Presented by Breanna Dailey

 What is causing a seemingly “major disparity” between African American students and Caucasian students assessment scores?  Is it the test, nature, nurture, or something else?

 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – ◦ made school desegregation mandatory. (Bersoff, 1980; Bersoff, 1981; Fagan & Wise, 2007; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)  Desegregation process was not instantaneous

 Found that through heavy usage of standardized tests, a disproportionate number of African American students were put in the “mildly retarded” track. (Bersoff, 1980; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986) ◦ Specifically, looked at group ability tests  Therefore, it was ruled that putting students into tracks solely on the basis of standardized tests was unconstitutional and discriminatory. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

 Plaintiffs – 5 African American children in programs for the Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) in San Francisco (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp ; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Morris, 1986)  Allegation – Discrimination on the basis of being placed in EMR classes solely from intelligence tests which are biased ◦ This included the Stanford-Binet and WISC-R

(Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

 Requested reevaluation of all African American EMR and provide additional interventions and programs for those eligible to return to regular classes. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)  Also requested a quota based on the information in the previous slide  Courts decided that there was “undue emphasis and reliance on [the tests]” (Prasse & Reschly, 1986) and allowed the injunction

 Expanded to all of California  Stopped using intelligence tests to place a child in EMR classes on all children regardless of race.

 Case took a half a year, more than 50 witnesses resulting in a transcript more than 10,000 pages  Main issues (Prasse & Reschly, 1986) ◦ Racial bias in tests ◦ Nature versus Nurture ◦ Disproportionate nature of the tests ◦ Policies and procedures of the Department of Education in California

 Plaintiffs stated that the tests were biased against African Americans and the tests were the only thing that led to placement in EMR classes  The state argued that any bias was due to socioeconomic status and that the tests were the best means to measure IQ at the time

 Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973  Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975 (Public Law )

 Ruled in favor of the plaintiff  Judge ruled the discrimination was on purpose and was to separate minority children into special education classes that were a “dead end”. (Bersoff, 1981; Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp ; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)  Assessments used in a racially and culturally biased manner ◦ Not standardized for African American children – meant for mainstream (Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

 State of California cannot use tests that are not standardized until they are approved by the courts  These tests must be administered fairly  Each school district must correct an imbalance if the rate of African American EMR students is one standard deviation above that of Caucasian EMR students. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

 Determine placement of African American children in Educationally Mentally Handicapped (EMH) classes by IQ tests (Menacker & Morris, 1985)  IQ tests were ruled as not completely biased (although some items can be) when used with multifactored assessment (Bersoff, 1981; Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp ; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986) ◦ Ruled that the tests are more biased on the basis of poverty than race (Bersoff, 1981)

 Warner et al (2002) found that African American scored at 1 standard deviation lower than European Americans when looking at college IQ and achievement scores  J4 J4

 What is causing a seemingly “major disparity” assessment scores and why?  Are there any comparisons between an IQ test 3.5 decades ago and a student taking the SAT today?  Who needs to care about the results of this case?  What is the most important thing to take away from this case?  What can we do to eliminate bias or understand bias in test situations?

 Mandated under IDEA (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp )  Acknowledge that the tests are not perfect (Ortiz, 2008)  Use more than one thing to base a decision on ◦ Remember writing our reports  Diagnostic Interview with multiple people  Review of Records  Behavioral Observations  Test

 Bersoff, D. N. (1980). P. V. Riles: Legal perspective. School Psychology Review, 9, pp  Bersoff, D. N. (1981). Test bias: The judicial report card. New York University Education Quarterly, 13, pp  CNN. (2011). Is the SAT biased? Retrieved from  Fagan, T.K. & Wise, P.S. (2007). Roles and functions of school psychologists, School Psychology: Past, present, and future Third Edition. National Association of School Psychologists. Bethesda, MD.  Jacob, S., Decker, D., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in the education of students with disabilities under IDEA Ethics and Law for School Psychologists 6 th Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.  Jacob, S., Decker, D., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in psychoeducational assessment, Ethics and Law for School Psychologists 6 th Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.

 Menacker, J., & Morris, V. C. (1985). Intelligence testing, civil rights, and the federal courts. The Educational Forum, 49(3), pp  Prasse, D. P., & Reschly, D. J. (1986). Larry P.: A case of segregation, testing, or program efficacy? Exceptional Children, 54(4), pp  Ortiz, S. O. (2008). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment Best Practices in School Psychology 5 th Edition. National Association of School Psychologists. Bethesda, MD.  Warner, T. D., Dede, D. E., Garvan, C. W., & Conway, T. W. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), pp