Minority Children in Special and Gifted Education

1
Minority Children in Special and Gifted Education

• Issues in Identification and Referral
• Impressions and Recommendations

2
Overview

• Introduction.
• Disproportionate numbers of minority children in
  special education programs.
• Statistical trends in identification.
• Important litigation.
• Causes of disproportionate identification.
• Recommendations for change.
• Gifted and talented underrepresentation.
• What is giftedness?
• Causes of limited identification for gifted
  education.
• Recommendations for improved identification.

3
Introduction

• Over-identification, misidentification, and
  under-identification of minority children for
  special education intervention or gifted
  education leads to minority children being both
  underserved and mis-served.
• Percentages of minority students assessed as
  eligible for supports in both categories are
  disproportionate in comparison to total
  enrollment figures and non-minority student
  populations.
• Identification issues for minority students can
  lead to inappropriate educational placement and
  educational failure.

4
Representation of Minority Children in Special
Education

• Disproportionate Identification

5
Special Education by the Numbers

• Approximately 5.4 million school-aged (6-21)
  children identified with disabilities (under
  IDEA).
• 2,030,685 (38) are minority children.
• (Source IDEA/OSERS)
• 1.5 million of these are minority children
  labeled MMR, ED or SLD.
• 876,000 of those--either Native American or
  African American.
• (Source Executive Summary, 2002)

6
OVER-identification of Minority Children for
Special Education

• Primarily soft disabilities
• MMR, ED, SLD.
• English language learners
• Speech and language, LD.
• Usually NOT in medically diagnosed categories
• deafness
• blindness,
• Downs Syndrome, etc.

7
Percentages of Minority Groups that make up
Special Education Totals

• 20 (15) African Americans
• 14.5 (17.5) Hispanic/Latino
• 2 (4) Asian/Pacific Islanders
• 1.5 (1) Native Americans
• 38 of special education population
• minority students.
• 37.5 of total school population
• minority students.
• (Source IDEA/OSERS, 2001)

8
Enrollment Comparisons
(Source Office for Civil Rights in Losen
Orfield, 2002)
9
Trends in Ethnic Demographics

• Asian Americans
• Generally underidentified for special education
  overidentified for gifted ed.
• African American students
• 3 times more likely--labeled mentally retarded.
• 2 times more likely--emotionally disturbed.
• Boys labeled MR 4 times more than non-minorities.

10
Ethnic Trends, cont

• Native American students
• 2 times more likely to be labeled ED or learning
  disabled.
• Initially, 4 times more likely--speech or
  language impaired.
• Hispanic students
• More likely identified when attending schools
  with high numbers of ELL students.
• Less likely eligible for services if attending
  schools with lower numbers of ELL students.

According to Losen Orfield (2002), each
minority group is at greater risk of being
labeled mentally retarded as their percentage of
the population increases.
11
Examples of Geographic Trends

• District of Columbia
• 67 of African Americans make up school
  population 91 identified eligible.
• South Carolina, Mississippi
• African Americans 4 times more likely to be
  identified mentally retarded.
• Alaska
• Native Americans 21 of school population over
  40 of students with MR.
• Hawaii
• Asian/Pacific Islanders identified with
  speech,language impairments 3 times more.

(Sources Losen Orfield, 2002 IDEA Data/OSERS,
2001)
12
In Arizona
(Source IDEA Data/OSERS, 2001)
13
Flagstaff Unified Schools

• 1875 students identified for special education
  (17 of total population).
• 867 are minority students (46 of special ed
  students).
• Total population of minority students in the
  district 42.
• (Based on data received from FUSD 2/10/03
  total school population 10,860. 100-day count
  cited in Arizona Daily Sun, 2/12/03 11,487.)

14
What Does the Data Tell Us?

• Identification varies by
• disability.
• geographic location.
• ethnicity.
• gender.
• Nationally
• extreme disparities between Hispanic and African
  American identification rates.
• National trends
• do not always mirror local trends in
  identification.
• CRUCIAL
• to look at whats happening in special education
  locally.

15
Problems with Statistical Information

• Data collection, reporting procedures
  inconsistent (state to state, district to
  district, no federal oversight).
• Discrepancies exist, state by state, between
  enrollment data and disability identification.
• About 400,000 children identified as disabled not
  identified with any ethnic group.
• Numbers, percentage totals must be considered
  approximations.
• Numerical discrepancies exist between data
  collection sources.
• Difficult to collect concise information in rural
  areas.
• IDEA 97 mandated data collection but no
  standardization.

16
Important Litigation Minority Rights in Special
Education

• Hobson vs. Hanson (1967)
• Ability tracking denied equal education for
  minorities.
• Diana vs. CA State Board Of Education (1970)
• Non-discriminatory testing provision (i.e.,
  testing done in native language).
• Guadalupe vs. Tempe (1972)
• Upheld non-discriminatory testing.
• Larry P. vs. Riles (1972, 1979, 1984)
• Barred use of IQ scores as sole determiner of
  student placement.

17
Important Litigation, cont.

• Lau vs. Nichols (1974)
• Non-discriminatory testing San Francisco LEP
  students.
• PASE vs. Hannon (1980)
• Upheld the use of IQ test scores BUT
• other assessment measures used, too.
• Lee vs. Macon (1967, Alabama)
• One of the longest active cases on record.
• 2000 decision, mandated mechanisms to correct
• African American overrepresentation in MR, ED.
• Underrepresentation in areas of LD, gifted.
• (Source Paolino, 2002)

18
Litigation Has Led Directly To

• Protective legislation
• Public Law 93-112.
• Public Law 94-142 (EHA) which became--
• IDEA and its reauthorizations.
• Generally occurs only after parent-initiated
  litigation.
• Establishment of Protection in Evaluation
  Procedures requirements
• Comprehensive, individualized evaluations.
• Use of nondiscriminatory practices.
• Use of multiple assessments.
• Establishment of team process for referral,
  evaluation, placement.
• Purpose Protection of students whose learning
  differences may be related to cultural and ethnic
  differences from being misidentified as disabled.

19
Factors in Identification Disparities of Minority
Students

• 30 years of research and documentation have
  found the following leading causes
• Test bias.
• Teacher bias.
• Poverty/environmental effects.
• Cultural and linguistic differences.

20
Current Research Focus

• Latest research
• Continued test bias, teacher bias,
  poverty/environmental effects, cultural/linguistic
  differences.
• Teacher/classroom characteristics.
• Parental involvement.
• Issues of subjectivity.
• Funding.
• Emerging responses to high-stakes testing.
• Continued wait-to-fail model prevalent in the
  United States (or, wait-to-succeed).
• .

21
Test Bias/High Stakes Testing

• Test bias in general
• Echoes experiences of middle class children.
• Based on authors cultural, linguistic,
  experiential background.
• Normative sample problems.
• Usually given by non-minority professionals.
• Often, still not written and/or administered in
  students native language.
• Continued reliance on IQ scores.

• High-stakes tests
• Contain many of the same built-in biases,
  problems.
• Can validity be established?
• Teacher pay, school performance tied to student
  achievementmay result in increased special ed
  referrals.
• Increased pressure on minority student
  performanceresult increased failure.

22
Teacher Bias and Characteristics

• Lowered behavioral, academic expectations.
• Expectations of failure.
• Teacher experience, training.
• Instructional quality.
• Classroom management (quiet vs. social??)
• Unconscious racial bias, lowered or stereotypical
  expectations.
• Quality of reciprocal relationships,
  interactions.
• Teacher ethnicity.

23
Poverty and the Environment

• Considered to be related to racial bias.
• Insufficient nutrition, medical and/or prenatal
  care
• Poor living conditions.
• Toxins and pollutants.
• (e.g., lead exposure, etc.)
• Poor community supports.
• Geographic location.

24
Cultural and Linguistic Differences

• Childs life experiences, activities, etc.,
  shaped by his/her culture.
• Cultural experiences influence a childs
  strengths, needs.
• A students cultural background may help
  determine which neurodevelopmental strengths get
  stronger and which ones dont, (Levine, 2001).
• Cultural influences can affect learning
• modalities.
• Historical cultural experiences,
• views may differ.
• Vocabulary differences may
• hamper learning.

25
Parental Involvement

• Lack of support, involvement in childs
  educational experience.
• Lack of knowledge of special ed rights, services,
  procedures, language, etc.
• Uncomfortable advocating against professionals.
• Acceptance, without question, of educators
  conclusions.

26
Subjectivity, Funding Concerns

• Subjectivity.
• Permeates decision-making on every
  level--referral,
• assessment, placement despite best
  intentions, team
• process, increased awareness.

• Funding.
• Parrish (Losen Orfield) believes some
  overidentification occurs so that poor schools
  can qualify for state, federal funding.

27
Recommendations for Better Identification

• In the classroom
• High quality instruction for all students (i.e.,
  much improved teacher training).
• General education classes geared toward success
  for all students.
• Improve early identification, intervention
  programs.
• Target monitoring, improving reading skills.
• Recruit educators from diverse background,
  provide culturally diverse instruction.
• Use pre-referral process before special ed
  assessment referral.

28
More Recommendations

• For support staff
• Provide consistent monitoring of all students
  through primary grades.
• Ensure appropriate special education services
  provided.
• For parents
• Educatorsencourage parental involvement.
• Be encouraged to seek legal help, mediation,
  assistance.
• Be provided with information, supports to better
  advocate.

29
Recommendations, cont

• For districts, state and federal governments,
  others
• Improve data collection, student population
  monitoring.
• Require school districts to report disparities in
  special ed identification, placement (Losen,
  Orfield, 2002).
• Improve federal and state oversight and
  enforcement.
• Guarantee that schools receive adequate funding.
• Increase referral, evaluation accuracy use
  multiple assessments, teams w/cultural diversity,
  parental input.

30

• The concern with the overrepresentation of
  minorities in special education placements
  would be mitigated if the evidence suggested that
  minority children reaped the same benefit from
  more frequent identification and isolation. But
  as government officials acknowledge and as data
  demonstrate, this does not appear to be the
  case. (Losen Orfield, 2002)

31
Gifted Talented Minority Students

• Underrepresented and Underserved

32
The Need For Change

• By 2040, 40 of the nations students will be
  students of color.
• By 2050, the numbers of Hispanic students will
  increase to more than 18 million--27 of all
  school-aged children.

33
What is Giftedness?

• The definition of giftedness has not been
  universally decided
• Districts, states, and some schools decide how to
  identify gifted students.
• Gardner says there are multiple intelligences
• Knowledge
• Language
• Leadership
• Memory
• Reading
• Art
• Music
• Creativity

34
More about Giftedness

• Giftedness is usually defined as success in
  academics.
• U.S. Department of Education shows 3 groups
  consistently underrepresented
• Native Americans
• Hispanics
• African Americans

35
Why are these groups so underrepresented?

• Teacher expectations/
• perceptions.
• Test bias.
• Lack of universal definition of giftedness.

• Just what is giftedness?
• Parent awareness.
• Administrative issues.

36
Underrepresentation of minority groups in gifted
programs is related to a breakdown in the
referral process, the assessment process, or
both. (Masten Plata, 2000)
37
Teacher Expectations/Perceptions

• Teachers perceptions are based on
• Gender
• Hispanic females nominated fewer times than any
  other group.
• Social class
• Do not realize the limitations of a low
  socioeconomic environment to stimulate and
  support the development of higher intellectual
  capacities.
• (Source Plata Masten, 1997)
• Language proficiency.

38
Teacher Perceptions, cont

• Race
• Perceive Hispanic students behavior as less
  favorable than Anglo students.
• Perceive Hispanic students as having lower
  academic potential.
• Interact less affirmatively with Hispanic
  students than with Anglo students.
• Anglo students nominated more than any others.

39
Teacher Perceptions, cont

• Teachers identify giftedness based on academic
  performance only.
• Expectations of the mainstream culture have
  biased the process of identification of gifted
  children.
• There exists a persistent attitude that
  giftedness simply cannot be found in some groups.

40
Teacher Perceptions
Teacher perceptions affect nominations of
Hispanic and Anglo students for gifted programs
(Source Plata, Marsten Trusty, 1999.)
41
Test Bias

• Historically, gifted and talented programs are
  filled by White, middle and upper middle class
  students.
• Test makers are of the same class, so they tend
  to favor students from same background.
• Test are not given in the native tongue of ELL
  students.

42
Test Bias, cont

• Intelligence tests strongly biased against
  culturally disadvantaged students because they
  emphasize
• Rapid response.
• Verbal comprehension.
• Answers that are acquired in the dominant middle
  class culture.

43
Test Bias, cont

• Objective tests items
• Biased because they are based on
• Differences in values
• Urban ghetto
• experience compared
• to surburban and other life
• patterns.
• Differences in racial and cultural experiences.
• Differences in language usage common to the
  cultural group.

44
What is Giftedness?????

• Academic performance
• Creativity
• Language
• Leadership
• Memory
• Reading
• Art
• Music skills

45
What??? cont

• No universal definition of giftedness.
• Most definitions are defined by academic
  achievement.
• Different cultural perceptions of giftedness
• Anglo Culture
• Focus on high standardized test scores.
• Competitive.
• Superior academic skills.
• Standing out in a group.
• Assertive.

46
What???? cont

• Navajo Culture
• Quietness.
• Noncompetitive.
• Non assertive.
• Does not show leadership qualities in public.
• Hispanic Culture
• Follows orders.
• Does not lead.
• Obeys, cooperates, submissive.
• Doesnt meddle in adult affairs.
• Doesnt judge or criticize others.
• Opposing cultural values will put student at odds
  with significant others (family, culture, etc...).

47
Parent Awareness

• Study by Bracey
• Hispanic parents are less aware of their
  childrens giftedness.
• Parents are not involved in nomination process.
• Parents not aware of nomination processes or
  existence of gifted programs.

48
Awareness, cont

• Hispanic parents are more reserved and less
  likely to nominate their children.
• Parents are not aware of what definition of
  giftedness is.
• Parents not included in assessment process.

49
Administrative Issues

• Administrators do not train teachers to recognize
  characteristics of gifted ELL learners.
• Psychologists not always aware of limitations of
  teacher rating scales.
• Parents generally not included on evaluation
  committee.
• Administrators do not usually inform community of
  gifted characteristics or assessment process.

50
. . . Youth are the most important natural
resource of a great nation. Gifted programs can
help prepare youth of all cultures and languages
to become productive citizens and critical
thinkers, ensuring that the future of the country
is in good hands.
51
Recommendations

• Gifted Special Education
• Use of ethnographic assessment procedures
• Student is observed in multiple contexts over
  time.
• Use of dynamic assessment
• Student is given opportunity to transfer newly
  acquired skills to novel situations.
• Portfolio assessment.
• Use of tests written in native language of ELL
  students.

52
Recommendations, cont

• Use of test scores from several instruments
• Progressive Matrices, Standard.
• SOI Screening Form for Gifted.
• System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment.
• Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 1.

• Include people from diverse cultural
  backgrounds in the assessment process.

53
Recommendations, cont

• Education of teachers on gifted characteristics
  of different cultures.
• Explicit information such as
• The experiences and abilities of Hispanic
  children.
• How those experiences enhance skills, talents,
  traits and/or values attached to giftedness.
• Knowledge of how acculturation influences
  teachers ratings.

54
Recommendations, cont.

• Training of assessment personel as to bias in
  behavior rating scales.
• Encourage parents to be a part of the process of
  evaluation.
• Recruitment of teachers of color.
• Parent education about the process and
  characteristics of gifted children.

55
What Educators Must Do

• Interact with ALL students as consistently,
  compassionately, and culturally informed as
  possible.
• Make intelligent, individualized (not
  stereotypical) assessments of student strengths
  and needs.
• Continue professional growth and development in
  cultural diversity, special education, and
  differing learning modalities.
• Remember that a quality educator can be the
  single most positive influence on any childs
  educational experience. Quality success.

56
Education is not a product.it is a process.a
never-ending one.Bel Kaufman, 1967
57
(No Transcript)
58
All images Microsoft PowerPoint Clips or Google
Images.