revisiting larry p. v. riles · revisiting larry p. v. riles holly evans-pongratz...

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONJack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Revisiting Larry P. v. Riles

Holly [email protected]

&Bernard Yaklin

[email protected]

JACK O’CONNELLState Superintendent of Public Instruction

February 16, 2006 2

•Began in 1971

•Five African American children in EMR class

•San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)

•Filed in Federal Court

•Claim-wrongly placed in EMR classes

•IQ tests were racially biased and discriminatory

•African Americans disproportionately EMR-28.5% in General Education vs.-66% in EMR

What is the Larry P. v. Riles case?


February 16, 2006 3

•SFUSD was prohibited from using IQ tests to place students in EMR classes or their “substantial” equivalent

•The decision was upheld on appeal in 1984

•The Court expanded the ruling by banning the use of IQ testing for all African American students for any special education purpose

Findings

In 1979, the Court ruled in favor of the students


February 16, 2006 4

•Crawford v. Honig 1992

•September 10, 1992, CDE Legal Advisory

•Compliance Report by CDE on January 28, 1993

•October 11, 1994, CDE issued a new Legal Advisory exercising its regulatory authority

Findings


February 16, 2006 5

Key Components of the Directive Include

1. LEAs are not to use IQ tests with African-American students

2. In lieu of IQ tests, LEAs should use alternative means of assessment

3. An IQ test may not be given even with parental consent

4. IQ scores contained in the records shall not become a part of the student’s current school records

5. There are no special education related purposes for which IQ tests shall be administered to African-American students


February 16, 2006 6

Key Components (cont.)

6. IQ tests shall not be used to determine whether an African-American student is learning disabled

7. The prohibition on IQ testing applies even though students are no longer placed in EMR classes

8. This directive supersedes all previous notices


February 16, 2006 7

IDEA 2004

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

• LEAs shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability.

• LEAs may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedure.


February 16, 2006 8

EVALUATIONS

• Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academicinformation.

• Do not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion.

• Use technically sound instruments.


February 16, 2006 9

EVALUATIONS (cont)• Must not be discriminatory on a racial or

cultural basis.

• Must be provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to do so.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONJack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Disproportionality and IDEA 2004:

Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special

Education

CASPFebruary 2006


February 16, 2006 11

State Education Agencies are Required to

• Collect Data

• Examine Data

• Determine significant disproportionality

- Disability- Educational Setting- Discipline

• Identify Disproportionate Districts



Categories of Disproportionality

•Overall enrollment

•Disability category

•Education environment

•English learner

•Gender

•Achievement data

Examples:



Why is Disproportionality a Problem?

•Access to core curriculum may decrease

•Peer relationships may be compromised

•Students may not benefit from services -poor academic outcomes-poor discipline outcomes



Determination not allowed

A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determination is due to:

– a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, or

– Limited English proficiency



0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Asian White All OtherEthnicities

Hispanic CA AfricanAmerican

Female All SE Male

Percent of Special Education Students Suspended ≥ 10 days by Ethnicity

California 2003-04



Disproportionality Measures

• E-Formula

• Risk Index

• Composition Index

• Disparity Index



E-Formula

E=A+Sqrt[A*(100-A)÷N]

• E=maximum percentage of total special education enrollment allowed for a racial/ethic group

• A=percentage of racial/ethnic group in total school enrollment

• N=total number of students in special education



Risk Index

Percent of students in a given ethnic group identified as receiving special education services.

For example, in California• 4.99% of Asian American students receive special education services, as do• 14.92% of African American students



Percent of General Education Students Receiving Special Education

by Ethnic Category

14.9%

10.8%9.8% 9.7%

6.6%

5.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

African American White All Students Hispanic All OtherEthnicities

Asian

Source: CBEDS December 2004;CASEMIS June 2005



Percent of General Education StudentsIdentified with Specific Learning Disorder

by Ethnic Category

8.83%

5.59%5.02%

4.68%

2.66%

1.55%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

African American Hispanic CA White All OtherEthnicities

Asian




Percent of General Education StudentsIdentified with Emotional Disturbance

by Ethnic Category

1.26%

0.68%

0.44%

0.24% 0.23%0.10%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

African American White CA All OtherEthnicities

Hispanic Asian




Percent of General Education StudentsIdentified with Mental Retardation

by Ethnic Category

0.90%

0.62% 0.57%0.51% 0.48%

0.39%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

African American Hispanic CA White All OtherEthnicities

Asian




Percent of General Education StudentsIdentified with Speech or Language Impairment

by Ethnic Category

2.80%

2.30% 2.19% 2.07% 1.96% 1.83%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

White CA Hispanic African American All OtherEthnicities

Asian




Percent of General Education StudentsIdentified with Autismby Ethnic Category

0.62%

0.52%0.49% 0.47%

0.41%

0.24%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

White Asian All OtherEthnicities

African American CA Hispanic




IDEA 2004 and Early Intervening Services

LEA Pre-referral activities to reduce misidentification

LEA use up to 15% of funds

•Provide early intervening services to children, •Particularly in groups significantly overidentified



• IDEA Addresses the Issue• Included in Federal and State Monitoring • A Multifaceted Issue• Multiple Contributing Factors • Early Intervening Strategies hold Promise• Cross-Systems Solutions Required

Disproportionality



Educational Benefit

• What is meant by Educational Benefit?

• How is Educational Benefit Reasonably Calculated?

• How does this relate to Larry P.?



Rowley

• “It would do little good for Congress to spend millions of dollars in providing access to public education only to have the child with a disability receive no benefit from that education.”



Rowley (cont.)

• “Such instruction…if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.”

(Justice Rhenquist)



Educational Benefit

-Achieving passing marks

-Advancing from grade to grade

-Making progress toward meeting goals and objectives

-Improved scores on statewide or district assessments

-Passing the CAHSEE and Graduating with a diploma

•Programs should be reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit

•Can be measured in a variety of ways:



Reasonable Calculation

- Progress toward all goals

- Progress in the general curriculum

- Participation in extracurricular activities

- Education with non-disabled children

- The assessment was complete

- The IEP team identified needs and established goals related to: the child’s disability and involvement and progress in the general curriculum

• Based on procedural requirements of IDEA and means that:

• Services were planned to support:



Definitions

• Cognition - Measures any one of the processing areas seen separately.

• Intelligence - The ability to learn or understand from experience; acquired learning potential; mental ability; global ability.

WEBSTER’S New World Dictionary



Cognitive Processing MayInclude:

MemoryAttentionPerceptionKnowledge RepresentationReasoningCreativityProblem SolvingThinkingDeciding



Conceptual Strategies suggested through the work of the Larry P. Task Force:

• Developmental Assessment• Dynamic Assessment• Ecological Assessment• Information Processing• Neuropsychological Assessment• Psychological Processing• Skills Within Subjects



Foundations for Learning include:

•Executive Functioning•Attention•Memory



Executive Functioning:

– Take in new information, – Interpret information, and – Make decisions based upon our

perceptions.

• Is one of the many areas assessed through the use of neuropsychological testing instruments.

• Involves the ability of the brain to:



Executive Functions include but are not limited to:

• Working Memory• Goal Planning• Planning• Sequencing• Prioritizing• Organizing• Initiating• Inhibiting

• Pacing• Shifting• Self-monitoring• Emotional

Control• Completing

Tasks



Prohibited Assessments: Decision Making Framework

• Is the measure a standardized IQ test (does it measure mental ability, aptitude, or global ability)?

• Are results reported in the form of IQ or mental age?

• Is the test correlated with an IQ test (construct validity)?

revisiting larry p. v. riles · revisiting larry p. v. riles holly evans-pongratz...

Documents