kathleen a. king co-director of technical assistance & professional learning the equity alliance...

Kathleen A. KingCo-Director of Technical Assistance & Professional LearningThe Equity Alliance at ASU

Dis

tric

t te

am

s w

ill

Today’s Objectives

Identify and gain understanding of the context of

disproportionality in Wisconsin

In 2001, state superintendent of the WDPI, Elizabeth Burmaster announced the “New Wisconsin Promise” which ensured access to quality education for all children through a commitment to:

• effective student services; •special education; and •prevention programs.

Since 2005, the WDPI has engaged in many activities designed to address the problem of disproportionality:

•funding of the Discretionary Disproportionality Project and of the Disproportionality Workgroup, •the annual Summer Institute on Disproportionality (now CREATE), •and the state’s ongoing affiliation with NCCRESt.

Administrators/educators have received training in various aspects of disproportionality, culturally responsive educational practices, and school improvement.

Wisconsin’s Work to Address

Disproportionality

2009:Widening the Scope-

District Needs Assessment at

CREATE Conference

Leaders in Addressing Wisconsin’s Disproportionality

Donna Hart-Tervalon, Patti Williams, and Courtney Reed

Jenkins Disproportionality lead from Special

Education.

Carolyn Stanford Taylor,

Assistant Superintendent, and Stephanie Petska, Special

Education State

Director for their

leadership

Ron Dunlap, CREATE

Coordinator & CESA 6

employee, moved vision of

a statewide initiative into

realityLinda Maitrejean & Mary Kampa, along with Lori

Turnim, Jen Ledin CESA Coordinators, lead today’s efforts.

A (A (SUPERSUPER) QUICK ) QUICK REVIEW OF REVIEW OF

DISPROPORTIONALIDISPROPORTIONALITYTY

Compares one ethnic group’s risk of being identified for a disability with that of a

comparison group (either White students or all other students ):

# of students in X ethnic/racial group in Y disability category

Total # of students in X ethnic/racial group in the school population

______________________________________________________# of White students in Y disability category

Total # of White students in the school population

Calculating Disproportionality: Relative Risk Ratio

The State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of 34

CFR Part 300 and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and

procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate

overidentification or disproportionate representation

by race and ethnicity of children as children with

disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in 34 CFR 300.8 of the IDEA regulations.

[34 CFR 300.173] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(24)]

The placement in particular educational settings of these children; and

The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

[34 CFR 300.646(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1418(d)(1)]

IDEA REGULATION

•There is no federally-defined standard for the level at which risk becomes “disproportionate.”

•When reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, states’ acceptable risk ratio limits ranged from 0.25 to 0.33 for underrepresentation and 1.5 to 4 for overrepresentation.

•Wisconsin overrepresentation is defined as a group’s exceeding a relative risk ratios of 2 and significant underrepresentation as a risk less than one-fifth of the national risk for a category.

What Counts as Disproportionate in Wisconsin ?

2006-2007 academic year, as part of their Annual Performance Report under IDEA Part B, WDPI identified nine districts with significant overrepresentation of students identified as American Indian or Black in special education due to inappropriate identification. Twenty-seven districts were identified as having overrepresentation in one or more disability categories, and ten as having significant underrepresentation.

For students identified with disabilities in racial/ethnic categories of Black, American Indian, and Asian/PI, Wisconsin is among the states

with the highest risk ratios. For students identified as Hispanic, Wisconsin is in the second highest category.

SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT BY PRIMARY DISABILITY IN WISCONSIN

*SELECTED CATEGORIES

DISABILITY CATEGORY

GROUP 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cognitive Disabilities

Black 2.42 2.33 2.36 2.36 2.18

Asian/PI 0.83 0.75 0.82.

0.82 0.82

Hispanic 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.09

Native American

1.50 1.42 1.55 1.45 1.36

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

Black 1.44 1.44 1.65 1.65 1.71

Asian/PI 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18

Hispanic 0.56 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.59

Native American

2.61 2.61 3.24 3.24 3.24

Nearly 14% of all Wisconsin students are identified as having a disability. This figure has remained fairly constant for the last seven years and is above the national average of 12%. Identification rates for students identified as Black and American Indian have been consistently higher than their peers for the past five years. Nearly one in every five children from these groups is labeled as having a disability.

In 1999, only 41.5% of students with disabilities spent at least 80% of time in the general education classroom; by 2004, 50.83% did. The proportion of students

removed from general classroom more than 60% of the time has decreased from 15.59% to 12.09%, and the percentage of students in separate schools and related placements has fallen to 1.43%. Despite improvement at the state level, individual

districts continue to experience difficulties in this area.

Increase in Students Educated in LRE

Discuss the nature of disproportionality as a systemic concern across arenas of policy,

people, and practices

Assumptions about the Nature of Disproportionality

Assumptions about the Nature of Disproportionality

Children are perceived as disabled due to a complex weave of widely varying beliefs, policies, and practices at all levels—family and community, classroom, school, district, state and federal government, and the society at large (Harry & Klingner, 2003).

Though factors associated with poverty increase the likelihood that students will be identified as having disabilities, race matters in the identification process. Also, the schooling context is important (National Research Council, 2002).

Assumptions about Solutions to Disproportionality

Disproportionate representation’s complex nature requires that solutions be grounded in clear theoretical understandings about: The intersection of culture, learning, and

disability;The notion of culturally responsive educational

systems;The sustained use of research knowledge in

professional practice; andThe means to support teacher learning and

enhance students’ opportunities to learn.

Improved general education instruction and support systems will change the number of culturally and linguistically diverse students referred to and placed in special education programs.

The cornerstone of the movement forward in Wisconsin’s work is the assumption that disproportionate representation should be

addressed through the creation of culturally responsive educational systems.

Culturally Responsive Educational Systems

To learn from and relate respectfully to people from your own and other cultures.

To build CR educational systems brings:

Increased level of comfort Increased knowledge Increase in freedom Discovery of passions Increased capacity to teach Increased resources and

knowledge

What Does it Mean to be Culturally Responsive?

A District’s Approach to Cultural Responsivity is Embedded in the

Larger Educational System

Budget allocation, %

of staff by role,

caseloads

Class size

Teacher retention

IHE partnerships

Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

% of students with IEP by category, race, & ELL

status

Placement patterns

LEP patterns

Student-focused initiatives

Enrichment


Reform initiatives & incentives

Professional learning goals &

activities

District & school improvement plans


List of external collaborations;

List of all family/community events distributed

by day of week and time of day


Technology capacity

Professional learning structure

Teacher union bargaining

Mission, values, goals

School board structure

Policy issues

Organization chart

Decision-making


Forms of inquiry, using student data

Student achievement & other learning

evidences & influence on policy


Reexamine and revise policies and practices related to curricula, tracking, testing, discipline, resource allocation, and hiring: Give priority to assigning and retaining highly

qualified administrators, teachers, and support personnel in schools with culturally and linguistically diverse students, particularly those living in low income households.

Promote collaboration and partnerships at various levels: Between special education and general education

administrators, to assure that special educators and English language acquisition specialists play a role in developing effective general education environments;

With community agencies and local leaders, to build on local assets and promote culturally responsive practice.

With teacher education programs, to provide relevant coursework and quality field experiences in high-poverty culturally and linguistically diverse schools.

Key Ideas in Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

Consider district data in multiple formats as evidence of strength and

need, and the next steps toward addressing disproportionality in

Wisconsin

Wisconsin District Data

Disproportionate

Representation of Students who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse in

Special Education

The NCCRESt Rubric Approach to Assessing District Needs to Address

Disproportionality

Disproportionate Representation of Students

who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse in

Special Education

The NCCRESt Rubric Approach to Assessing District Needs to Address

Disproportionality

For states, districts, and schools in the design and implementation of a quality, culturally responsive education for all students.

NCCRESt Assessment Rubrics

Developing Coalitions Building Consensus Focusing on Message

Renewing Practice Simultaneously at the Professional, School, and District levels of the

System Building Tools that Encourage Reflection, Action,

& Continuous Improvement Building Expertise for the Future Building Communities for Change Linking Communities of Practice

Remember- Engaging in Systemic Change Involves:

kathleen a. king co-director of technical assistance & professional learning the equity alliance...

Documents