Kathleen A. King Co-Director of Technical Assistance & Professional Learning The Equity Alliance at ASU

Identify and gain understanding of the context of disproportionality in Wisconsin Discuss the nature of disproportionality as a systemic concern across arenas of policy, people, and practices Consider district data in multiple formats as evidence of strength and need, and start to plan next steps toward addressing disproportionality in Wisconsin District teams will Today’s Objectives

Identify and gain understanding of the context of disproportionality in Wisconsin

In 2001, state superintendent of the WDPI, Elizabeth Burmaster announced the “New Wisconsin Promise” which ensured access to quality education for all children through a commitment to: effective student services; special education; and prevention programs. Since 2005, the WDPI has engaged in many activities designed to address the problem of disproportionality: funding of the Discretionary Disproportionality Project and of the Disproportionality Workgroup, the annual Summer Institute on Disproportionality (now CREATE), and the state’s ongoing affiliation with NCCRESt. Administrators/educators have received training in various aspects of disproportionality, culturally responsive educational practices, and school improvement.

1973: Wisconsin passes 1 st comp. special education law in U.S. 2004: Discretionary Disproportionality Project 2005: WDPI Mini-grants to districts; Wisconsin selected as one of 9 state partners with NCCRESt 2007: Disproportionality Demonstration Grants to Districts with Significant Disproportionality 2008: Statewide Promise Conference Wisconsin’s Work to Address Disproportionality

2009: Widening the Scope- District Needs Assessment at CREATE Conference

Leaders in Addressing Wisconsin’s Disproportionality WDPI Disproportionality Workgroup Courtney Reed Jenkins Eva Kubinski Christina Spector Donna Hart- Tervalon Janice Duff Julia Hartwig Nancy Booth Nancy Fuhrman Paul Sherman Susan Van Beaver Vaunce Ashby JP Leary

Green Bay Public Schools Appleton Area School District CESA 8CESA 12 School District of Janesville Lac de Flambeau School District Madison Metropolitan School District Monona Grove School District Oshkosh Area School District Racine Unified School District Seymour and West DePere School Districts Verona Area School District Waukesha School District Mini Grant and Demonstration Grant Recipients

Donna Hart-Tervalon, Patti Williams, and Courtney Reed Jenkins Disproportionality lead from Special Education. Carolyn Stanford Taylor, Assistant Superintendent, and Stephanie Petska, Special Education State Director for their leadership Carolyn Stanford Taylor, Assistant Superintendent, and Stephanie Petska, Special Education State Director for their leadership Ron Dunlap, CREATE Coordinator & CESA 6 employee, moved vision of a statewide initiative into reality Linda Maitrejean & Mary Kampa, along with Lori Turnim, Jen Ledin CESA Coordinators, lead today’s efforts.

A (SUPER) QUICK REVIEW OF DISPROPORTIONALITY

Compares one ethnic group’s risk of being identified for a disability with that of a comparison group (either White students or all other students ): # of students in X ethnic/racial group in Y disability category Total # of students in X ethnic/racial group in the school population ______________________________________________________ # of White students in Y disability category Total # of White students in the school population Calculating Disproportionality: Relative Risk Ratio

The State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of 34 CFR Part 300 and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in 34 CFR of the IDEA regulations. [34 CFR ] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(24)]  The placement in particular educational settings of these children; and  The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.  [34 CFR (a)] [20 U.S.C. 1418(d)(1)] IDEA REGULATION

There is no federally-defined standard for the level at which risk becomes “disproportionate.” When reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, states’ acceptable risk ratio limits ranged from 0.25 to 0.33 for underrepresentation and 1.5 to 4 for overrepresentation. Wisconsin overrepresentation is defined as a group’s exceeding a relative risk ratios of 2 and significant underrepresentation as a risk less than one-fifth of the national risk for a category. What Counts as Disproportionate in Wisconsin ?

academic year, as part of their Annual Performance Report under IDEA Part B, WDPI identified nine districts with significant overrepresentation of students identified as American Indian or Black in special education due to inappropriate identification. Twenty-seven districts were identified as having overrepresentation in one or more disability categories, and ten as having significant underrepresentation.

For students identified with disabilities in racial/ethnic categories of Black, American Indian, and Asian/PI, Wisconsin is among the states with the highest risk ratios. For students identified as Hispanic, Wisconsin is in the second highest category.

SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT BY PRIMARY DISABILITY IN WISCONSIN *SELECTED CATEGORIES DISABILITY CATEGORY GROUP Cognitive Disabilities Black Asian/PI Hispanic Native American Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Black Asian/PI Hispanic Native American Nearly 14% of all Wisconsin students are identified as having a disability. This figure has remained fairly constant for the last seven years and is above the national average of 12%. Identification rates for students identified as Black and American Indian have been consistently higher than their peers for the past five years. Nearly one in every five children from these groups is labeled as having a disability.

In 1999, only 41.5% of students with disabilities spent at least 80% of time in the general education classroom; by 2004, 50.83% did. The proportion of students removed from general classroom more than 60% of the time has decreased from 15.59% to 12.09%, and the percentage of students in separate schools and related placements has fallen to 1.43%. Despite improvement at the state level, individual districts continue to experience difficulties in this area. Increase in Students Educated in LRE

Discuss the nature of disproportionality as a systemic concern across arenas of policy, people, and practices

Culture DisabilityLearning Assumptions about the Nature of Disproportionality

Culture DisabilityLearning Assumptions about the Nature of Disproportionality Children are perceived as disabled due to a complex weave of widely varying beliefs, policies, and practices at all levels—family and community, classroom, school, district, state and federal government, and the society at large (Harry & Klingner, 2003). Though factors associated with poverty increase the likelihood that students will be identified as having disabilities, race matters in the identification process. Also, the schooling context is important (National Research Council, 2002).

Assumptions about Solutions to Disproportionality Disproportionate representation’s complex nature requires that solutions be grounded in clear theoretical understandings about: The intersection of culture, learning, and disability; The notion of culturally responsive educational systems; The sustained use of research knowledge in professional practice; and The means to support teacher learning and enhance students’ opportunities to learn. Improved general education instruction and support systems will change the number of culturally and linguistically diverse students referred to and placed in special education programs.

The cornerstone of the movement forward in Wisconsin’s work is the assumption that disproportionate representation should be addressed through the creation of culturally responsive educational systems. Culturally Responsive Educational Systems

To learn from and relate respectfully to people from your own and other cultures. To build CR educational systems brings:  Increased level of comfort  Increased knowledge  Increase in freedom  Discovery of passions  Increased capacity to teach  Increased resources and knowledge What Does it Mean to be Culturally Responsive?

A District’s Approach to Cultural Responsivity is Embedded in the Larger Educational System

Budget allocation, % of staff by role, caseloads Class size Teacher retention IHE partnerships Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

% of students with IEP by category, race, & ELL status Placement patterns LEP patterns Student-focused initiatives Enrichment Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

Reform initiatives & incentives Professional learning goals & activities District & school improvement plans Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

List of external collaborations; List of all family/community events distributed by day of week and time of day Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

Technology capacity Professional learning structure Teacher union bargaining Mission, values, goals School board structure Policy issues Organization chart Decision-making Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

Forms of inquiry, using student data Student achievement & other learning evidences & influence on policy Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

 Reexamine and revise policies and practices related to curricula, tracking, testing, discipline, resource allocation, and hiring:  Give priority to assigning and retaining highly qualified administrators, teachers, and support personnel in schools with culturally and linguistically diverse students, particularly those living in low income households.  Promote collaboration and partnerships at various levels:  Between special education and general education administrators, to assure that special educators and English language acquisition specialists play a role in developing effective general education environments;  With community agencies and local leaders, to build on local assets and promote culturally responsive practice.  With teacher education programs, to provide relevant coursework and quality field experiences in high-poverty culturally and linguistically diverse schools. Key Ideas in Addressing Disproportionality at the District Level

Consider district data in multiple formats as evidence of strength and need, and the next steps toward addressing disproportionality in Wisconsin

What data do you have? What data sources are used? To measure access? To measure participation? To measure outcomes? How important is data in making change? Who has access to the data? Wisconsin District Data

Disproportionate Representation of Students who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse in Special Education The NCCRESt Rubric Approach to Assessing District Needs to Address Disproportionality Disproportionate Representation of Students who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse in Special Education The NCCRESt Rubric Approach to Assessing District Needs to Address Disproportionality

For states, districts, and schools in the design and implementation of a quality, culturally responsive education for all students. NCCRESt Assessment Rubrics

 Developing Coalitions  Building Consensus  Focusing on Message  Renewing Practice Simultaneously at the Professional, School, and District levels of the System  Building Tools that Encourage Reflection, Action, & Continuous Improvement  Building Expertise for the Future  Building Communities for Change  Linking Communities of Practice Remember- Engaging in Systemic Change Involves: