conroy report 1999

8/13/2019 Conroy Report 1999

1/19

Connecticut s Special EducationLabeling and Placement Practices:

Analyses of the ISS IS Data Base

Submitted by:.James w Conroy, Ph DThe Center for Outcome Analysis1062 Lancaster Avenue Suite 18CRosemont PA 19010610-520-2007 and 610-520-5271 FAXe-mail [email protected]

March, 1997Revised September 1999


2/19

urpose

This is a report on a series of investigations of Connecticut's practices in specialeducation. The .analyses utilized Connecticut's educntion data set, called ISSIS, obtained via theCARe v. Tir07 zi lawsuit. The original intent of working with the data was to understandlabeling and placement practices at the macro level. and also t be able to draw a representativesample of students for in-depth study. These activities were planned as part of he lawsuit.

The data reveal extremely wide variations in labeling and placement practices acrossschool districts. Mental retardation labeling rates vary from less than I of labeled children tomore than 20 . Learning disabilities labeling vary from 20 of the labeled students to morethan 70 . 1 do not believe such wide variations can be accounted for by genuine prevalencedifierences. These extraordinary variations have led me to examine other r i b l e s ~ includinggender, ethnicity, age, and integration, Variations were found across these variables as well, andwe believe some of these variations have important policy implications.

This brief report summarizes my basic findings to date. The d t show that:1 Labels vary so wildly across districts that they cannot possibly be reliable;2. Placement and integration are strongly related to a student's label;3. Labels vary sharply by gender and ethnic group;4. Therefore placement and integration are strongly affected by gender and ethnicity;5. Students with the mental retardation label are far less integrated than others;6. Integration decreases rapidly with more severe mental retardation;7. The disproportionate JabeJing of minorities with mental retardation combines withdiscriminatory placement and integration practices to put minority students in doublejeopardy;8. Integration practices vary tremendously across districts for students with mental retardation;9, From 1986-87 to 1995-96. the distribution of labels has not ehanged greatly, although the

severity of mental retardation labels has decreased, and the number of students labeledmUltihandicapped h s roughly doubled;to The general patterns indicative of gender and ethnic bias, and exclusionary effects, have notchanged a great deal from the 1986-87 to the 1995-96 school year.

2


3/19

Methods.Data BaseThe data base utilized for these analyses was the 1SS1S ISS1S contained one basic record

for each studentinvolved in special education, The data were colle


4/19

Students in the ISS'S Data Base-The students involved in Connecticut special education had the disability labels shown in

Table 1. The Table compares labels from 1986-87 to 1995-96Table 1: Distribution of Primary Disability Labels,1986-87 and 1995-96

86-87 86-87 95-96 95-96Disability LabelAUTISTIC 143 0.2% 402 0.6%DEAF-BLIND 37 0.1% 24 0.0%HEARING: 213 0.4% 165 0.2%HEARING: HARD 473 0.8 585 0.8LD 29271 48.8% 34308 49.3%MREDUC BLE 2718 4.5 2993 4.3%MR TR IN BLE 1114 1.9% 32 1.1%MRSEVERE 167 0.3% 88 0.1%MRPROFOUND 174 0.3% 24 0.0%MULTIHANDICAPPED 785 1.3% 1714 2.5%NEUROLOGICAL 677 1.1% 1600 2.3%ORTHOPEDIC 292 0.5% 225 0.3OTHER HEALTH 349 0.6'% 3220 4.6%SOC-EMOT M l DJ 13366 22.3% 11508 16.5%SPEECH: RTie 4938 8.2% 3783 5.4SPEECH: LANG 4378 7.3% 7193 10.3%SPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY 446 0.7% 410 0.6%TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY 0 0.0% 61 0.1%VISUALLYHC 262 0.4 271 0.4VISION PLUS OTHER 165 0.3 243 0.3%

TOTAL 59967 69549

Table 1 provides data from two years, 1986-87 and 1995-96. The Table shows thenumber of students with each label, and the percentage, for the two years.

The Table shows that the number and percentage of students with ' trainable;'- severe,and ~ ' p r o f o W l d mental retardation labels has decreased, while the educable label has increased.Utilization of the multihandicapped label has approximately dOUbled.

4


5/19

In 1995-96, the 69,549 students were distributed across 169 school districts. The largestnwnbetofspecial education students in a district was 4732 (Hartford), and the smallest was 4(Union). Table provides the breakdown of students by district. The name of the district is inthe column at the left. he district s numeric code is in the second column. The third columngiyes the total nwnber of special education stlldents in the district, and the fourth and fifthcolumns gives the percentage - what percentage of all special education students are in eachdistrict. The sixth column, on the right, gives the cwnulative percentage, adding up as t goesdown the school districts alphabetically.

5


6/19

Table 2: Number of special education students by Scbool DistrictVoalid Cum

V ~ l u e L oel Value Frequency Percent Percent PercentANDOVER 1 34 .0 .0 .0AHSO.IIA 2 1 47 .6 ,6 .7ASK FORD 3 76 .1 1 .6AVOIt 4 270 .4 .4 1 29ARICIIAMSTED 5 38 .1 .1 1.2 BERLIN 7 375 .S 5 1 BBETHANY 8 6 .1 1 1.9BeTHEL 9 415 .6 .6BLOOMfIELD 11 374 .5 .5 3.08ot.TON 12 78 1 1 3.1BOZRAH 13 6.2 1 .1 3.2BRANFORD 14 496 .7 .7 3.96RIOG POQ1' 15 228 3.3 3.3 7 2

~ S T O L 17 1047 1.5 1.5 8.7BROOKfl LD 18 2.75 .4 .4 9.1BROOICLYll 19 143 .2 .2 9.3CANAAN 21 29 .0 ,0 9 4CANTERBURY 22 133 .2 .2 9.5CANTON 23 152 .2 .2 9 5ClfAPL1N 24 40 .1 .1 9.8CIiESHIRE 25 564 .8 .8 10 6CIlESTER 26 57 .1 1 10 7CLINTON 27 372 S .5 11 2COLCHESTER 28 310 .4 .4 11 TCOL8ROOK 29 22 0 0 11.7COW"SIA 30 104 1 .1 11 9catNWALL 31 22 .0 .0 11.9COVENTRY 32 233 .3 .3 12 2CROHI.'ELL 33 229 .3 .3 12.6DANBURY 34 1172 1.7 1 7 14 3DARIEN 35 355 5 .5 14 8DEEP RIVER 36 74 . .1 14.9DERBY 37 198 .3 .3 15.2EASTFORD 39 49 1 1 15 2EAST GRANBY 40 84 1 .1 15.3EAST IIAODAM 41 173 2 2 15.6EAST HAMPTON 42 291 .4 .4 16.0EAST HARTFORD 43 1137 1.6 1.6 17 6EAST HAVEN 44 396 .6 .6 1S 2EAST LYf(E 45 28S .4 .4 18.6EASTOH 4h 1 .5 .1 .1 18 7EAST \H IDSOR 47 200 .3 .3 19.0ELLINGTON 43 184 .3 3 19 3

~ N F l e L D 49 858 1 2 1.2 20 5ESSEX 50 5S 1 .1 20.6FAIRfIELD 51 1072 1.5 1.5 22.2FARMINGTON 52 Z92 .4 .4 22.6FIWIKLlN 53 32 .0 0 22 6GLASTONBURY S4 708 1.0 1.0 23.6GIWIBY 56 230 .3 .3 24 0GREENWICH 7 1 9 1.6 1.6 25.6GllltWOLD 56 270 .4 .4 26 0GROTON 59 760 1.1 1.1 27 1GUILFORD 60 578 .8 .21 27 9HAMD Y 62 893 1.3 1 3 29.2

~ A M P T O N 63 19 .0 .0 29 2HARTFORD 64 4732 6.8 6 S 36.0HAR,LAND 65 51 .1 .1 36.1KBRON 67 64 .1 1 36 2KENT 68 46 .1 1 36.3KILLINGLY 69 437 .6 .6 36 9LEBANON 71 194 3 .3 37.2LEDYARD 72 391 .6 .6 37 7LISIOON 73 19 1 .1 37.6LITCHFIELD 74 134 .2 .2 33,0MADISON 76 1 39 .6 .6 38.7

6


7/19

I1ANCliESTEit 71 994 1.4 1.4 40.1MAMSHELD 78 154 .2 .2 40.3- MARLSORWGH 79 6 .1 .1 40 4-. MERIDEN 80 1216 1.7 1 7 42.2MIDDLETOWN 53 at2 1.2 1.2 43.3MILFORD 84 1101 1.6 1.6 44.9MONROE 85 311 .5 .5 45.4MONTVILLE 86 420 .6 .6 46.0NAUGATUCJC 88 n9 1.0 1 0 47.1NEW 8RITAIN' 89 1494 2.1 2.1 49.2.. New CANAAN 90 312 .4 .4 49.7NEY FATRFIELD 91 238 .3 .3 50.0N W HAItT FORO 92 85 .1 .1 50.2NEW HAVEN 93 2390 3.4 3.4 53.6NEWINGTON 94 433 .6 .6 54.2NEW LONDON 95 551 .8 .8 .55.0N W MIL.FORD 96 558 .8 .8 55.aNEWTOWN 97 386 .6 .6 56.4NORFOLK 98 29 .0 .0 56.4NORTH BRANFORD 99 32& .5 .5 56.9NORT CANAAN 100 60 .1 .1 57.0HORTI HAV H 101 311 .4 .4 57.4NORTH STONINGTON 102 141 .2 .2 57.6NOIt\IALK 103 952 1.4 1.4 59.0NOR\lICH 1 4 735 1.1 1.1 60.0OL.D SAYBROOK 106 187 .3 .3 60.3ORANGE ,07 164 .2 .2 60.5OXFORD 1 8 220 .3 .3 60.9PLAINFIEL.D 109 468 .7 .7 61.5PLAINVILLE 110 259 .4 .4 61.9PLvt40UTH 111 287 .4 .4 6 2 ~POMFRET 112 84 .1 .1 (la.4PORTLAND 113 145 .2 .2 62.6PitES'TON 114 89 .1 .1 b< SPUTNAM 116 216 .3 .3 (( .1REDDING 117 116 .2 .2 63.3RIDGiF1ILD 118 336 .5 .5 ~ 7ROC::Y KILL 119 296 .4 .4 64.2SALEK 121 71 .1 64.3SAUS8URY 122 74 . .1 64.4SCOTLAND 123 33 .0 .0 64.4SEYMOUR 124 336 .5 .5 64.9SKAAON 125 51 .1 65.0SHELTON 126 457 .7 .7 65.6SHERMAN 127 25 .0 .0 65.7SIMSBURY 12.6 484 .1 .7 66.4SOMERS 129 164 .2 .2 66.6souttllNGTOIi 131 964 1.4 1.4 66.0SCXITH WINDSOR 132 477 .7 .7 68.7SPRAGUE 133 76 .1 .1 68 SSTAFFORD 134 341 .5 .5 69.3STAMFORD 135 1667 2.4 2.4 71.7STERllNG 136 95 .1 .1 71.8STOlltNGTCI 137 333 .5 .5 72.3STRATFORD 138 891 1.3 1.3 73.6SUFfiELD 139 244 .4 .4 73.9THCMASTOH 140 187 .3 .3 74.2TH(JIPSON 141 254 .4 .4 74.6'TOLLAND 142 225 .3 .3 74.9TORRINGTON 143 569 .8 .8 75.7TItI.lC8ULL. 144 620 .9 .9 76.6UNION 145 4 .0 .0 76.6VERIION 146 667 1.() 1 0 17.6VOLUNTOWN 147 78 .1 .1 77.7W A ~ L I N G F O R O 1c.a 784 1.1 1.1 78.8WAUP.aURY 151 2331 3.4 3.4 SZ 2UATERFORD 152 328 .5 .5 8l .6WATeRTOWN 153 371 .5 .5 &3.2WESTBROOK 154 61 .1 83.3WEST HARTFORD 155 66 1.7 1 7 as.O

7


8/19

WEST HAVEN 156 1.7 1.7 86.7WEStON 157 155 .2 .2 86.9WESTPORT 1Sl 491 .7 .7 87.6IJETHERSFIELO 159 397 .6 .6 88.2WILLINGTON 160 93 .1 . SS 3WILTON 161 400 .6 .6 88.9WINCHESTER 162 20 .3 3 89 2WINDHAM 163 583 .8 .8 90.0WIIIDSOR 164 506 .7 .7 90 7WINDSOR I OCJ:;S 165 266 .4 .4 91 1.. WOLCOTT 166 281 .4 ,I. 91 5IoIOOOBRlDGE 167 130 .2 .2 91.7WOOOSTOCK 169 162 .2 .2 91.9REG DJST 1 201 69 1 .1 92.0REG DIST 4 204 133 .2 .2 92.2REG DIST 5 205 Z .4 .4 92.6REG DIST 6 206 129 .2 .2 92.8REG DIST 7 201 115 .2 .2 93.0REG orST 8 2013 136 .2 .2 93.2REQ DIST 9 209 101 1 1 93 3REG 01ST 10 210 332 .5 5 93.8REG OIST 11 211 65 1 1 93 9REG C[ST 12 212 152 .2 .2 94 1REG DIST 13 213 176 .3 .3 94.4REG crST 14 214 305 .4 .4 94 BREG DIST 1S 215 467 .7 .7 95.5REG DIST 16 216 205 3 3 95.SREG DIST 17 217 Q8 .4 .4 96.2REG DI5T 18 218 176 .3 .3 96 5REG DIST 19 219 132 .2 .2 96.7

347 396 .6 .6 97.2900 1567 2.3 2 3 99.SDEPT OF CORR 942 364 .5 5 100 0Total 69549 100 0 100 0

~ l i d cases 69549 Missing C:lSO$ 0

8


9/19

Results] istrict Variations in the Mental Retardation LabelThe mental retardation label is applied in a grossly inconsistent manner. Nationally,

11.6 of all children in special education are labeled mentally retarded. In Connecticut, the rate

is significantly lower. at 5.3 . However, the mental retardation labeling rate varies wildly across..school districts. Restricting the analysis to districts with more than 400 special educationstudents, Glastonbury has only 0.8 ofits special education students labeled rnen Ally retarded,while Bridgeport has 23.1 . There is little likelihood of a rational explanation for a 20-foldvariation in this label. The figures are given n Table 3.

9


10/19

Table 3The Mental Retardation LabelAs Percen a ~ e a a e u en s, c 00 ISf i l L bel d St d t B S hiD trict

Perc:eot of Number ofSchool District (Town) Special Ed Students in

Students with Special EdtheMRLabel

GIIl.-:r.onhury .8 708MadisOn .9 439WlUon U 400BtartCOtd 1.6 992Mootvllle 1.9 420Fairfield 2.t 1072Berlin 2.t 750

~ n i n D 2.2 964B r o o k t i ~ l d 2.2 :550Vernon 2.5 687New Milford 2.5 SS8Newil\llton 2.5 433Trumbull 2.6 620Greenwkh 2.6 1119Avoll 2.1 \ :;40GIIi11ore 2.6 S1SBethel 2.7 830Simsbury 2.9 484Ansonia 3.1 894South WindKor 3.1 477East IlotU ord 3.2 1137West Hart1brd 11MShelton 3 5 457New London 3.8 :SStH.u1fW d 3.8 4732WflIltport 3.9 491Cheshire 4.3 962Groton 4 3 760Middletown 4.7 812Bristol 4.7 2094Mllnche5lcr 4.7 994New Driwn S 2 1494Illoomfield 5.3 748Milford 5.4 1101KUligly 5 5 437Sfarntilfd 5 1 1667Wind50r HStralmrd 6.0 897Enfield 6.3 8S8Tonin ;tan 6.3 569Hmnclcn 6.4 893Wl1l1ingfllTd 6.5 784Danbury 7.3 1172Plainfield 7.5 468Windbam 7.5 583Nauaaruck 8.1 n9NotWich 9.1 735Wawbury 9.3 1.131WcstHtlYOD 9.8 1176Norwalk 10.1


11/19

Table 3 makes it obvious that labeling practices vary tremendously across the school.districts. Such large geographic variation cannot easily e explained. Socioeconomic factors

cannot possibly explain the variations, since Hartford labels only 3.8 of its special educationstudents with menta l retardation, while Bridgeport so labels 23.1 . This infonnation can only beinterpreted to mean that labeling practices have more to do with geography than with students'characteristics and lor needs.

Results 2: Gender and Ethnic Variations in the Mental Retardation LabelThe mental retardation label also varies dramatically by gender and ethnicity. Table 4

and Figure 1 show this pattern.

Table 4Variations in Mental Retardation Labeline by Gender and Ethnicity

Caucasian African- Hispanic Caucasian Arrieaa- Hispanic TotalMale American Male Fcmale American Female

Male FemaleTotal Students in 33,105 7,620 6,134 15,546 3 463 2,954 68,822S ~ i a i d

Students Labeled 977 630 469 840 487 386 3,789R

Percent with the MR 3.0 8.3 7.6 5.4 14.1 13.1 5.5Label

11


12/19

CaucMaIe

H -PMa.a

CaucFalMla

Afr.Am Female

FigureGender/Ethnic Variations: Percent of LabeledStudents Given the Mental Retardation Label

14 1

1

The graph shows the proportion cf each gender/ethnic group in special educatio.n whoreceived the mental retardatien label. Afriean American females in special education receivedthe mental retardation label 14.1 of the time, in contrast to Caucasian males. at 3.0 . This ismere than a fcur-fold difference in the probability cf being labeled. mentally retarded. The ISSISdata do not provide any compelling rational explanation(s) for this very clear and powerful effect.I strongly recommend immediate and serieus research on labeling practices so that we canunderstand better why such discriminatory practices are in evidence.

Results 3: Students with the Mental Retardation Label are Among the LeastIntegrated of All Students in Special Education

Having shown that the mental retardation label is incensistently applied across schooldistricts, and is very differently applied to gender and ethnic groups, it is appropriate to ask howintegrated students with that label are. Table 5 shews the average number afhours per week that

2


13/19

the special education students are reported to be in the presence of non-disabled peers. TheTable- shows that students with the mental retardation label are among the least integrated of allstudents in special education,

Table 5Hours Per Week Spent Among Non-Disabled PeersBy Disability Group

Avcrage Number ofDisability Label HounPer Students

WeekIDPresence ofNon-Disabled

PeersAUTISTIC 10.8 402DEAF-BLIND 11.1 24HEARING; DEAF 8 0 165HEARING: HARD OF 21.7 585LD 22.7 34308MREDUCABLE 9.9 2993MR TRAINABLE 5.3 73MRSEVERE 2.2 88MRPROFOUND 1.4 24MULTI He 10 4 1714NEUROLOGICAL 16.9 1600ORTHOPEDIC 23.8 225OTHER HEALTI.:t 24.0 3220SOC-EMOT MALADJUSTED 13.9 11508SPEECH: ARTICULATION 28.3 3783SPEECH: LANGUAGE 24.9 7193SPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY 28.1 410TBI 16.8 61VISUALLY He 24.4 271VISION PLUS OTHER 8 1 243ALL SPECIAL ED 20.5 69549

Students with the mental retardation label are less integrated than students with autism, oreven students who are deaf and blind. The integration data show a very strong pattern of lessintegration with more severe nlental retardation levels. It is difficul t to understand why the

13


14/19

inclusion experiences of students with the mental retardation label are even more impoverishedthan_Ul ?se with the mult ihandicapped label. n any case. the ISSIS data clearly show that themental retardation label is associated with significantly less integrative school experiences thanany other label.

Equally important is the fact th t integration ratings vary greatly across districts. 1selected only the students with mental retardation, and further selected only the districts withmore than 5 such students to be sure that the numbers are stable). Table 6 shows that theaverage number ofhours per week in the presence ofnon disabled peers varies from 5.0 in WestHaven to 162 in Naugatuck.

14


15/19

Table 6Variations in Integration

For Students with Mental Retardation LabelsBy School DistrictFor Districts with More than S Labeled Mentally Retarded)

Average NumberHours ofwith Studentson

Town DisabledWestHaven 4.97 5Hartford 4.99 82Stamford 5.28 95New Haven 5.62 505Waterbury 6.76 2 7Hamden 6.91 57Bridgeport 7.04 527Wallingford 7.29 51New Britain 8.18 78Danbury 8.59 85Enfield 8.79 54Norwich 8.87 67Milford 9.23 6Norwalk 9,72 96Meriden 10.15 ISSStratford 10.91 54Naugatuck 16.17 59

The reasons for these variations need to be explored, both because integrationopportunities should not depend on geography, and because the system could potential ly learn. agreat deal from the high inclusion school districts.

5


16/19

Results 4: Double Jeopardy: Minority Students, Once Labeled with MentalRetardation, are Less Likely to be in Integrated Settings

---...., ,

We now know that. minority students have a much higher probability of receiving themental retardation label1han do Caucasian students, once they are brought into the specialeducation system. We also know that students wit mental retardation are less likely than otherspecial education students to experience integration. What is the impact upon placement andintegration ofhaving the mental retardation label and being a minority group member?

The way to frame this question empirically is to ask What lU e your odds of being in aregular classroom' if you are labeled mentally retarded mM you are a minority group member?

To address this question in the 1995-96 data, we use the Federal definitions in the 17th AnnualEducation Report. Regular Class means segregated special education time is less than 21 ofthe week. Resource Room is defined as 21 to 60% segregation, and Separate Class meansmore than 60% segregated. The ISS IS contains a field showing the number of hours per weekthat each student is in the presence ofnon-disabled peers, and another field showing the totalhours per week in school. A simple division yields the percentage oftime spent with non-disabled peers, and the Federal definition provides the formula for classroom types. Applyingthese rules to the lSSlS data yields the data shown in Figure 2,

16


17/19

ArrAmMaie

HispMaie

Afr-AmFemaie

HlspFamale

o 1

Figure 2Percent of Students in Regular Classroomsy Gender/Ethnic GroupFor Students Labeled Mentally Retarded

2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10

These data are compelling evidence of a pattern of double jeopardy. Minority childrenare more likely to be assigned the stigmatizing label ofmental retardation, and then, once labeledwith mentnl retardation, are yet again less likely than Caucasian students to be placed intointegrated settings and situations.

Although not shown in Figure 2, this pattem of ethnically linked segregation practicesholds true across the disability groups; it is not only seen among the students labeled with mentalretardation. For all disabilities, 64 ofCaucasian students are in Regular Classrooms accordingto the Federal definition, while for minorities the figure is 40 .

17


18/19

Results 5: Have These Patterns Changed Over 10 Years?These patterns of gender and et1mic bias n labeling and placement have becn essentially

constant since the 1986-87 school year. The ISSIS data show that labeling practices variedwildly across scpool districts then, just s they do now, The data show that minorities andfemales were just as disproportionately labeled mentally retarded then as they are now. Studentswith th mental retardation label were sharply less likely to be integrated than students with otherlabels then. just as now.

In the summer of 1999, Connecticut delivered the latest ISSIS data file for the 1998-99school year. We analyzed the new data file following the same methods utilized previously.Table 7 shows that the situation with regard to ethnic and gender bias in labeling is practicallyunchanged.

Table 7Variations in Mental Retardation Labeling by Gender and Ethnicity

Caucasian Afrie-dn- Hispanic Caucasian African- Hispanic TotalMale American Male Female merican FemaleMale Female

1995-96 percent of 3.0 8.3 7.6 5.4 14.1 13.1 5.5special cd studentswith the MIl Label1998-99 p r ~ n t or 2.7 8.8 7.1 5.1 14.5 12.4 5.4spedal ed studentllwith the MR Label

The small changes within the table from 1995-96 to 1998-99 should probably not be .overinterprcted. The central meaning of th table is that the disparities in labeling are stillpresent in Connecticut in the 1999 school year, and they are undiminished.

18


19/19

This situation has now been documented in the special education literature. In his book,Eliding iscrimination in pecialEducation 1998, Charles C. Thomas Publisher), Dr. HerbertGrossman states on page 9:

When setecting the most appropriate placementfor students with ~ same behavioralnd academic problems educators nd psychologists are more likely t choose the.\pecial educalion program for non European Americans nd poor students nd a regular

education program for middle class European American students. When they choose aspecial education program for stucknts they are likely to select a program for sludent.vwith mild developmental disabilities for non European American nd poor students nd alearning disabilities program for middle class European American students. They alsoare likely to recommend a more restrictive custodial environment/or non EuropeanAmericans nd poor sludems th njor middle class European American students.

Grossman also describes gender discrimination in combination with ethnic discrimination onpage 20;Unlike the preferential treatment many teachers give their brightest European Americanstudents they give bright African American students especially females the leastattention nd criticize them the most.

9

conroy report 1999

Documents