Revisiting Larry P. v. Riles

Transcription

1 Revisiting Larry P. v. Riles Holly Evans-Pongratz & Bernard Yaklin CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O Connell,

2 What is the Larry P. v. Riles case? 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 2

3 Findings In 1979, the Court ruled in favor of the students 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 3

4 Findings 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 4

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 5

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 6

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. 7

8 EVALUATIONS Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information. Do not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion. Use technically sound instruments. 8

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. 9

10 Disproportionality and IDEA 2004: Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education CASP February 2006 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O Connell,

11 State Education Agencies are Required to Collect Data Examine Data Determine significant disproportionality - Disability - Educational Setting - Discipline Identify Disproportionate Districts 11

12 Categories of Disproportionality Examples: Overall enrollment Disability category Education environment English learner Gender Achievement data 12

13 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 13

14 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 14

15 Percent of Special Education Students Suspended 10 days by Ethnicity California % 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Asian White All Other Ethnicities Hispanic CA African American Female All SE Male 15

16 Disproportionality Measures E-Formula Risk Index Composition Index Disparity Index 16

17 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 17

18 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 18

19 16% 14% Percent of General Education Students Receiving Special Education by Ethnic Category 14.9% 12% 10% 10.8% 9.8% 9.7% 8% 6.6% 6% 5.0% 4% 2% 0% African American White All Students Hispanic All Other Ethnicities Asian Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

20 10% Percent of General Education Students Identified with Specific Learning Disorder by Ethnic Category 8.83% 8% 6% 5.59% 5.02% 4.68% 4% 2.66% 2% 1.55% 0% African American Hispanic CA White All Other Ethnicities Asian Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

21 Percent of General Education Students Identified with Emotional Disturbance by Ethnic Category 2.0% 1.5% 1.26% 1.0% 0.68% 0.5% 0.44% 0.24% 0.23% 0.10% 0.0% African American White CA All Other Ethnicities Hispanic Asian Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

22 Percent of General Education Students Identified with Mental Retardation by Ethnic Category 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.90% 0.5% 0.62% 0.57% 0.51% 0.48% 0.39% 0.0% African American Hispanic CA White All Other Ethnicities Asian Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

23 Percent of General Education Students Identified with Speech or Language Impairment by Ethnic Category 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.80% 2.0% 2.30% 2.19% 2.07% 1.96% 1.83% 1.0% 0.0% White CA Hispanic African American All Other Ethnicities Asian Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

24 Percent of General Education Students Identified with Autism by Ethnic Category 1.0% 0.62% 0.5% 0.52% 0.49% 0.47% 0.41% 0.24% 0.0% White Asian All Other Ethnicities African American CA Hispanic Source: CBEDS December 2004; CASEMIS June

25 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 25

26 Disproportionality 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 26

27 Educational Benefit What is meant by Educational Benefit? How is Educational Benefit Reasonably Calculated? How does this relate to Larry P.? 27

28 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. 28

29 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) 29

30 Educational Benefit Programs should be reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit Can be measured in a variety of ways: -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 30

31 Reasonable Calculation Based on procedural requirements of IDEA and means that: - 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 Services were planned to support: - Progress toward all goals - Progress in the general curriculum - Participation in extracurricular activities - Education with non-disabled children 31

32 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 32

33 Cognitive Processing May Include: Memory Attention Perception Knowledge Representation Reasoning Creativity Problem Solving Thinking Deciding 33

34 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 34

35 Foundations for Learning include: Executive Functioning Attention Memory 35

36 Executive Functioning: Is one of the many areas assessed through the use of neuropsychological testing instruments. Involves the ability of the brain to: Take in new information, Interpret information, and Make decisions based upon our perceptions. 36

37 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 37

38 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)? 38