Martin Gould, Ed. D
Director of Research
National Council on Disability

Good afternoon. On behalf of the National Council on Disability, I want to thank the Campaign for High School Equity for allowing us to participate in today’s issue forum.

NCD is an independent federal agency, composed of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. NCD's purpose is to promote policies and practices that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability, and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and integration into all aspects of society.

May Yang from CHSE had asked me to briefly address several issues at this point. The issues involve: (1) over-representation of diverse students in special education programs; (2) disproportionality and discipline; (3) disproportionality monitoring indicators; and (4) the school-to-prison pipeline.

Introduction

Disproportionately in special education programs in the United States has been among the most enduring problems in the field of special education for many years. Although the presence of disproportionality has been consistently documented, it’s fair to say (a) the full complexity of the problem’s not yet understood, and (b) there’s no systematic and effective model of intervention available at the national level to address the matter.

What is Disproportionality?

Disproportionality is defined as the “overrepresentation” and “under-representation” of a particular population or demographic group in special education programs relative to the presence of this group in the overall student population.  According to the U.S. Department of Education (2006), approximately 13.5 percent of all students in K–12 schools receive special education services.  Some subgroups of students, especially those from diverse populations, receive special education services at rates that are significantly higher or lower than 13.5 percent. 

Disproportionality exists in various forms and at different levels.  For example, overrepresentation can be present in any or all of the following ways:

            • in the national, state, and district level over-identification of diverse students as disabled or under-identification as gifted and/or talented;
            • in higher incidence rates for certain diverse populations in specific special education categories, such as mental retardation or emotional disturbance;
            • in significant differences in the proportion of diverse students who are receiving special education services in more restrictive or segregated programs; and
            • in excessive incidence, duration, and types of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, experienced by diverse students.

Why is disproportionality a concern?

Special education confers many benefits on students such as access to specialized services; specially designed, individualized and small group instruction; and, individualized curriculum.

There are also negative consequences conferred on students including: lowered expectations on the part of teachers and family members; restricted access to the general K–12 education program; and, restricted access to higher education and post-high school employment.

For students who have disabilities, the benefits of special education outweigh the negative consequences. For other students, who may not be academically successful but who do not have a disability, special education may be a short-term solution with long-term negative consequences.

Disproportional placement also has a net impact upon the educational system as a whole as noted by:  rising child count and case loads; rising costs and shifting costs in special education; a need for recruitment of professionals from diverse cultures; a need for preservice and in-service staff development to better equip staff to work with diverse students; a need for improved assessment tools and instructional practices; and, vulnerability to legal challenges through due process procedures and through the Office for Civil Rights.

Diverse students make up the largest growing group within our public schools today. They are often among the lower-achieving students in a community. Their academic performance can play a major role, for example, in whether a school or district meets requirements of high stakes assessment and accountability programs, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 

What does federal law require of school districts regarding disproportionality?

Under the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), Congress and the U.S. Department of Education placed an increased emphasis on addressing the challenge of disproportionate representation of students from diverse backgrounds who receive special education services.

What does this increased emphasis involve? The federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requires each state education agency (SEA) to determine if disproportionality is based on race and ethnicity, and whether inappropriate identification is occurring in the state and within local school districts. Further, if disproportionality because of inappropriate identification is found, the SEA must notify the affected school districts and support them in carrying out improvement activities.

Each SEA must fulfill these requirements by implementing activities described in its IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for Special Education.  Indicators 9 and 10 of the SPP address the issue of disproportionality resulting from inappropriate identification for students aged 6 through 21.

Indicator 9 addresses the overall disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education, while Indicator 10 addresses the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories, i.e., Speech Language, Specific Learning Disability, Emotional Disability, Cognitive Disability, Autism and Other Health Impairment.

In order for a State to determine if disproportionality is due to inappropriate identification, each district identified as having disproportionality is required to review and verify student data at the district and individual building levels and to complete a district self assessment using an instrument provided by the State. The purpose of this self assessment is to examine systemic factors that may impact the disproportionate identification of students in specific racial/ethnic groups.

Districts that continue to have disproportionality from one year to the next are required to continue to implement improvement activities listed in the self-assessment completed in conjunction with their initial determination. They are also required to submit an annual status report of those activities to the State, including an update on any revisions in policies, practices and procedures that were determined necessary as a result of the district’s review of those areas during the self-assessment process.

How is disproportionality measured?

IDEA (2004) also calls on states to collect and publicly report race and ethnicity factors for the following data, including:

            • various disability categories and labels assigned to students;
            • restrictiveness of class and school placements and the amount of access students have to instruction in the general education classroom; and
            • incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including                         suspensions and expulsions experienced by all students with disabilities.                            
Each state is allowed to decide what level of disproportionality is significant.  As a result, what’s considered as a significant rate of disproportionality can vary from state to state.  Annually, the federal government reviews each SEA’s data and determines if the state meets federal requirements [Dr. Wexler will discuss this topic today in greater detail.]  If not, federal assistance or intervention can result.

Data that States and local districts collect and report to the DoED and then on to Congress regarding disproportionality should be used to answer a number of questions, including:

1. Are students from different racial/ethnic groups receiving special education and related services for similar disabilities?
2. For each racial/ethnic group, how does the proportion of students receiving special education and related services compare to the proportion of all other students combined?
3. To what extent are students with disabilities of different racial/ethnic groups educated with their peers without disabilities?
4. Do graduation and dropout rates vary for students with disabilities in different racial/ethnic groups?
5. Do suspension and expulsion rates differ for students with disabilities in different racial/ethnic groups?

What is the school-to-prison pipeline, and how’s it related to this discussion?

The school-to-prison pipeline refers to systemic policies and practices that push our nation's schoolchildren, especially diverse students, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. It reflects a prioritization of incarceration over education, particularly for children and youth from diverse backgrounds.

For example, in 2008, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) reported that statewide at every single grade level African-American students were overrepresented in the number of students who public schools suspend to disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEP). Latinos were overrepresented in 6th through 11th grades.

While in first grade, African-American students made up 14 percent of the general student population, they made up 47 percent of those sent to DAEPs in the 2005-2006 school year.

And while students receiving special education accounted for about 12 percent of the general student body population, they made up 22 percent of the DAEP population, raising concerns of potential violations of federal disability laws.

In the Katy Independent School District in Texas, 9 percent of the students were receiving special education, but 31 percent were part of the DAEP population. African-Americans made up 9 percent of the student population yet they comprised 24 percent of the alternative programs.

Schools certainly have a duty to maintain discipline and order to ensure a safe environment and promote learning. The contradiction is that the discipline practices through which some schools in Texas, and in other states, have attempted to achieve these goals ultimately funnel students out of our schools and place them at risk of future involvement with the juvenile and/or criminal justice systems.

A 2006 report by the U.S. Department of Justice cited a consistent decrease in juvenile crime since 1994; yet, between 1995 and 2006 Texas increased the number of juveniles in custody. Also, in 2005, Texas had the third highest adult incarceration rate in the country.
In investigating the origins of these problems, researchers have found that these trends begin from within school systems.

Conclusions

Disproportionality, and its impact on student outcomes, continues to be a critical educational problem. Data from the recent 27th Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of the IDEA (2007) suggests that disproportionality at the national level continues. Information from the DoED suggests that efforts to monitor, measure and address disproportionality in special education are underway.

Thank you.