Equity in
Education
Volume 1
METROPOLITAN CENTER FOR URBAN EDUCATION
Addressing Racial/Ethnic
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Technical Assistance Manual for
Identifying Root Causes
TACD (Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality)
212 998 5100 | steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter
Equity in Education
Volume 1
Addressing Racial/Ethnic
Disproportionality in
Special Education:
Technical Assistance Manual
for Identifying Root Causes
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Metropolitan Center
The Metro Center for Urban Education (herein Metro Center), founded in 1978 by Dr.
Lamar Miller and currently led by Dr. Pedro Noguera, addresses educational problems that
are national in scope but are brought into sharp focus in large urban areas. The Center
promotes an understanding of, and provides services and assistance to, underserved
populations (and the educational, governmental, and community agencies that serve them)
in order to ensure equity and promote excellence in the educational experiences of children
and youth. The Center’s staff of scholars and practitioners is on the front line of educational
reform, ensuring equal access to education with high standards of performance and
achievement through the excellence of their work and a shared vision of exemplary practice.
Our Mission
The Metropolitan Center for Urban Education is a comprehensive center that focuses on
educational research, policy, and practice. We are a partner and resource at the local and
national levels in strengthening and improving access, opportunity, and the quality of
education in our schools. Our mission is to target issues related to educational equity by
providing leadership and support to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and
policymakers.
Equity in Education
i
Acknowledgments
The Equity in Education Volume I: Addressing Racial/Ethnic Dispropor-
tionality in Special Education: Technical Assistance Manual for Identifying
Root Causes was developed by the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education under con-
tract with the New York State Education Department (NYSED), contract #007052. Authorization for reproduction is hereby granted to the system of public and state-approved private
schools, institutions of higher education, and programs funded by the Office of Vocational
and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) of the New York State
Education Department.
We also thank the various practitioners who contributed their feedback in the development of this manual. It is the dialogue with each of them that has greatly enhanced the potential of this document. Finally, we thank Charlene Gurian at NYSED, who has provided
substantive support in the development of this tool.
Equity in Education
ii
Foreword
On behalf of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education (Metro Center) housed in
the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York
University, it is my pleasure to introduce you to the
manual. Through
this publication, we hope to create a tool for practitioners, researchers, and technical
assistance providers who are interested in finding ways to expand educational
opportunities for all learners. The manual has been “field tested.” It has been developed
through several years of research and technical assistance carried out in school districts
that are working to find ways to meet the needs of students who have traditionally not been
well-served. Our goal in publishing the manual is to provide educators with the means to
further educational equity without the support of outsiders so that the work can be sustained over time.
Equity in Education
As you peruse the pages of the manual, you will find practical strategies for addressing the ways in which race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation, and language diversity influence student learning and achievement. As demographic
changes transform the composition of our schools, it will be important for educators to obtain new and fresh approaches to meeting the next generation of students.
Since 2000, our national educational policy has called upon schools to produce evidence that children are learning. We realize that many schools are struggling with this
challenge, but we are confident that it can be done. With this manual, we hope to contribute
to the development of educational practices that will make it possible for a greater number
of schools to meet this goal. We believe that schools can address the causes of race and class
disparities in student achievement, high dropout rates among low-income, racial/ethnic
minority students, and disproportionality in special education, discipline and gifted and
talented programs.
all
This manual can serve as a guide but we also know that ultimately, it will require
leadership with vision and commitment and teachers with skills, dedication, and compassion to deliver the change we need. Though small in number, such schools exist already,
and their existence is all the proof we need to know that the problem is not the children.
Dr. Pedro Noguera
Executive Director
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Professor, Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human Development
April 2009
Equity in Education
iii
Contents
Introduction
Overview of Disproportionality
Disproportionality in New York State
Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality
Overview of Training Modules
Frequently Asked Questions About the Manual
vii
viii
ix
x
xii
Disproportionality Training Modules
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Trainer’s Outline
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Module A Handouts
Icebreaker Activity Worksheet
Icebreaker Activity Answers Sheet
Critical Questions Worksheet
Critical Questions — Sample Answers Sheet
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR)
Trainer’s Outline
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Disproportionality Data Repository Manual
Module B Handouts
Data Sorting Rubric
DDR Data Report Analysis Rubric
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Trainer’s Outline
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Module C Handouts
DDR Data Analysis Rubric
Critical Questions Worksheet
Disproportionality Programs, Practices, and Beliefs Data Evidence Chart
3
5
6
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
34
40
41
42
46
47
48
56
57
59
60
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Trainer’s Outline
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Module D Handouts
Analyzing Data of Programs, Practices, and Beliefs
Disproportionality Programs, Practices, and Beliefs Data Evidence Chart
Mapping Root Cause Worksheet
Compounding Factors
Research Articles Bibliography
Sample Databook
62
63
64
71
72
75
76
77
79
82
Equity in Education
iv
Contents
Disproportionality Training Modules (Continued)
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Trainer’s Outline
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Module E handouts
Service Plan
Service Plan Worksheet
86
87
88
96
97
99
Equity in Education
v
Introduction
Equity in Education
vi
Overview of Disproportionality
Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004,
requires the State Education Department (SED) to develop and submit a six-year State
Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S.
Department of Education (USDOE). The SPP (http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/
spp/plan/contents.htm) is designed to evaluate the state’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describe how the state will improve results. OSEP
has identified three monitoring priorities and 20 indicators relating to the priority areas
that must be reported in the SPP. In New York State, part of this process includes the
completion of a self-monitoring protocol for identified districts. Districts identified under
SPP Indicators #9 and #10a and #10b as having significant disproportionality based on
race and ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities are required to complete this self-review monitoring protocol. The purpose of the self-monitoring tool is for
school districts to determine if the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification through implementation of the district’s policies, procedures, and practices used in
the identification of students with disabilities.
Similar to the achievement gap, racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education is
a significant equity concern. Across schools in the U.S., Blacks represent 20% of students
with disabilities and Latinos nearly 18% (Data Accountability Center, 2007). Meanwhile,
Black students represent 15.6% of student enrollment and Latinos 20% (National Center
on Education Statistics, 2007). This pattern of disproportionate representation in special
education varies across the U.S. For example, Black students have the highest risk of being
classified with a disability in the Northwest, Mountain, and Midwest states; Latinos, in
New England states like Connecticut and Massachusetts (National Center on Cultural
Responsive Education System, 2007). The logical questions regarding such patterns of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education are as follows: What is it? How does it
occur? And how do we address the issue?
Equity in Education
vii
Disproportionality in New York State
Disproportionality was first documented over four decades ago (Dunn, 1968).
Since then the level of prominence over this issue has varied over the years in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) legislation. In 1999, New York State passed the Chapter 405 Laws
(hereinafter Chapter 405), which included a provision regarding racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education. The law outlined racial/ethnic disproportionality as
an educational concern for the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and
delineated seven problem areas of racial/ethnic disproportionality. These problem areas define racial/ethnic disproportionality as classification rates above 15% of overall
enrollment population; declassification rates below 5%; placement rates in separate
settings (i.e., outside of traditional school setting) above 6%; and statistically significant associations and relative risk ratios above 1.20 as disproportionate. In 2001,
NYSED cited 364 (out of 717) districts in one or more of the seven problem areas of racial/ethnic disproportionality. Each subsequent year the numbers varied (see Chart 1).
As a result of requirements in the reauthorization of the IDEA Section 616b, the
New York State Education Department outlined its IDEA Part B State Performance
Plan (SPP) effective December 2005-2010 (and revisited February 2009). When this
was completed, the disproportionality requirements covered under Chapter 405 were
placed under the umbrella of the State Performance Plan, along with other school improvement indicators. Also, the measurement of disproportionality changed from 1.2 to
2.5, which meant districts with relative risk ratios of 2.5 or higher were cited for disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minority groups. See Module A for more information on relative risk.
Chart 1: Total number of Districts Cited as
Disproportionate
364
430
353
60
2001
2003
2005
2006
Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality
In 2004, New York State Education Department awarded the Metropolitan Center for
Urban Education (Metro Center) a five-year contract to develop a Technical Assistance
Center on Disproportionality (TACD). The intent of this five-year contract (2004-2009) is to
build the capacity of school districts and state-funded regional networks working with lowperforming school districts to address racial/ethnicity disproportionality in special education. The Metro Center, directed by Dr. Pedro Noguera, provides through this contract a
multifaceted technical assistance approach that involves sequential training modules that
focus on data-driven root cause identification. Other contract aspects include a Web-based
clearinghouse, on-site consultation, summer institutes, and systems change trainings that
reduce or eliminate racial/ethnic disproportionality.
This manual is the culmination of over 1,000 hours of training with over 900 practitioners throughout New York State from 2004 to 2008. The manual is intended to provide
school districts with a process to identify the root causes of disproportionality in their district and raise educational standards. A major premise of the modules involves understanding disproportionality as an outcome of policies, practices, and beliefs. The question is, How does the interaction of policies, practices, and beliefs within a particular district
elicit a pattern of disproportionality in special education? At the end of this data-driven
process, school districts should have identified policies, practices, and beliefs implicated in
their disproportionality pattern—and, more importantly, developed systemwide buy-in and
perspective of this equity issue.
If you need technical assistance in addressing disproportionality in your district, you
can contact the Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality, Metropolitan Center for
Urban Education, New York University, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, 726 Broadway, 5th Floor, NY, New York 10003-9502; telephone: 212998-5100.
Equity in Education
ix
Overview of Training Modules
During the first two years of the contract, the Metro Center committed its efforts to
training six districts to analyze and interpret their own disproportionality data, determine
the root causes of disproportionality, and develop service plans for systems reform to prevent disproportionality from recurring. During the same period, regional technical assistance (TA) providers funded by NYSED were trained by the Metro Center with the tools and
strategies necessary to support other districts in these endeavors. By June 2006, all of the
districts arrived at root causes and began or completed strategic plans to address them. And
in 2007, we began the process again with an additional seven districts cited by NYSED for
being disproportionate with racial/ethnic minority students.
The process of analyzing and interpreting disproportionality and arriving at root causes
involved five steps. From 2004 to 2008, we conducted these five steps with over 900 practitioners, which included district leadership, teachers, psychologists, content supervisors, social workers, and special education and general teachers. Below are the modules that reflect
these five steps.
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Description
This module involves participants learning a common definition of disproportionality, understanding data trends at the
state and national levels, and outlining a mechanism to interpret an individual district’s data summary report.
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR)
Description
This module involves participants gaining an overview and
hands-on training of the Disproportionality Data Repository
(DDR) Tool. The DDR provides participants an opportunity to
examine aggregate data on intervention services (dosage and
frequency), referral, reason for referral, classification, placement, and achievement at a building level by race and gender.
Equity in Education
x
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Description
This module involves participants analyzing various levels of
school and community context data and maps the actual policies, practices, and beliefs of early intervening services, referral, classification, and placement. Participants will also identify
additional data to collect for the next session based on data interpretation.
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Description
This module involves participants analyzing additional policy,
practice, and belief data and constructing the root cause map
of disproportionality. In addition, participants also receive research articles to review on each identified root cause in order
to assist them in connecting their root causes to disproportionality research.
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Description
This module involves participants sharing in a study group format the research regarding their data-based root causes of disproportionality, as well as begin mapping the solutions for addressing the data-based root causes.
After delivering this five-step process with over 900 practitioners, it became
apparent that a manual needed to be developed to continue to assist our current districts and other districts.
The structure of the manual is to provide practitioners a pathway for engaging
data relevant to disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minority in special
education. The manual is organized by the various Disproportionality Training
Modules, each one containing the trainer’s PowerPoint, handouts, resources, and
homework assignments. In the back of the manual is a CD that contains these materials. This manual can also be found on our Web site:
http://www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/programs/TACD/tools.html.
Note: There are items in each section that are not included in the table of contents
as these items are downloadable documents.
Equity in Education
xi
Frequently Asked Questions About the Manual
Forming district disproportionality team members: who needs to be sitting at
the table?
Addressing equity-based issues is complex and requires gathering information and
perspectives from multiple stakeholders. As such, the Metro Center developed District
Disproportionality Teams in each district. The role of the team was to collect, analyze,
interpret, and identify the root causes of disproportionality. These teams played a vital
role in the success of a district arriving at root causes, and the process of examining such
data enabled the team to take ownership for addressing the issue of disproportionality and
allowing NYU project representatives to serve in the capacity of facilitators.
District disproportionality teams are composed of individuals who interact directly with
students. We consider the following individuals as minimum participants of the team:
1. Superintendent or designee
2. Building Leadership: K-12
3. General Education and Special Education Teachers
4. Program Leadership: Special Education, English as a Second Language (ESL), Reading,
Math, etc.
5. Review Committee Representatives: Instructional Support Teams, Committee on Special
Education, Response to Intervention Team, etc.
6. Union Leadership Representatives
7. Parents and Local Parent Groups
8. Psychologists and/or Social Workers
In addition to having a diverse representation of district roles and responsibilities, it is
also important to maintain a district team that reflects the racial/ethnic representation of the
district. From the first module to the last, conversations regarding disproportionality will
involve answering the question, Why is our racial/ethnic minority population being
disproportionately affected by our policies, practices, and beliefs? Ensuring a
diverse representation of individuals on this team will allow for different perspectives to be
considered in the analysis and interpretation of data.
Equity in Education
xii
How do we get everybody to the table?
It’s important that this process begin with ascertaining
buy-in throughout the district on disproportionality as a
Anecdotal Story
critical equity issue to resolve. Throughout our work with
During training moddistricts, we developed and modified a general process for
getting this buy-in. Below are general steps to assembling ule C, a supervisor of intervention services for a disdistrict teams:
trict stated, “I noticed that
Step 1: Obtain the support of the superintendent and share most of our students in
process and time line.
special education are atA. Agree on process outcomes: How do we know we are taining level 1 [below basic] on the standardized
on track?
exam. However, the staff
B. Agree on implementation process (e.g., number of
tasked with providing prehours, contacting members, etc.)
referral intervention services was only trained to
Step 2: Develop a membership list of stakeholders
work with students who
A. Outline an outreach process: How do we get school are at level 2 and move to
personnel to participate?
level 3 [proficiency]. Our
practice did not mirror the
Step 3: Identify individuals who can operate as facilitators need.”
of sessions.
Policy and Practice
If everyone has different perspectives, how do we Question
start?
Is your prereferral inEach person brings with him or her a specific perspec- tervention team versed in
tive, or what we like to call a “hunch,” about why dispropor- working with a range of
struggling learners?
tionality is occurring within the district. Once a team is
formed, the first module involves getting to know where
everybody is in terms of understanding disproportionality.
It’s vital to acknowledge these varying perspectives.
Do I need to follow the module sequence?
Yes. From module A to module E, the thread of policies,
practices, and beliefs is consistently raised with each data point
brought forth by the team. In addition, each module builds upon
each other and contains homework for the following module.
However, although the modules are built to involve 6 hours of
training, district teams may be able to conduct each module at a
faster pace depending on the capacity of the team members.
Equity in Education
xiii
Equity in Education
xiv
Equity in Education
xv
Disproportionality
Training Modules
Equity in Education
1
Equity in Education
2
Module A
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Icebreaker Activity Worksheet
Icebreaker Activity Answers Sheet
Critical Questions Worksheet
Critical Questions Sample Answers Sheet
Disproportionality Data Analysis Workbook
Equity in Education
3
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
6 hours
By the end of the workshop, participants will
Outline a common definition for disproportionality
Understand national and state performance trends
Interpret their district data summary report
Compare disproportionality data with district achievement data
Length of Training:
Training Objectives:
•
•
•
•
Training Materials
•
•
•
•
PowerPoint
Handouts:
• New York State Education overview on Disproportionality (download a copy of
this document from the following Web site: http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/
specialed/spp/chap405.htm
• Icebreaker Worksheet
• Critical Questions Worksheet
Newsprint and Markers
District Data Summary Reports (Disproportionality Data Analysis Workbook)
Pretraining Work
Analyze district’s disproportionality data using the Metro Center Disproportionality
Data Analysis Workbook. The workbook can be found at the following Web site:
http://www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/programs/TACD/tools.html.
Equity in Education
5
Module A:
Understanding Disproportionality
Trainer’s Manual
Equity in Education
6
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Introductions, overview of
agenda, review objectives, and
outline common rules of
operation.
Trainer introduces her- or himself. Allow participants to introduce themselves to the
group: this includes their name, organization,
and responsibilities.
•
•
•
PART I-Disproportionality
Overview
PART II-National and State Trends
PART III-What is the
Disproportionality in Your
District
Provide an overview of the day by walking Slide 2
team through the agenda. It is important to
review the objectives. Once objectives
Objectives
have been reviewed, outline common rules of
•
Outline
a
common
definition for disproportionality.
operation. These common rules serve as a
• Understand national and state performance
contract for how we will converse with each
trends.
other about disproportionality issues, which
• Interpret your district data summary report.
will involve talking about race/ethnicity.
• Compare disproportionality data with district
Write common rules on newsprint.
Finally, create a parking lot for those topics
that may be a tangent during a specific segment of the training but are relevant to return to at some point during the training.
Time Allotment: 25 minutes
Materials: PowerPoint, newsprint, and
achievement data.
Slide 3
marker
Ground Rules
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Module A:
Understanding
Disproportionality
Slide 4
Technical Assistance Center on
Disproportionality
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
New York University
Slide 1
Equity in Education
7
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Activity 1
Time Allotment: 15 minutes
Materials: Icebreaker worksheet
Icebreaker (Slide 5)
Part I: Disproportionality
Overview
Part I of this module engages teams in discussing the various elements that define disproportionality. This includes giving teams
an opportunity to articulate their own definiThe purpose of the icebreaker is to prepare tion of disproportionality; providing teams
the group for thinking about the different ele- with the definition outlined by IDEA 2004;
ments that define disproportionality. This ac- and providing teams with the various ways in
tivity provides an opportunity for the group which disproportionality is calculated.
to think about the issues without feeling that
one individual is at fault. An answer sheet is
provided to help to guide the conversation.
Instructions: Each participant will receive
the icebreaker sheet and take about 5 minPart I:
utes to complete it. After 5 minutes, ask for
Disproportionality
some individuals to share their answers. Ask
the whole group probing questions such as,
Overview
Is there information you did not know?
What are the core questions/concerns you
have regarding disproportionality? Make
sure to encourage the group to raise quesSlide 6
tions about the operation of the school
process and its implication in disproportion- Activity 2
ality. Chart discussion on newsprint.
Time Allotment: 5-10 minutes
Icebreaker
Materials: Blank paper, pens/pencils
Instructions: Each individual will write
down his or her definition of disproportionality. Ask individuals to share their definitions.
Encourage discussion among team members—ask probing questions such as, What
are some of the commonalities? What are
some of the differences? What’s missing?
(Slides 7 and 8)
Slide 5
Trainer’s Commentary: Our discussion
today will require that we think out of the
box. Sometimes that may mean stepping out
of our comfort zone of what we think we
know and understand.
Equity in Education
8
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Defining
Disproportionality
Slide 7
Disproportionality Occurs
When Students Are
Inappropriately referred and
classified for special education.
• Underrepresented in intervention
services, resources, access to
programs, and rigorous curriculum
and instruction.
•
Slide 10
Defining
Disproportionality
• Take a few minutes to write down
your definition of disproportionality.
Slide 8
What is disproportionality?
Trainer’s Commentary: The federal attention to disproportionality dates back to 1968.
Over the last 40 years, much has been learned
about disproportionality including that it involves overrepresentation and underrepresentation. It is important to discuss both
dimensions of disproportionality because they
highlight the causes of overrepresentation,
which leads to underrepresentation in other
areas.
What is disproportionality? How do
we measure it? (Slides 11-13)
There are various measurement tools used for
This section of the module involves providing calculating disproportionality (e.g., relative
teams an overview of federal, state, and dis- risk ratio, chi-square, and composite index).
trict definitions of disproportionality. The lat- Relative risk ratio calculates the risk of ethnic
ter two educational agencies (state and dis- minority groups being classified and/or placed
trict) maintain definitions that mirror the fed- in special education in comparison to other
eral definition outlined in IDEA 2004 regroups.
authorization (http://idea.ed.gov/download/
statute.html). This federal definition points to Trainer’s Commentary: Relative risk ratio
the numerical representation of ethnic minor- in simplest terms is a ratio of ratios. It allows
ity groups in special education programs and one to specifically answer the question of how
other instructional programs.
much more likely it is that a student from a
particular racial or ethnic group, in a given
setting, will receive a certain classification
Disproportionality Is
and/or placement than will students from
racial and ethnic groups in that setting.
• The overrepresentation of specific
For
example,
if a particular racial or ethnic
groups in special education programs
group’s
risk
ratio
is 2.0, it means that students
in relation to their representation in
the overall enrollment and/or the
from that racial or ethnic group are twice as
underrepresentation of specific
likely to receive a certain classification than all
groups in accessing intervention
services, resources, programs, and
other students.
rigorous curriculum and instruction.
all
other
Slide 9
Equity in Education
9
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Why pay attention to
disproportionality? (Slide 14-16)
How
How Do
Do We
We Measure
Measure It?
It?
Why Pay Attention to
Disproportionality?
Slide 11
Relative Risk Ratio
What is the risk of identification as
MR* for Black students, compared to
the risk for White students?
Black students are 2.40 more likely
than White students to be identified
as MR*.
*mentally retarded
Slide 12
Relative Risk Example
Relative Risk
Risk for Black students:
Calculation:
Black MR
0.0178
205,590
0.0074=2.40
Risk for White students:
White MR
308,243
Slide 13
All Black Students
11,564,606
All White Students
416,771,580
Slide 14
The intent of these slides and discussion is to
offer the “big picture” significance of disproportionality.
Trainer’s Commentary: The intent of
special education is to provide services for
students experiencing causative, social, emotional, and physical challenges that minimize
learning goals. Special education is a service, not a placement. Unfortunately as
educators, our policies, practices, and beliefs
often denote special education as a placement.
Intent of Special
Education
Relative Risk
1.78%
Relative Risk
0.74%
• Provides intervention services
• Provides parity in educational
services
• Ensures equitable opportunity and
access for every child to be
academically successful
• Ensures equitable social mobility
Slide 15
Equity in Education
10
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
What contributes to disproportionality? (Slides 18-19)
Contributors
Slide 16
Trainer’s Commentary: Unfortunately,
racial/ethnic minority students, particularly
Black and Latino students, are disproportionately placed in special education services.
However, the challenge is not only in the overrepresentation of these groups but also the
educational and social trajectory of Black and
Latino groups in comparison to White students with similar classification and placement. As we see in the following slides, there
are also disproportionate outcomes for Black
and Latino students with special education
classification compared to similar White students. Slide 17’s overarching point: Blacks are
4 times more likely to be in prison, and Latinos are nearly 2 times more likely to be in
prison compared to Whites with similar classifications. The question of why disproportionality is an issue involves understanding the outcome patterns. Special education may deal
with one issue but creates another.
What are
the contributing factors that place Blacks and
Latinos at a greater risk than Whites?
Likelihood of Placement in a Correctional
Institution for Blacks and Latinos with
disabilities compared to Whites
5
4
4.13
3
1.88
2
1
Likelihood to be
placed in
correctional
institution
compared to
White Students
with disabilities
0
Black
Slide 18
Trainer’s Commentary: Research on dis-
proportionality outlines three major factors
involved in causing disproportionality among
racial/ethnic minority students: beliefs, policies, and practices. A belief refers to the
ideas/notions educators maintain regarding
culture, race, ethnicity, and poverty. Research
notes that these beliefs can resonate in teacher
expectations, school practices, and policy application. A policy refers to the district/
school policies that regulate school process.
However, this factor is focused on the manner
in which the policy is constructed and applied,
which may affect the disproportionate representation of ethnic minority groups in special
education (for example, disciplinary action
policies, policies on parent involvement in the
special education process, policies on the referral process, etc.). A practice refers to the
instructional practices, which include curricula
that are intended for all students. This factor
contributes to disproportionality through the
level of access made available to racial/ethnic
minority students relative to White students
(for example, access to gifted and talented
classes, cooperative grouping opportunities,
culturally responsive teaching and classroom
management, etc.).
Latino
USDOE: Office of Special Education Programs 2001
Slide 17
Equity in Education
11
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Part II: National and State
Trends (Slides 21-22)
Beliefs
Practices
Disproportionality
Part II of the module provides an overview of
the national and state trends in disproportionality and achievement.
Policies
Slide 19
Activity 3
Time Allotment: 35-45 minutes
Materials: Critical Questions worksheet,
newsprint, and marker
Critical Questions worksheet (Slide
20)
The purpose of this activity is to have teams
examine the current practices, policies, and
beliefs embedded in their special education
referral process.
Group Activity
Part II:
National and State
Trends
Slide 21
Trainer’s Commentary: The federal gov-
ernment has been tracking disproportionality
since the late 1960s. It has become a critical
point of concern over the last decade because
of several factors: federal legislation mandates attention to the issue; the achievement
gap demonstrates some of the implications of
disproportionality; the lack of educational
equity and access for ethnic minority students is revealing areas of the educational
process that do not work for these groups;
and advances in technology among (State
Education Agency (SEAs) and Local Education Agency (LEAs) allow for better examination of disproportionality.
Disproportionality Is Not New
•
Disproportionality has been a national
concern for over four decades (Dunn, 1968)
Why Now
Slide 20
Instructions: Teams will break into 5
groups. Each group will receive the Critical
Questions worksheet. Each group will
consider the 5 boxes on the worksheet and
create questions for the empty boxes regarding steps in the classification process.
Ask each group to report out on one box to
the entire team and chart the responses for
each box on the newsprint.
•
•
•
•
Legislation, e.g., NCLB, IDEA
Achievement Gap
Educational Equity and Access
Technology
Slide 22
Equity in Education
12
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Trainer’s Commentary: Slides 23-42
Part III: What Is the Disproporhighlight the national achievement and ac- tionality in Your District?
cess gap. In order to acquire more recent
data, please check the National Center Edu- Now that we have provided the national and
cation Statistics (NCES) Web site for the lat- state landscape of disproportionality, we turn
est National Assessment of Educational Pro- to our local/school district data report. The
gress (NAEP) report:
district data summary report provided by
http://www.nces.ed.gov.
Stated Education Department (SED) outlines
the type of disproportionality identified in
the district. Note: Provide teams with the
Framing the National
Picture
Disproportionality Data Analysis
Workbook that contains the overview
of Indicators 9 and 10. This segment of
the training will involve reviewing the
data in the Data Analysis Workbook.
This book can be accessed from our Web site:
http: //www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/
metrocenter/programs/TACD/tools.html.
Activity 4
Slide 23
Trainer’s Commentary: The New York Time Allotment: 2 hours
State picture mirror the national picture.
Note: Slides 43-49 highlight the New Material: Data Analysis Workbook
York State achievement and access
gap. Ask probing questions to teams
regarding the slides—e.g., what do the
slides tell us? How does the information relate to our policies, practices,
and beliefs?, etc.
Part III:
Go to your state’s Department of Education
Web site: http://www.nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/states. Also, use your
district achievement report cards to create
similar achievement slides.
What Is the Disproportionality in
Your District?
Slide 50
Framing the New
York State Picture
Slides 43-49
Equity in Education
13
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Trainer’s Commentary (Slides 51-52): Trainer’s Notes: Recap the training by reThe State Performance Plan Indicators #9 and
#10a and 10b show significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities and are
required to complete this self-review monitoring protocol. The purpose of the selfmonitoring tool is for school districts to determine if the disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special education
and related services is the result of inappropriate identification through implementation of
the district’s policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification of students with
disabilities.
viewing information you have captured. Ask
probing questions such as, What new knowledge have you gained? You may also use this
time to revisit items from the parking lot, if
relevant.
Debriefing
Debriefing
Trainer’s Commentary: The following
(Slides 51-52) provide a definition of each indicator.
Slide 53
State Performance Plan
Indicator # 9
• Percent of district’s with
disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that
is the result of inappropriate
identification.
Homework material: Data Analysis Workbook—
Referral Worksheet
Trainer’s Commentary: Over the next several module meetings, we will be looking at
different types of data in order to understand
your district’s disproportionality data. The
homework assignment for the next module is
to prepare your referral to classification data.
Using the
in your Data
Analysis Workbook, please provide data for
each cell.
Referral worksheet
Slide 51
State Performance Plan
Indicators # 10a and #10b
Trainer’s Notes: Ensure team members fill
out the evaluation form. Collect sign-in sheets.
A. Percent of district’s with disproportionate
representation of racial/ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the
result of inappropriate identification.
B. Percent of district’s with disproportionate
representation of racial/ethnic groups in
special education placements that is the
result of inappropriate policies, procedures,
and practices.
Slide 52
Evaluate Training
Slide 54
Equity in Education
14
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Module A
Handouts
Equity in Education
15
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Please answer True or False to the following questions:
T
1. Poverty alone is the cause of disproportionality.
or
F
______
2. States are required to collect data about disproportionality in accordance with ______
Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
3. Exposure to lead paint is the main cause of disproportionality.
______
4. It becomes difficult to assess disproportionality when you have a high propor- ______
tion of one racial group.
5. Identifying issues of disproportionality will mean that your school will probably ______
close.
6. Disproportionality stems solely from too many students receiving special
education services.
______
7. Solving issues of disproportionality will require help from the entire community—schools, businesses, churches, government, and others.
______
8. Asian and White students who receive special education services are twice as
likely to graduate with diplomas than their Black and Latino counterparts.
______
9. Disproportionality is a problem in just a handful of states across the country.
______
10. The majority of students receiving special education services leave school
without earning a diploma.
______
Equity in Education
16
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Please answer True or False to the following questions:
T
1. Poverty alone is the cause of disproportionality.
or
F
___F__
2. States are required to collect data about disproportionality in accordance with ___T__
Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
3. Exposure to lead paint is the main cause of disproportionality.
___F__
4. It becomes difficult to assess disproportionality when you have a high propor- ___F__
tion of one racial group.
5. Identifying issues of disproportionality will mean that your school will probably ___F__
close.
6. Disproportionality stems solely from too many students receiving special
education services.
___F__
7. Solving issues of disproportionality will require help from the entire community—schools, businesses, churches, government, and others.
___T__
8. Asian and White students who receive special education services are twice as
likely to graduate with diplomas than their Black and Latino counterparts.
___T__
9. Disproportionality is a problem in just a handful of states across the country.
___F__
10. The majority of students receiving special education services leave school
without earning a diploma.
___T__
Equity in Education
17
Q
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
-e
r
as
ts
eu
qe
rt
ne
ra
p
ev
ah
ot
la
rr
ef
.d
es
se
ss
at
ne
du
ts
:
k
s
a
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
_____________________
_____________________
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
:
k
s
a
l.a
rr
ef
er
’st
ne
du
ts
ro
/d
na
re
hc
ae
T.
de
en
.d
en
i
m
re
te
ds
i
_____________________
se
ci
vr
es
no
it
ac
ud
e
:
k
s
a
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
Q
_____________________
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
ci l
m
ed aroi
ac va
a he
na b
sti ro
bi /d
hx na
e
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
_____________________
tn
ed
ut
S.
no
it
al
up
op
Q
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
eh
t
ins
it
ne
du
tS
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e
l
a
r
e
n
e
g
ee sr
tti e
m disn
m
oc oc
s’t
ne
du
tS
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
_____________________
de
sa
b-l
oo
hc
S
.d
eti
bi
hx
es
i
la
ic
ep
s
gn
iv
ie
c
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
:
k
s
a
.
m
ar si det
go h ne
rP cih m
el
no w
,
it )P pm
ac E i
ud I( ne
E ht
-e
rr
of
yti
li
bi
gil
e
:
k
s
a
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
-d
ne
pe
dt
sil
ai
ce
ps
ta
ht
de
en
eh
t
no
gn
i
ni .
a n
m
er iota
dl cu
uo de
hs la
eh ice
ro ps
eh ni
s
_____________________
ist
ne
du
tS
a
yb
de
ta
ul
av
e
de
izl
au
di
vi
dn
I
ts fi
u ee
m
tn sot
ed d
ut eta
se ul
ht av
,s ee
ra r
ey eb
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
na
se
vi
ec
er
tn
ed
ut
S
3
yr
ev
ee
cn
ot
sa
el
tA
_____________________
D
de e
w
ei reh .e
ve w ta
re d ir
bt esi por
su ver p
m dn pa
PE a
I
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
:
e
s
o
p
r
u
P
:
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i
s’t
ne
du
ts
eh
t,
yl
au
nn
A
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
te
eh
sk
ro
W
sn
oit
se
u
Q
la
cit
ir
C
:l
oo
T
A
el
ud
o
M
hti
w
tn
ed
ut
s
as
a
de
ifi
ss
al
ce
b
yll
au
tn
ev
e
ya
m
oh
w
tn
ed
ut
s
a
yb
ne
ka
t
ht
ap
eh
tr
ed .y
is til
no ib
c as
oT id
tn
at k
ro sa
p dl
m
i uo
n c ?t
w
od ew ne
eti sn m
e
r oit cal
w se p
dn u dn
as qe a
se ht noi
co er ta
rp at ci
no ah fiss
it Wal
ac . c
ifi w
et
o
ss le air
al bp p
ce e or
ht ts pp
hg hca ae
uo et ru
rh a sn
t de eo
ye ks t
nr a no
uo eb ita
js ts ci
’t u fi
ne m ss
du kni alc
ts ht fo
si u ss
ht oy e
ss t co
uc aht rp
si s eh
de no t
sa its gni
el eu ru
Pqd
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
Equity in Education
18
Module A: Understanding Disproportionality
eh
t
ni
si
tn
ed
ut
S
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e
l
a
r
e
n
e
g
tn
ed
ut
S.
no
it
al
up
op
ci l
m
ed aroi
ac va
a he
na b
sti ro
bi /d
hx na
e
/d
na
re
hc
ae
T.
de
en
la
ic
ep
s
gn
iv
ie
c
se
ci
vr
es
no
it
ac
ud
e
:
k
s
a
.d
en
i
m
re
te
ds
i
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
ev
ah
ot
la
rr
ef
er
.d
es
se
ss
at
ne
du
ts
w
on o
si ks hw
ht re ,t
pu bm on
se e fI?
ka m dl
ae ihc ?
m? m
s
oh m
ae to sih eo
Wt D t d
:
k
s
a
d
l
u
o
h
s
e
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
fo
tr
ap
as
tn
er
ap
eh
te
rA
fo
kc teia
al rp
tn o
uo rpp
csi a/
de et
w auq
na ed
Ca
-b
ir
tn
oc
as
a
no
it
cu
rt
sn
i
?r
ot
ca
f
gn
it
u
•
•
fo
er
ut ?
an no
eh ita
ts ul
it av
ah ee
W ht
?d
li
hc
fo
ss
ec
or
p
no
it
gn
is
su
csi
ds
re
hc
ae
te
rA
gn
ik
ro
w
si ?
PE ldi
Ie hc
th eht
w
oh rof
-l
uc ?e
tn tai
e rp
m
ss or
es pp
sa a
eh lya
ts ru
I t
?s
se
co
rp
si
ht
se
us
si
la
ru
tl
uc
er
eh
te
rA
?n
lap
ti
xe
eh
ts
it
ah
W
la
no sec
it iv
cu r
rt es
sn n
ie iot
ht ne
er vre
e tn
Wi
?g
nir
ed
is
no
ct
on
er
ae
w
?h
gu
on
E?
et
air
po
rp
pa
•
Q
-a
cfi
is
sa
lc
ed
nad
ts
re
dn
u
•
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
tos
re
hc
ae
tr
of
st
ro
pp
us
la
no
it
cu
rt
sn
ie
re
ht
er
a
?
-e sno
r it
dil ne
hc vr
eh etn
t io
di t
dd
n
w
o op
Hs
-r
et
ni
re
ht
oe
re
ht
er
A
od n -ne
i v
w
o sre ret
H
?y hca nie
rt et ht
ot tr gn
sn op itc
oit pu ud
ne se no
v wc
•
e
gn e
i ht
w
lo ni
of ne
sr tit
eh r
ca w
et sit ?
er ah PE
AwI
•
d
l
u
o
h
s
?s
se
rg
or
p/
se
gn
ah
c
si ,g
th niyf
yfi is
ss sa
al lc
ce ed
de fI
w ?dl
na ih
Cc
•
.d
et
ne
m
el
p
m
i
:
k
s
a
as
ts
eu
qe
rt
ne
ra
pr
o
•
:
k
s
a
•
Q
•
w
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
•
ee sr
tti e
m disn
m
oc oc
.l
ar
re
fe
rs
’t
ne
du
ts
e
si
ht
pl
eh ?
e eve
wi
na hc
c ad
w
o lih
Hc
ev e
it r
cir o
n
ts m
er eb eiv
ss tn ge
le em tia
a n rp
dl or o
uo iv rp
W ne pa
•
s’t
ne
du
tS
-e
rr
of
yti
li
bi
gil
e
d
l
u
o
h
s
-n
ek rael
a ni
m
tn sn
ed iag
tus tn
eh atr
t op ?
id m gn
Di i
•
de
sa
b-l
oo
hc
S
.d
eti
bi
hx
es
it
ah
t
de
en
eh
t
no
gn
i
:
k
s
a
•
-d
ne
pe
dt
sli
ai
ce
ps
hc
ih
w
,) ne
PE ht
I( si
m
ar
g
ni .
a n
m
er oita
dl cu
uo de
hs la
eh ice
ro ps
eh ni
s
•
si
tn
ed
ut
S
a
yb
de
ta
ul
av
e
-o
rP
no
it
ac
ud
E
ts fi
u ee
m
tn sot
ed d
ut eta
se ul
ht av
,s ee
ra r
ey eb
/c -n
i t o er
m
ed ah cer at
ac w
e ah
as ,de w
w
i sa sno dn ?
de b- it A stl
en gn ne ? us
eh inr vre detc er
tf ae tn u eh
I l i dt
-l
ev
ed
ti
si
l,a
ro
iv
ah
eb
fI
Equity in Education
-n
a
m
m
oo ?eu
?l rss ssi
at al tn
ne ca e
t m
m
po isI ega
•
D
se
vi
ec
er
tn
ed
ut
S
de
zil
au
di
vi
dn
I
na
3
yr
ev
ee
cn
ot
sa
el
tA
•
:
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i
de
w
ei ere .e
ve h ta
re w ir
bt des por
su ive p
m rd pa
PE na
I
•
:
e
s
o
p
r
u
P
s’t
ne
du
ts
eh
t,
yl
au
nn
A
•
TE
E
H
S
S
R
E
W
S
N
A
EL
P
M
AS
—
sn
oit
se
u
Q
la
cit
ir
C
:l
oo
T
A
el
ud
o
M
hti
w
tn
ed
ut
s
as
a
de
ifi
ss
al
ce
b
yll
au
tn
ev
e
ya
m
oh
w
tn
ed
ut
s
a
yb
ne
ka
t
ht
ap
eh
tr
ed y
is til
no ib
c as
oT id
sn
oit
d
n seu na
w
od qe no
eti ht ita
r er cifi
w at s
dn a sa
as h lc
se W
. eta
i
co w
rp ole rpo
no bp rp
it et pa
ac sh e
ifi c ru
ss ae sn
al ta e
ce d ot
ht eks no
hg ae ita
uo bt cif
rh s iss
t um al
ye k c
nr ni fo
uo ht ss
js u ec
’t oy or
ne ta p
du ht eh
ts s tg
si noi ni
ht ts ru
ss eu d
uc qt ks ?t
si n ad n
de at lu e
sa ro oc m
e
el pm e cal
P i wp
19
?s
no
it
Equity in Education
20
Equity in Education
21
Module B
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Disproportionality Data Repository Manual
Data Sorting Rubric
Disproportionality Data Repository
DDR Data Report Analysis Rubric
Equity in Education
22
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
6 hours
By the end of the workshop, participants will
Review disproportionality questions
Utilize the disproportionality tool to collect data on disproportionality
Effectively analyze and interpret building level reports generated through the DDR
CD Access file
Agree on the homework assignment
Review referral to classification data
Length of Training:
Training Objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
Training Materials
•
•
•
PowerPoint
Handouts:
• Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR) Manual
• Data Sorting Rubric
• DDR Data Report Analysis Rubric
Newsprint and markers
Pretraining Work
Module B focuses on uncovering patterns specific to the provision of prereferral intervention services. This module is an overview of the DDR tool. Manipulate the DDR tool prior
to conducting it in order to gain familiarity and comfort with the tool. Also, the referral
worksheets in the Data Analysis Workbook may suffice in gathering information on what
happens from referral to classification, thus not necessitating this module.
Although we consider the examination of prereferral intervention services critical, it
does involve several weeks of collecting, entering, analyzing, and interpretation. The Metro
Center has also developed a Data Analysis Workbook that contains a section on referral to
classification, which would allow for a cursory analysis of the referral process. The workbook
can be found at the following Web site: http://www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/
programs/TACD/tools.html. The referral section can be used in lieu of doing the DDR,
which is a much deeper analysis of prereferral and referral processes.
Equity in Education
23
Module B:
Disproportionality Data
Repository (DDR)
Trainer’s Manual
Equity in Education
24
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Introductions, overview of
agenda, review objectives, and
outline common rules of
operation.
Trainer introduces her- or himself. Allow participants to introduce themselves to the
group: this includes their name, organization,
and responsibilities.
Training Objectives
Review disproportionality questions.
Utilize the disproportionality tool to collect data
on disproportionality.
Effectively analyze and interpret building level
reports generated through the DDR CD Access
file.
Provide an overview of the day by walking
team through the agenda. It is important to
Slide 2
review the objectives. Once objectives
have been reviewed, outline common rules of
operation. These common rules serve as a Part I: Review Module A
contract for how we will converse with each Findings
other about disproportionality issues, which
will involve talking about race/ethnicity.
Time Allotment: 30-40 minutes
Write common rules on newsprint.
Finally, create a parking lot for those topics Part I of this module engages teams in disthat may be a tangent during a specific seg- cussing what they gathered from the first
ment of the training but are relevant to re- module. This includes giving teams an opporturn to at some point during the training.
tunity to articulate their own definition of
disproportionality; the various ways in which
Time Allotment: 25 minutes
disproportionality is calculated; and the connection between disproportionality and
Materials: PowerPoint, newsprint, and
achievement.
marker
Part I: Review Module A
Findings
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Module B:
Disproportionality Data
Repository (DDR)
Technical Assistance Center on
Disproportionality
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
New York University
Slide 3
Slide 1
Equity in Education
25
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Module A Findings
Round-Robin Activity
Indicator # 9: High Classification Rate
Classification Rate =
2,345/
10,545 = 22.2% = YES a Problem
Slide 4
Activity 1
Slide 5
Indicator 10A
Disproportionate Placement by Race
Time Allotment: 5-10 minutes
The purpose of this round-robin activity is to
have team members discuss the major new
learnings from Module A. Note: You can go
back to Module A to review the SPP overview
and your district’s achievement data.
Instructions: Ask individuals to share their
new learnings from Module A, as well as
everything they have considered since the last
training. Encourage discussion among team Slide 6
members—ask probing questions such as,
25
20
Black
15
Latino
White
10
Why did that resonate for you?
Trainer’s Commentary: The following
slides represent the major findings from
Module A. Note: Insert your district’s data
0
Black
Latino
White
Asian
Indicator 10B
Disproportionate Placement by Race
into Slides 5-11. We have inserted sample
data as a guide.
The major question to convey is, What do
these outcomes reflect about the trajectory of all children, specifically
Black and Latino students? An important
Asian
5
75%
67%
60%
57%
54%
50%
33%
29%
27%
25%
17%
18%
12%
10%
12%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Black
20% or less
Latino
21% to 60%
White
More than 60%
Asian
Separate Settings
concept to pose for example: Is the instruc- Slide 7
tion responsive to the district’s populations?
If Black students are classified, then is the
instructional program meeting their needs?
Additionally, if Latino students are able to
perform well in math and science, then it is
not an issue of learning capacity, but rather
it raises a question about the English Language Arts (ELA) instruction program.
(Slides 5-11)
Equity in Education
26
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Trainer’s Commentary: A high percent-
age of elementary level students perform at
or above proficiency in math and ELA. By the
time they get to middle school, these percentages decrease. An important question to ask
is, What other factors are occurring on
the middle school level? Why are
fewer students attaining proficiency?
Achievement by Race and SWD
at the Elementary Level
45% of 4th-grade SWD students and 85% of GE
students score at or above proficiency in ELA.
60% of 4th-grade Black students, 69% of Latino
students, and 75% of White students are at or above
proficiency in ELA.
80% of GE students and 70% of SWD in 4th grade are
at or above proficiency in math.
Race and Achievement
at the Middle Level
• 40% of 8th-grade Black students, 47% of
Latino students, and 60% of White
students are at or above proficiency in
ELA.
• 45% of 8th-grade Black students, 40% of
Latino students, and 73% of White
students are at or above proficiency in
math.
Slide 10
Trainer’s Commentary: The focus of the
following slides is to recap the previous discussion and engage the next set of questions
that are the basis of the DDR.
70% of 4th-grade Black students, 75% of Latino
students, and 90% of White students score at or
above proficiency in math.
What Did We Answer?
Slide 8
What is disproportionality?
How is it calculated?
Achievement by GE and SWD
at the Middle Level
8th-grade
60% of
GE students and 15%
of SWD students are at or above
proficiency in ELA.
30% of 8th-grade SWD and 55% of GE
students are at or above proficiency in
math.
What is the achievement by race and
SWD?
Slide 11
Slide 9
Equity in Education
27
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Trainer’s Commentary: The DDR is constructed to
look at aggregate level of
data regarding classified students. The purpose is to analyze the prereferral to referral
process, which involves gleaning whether
there is a particular pattern by race and gender that may indicate an area of the referral
process that necessitates further exploration.
only
What do we still need to know?
Slide 12
Further Questions to Answer
Layer 1: How does disproportionality occur
in each school building?
Layer 2: How do Black and Latino
students experience school?
Disproportionality Data Repository
• Deconstructs data related to
overrepresentation.
• Provides opportunity to analyze
classification process.
• Answers key questions:
• What patterns emerge in the classification
process?
• Do these patterns suggest an association that
leads to disproportionality?
Slide 15
Slide 13
Part II: Collecting Student
Level Data
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Part II of the module involves providing
teams with an overview of the DDR.
Part II:
Collecting Student Level Data
Slide 14
Trainer’s Commentary: Let’s begin with
outlining the 8 categories of the tool. The first
category, Overall Analysis, provides an
overview of the total number of students inputted in the other categories. The second
category, Prereferral/Early Interventions, captures the type and dosage of the
interventions provided to students. The third
category, Referral, captures the originator
of the referral. The fourth category, Reason
for Referral, captures the types of referrals
(e.g., behavioral, language, learning). The
fifth category, Classified, captures the type
of classification students received. The sixth
category, Placement, captures the type of
educational setting students are placed in
(e.g., less than 20%, 20-60%, and more than
60%). The seventh category, Classification
Origin, captures whether the students came
into the district or school already classified
and whether the students were sent out of the
school or district classified. The eighth category, Achievement, captures the achievement levels at the 4th-, 8th-, and 9ththrough 12th– grade levels in ELA and Math.
Equity in Education
28
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
8 Categories of Disproportionality Data
Repository
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall Analysis
Prereferral/Early interventions
Referral
Reasons for referral
Classified
Placement
Classification Origin
Achievement
Slide 16
Category 2: Prereferral/Early
Interventions
Prereferral/early interventions provided to
classified and non-classified students.
Number of interventions
Number of weeks of interventions
Average number of interventions per student
Average length of interventions per student
Academic only
Behavior only
Social Services only
Multiple
Slide 18
Trainer’s Commentary: The following
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 3 focategories are further outlined in the DDR cuses on the committee or individual who remanual. Category 1 provides an overall
viewed the referral in addition to whether
analysis of special education in relation to the parents made any referrals.
overall population.
Category 1: Overall Analysis
The overall population and special
education population in the following
areas:
District
School
Grade level
Slide 17
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 2
Category 3: Referral
Referral origin among CST, IST, CSE/IST,
or Parent.
Grade level
School
Slide 19
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 4
provides the type and dosage of interventions provides the types of reasons for referral.
classified students receive: academic only,
behavioral only, and social services only are
organized in such a way to examine these
Category 4: Reason for Referral
interventions separately from others;
Reasons for referral include:
however, teams may choose to ignore the
Academic only
label and input the interventions without
Behavioral only
Physical only
separating them.
Language only
Multiple
Slide 20
Equity in Education
29
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 5
focuses on the type of classification students
received.
Category 5: Classified
• Classification and Evaluation of students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classified
Evaluated
Academic only
Behavioral only
Physical only
Language only
Multiple
Slide 21
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 6
focuses on the type of placement students
received.
Category 7: Classification Origin
Students who moved into the school/district
classified.
Students who moved out of the school/district
classified
Slide 23
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 8
focuses on the achievement levels of students
by grade and content areas. Note: these
levels represent New York State proficiency
levels 1-2 (below proficiency) and 3-4
(proficiency).
Category 8: Achievement
Category 6: Academic Placement
Settings
Less than 20 %
20% to 60%
ELA 1-2
ELA 3-4
Math 1-2
Math 3-4
Regents
English
Math A
More than 60%
Slide 22
Trainer’s Commentary: Category 7
focuses on the origin of the classification.
This is intended to capture the number of
students who came into the district/school
already classified.
Slide 24
Trainer’s Commentary: The following
slide is intended to prompt discussion around
the types of outputs the DDR tool will
provide.
R es u lts o f D is p ro p o rtio n ality D ata
R ep o s ito ry W ill H elp U s U n de r s ta n d
P att erns in th e re ferra l p roce ss b y
ra c e/e thn ic ity
P att erns in th e p rov ision o f p re ref erral
p roc es s
Slide 25
Equity in Education
30
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Trainer’s Commentary: The data entry
process for the tool is cumbersome, and there
are various elements to the process.
Data Repository Tool Manual
Data Sources Necessary for Data Entry
Information on current students with IEP
Interventions received
Reasons for referral
Classification
Placement
Slide 28
Part III: Begin Lab Training
Slide 26
Time Allotment: 30-45 minutes
Materials: Laptops or computer lab
and DDR tool and Manual
Enter da ta on s tud ents class ified in a
spe cific year .
During this part of the training, teams
can move to a lab to manipulate the DDR,
or a demonstration can be held in front
of a large group.
Data entere d will be at the agg reg ate level
Instructions: Follow the instructions on
D at a E ntr y Pro ce s s
the DDR Manual (at the end of this module)
for this section.
Slide 27
Trainer’s Commentary: The DDR is in-
Part III:
Begin Lab Training
tended to peel back the layers of issues occurring in the referral process. The tool provides
a step-by-step process of entering the data
into the DDR.
Slide 29
Equity in Education
31
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Activity 2
Time Allotment: 20-35 minutes
The focus of this section of the training is to Materials: Sample reports, DDR Report
have teams practice analyzing data generated Analysis Rubric, (Data Sorting Rubric)
from the DDR tool. Note: You will be required to print a sample report. The manual Instructions: Teams will divide into groups
will guide you on how to do this. Instructions
Part IV: Disproportionality Data
Repository Reports
4 or 5 and review 1 of the sample reports
can be found at the end of the manual under of
and practice answering the questions on the
the Generating Disproportionality
DDR Report Analysis Rubric
Reports section.
the Data Sorting Rubric can also
be used to assist with answering these
questions.
.
Note:
Part IV:
Disproportionality Data
Repository Reports
Activity 2:
Analyzing Sample Reports
Slide 30
Trainer’s Commentary: Be sure the data
in the categories can be viewed by race and
gender and that output consists of a Microsoft Excel report.
Slide 32
Types of Reports
Piloting of Data Repository
8 Categories by race and gender
Excel reports
Slide 33
Slide 31
Trainer’s Commentary: The homework
assignment is for teams to preselect a small
sample of students (Black, White, Latino, and
Asian) to input into the tool.
Equity in Education
32
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Homework Assignment
District/region team will input data for one
selected school.
Evaluate Training
Ideal timeframe for data entry: 4-6 weeks
Slide 36
Slide 34
Trainer’s Notes: Recap the training by re-
viewing information you have captured. Ask
probing questions such as, What new knowledge have you gained? You may also use this
time to revisit items from the parking lot, if
relevant.
Wrap-up Conversation
Further areas of interest (i.e., policies,
practices, beliefs) based on today’s
training.
Potential barriers.
Slide 35
Trainer’s Notes: Ensure team members fill
out the evaluation form. Collect sign-in
sheets.
Equity in Education
33
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository Manual
Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR)
Manual
Equity in Education
34
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository Tool Overview
Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR) Tool Overview
The Disproportionality Data Repository (DDR) is a tool for examining disproportionality in special
education. The tool will allow schools/districts to closely examine the referral process. The DDR is an
Access database of targeted data in 8 categories: overall analysis, prereferral/early interventions,
referral, reason for referral, classified, academic placement settings, classification origin, and
achievement. The tool contains fields for data in each of these 8 categories by race and gender of
Black, White, Latino, and Asian students. Also, the tool contains fields for data at the district level,
school level, and grade level. The district wide data focuses on overall enrollment and special education enrollment across the district. The school-level data focuses on grade-level data in the 8 categories. Finally, the DDR generates reports on patterns by race/ethnicity and gender within and across
the 8 categories: for example, the average length and number of early interventions provided to
Black, White, and Latino and Asian males in each grade level.
History
The DDR emerged from the work of two statewide projects by the Metropolitan Center for Urban
Education on examining disproportionality in special education: New Jersey State Education Department’s Minority Special Education and New York State Education Department’s Chapter 405. Currently, the Metro Center is in the process of updating the DDR based on the piloting of January to
June 2006. Both projects entailed working with districts and regions throughout the states on identifying how disproportionality occurs. The findings of these projects outlined areas of the referral process that enabled the disproportionate classification and placement of Black and Latino students in
special education. These elements of the referral process are the basis for the 8 categories of the
DDR.
Before You Begin
Be sure your computer is equipped with Windows XP Operating System (Professional Edition),
which includes Access 2003. Load the CD and wait for the drive to open on your computer.
Right click on the data to copy and paste it onto the desktop. Then double-click on the application on
the desktop. You will see a Security Warning message box appear; click Open. The main switchboard
box
will appear. Click once on Data Entry.
(Disproportionality Data)
Eight Categories
The categories require a myriad of data. The following is an overview of the data captured in each
category.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Overall Analysis
Prereferral/Early Interventions
Referral
Reasons for Referral
Classified
Academic Placement Settings
Classification Origin
Achievement
Data Preparation
The data for the DDR must be arranged into race and gender categories. In other words, the files
should be organized into the following categories: Black male, Black female, White male, White female, Latino male, Latino female, Asian male, and Asian female. The current version of the tool only
captures aggregate data. A system of aggregating data from the files must be performed. The attached
data sorting rubric is built to allow for such aggregate tabulation.
Equity in Education
35
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Opening the DDR
The front page of the DDR is the main switchboard. The main switchboard operates as the main
menu for the database. This page will allow you to commence data entry, generate reports, edit the
list of schools, and exit the switchboard.
Data Entry
Prereferral/Early Interventions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Click Prereferral/Early Interventions.
Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
Enter data on interventions according to each column and by race and gender. (Note: Total
number of interventions refers to the total number of interventions of all students
together. Total weeks of interventions refers to the total number of weeks of interventions of all students together.)
Click Page 2 tab under School.
Enter data on types of interventions. (Note: Academic Only refers to interventions focused on academic skills in content areas, e.g., reading comprehension, math computation, tutoring, etc. Behavioral Only refers to interventions focused on student
behavior, e.g., changing student seating, suspensions, etc. Social Services Only refers to interventions that focus on home and student, e.g., parent conferences,
counseling, etc. Multiple refers to students receiving more than one intervention.)
6. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Referral
1.
2.
3.
4.
Click Referral.
Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
Enter grade number in Grade cell.
Enter data on students referred to CST, IST, or CST/IST and number of students referred by a
parent by race and gender. (Note: CST refers to all students who were referred to a
Committee on Special Education Team. IST refers to students who were solely referred to an Instructional Support Team. CST/IST refers to students who were referred to both a CST and IST team. Parent refers to students referred by a parent.)
5. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Reasons for Referral
1.
2.
3.
4.
Click Reasons for Referral.
Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
Enter data on the reasons for referral by race and gender. (Note: Academic Only refers to
reasons for referral focused on academic skills in content areas, e.g., reading and
math computation, low reading skills, etc. Behavioral Only refers to reasons for referral focused on student behavior, e.g., emotional outbursts, following directions,
etc. Physical Only refers to reasons for referral that focus on students’ physical
abilities, e.g., hearing, sight, etc. Language Only refers to reasons for referral that
focus on students’ speech abilities. Multiple refers to students receiving more than
one reason for referral.)
Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Equity in Education
36
Classified
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
1. Click Classified.
2. Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
3. Enter data on the students who were classified and evaluated and the types of classification they
received by race and gender. (Note: Classified refers to students who received a classifi-
cation or an IEP. Evaluated refers to students who were evaluated for special education needs. Academic Only refers to students who solely received an LD classification. Behavioral Only refers to students who solely received an ED classification.
Physical Only refers to students who solely received an OHI classification. Language Only refers to students who solely received an SI classification. Multiple
refers to students who received multiple classifications.)
4. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Academic Placement Settings
1.
2.
3.
4.
Click Academic Placement Settings.
Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
Enter grade number in Grade cell.
Enter data on the type of academic placement setting (less than 20, 20-60, or more than 60) of
students who were classified by race and gender. (Note: Less than 20 refers to classified
students placed in the least restrictive settings. 20-60 refers to classified students
placed in resource room settings. More than 60 refers to classified students placed
in self-contained settings.)
5. Repeat the previous instructions for each grade.
6. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Classification Origin
1. Click Classification Origin.
2. Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
3. Enter data on students moving in and out of the district with classification by race and gender.
(Note: Students who moved into school classified refers to students who entered
with a classification. Students who moved out of school classified refers to students
who exited the school with a classification.)
4. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Achievement
1. Click Achievement.
2. Select School from drop-down menu next to School.
3. Enter data on students scoring in levels 1-2 and 3-4 for the ELA and Math exams, and students
passing or failing the English and Math Regents. (Note: ELA 1-2 refers to classified stu-
dents who scored level 1 or 2 on the ELA exam. ELA 3-4 refers to classified students
who scored level 3 or 4 on the ELA exam. Math 1-2 refers to classified students who
scored level 1 or 2 on the Math exam. Math 3-4 refers to classified students who
scored level 3 or 4 on the Math exam. Regents ELA pass refers to classified students
who passed the English Regents. Regents ELA fail refers to classified students who
failed the English Regents. Regents Math pass refers to classified students who
passed the Math Regents. Regents Math fail refers to classified students who failed
the Math Regents.)
4. Once data has been entered, click the close button in the right corner of program.
Equity in Education
37
Module B: Disproportionality Data Repository
Generating Disproportionality Reports
Reports
1. Click
from the main switchboard.
2. Click on each category to view a print view of the data entry.
3. Click the print icon on the left corner.
Reports
Export to Excel
4. Click
.
5. Click on each category and click
.
6. Data from the category will be exported to Excel.
7. Once in Excel, click on
in the toolbar and select
.
8. Select
and
, then click
.
9. Select data cells for Pivot Report, then click
.
10. Select
, then click
.
11. A Pivot Chart Report will appear. Drag the School Name into the top
. Then drag each data field (e.g., Black Male, Black Female, etc.) into the gray chart
field.
12. Once finished inserting the data fields, you can adjust the type of
with the
and
dialog boxes.
Data Entry
Export to Excel
Data
Pivot Table and Pivot Report
Microsoft Excel list or database
Pivot Chart Report
Next
Next
New Worksheet
Finish
Drop Page Fields
Here
Pivot Chart Report
Pivot Table
Chart
Equity in Education
38
Equity in Education
39
Module B
Handouts
Equity in Education
40
c
a
r
f
n
I
lo
oT
yr
oti
so
pe
Ra
ta
Dy
til
an
oit
ro
po
rp
si
D
ci
rb
uR
gn
it
ro
S
at
aD
n
o
i
t
6 0 +
0 - 06
2
2 0
M
u
l
L
a
n
P
h
y
B
e
h
A
c
a
E
v
a
l
C
l
a
s
M
u
l
L
a
n
P
h
y
B
e
h
A
c
a
P
a
r
TS & T
IS
C
I
S
T
C
S
T
G
r
d
M
u
l
S S
B
e
h
A
c
a
to sk t
T w nI
to
t
T # nI
I
n
t
st
ne
du
tS
/e
ca
r
re
dn
eg
l
a
t
o
T
Equity in Education
41
Legend: 1) Int.= Received Interventions; 2) Tot. # Int.= total # of interventions; 3) Tot. wk. int. = total # of weeks of interventions; 4) Aca. = Academic Only; 5) Beh. = Behavioral Only; 6) Phy. = Physical Only; 7) S.S. = Social Services only; 8) Mul. = Multiple; 9) CST = CST referral; 10) IST = IST referral; 11) CST/IST = CST & IST referral; 12) Par. = Parent referral; 13) Lan. = Language Only; 14)
Clas. = Classified; 15) Eval. = Evaluated; 16) Grd. = Grade level; 17) 20 = less than 20% setting placement; 18) 20-60 = 20%-60% setting placement; 19) 60+ = more than 60% setting placement; 20)
M.I.= Moved into School with classification; 21) M.O.= Moved out with classification.
Module B: Data Sorting Rubric
Module B: DDR Reports Analysis Rubric
de
ifi
ss
al
C
,c
i
ts m
o eda
m ca
dn .
at g.e
sa (y
el ro
eh ge
t ta
de c
vi hc
ec ae
er ni ?).
pu s ct
or noi e,l
gt ta ar
ah cifi oiv
Wssa ah
lc eb
•
la
rer
fe
Rr
of
no
sa
eR
-e -v
rt ah
so eb
m ,ci
dn m
at ed
sa ac
el a.
eh g.e
t (
de yr
vi og
ec et
er ac
pu hc
or ae ?)
gt ni .c
ah sl te,
Warr lar
ef oi
•
la
rr
ef
eR
-e
rt
so ?t
m ner
dn ap
at d
sa na
el ,T
eh SI
t /T
de S
vi C,
ec T
er SI
pu ,TS
or C
gt aiv
ah sl
Warr
ef
•
•
•
•
D
sn
se oit
ir n
og evr
et et
aC nI
yl
ra
E/l
ar
re
fe
re
rP
,c
ts ts t t ts im
o o se se o ed
m m w w m ac
dn dn ol ol dn a.
at at dn dn at g.e
sa sa at at sa (
el el se se ? el yr
eh eh hg hg sk eh og
t t ih ih ee t eta
de de e ? e w de c
vi vi ? ht sn ht n vi hc
ec ec sk s oi s oi ec a
er er ee ah tn ah tn er en ?).
pu ?s pu w pu evr pu evr pu is ct
or no or no or et or et or no e,l
gt it gt it gt ni gt ni gt it ar
ah nev ah nev ah eg ah eg ah nev oiv
Wret Wret Ware Ware Wret ah
ni ni va va ni eb
•
:
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i
se
to
N
•
uo
yt
ah
w
eh
te
zy
la
na
ci otst
rb n
u edu
R ts
si e
sy ht
la n
nA od .
ol
tr etc w
op ell eb
e oc sei
R R ro
at D g
a De eta
D ht c
R mn
D om
D
: rfn uloC
B oi s
el t et
ud am o
o rof Ne
M ni ht
eh ni
te re
s tn
Ue
Equity in Education
42
Module B: DDR Reports Analysis Rubric
tn
e
m
ec
al
P
ni
gi
rO
no
it
ac
ifi
ss
al
C
eh
tf
ot
uo
dn ?
a ts
ni o
de m
vo dn
mats
pu ae
or le
gt ht
ah tci
Wrtsi
d
tn
e
m
ev
ei
hc
A
ts ,
eh 2-1
gi :.
h g.e
dn (
at yr
se og
e
w
ol tac
eh hc
ta
de e
vi ni
ec se
er ro
pu cst
or ne
gt m?).
ah ev ct
Weih e,4
ca -3
•
se
ir
og
et
aC
,0
2
ts na
o ht
mss
dn el
at :.
sa g.e
el (y
eh ro
tg
de et
vi ac
ec h
er ca
pu eni
or st
gt ne
ah m
Wecal ?).c
p te
•
ci
rb
u
R
si
sy
la
nA
tr
op
e
R
at
a
D
R
D
D
:
B
el
ud
o
M
se
to
N
•
)
d
e
u
n
it
n
o
C
(
Equity in Education
43
Equity in Education
44
Equity in Education
45
Module C
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
DDR Data Report Analysis Rubric
Critical Questions Worksheet
Disproportionality Programs, Practices, and
Beliefs Data Evidence Chart
Equity in Education
46
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
6 hours
By the end of the workshop, participants will
Analyze DDR data
Define policies, practices, and beliefs (PPBs) that lead to disproportionality
Practice analyzing various data
Agree on a homework assignment
Length of Training:
Training Objectives:
•
•
•
•
Training Materials
•
•
•
•
•
PowerPoint
Handouts:
• DDR Data Report Analysis Rubric
• Disproportionality Programs, Practices and Beliefs Data Evidence Chart
Newsprint and markers
DDR Reports
Sample Census Data
Pretraining Work
Download census data of your corresponding city, http://www.census.gov. Once on the
Web site, go to American FactFinder and then click on the Decennial Census of 1990 or
2000. Then select Detailed Tables. Once in the tables screen, select City/Village/
Consolidated Place or any other option from the first drop-down menu. Then proceed to select the following variables: Race, Latino Origin of Any Race, Poverty, and other variables of
interest. Repeat this process for Census 2000. Your city may have American Community
Survey (ACS) census that is collected with select cities. Once you have downloaded this data,
we suggest the following analysis:
• Number of Blacks in 1990 and 2000 and possibly a later year if available
• Number of Latinos in 1990 and 2000 and possibly a later year if available
• Number of Whites in 1990 and 2000 and possibly a later year if available
• Number of Asian/Pacific Islanders in 1990 and 2000 and possibly a later year if
available
• Percent change from 1990 to 2000 and possibly another year for each group
Download your district’s demographic data. The data should reflect the last 8 to 10 years
of enrollment. Once you have downloaded this data, we suggest the following analysis:
• Number of Black, Latino, White, Asian, ELLS, Free/Reduced lunch student enrollment
per year
Equity in Education
47
Module C:
Examining School Context
Policies and Practices
Trainer’s Manual
Equity in Education
48
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Introductions, overview of
agenda, review objectives, and
outline common rules of operation.
Trainer introduces her- or himself. Allow participants to introduce themselves to the
group: this includes their name, organization,
and responsibilities.
Training Objectives
Analyze DDR data.
Define policies, practices and beliefs (PPBs) that
lead to disproportionality.
Practice analyzing various data.
Provide an overview of the day by walking Slide 2
team through the agenda. It is important to
review the objectives. Once objectives
have been reviewed, outline common rules of
operation. These common rules serve as a
contract for how we will converse with each
Practices
other about disproportionality issues, which
will involve talking about race/ethnicity.
Write common rules on newsprint.
Finally, create a parking lot for those topics
that may be a tangent during a specific segment of the training but are relevant to return to at some point during the training.
Time Allotment: 25 minutes
Materials: PowerPoint and DDR sample
reports (Module B), newsprint and marker.
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Module C: Examining School
Context Policies and Practices
Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
New York University
Slide 1
Beliefs
Disproportionality
Policies
Slide 3
Part I of this module engages teams in
discussing what they gathered from Module B. This includes giving teams an opportunity to articulate their own process
of analyzing the data and looking for patterns within the DDR reports. Teams
may make connections between policies,
practices and beliefs (PPBs) around disproportionality.
Instructions: Ask individuals to share
their new learnings from Module B, as
well as other things they have considered
since the last training. Encourage discussion among team members—ask probing
questions such as, Why did that resonate
for you? What do you now understand
about disproportionality?
Equity in Education
49
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Part I: Analyzing DDR
Part I of the module involves having teams
look at the patterns and associations from
the DDR report.
Interpretation…
What does this imply?
Analyzing
Disproportionality Data Repository
PPB
Part I:
Slide 4
Trainer’s Commentary: Encourage
Slide 7
Activity 1
Time Allotment: 25 minutes
Materials: DDR Sample Report from Module B or Referral worksheet from Data
Analysis Workbook, newsprint, and marker.
teams to discuss if there are particular pat- Instructions: Divide participants into
terns in the data reports and how those pat- groups of 4 or 5 and provide them with the
terns may be related to current PPBs.
DDR reports or Referral worksheet (The Referral worksheet is on page 49 of the workbook). Groups must answer the first question: What do we see about each report?
Once that question is completed, groups anDDR Reports
swer the second question: what does this imply, suggest, or infer?
Note: Analysis discussions involve describ-
ing what we see (e.g., 25% of referred Blacks
are classified). Discuss what the analysis implies (e.g., more Blacks are being classified
than Whites).
Slide 5
Analysis Activity
Major Findings
What do we need to further explore?
What do we see?
Slide 6
Slide 8
Equity in Education
50
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Trainer’s Commentary: Let’s chart the of this activity is to gauge what particimajor things we all see and the major impli- pants can now state about the practices
involved in the prereferral to classificacations of this data.
tion process.
What student groups appear to be the most
disproportionate? Anecdotally, what do we
know about these groups’ experiences in
schools?
Mapping from Early
Note: Groups should arrive at noting
the inconsistency of prereferral
interventions whether as a service or
by groups of student. Also, engage
large group discussion regarding other
areas in which to look at data.
Part II: Mapping Early Interventions to Classification Process
Part II of this module involves closely looking
at PPBs associated with early interventions to
classification process. The teams’ group activity will connect the DDR data or the referral
data from the Data Analysis Workbook
to school policies, practices, and beliefs.
Part II: Mapping Early
Intervention to Classification
Process
Small group exercise
Slide 10
Trainer’s Commentary: Although we’ve
identified the critical outcome patterns of our
practices, we still do not have sufficient information about what occurs prior to the
prereferral process or understand whether
there are other school practice arenas in
which specific groups are also experiencing
difficulties. Thus it’s important for us to identify where else in our school practices do we
want to explore that would assist in explaining our disproportionality in special education.
Interventions to Classification Process
Part III: Other Data Collection
Slide 9
Activity 2
Time Allotment: 30 minutes
Material: Critical Questions worksheet
Part III of this module involves looking at
other data to get a clearer picture of how
PPBs affect student placement in special
education.
Part III:
Other Data Collection
Use the worksheet responses the team provided in Module A activity .
Instructions: Ask teams to map out
the PPBs that accompany the prereferral
to classification process using the Critical Questions worksheet. The point
Slide 11
Equity in Education
51
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Trainer’s Commentary: The following
slides (12-14) are meant to get you to examine school data with a critical lens. As we
mentioned in earlier modules, it is imperative
Beliefs
Practices
to get the story behind your disproportionality rates. We need to collaboratively identify
Disproportionality
policies, practices, and beliefs that indicate
areas of the school process contributing to
disproportionality.
Policies
What else is involved in this interaction?
Activity 3
Allotment time: 25-30 minutes
Material: Disproportionality Programs/
Slide 14
Trainer’s Commentary: As we continue
to look at more data, we start getting much
clearer information about how PPBs operate
contribute to disproportionality. Another
Instructions: Team should use the Dis- and
conversation indirectly connected
proportionality PPBs Data Evidence prevalent
to
PPBs
involves
the community. Educators
Chart to identify the PPBs that current data tend to have perspectives
about the commuare directing us to further examine. Have the nity that are at times neither
nor
group think of how might these practices af- accurate. The following slidesfavorable
provide
a
fect the students.
closer look at who lives in our community
and how we make sense of who is coming in
and leaving.
Practices, and Beliefs Data Evidence Chart
Decide on the district/school
policies, practices, and beliefs we
want to further explore.
Community Context Data
Slide 12
Data Collection Tools
Policies Data to Collect:
Classification procedures
IDEA
Discipline
District Curriculum
Practices Data to
Collect:
Sample daily lesson
plans
Early interventions
IST
Slide 13
Beliefs Data to Collect:
Student/teacher
expectations
School climate survey
Focus groups
Slide 15
Important Note: Be sure to ask the teams
to reflect on these questions as they view the
slides: How does the community context play
out in the schools? How are these demographic shifts being reflected in our practices,
policies, and beliefs?
Equity in Education
52
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Black and Latino populations
have increased from 1990-2000.
Demographic Changes
30% growth in Black population.
23% growth in Latino population.
22% growth in Asian population.
Slide 16
Slide 18
Trainer’s Commentary: The following slides (17-26) represent demographic data. According to the census
data, there is a shift in the community.
How does this change impact the community and schools? And how are schools
and/or districts responding to the shift?
Note: insert your community’s census
data into Slides 17-22 and 26.
Community X Demographics:
1990 and 2000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Asian Population Changes
from 1990 and 2000
250
200
194
150
120
100
59
50
0
52 56
138
1990
2000
70
69
36
34 26
34
0
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Asian Indian
Korean
Vietnamese
Laotian
Slide 19
3004
980
Black
1007
420
Latino
156 173
Native
American
403
916
Asian
1990
2000
Latino population represents
various levels of diversity.
U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Slide 17
Slide 20
Equity in Education
53
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Latino Demographics Population
1990 Census
School Demographics Data
389
400
350
300
250
200
1990
150
100
25
50
0
Hispanic Origin, White
Hispanic Origin, Black
Slide 21
Slide 24
Latino Demographics Population
2000 Census
1000
School demographics changes
mirror community increase.
908
900
800
700
600
520
2000
500
400
265
300
148
200
100
19
0
Total Latino
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other groups
Population
Slide 22
Slide 25
Results:
diversity.
Increase in racial/ethnic
How does the school
district respond/accommodate?
Question:
Slide 23
A 112% increase in enrollment of
Black students.
450
400
350
300
250
200 198
150
100
50
0
420
62
40
Black
Latino
60
80
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
Asian/Native
American
Slide 26
Trainer’s Commentary: These shifts represent significant changes in the community.
What has this change meant for your school
district? Has your school district accommodated to these shifts?
Equity in Education
54
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Trainer’s Commentary: Again, what
has this demographic shift meant for the
school? Let’s engage in a conversation on
Trainings meeting expectations
how your school district is accommodating
Further areas of interest based on today’s
to these racial/ethnic group changes.
training
Wrap-up Conversation
The homework assignment is for teams to select two categories from the Dispropor-
tionality Programs, Practice, and Beliefs Data Evidence Chart. Teams should
identify at least a topic in each area. Once
teams select an area in the Programs/
Practices column, they must decide on the
Potential barriers
Slide 28
collection of information. This assignment is
meant to help direct the teams toward areas
Trainer’s Notes: Ensure team members fill
of further analysis in Module D. It is also
the evaluation form. Collect sign-in
geared toward getting them comfortable with out
sheets.
the data and answering critical questions
based on the data.
Homework Assignment
Evaluate Training
Data collection on policies, practices, and
beliefs.
Slide 29
Slide 27
Trainer’s Notes: Recap the training by re-
viewing information you have captured. Ask
probing questions such as, What new knowledge have you gained? You may also use this
time to revisit items from the parking lot, if
relevant.
Equity in Education
55
Module C
Handouts
Equity in Education
56
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
de
ifi
ss
al
C
,c
i
ts m
o eda
m ca
dn .
at g.e
sa (y
el ro
eh ge
t ta
de c
vi hc
ec ae
er ni ?).
pu s ct
or noi e,l
gt ta ar
ah cifi oiv
Wssa ah
lc eb
•
la
rr
ef
eR
ro
f
no
sa
eR
-e -v
rt ah
so eb
m ,ci
dn m
at ed
sa ac
el a.
eh g.e
t (
de yr
vi og
ec et
er ac
pu hc ?
or ae ).c
gt ni te
ah sl ,la
Warr lar
ef oi
•
la
rr
ef
eR
-e
rt
so ?t
m ner
dn ap
at d
sa na
el ,T
eh SI
t /T
de S
vi C,
ec T
er SI
pu ,TS
or C
gt aiv
ah sl
Warr
ef
•
•
•
sn
se oit
ir n
og evr
et et
aC nI
yl
ra
E/l
ar
re
fe
re
rP
,c
ts ts t t ts im
o o se se o ed
m m w w m ac
dn dn ol ol dn a.
at at dn dn at g.e
sa sa at at sa (
el el se se ? el yr
eh eh hg hg sk eh og
t t ih ih ee t eta
de de e ? e w de c
vi vi ? ht sn ht n vi hc
ec ec sk s oi s oi ec a
er er ee ah tn ah tn er en ?).
pu ?s pu w pu evr pu evr pu is ct
or no or no or et or et or no e,l
gt it gt it gt ni gt ni gt it ar
ah nev ah nev ah eg ah eg ah nev oiv
Wret Wret Ware Ware Wret ah
ni ni va va ni eb
•
D
se
to
N
•
:
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i
d
e
t
le ts
p
n
m
e
o
c
m
e
m
b
o
d
c
l
s
u
’
t
o
c
h
i
s
r
t
n
s
i
o
i
d
t ol
c
e
o
s
h
s
Thi ith sc
w
•
ci
rb
u
R
si
sy
la
nA
tr
op
e
R
at
a
D
R
D
D
:C
el
ud
o
M
no
it
a
m
ro
fn
ie
ht
ez
yl
an
a
ot
st
ne
du
ts
eh
t
no
de
tc
ell
oc .
Rw
D oleb
D
eh sei
t r
o
m
or get
f a
no ce
it ht
an
m
ro ie
fn di
ie vo
ht rp
es uo
Uy
Equity in Education
57
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
tn
e
m
ec
al
P
ni
gi
rO
no
it
ac
ifi
ss
al
C
eh
tf
ot
uo
dn ?
a ts
ni o
de m
vo dn
mats
pu ae
or le
gt ht
ah tci
Wrtsi
d
tn
e
m
ev
ei
hc
A
ts 3,
eh 2gi 1.
h g.e
dn (
at yr
se og
e
w
ol tac
eh hc
ta
de e
vi ni
ec se
er ro
pu cst
or ne
gt m?
ah ev ).c
Weih te,
ca 4-
•
se
ir
og
et
aC
,0
ts 2n
o aht
ms
dn se
at l.
sa g.e
el (y
eh ro
tg
de et
vi ac
ec h
er ca
pu eni
or st
gt ne
ah m
Wecal ?).c
p te
•
ci
rb
u
R
si
sy
la
nA
tr
op
e
R
at
a
D
R
D
D
:C
el
ud
o
M
se
to
N
•
)
d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
C
(
d
e
t
e s
l
p
m ent
o
c
e
m
b
m
d
l ’s co
u
o
h rict
s
n
t
o
s
i
i
t
c ol d
e
s
s
o
i
h
h
c
T ith s
w
Equity in Education
58
Q
l
a
c
i
t
i
r
C
:
l
o
o
T
C
e
l
u
d
o
M
:
e
s
o
p
r
u
P
:
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i
D
si
tn
ed
ut
S
eh
t
ni
si
tn
ed
ut
S
a
yb
de
ta
ul
av
e
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e
l
a
r
e
n
e
g
de
zil
au
di
vi
dn
I
-d
ne
pe
dt
sil
ai
ce
ps
ta
ht
de
en
eh
t
no
gn
i
n
m
ar eht .d
go si et
rP h n
no cih em
it w lep
ac ,)
i
ud PE m
E I(
.d
eti
bi
hx
es
i
s’t
ne
du
tS
de
sa
b-l
oo
hc
S
ee sr
tti e
m disn
m
oc oc
.l
ar
re
fe
rs
’t
ne
du
ts
tn
ed
ut
S.
no
it
al
up
op
ci l
m
ed aroi
ac va
a he
na b
sti ro
bi /d
hx na
e
ro
/d
na
re
hc
ae
T.
de
en
-v
ie
ce
rr
of
yti
li
ibg
il
e
:
B
P
P
r
u
o
Y
la
ic
ep
s
gn
i
se
ci
vr
es
no
it
ac
ud
e
.d
en
i
m
re
te
ds
i
:
B
P
P
r
u
o
Y
:
B
P
P
r
u
o
Y
-e
r
as
ts
eu
qe
rt
ne
ra
p
ev
ah
ot
la
rr
ef
.d
es
se
ss
at
ne
du
ts
:
B
P
P
r
u
o
Y
st
ne
m
m
oc
s’t
ci
rt
si
d
_____________________ _____________________
na
se
vi
ec
er
tn
ed
ut
S
_____________________ _____________________
la htt
rr ci
ef rts
er id
eh r
t uo
m
or yni ?
f ) t
ye sB ne
nr P m
uo P( eca
js sfe lp
’t il d
ne eb n
du d an
ts na oi
si ,s ta
ht eci cif
pu tc iss
or ar alc
ge p, e
ht seic tai
hti ilo rp
pe orp
w
er h p
ah te ae
se ra ru
sa ta sn
el h eo
P Wt
lo
oh
cs
hti
w
de
te
lp
m
oc
eb
dl
uo
hs
no
it
ce
ss
ih
T
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________
W
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
:
B
P
P
r
u
o
Y
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________
t
e
e
h
s
k
r
o
hti
w
tn
ed
ut
s
as
a
de
ifi
ss
al
ce
b
yll
au
tn
ev
e
ya
m
oh
w
tn
ed
ut
s
a
yb
ne
ka
t
ht
ap
eh
tr .
ed sei
is til
no ib
c as
oT id
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
eb e
d
.t noi
’st na
3 ts hs inn .
ne de
ne ta
yr u fi i no
e
.
d
ev m
c
r
ee am ita
w
e
i
m
u
t
e
t
e
f
t
ec is
se iv hw air ee ne so er cu
al sa
ht ere de po cn dut td dl de
p lc
,y b si rp ot s et uo la
ot tc
l ts v p sa e a hs ic
au u er a el ht lu e e
ss ef
nn m
tA ,sr ave hr ps
f
ec a
ae er o
A PEI
or ta
y
p
Equity in Education
59
Module C: Examining School Context Policies and Practices
Disproportionality Programs, Practices and Beliefs
Data Evidence Chart
Programs/Practices
Disciplinary Practices
Programs targeted to reduce
dropout rate
District Curriculum
• Literacy
• Math
Lesson Plans
Prereferral/Early Interventions
School/District Intervention
Options
Home-School Connection
Teacher Professional Development
Policies
Discipline policy (building and
district level)
Special Education evaluation
IEPs
District/School procedures for
identifying, referring, and
classifying students
Committee on Special Education
Attitudes/Perceptions
Teacher Professional Development
Committee on Special Education
School Culture
Intervention, Referral, and Classification Process
Evidence
Discipline records by building, race, gender, incident type, and
response to incident
• Sample behavior plans
• Program implementation documents by building, race, gender,
etc.
• District curriculum
•
Sample daily lesson plans
• Intervention program and intervention documents (curricula,
attendance, etc.)
• Intervention program and intervention documents (curricula,
attendance, etc.)
• Sample flyers, newsletters, and letters sent to parents
•
List of current professional development for general education
and special education teachers
• Rate of participation in professional development
•
•
Evidence
School and district conduct manuals
List of evaluations used
Sample evaluation instruments; reliability tests
Sample reevaluation notes
• Sample IEPs for Black, Latino, White, and Asian students
•
•
•
Procedures and rates for intervention identification
Procedures and rates for referral
Procedures and rates for classification
• Procedures for CSE operation; sample CSE files
• Roster of members, experience, qualifications, etc.
•
•
•
Evidence
List of current professional development for general education
and special education teachers
• Rate of participation in professional development
• Procedures for CSE operation; sample CSE files
• Roster of members, experience, qualifications, etc.
• School Climate Surveys
•
•
•
•
Procedural notes from intervention identification
Procedural notes from referral
Procedural notes from classification
Equity in Education
60
Equity in Education
61
Module D
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Analyzing Data of Programs, Practices, and Beliefs
Disproportionality Programs, Practices Beliefs
Data Evidence Chart
Mapping Root Cause Worksheet
Compounding Factors
Research Articles Bibliography
Sample Databook
Equity in Education
62
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Length of Training:
6 hours
Training Objectives: By the end of the workshop, participants will
•
•
•
Analyze additional data related to policy, practice, and belief
Hypothesize and define policy, practice, and belief root causes of disproportionality
Understand the research surrounding root causes
Training Materials
•
•
•
PowerPoint
Handouts:
• Analyzing Data of PPBs Worksheet
• Disproportionality Programs/Practices, and Beliefs Evidence Chart
• Mapping Root Cause Worksheet
• Compounding Factors
• Research Articles Bibliography
Newsprint and markers
Pretraining Work
A district databook must be created that pulls together the disproportionality data
(referral, classification, and placement), achievement, community census, and school
enrollment ) into one book. This is information collected from modules A through C.
A sample databook is at the end of this module.
Equity in Education
63
Module D: Getting to
Root Cause
Trainer’s Manual
Equity in Education
64
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Introductions, overview of
agenda, review objectives, and
outline common rules of operation.
Trainer introduces her- or himself. Allow participants to introduce themselves to the
group: this includes their name, organization,
and responsibilities.
Provide an overview of the day by walking
team through the agenda. It is important to
review the objectives. Once objectives
have been reviewed, outline common rules of
operation. These common rules serve as a
contract for how we will converse with each
other about disproportionality issues, which
will involve talking about race/ethnicity.
Training Objectives
Analyze additional data related to
policy, practice and belief.
Hypothesize and define policy,
practice, and belief root causes of
disproportionality
Understand the research surrounding
root causes
Slide 2
Part I: Analyzing Policy, Practice, and Belief Data
Part I of this module engages teams in discussing what they gathered from Module C.
This includes giving teams an opportunity to
articulate their own process of looking for
Write common rules on newsprint.
Finally, create a parking lot for those topics patterns in school policy and their beliefs.
that may be a tangent during a specific seg- Teams make connections between
.
ment of the training but are relevant to return to at some point during the training.
Time Allotment: 15 minutes
Material: PowerPoint
policy,
practice, and beliefs
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Part I:
Analyzing Policy, Practice, and
Belief Data
Module D: Getting to
Root Cause
Technical Assistance Center on
Disproportionality
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
New York University
Slide 1
Slide 3
Activity 1
Time Allotment: 10-15 minutes
Materials: Newsprint and marker
Instructions: Ask individuals to share their
new learnings from Module C, as well as
other things they have considered since the
last training. Encourage discussion among
team members—ask probing questions such
as, W
hy did that resonate for you?
Equity in Education
65
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
How do your beliefs, along with the data
sheet. The worksheet will look at the procollected, help in framing the picture?
grams/practices, evidence, and critical
questions surrounding PPBs. The fourth
column (Analysis Notes) will be used to take
How does your data describe this
notes and write questions and comments. In
interaction?
addition, the Sample Databook will guide
groups in connecting results to the
programs/practices. Groups should initiate
Beliefs
Practices
discussions on some of the PPBs regarding
minority students.
Disproportionality
Each group should use newsprint to create an
evidence chart for a Gallery Walk of its
findings and discuss the next steps of
Policies
hypothesizing and getting to root cause.
Slide 4
Trainer’s Commentary: As we proceed in
examining data, we begin to develop or formulate hypotheses of how disproportionality
is occurring in your district. The hope in our
sets of activities today is to examine more
data that will help solidify those hypotheses.
Analysis Framework
Small Group Exercise
What is the process of the policy
and/or practice?
What is the output of the policy and/or
practice?
Slide 5
Activity 2
Time Allotment: 45-60 minutes
Materials: Analyzing Data of PPBs work-
GALLERY WALK OF DATA
Slide 6
Trainer’s Commentary: Emphasize that
school policies are not necessarily coherent
with school practices, and sometimes beliefs
play a vital role on decisions that impact
achievement outcomes and the trajectory of
all children, specifically Black and Latino students. An important concept to pose is, How
does our belief affect student outcomes?
How do policies and practices affect students
in your school? The gallery walk provides us
an opportunity to do a global examination of
policies and practices and their implications
for educational outcomes.
sheet, newsprint, and marker
Instructions: Break the team into small
groups to do the Analyzing Data workEquity in Education
66
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
does the school organization reach out to the
community? How does the school organizaDeveloping the Disproportionaltion affect the students in your school? Ask
ity Story
the group to describe what that story looks
Part II of the module involves having teams like and how does it benefit the students. At
the end of this activity, the Mapping Root
look at patterns and associations from the
Evidence Chart (Module C) and how they Cause worksheet should be filled out.
relate to factors that are present in their
school and community system.
Part II: Getting to Root Cause:
Factors involved in the
education of children
Part II:
Getting to Root Cause:
Developing the
Disproportionality Story
School Organizational Factors
Instructional Factors
External Community Factors
Instructional Staff Capacity Factors
Slide 8
Slide 7
Trainer’s Commentary: Disproportionality is a complex issue that inherently will involve complex causes. And dealing with one
cause will not automatically resolve disproportionate representation. So as we develop
our initial root causes, let’s be mindful of the
complexity.
Tell the story of this interaction.
Activity 3
Time Allotment: 30 minutes
Materials: Mapping Root Cause worksheet,
newsprint, and marker
Instructions: Use the Mapping Root
Cause worksheet to probe some questions
surrounding PPBs. In a large group format,
ask participants to suggest initial root causes
based on evidence charts in the room.
This will initiate discussion around the next
three slides (8-10) about how some of the factors involving the education of students overlap. For example: How does instructional
staff capacity contribute to instructional factors in the learning process of students? And
Beliefs
Practices
Disproportionality
Policies
Slide 9
Equity in Education
67
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Difficult Question to Answer
How do our policies, practices, and
beliefs not meet the needs of all
children?
Activity 4
Time Allotment: 35 minutes
Materials: Compounding Factors,
newsprint, and marker
Instructions: As a group exercise, ask
the group to read the Compounding
Factors handout. After the group has
read this, initiate a discussion on what
the research says about PPBs. What else
do we need to consider? What haven’t we
Slide 10
examined? Is there something specific
about the educational process that allows
racial/ethnic minority students to be
Trainer’s Commentary: Lead the group for
overrepresented
in special education?
to hypothesize how PPBs operate to cause
Mention
to
the
group
it does not
disproportionality. Ask the group to create have to find solutions that
should think
several statements regarding PPBs and how critically about the PPBbutprocess
and what
they impact the students in their learning or the evidence tells us.
achievement (Slides 11-12).
Part III: Naming Root Causes of
Disproportionality
Let’s hypothesize based on
our gallery of data.
Slide 11
Part III of this module involves naming the
root causes of disproportionality. We will be
able to use the Gallery Walk discussions and
synthesize the PPBs and the evidence offered
by the group.
Part III: Naming Root Causes
of Disproportionality
What are our hypotheses?
Create hypothesis statements
For example: Limited early intervening services
(policy and practice) and teacher cultural
competency (practice and beliefs) impact the
number of Black and Latino students referred to
IST.
Slide 13
Slide 12
Equity in Education
68
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Trainer’s Commentary: Ask the group to Activity 5
think about its hunches and hypotheses generated from the Gallery Walk and initiate a Time Allotment: 10-15 minutes
discussion on naming the various root
causes. At the end of this exercise, the group Materials: List of research articles
should have a preliminary root cause report. Instructions: Distribute the bibliography
list of research articles and provide a brief
Time Allotment: 20-30 minutes
overview of each article. Team should divide
into groups of 4 or 5 and select 1 article to
Materials: Newsprint and marker
read as homework. Each group should receive the CD with PDFs of the articles.
Root Cause
Hunches
Listing the Root Causes
Large group exercise
Hypothesis
Slide 14
Slide 16
Homework Assignment
What do we know are the root
causes from our policies,
practices, and beliefs?
District team members will select articles on
various topics related to disproportionality
root causes.
How do we know it? (What is our
evidence?)
Slide 15
Trainer’s Commentary: In the next
slide, the team will select articles related
to disproportionality issues, such as
differentiated instruction and culturally
responsive pedagogy, etc.
Slide 17
Trainer’s Notes: Recap the training by re-
viewing information you have captured. Ask
probing questions such as, What new knowledge have you gained? You may also use this
time to revisit items from the parking lot, if
relevant.
Equity in Education
69
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Wrap-up Conversation
Trainings meeting expectations
Further areas of interest based on
today’s training
Potential barriers for moving forward
Slide 18
Trainer’s Notes: Ensure team members fill
out the evaluation form. Collect sign-in
sheets.
Evaluate Training
Slide 19
Equity in Education
70
Module D
Handouts
Equity in Education
71
se
to
Ns
is
lya
nA
se
cit
ca
rP
/s
m
ar
go
rP
se
cit
ca
rP
yr
an
il
pi
cs
iD
m
luu
ci
rr
uC
tc
ir
ts
iD
sn
al
P
no
ss
eL
-n
Iy
lr s
aE noi
/l tn
ar e
re vr
fe et
re
rP
-i -n
nu re u
tr hc oC
op ae la
po tf no
tn os ita
e ec N
m
po itca eht
le r y ?t
ve pt b ne
dl se de m
an be nilt po
ois ht uo le
se hti tn ve
fo w e D
rp n m ffa
eh gila pol tSf
t s ev o
o ie e li
Dt d c
dn
a,
sr
ett
el st
sw ne
en ra
,s po
re tt
lyf ne
el ss
p re
m
aS ttel
-l d
ev na
ed n
la oit s
no ac re
is ud hc
se e ae
fo la t
rp re no
tn ne ita
er gr cu
ru of d
cf tn el
ot e aic
e
si m
L po ps
•
,s e
de ht ss
en d ec
gn na, cae
in tn lp
ra e itl
el m
tu evei um ?
ob hc ere nio
a a, ht ta
nr s e m
ae dr rA ro
ls ad ? fn
ieli nat sse isi
s c h
m
af lev orp tro
od le la fs
e rr t
w
o dar efe ino
Hg r p
•
•
-r
et s
nI no
tc it
ir p
ts O
iD no
/l it
oo ne
hc v
S
/y
ra
dn
oc
e
,es
di ?)
w
lo evi
oh sn
cs etn
/y i/
ra yr
m
ir aitr
p, et
.e ,d
.i( et
le eg
ve ra
l t
•
-r -ta
et ,al
ni u
dn cir
a ru
c
m
ar (st
go n
rp em ).
no uc cte
it od ,e
ne n c
vr oit na
et n dn
nI ev et
hc
ae
ta
sn
oit
po
no
it
ne
vr
et
ni
er
eh
te
rA
?s
se
n
•
-r -ta
et ,al
ni u
dn cir
a ru
c
m
ar (st
go n
rp em ).
no uc cte
it od ,e
ne n c
vr oit na
et n dn
nI ev et
•
-if d i- eiv
gn v tc
in et ef
ra ah fe
el W no
tc ? it
elf de ne
er fii vr
sn tne et
oit di nif
po lyt eo
no ne lba
it uq li
ne er av
vr fs as
et ei ie
in tlu cn
o ic e
Df d
•
•
m
ul
uc
ir
ru
ct
ci
rt
isD
-s t
?e efo ah is
lb rp W t
lai su ?s ah
av o no W
ae uni it ?n
ra tn nev iot ?
sn oc rte ta noi
iot foy ni ne tne
ne tli on m
v
vr ib t elp ret
et al ne m
if nio
inf iav m
t
os ae pol oyti pu
ep ht eve le -w
yt si dl dif lo
ta ta a e of
h h noi hts eh
WWs i t
•
•
•
•
ot et
de ar
te tu
gr o
at po
s rd
m
ar ec
go ud
rP er
sn
al
p
no
ss
ley
li
ad
el
p
m
aS
•
•
,t -n - ?tci n -u -o fo -a
l a y c
n
,. em oriv ucr rtis ro tin rir m
ro
cit ecn m
g. e n o d s u uc m
o
a
e ve e f fo e m f cc is la fni
—
o a ug b ne
s ihc loo eta sc m
eh m
o
n dna
i
c
m
d
ar aic hcs o hp te er iot na ild tce vird
go m e m ar ro A cle et n lf -t
rp e vo m
oc go ceg ?m es aitn alar ers ned
d
r
a
eh c p ? ca m
ed aug ulu nid ere ult aln uts
tf a, m
s
i
s
ct na icrr evl ffid uc pn dn
os tn ,e en m
i
u
l
uc em cna evi uic siu ld uc ov sn fos oss an
of eg d sn rr gn na ot in la de el ev ?
eh ag nte op uc il er m stn p e o ir gin
dr
ts ne ta se e d tu u er no ne D
it lo lo rt ht na lu dn a ss ht ?sp -re ahs
ah oh oh ne se lar ce ed pd ?m le et uo hc n
a
o
o
W cs cs m D ut rA da na lu D ad rg et iot
-u ,re
,g dn
co d
ni a,
d neg
dil ep
ub yt s noit ,e
yb tne t nal at car
sd di ned pr ne ,g
ni
ro cni ic oi m
ce ,r ni va lep dli
re ed ot he m
i uby
e
b
nli ne s e m b
pi g, no lp arg st
cs ec ps m o ne .c
iD ar er aS rP m te
•
ec
ne
di
vE
hc st
ih ne
d
w
ro uts
fs n
tn ai
ed sA
ic d
ni na
fo ,o
se int ?e
py aL ni
te , lp
ht etih icis
er W d
at , ev
ah kca iec
W lB er
•
•
ey
Es
is
yl
an
Al
ac
iit
rC
en
il
pi
csi
dt
sa
el
dn
at
so
?r
m
eh ed
ts ne
ev gd
ie n
ce ae
r ca
oh r
W yb
•
sf
eil
eB
dn
a,
se
cit
ca
rP
,s
m
ar
go
rP
fo
at
aD
gn
iz
yl
an
A:
De
lu
do
M
ec
ne
di
vE
at
a
D
sf
eil
eB
dn
as
ec
it
ca
rP .
, n
m
ul
ar m
go oc
rP se
yti toN
la si
no sy
it la
ro n
po Ae
rp ht
si ni
D
eh ses
t no
m
or pse
f r
no ru
it o
a ye
m
ro di
fn ug
ie ot
ht tr
es ah
UC
:s
no
it
ce
ri
D
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
lo
oh noi
cS tc
-e en
n
m
o oC
H
Equity in Education
la
no t
is n
se e
fo m
rP pol
re eve
hc D
ae
T
72
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
se
to
Ns
is
yl
an
A
tn
e
m
po
le
ve
D
yc
il
op
en
il
pi
cs
iD
)l
ev
el
no
it
ac
ud
El
ai
ce
pS
no
it
au
la
ve
•
-i
ss
al
cr
of
se
ta
r
dn
as
er
ud n
ec oit
or aci
Pf
dn
a,
gn
ir
re
fe
r,
gn
i
st
ne
du
ts
gn
iy
fi
ss
al
c
dn ers dna
ac re cti
it b is
si m
ug em ugni
nil E fl
tc SC ol
elf er uft
er A ce
sr ?yt ps
eb is er
r
m
e evi dna
m dl e
ES ar vis
C utl no
oup
Dc s
•
-a eh nie -r
re tn ta a
po ie pi ps
ES tap citr eta
Cr ici ap cov
fos tra tns da
er pst ed re ?
ud n tus hto sse
ec era o ta co
or p d h rp
pe od ne W e
the ne hW ?sse htn
ra hW ?ss co iet
ta ? ec rp ap
h nio or eh iic
Wt p t t
;n ,ec
iot nei
ar re
ep px
o e,
ES sr .c
Cr se eb te
,s
of lif m
e
se ES m nio
ru C fo ta
de elp re cifi
co m ts la
rP as oR uq
•
•
•
sP
EI
•
se
to
n
no
it
au
la
ve
er
el
p
m
aS
-r
ef
er
ro
fs
et
ar
dn
as
er
ud
ec
or la
Pr
-o -y
rp ift
lo ne
oh di
cS rof
/t s
ci er
rt u
si de
Dc
lu
fs ?
se sp
cc u
us org
fo b
et usy
ar b
eh no
ts it
it aci
ah ifs
sa
W
?s lc
pu del
or ifa
gb d
us na
•
-r
et
ni
ro
fs n
et oit
ar a
dn cifi
as tn
er edi
ud n
ec oit
or ne
Pv
de eh y
li t bl
af si a
dn ta rre
al hW fer
uf ? d
ss sp eli
ec u fa
cu or d
sf gb na
oe us lu
ta yb fss
re n ec
ht oit cu
si ne sf
ta vr o
h etn eta
Wi r
•
,o
nti
aL stn
,k ed
ca ut
lB s
ro nai
fs sA
PE d
Ie na
lp ,et
i
m
aS hW
•
hc
ae
thi
w
ec
na
il
p
m
oc
fo
et
ar
eh ?e
ts ru
it de
ah co
W rp
•
tc
ir
tsi
d
dn
ag
ni
dli
ub
(
;s
tn
e
m
ur
ts
ni
no
it s
au ts
la et
ve yt
el ili
p bai
m
aS ler
•
•
de
su
sn
oit
au
la
ve
fo
ts
iL
dn
a s ebt tc sP ara
gn n / c elf EI p
in al ec elf er e m
na pe ar er s ht oc
lp ht y s PE er p
ro o br PEI Io A uor
?s g
fs D
fe
er ?sP fid oD D
?ls lao laic
ud EI sn ?r a g ar
ec fo iot ed og dn d
or n at ne dn as na
pe oit ne gd a na ci
na sna pl nh
the atn m
e
l
ra em p yit lpr cim teh
ta el im cin oi ed ca ?
h pm dn ht va ac ef el
Wi a e h a o b
•
•
?)
sr
ol
oc
gn
ag
,.
g.
e(
sc
ih
arp
go
m
ed
ni
fo ?st
ss ne
ec du
or ts
p no
dn ti
as ac
do ude
ht la
e ic
m
eh eps
te g
ra nit
ta alu
h av
We
5
fo sse
se rd tusr da so
ae no pd
it
m
tn aul nas
e av ni
m
ss ee am ?ss
es ht od e
sa se la cc
eh oD tn us
te ? e no
ra sse m
p ti
ta rg ole aud
h or ve ar
Wp d g
•
tc
ud
no
ct
ci
rt
si
d
dn
al sla
oo u
hc na
Sm
•
-s
ef
or
p
in
ec noi tn
ne ta e
di pic m
vE it pol
ra ev
pf ed
oe la
ta no
R is
la
se
no
cit
is
ca
rP sef
or
/s
Pr
m
ar
e
go hc
rP ae
T
l s
at -xe af -i egn
ad tc o csi a
yr lef sm d hco
an er ro oD t
il se nl ? se
pi ic a sr sn
csi il ro eb o
d op iva m pse
ni o h e rt
eb m c
tis D
xe ?sp dn ytin elfe
sn uo al u rs
re rg ai m ei
c
tt bu co m
ap s s ocl ilo
ta sso dte oo pe
h rc ce hc nil
Wa p s p
•
en ne
o- m
no ,sn
-e oi
n ta
,so vre .?
po sb tc
hs o e,s
kr m
ow oor puo
ai ssa rgy
vt lc d
ne ,g uts
ni ,
m
po hc gni
le ao ro
v c t
•
•
ey
Es
is
yl
an
Al
ac
iti
rC
eh edl
tf an
oe io
sr sse
uo fo
ce rp
thr evie
ev ce
oe rs
r
m
it ehc
hc ae
u to
md
w
o rae
Hy
n
no oit
ee acu
tti d
m Ela
m
oC ice
pS
Equity in Education
73
?s
ec
ne
re
ffi
dl
ar
utl
uc
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
se
to
Ns
is
yl
an
A
sn
iot
pe
cr
eP
/s
ed
uti
tt
A
eh
t
ot
ni
de
cu
do
rt
ni
sr
ot
ca
f
de
sa
bre
dn
eg
-a
cif
is
sa
lc
ro
/d
na
,l
rra
ef
er
,n
iot
ne
vr
et
in
-a
m
or cifi
fs tn
et ed
on i
la noi
ru tn
de ev
co ret n
rP ni oit
er
utl
uC
lo
oh
cS
m
or m
o
fs rfs
et et
on on n
la la oit
ru l ru ac
de ar de ifi
co ref co ss
rP er rP alc
-if
i
,n ssa ss
oit lC eco
ne dn rP
vr a,l n
et a oit
nI rr ac
ef
eR
•
sy
ev
ru
Se
ta
m
liC
lo
oh
cS
?n
iot
•
•
ro
/d
na
,s
sa
lc
,l
ar
utl
uc
,c
in
ht
e/
la
ic
ar
er
A
•
•
•
•
•
?s
ec
ne
re
ffi
d
ni ’
se st
cn ne
er du
eff ts
id n
dn ais
as Ad
eit na ?l
ir ,e o
ali ti oh
h cs
im
se W
,o fo
ht int sn
er aL iot
at , pir
ah kca cs
W lB ed
•
?t
ne
m
ev
ei
hc
a
dn
at
ne
m
no
ri
vn
e
gn
in
ra
el
ni - -p selif -x ,sn
-s rof d
n p o e oi
ef t na
or ne n n oit ole ES ESC ,sre taci
pt m oit oit api ve Cr el b fil
au
ne pol ac ac ict dl of pm m
rr ev ud u ra an ser as em
q
uc ed el del s pf ios u ;n fo ,ec
fo la ar ai re o se t dec oi ret nei
ts no en ce hca eta fo ne or tar so re .ct
iL is eg ps e R rp m P e R p e
t
la
la
ic
no t
ep
is n
S no
se e
no it
fo m
rP plo
ee acu
tti d
re eve
hc D
mE
ae
m
oC
T
•
ec
ne
di
vE
-l - lar
uc no ut
dn ps luc
ac er d
it sr na
si eb ci
ug m ts
nil e iu
gn
tc m
lef ESC lif
er e lo
sr rA uft
eb ? ce
yt
m
e isr pser
m evi d
ES d n
C lar ae
o u iv
Dt s
•
•
ey
Es
is
yl
an
Al
ac
iti
rC
-p -l eh
ol uc tn
ev ,y i
ed ti de
la icn vl
no ht ov
is e/ ni
se ec er
fo ar a
rp w re
ev oh dne
ie n g
ce o d
rs de na
re su ,s
hc co sla
ae ft c,
t ne er
o u
D mt
Equity in Education
74
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Disproportionality Programs, Practices, and Beliefs
Data Evidence Chart
Programs/Practices
Disciplinary Practices
Programs targeted to reduce
dropout rate
District Curriculum
• Literacy
• Math
Lesson Plans
Prereferral/Early Interventions
School/District Intervention
Options
Home-School Connection
Teacher Professional Development
Policies
Discipline policy (building and district level)
Special Education evaluation
IEPs
District/School procedures for
identifying, referring, and classifying students
Committee on Special Education
Attitudes/Perceptions
Teacher Professional Development
Committee on Special Education
School Culture
Intervention, Referral, and Classification Process
Evidence
Discipline records by building, race, gender, incident type, and
response to incident
• Sample behavior plans
• Program implementation documents by building, race, gender,
etc.
• District curriculum
•
Sample daily lesson plans
• Intervention program and intervention documents (curricula,
attendance, etc.)
• Intervention program and intervention documents (curricula,
attendance, etc.)
• Sample flyers, newsletters, and letters sent to parents
•
List of current professional development for general education
and special education teachers
• Rate of participation in professional development
•
•
Evidence
School and district conduct manuals
List of evaluations used
Sample evaluation instruments; reliability tests
Sample reevaluation notes
• Sample IEPs for Black, Latino, White, and Asian students
•
•
•
Procedures and rates for intervention identification
Procedures and rates for referral
Procedures and rates for classification
• Procedures for CSE operation; sample CSE files
• Roster of members, experience, qualifications, etc.
•
•
•
Evidence
List of current professional development for general education
and special education teachers
• Rate of participation in professional development
• Procedures for CSE operation; sample CSE files
• Roster of members, experience, qualifications, etc.
• School Climate Surveys
•
•
•
•
Procedural notes from intervention identification
Procedural notes from referral
Procedural notes from classification
Equity in Education
75
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
te
eh
sk
ro
W
es
ua
Ct
oo
R
gn
ip
pa
M
:l
oo
T
D
el
ud
o
M
.s
n
m
ul
oc
ot
ni
sf
eil
eb
dn
a,
se
ic
il
op
,s
ec
it
ca
rp
/s
m
ar
go
rp
fo
sg
ni
dn
if
at
ad
tr
es
nI
:
.y
til
an
oit
ro
po
rp
si
d
ot
de
ta
le
r
at
ad
fe
il
eb
dn
a,
ec
it
ca
rp
,y
cil
op
tr
ah
c
oT s
: n
es
op
ru
P
oi
tc
er
i
D
la
no
it
cu
rt
sn
I
la
no
it
az
in
ag
r
O
se
ci
vr
eS
gn
in
ev
re
tn
I
yl
ra
E
YC
IL
O
P
EC
IT
CA
R
P
FE
IL
EB
Equity in Education
76
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Compounding Factors Involved in Disproportionality
: Various research
points to school organizational and instructional factors as implicated in disproportionality —
that is, practices, programs, policies, and beliefs are interacting in the school setting in such
ways that lead to disproportionate number of ethnic minority students in special education.
The following list represents some of these factors:
A. Decision-making processes for determining special education eligibility;
B. Placement in special education programs with uneven levels of restrictiveness;
C. Administrative decisions related to hiring practices and resource allocation that result in
disparities;
D. Interactions among school location, disability, ethnicity, poverty, and density of culturally
and linguistically diverse populations;
E. The lack of available alternative programs (e.g., early intervention, bilingual education, Title
1);
F. A lack of administrative support and funding for training, release time for consultations and
planning can impede the fidelity of prereferral intervention strategies;
G. Racial/ethnic bias at various stages of the referral process;
H. Uneven quality of instruction and management in general education classrooms;
I. Effects of various discipline policies (e.g., suspensions, zero tolerance, and expulsion);
J. Mismatch of increasing racial diversity among student body and predominantly white, female
teaching force;
K. School processes and norms sometimes operate at odds with racially diverse groups that are
new to school environment and larger community;
L. Early intervening services are provided with the presumption of “fixing” the academic and/or
behavioral deficiency without examining the school learning context;
M. The articulation of research-based instruction into daily practice does not occur or is not fully
actualized because research has not sufficiently addressed issues of race/ethnicity, culture,
and language within these research-based instructional practices. More importantly, how
these practices operate alongside the culturally and linguistically based pedagogical fervor
necessary by a teacher.
I. School Organizational and Instructional Policies and Practices
i
ii
II. Race and Culturally Based Beliefs
A. Basic notions of race/ethnicity operate in the disproportionate representation of Black and
Latino students in special education because educators generally interpret linguistic and cultural groups through middle-class lens.
B. The presence of IQ testing within the classification process of special education suggests a
iii
Equity in Education
77
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
linkage between intelligence and disability. In addition, the prevailing assumption is
that the testing structure is linguistically, culturally, and socially representative of
knowledge in society’s mainstream.
C. Explanations of disproportionality are commonly reduced to factors such as poverty or
cultural values of parents/home that are inconsistent with school operation norms.
Such explanations presume the reading difficulties or behavioral issues commonly
noted in referrals of special education students are due to poor parenting practices
and/or home conditions that prevent ethnic minority and poor students from being
academically successful. However, these explanations omit the prevalence of academically successful poor ethnic minority students, which limits the applicability of this casual argument. In other words, these factors may play a role but are not predictors.
_______________________________________________________
iv
v
i. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. 2004. Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies
and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd
ed.). San Franciscio, CA: Jossey Bass; Harry, B. & Klingner, J. K. (in press). Crossing the border from normalcy to disability: Culturally and linguistically diverse students and the special education placement
process. New York: Teachers College Press; Losen, D. & Orfield, G. (Eds.) 2002. Racial inequity in special
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ii. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. 1997. Learning disabilities empirical research on ethnic
minority students: An analysis of 22 years of studies published in selected refereed journals.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12:82-91.
iii. Patton, J. M. 1998. The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education:
Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. Journal of Special Education, 32: 25-31.
iv. Steele, C., Perry, T. & Hilliard, A. 2004. Young, gifted, and Black: High achievement among African
American students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
v. O’Connor, C., 1997. Dispositions toward (collective) struggle and educational resilience in the inner city:
A case analysis of six African American high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 34:
137-157. Flores-Gonzalez, N. 1990. Puerto Rican high-achievers: An example of ethnic and academic identity compatibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24:343-362.
Equity in Education
78
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Research Articles Bibliography
Artiles, A. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with theory
and context. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 32-36.
Baglieri, S. & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 37(6), 525-529.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6),
24-28.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485-486.
Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 195-211.
Coutinho, M. J. & Oswald, D. P. (2005). State variation in gender disproportionality in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 7-15.
Farmer, J., Hauk, S., & Neumann, A. M. (2005). Negotiating reform: Implementing process standards
in culturally responsive professional development. The High School Journal, 88(4), 59-71.
Fu, D. (2004). Teaching ELL students in regular classrooms at the secondary level. Voices from the
Middle, 11(4), 8-15.
Gable, R. A., Manning, M. L., Hendrickson, J. M., & Rogan, J. P. (1997). A secondary student instructional support team (ASSIST): Teachers face the challenge of student diversity. The High School
Journal, 81(1), 22-27.
Gravois, T. A. & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special
Education, 27(1), 42-52.
Jongsma, K. (2005). Literacy work stations: Making centers work. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 532.
Jordan, K. (2005). Discourses of difference and the overrepresentation of Black students in special education. The Journal of African American History, 90(1/2), 128-149.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Durán, G. Z., & Riley, D. (2005).
Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students
in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Retrieved [June 22, 2007] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38.
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus low implementation of
instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special
Education, 20(3), 170-183.
Lareau, A. & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural
capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37-53.
Malmgren, K. W., Trezek, B. J., & Paul, P. V. (2005). Models of classroom management as applied to
the secondary classroom. The Clearing House, 79(1), 36-39.
Equity in Education
79
Module D: Getting to Root Cause
Research Articles Bibliography (Continued)
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and
learning disabilities identification patterns.
, 38(6), 539-544.
Monroe, C. R. (2005). Why are “bad boys” always black? Causes of disproportionality in school discipline
and recommendations for change.
, 79(1), 45-50.
Myers, V. M. & Kline, C. E. (2001). Secondary school intervention assistance teams: Can they be effective?
, 85(2), 33-42.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention in the SLD
determination process. (July). Retrieved [June 22, 2007] from http: //
www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/pdf/RTI_SLD.pdf.
O’Connor, C. & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality: Reevaluating the relationship between poverty and special education placement.
, 35(6), 6-11.
Scherff, L. (2005). Culturally responsive frameworks for teaching.
, 94(4):, 97-101.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins-Azziz, L. R., & Chung, C. (2005). Unproven
links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education?
, 39(3),130-144.
Tam, K. Y. & Heng, M. A. (2005, March). A case involving culturally and linguistically diverse parents in
prereferral intervention.
40(4), 222-230.
Tidwell, A., Flannery, K. B., Lewis-Palmer, T. (2003). A description of elementary classroom discipline
referral patterns.
, 48(1), 18-26.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle
for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of
kindergarten and first-grade interventions.
, 39(2), 157-169.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
The Clearing House
The High School Journal
Educational Researcher
English Journal
The Journal of Special
Education
Intervention in School and Clinic,
Preventing School Failure
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Equity in Education
80
Equity in Education
81
Sample Databook
Equity in Education
82
Module D: Sample Databook
Trainer’s Commentary: This sample databook is a collection of all the pertinent data
the teams have collected from Modules A
through D. No additional work will be needed
State Performance
to complete this book. You can go back to the
Plan--Indicator 9
activities and homework for the modules. Be
mindful that this sample databook uses pseu- Percent of districts identified with disproportionate
donumbers for the purpose of this manual to representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of
demonstrate what the sample book should
inappropriate identification.
include.
Slide 2
Indicator 10A
Disproportionate Placement by Race
SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Name]
25
Disproportionality in Special
Education Databook
20
Black
15
Latino
White
10
Asian
5
Slide 1
0
Black
The following slides are information collected
from Module A. The district data summary Slide 3
report demonstrates the district’s overall
enrollment and district classification (Slides
2-4).
Note: The databook can be as concise as you
want it. To get a clearer overview of your district's picture, it is recommended that you use
most, if not all, of the data collect in each
module. Once the databook is com-
pleted it will be your Root Cause Report.
Latino
White
Asian
State Performance
Plan--Indicator 10a
Percent of districts with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
Slide 4
Trainer’s Notes: he following slides (5-8)
are information collected from Module B. It
includes classification placements, and
achievement data.
Equity in Education
83
Module D: Sample Databook
Achievement by Race
School Year 20XX-20XX
Slide 5
Reminder: These slides are guides only to Slide 8
the information that you will need to include Trainer’s Notes: The following slides (9in your own sample databook. You can also
include the information from the Critical
Questions worksheet and the DDR Data
Analysis Rubric, etc.
General Educat ion compared t o SWD - - ELA Eleme nt ar y
14) are information collected from Module
C—school and community context and census data, which reflects racial/ethnic demographics and changes in the district’s community.
75
80
70
60
39
50
40
30
20
4
10
14
Community Context
Data
Gener al Ed
19
18
SWD
0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3-4
Slide 9
Slide 6
General Education compared to SWD:
Mathematics Elementary
Community X Demographics:
1990 and 2000
85
100
80
60
40
40
20
2
19
38
15
General Ed
SWD
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3004
980
Black
420
Level 2
156 173
Latino
0
Level 1
1007
Native
American
403
916
1990
2000
Asian
Level 3-4
U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Slide 7
Slide 10
Equity in Education
84
Module D: Sample Databook
Demographic Changes
30% growth in Black population.
23% growth in Latino population.
School demographics
change mirror community
increase.
22% growth in Asian population.
Slide 11
Slide 14
Results: Increase in racial/ethnic
diversity.
Question: How does the school
district respond/accommodate?
Slide 12
School
Demographics Data
Slide 13
Equity in Education
85
Module E
Trainer’s Manual PowerPoint
Root Cause Report
NCCRESt Tool
Service Plan
Service Plan Worksheet
Equity in Education
86
Module E: Prioritizing Root Causes and Selecting Solutions
Length of Training: 6 hours
Training Objectives:
By the end of the workshop, participants will be able to
•
•
•
•
Define the research surrounding root cause
Develop deeper understanding of root cause
Connect race, ethnicity, language, and culture to education system
Define solutions of root causes
Training Materials
PowerPoint
• Handouts:
• Root Cause Report (Sample Databook—Module D)
• NCCRESt Tool (download this document from
)
• Service Plan Worksheet
• Newsprint and markers
Pretraining Work:
Read and analyze research articles and explore how the articles impact your policies
and practices.
•
http://www.nccrest.org
Equity in Education
87
Module E: Prioritizing
and Selecting Root
Causes
Trainer’s Manual
Equity in Education
88
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Introductions, overview of
agenda, review objectives, and
outline common rules of
operation.
Trainer introduces her- or himself. Allow
participants to introduce themselves to the
group: this includes their name, organization,
and responsibilities.
Provide an overview of the day by walking
team through the agenda. It is important to
review the objectives. Once objectives
have been reviewed, outline common rules of
operation. These common rules serve as a
contract for how we will converse with each
other about disproportionality issues, which
will involve talking about race/ethnicity.
Write common rules on newsprint.
Finally, create a parking lot for those topics
that may be a tangent during a specific
segment of the training but are relevant to
return to at some point during the training.
Time Allotment: 15 minutes
Material: PowerPoint
Training Objectives
Define the research surrounding root
cause
Develop deeper understanding of root
cause
Connecting race, ethnicity, language,
and culture to education system
Define solutions of root causes
Slide 2
Trainer’s Commentary: The questions in
the following slide are intended to gauge how
much knowledge participants have gained
from Modules A-D.
Disproportionality Quiz
What is disproportionality? How is it calculated?
How does disproportionality occur in our school
buildings?
What is our community context? Who lives in our
community?
How do our schools accommodate to shifting
demographics?
What do we know about our policies, practices, and
beliefs? What is the evidence of our PPB?
How do we address racial/ethnic and linguistic
disproportionality in special education?
Slide 3
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Module E: Prioritizing
and Selecting
Root Causes
Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality
Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
New York University
Slide 1
Part I: Research on
Disproportionality Root Causes
Part I of this module engages teams in
reporting out on what they have learned
from the articles assigned for homework in
Module D.
Equity in Education
89
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Instructions: Have the group review and
discuss its outcomes from the
worksheet (Module D). The objective of
this activity is to have participants review the
preliminary
from Module
D. The group should go through the articles
and add to each group’s story started from the
Gallery Walk (Module D). In a large group
exercise format, facilitate a discussion on the
articles distributed in Module D. The group
activity should produce newsprints of its
examination. Then each group should do a
large group sharing.
Mapping Root
Cause
Part I:
Research on
Disproportionality Root
Causes
Slide 4
Trainer’s Commentary: We have spent
the last several trainings questioning
various types of data and have preliminary
notes on the causes of disproportionality.
Portrait Activity: Editing
the Disproportionality
Story
What is the
story?
Slide 5
Activity 1
Time Allotment: 10-15 minutes
Materials: Root Cause Report (Sample
databook), newsprint, and marker
There are two steps to this activity:
1. Review teams’ round-robin articles
2. Add learnings from articles onto Mapping
Root Causes worksheet
Root Cause Report
Root Cause Articles
What did the article state about
disproportionality root causes?
What is not clear?
What does it add or further clarify
about your root cause story?
Large Group Exercise
Slide 6
Activity 1: continued
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Trainer’s Commentary: The next two
slides (Slides 7-8) involve discussion on race
and class constructs and how they are
situated in school systems. Use articles from
authors such as Klingner and Blanchett to
help guide the conversations. Some important
questions you can address: What are the
implications of these constructs within
school systems? What are the implications of race and class for students,
teachers, or your school community?
How do race and class impact school
culture?
Equity in Education
90
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Trainer’s Commentary: Our understandPredominant Race and
ing of race and class has changed over time;
Culture Beliefs
however, certain categories of thought are
common. Among the race discourse there is
an understanding of race as a biological or
social construct. The biological refers to a
physical or genetic marker of race (Note: geneticists have found that there is no genetic
marker of race). Social construct of race
refers to an understanding that specific
markers (e.g., hair, eye color, skin color, etc.)
signal a racial category. Various researchers
explore the implications of race as a social
construct.
Trainer’s Commentary: Cultural releFor example, a color-blind perspective of race vance is premised on the notion that school
refers to an acknowledgment of nonpractices are culturally informed; however,
observance of race in interaction (Note: this the question is, Whose culture is informing
perspective is typically espoused to imply a these practices? Attention to cultural releview of the other racial group as absent of vance involves examining all school practices
race; however, the challenge lies in that this and not simply whether there are representaperspective omits the social realities of race). tions of different groups, but rather is the disLaissez-faire racism refers to a perspective in course of practices affirming one cultural
which racism is treated as nonexistent but group/custom over another?
acknowledges the importance of equal opportunity. In addition, laissez-faire racism per- For example, many schools have placed a ban
spective situates the problems racial/ethnic on “doo rags” because of their perceived use
minorities face as a result of their cultural in- as a gang symbol (in some instances, this
feriority. And finally, institutional racism
may be the case). However, the practice also
perspective presumes racism is maintained places a spotlight on a cultural practice that is
as an institutional structure (Note: racism intended to provide hairstyling for curly hair.
does not need racists but rather institutional Overall, given these notions of race and class,
policies and practices, and one of those prac- we must also understand how our system intices involves the privileging of Whites).
teracts with these perspectives.
Race
Class
Biological or social
construct (Omi &
W inant, 1994)
Color-blind
Laissez-faire racism
(Bobo, 2001)
Institutional racism
and white privilege
(Blanchett, 2006;
McIntosh, 1988)
Culture of poverty
(Lewis, 1966;
Herrnstein & Murray,
1992)
Situational and
generational poverty
(Payne, 2005)
Slide 7
Class perspectives primarily focus on how
class is a dominant attribute defining the
outcomes of racial/ethnic minorities.
However, two class perspectives dominate
our discourse. First, the culture of poverty
perspective argues that low-income
individuals maintain a pattern of behavior,
language, and custom or culture that keeps
them poor. The generational or situational
poverty continues the culture of poverty
argument by situating whether the poverty
experience is generational or situational as
determining the depths of the culture of
poverty.
Disproportionality Research:
What is the role of cultural
relevance?
Higher rates and significant levels of
disproportionality are found in school districts with
predominantly White, middle class teachers
(Gay, 1999).
Cultural relevance must operate across school
arenas
(e.g., instruction, administration, curriculum, staffin
g, etc.).
The lack of cultural relevance in one school setting
has implications across all arenas (Gay, 1999 ).
Slide 8
Equity in Education
91
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Part II: Self-Assessing Tool
Part II of this module involves having teams
use the self-assessment tool to assess how
culturally responsive they are in their programming and instruction.
NCCRESt
To access the tool, you can go to
Click on the Tools
and Products tab, then the Tools link, and
then the Assessment Tool link. The name Slide 10
of the tool is Equity in Education Placehttp://www.nccrest.org.
ment: A School Self-Assessment Guide
for Culturally Responsive Practice,
which can be found under the Assessment
Tool.
Activity 2
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Materials: NCCRESt Tool, newsprint, and
marker
Part II:
Self-Assessing Tool
National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems
(http://www.nccrest.org).
Federally funded to create and
disseminate tools and workshops for
school districts (2003-2008).
Self-assessment tool was first
introduced fall 2005.
Instructions: Have the team break into
groups of five by members’ respective role in
school (e.g., administrator, teacher, members
of the IST or CSE team, and so forth). Once
the groups have been established, they can
answer the survey questions.
Trainer’s Commentary: Once the groups
complete the survey using their evidence
from Modules A-D or their own school experience, they can use the scoring chart to
calculate where they are in creating a culturally responsive environment. Details on how
to score are a part of the instructions on the
tool.
Self-Assessment Tool
Slide 9
Trainer’s Commentary: The next few
Focused on identifying areas of
strength and challenges in policies,
practices, and beliefs in becoming
culturally responsive.
Five domains.
Evidence.
Scoring.
slides
provide information regarding NCCRESt and the tool. Once the tool
has been downloaded, detailed information Slide 11
on how to navigate it is available. The tool
can be surveyed in groups according to its domains.
(Slides 10-13)
Equity in Education
92
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Trainer’s Commentary: Culture is a rele-
Activity: Participants will complete
the self-assessment survey in 5-6
small groups based on 3 selected
topics. Groups will complete their
chosen section of the survey.
Next, each group will generate
evidence for each question in the
section it completed.
Slide 12
vant factor in the schooling process. We’ve
developed many facets of education based on
the cultural nuances of middle-class behaviors of interacting. Unfortunately, the culture
of others has historically been excluded from
the schooling process. A culturally responsive
environment embraces the cultural nuances
of all groups and builds the capacity of students to interact with others.
Culturally Responsive
Environments
Activity: Each group will share
the questions and the evidence
they generated to support their
responses with the larger group.
The facilitator will post the big
chart from each group for all
participants to view throughout
these presentations.
Using the culture and experiences of
Latinos, African Americans, Asian
Americans, Native Americans, and White
Americans not part of mainstream culture as
a scaffold to learning (Gay, 2004).
Instruction involves matching knowledge of
particular groups with learning environment.
Slide 15
Slide 13
Part III: Culturally Responsive
Environments
What does a culturally
responsive environment
look like?
Part III of this module involves having the
teams use information gathered from the assessment tool to think about how school systems play a role in creating culturally responsive environments.
Slide 16
Part III: Culturally
Responsive
Environments
Slide 14
Equity in Education
93
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Trainer’s Commentary:
For the next few
have the teams think about how the
processes of school systems (e.g., PPBs) in
their own school filter these nuances and
what steps can be taken in how we can begin
to change the gaps in the system.
slides,
What are the scaffolds
necessary for building
culturally responsive
environments?
Culturally Responsive Instruction
What does it mean to provide culturally
responsive instruction?
All practice is culturally responsive--but to which
culture(s) is it responsive?
Culture is not involved in all learning.
Culture is not a static set of characteristics
located within individuals but is fluid and
complex.
Slide 19
Practice of Theory
Slide 17
Building a Culturally
Responsive Environment
requires…
Dialogues on race/ethnicity and culture.
Caring as an active variable (Noddings, 1986;
Valenzuela, 1999).
Analyze school climate–who feels comfortable and
safe? Who feels uncomfortable and unsafe?
Continuously analyze student achievement data;
interim assessments perspective (how can I improve
my instruction to reach all students?).
Professional development on instructional strategies
and learning styles.
Slide 18
Trainer’s Commentary: Prompt the
Embrace a new paradigm/ideology of culture and
race/ethnicity.
Embrace a strength-based perspective.
Enact caring--e.g., failure of any children is not an
option.
Create an environment that reflects cultural and
linguistic diversity.
Enact instruction through different learning styles.
Slide 20
Part IV: Hypothesizing Solutions
Part IV of this module involves having teams
think through all of the data collected (using
the activities from Modules A-E) and begin
hypothesizing what steps can be taken to
create a culturally responsive environment.
How do PPBs impact school systems?
teams to also think about how these nuances
affect their students and impact instruction.
Equity in Education
94
Module E: Prioritizing and Selecting Root Causes
Let’s review our root
causes.
Part IV:
Hypothesizing Solutions
Group activity
Slide 21
What are the real and
available solutions?
Slide 23
Trainer’s Notes: Recap the training by re-
viewing information you have captured. Ask
probing questions such as, What new knowledge have you gained? You may also use this
time to revisit items from the parking lot, if
relevant.
Wrap-up Conversation
Slide 22
Trainer’s Commentary: Have the teams
connect all the research based on what have
been noted on the newsprints and gallery
walk from this module. This process is to
guide them in thinking about real solutions
with resources. The Service Plan is a worksheet that will be used to execute all the
information collected from the module series.
It can be found at the end of this module.
Time Allotment: 40 minutes
Materials: Service Plan worksheet, penned
How do our policies, practices, and
beliefs not meet the needs of all
children?
Do we have the tools in place for what
practitioners are proposing?
Slide 24
Trainer’s Notes: Ensure team members
fill out the evaluation form. Collect sign-in
sheets.
newsprint and marker
Evaluate Training
Instructions: Review the newsprints from
this module and have the team think about
the process of incorporating the factors of
culture, race/ethnicity, language, and school
climate.
Slide 25
Equity in Education
95
Module E
Handouts
Equity in Education
96
Service Plan
Equity in Education
97
Module
E: Service Plan
The Data Analysis Modules are a data-driven investigation to identify the problems
causing disproportionality. This
will aggregate information from all module
series to hypothesize on possible root causes of disproportionality as well as identify potential solutions.
Research shows that disproportionality is often affected by three major factors: a district’s policies, practices, and beliefs. Surveys and other district data suggest some of the following issues that may be causing disproportionality:
Service Plan
Polices regarding interventions, instruction, curriculum, and parent/community
involvement are either unclear or nonexistent. Those that are in place often vary across
buildings and do not allow enough time for staff to develop and implement appropriate
services/programs. In addition, the intervention services at times do not have clear exit
criteria.
The capacity of teachers to provide differentiated and culturally responsive instruction is limited. Students are placed into special education or advanced classes based
on ability rather than readiness level. Special education is often used as a primary intervention.
There is a common belief among staff that interventions are necessary for struggling learners and learners who do not compare to high-performing students. Also, special education is believed to be the “cure-all” for at-risk students. Finally, there is a belief
that low-income Black and Latino students arrive at school not ready for school or lacking the readiness skills compared to other students.
Policies:
Practices:
Beliefs:
Based on data collected from the Root Cause Report (Sample Databook), the district team will need to identify the root causes as well as recommendations to address disproportionality. The
and recommendation will guide you to solutions.
Service Plan
Equity in Education
98
Module
E: Service Plan
SERVICE PLAN WORKSHEET
ROOT CAUSE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Service Plan worksheet should outline root causes and recommendations for addressing them.
In each column below provide comments as to what you think are your district’s root causes
and how they develop into disproportionality. You can create a flowchart or narrative to explain your
reasoning and provide evidence and recommendations. Reminder: Use any data collected from Modules A through E.
Directions:
1.
Root Cause
Evidence
Recommendation
2.
3.
Equity in Education
99
Equity in Education
100
Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality
at New York University
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
in the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education
Pedro Noguera
Executive Director and Principal Investigator
Edward Fergus
Co-Principal Investigator
Charlotte Gray
Project Director
New York University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution.