Los Angeles Unified School District’s Office of the Independent Monitor: • Consent degree required a review overrep. in ED/SDC for 3 yr. • The basic standards of practice were inconsistent, varied at sites • African American, White, and Latino students overrep. Also the tiered process for referral varied among the 3 populations • Psychological Reports were not consistently filed with IEP and often did not even address the broad criteria for ED. • Monthly publication and monitoring of data by ethnicity as well as a checklist of criteria and standards of practice case where ED was being considered • Led to a decrease ED initial placements, enrollment in Non-Public Schools, and lowered risk ration

21. Example Districts 2 • Clark County in Las Vegas, Nevada • Office of Civil Rights in the state required a review • MR, LD, & ED placements reviewed as well as discipline • Every administrator given a copy of the National Alliance of Black School Educator’s report on overrep • They considered all issues (e.g. under-rep. of Asian/Pacific Islanders in Sp Ed.) • Got over the idea that IQ tests caused overrep • Addressed a systemic and cultural disconnect as well as RtI • Met with expert Daniel Reschly to analyze their data • Sp Ed Director meet with site admin to discuss rates of suspensions and Sp Ed placements --> Decrease of in overrep

22. Resources • www.k8accesscenter.org • This site has information on how to increase access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. It focuses on the areas on language arts, math, and science. • www.ceep.indiana.edu • Center for Evaluation and Education Policy • Their mission is to “Improve education by providing nonpartisan information, research, and evaluation on education issues to policymakers and other education stakeholders” • www.ideapartnership.org • Collaboration of 55 organizations that discuss issues related to IDEA • Includes: NASP, OSEP, American Federation of Teachers, and American Association of People with Disabilities • National Education Association (2007). Truth in Labeling: Disproportionality in Special Education. • Can be found at www.nea.org/books • Quick read covering the major issues related to disproportionality.

23. Q and A • Please feel free to contact any of us: • Veera Sidhwa - v.sidhwa@gmail.com • Kristi Hagans, Ph.D. - khagansm@csulb.edu • Brandon Gamble, Ed.D. – bgamble@csulb.edu