ERIC ED476292: Biennial Performance Reports--Disproportionality. Quick Turn Around (QTA).

11 Pages·0.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 476 292
EC 309 556
Muller, Eve; Markowitz, Joy
AUTHOR
Biennial Performance Reports--Disproportionality. Quick Turn
TITLE
Around (QTA).
INSTITUTION
National Association of State Directors of Special Education,
Alexandria, VA.
SPONS AGENCY
Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE 2003-01-00
NOTE
10p.
H326F000001
CONTRACT
AVAILABLE FROM
Project FORUM, National Association of State Directors of
Special Education, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320, Alexandria,
VA 22314. Tel: [phone] (Voice); Tel: [phone] (TDD);
Web site: http://www.nasde.org. For full text:
http://www.nasdse.org/forum.htm.
Information Analyses (070)
PUB TYPE
Reports
Evaluative (142)
EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
Compliance (Legal); *Data Analysis; Data Collection;
*Disabilities; *Disability Identification; *Disproportionate
Representation; Elementary Secondary Education; Minority
Groups; National Surveys; Racial Factors; *Referral; *Special
Education
IDENTIFIERS
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ABSTRACT
This brief paper analyzes the types of information about
disproportionality of particular racial/ethnic groups in special education
that states provided in the Biennial Performance Reports (BPRs) submitted to
the U.S. Department of Education in 2002 (covering the academic years 1991-
2000 and 2000-2001). A section on the study's background notes requirements
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to collect data on
disproportionality. The BPRs of all 50 states and nine non-state
jurisdictions were examined. Forty-five jurisdictions provided data on
disproportionality in table form while the others provided narrative
information only. Twenty-nine states used the formula recommended by the
Office of Special Education Programs to determine disproportionality. Forty-
four of the jurisdictions identified one or more areas/types of
disproportionality, most commonly in the following disability categories:
emotional disturbance (40 states), mental retardation (39 states), and
specific learning disability (35 states). Thirty-five states included at
least some information on how they were addressing or planning to address
disproportionality. Also, 26 states expressed concerns about the collection
and use of data to determine disproportionality. Among these concerns were
that heightened awareness of disproportionality could lead to a drop in
appropriate referrals and that poverty may affect the labeling and referral
of students.
(DB)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Biennial Performance Reports-Disproportionality
Quick Turn Around
By
Eve Muller
Joy Markowitz
January 2003
U.S. DEP RTMENT OF EDUCATION
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
rational Research and Improvement
Office of
IONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
EDU
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
2
0111/111All
QTA A brief analysis of a critical issue in special education
January 2003
Biennial Performance Reports - Disproportionality
by Eve Muller and Joy Markowitz
data on disproportionality as described in the
Overview
of
regulations
the
section
following
implementing IDEA:
This Quick Turn Around (QTA) is a brief
analysis of the types of information about
Each State... shall provide for the collection
states provided
in
disproportionality that
and examination of data to determine if
their Biennial Performance Reports (BPRs),
significant disproportionality based on race
of
Department
U.S.
the
to
submitted
is occurring in the State or in the schools
Education on May 31, 2002. These reports
operated by the Secretary of the Interior
and
cover the academic years 1999-2000
(1) the identification of
with respect to
The term
disproportionality
2000-2001.
disabilities,
as
children
with
children
refers to the over- or under-representation of
including the identification of children as
students receiving special education services
children with disabilities in accordance with
from particular racial/ethnic groups relative
a particular impairment...; and (2)
the
to the representation of that racial/ethnic
placement in particular educational settings
group in the total student population. This
of these children [34 CFR §300.755 (a)].
analysis was carried out as part of Project
FORUM's cooperative agreement with the
The regulations implementing IDEA further
U.S. Department of Education's Office of
case of significant
the
that
specify
in
Special Education Programs (OSEP).
states must develop a
disproportionality,
plan for addressing the problem:
This QTA is one of several BPR analyses
being conducted by OSEP-funded projects.
In the case of a determination of significant
has
FORUM
Project
example,
For
the
respect
to
with
disproportionality
completed an analysis of BPR goals and
identification of children as children with
on
Center
National
the
indicators,
disabilities, or the placement in particular
is
(NCEO)
Outcomes
Educational
educational settings of these children... the
completing an analysis of the assessment
State or the Secretary of the Interior shall
information and Westat is completing an
provide for the review and, if appropriate,
analysis of the graduation and dropout data.
revision of the policies, procedures and
or
identification
the
used
practices
in
Background and Federal Legislation
the policies,
that
ensure
placement
to
procedures and practices comply with the
The 1997 amendments to the Individuals
requirements of Part B of the Act. [34 CFR
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
§300.755 (b)].
require that all states collect and examine
703-519-3800 (voice) or 7008 (TDD)
This document is available in alternative formats. For details, please contact Project FORUM staff at
3
In addition, OSEP requires that states report
concerns
about collection
the
and
6.
on disproportionality in their BPRs. Specific
reporting of disproportionality data.
instructions and a form for reporting were
included in a memo from OSEP dated
submitted a 2002 BPR
One state
that
January 11, 2002, entitled the "Submission
provided data from 1989 and therefore was
Requirements for the Biennial Performance
not included in this analysis. The 58 states
Report." The BPR submission requirements
and non-state jurisdictions that make up the
state that BPRs must include data on the
sample are hereafter referred to as "states"
percentage of students
served under
in this report.
(a)
IDEA by race/ethnicity;
specific
in
(b)
disability categories by race/ethnicity; and
Data Provided in Table Form
settings by
specific
educational
(c)
in
A total of 45
states provided data on
race/ethnicity.
When
significant
disproportionality
disproportionality in table form (see Table
exists,
states
are
also
to show how they have used
required
1); the others provided narrative information
disproportionality data to make adjustments
only. Most states provided data only at the
or improvements in programs, policy or
state level. However, several provided data
at the district or school level. Of these 45
Additional
practice.
information
on
states, 41 provided data on the number of
submission requirements for the BPR can be
OSEP's
category by
found on
website:
students
disability
each
in
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/
race/ethnicity, 40 states provided data on the
Monitoring.
of
number
receiving
students
special
education services by race/ethnicity and 39
Methodology
provided data on the number of students in
of
each
education
type
setting
by
OSEP provided Project FORUM with copies
race/ethnicity.
Twenty-one
states
used
of the 2002 BPRs filed by all 50 states and
separate tables to report data on 3-5 year
of the
ten
nine
jurisdictions
non-state
olds.
required to submit BPRs.1 The reports were
reviewed,
the
sections containing
and
Some tables were more "user friendly" than
information
disproportionality
on
were
others. For instance, the majority of states
analyzed for the following information:
provided
comparison
information
on
race/ethnicity
percentages
total
in
the
types of data provided in table form;
1.
student population alongside information on
formulas or criteria used for determining
2.
the proportion of each racial/ethnic group
disproportionality;
receiving special education services, having
identification of specific areas/types of
3.
a particular disability or receiving services
disproportionality;
a particular educational
in
setting. This
performance targets;
4.
format was clearly designed to make it
ways in which states
are addressing
5.
easier to identify potential areas of concern.
performance targets; and
Furthermore, many states drew attention to
specific areas of concern by highlighting
over- or under-representation (e.g., marking
I The non-state jurisdictions included in this analysis
certain cells in tables as either "high" or
are American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
"low").
District of Columbia, Guam, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Marshall Islands, Palau,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Biennial Performance Reports Disproportionality
Page 2
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2003
Twenty-nine states reported using and/or
different
and/or
provided
Three states
additional types of data in table form. For
demonstrated the use of the OSEP formula;
example, one state provided data on the type however, several did not use this formula for
of school attended by students of each
all data (e.g., yes, for disabilities categories
racial/ethnic group (e.g., public, nonpublic,
and no, for educational settings) and one did
not use this formula exactly as specified in
charter). Another state provided data on the
the BPR General
number of local education agencies (LEAs)
Guidance.
states
Six
the OSEP formula and
using
which reported
students
were
over-
Black2
in
another formula, six states reported using
represented in special education.
another formula only, and 17 states did not
specify the formula or criteria used to
Table 1
Race/Ethnicity Data Provided in
disproportionality.
determine
Anecdotal
Table Form (N=58)
information indicates that although some
states may have used the OSEP formula for
Race/ethnicity data tabled by:
No.
their BPR, they continue to use other criteria
States
or formula for non-BPR purposes. More
Disability category
41
information
about
criteria
state
for
Total receiving special education
40
determining disproportionality can be found
Educational setting
39
in a previous Project FORUM document
3-5 year olds
21
Other
(Markowitz, 2002).3
3
Total number of states providing data in
45
table form
Specific Types of Disproportionality
Determining Disproportionality
Forty-four
identified
states
specific
areas/types of disproportionality in either
Although states were permitted to determine
table or narrative form. The number of
disproportionality using a state-developed
areas/types ranged from one to more than 50
formula or set of criteria, OSEP provided the
per state. In some cases, it was necessary for
the BPR General
following formula in
the authors to apply the OSEP .2 formula to
Guidance: If 30 percent of a state's general
the data provided in table form in order to
population
the
Black,
should
state
is
of
determine
specific
areas/types
multiply 30 percent times .2 to determine the
disproportionality.
accepted difference from that 30 percent
representation (six percentage points in this
Three states and six non-state jurisdictions
case). In this example, any category/data cell
reported that disproportionality is not a
of Black students that is over 36 percent or
concern and explained that this is because
under 24 percent would indicate the need for
ethnically
population
student
the
is
review and the possible revision of policies,
homogeneous. For instance, the Bureau of
practices
procedures
used
and
the
in
Indian Affairs noted that all of its students
of
identification
disabilities
or
the
are Native American, and Palau noted that
designation of educational settings.
all of its students are Asian Pacific Islanders.
2 The term "Black" is used in this document, because
this is the term used in the Annual Report to
3 Markowitz, J. (2002). State criteria for determining
disproportionality. Alexandria, VA: Project FORUM
Congress. However, many states used the term
"African American."
at NASDSE.
Biennial Performance Reports Disproportionality
Page 3
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2003
State versus Local
impairment and developmental delay (20-29
states). These data are summarized in Table
Thirty-eight
identified
states
2.
disproportionality in
statewide
Six
data.
Table 2
states reported disproportionality by local
Number of States Reporting Racial/Ethnic
school district, or both statewide and by
Disproportionality by
local school
This distinction
district.
is
Disability Category (N=58)
important because disproportionality is often
quite serious in certain school districts, yet
Disability Category
No. of States
may not show up
if analysis
only
is
Autism
33
conducted statewide.
Deaf-Blindness
25
Emotional Disturbance
40
Special Education Overall
Hearing Impairment
27
Mental Retardation
39
Multiple Disabilities
26
Thirty-three
identified
states
Orthopedic Impairment
28
disproportionality
relating
special
to
Other Health Impairment
31
education
overall or
for
more
one
Specific Learning Disability
35
groups. For instance, many
racial/ethnic
Speech/Language Impairment
35
disproportionately
reported
that
low
a
Traumatic Brain Injury
26
number of Asian Pacific Islanders received
Visual Impairment
25
Developmental Delay
special
education
services
21
and
a
Total number of states reporting
42
disproportionately high number of Blacks
disproportionality relating to
received special education services.
one or more specific disability
categories
Specific Disability Categories
Educational Settings
identified
Forty-two
states
racial/ethnic
disproportionality relating to one or more
Thirty-nine
states
identified
specific disability categories.4 For instance,
disproportionality
specific educational
in
many
reported
states Blacks
that
are
settings. For example, many states noted that
of
overrepresented
the
categories
in
Native
Hispanic American
Black,
and
disturbance (ED) and mental
emotional
underrepresented
students
are
in
less
retardation (MR). Disproportionality was
restrictive settings and overrepresented in
most frequently reported in the category of
more restrictive settings. States most often
ED (40 states). It was next most frequently
described overrepresentation of particular
reported in the categories of autism, MR,
racial/ethnic groups in the following more
other health impairment, specific learning
restrictive settings: outside the regular class
disability or
language
speech
and
21-60 percent; outside the regular class over
impairment (30-39 states). Least commonly
60 percent; separate class; public separate
disproportionality
reported
was
the
in
private
separate
private
school; school,
of
categories
deaf-blindness, hearing
residential facility; and correctional facility.5
impairment, multiple disabilities, orthopedic
impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual
4 These 42 states may also have described
disproportionality relating to special education
5 States did not use a common set of terms describing
overall.
educational settings.
Biennial Performance Reports - Disproportionality
Page 4
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2003
respectively, reported the opposite. Hispanic
Racial/Ethnic Groups
and White students were slightly more likely
to be underrepresented than overrepresented,
identified
states
Forty-four
and Native Americans were slightly more
specific
relating
to
disproportionality
groups. The most common
overrepresented
be
than
likely
to
racial/ethnic
These data
are
related underrepresented.
to
disproportionality
racial/ethnic
Black students (44 states). States reported
summarized in Table 4.
disproportionality relating to Asian Pacific
Table 4
students and Native
Hispanic
Islanders,
Number of States Reporting Over- and
American students in nearly equal numbers
Under-Representation by Race/Ethnicity
(between 33 and 36 states). Twenty-five
(N=58)
states reported disproportionality related to
White students (e.g., overrepresentation of
Over Under
Racial/Ethnic Group
Whites in the disability category of autism).
Asian Pacific Islander
20
33
Two states
"minorities"
referred
in
to
Black
42 26
general rather than to specific racial/ethnic
30
Hispanic
23
groups. These data are summarized in Table
Native American
28 26
White
20
14
3.
Total number of states
37
43
reporting one or more types of
Table 3
over- or under-representation
Number of States Reporting
Disproportionality by
Early Childhood
Race/Ethnicity (N=58)
identified racial/ethnic
Twehty-one
states
No. of
Racial/Ethnic Group
disproportionality in the 3 to 5 age group
States
36
Asian Pacific Islander
separately from disproportionality in the 6 to
44
Black
21 age group. Some states reported similar
Hispanic
33
patterns of disproportionality for the two age
Native American
34
groups, and other states reported somewhat
White
25
different patterns of disproportionality. One
Total number of states reporting
44
state noted that a disproportionately high
disproportionality relating to one or
more specific racial/ethnic group
number of White children were receiving
services under Part C (birth through age 2).
Over- and Under-Representation
Narrative Descriptions
Forty-three identified
states
overrepresentation of specific racial/ethnic
used
narratives
to
Twenty-seven
states
described
states
groups, and
37
disproportionality
findings
reiterate
underrepresentation of specific racial/ethnic
identified in their tables, and most chose to
groups. Although states were most likely to
focus on only a few of the areas/types. An
report that Blacks were overrepresented in
identified
states
additional
six
certain disability categories or educational
disproportionality only in narrative form
settings and Asian Pacific Islanders were
(i.e.,provided no data in table form).
disability
underrepresented
certain
in
categories or educational settings (42 and 33
It is important to note that the number of
26 and 20
states,
respectively),
states,
areas/types of disproportionality
specific
Page 5
Biennial Performance Reports Disproportionality
January 2003
Project FORUM at NASDSE
7
included
states'
narratives
in
not
is
specific educational setting. The following is
of
necessarily
related
severity
to
the
an example of a specific performance target:
disproportionality within a given state. Some
"Statewide, in relation to the total number of
states listed
areas/types that deviated
Black students' enrollment, the percentage
all
even slightly from the expected percentage,
of Black students identified as students with
whereas other states focused only on a few
mental retardation or emotional disturbance
areas/types that presumably were of greatest
will decrease by one percent annually."
concern. Furthermore, some states defined
one or two areas/types of disproportionality
Twenty states included performance goals
that were general in nature. For example,
broad general
in
terms
and
(e.g.,
the
overrepresentation of Black
"The number of students with disabilities
students
in
special education overall), whereas other
should be proportionate with the general
states identified more specific areas/types of
population."
disproportionality
(e.g.,
the
overrepresentation of Blacks
Several states also included performance
specific
in
targets that addressed the collection and
disability
categories
and/or
educational
settings).
monitoring of data on disproportionality. For
"Monitor
new
example,
growing
and
Significantly, the narrative descriptions were
populations
their
representation
and
in
more likely than tables to reflect what are
special
education
Haitian
i.e.,
and
conventionally believed to be more serious
Somalian groups."
of
disproportionality
areas/types
(e.g.,
overrepresentation of Black students in ED
Addressing Disproportionality
or MR).
Thirty-five
provided
states
narrative
a
Performance Targets
description of one or more of the following
ways they are addressing and/or planning to
A total of 34 states reported one or more
disproportionality.
address
Several
states
performance targets relating to racial/ethnic
also reported specific strategies for reducing
disproportionality.
According
BPR
to
disproportionality. These descriptions varied
a performance
submission requirements,
considerably in length
from one sentence
target is a long-range effect the state is
to five pages:
hoping
accomplish
to
regard
in
to
for students with
disproportionality rates
Twenty-five
reported
states
regular
disabilities.
Performance
targets
varied
review of LEA data and identification of
considerably in terms of their
level of
with
LEAs
racial/ethnic
specificity.
disproportionality.
Eighteen
states
noted
that
of
Fourteen
disproportionality at the LEA level is
the
states included
34
performance targets that specified a target
regularly addressed as part of the state's
date, target level, or both target date and
monitoring process.
target level. Of these 14 states, six included
Seventeen
states
described
specific
performance targets that related to a specific
procedures
designed
address
to
racial/ethnic group, six included targets that
disproportionality, such as requirements
that LEAs develop corrective
related to a specific disability category, and
action
four included
targets
that
plans regarding policies, practices and
related
to
a
Biennial Performance Reports - Disproportionality
Page 6
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2003
data; and (4) the five racial/ethnic categories
identification
and
for
procedures
currently used for OSEP reporting may not
placement of students with disabilities,
and periodic reviews of progress by
allow for the examination of within group
differences that exist in some states. For
SEAs.
educational
in
Minnesota,
the
instance,
offer professional
Eleven
states
support needs of African immigrants differ
improve
designed
to
development
from those of African American students,
cultural sensitivity.
categorized
Black.
both
as
are
yet
Ten states provide technical assistance.
Additionally, the Mariana Islands noted that
Seven states provide referral guidelines
to help reduce bias
referral and
the category Asian Pacific Islanders masks
in
diversity
Chamorro,
within-group
(e.g.,
placement.
Six states described plans to establish
Marshalese,
Filipino, Korean,
Chinese,
baseline data on disproportionality that
Palauan, etc.).
would later be used to identify LEAs
the OSEP formula
other
or
Applying
with potential problems.
formulas may lead to the identification of
have convened advisory
states
Five
disproportionality in almost every disability
examine
taskforces
or
to
boards
category and educational setting for almost
disproportionality.
every racial/ethnic
Consequently,
group.
there is a need for states to determine which
Additional state strategies currently in place
of disproportionality
or being considered include: placement-
require
areas/types
immediate attention.
reduce
funding
neutral formulas
to
educational
across
disproportionality
Summary and Concluding Remarks
settings; collaborative work with the Office
for Civil Rights (OCR); state-wide behavior
The May 2002 BPRs indicate that special
disproportionality
reduce
initiatives
to
disproportionality
racial/ethnic
disruptive behavior; education
resulting
from
prevention services; and publications on
exists in all parts of the country. More than
(44 of the 58
quarters of states
three
disproportionality.
included in this analysis) identified one or
more areas/types of disproportionality.
Concerns About Data
Disproportionality is not limited to one or
Twenty-six states expressed concerns about
two disability categories or racial/ethnic
the collection and use of data to determine
groups. It was most commonly reported in
disproportionality. Twenty states cautioned
that disproportionality may not always be
categories:
disability
following
the
emotional disturbance (40 states), mental
statistically significant, particularly in states
specific
learning
(39 states),
retardation
where numbers of minority students are low.
disability (35 states) and speech/language
impairment (35 states); and in the following
Between one and five states also expressed
racial/ethnic groups: Black (44 states), Asian
concern that: (1) heightened awareness of
disproportionality may lead to a drop in
Pacific Islander (36 states), Native American
poverty may
(34 states), and Hispanic (33 states). Forty-
appropriate
referrals;
(2)
two states reported overrepresentation of
impact the labeling and referral of students;
and 33
(3) disproportionality at the school level
reported
states
students
Black
may not be reflected in SEA- or LEA-level
Page 7
Biennial Performance Reports - Disproportionality
January 2003
Project FORUM at NASDSE
9
underrepresentation of Asian Pacific Island
This QTA provides information from which
students.
to gain a better understanding of extent and
of
disproportionality,
nature
and
the
Thirty-five states included some information
strategies
states
using
are
address
to
on how they were addressing or planning to
disproportionality.
can serve
It
as
address
disproportionality,
background information for future efforts,
although
the
information provided was minimal.
such as the National Center on Culturally
is
It
important to note that the BPR is
not
Responsive
Educational
Systems
designed to reflect the full extent to which
(NCCRESt), recently funded by OSEP. In
states
addition, this will serve to inform efforts
addressing
are
disproportionality.
likely that states are
directed at selecting the most appropriate
Consequently,
it
is
doing more to address disproportionality
method to determine disproportionality (i.e.,
than they described in their BPRs submitted
calculation or formula).
May 31, 2002.
This report was supported by the U.S. Department of Education (Cooperative Agreement
No. H326F000001). However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the
Department should be inferred.
Note: There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however, please credit the
U.S. Office of Special
source and support offederal funds when copying all or part of this material.
Education Programs
document, along with many other FORUM publications, can be downloaded from the Project
This
FORUM at NA5125E web address:
http://www.nasclee.org/forum.htm
To order a hard copy of this document or any other FORUM publications, please contact Carla Burgman at
Road, Suite
NA5D5E, 1800 Diagonal
320, Alexandria,
22314
VA
Ph: 703-519-3800 ext. 312 or Email: [email protected]
Biennial Performance Reports - Disproportionality
Page 8
Project FORUM at
NASDSE
January 2003
10