Disproportionality and English Language
Learners in Special Education:
Why it happens and what to do about it.
Webinar for Education Service Center
Houston, TX
March 18, 2014
Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D.
St. John’s University
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
A Brief History of Disproportionality in Special Education
• Controversy begins around 1968 – Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special
education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22, questioned fairness of testing
• Diana v. California in 1970 – Hispanic children misidentified as
disabled and placed in special education on basis of tests
given in English—a language they did not fully comprehend
• EHCA (IDEA) PL 94-142 in 1975 – Established requirement
that children be assessed in their native language when
feasible & in a nondiscriminatory manner
• Larry P. v. Riles in 1979 – African American children placed in
“dead end” special education classes questioned validity of IQ
tests for this purpose
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Ethnic Disproportionality
Why does it exist – Competing Hypotheses
Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis
(i.e., some racial/ethnic groups are more susceptible to various disabilities,
e.g., SLD, ID, ED and other disorders, than are other racial/ethnic groups)
vs.
Systemic School Bias
(i.e., the manner in which children from diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds are valued,
serviced, taught, and treated differs from the way that the majority ethnic/racial
children are valued, serviced, taught, and treated)
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for the
Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for Systemic School Bias
I. Instructional Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of attention to native language development
Ineffective instructional practices
Racially-bound student-teacher interactions
Lack of affirmation for student/parent culture and community
General ethnocentrism in education
II. Referral Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of culturally-linguistically appropriate interventions
Unrealistic expectations of progress (catching up)
Lack of knowledge regarding developmental interaction of language and education
Failure to provide intervention/services in general education
Desire to “remove” students with learning “difficulties” from general classroom
III. Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
Lack of accepted guidelines and standards for evaluations
Tools with limited validity for use with diverse individuals
Insufficient education and training for professionals
Misattribution of cultural/linguistic differences evidence of disorder
IV. Noncompliance with State or Federal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Lack of monitoring of ethnic/racial representation in special education
Failure to consider native language needs in designing IEP
Removal of general education services (i.e., ESL)
Lack of competent and certified bilingual special education personnel
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Ethnic Disproportionality
Passage of IDEA ’97 (PL 105-17) confirmed the problem of, and
provided Federal requirements for addressing, potential
disproportionality in special education.
•
“Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected
with mislabeling minority children with disabilities” {601 (c) (8) (A)}
•
“More minority children continue to be served in special education than would be
expected given the percentage of minority students in the general population” {601
(c) (8) (B)}
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Ethnic Disproportionality
Passage of IDEA ’97 (PL 105-17) recognized the importance of
effective instruction or the lack of opportunity to receive effective
instruction as leading to inappropriate special education placements.
“The authors of IDEA believed that students were being incorrectly identified as having a
disability (typically a learning disability) because they displayed academic difficulties that
were a direct result of ineffective instruction or the lack of opportunity to receive
effective instruction. To prevent these students from being over-identified, the lack of
instruction requirement was added to the law. (Kovaleski & Prasse, 1999, p. 24)
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Ethnic Disproportionality
Beginning with IDEA ’97 (PL 105-17), Federal law specifically
added new procedural safeguards to address and prevent
potential disproportionality in special education.
•
Specific provision addressing lack of effective instruction
•
Specific provision regarding limited English proficiency
•
“In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph 4(A), a child shall
not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for
such determination is lack of instruction in reading or made or limited
English proficiency” Section 614 (b) (5)
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
Ethnic Disproportionality
Beginning with IDEA ’97 (PL 105-17), Federal law specifically
allowed Congress to require states to provide certain information
as a condition for receiving Federal funding.
•
Required states to collect ethnic data by type of disability, not just in general
•
Required states to use methods to determine if disproportionality exists
•
Required states to address such problems via written corrective action
measures
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for Systemic School Bias
I. Instructional Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of attention to native language development
Ineffective instructional practices
Racially-bound student-teacher interactions
Lack of affirmation for student/parent culture and community
General ethnocentrism in education
II. Referral Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of culturally-linguistically appropriate interventions
Unrealistic expectations of progress (catching up)
Lack of knowledge regarding developmental interaction of language and education
Failure to provide intervention/services in general education
Desire to “remove” students with learning “difficulties” from general classroom
III. Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
Lack of accepted guidelines and standards for evaluations
Tools with limited validity for use with diverse individuals
Insufficient education and training for professionals
Misattribution of cultural/linguistic differences evidence of disorder
IV. Noncompliance with State or Federal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Lack of monitoring of ethnic/racial representation in special education
Failure to consider native language needs in designing IEP
Removal of general education services (i.e., ESL)
Lack of competent and certified bilingual special education personnel
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Academic Attainment and Instructional
Practices for English Language Learners
Although many effective instructional practices are
similar for both ELLs and non ELLs why does
instruction tend to be less effective for ELLs?
Because ELLs face the double challenge of
learning academic content and the language of
instruction simultaneously.
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Effective Instruction for ELLs:
What the Research Says
Typical English Learners who begin school 30 NCE’s behind
their native English speaking peers in achievement, are
expected to learn at:
“…an average of about one-and-a-half years’ progress in the next six
consecutive years (for a total of nine years’ progress in six years--a 30-NCE
gain, from the 20th to the 50th NCE) to reach the same long-term performance
level that a typical native-English speaker…staying at the 50th NCE) (p. 46).
In other words, they must make 15 months of academic
progress in each 10 month school year for six straight years—
they must learn 1½ times faster than normal.
Source: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: NCBE.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Developmental Implications of Early Language Differences
52 points
42 points
285
265
45 points
41 points
245
Non-ELL
30 points
225
ELL
31 points
205
185
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2004
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2008
Results of NAEP Data on Reading Achievement for ELL vs. Non-ELL
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Developmental Implications for ELLs:
When does Egberto “catch up?”
Classroom or Grade
Level Aim Line
6 week standard
12 week standard
50 WRCPM
50
WRCPM =
Number of
Egberto’s progress
if he makes gains
comparable to
English speaking
peers
45
Words Read
15 word
difference
40
Correctly Per
Minute
35 WRCPM
35
30
Egberto’s progress
if he makes gains
comparable to other
ELLs
25 word
difference
25
Classroom/grade level
expectations = 15
15 word
difference
20
a 6 week period
20 word
difference
15
10
25 word
difference
English learners
often begin behind
Egberto’s progress
if he doesn’t make
gains comparable to
other ELLs
35 word
difference
WRCPM progress over
5
English speakers
Week 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Example 2nd Grade Progress Monitoring Chart
*Note: Name of “Egberto” used with apologies to Dan Reschley.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Effective Instruction for ELLs:
What the Research Says
Of the five major, meta-analyses conducted on
the education of ELLs, ALL five came to the very
same conclusion:
“Teaching students to read in their first
language promotes higher levels of
reading achievement in English” (p. 14).
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Achievement Trajectories for ELLs: Native language makes a difference.
60
General Pattern of Bilingual Education Student Achievement
on Standardized Tests in English
*Note 1
40
52(54)* Late-exit bilingual and
content ESL
30
40(32)* Early-exit bilingual and
content ESL
20
34(22)* Content-based ESL
10
24(11)* ESL pullout traditional
0
Normal Curve Equivalents
50
61(70)* Two-way bilingual
K
2
4
6
8
10
12
Grade Level
*Note 1: Average performance of native-English speakers making one year's progress in each grade. Scores in parentheses are percentile ranks converted from NCEs.
Adapted from: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for Systemic School Bias
I. Instructional Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of attention to native language development
Ineffective instructional practices
Racially-bound student-teacher interactions
Lack of affirmation for student/parent culture and community
General ethnocentrism in education
II. Referral Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of culturally-linguistically appropriate interventions
Unrealistic expectations of progress (catching up)
Lack of knowledge regarding developmental interaction of language and education
Failure to provide intervention/services in general education
Desire to “remove” students with learning “difficulties” from general classroom
III. Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
Lack of accepted guidelines and standards for evaluations
Tools with limited validity for use with diverse individuals
Insufficient education and training for professionals
Misattribution of cultural/linguistic differences evidence of disorder
IV. Noncompliance with State or Federal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Lack of monitoring of ethnic/racial representation in special education
Failure to consider native language needs in designing IEP
Removal of general education services (i.e., ESL)
Lack of competent and certified bilingual special education personnel
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Pre-Assessment Considerations in Nondiscriminatory Assessment:
Contrasting Models
TRADITIONAL MODEL
ALTERNATIVE MODELS
Based on "medical" model where the learning problem is
identified as being an internal flaw within the child
Based on "ecosystems" model where the learning problem is
identified as being due to dysfunctional transactions
between the child and learning environment
Focus is on measuring performance on tests and comparing
results to provide relative standing against performance of
other age and grade level peers
Intent of assessment is to identify disabilities in isolation rather
than generate intervention strategies or modifications
Focus is on assessing environmental and systemic factors which
may be affecting child's ability to learn
Intent of assessment is to identify problem situations in
context in order to develop intervention strategies or
modifications
Children are given labels corresponding to their measured
performance and are classified by disability category
Strengths and weaknesses of the situation and the child are
identified regardless of disability
Child's abilities and potential is innate, static, immutable, and
unchangeable
Child's abilities are experiential, dynamic, modifiable, and
changeable
Assessment is conducted by a "multidisciplinary" team of
experts who evaluate learning difficulties relatively
independently
Assessment is conducted by a team of people familiar with the
child who collaborate in a "transdisciplinary" approach
Parents and general education teachers are not active
participants in the assessment process
Parents and general education teachers are key participants in
the assessment and intervention planning process
Standardized testing provides little useful information that can
assist in the development of instructional approaches for
the classroom
Alternative and authentic methods of assessment provide
information directly applicable to the development of
instruction for the classroom
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Pre-Assessment Considerations in Nondiscriminatory Assessment:
Contrasting Paradigms
PSYCHOMETRIC
ECOSYSTEMIC
ORIENTATION
ROLE OF HOME
AND CULTURE
Individual Child
Background information
Ecosystem of the Child
Foreground of hypothesis
generation and central to
"interpretations“
ROLE of PARENTS
Source of information
Collaborators
PROBLEM
DEFINITION
Internal individual differences
Situations
PROCESS
Identification of child's deficits
Differentiation of functional
and dysfunctional transactions
and settings and identification
of potential resources.
INTERVENTION
Remediation
Mediation
Liaison
Consultation
GOAL
"Fix" the child
Alter transactions
Adapted From : Cook-Morales, V. J. (1994). The Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Project. A pre-service professional training grant funded by the
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, U. S. Department of Education.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Pre-Assessment Considerations in Nondiscriminatory Assessment
Differentiation of Terms
Testing
Evaluation
Assessment
ORIENTATION
Measurement
Judgments
Problem solving
FOCUS
Traits
Person
Problem situations
ROLE of TESTS
Central
Essential
Optional
ROLE OF TEAM
MEMBERS
Cleric or
Technician
Expert or
Diagnostician
Consultant or
Collaborator
RESULTS
How much
Comparison
Problem resolution(s)
REPRESENTATION
Scores
Diagnosis/Label
Descriptions
REPORT STYLES
Test focused
Person focused
Problem focused
LINKED to
INTERVENTION
Rarely
Optional
Central
Adapted From: Cook-Morales, V. J. (1983). Testing v. Measurement v. Appraisal v. Evaluation v. Assessment: Is it a 'Game of Semantics' or 'Is Naming
Knowing?' Unpublished manuscript. San Diego State University.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Pre-Assessment Considerations in Nondiscriminatory Assessment
POTENTIAL BIAS
APPROACH
TECHNIQUES/PROCEDURES
Failure to consider cultural and linguistic
implications of background
experiences
Transactional




Cultural knowledge bases
Culture appropriate processes
Parent and child involvement
Cultural advocates
Failure to view behavior or performance
within context of learning environment
or ecology
Ecological




Ecosystems assessment
Culture-based hypotheses
Ecological assessment
Adaptive behavior evaluation
Failure to measure both performance
and achievement via informal and
direct methods
Alternative
Authentic (skill focused)



CBA/M, portfolio (work samples)
Criterion-referenced tests/procedures
Contextual-participant observation
Process (cognition focused)
Failure to reduce potential bias and
discrimination in the use of
standardized tests
Failure to collaborate across disciplines
in evaluation and decision making



Dynamic assessment
Clinical observations
Piagetian assessment (Ordinal Scales)
Psychometric





Underlying theory
Cultural and linguistic bias
Test adaptations
Test selection
Test interpretation
Interdisciplinary


Establishing a professional assessment team
Inclusion of parent in the assessment process
Source: Adapted from Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001 and Cook-Morales, 1995.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for Systemic School Bias
I. Instructional Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of attention to native language development
Ineffective instructional practices
Racially-bound student-teacher interactions
Lack of affirmation for student/parent culture and community
General ethnocentrism in education
II. Referral Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of culturally-linguistically appropriate interventions
Unrealistic expectations of progress (catching up)
Lack of knowledge regarding developmental interaction of language and education
Failure to provide intervention/services in general education
Desire to “remove” students with learning “difficulties” from general classroom
III. Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
Lack of accepted guidelines and standards for evaluations
Tools with limited validity for use with diverse individuals
Insufficient education and training for professionals
Misattribution of cultural/linguistic differences evidence of disorder
IV. Noncompliance with State or Federal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Lack of monitoring of ethnic/racial representation in special education
Failure to consider native language needs in designing IEP
Removal of general education services (i.e., ESL)
Lack of competent and certified bilingual special education personnel
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
The Top 10 Reasons why LEP students are referred
for Special Education Evaluation
1. Poor/low achievement
2. Behavioral problems
3. Oral language related problems (acquisition or delay)
4. Reading problems
5. Learning difficulties
6. Socio-emotional difficulties
7. Diagnosis for particular handicapping condition
8. Written language problems
9. Low attention span
10. Unable to understand or follow directions
Source: Ochoa, Robles-Pina, Garcia, & Breunig, 1999)
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Training in Nondiscriminatory Assessment Procedures
Survey of school psychologists
66% reported that they were inadequately trained to understand
cross cultural issues in assessment
79% reported that they were inadequately trained to understand
second language acquisition
82% reported that they were inadequately trained to conduct a
bilingual evaluation
77% reported that they were inadequately trained to interpret a
bilingual evaluation
Source: Ochoa, et al. 1997
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Inappropriate Assessment Practices
Commonly Used with Diverse Individuals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over-reliance on nonverbal measures
Use of untrained interpreters
Lack of consideration of child’s language proficiency
Use of questionable assessment practices
Assumption of fairness in native language tests
Use of translated tests
Assumption of fairness of CBM methods
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Important Factors to Consider
When Assessing English Language Learners
•
•
•
•
Professional standards governing evaluation
Language of instruction and educational programming
Developmental pattern of child’s L1 and L2 acquisition
Cultural factors: goodness of fit between child’s developmental
cultural experiences & the demands of the testing situation as
well as a particular test
• Nondiscriminatory assessment: evaluation of the impact of
cultural and linguistic factors on the validity of test
performance and equitable interpretation
One must consider all five factors simultaneously when assessing
English language learners. Failure to follow a comprehensive approach
in assessment may lead to discriminatory outcomes, particularly
misdiagnosis of disability, which can contribute to disproportionate
representation in Special Education.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Difference vs. Disorder and Test Score Validity
The figure below provides an illustration that can help distinguish between difference or disorder. It is
important to note that the probability or likelihood of one vs. the other is based primarily on data
regarding cognitive functioning generated from standardized tests compared against the information
regarding the relative influence of cultural or linguistic differences and the presence of inhibitory factors
(environmental and community). Decisions concerning difference vs. disorder must ultimately be
bolstered by other information including that derived from direct observation, interviews with people
familiar with the child, informal or authentic assessment, and analysis of actual work samples. This
figure should not be used for making definitive conclusions about performance, rather it should be
viewed only as a guide for evaluating data.
Higher Scores
90
80
Low Acculturation
and Language Proficiency
Moderate Acculturation
or Language Proficiency
High Acculturation
and Language Proficiency
70
More likely
difference
60
More likely
disorder
50
Lower Scores
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
A Recommended Best Practice Approach for Using Tests with ELLs
Step 1. Assessment of Bilinguals – validate test scores (difference vs. disorder)
• Select or create an appropriate battery that is comprehensive and responds to the needs of the referral
concerns, irrespective of language differences
• Administer all tests in standardized manner in English only, no modifications
• Score tests and plot them for analysis via the C-LIM
• If analysis indicates expected range and pattern of decline, evaluation ends, no disability is likely
• If analysis does not indicate expected range or pattern of decline, apply XBA (or other) interpretive methods to
determine specific areas of weakness and difficulty and continue to Step 2
Step 2. Bilingual Assessment – validate disorder (cross-language confirmation)
• Review prior results and create a select set of tests related to the areas where the suspected weaknesses or
difficulties were noted
• Select tests that are as parallel as possible to the original tests using one of 3 methods:
1. Native language test administered in the native language (e.g., WJ III/Bateria III or WISC-IV/WISC-IV Spanish)
2. Native language test administered via assistance of a trained interpreter
3. Informally translated test administered via assistance of a trained interpreter
• Administer all tests in whatever manner necessary to ensure full comprehension including use of any
modifications and alterations necessary to reduce barriers to performance
• Observe and document approach to tasks, errors in responding, and behavior during testing
• Analyze data both quantitatively and qualitatively to evaluate areas of weakness or difficulty
• If areas of weakness do not match weaknesses in Step (are now average or higher), disability NOT likely
• If areas of weakness match weaknesses in Step 1 (remain below average), disability is likely, except for Gc
• Ensure that tests of Gc are interpreted and assigned meaning relative to actual peers and if testing of Gc in
native language reveals better functioning than in English, use/interpret native language Gc score
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Evidence for Systemic School Bias
I. Instructional Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of attention to native language development
Ineffective instructional practices
Racially-bound student-teacher interactions
Lack of affirmation for student/parent culture and community
General ethnocentrism in education
II. Referral Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of culturally-linguistically appropriate interventions
Unrealistic expectations of progress (catching up)
Lack of knowledge regarding developmental interaction of language and education
Failure to provide intervention/services in general education
Desire to “remove” students with learning “difficulties” from general classroom
III. Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
Lack of accepted guidelines and standards for evaluations
Tools with limited validity for use with diverse individuals
Insufficient education and training for professionals
Misattribution of cultural/linguistic differences evidence of disorder
IV. Noncompliance with State or Federal Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Lack of monitoring of ethnic/racial representation in special education
Failure to consider native language needs in designing IEP
Removal of general education services (i.e., ESL)
Lack of competent and certified bilingual special education personnel
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Federal Legislation
1. No child, including one who is culturally and linguistically diverse, may be placed in special
education solely on the basis of identified academic need in the absence of a disability related
to educational performance. (34CFR 300.7)
T
F
2. Information about the child's language proficiency in both the primary language and in English must
be considered in determining how to conduct the evaluation of a pupil with limited English
proficiency. (34CFR 300.532)
T
F
3. Lack of familiarity with the English language does not preclude a child from being eligible for special
education services. (34CFR 300.534b2)
T
F
4. Cultural difference ("disadvantage") is not a sufficient condition with which eligibility for special
education services can be questioned. (34CFR 300.7b10ii and 300.541b4)
T
F
5. Environmental or economic disadvantage that adversely affects a pupil's academic achievement
may be used to form the basis of a disability or establish eligibility for special education services.
(34CFR 300.7b10ii and 300.541b4)
T
F
6. The normal process of second-language acquisition, as well as manifestations of dialect and sociolinguistic variance may be diagnosed as a handicapping condition. (34CFR 300.533a and 300.534b)
T
F
7. Tests and procedures that are culturally discriminatory can not be used to qualify a pupil for
special education services. (34CFR 300.532a1)
T
F
8. Tests and other assessment materials need not be provided in the pupil's primary language or other
mode of communication. (34CFR 300.532a2)
T
F
9. Psychological assessment of a pupil in their native language by a bilingual psychologist meets the
requirements under the law for assessment in the primary language. (34CFR 300.136 and 300.533a)
T
F
10. Once a pupil is determined to have a disability that merits and requires special education services,
no further consideration of the child’s needs in the native language is required. (34CFR 300.324a2iv)
T
F
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
IDEA 2004 Specifications
Assessments and other evaluation materials used
to assess a child under this section—
• (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on
a racial or cultural basis;
• (ii) are provided and administered in the language and form most
likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and
can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it
is not feasible to so provide or administer;
• (iii) are used for purposes for which the assessments or measures
are valid and reliable;
• (iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel;
and
• (v) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided
by the producer of such assessments.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Current Federal (IDEA 2004) Specifications for All Evaluations
Conducted for Eligibility Purposes
Sec. 614. Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and
Educational Placements.
(b) Evaluation Procedures.–
…(5) Special Rule for Eligibility Determination.—In making a determination of
eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a
disability if the determinant factor for such determination is—
(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential
components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(B) lack of instruction in math; or
(C) limited English proficiency.
Note that because this language appears as part of the general guidelines for
evaluations, it must be adhered to and considered as a part of any evaluation for any
disability, not merely SLD where additional exclusionary variables, including cultural
“disadvantage” are also specified in that definition.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Inadequate and Discriminatory Evaluation Can
Lead to Disproportionality in Special Education
OCR Surveys and National Trends in Disproportionality
OCR Surveys Conducted every 2 years • 1978 – 2010:
– African Americans continue to be over-represented as: ID and ED
• 1980 – 2010:
– Hispanics continue to be overrepresented as: LD, SLI and ID
National Trends – African American identification increasing in: ID, ED, and LD
– Hispanic identification increasing in: LD and SLI
– Native American identification increasing in: ID, ED and LD
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Disproportionality in Special Education:
An example of relative risk.
Risk for Black students:
Black MR
205,590
All Black Students
11,564,606
Relative Risk
1.78%
Risk of White students:
White MR
308,243
All White Students
416,771,580
Relative Risk
0.74%
Relative Risk Calculation
0.0178 / 0.0074 = 2.40
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Likelihood of ethnic minority students being identified with certain cognitive
disabilites compared to white students in the U.S.
Source: Disparities in Education, Funding and Provision of Special Education.
In Racial Inequity in Special Education by Harvard Press (2002)
2.5
Risk Compared to
White Students
Emotional
Disturbance
2
Mental
Retardation
1.5
Specific
Learning
Disability
1
0.5
0
American
Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Is Special Education the Answer?
OCR Surveys and National Trends in Disproportionality
OCR Surveys Conducted every 2 years • 1978 – 2010:
– African Americans continue to be over-represented as: ID and ED
• 1980 – 2010:
– Hispanics continue to be overrepresented as: LD, SLI and ID
National Trends – African American identification increasing in: ID, ED, and LD
– Hispanic identification increasing in: LD and SLI
– Native American identification increasing in: ID, ED and LD
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Is Special Education the Answer?
Special education cannot solve problems that are rooted in all aspects of
education, and it cannot be used to absolve general education from taking
responsibility for failing to educate certain groups of children, particularly those
without disabilities, in an appropriate and effective manner.
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
XBA - Cross-Battery Assessment Resources
BOOKS:
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S.O. & Alfonso, V.C. (2013). Essentials of
Cross-Battery Assessment, Third Edition. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2012). Essentials of Learning Disability
Identification. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S.O. & Alfonso, V.C. (2007). Essentials of
Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V., & Mascolo, J. (2006). The
Achievement Test Desk Reference (ATDR): A guide to Learning
Disability Assessment, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley.
ONLINE:
CHC Cross-Battery Online
http://www.crossbattery.com/
Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this packet is Copyright © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.