1. 1 ADDRESSING THE OVERREPRESENTATION OF STUDENTS OF COLOR AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION DPI Summer Institute on Disproportionality in Special Education August 16, 2005 Presenter – Jack Jorgensen Executive Director, Department of Educational Services Madison Metropolitan School District

2. 2 The Problem 1998-1999 School Year A disproportionate number of students of color, especially black males, were being referred to special education (6% vs. 2% for white males). Subsequently a disproportionate number of students of color, especially black males were being placed into special education (80% placement rate). The overall special education prevalence rate in MMSD was steadily climbing, from 12.68% in 1994-1995 to 14.56 in 1998-1999.

3. 3 The Response Aug. 1999 - Moved the responsibility for conducting initial evaluations from school- based staff to a centrally coordinated IEP system (CCIS) Oct. 2001 – Superintendent initiated the development of a pre-referral intervention system later referred to as the MMSD Educational Framework Sept. 2002 - Initiated a study group on disproportionality of minority students in special education Sept. 2003 - Courageous conversations on race and equity began to occur district-wide

4. 4 Centrally Coordinated IEP System (CCIS)

5. 5 A centrally coordinated IEP system (CCIS) for processing and completing initial special education referrals of students ages 5-21 Began in 1999 in response to growing special education prevalence rate and over representation of black students being placed in special education Special Education program support teacher is assigned to the IEP Team as: a) special ed. teacher, b) IEP chairperson and c) LEA representative Included the optional appointment of a CCIS bilingual bicultural school psychologist, speech & language program support teacher and/or O.T., P.T. program support person when appropriate General education teacher and other staff (e.g., social worker, nurse, etc.) were appointed as appropriate from the student’s school of attendance

6. 6 Six Years of Data - Have we improved? Rate of referrals Rate of placements Looking at the data by ethnicity, socio-economic status and gender How CCIS is impacting our district’s overall prevalence rate

9. Poverty, Race and K-12 CCIS Referrals for 2004-05

12. Student Subgroup Placement Rate Change Between 1998-99 and 2004-05 White, Female, Low Income-22% White, Female, Not Low Income-13% White, Male, Low Income-2% White, Male, Not Low Income-28% African American, Female, Low Income-22% African American, Female, Not Low Income-30% African American, Male, Low Income-15% African American, Male, Not Low Income-26%

17. 17 CCIS Data - What does it suggest? There has been a steady decrease in initial referrals since the 2001-2002 year. The percentage of referrals resulting in placement has leveled off over the past 5 years suggesting more appropriate referrals and more accurate conclusions on the questions of impairment and need for special education. There is still a disproportionate number of students of color and low income students being referred and placed.

18. 18 Study Group

19. 19 Study Group - Gaining a Better Understanding of the Underlying Issues Related to Overrepresentation In 2002, a study group was convened that looked at current research and best practice related to the topic of disproportionality. The group read and discussed over 15 articles and research studies. They then developed a multi-year Action Plan to address areas of concern needing improvement. This served as a catalyst for more focused efforts to conduct non-bias, multicultural assessments.

20. 20 Study Group - Resulting Action Plan The multi-year Action Plan addressed the following: Development of non-bias, multi-cultural assessment guidelines and practices Improved training in evaluations procedures that began to address the exclusionary factors as part of eligibility Creation of a non-bias, multi-cultural assessment cadre and use of Tuning Protocol to review cases resulting in decrease in percentage of ELL students placed (90% placed in 98-99; 34% placed in 04-05).

21. 21 MMSD Educational Framework

22. 22 The MMSD Educational Framework Introduced by the Superintendent to help organize the way we think about and deliver services and supports to students, especially at the pre-referral level. Provides a common vocabulary and structure for conversations and planning on how to assist struggling learners prior to a special education referral.

23. Engagement Classroom School Community Learning Content Instruction Relationships Student Staff Student Staff Families Core Practices, Services & Programs IF A STUDENT ISN’T SUCCESSFUL? SOME Students Classroom Specific Supports School/District Wide Supports FEW Students Time Limited Specialized Support FEWER Students Long Term Intensive Specialized Support FEWEST Students ASSESSMENT ALL Students COMMUNITY COLLABORATIONS © MMSD 10.16.02

24. 24 MMSD Educational Framework – So what has changed? Development of collaborative team structure at each school Focus on building capacity to support struggling learners in regular classrooms Scaffolding of interventions that address engagement, relationships and learning Systematic student data collection and tracking system that informs decisions Decrease in referrals from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

25. 25 Race and Equity Discussions

26. 26 Race and Equity Discussions – What affect has this had on disproportionality? People are engaging in open and candid conversations about race, racism and how our biases and stereotypes influence the way in which we relate to children and families of color Examining how differences in culture and ethnicity influence our perceptions of children’s learning and potential There is a greater awareness of the influence of race and culture and its impact on staff’s decisions to refer students of color for special education

27. 27 Putting It All Together … A combined approach: A centralized system for initial evaluations Non-bias, multicultural assessment MMSD Educational Framework Courageous conversations on race and equity

28. 28 Putting It All Together … Results in: Fewer students being misidentified as disabled and needing special education Improved identification of students who truly have a disability needing special education, especially English language learners