Students Labeled with Mental Retardation in Connecticut

Analyses of the ISSIS Database:

Patterns of Labeling and Placement

Testimony of James W. Conroy, Ph.D.

The Center for Outcome Analysis

The ISSIS Database

• Integrated Special Student Information System• Data going back to 1986-87• Contents: ID, age, grade, ethnicity, gender, disability

type, special services, classroom placement, proportion of time spent with nondisabled peers, etc.

• In 1998-99, 99,632 students in special education are represented (excluding gifted/talented)

• Among them, there are 4,965 students with the Mental Retardation label

Disability Breakdowns Over Time86-87 95-96 98-99

AUTISTIC 0.2% 0.6% 1.1%DEAF-BLIND 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%HEARING 1.2% 1.1% 1.1%HEARING: HARD LD 48.8% 49.3% 46.8%MR, ALL 7.0% 5.5% 5.4%MR TRAINABLEMR SEVERE MR PROFOUND MULTI-HC 1.3% 2.5% 2.6%NEUROLOGICAL 1.1% 2.3%ORTHOPEDIC 0.5% 0.3% 0.4%OTHER HEALTH 0.6% 4.6% 8.3%SOC-EMOT MALADJ 22.3% 16.5% 12.7%SPEECH: ARTIC 16.2% 16.4% 20.9%SPEECH: LANGSPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%VISUALLY HC 0.7% 0.7% 0.5%VISION PLUS OTHER

Findings from ISSIS• There are 169 school “districts”

• The proportion of students assigned the label “mental retardation” varies greatly across districts– This shows that the label cannot possibly be

reliable– In turn, it thus becomes possible for non-

objective influences to affect the labeling process (chance, ethnicity, gender, parent preferences, district ‘style’ and leadership)

View Data in Excel Spreadsheet

File Name = CERPT99m.xls

Variations in Labeling

• These variations cannot be explained by “social class” or ERG (Educational Reference Group) – [View Excel %MR by ERG]

• Labels do in fact vary strongly according to ethnicity and gender

Once Students Enter Special Education, Which Labels Do They Receive?

Percentage of Each Group Entering Special Ed Who Are Assigned the Mental Retardation Label

8.4%

2.5%

6.7%

13.9%

4.9%

11.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Blackmale

Whitemale

Hispanicmale

Blackfemale

Whitefemale

Hispanicfemale

What Can Possibly Explain This Pattern of Selective Labeling?

• There is no clear explanation for this pattern of selective labeling and wide variations

• We can conclude that it cannot be explained by poverty or social class– By district, %MR is correlated with %Minority,

even when “controlling for” ERG via partial correlation r=.47, then controlled r=.44;

– Data organized by district/ERG show the same conclusion

Labels Influence Placement(Regular Class Experiences)

• The facts show that placement is strongly influenced by label (right or wrong, this is simply a fact shown by the data)– Percent of students in “regular class,” now defined as

80% or more time spent with nondisabled peers, is a consistent measure

– (We could also use % time directly, or hours per week, but for consistency, we stick to one measure in this presentation)

Percent of Students in “Regular Class” by Disability Group, 1998-99

9.117.1

21.2

31.5 32.0 33.3

41.849.6

56.560.8

64.370.3

75.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

More Than Just Disability Group Influences Placement

• There are also direct effects of ethnicity and gender

• The percentage of students experiencing segregated settings – (by the Federal definition of less than 40% of

time is spent with nondisabled peers)

• varies by ethnicity and gender, within the mental retardation group

Variations in Classroom Segregation (Students with the Mental Retardation Label)

71.1%

61.9%

77.9%

68.3%

60.4%

75.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

Black male

White male

Hispanic male

Black female

White female

Hispanic female

Summary To This Point

• Hence regular classroom experience is strongly affected by ethnicity and gender, and also by which district the student happens to live in

• Students with mental retardation are far less likely to experience regular classrooms than students with other disabilities

• Hence the ethnic/gender bias in mental retardation labeling, plus the tendency to exclude students with mental retardation, constitutes “double jeopardy” for minorities and females

Regular Class Experiences for Students with Mental Retardation• Segregation of students with mental retardation

varies tremendously across school districts– [See Excel MR Place x LEA]

• Even within Education Reference Groups (ERGs), the variations are huge, and therefore ERG cannot “explain” practices of exclusion– [See Excel MR Place x LEA x ERG]

Bias Unchanged Over Time

• The pattern of ethnic and gender bias in labeling has not changed much since 1986-87

• The regular classroom experiences of students with mental retardation has not changed much since 15 years ago

– But the regular classroom experiences of other students with disabilities have changed radically for the better

– Students with mental retardation have simply been “left behind”

Ethnic and Gender Bias in MR Labeling is Stable Over Time

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

CaucasianMale

African-American

Male

HispanicMale

CaucasianFemale

African-AmericanFemale

HispanicFemale

1986-87 1995-96 1998-99

Have Students with Mental Retardation Become “More Severe”?• The claim by state’s experts is that there have

been increases in severity since mid-1970s

• This is trivial; many students with mental retardation, particularly severe, were not in the public education system at all in the mid-1970s

• From 1987 to 1996, the claim is patently untrue

Changes in Severity of Mental Retardation Over Time

Changes in Severity Of MR Over 10 Years:Connecticut's ISSIS Data

1986-87 N=4173, 1995-96 N=3837

65.1%

26.7%

8.2%

78.0%

19.1%

2.9%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

MR "Educable" MR "Trainable" MR "Sev/Prof"

% W

ith

Eac

h L

abel

86-87 95-96

How Has Regular Class Participation Changed in CT Over 15 Years?

• For students with disabilities in general, considerable progress has been made

• (As estimated from “Regular Classroom” in 1987-87, and 80% or more time with nondisabled in 1999)

• But for students with the Mental Retardation Label, …..

Percent of Students in Regular Class: MR and Other, “Then and Now”

8.4 9.18.8

55.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1987 1999

MR Other

Progress Toward Regular Classes in Special Ed Has Been Made

• Overall in CT

• For students with most disabilities

• But students with the Mental Retardation label have been “left behind”