ED 231,910

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

.EDRS PRICE

IDENTIFIERS

4DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 022 857

Caught in the Web: Misplaced Children in"Chicago'sClasses for the MentallY Retarded.Designs for Change, Chicago,,I11.Wieboldt Foundation of Greater Chicago, Ill.Dec 82121p.; Also funded. in part by the Woods Char,itableFund, Inc., Chicago.Designs for Change, 220 South State Street, Suite1616, Chicago, IL 60604 ($4.00).Reports General (140)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Black Students; *Educationally Disadvantaged;Educational Malpractice; Educational Responsibility;Elementary Secondar'y Education; *Grouping,(Instructional Purposes); Hispanic Americans;*Labeling (of Persons); *Mild Mental Retardation;PubliC-SChools; School Role; *Student Evaluation;*Student Placement*Chicago Public Schools IL

ABSTRACTThis report examines the problem of misclassification

of children into classes for the educable mentally handicapped (EMH)in the Chicago (Illinois) Public Schools. The report claims that7,000 out of 12,000 students assigned to EMH classes do not belong

'there and could be moved back to regular classes with extra help;most of these misclassified students are black. The nature and scopeof Chicago's misclassification problem are described and contrastedwith the problem in other Large cities. The history of efforts to endmisclassification is provided. Major jngredients of an effectivesolution to the problem, based on experts' opinions, are alsoconsidered as are deficiencies in Chicago's reclassification project.Finaily, a series of specific recommendations are offered as toessential changes needed to correct the project, and suggestions aregiven as to what parents, educators, and members of the public can doto help make these changes happen. Appended to the report are tables,school data about EMH misclassification, and other data relating toreform efforts of Chicago's EMH program. (AOS)

********************************************************* V ***.*********Reproductisins supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the Original document.***********************************************************************

for

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUdE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

)4444 14 A*p ctin r-

' TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATiONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EOUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERIC)

docurnont has boon reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationorigmating 41Minor thong:is nano been modo to irnproyo

reproducton quality

Points of taW,/ or oputecon stated fr) ft,* docu

mom do not neccosonly reprecont officul NIEposition or policy

4111kAllhk-- ....11L.

Misplaced children inChicago's classes for the

mentallyretardeda

2

Designs for Chcetnber t

©1982, Designs for.Chaoge220 South State Street, Suite 1616Chicago, Illinois 60604

312/922-0317

This report was funded in part by the Wieboldt

Foundation and the Woods Charitable Fund, Inc.,

both of Chicago.

A limited number of single coges of this report

will be made available at no cost to individuals

and groups who are working actively on the EMH

issue in Chicago. For others who are interested

in obtaining this report, copies are available

from Designs for Change for $4.00 prepaid

(includes posta,ge).

For additional information_on the'misclassification

project, contact Sheila Radford-Hill, project

coordinator, at Designs for Change.

Aro, 601

3

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES vii

SUMMARY ix

ABOUT DESIGNS FOR CHANGE xiii -

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION: A BLATANT INJUSTICETHAT CAN BE REMEDIED 1

Highlights

The Size of Chicago's Problem

Misconceptions about Children Labelled"Educable Mentally Hahdicapped"- 3

Deficiencies of EMH Programs 7

A Consensus Among Experts about NeededSafeguards 8

Misclassification Is Illegal 8

The Organization of This Report 8

SECTION 2. THE EXTENT OF THE MISCLASSIFICATION PROBLEMIN CHICAGO 11

Highlights 11

Chicago Compared with Other Large UrbanSchool Systems 12

System-Vide Information about Chicago:A Closer Look 14

Differences Between Chicago's Elementaryand High School Programs for the EducableMentally Handicapped 19

Differences in EMH Classification AmongAdministrative Districts 19

School-to-School Differences in 'EMUClassification 23

Major Conclusions about the EMH ProblemBased on the Data 24

SECTION 3. THE HISTORY OF CHICAGO'S MISCLASSIFICATION PROBLEM 25

Highlights

Parents Challenge Misclassification in a Lawsuit

A New School Board Moves to Compromise on Race

Discrimination Issues

Pressing the School System to Keep ItsComtitments for Reforms in the EMH Program

A Questionable Program abOut Which Little

Can Be Discovered

SECTION 4. STANDARDS FOR AN ADEQUATESOLUTION TO T4 EMH PROBLEM

Highlights

Areas of Educational Practice WhereMisclassification I. Created

25

26

26

27

28

29

29

30

Changes Needed to Eliminate Misclatsification 33

Applying the Standards to Chicago 38

SECT/ON, CHICAGO'S RECLASSIFICATION PROJECT:-NSHORTCOMINGS AND UNKNOWNS

Highlights

The Testing Procedures Being EmployedAre Inadequate

39

39

40

The Promised Transition Programs AreWoefully Inadequate 44

Informed Parenttl rnvolvement Is Not BeingEffectively Encouraged 46

The EMH Program Itself I. Not Being Reformed 47

Reforms in Referral Practices Needed for theLonger Term Are Not Being Initiated 47

Leadership from Top Administrators I. Lacking 47

Needed Changes 48

iv

SECTION 6. RECOMNENDATONS FOR ACTION 49

Highlights/ 49

Short-Term and Long-Term Action Is Needed

Action Is Needed by the Chicago PublicSchools and the State of Illinois

Action Is Needed by Parents, Citizens, andProfessional Organizations

50

50

50

What Designs for Change Is Going to Do 51

A. Recommendations to the Chicago Boardof Education

B. Recommendations to the State Governmentand the Illinois State Board of Education

C. Recommendations to ConcernedParent and Citizen Groups

51

53

54

D. Retommendations to Parents 55

E. Recommendations to the American PsychologicalAssociation and the National Aaivciation ofSchool Psychologists 56

APPENDIX A. Supplementary Tables 57

APPENDIX B. Interpreting School-by-School Data,about EMH Misclassification 65

APPENDIX C. Chronology of Major Events Related tothe Reform of Chicago's EMH Progr!un 79

APPENDIX D. Excerpts from the November 1, 1982,Letter from the Chicago Public Schools 83

NOTES 91

V6

TABLF

List of Tables

TITLE PAGE

Table 1 . Total Numbers of Students in PTogramsfor the Educable Mentally Handicappedin the Nation's Six Largest UrbanSchool Districts (1980-81 School Year) 4

table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Thble 6

Numbers of Black Students in Programsfor the Educable Mentally Handicapped(efm) in the Nation's Six Largest UrbanSchool Districts (1980-81 School Year) 5

Percent of Students from Various EthnicGroups in Programs for the EducableMentally Handicapped (EMH). Six LargestCities in the United States. (1980-81School Year) 6

Percent Change in Enrollment in Chicago'sFYN Classes Compared with Percent Changein Total School System Enrollment (1970through 1981) 13

Rates af Parricipation in VariousSpecial Education Programs in Chicagoby Ethnic Group (1980-81 School Year) 15

t'our Chicago Special Education Programs inWhich Black Students Were Over- or Under-Represented--Degree of Separation fromthe Regular School Program (1979-80School Year) 18

Table 7 Percent of Chicago's Black and WhiteStudents in Elementary and High SchoolENV Classes (1'180-81 School Year) 20

Table.8 Map of Chicago Public Schools TwentyAdministrative District4 21

Table 9 Percentages of Chicago's Black and WhiteStudents in Elementary and High SchoolEMIl Classes for the School System'sTwenty Administrative Districts (1980-81 School Year) 22

vii

TABLE TITLE PAGE

Table 10 Ten Crucial Areas in Which ChangesAre Needed to Eliminate Misclassifi-

cation 31

Table A-1

Table A-2

Table A-3

Percent and Number of Children fromVarious Ethnic Croups in Classes for

the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH).

Six Largest Cities in the United States

1980-81 School Year. 58

Enrollment in Chicago's EKH ClassesCompared with Total School Systemrnrollment (1970 through 1981) 59

Rates of Participation in VariousSpecial Education Programs by EthnicCroup in Chicago (1979-80 and 1980-81

School Year) 60

Table A-4 Extent to Which Students in VariousSpecial Education Programs Were Separ-ated from the Regular School Program

(1979-80 School Year) 61

Table A-5 4`ercentages and Numbers of Chicago's

Black and White Students in Elementary

and High School EMI! Classes for the

School System's Twenty Administrative

44NA Districts (1980-81 School Year) 62

Table 8-1 Elementary Schools (K-8) with More than

50 Black Students and More than 1.25%

of these Students in,fni Classes

(1980-81 School Year) 69

Table 8-2 High Schools (9-12) with More than 50

Black Students and More than 1.25% of

these Students in EMH Classes (1980-81

School Year) 75

Table 8-3 Elementary Schools (K-8) with Yore than

50 White Students and More than 1.25%

Of these Students in EMH Classes (1980-

81 School Year) 76

Table 8-4 High Schools (9-12) with More than 50

White Students and More than 1.25% of

these Students in EMH Classes (1980-81

School Year) 78

viii

SummaryMisclassification: A BlatantInitistice That Can Be Remedied

Chicago has been the largest mis-classifier of students assigned toclasses for the mentally retarded inthe United States. For each schoolyear during the past decade, theChicago Public Schools has assignedmore than 12,000 students to classesfor the "mildly mentally retarded"

. (called classes for the "EducableMentally Handicapped" or "EMHclasses").

Chicago has almost twice as manystudents in these classes as anyother school system in the UnitedStates. AtccoximalgIY_/DDD of_thestudents in these classes do not,belonk in them and could_. with someextra help. move back into the rex-ular schpol program; these children'are misclassilied.

More than 10,000 of the students inChicago's EMB classes are black.Chicago's black students areassigned to EMI' classes at twice therate for white students. Chicagohas more than three times as manyblack students in these classes asany other _school, svstem_in_the Uni-ted States. Chicago's EMB,classesrepresent a particularly blatantform of racial discrimination, sinceexperts on mental retardation agreethat minority children are espe-cially likely to be misclassifieddue to biases in student evaluationand placement.

However, it is not only black stu-dents who are misclassified inChicago. Chicago has an excessivenumber of white students in theseclasses also, the largest number ofany school system 40 the UnitedStates.

ix

Data about the EMI' program in Chi-cago do not indicate that an excep-tionally high number of mildly re-tarded Children reside in Chicago;but rather, the hugt_number of stu-dents in Chicago's EMH classes re-stilts from a we_b ol misxuided poli-cies and practices. These dataindicate, for instance, that:

The enrollment in EMB classes hasstayed fairly steady for the pastdecade, actually rising a little,while enrollment in the system,hasdeclined 207..

EMH enrollment increases dramati-cally from elementary school tohigh school, especially for blackstudents.

Enrollment in EMB classes vareswidely among the school'system'stwenty administrative districts,with no evident rationale behindthese variations.

(In the course of analyzing thesedata, Designs.for Change identifiedseveral other inequities in Chi-cago's special education programthat deserve investigation, includ-ing the limited availability ofspecial education programs for His-panic children.)

Parent end CitizeA_LroupaHove Fought Misclassification

To eliminate misclassification,Designs for Change, as well as otherconcerned parent groups, communitygroups, and legal organizations inChicago,--hitire committed themselve'sto a long-term effort.

Initially, the school ssyst4 foughtfor almost seven years against mak-

ing any.changes in the way theyevaluated and placed children in EMHclasses. However, in 1981, theyagreed, as part of their efforts toresolve two lawsuits, to make somechanges. They acknowledged thatthousands ol children were probablymisclassified. They agreed tochange their methods for assessingstudents for EMH classes and toreevaluate the more than 12,000students currently in these classesto see if they belonged there. ThisWas potentially good news for manychildren and their parents.However...

Chicazo's Relgonse toMisclassification: A_Cralh ProgramThat Can Harm Many Children

There is a strong consensus amongexperts on the EMH problem about thesafeguards needed to protect chil-dren from the dangers of misclassi-fication. EXPerts conclude that EMUPlacement should be made only as alast resort_ after a number of otherapproaches have been tried to

several safeguards in testing havebeen carried out.

And experts agree that there is noevidence of the long-term benefit ofbeing in an EMH.class or that eventhose children who meet the properqualifications for assjgnment to EMEclasses can be considered as perma-nently "retarded"; thus. EMH prQ-KLOms themselves must be chanAgA

radically.

These are among the major conclu-sions reached by a national commis-,sion that recebtly studied EMIl mis-'classification in great depth andidentified a series of specific e

steps that school systems shouldtake to solve the EMH problem.

Further, independent consultantshired by the Chicago Public Schools

to advise school officials aboutwhat they should do to address themisclassification problem maderecommendations that echo those ofthe national commission.

The Chicago Public Schools has( recently initiated a multizmillion

dollar effort to remedy the EMHmisclassification problem. This"reclassification project" is thelargest and.most expensive everundertaken by a public school systemin the United.States.

However, in designing and c.arrvingPut this program. Chicaxo has dis-regarded zenerally accepted pro-cedures recommended by experts onmisclassificationincludint thosepf its own consultamts. Instead, ithas embarked on on expensive vetdefe_clive crash protrom that_has thepotential to bring further harm tothousands of children childrenwho have already suffered the injus-tice of being misclassified andmiseducated.

Here are some of the-Wejor ways inwhich Chicago's reclassificationproject flies in the face of gener-ally accepted standards for dealingwith the misclassification problem:

For reasons that are unclear,Chicago has chosen not, to usegenerally accepted testing proce-dures for identifying misclassifiedstudents; instead, Chicago hasdeveloped its own "ExperimentalBattery" of tests. The tests andtesting procedures being employedby the school system are grosslyinadequatd for the decisions aboutchildren's futures that the schoolsystem is making. Chicago's pro-cedures for developing and usingthese tests violate numerous ethi-cal and technital standards thatpsychologists'are obligated tofollow.

III When children who have been mis-classified stay in EMI classes fora number of years and are thenreturned to the regular schoolprogram, both the misclassifiedstudents and the regular classroomteachers who must now teach themneed expert help from skilled'"resource teachers" in making thistransition successful. However,transitional programs promised forthe thousands of children beingreturned to the regular educationprogram in Chicago either do notexist or fail to meet minimumstandards of adequacy.

Parent involvement in the deci-sion making about children'sretesting and reclassification(which is required by law) is notallowing many parent.6 to have animpact on key decisions affectingtheir children's futures.

No substantial effort is beingmade'.to improve the diversity andquality of special education ser-vices for the children who willremain in the EMB program afterretesting, despite the fact thatChicago's current EMH program isseriously deficient in several keyrespects.

Many experts on misclassificationagree that the misclassificationproblem is constantly regeneratedbecause regular classroom teachersrefer too many children to beevaluated for special educationwhose problems should be dealtwith within the regular classroom.There is no evidence that adequatelonger-term plans are being madeor mechanisms being put in placeto limit the number of inappropri-ate "referrals" for special educa-tion evaluations.

Leadership from top school systemadministrators is essential if themany parts of the school systemthat need to cooperate in address-

xi

ing the misclassification problemare to act coherently. The Gen-eral Superintendent of Schools andother top administrators who shouldhave provided this leadershiphave failed to do so.

BecommenOations for Action

The present sittiation demands bothshort-term and long-term agtion.

In the short term, Des igns forChange and other parent and citizengroups request that the school sys-tem suspend the curren1cation project. redesi_kh it wilJiadvice from outside consu1tant5 andinterested members of the public,and sOrt the_project aoin af,terRutting it on the right tracic. Wealso request that the state of Illf-nois, which has provided a substan-tial portion of the funds for Chi-cago's EMI! programs and which hclear legal responsibilities toenforce state and federal laws pro-hibiting misclassification, launch athorough investigation of Chicago'smisclassification problem.

The key to moving both the ChicagoPublic Schools and the state of.Illinois to make needed changes isvacal. informed. and persisteht.afaion on_111! Part Pf individualpaleat4 parent groups. and citizengroups. Concerned groups and indi-viduals need to press the.schoolsystem and the state to fl.irt,_..toinvestigate the misclassificationproblem in particular schools andneighborhoods, and to aid individualparents whose children are beingreclassified.

Finally, in the short term, the'twomajor professional associations ofschool psychologists, the AmericanPsychological Association and th!,National Association of SchoolPsychologists, should investigateapparent violations of professional

standards in the schdol system'sreclassification project.

Even when satisfactory short-termchanges are achieved, a basic com-prehensive improvement in the mis-classitication problem will requirean effort' that extends over a period

of years. No one should believeIhDt the dvnamies that have created

problem in the United States will beguicklv chanted. Thus, this reportincludes a number of recomMendationstd the school system, ehe state, and .

to concerned parents and citizensfor needed longer-term action.

00.

About Designs for Chin&Designs for Change is a ndn-profitresearch, advocacy, and training_organization that works for basicimprovements iR the dait-to-dayschool pxperience of children, bothin the Chicago Public Schools and Inother Illinois school districts. .

FC also.has a national reputationfor carrying out research about 4

educational groblems.

One of the basic principles of DFC'swork,'repeatedly confirmed' in past-research and experience, is thatinformed long-term parent and citi-zen monitoring of the schodls andvigorous advocacy on behalf of chil-dren can make a crucial'contributionto creating public schools we canall feel proud bf. Thus, DFC's workconsists largely of studying criti-cal public sihool problems to iden-tify their causes and solutions,bringing thse problems and solo-,tions to public attention, and

4 organizing and advising parent andcitizen groups who want to see theseproblems solved.

Both in Chicago and in Illinois,Designs lor Change has made a igu-term commitment to focus on threeissues: improving the quality of"special educationh programs for 4handicapped children; improving thecapacity of the public schools toteach'children to read; and improv-ing tht way that school distrrctsuse their financial resources.

We are concerned about all children,but esPecially about minority chil-aren, low-income children, handi-capped children, and girls, who haveoften faced multiple barriers inobtaining a good education: ,

The DFC staff consists of experi-enced educational researchers,school teachers, school administtori, and community organizers. TheDFC staff is multi-racial, reflect-ing our view that unified action isessential to achieving progress on

'key educational problems.

As part of our long-term effort,toimprove special education programsin Chicago and in,Illinois, we haveidentified the misclassification of' ,

children in classes for the "mildlymentally retarded" as a severeproblem that requires priority

. attention.

DFC's misclassification project iscoordinated by Sheila Radford-Hill.Caught in the Web was written,byDonald Moore, Ed.D.,.and SheilaRadford-Hill. Michele Zimowski andArthur Hyde, Ph.D., had majorresponsibilities for data analysis.Kathy Blair is responsible for thedesign of the report and coordinatedits production. Dan Fogel, JeanNewcomer, Marilyn Lewis, SoniaSilva, Joan Slay, Earl Durham, CarolTaylor, lanet Davis, Alfreda Burke,and Sharon Weitzman assisted inpreparing and producing the report.

3

,

44,

4

0

IntroductionA Blatant Injustice

That Can Be RemediedHighlights

QWhat is meant by the term"misclassification"?

JALChildien are misclassified when theyare placed in the wrong educationalprograms. Mahy children who arewrongly.placed in special educationprograms.can,'with some extra help,learn quite effectively in theregular school program. One of themost damaging forms of misclassifi-cation occurs when children who arenot'retaided are placed in classesfor the'"mildly mentally retarded."These are called classes for the

4'"Educable Mentally Handicapped" or"ERR classes" in Illinois.

A

What-is the size of the EMH misclas-sification problem in Chicago?

Chicago has had more than 12,000children in EMH classes fdr the Iasidecade, almost twice as many chil-dreh as any other school system inthe country.- Approximately 7,000 ofthese children are misclassified.

QHow does misclassification affectminority childred?

1116

Minority children are espetiallylikely to be misclassified becauseof biases in the placement processfor speciai education. In Chicago,

more than 10,000 of the children inEMH classes have been black.Chicago has had more than threetimes as many black students inthese classes as any school systemin'the country.. However, Chicago

-

has also had more white students inthese c-lasses than any other schoolsystem in the country.

laWhat should be done to eliminate'misclassification in EMH programs?

A Experts agree,that a child should beplaced in an EMH class only as alast resort, after a' number of otherapproaches have'been tried to help achild learn and after several safe-guards in testing have been carriedout. In addition, the quality ofEMH programs themselves needs to be ,

radically changed. In the past,Chicago's EMH program has failed tomeet these generally acceptedstandards.

*What ddes the law say aboutmiscl ssification?

A Miscl ssificatiop is illegal.Stron federal and state laws prohi-bit mi classification. These lawsprovid leverage for parents, con-cerne citizens, and educators topreps for an end to the misclassifi-catio$ problem.

14

For each school year during the pattdedade, the Chicago Public Schools.

has assigned more than 12,000,4

students to Classes for the "mildly

mentally retarded."' In Chicago

and throughout Illinois, these.

classes are called "EMH" classes,

which stbnds for "Educable Mentally

Handicapped." Available evidencesuggests that more than 7,000 of thechildren in Chicago's EMH classes APnot 'belong in them and could, with

some extra help, learn quite effec-tively in the regular school pro-gram; these children aremisclassified.2

As a result of long-term pressure

from concerned parent and citizen

groups, the school system agreed two

years ago to do something a ut the

misclassification problem. A er/-

fighting for almost seven yearsagainst making any changes in its

EMH program, the Chicago school

system has itself acknowledged that

several thousand of,the children in

EMH classes probably do not belongthere.' As part of its efforts toresolve two lawsuits, the school

system agreed to change its methods

for assessing students for EMH

classes and to reevaluate the, more

than 12,000 students currently in

these classes to see which students

are misclassified. This is thelargest and most expensive reclassi-

fication project ever undertaken by

any school system in the Unitedstates.' This reclassificationproject is potentially good news for

many chilOren and their parents.

However.

Ai the school system's effort's to

solve the problem have unfolded, it

has become clear that this reclassi-fication project is'a crash prowmwith a_number of basic 4efects.

Chicago's reclassification project

has the potential to bringosfurther

harm to thousands of chilkiren -"-

children who have already suffered

the injustice and the damaging

impact of being misclassified. This.

is particularly unfortunate because

experiences in other urban Achoolsystems that have dealt with-tba-.

problem of misclassification in EMH

programs indicate cle ly,a series

of steps that can be taken toeliminate this injustpermanently.'

Therefore, Designs for Change and

other concerned groups are urging

the school system to suspend the

current reclassificatiqp Project and

to'mtke basic changes that will nutthis expsnsA,e effort on the right'

track.

!,This report describes the scope of

the misclassification problem inChicago and the history of efforts

to deal with it. It describes thebasic ingredients of an effectivesolution to the problem ana theshortcomings of Chicago's presentreclassification effort. And itrecommends specific steps that need

to be taken to bring the Chicago,effort in line with acceptable stan-

dards, so that it can benefitchildren.

This introductory section provides a

,starting point for understanding theinformation and recommendations that

follow; it describes some basis facts

about misclassification and sets

itraight some common misconceptionsabout the children that the school

system calls "mildly retarded."

The Size of Chicago's ProblemIn the most recent year for whichdetailed data are available(1980-81), the Chicago PublicSchools assigned more than 12,500

students to EMH classes.' Thenumber of students in these classes

has changed very little in the last

decade.' Chicago had almost twiceas many students in these classes as

any other Public school system in

44.

the countty in 1980-81. Thisdisturbing fact is reflected vividlyin Table I, which shows the totalfiUmbef-Of children in EMH classesfor the .six largest cities in theUnited States.' The New York CityPublic Schools, twice as large asChicago's, had about 6,500 studentsin these classes.. The Los AngelesPublic Schools, also larger thanChicago's, had only 2,500 studentsin these classes.

Over 10,000 of the 12,500 childrenin Chicago's ENE classesin 1980-81were black." Mack stude4s havebeen assigned to Chicago's PHclasses at a rate that is twice ashigh as the rates for Chicageswhite and Hispanic students." Asshown in Table 2; Chicago had aboutthree times as many blatt studentsIn these classes as any other schoolsystem in the country. Experts onthe EMH issue agree that minoritychildren'are especially likely to beMisclassified when being consideredfor placement in an EMH classbecause of biases in the placementprocess." Thus, EMHClassesinChicago represent a highly damagingform of racial discrimination.

Misconceptions amatChildren Labelled

"Educable Mentally Handicapped"School systems in Illinois divide

x their programs for, serving childrenthey label as mentally retarded intotwo main types: programs for chil-dren they laber as "TrainableMentally pandicapped" or "TMH" andprograms for-children'they label as"Educ-able Mentali.v Handicapped" or

Children who are labelled TMH by theschools usually lit the image thatthe public has of a retarded child.They oftep have some visible physi-cal apnotmalitkv,a2d their intellec-

\

(

3

tual difficulties are frequentlylinked to a specific health problem

_or _i_n_jury23_ They _are_almost_always,identified as having a seriouspcoblem during their early childhood

.

by parents or physicians." Theyalmost always experience some diffi-culty in performing the everydaytasks of life, such as dressingthemselves or moving independentlyaround the neighborhood." Ratherconsstently, only two to threestudents rier thousand (0.2% to 0.3%of all children) end up in TMHclasses in most school systems."\

241311giltLiihellosLALJA11 contrastsharply with students labelled TMHand most do not fit the public'sconception of the mentally retarded.They seldom have any physical abnor-mal4ty." They are almost neveridentified as "mildly retarded" intheir preschool years; this labelalmost always is placed on the childby the schools as a result of diffi-culties within school." Most chil-dren currently labelled EMH have noproblems performing the daily tasksof life outside school, such astraveling independently or makingpurchases in a store." Most deal,competently with the world outsideschool, and they are only consideredmildly-retarded for the six hours adav they spend in school. .

The percentage of children who endup in EMH classes fluctuates errati-cally among school systems and amongblack, white, and Hispanic childrenwithin school systems. 'To illus-trate this point, Table 3 shows thepercentage of black, white, andHispanic students assigned to EMHclasses in the six largest urban ,

school systems in the United Statesin 1980-81." Ai the bar graphsshow, for example, the'percentage ofChicago's black children assigned toEMH classes in Chicaio is four timesthe percentage.of New York City's'black children assigned to EMH -

classes. Such fluctuations are one

1 6

NUMBERS OFSTUDENTS

IN EMHPROGRAMS

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Table'lTotal Number of Students in Programs for

the Educable f1y Handicapped (EMH) in

the NaUon's Six Largest Cities

(1980-81 Schdol Year)

NEW YORK LOS CHICAGO PHILA- DETROIT HOUSTON

ANGELES DELPHIA

(Total (Total (Total (Total (Total (Total

Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't EnroWt

-943,952) -538,038) -458,523) -224,152) 113,077) -194,060)

NOTE: Cities are listed in order of total school system enrollment.

ource: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey

of Elementary and Secondary School Districts. and Schools in

Selected School Districts: School Year 1980-1981. See Tab1a-A-1

in Appendix A for more information.

17

NUMBERS OFBLACK

STUDENTSIN EMH

PROGRAMS

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Table 2Numbers of Black Students in Programs forthe Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMN) in

the Nation's Six Largest Cities(1980-81 School Year)

NEW YORK LOS CHICAGO PHILA- DETROIT HOUSTON .

ANGELES DELPHIA(Total (Total (Total (Total (Total (TotalEnroll't Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't Enroll't.0943,952) ..538,038) -458,523) -224,152) ..213,077) -194,060)

NOTE: Cities are listed in order af total school system enrollment.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 5urvevpf Elementary and ;e_condary School Districts. and Schools inSelected School Districts: School Yeaf 1980-1981. See Table A-Iin Appendix A for more information.

5

Table 3Percent of Students from

Various Ethnic Groups in Programs forthe Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) in

the Nation's Six Largeat Cities(1980-81 School Year)

PERCENT OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS'BLACK STUDENTS IN EMH PROGRAMS

4%

3%

2%

BLACK STUDENTS

110%

NEW YORK LOS CHICAGO PHILA- DETROIT HOUSTONANGELES, DELPHIA

PERCENT OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS'WHITE STUDENTS IN EMH PROGRAMS

2%

1%

'1_ I0%

WHITE STUDENTS

HOUSTONNEW YORK LOS CHICAGO PHILA- DETROITANGELES DELPHIA

PERCENT OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS'HISPANIC STUDENTS IN EMI! PROGRAMS

HISPANIC STUDENTS

NEW,YORK LOS CHICAGO PHILA- DETROIT HOUSTONANGELES DELPipIA

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey.of_Elementary and Secondary School Districts. and Schools iaSelected School Districts: School Year 1980-1981. See Tab 6 A-1

in Appendix A for more information.

6 19

gf stveFal kinds of evidence indi-cating that whether a child ends upin an EMH class freauently haslittle to do with the child's intel-llectual ability, but is often theresult of a web of vague or inapcoro-s.priate Practices for making EMHplacements employed by the schOolAnItip. For example, one carefulstudy of children in EMH classesshowed that many of them had noserious intellectual deficit, buthad ended up in EMH classroomsbecause they created disciplineproblems within the regular program.For these and other reasons, ahigh percentage of children whoend up in EMH classes are misclas-sified; they are caught in a web atmisguided school system practices.

Experts on the EMH issue agree thatsuch misguided practices areparticularly likely to affect'minority children for reasonsdiscussed in detail in Section 4.

Deficiencies ofEMIE programsSpecial education classes and extraservices for children with physicalhandicaps, significani emotionalproblems, learning disabilities, andlimited mental abilities can behelpful for those children whoreally need them and can benefitfrom them. But if children areplaced in special education programswhere they do not belong (that is,misclassified), they can be perma-nently harmed.

Misclassification that places achild in an EMH class is particu-larly harmful becauseOH is frequently a one-way ticketto a separate and inferioreducation.

Almost all experts on the EMH issueagree that (1) a high percentage ofchildren who end.up in EMH classesdo not belong there at all and (2)

7

4

that most of the small percentage ofchildren who might benefit frombeing in,an EMH class do not deservethe label of "mentally retarded" or"mentally handicapped," which moreaccurately applies to children inTMH classes." Children labelledEMH have academic problems inschool, many of which can be over-come if they receive the educationalexperiences needed to develop theiracademic skills." Even those chil-dren for whom the EMH program is thebest available placement at a givenpoint in their school experienceshould be seen as having learningproblems that can be overcome; agood EMH program should allow manyEMH students to spend a substantialportion of their time in the regularclass.room and to help them gain theskills needed to return permanentlyto the regular program later on."

The reality-of EMH programs inChicago and elsewhere undermines thepossibility that EMH can be a legi-timate educational experience forchildren. Because the children inEMH classes are considered "mentallyretarded," most teachers and thechildren themselves come to havevery low expectations for what anEMH indent can do." A strodgstigma is attached to being in anEMH class, which is referred to inChicago as the "dummy room" by manychildren and even some teachers andadministrators.

The EMH program is a separate worldfor the children who end up in it.EMH programs are provided almostentirely in separate classes- or evenseparate schools that cut the childoff completely from the regularscholkprogram. In Chicago, 89% ofEMH dints learn in separateclassrooms or separate specialeducation schools." Once studentsare placed in EMH classes, theyalmost always remain in EMH for therest of their school careers."

Yet there is no evidence that chil-dren in EMH classes benefit academi-

-S-tudics comparing siadjnrstuients in EMI! classes and inregular classes have not shown thatthe EMH students do better academi-cally." Studies have also shownthat children's confidence in them-selves declines in EMI! classes."Frequently, EMH students exposed tolow expectations and a limitedcurri'culum, fall further and furtherbehind." As one student told us,"This class makes you stupid."

A Consensus Among Expertsabaut Safeguardseiguar

Because of the dangers that childrencan easily be misclassified asEducable Mentally Handicapped, thedocumented harms that being in anEMH class can cause, and the lack ofclear evidence that children benefitfrom EMB programs, there is p strong.consensus among experts on the EMHprublem about the safeguards needed/oTi-ot_ect children from the dangersof EMH placement.

Lxperts conclude that EMI! placementshould bp made only as a lastresort. after,a number of other,approac.bes have been tried to help-ing a child learn and after stveral

carried out." And they agree thatbecause there is no evidence of thelong-term benefit of being in an EMHclass or that even those childrenwho meet the EMH qualifications canbe considered "retarded," the EMHprogram itself should be changedradically." EMB programs should_maximize children's contact with theregular school program and constant-ly strive to prepare children toreturn to the regular program."

These were the major conclusionsreached by a commission of theNational Research Council of theNational Academy of Sciences, which

8

revntly looked at the issue of EMHmiscilassification in great depth."Thi-ecommi-s-s-iam identified& seriesof specific steps that schoolsystems should take to solve the EBBproblem."

At about the same time, the ChicagoPublic Schools hired expert consul-tants on the misclassification issueto advise them about how to addressit, and these experts providedChicago with a series of specificrecommendations that echo those madeby the national commission." Thesereports, along with evidence abouthow misclassification has been dealtwith in a number of other cities,indicate some clear standards otconduct for any school district that.libt-Chicago. faces a mitclassificatioh

e1iminate

ME/SctknificatiorlISIEWIgal

Misclassification is not only in-defensible on ethical and educa-tional grounds; it is illegal.Theee are strong federal and statelaws that protect students who arebeing assessed for special educationand that specify the quality ofspecial education programs andservices to which children areentitled." And parents have unpre-cedented legal rights to influencethe assessment and placement oftheir child in an EMB class, if theyexercise them." State and federallaws give s-chool systems a clearlegal obligation to eliminate mis-classification and give concernedparents, parent groups, citizen

groups, and educators strong leverage

in pressing for appropriate changes.

The Organization of This ReportWith this introducto y informationin mind, the reader c b tterunderstand the remaini sections of

this report:

Section 2 describes the nature andscope of Chicago's misclassifica-tion-pTables, -us-i-ng-4ata--ehout----- --Chicago and other large cities.

Section 3 describes the history of.efforts to end the misclassifica-tion problem in Chicago.

Section 4-outlines the majoringredients of an effective solu-tion to the misclassification *

Troblem, based on the consensus ofexperts on this issue.

Section 5 describes the defici-encies and the unknowns ofChicago's present approach tosolving the misclassi cationproblem, when it is judg'è&inlight of generally acceptedstandards.

Section 6 offers a series ofipecific recommendations aboutessential changes needed to getChicago's program on the righttrack and describes what concernedparents, educators, and othermembers of the public can do tohelp make these changes happen.

9

/This report is intended as aresource for both immediate andAy:mitterm a-et-ion. -On the one +end,the deficiencies of the schoolsystem's present reclassificationproject make immediate action vital.On the other, the size of theproblem and depth of the difficul-ties within the school system thathave come to light in their reclas-sification project clearly indicatethat sustained effort over ,a periodof several years will be needid tobring about a comprehensivesolution.

We address this report especially to,concerned parents and citizens, andwe suggest specific steps that theycan take to solve the misclassifica-tion problem. We believe thatinformed parent and citizen actioncan play a decisive role in solvingthis and other serious educationalproblems in Chicago.

22

IiThe Extent of the

Misclassification Problemin Chicago

Highligh"4aWhat data are available about thenature and extent of Chicago's EMHprogram?

A The available data have been report-ed by Chicago school officials them-selves to federal courts and thefederal government. Especiallyuseful is the nation-wide Office forCivil Rights Survey.

A

How did Chicago's EMH program com-pare with the EMH tprOgrams in otherlarge school systems in 1980-81?

Among the nation's six largestcities, Chicago had the most blackand the most white students in EMHclasses and the highest percentagesof. black and white students in theseclasses. ,

What did the 1980-81 data show.aboutthe ethnic composition of Chicago'sspecial education programs?

These data underscore a number ofinequities for Hispanic and blackchildren, not only in EMH but inother special education programs.Compared with white students, His-panic students were consistentlyunder-represented in special educa-tion, only half as likely as whitestudents to get special educationservices at all. Compared withwhite students, black students were

,about equally likely to get specialeducatiO400tyices. However, blackstOksptOgttii learning problems weremore'likely to be placed in separateand stigmatizing classes for theEducable Mentally Handicapped and"Educationally Handicapped," whilewhite students were more likely tobe placed in part-time resourceprograms that allowed them to remainin regular schOol classes.

(aHosidid the percentage of studentsin elementary school EMH classescompare with the percentage in highschool EMH classes?

A The percentage of students in highschool EMH clairies was substantiallygreater than the percentage ofelementary school EMH students, ,

largely because of an increase inthe percentage of black high schonstudents placed in the EMH program,

:.,

Cli

Was the percentage of students in .

EMH classes evenly distributed acrossChicago's twenty administrativedistricts and 600 schools?

No. There were huge variations fromone administrative district to anoth-er and one school to another. Thesevariations suggest that particularadministrative districts and parti-cular schools were especially exces-sive in the numbers of students theyrefer'red for special education eval-uations and placed in EMH classes.

2

Detailed _information about Chenumbers and percentages of black,white, and Hispanic students in theEMH program and in other specialeducation pYograms in---Chioas-o- helps-clarify the nature of Chicago'smisclassification problem and how itcan be solved. Below], we discussinformation about thehtEMI1 problem in

`--,---_,Chicago as compared with other large

urban school syitems. We also lookmore closely at data concerning the

Chicago Public Schools as a whole,individual administrative districtswithin Chicago, and individualChicap schools. ,

Statistical data about Chicago's EMHprogram, as well as ,other specialeducation programs in Chicago, areavailable for the school years1979-80 and 1980-81.. These data.

were collected by Chicago school

officials themselves. 1979-80) data

were presented to the feder,a1 court

in a report by school systedi consul-tants." 1980-81 data were submittedby school officials to the tederalOffice for Civil Rights." Data forthe most recent school year ,

(1981-82) have not been 'made public,but meetings with school officialsindicate that 1981-82 data concern-ing EMH programs do not differsignificantly from the data for theprevious two years."

Whenever possible, data from 1980-81have been used for drawing conclu-sions about Chicago's special educa-tion programs in this section, since

these are the. most,recent dataavailable. fn their major patterns,1980-81 data are very similar to1979-80 data (see Table A-3 inAppendix-A)." (The most critical dataare presented in tables contained in?his section and the previoussection;"supplementary tables appearin Appendices.A and B.)

These data not only illuminate theEMH misclaksification problem, butalso several other serious inequi-

12

ties in Chicago's special educationprograms.

.

---Chicage-Compaith-OtherlAr011itemilicheflglystemasIn Section 1, we documented the fact

that Chicago had over 12,500 stu-dents in classes for the "mildlymentally retardee in1980-81, thatover 10,000 of these students wereblack, and that there were many more_.

students verall and many more black4

stu en i these classes in Chicago::

than any other school system in

the c

Further, the total number of stu-dents in Chicago's EMH classes hasremained remarkably stable over thepast decade, despite a major declinein the stud nt enrollment in theChicago P lic Schools, As Table 4and Tabl A-2 show, the number ofstudents in Chicago's EMH 4asses inthe school years from 19701t6 1981remained close to 13,000 each year,actually rising 5A.58% from 1970 to1981, while the totaik,enrollment ofthe school system dprained 120.00Qstudents (20%) durin-Ohis Sam(',period." Having crested a certainnumber of EMH placements and havinghired the staff to teach them, theschOol system found students to fillthese classes despite a majorenrollment decline.

In understanding the EMH problem,however, it is important-hot only tolook at numbers of students enrolledin EMH, but also to look at thepprcentages of students.overall andthe percentages of black, white, and

Hispanic students who arp assignedto'EMH classes. Analyzing.suchpercentagek helps to make faircompariSonS among urban schoolsystems, ationg Chicago's administra-tive distrTets, and among schools,even when they are of different

sizes.

PERCENTCHANGE

+10%.9%

+8%+7%+6%+5%+4%+3%+2%+1%0%,

SCHOOL YEAR0%-1%-2%-3%

-5%-6%-7%-8%-9%

-10%11%12%

-13%-14%'15%16%17%

-1)8%

-19%20%21%-22%

Table 4Percent Change in Enrollment in,Chicago's

EMH Program Compared with Percent Change inTotal School System Enrollment

(1970 through 1981)

i .% CHANGE INTOTAL EMHENROLLMENT

I,

.

.4010°.

-

.

_. ._. _._ . __ ..... . .", -In Inn nn onn OA t0A-01IV-I1 Il IL IL , , ..-4 .-% .4 .4 .., - _ _

i4

.

..

1

_

i

1'-'

IN

SCHOQL

% CHANGETOTALENROLLMENT

-

Source: See Table A-2 in Appendix A.

13

r

Table 3 (Iff'SectiOn 1) summarizesthe percentages of black, white, and

Hispanic students in the nation'ssix, largest cities who were assignedto EMIrclnsses in the 1980-81 school

year. As. we noted in Section 1, for

example, 0.917. of New York's blackstudents were in EMH classes:as

tcomparedwith 3.837. of Chicago's'black students; thui th'e percentageof blackistudents assigned'to EMH

. classes in Chicago was more thanfour times the percentage of blackstudents assigned to EMH classes inKew York. Table3 indicates, then,Ahat'Chicago Dot.ohlv htd'thelarttst-number.of blabc studentSiaEMH classes. but adsol' the higheApercentage of its "black students inThese classes of any latie urbdhschool system."

',As Table 3 further indicates, thepercentage of Chicago's whitestudentx in EMH classes (1.74%) was

- less than half the rate forChicago'sblack students in 1980-81.

, However, Chicago also had the larg-est number of white _students in

oithese clietses'and the highest. -.

these classes of anv of the six" cities." This is one indication

. that a significant _number of whitestudents are also misclassitied as

EM_In_Chisimo

In five of the six urban schoolsystems listed in Table 3 (includingChicago), the percentage of Hispanicstudents in EMI classes was lessthan 17. in 1980-81. As is discussedlater in thii chapter, the lowpercentage of Hispanic students in

EMH reflects tbe generally low

availability of special educationservices to Chicago's Hispanicstudents." Despite the low percen-tage of Hispanic students in EMHclasses, it may, of course, be truethat individual Hispanic students

are misclassified as EMH and don't

belong there.

1.

System-Wide Informationabout Chicago: A Closer LookEMH is one.of a number of special'

,education programs operated by theChicago Public Schools. AS discuss-

ed in Section 1, appropriate special

education placements and programscan benefit many children. However,special education placement is a-lsoa two-edged sword in terms of the

dangers it raises. On the one hand,

some students who need special -

education services arehurt whenthey do not,get them.

On the other hand, students placedin-special education nrozrams wherethey don't belong suffer from beiagmisclassified." Table 5 indicates --

the percentales of children byethnic group who were enrolled invarious*Apecial educ 10 ograms

in Chicago in'198 1." Tot and

percentages like the ones in T e 5

can seTve as an alarm system toalert educators and the public topossible trouple areas where notenpugh placements may be availablein particular types Of specialeducation programs and to areaswhere too many placements may beavailable, so that misclassificationmay be taking place.

One type of useful pattern to look

for is phe substantial "under-ruresentaTion" or "over-representation" of black or Hispanicstudents, as compared with white

To students." As Table 5 indicetes,for Instance, black studentsvereover-represented in EMH comparedwith white students in 1980-81.When a particular minority group is

substantially ovIer-represented orunder-represented compared withwhites, the school system should beralmktatQ_edigain_iihy_this_iii_thc

inacprperiate _Practices that wilr bt

chancled_or_show that differences in

Q

Table 5Rates of Participation in

Various Special Education Programsin Chicago by Ethnic Group

(1980-81 SchoolYear)

10%

OVERALL %.IN SPECIAL

EDUCATION

9%

7%

6%

5%

4%

z

2%

1%

C)

0

4%

3%

2%

1%

07

c.)

.C

3%

EDUCABLEMENTALLYHANDICAPPED

2%

1%

1%

0%

WO 4.1 fig

r44 a TRAINABLE.0 3 cn

MENTALLYHANDICAPPED

0%

C.) 4.)r1

SPECIFICLEARNINGDISABILITY

00a

2%(-)

1% u-ci

07.

--04--,0Mr-I.0

W

-ri4.

00cn EMOTIONAL

-a-) RANDICAP

(

1%

1%

0%

C.)

r-1.0

SPEECHIMPAIRED

EDUCATIONALHANDICAP

( - ) (+1

1 c1:1)%

0 4-1 0....-o3-

"Ar14 PHYSICAL

,(A,-ri4 3 Z

0% . HANDICAP

(-) (-)

Note: In each case where the rate of participation in a particular program is sub-stantially greater for.black or for Hispanic students, this rate is markedwith a "+". In each case where the rate of participation in a particularprogram is substant,ially less for black or for Hispanic students, this rateis marked with a

Source.: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey of Elementary, and Secondary School Districts, and Schools in Selected School Districts:School Year 1980-81. See Table A-3 in Appendix A for more information.

15

A'

2 7

placement rates aMong groulal serve aJustifiable educational_pumpse."

In Table 5, every category in whichblack or Hispanic students weresubstantially over-represented in aspecial education program in the1980-81 school year is indicated bya plus (+). Every category in whichblack or Hispanic students were_sPbstaAtiany under-represented in aspecial education program is indi-cated by a minus (-).

hispanic Students in Special Educa-tion. With respect to Hispanicstudents, this analysis indicatesthat hispanic &tudents were substan-tially under-represented in _specialeducation overall. Table 5 indi-cates that 10.91% of white studentswere participating in special educa-tion, compared with only 4.73% ofHispanic students." Hispanicstudents were not over-representedin any special education program,but they were substantially under-represented in programs for childrenlabelled Educable Mentally Handicap-ped, Trainable Mentally Handicapped,SOcific Learning Disabipty%Emotional Handicap, Speech Impaired,and Physically Handicapped. Thesedata strongly indicate that Hispanicstudents have an inequitable oppor-tunity to receive needed specialeducation services in Chicazo.

Experts on the classification.process conclude that limited access

to special education for Hispanicstudents results from severalfactors. First, Hispanic studentswith learning problems are oftenplaced in bilingual educationprograms; since no comparable place- '

ment exists for black or for whitestudents with learning problems,black and white students are morelikely to be placed in'specialeducation." However, standardbilingual programs are not designedto deal with handicapped children.

Second,l.here is frequently aninsufficient number of bilingualspecial education teachers, andteachers and psychologists won'trefer andsrecommend Hisfmnic chii-dren with limited English profi-ciency fOr special education plaFe-ments when they know that noqualified teaChers are available.'Bilingual education teachers we haveinterviewed in Chicago indicate thatthey have Hispanic .students ih theirclassrooms whom :bey believe need/special education help, but that,they keep these children in biligual classes because there are o lya handful of bilingual speciaLeducation teachers in Chicago..

Thixd, school administratorsfrequently discourage referralspfHispanic students for special-A-4*a-tion evaluation because they feaxdiscrimination charges that could .

result if Hispanic children withlimited Englieh proficiency, are notproperly tetted."

Although not the major focus of thisreport, data that document substan-tial under-representation of.Hispanic students in special educa-tion programs suggest a discrimina-tion problem that deserves addi-tional scrutiny by educators,and bythe public and that must becorrected.

Black Students in Special Education.As Table 5 indicates, black

,students' overall participation inspecial education programs was some-

, what less than that for whitestudents in1980-81 (9.677. of blackstudents were in special educationprograms, as compared with 10.91% of

white students). However, theseoverall .pereentages mask the factthat black students were substan-tially over-represented in someprograms and under-represented in

othirs. Blacks were significantlyover-represented in classes for the"Educable Mentally Handicapped" andfor the "Educationally Handicapped,"

16

28

or "EH" classes." The latter ivague category in which olaerstudents are placed "whose deficitsin basic academic skill developmentare attributable primarily tdfactors asSociated with environmentalexperiential limitations."' AsTable 5 indicatesthe overwhelmingpercentage of children in the Educa-tionally Handicapped program in1980-81 were black, making it themost racially segregated of anYChicago special education program.

While black students were over-represented in EMH and EH classes,they were substantially under-represented in special educafionprograms for Learning Disabled,Speech,Impaired, and Physical-lyHandicapped students, as comparedwith the whites.

Patterns of black student participa-fion in special education areilluminated by some additional 'data'from 1979-80. For each special

ucation program in which blackstu nts were over,trepresented orund r-represented that deals withlearning problems as opposed tophysical handicaps, Table 6 shows ".

the percentage bf students whoreceived their special help (1)within the regular classroom or in apart-time resource room, (2) in aseparate full-time special educationclassroom, or (3) in a separatespecial education school or otherseparate facility."

Table 6 shows that those programs inwhich black students were over-represented in 1979-80 (EducableMentally Handicapped and Educa-tionally Handicapped) providedspecial education seyvices almostexclusively in separate classroomsand schools. In contrast, thoseprograms in which.black students,were under-represented providedspecial services either in theregular classroom or through part-time resdurce programs that allowed

17

children to spend most of their timein the rlular classroom."

Taken together, the evidence indi-.cates that _Chicago's I4ack studentswith learning problems are morelikely to be placed in separate ,andstigmatizing classes for the Educa=ble Mentally Hand4cappe4 and Educa-tionally Handicapbed. while whitestudents with learning problems aremore likely tb 5e placed in part-time Speech and Learning Disabilityprogram§ plat, allow them to remainin the reiblai- school program.

Svmmary of Some Issues ThatWarraht Further Investigation.Before the data on EMH programs areanalyzed in more detail, it isimportant to review several poten-tial discrimination problems justdisc,ussed that deserve additiOnalinvestigation, although they are notthe major focus of this report:

OrThe general under-representationof Hispanic students in specialeducation programs, ,including sixdifferent categories of intellec-tual, and emotionalhandic p. More special educationprograms and services are neededin schools that serve Hispanicstudents\. More bilingual specialeducation perionnel are needed.

The over-representation of blackstudents in segregated classes forthe Educationally Handicapped.The racial segregation and separa-tion from the regular schoolprogram characterizkwitheseclasses need4s to be 'ChTriged.

II The under-representation of blackstudents in programs for theLearning Disabled, Speech Impair-ed, and Physically"Handicapped.More special education placementsneed to be made available in theseprograms in schodls that serveblack students.

2J

cU0.cC.D 00,-4 1-4 0

CU 0.0. >4

L4-4 1-I

0on 4-4

CJ 1.1 00M > 0 CU

1.4

t(IIJ 6 ti4,-4

4-1

ClEA 0" " 4_400 4403-1 0O. U3 4,-4

00O 0 03O 4,4 1.4

1-1 4-4 4-1 MO 4.J 4-1 O.

M CU

C.3 C.! 01"-M1-1 0

vt3 0 4-10.4 W 0

Table,^ . ,-

Four Special Education Programs in Chicagoin Which.Black Students Were Over- or Under-Represented.Degree of Separation from the Regular SOlool Program.

(1979-80 School Year)

HIGH = separate specialeducatton classroom

VERY HIGH = separate specialschool or .

other facility

LOW = regular classroomor part-timeresource room-

c4 n41-1 1-4 [43

CClr4 tr34-1 WQ c0 $.4

0. 000.r4 CU 0(.0 10 (13

0.CJ 4-4CU 0 )4

4-4 04 CO

o cn af 4-441 0

.0 00 1.4 00C.1 0 00 CUrd 4,4 514,

> vt34-4 (11

W4-1 C.3 0 4-1

W3.1

4-1 10 0I S X 4-1V 0 4J1.1 11.1 0

4.1 riD 0CD 0 4r4

1.1

4-4 0. 00O 0

'r4.44 0 JJ

,-1

oJC.1 M

1-1

W 0OA vt3

EDUCABLE EDUCATIONALLYMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

HANDICAPPEDIt-

PROGRAMS IN WHICH BLACKSTUDENTS ARE OVER-REPRESENTED

LEARNING SPEECHDISABLED 'IMPAIRED

'

PROGRAMS IN WHICH BLACKSTUDENTS:ARE UNDER-REPRESENTED

A

Source: See Table A-4 in Appendix A.

18

3u

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

10%

20%

30%

40

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Re,

Differences BetweenChicago's

ElemnantarynamitLIIIAftbool

PtogrommislowthellIdbacable

eastallylfaumglicappedA further understanding of thenature of the EMH prograM in Chicagocomes from examining system-widedata about the number and percen-tages of black and white studentsclassified as EMH at the elementarylevel-(gracles kindergarten througheight) versus the high school level.(grades nine through twelve), AsTable,7 ,shows, the overall percen-tage of.white and black'etudentsclassified as EMH was 3.07% at theelementary level and 4.00% at thehigh school level in the 1980-81school year." As Table 7 furthershows, this difference betweenelementary school and high schoolEMH placement rates was accountedfor entirely by an increase in thepercentage of black students classi-fied EMH at the high school level.While 1.77% of white elementarystudents and 1.78% of white high'school students were classified asEMH, 3.42% of black elementary

'students and 4.83% of black highschool students were classified as'EMH .(a 41% increase for black.students)."

Ode porsible, but unlikely, explana-tion for this pattern is that anincreasing percentage of black highschool st6dents become mildlyretarded as they move from elemen-tary to high school in Chicago. Analternative and more plausibleexplanation is that the misclas-sifiCation and discrimination thatexists in Chicato's EMH Program isespecially-Prevalent at the highschool level. As wi,11 be discussedin Section 4, the fact that a higherpercentage of older students ore inChicago's EMH classes places parti-cular burdens on the school system,

19

because it is harder for misclassi-fied Older students to move from theEMH program to the regular program,as compared with younger students.

IMINNwermas in =If -

Classification AmongAdministratiie DistrictsThe patterns of student placement inEMH (both overall and by ethnicgroup) are not distributed evenlyover the city. Rather, there aremarked variations among the schoolsystem's twenty administrativedistricts (see Table 9) in thepercentages of students who end upin EMH classes."

Table 9 indicatesthe percentage.ofblack and white students in EMHprograms for each of the twentyadministrative districts in, 1980-81.

, At the elementary level, the percen-tage of black students in EMHclasses varied from 1.59% to 6.56%across the twenty administrativedistricts, more than a four-folddifference," At the high schoollevel, the percentage of black stu-dents in EMH classes varied from0.89% to 7.95% across the districts,almost a nine-fold difference.

Such wide variations stronglysuggest that high rates of blackstudent assignment to Mar in parti-cular districts result feom arbi-trary or discriminatory practiceswithin'thase districts, not fromhuge differences in the rates of .

mild mental retArdation among black. students io various parts of the

city.

For example, as will be discu;sed inSection,3, one explanation that theschool system has used in the pastto,justify the high rate of blackstudent placement in EMH classes isthat there has been a higher inci-dence of poverty among Chicago's

31

PERCENTOF STUDENTS

5%

Table 7Percent of Chicago's

Black and White Students in

Elementary and High Sxhool EMH Classes

.(1980-81 School Year)

BLACK STUDENTSIN EMH CLASSES

WHITE STUDENTSIN EMH CLASSES

BOTH,BLACK ANDWHITE STUDENTSIN

SOurce: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey

pf Elementary and Secondary School Districts. and Schools inSelected School Districts:. School Year 198Q-1981.

203 2

4Zr"

a1LT"

9191191.Nee

ant

,

Table 8Map of Chicago Public SchoolsTwenty Administrative Districts

1

2V

School DistrictsChicago Public Schools

I I 1 iii4

21

33

Table 9Percentages of Chicago's Black and White Students

in Elemeneary and High School EMB Classes for the

School System's Twenty Administrative Districts

(1980-81 ScAbol Year)

% OF ELEMENTARYSTUDENTS INELEMENTARY

DISTR/CT .EME CLASSES

% OF HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS INHIGH SCHOOLEMH CLASSES

% OF ALL BLACK.AND WHITESTUDENTS INCHICAGO'S-EMH CLASSES

DISTRICT RANK'BY % OF LOW-INCOMESTUDENTS IN THEDISTRICT (districtranked first has thehighest poverty rate).

BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE BLACK .WHITE

1 2.77% 0.89% 0.89% 0.83% 2.17% 0.87% 20th

2 1.67% 1.30% 2.17% 1.35% 1.79% 1.32% 18th

3 3013% 1,187. 4.27% 0.73% 3.39% 0.98% 12th

4 3.26% 2.55% 7.13% 2.53% 4.01% 2.54% 19th

5 4.65% 2.90% 7.95% 0.25% 5.42% 2.68% 10th

6 5.34% 3.20% 2.64% 2.90% 4.45% 3.14% 1st

7 4.49% -* 2.83% -* 4.10% -* 4th

8 5.54% 2.45% 5.48% 3.16% 5.42% 2.72% 6th

9 3.25% .0.65% 7.92% 0.58% 4.81% 0.59% 2nd

10 3.74% 4.8.27 5.69% 3.87% 1.17% 5th

11 6.56% 3.65% ' 3.23% 0.98% 5.28% 3.25% 7th

12 3.77% 2.34% 7.48% 1.37% 4.57% 1.91% .15th

13 3.11% 1.80% 7.71% -* 4.05% 3.40% 3rd

14 3.38% 1.857 4.59% 1.01% 3.82% 2.56% 8th

15 2.67% 1.32% 2.27% 1.07% 2.55% 1.22% 16th

16 3.25% -* 5.42% -* 4.04% -* 9th

17 2.37% -* 4.43% -it 2.71% -* 13th

18 3.24% 0.48% 3.51% 2.07% 3.30% 0.94% 17th

19 1.59% 0.68% 4.18% 2.98% 2.88% 1.22% 14th

20 2.58% 1.46% 4.28% 1.55%- 3.18% 2.94% Ilth

* In these instances, the administrative district's total enrollment of. a

particular group of children (for example, white high school students) is

fess than 150, and a percentage rate has not been calculated.

Source: See Table A-5 in Appendix A.

4klo

black students that interfered withthe development of black children'sintellectual skills."

However, as Table 9 indicates, thoseadministrative districts wit% thebigbest percentaze of low-incomestudents enrolled are not9necessar-ilv the districts with the highestpercentaze of black students in EMHclasses. In Table 9, the lastcolumn on tthe administhe percent

table indicates howrative districts rank inge of low-income stu-

dents in each one."

The administrative district with farand away the highest percentage ofblack elementary level students inEMH is District 11, with 6.56% ofits black elementaiy students in EMHclasses; yet District 11 ranks onlyseventh highest in terms of poverty.At the high school level, fivedistricts had more than 7% of theirblack students in EMH; three ofthese districts (Districts 4, 5, and12) rank relatively low in_terms ofpoverty (tenth, fifteenth, andhineteenth out of twenty districtsin the percentage of their studentswho are f-rom low-income families)..

Disregarding those districts wherethe number of white studentsenrolled is too small to make validcomparisons," one also findssubstantial variations from districtto district in the percentage ot'white students assigned to 0411classes,. Elementary level enroll-ment of white, students in EMH in thetwenty districts varies from 0.48%to 4.82%. High school enrollmg'nt ofwhite students in EMH varies from0.257,-to 3:16%.

Parent and citizen groups concernedabout misclasrification in their ownneighborhdod should seek explana-tions from local administratorsabout excessive percentages of blackor white student enrollment in EMHin their administrative district.

23

Sklimg-tcolkdicaniffweroas

iraMielassificationAvailable evidence strongly suggeststhat there are wide variations inthe percentage of students fromindividual schools who are referredfor special education.evaluationsand in the percentage of studentsfrom indivi,dual s?hools who end(utin EMH classes. Studies of EMHplacement practices in variousschool systems across the countryindicate that some school principalsencourage or tolerate the-practiceof referring substantial numbers ofchildren for special educationevaluations, thus making particularschools a major source of misclassi-fied students." It is complicated

is

to investigate 61's issue in Chicagobecause students ho are classifiedas EMH do not nec sarily attendtheir neighborhood school for theEMH program, but.instead are busedto another school. In Appendix B,we describe 4ite kind of data thatthe school'system should makeavailable in order to allow astraight-forward analysis of exces-sive EMH placements generatied byindividual school. Appendix B alsodescribes how school-by-school datathat are currently available can beused to explore this problem.

The widespread busing of studentsaway from their neighborhood schoolto attend EMH classes elsewhere isitself a significant defect inChicago's EMH program." School-by--school data presented in Appendix Bshow high concentrations of EMI!students in special schools for thehandicapped and in regular schoolsthat_consolidater the EMH programs ofseveral neighborhood schools. Suchseparation of EMH students fromtheir neighborhood school is oAlyjustified if it serves a positiveeducational purpose, such as givingstudents access to highly special-ized equipment or personnel."

33

Available evidence indicates thatthe isolation of EMH classes insch6ols to whiCh EMH students arebused is being done primarily foradministrative convenience. (InsoMe instances, EMH ttudents fromone ethni group are being bused toattend a "desegregated" school wherethey have little contact with chil-dren fromather ethnic groups.)Appendix B describes how theseissues can be explored in particularschools and administrative dis-tricts, using available data.

Whenever the rate of student assign-ment to EMH classes exceeds 1.25%for any ethnic group, the burdenshould be on the school systemeither to explain the educationaljustification for this situation orto correct discriminatorypractices."

Midor Conclusions about theEMIL Problem Based on the DataTaken together, the data analyzed inthis section indicate the nature andseverity of the EMH problem inChicago, as it affects children ingeneral and black children in parti-cular. The following major observa-tions help in clarifying the natureof te problem:

MLChicago has substantially more')students overall and more black"students in EMIL-classes than anyOther large urban school system inthe United States.% Chicmo alsohas more white students in theseclasses than any other schoolsystem.

r,11 Chicago has the highest rate ofassigning both black and whitestudents to EMH classes of anylarge urban school' system in theUnited States.

Chitago assigns black ttudents to .

EMH classes at twice the rate forwhite students. Almost 90% of EMHstudents are served in separate"self-contained" classes or inseparate schools.

The percentage of Chicago studentsin EMH classes increases substan-tially from elementary school(grades kindergarten through eight)to high school (grades nine throughtwelve). This pattern resultsentirely from an increase in thepercentage of black high schoolstudents placed in EMH classes.

There are large variations in thepercentage of black studentsassigned to EMH classes amongChicago's twenty administrativedistricts. Differences amongdistricts do not relate clearly tothe income level of a district's

'students (the districts with thehighest percentage of low-incomestudents are not necessarily theones with the highest EMH rates). 1

There are also large variations inthe percentages of white studentsin EMH from district tO district.

There are large veriations in_thepercentage of both black and whitestudents assigned to EMH classesin Chicago's individual schools.These variations result both fromthe fact that some.schools referexcessive numbers of students forspecial education evaluations andthe fact that EMH students 4reoften bused out of their neighbor-hoods-to attend EMH programs.Both excessive referrals andarbitrary shifting of EMH classesfrom one school to another areproblems that warrant furtherinvestigation in individualschools and administrativedistricts.

24

AG

3The History of Chicago'sMisclassification Problem

po

CI,Who initially raised the EMH mis-classification issue and pressed forreform?

AIn 1974, a parent organi2ation,composed of black and Rispanic par-ent.s and called PareRts in Action inSpecial Education (or PASE), filed a

. lawsuit against the Chicago PublicSchools charging discrimination inChicago's EMH program. ,When thelawsuit-came to trial five yearslater, the court decided against theparents, but they appealed. Whilethis appeal was being pursued, theschool system and PASE agreed to asettlement.

474

How did the EMH misclassificationissue become tied to the Chicagoschool desegregation lawsuit?

As part of its agreement with thefederal government to settle theschool desegregation lawsuit againstChicago, the Chicago school systemmade a commitment to adoptnon-diecriminatory procedures forplacing children in EMH classes.The PASE lawsuit was settled becauseof the school system's willingnessto make this commitment.

41/

What role has Designs for Changeplayed in pressing the school systemto carry out its commitment toreform the EMH prograih?

A Designs for Change asked the judgein the desegregation lawsuit to

require the schdial=system to makevery specific plans to refbrm theEMH program and to carry out thoseplans. In response to DFC's re-quest, the school system indicatedthat it would change the testing

, procedures used to place children inEMH classes, retest'all childrencurrently enrolled in EMH, and :

provide transitibnal help to thosechildren who were misclassified andshould'be returned to regular Class-.rooms. Since then, DFC has Soughtto monitor the adequacy of theschool system's activities in meet-ing this commitment.

Whet has the school system done to

4/ carry out it's commitment?

A During the 1981-82 school year, theschool system developed and pilot-tested a method for reevaluating allchildren currently in EMH classes.During the 1982-83 school year, theschool system is retesting the morethen 12,000 childremin EMH'andreturning children that they judgewere previously misclassified to theregular school program. This multi-million dollar project is thelargest of its kind ever undertakenby a single school system. DFC hasrepeatedly sought detailed informa-tion about how this reclassificationproject is being carried out. Theinformation that DFC has obtainedindicates that this is a crash pro-gram with serious deficiencies thathas the potential to bring furtherharm to thousands of children.

25

3 ?'

Chicago's EMH enrollment climbedfrom about 6,000 in-1960 to 12,000

by 1970 and fias hovered around13,000 to the prefient time."

In the early 1970s, black and His-

panic parents and.their advocatesbecame concerned because a dispro-portionate percentage of minoritystudents were being assigned toChicago's EMH classes. A chronologygf some important events that havegccurred since that time is present-ed in_ Appendix Q. Below, we brieflysummariee the history of various

.efforts to deal with Chicago's EMHproblem and the school system'sresponse to these efforts.

Parents ChallengeMisclassification in ilLalvsuitIn 1974, a pare organization com-posed of black and ispanic parents

(Parents in Actio on Special Edu-cation, or PASE) formed o fightdiscrimination in Chicago's EMHprogram. Assisted by attorneys fromthe Legal Assistance Foundation of

Chicago, they filed a lawsuitagainst the Chicago schOol system(EASE 11.. Hanpon). '

The lawsuit charged that the school

system placed heavy reliance on the

results of IQ tests for placingchildren in EMH classes, even thoughno scientific evidehce existed show-ing that scores on theie testspredicted which children would bene-

fit from EMI programs, especially

for minority children. The suitalso charged that the school system

failed to seek information andparticipation from parents when EMH

placement decisions were =Ale and

failed to test children adequatelyto insure thatAthey did not haveother handica0 that might accountfor their learning difficulties.

It took more than five years until

this case came to trial before fed-

26

.eral Judge John Grady in January

1980. By that time, there was nocity-wide disproportion for Hispanic

students in EMH classes, so the PASE

attorneys recommended that the law-

suie focu on discriminatiom.againstblack stucents. While the parentsan4rtheir attorneys presented evi-

dence they stablished discrim-40ation, the school system argued ,

that the high percentage of blackstudents in EMil classes could be

traced to the higher incidence of

poverty among Chicago's black stu-

dents, w ich "interfer d with thedevelopm t of intelle tualskills."'

Six months rater, Judge Grady de-

cided the case in favor of theschool system. In a legal decision

that has been harshly criticized by

leading psychologists," Judge Gradyreviewed each question in the IQtests being used in Chicago anddecided that only a few of the ques-tions seemed biased to him. This

decision was appealed, but while theappeal process was progressing, amajor change took place in the Chi-

cago school system that eventuallyled to an agreement between the

parents and the school system in the

PASS case and a formal commitment by,,

the school system to correct the EMH'

misclassification problem.

A New School Board Movesto Compromise onRace Discrimination IssuesLargely as a result of the school

system's financial crisis, a newschool board took office in May

1980. The new board was more opento negotiating about race discrim-ination issues which the schoolsystem had previously contested

withoutacompromise. To head off alegal confrontation with the federal

Department of Justice about schooldesegregation, the new school board '

entered into a legal agreemeritwith-the federal government (consentdecree) that promised major steps.toend "racial isolation" in_Chicago'sschools.

General commitments made in theconsent decree to insure non:discrimination in all aspects ofstudent qesessment and placement inChicago gad implications for'the EMHprogram, which was clearly suspectin its 'assessment and placementpractices. A key requirement of theconsent decree in the desegregationcase ()nited States v. CbicatoSchool Board) was that the schoolsystem would develop and carry outplans for,student reaslignment topromote integration and for improv-ing the quality of educati,onal pro-grams for minority students, parti-cularly those who would remain inall-minority schools."

The school system and its attorneysviewed the EMH problem as one theyshould address as part of the deseg-regation efjort, and they includedprovisions In their official deseg-

1regation plan that were designed toaddress the EMH is ue and to end thefASE lawsuit. Aft negotiatingwith the PASE attorneys, the schoolsystem agreed that lis part of itsschool desegregation effort theywould stop using IQ 'tests in the EMHassessment process and would replacethem with non-discriminatory testingprocedures."

Pressing the School Systemto Keep Its Commitments forReforms in the EMH ProjamAt this point, Designs for-Cginge,which has a long-term commitment toimproving the quality of specialeducation in Chicago, decided topress the school system to make itsplans concerning the EMN issue morespecific and to carry out in prac-

'

27

-tiee- what- it hadpromtst4- on paiier

When the judge in the school deseg-regation suit asked for public com-ments on he adequacy of the schoolsystem's plans for carrying out thedesegregation codsent decree,Designs for Change focitsed on theEMH issue. DFC urged the judge torequire that the school system:

O`Provide a specific timetable forreassessing the more,than 12,000EMH students to see whether theybelonged in EMH classes.

Allocate sufficient st ff to thisprocess to insure that it could becarried out competentl (DFC esti-mated that nearly 26,0 0,days ofprofessional activity was needed).

Provide transitional help toformer EMH students moved backinto the regular school program.

Establish a record-keeping systemto document progress in earryingout the reassessment.project."

The school system responded in doc-uments submitted to the court byoutlining tentative plans to addressthese issues. in what were charac-terized as staff plans that did notyet.halre the final approval of theschool board, the school systemdescribed the major features of amassive student reassessment pro-ject, the largest ever undertaken bysingle_school system in the United

States.

The school system's staff envisionedchanging their procedures for EMHassessment, reassessing all presentEMH studlints by the end of the1982-83 school year, and providingextensive transitional help forstudents returned to the regularschool program."

In reaction to these plans, DFCpursued two basic lines of action.

.

Pirst, DFC urged the judge in thedesegrOfation case to require theschool system to carry out its

plans, which were promisilpg but9till'preliminary, and to carefullymonitor the school system's subse-

quent actiOns." Second, DFC began

seeking information about what the

school system was actually doing and

planning to do to put its plans into

practice.

A Quettionable Program aboutWhiclIMMORCariBelniiccprerldIn the period from September 1981 to

November 1982, the school system

planned and began to carry out a

massive "rec1assificationoroie4."The school, system has taken tho

following steps during this period:

Septeml;er 1981 to January 1982. The

school system selected and developed

new.testing procedures for assessing

and reassessing children for EMH

programs, and called the resulting

,testing process the "Experimental

Battery.""

rebruarv 1982. The school.systembegan to use the Experimental Bat-

tery to test a portion of the chil-

dren being referred for special

education evaluations for the first

time."

April 1982 to June 1982. The school

system retested 500 students inadministrative Districts 2 and 19

who were then in EMH programs, using

the Experimental Battery. The re-

suits were used to give 30% of1the

stgdents tested new placements out-

sitiothe EKE program."

October 1982. The school systembegan to retest all children cur-

rently in EME,'using the Experimen-

tal Battery, Children judged to be

misclassified are being given new

placements. This process is to be

completed by June 1983."

28

e As detailed in Appendix C, DFC has

made repeated efforts tb obtain

information about the specifics of

what the school system is doing in

this reclassification project. `Two

major responses to these inquiries

came (1) in a meeting with Dr. Ora

McConner, Associate SupeLintendent

for Pupil Persginnel ServIltes and -

Special Education Program Develop-

ment, and top members of her staff ain July 1982 (called the July meet-

ing in this report) and (2) in a

letter from Dr. Ben Williams, Asso-

ciate Superintendent for Equal Edu-

cational Oppoetunity, dated November

1, 1982 (called the November letter

in this report).

The school system has provided some

pertinent information in these

exchanges, but it has also refusedto_orovide other 'information thatDFC has repeated4y requested and has

provided .incompl;te or contradictoryinformation on a number of_Rainti.

Based on whItt Designs for Change has

learned about the reclassificationproject, this project has.0 number

substantial narkto thousands'ofchildrenl,these children will either

remain misclessitied in EM11 or will

be returnel to the'regular schoolProgratTwith'inadequate help inmaXin& the transition.

In Section 4: we describe the neededingredients for an adequate change

in Chicago's EMH program, based on

generally accepted professionalstanddrds. In Section 5, we eval-

uate Chicago's reclassificationproject in light of these standards

and describe some of the short-

comings of the reclassificationproject that m4e us deeply con-cerned about what is happening to

the children involved.

4 0

,

4Standards for an Adequate

Solution to the EMH ProblemHighlights

Q Whit are the steps through which achild ends up in an EMH class?

A Children who are eventually placed'in EMH classes usually exhibit someproblems in learning or behaving inthe regularHclassroom and are"referred" by their regular teacherto be evaluated to see if they havea handicap. They are then tested,and a psychologist "and other schoolsystem staff judge whether the childbelongt in a special education ,

program.and, if so, what kind ofspecial program he/she shouldreceive. The child's parents have aeight to participate in thisdecision-making process. One pos-sible result is that the child endsup in an EMH claisroom.

HoW many children normally get outof the EMH program once they becomepart of it?

A Oncetthey are placed in the EMHprogram, most children remain in ,

separate EMH classes for the rest oftheir school 'career. The progressof EMH students is supposed to be'reviewed annually, to see if theyCan move back to the regular pro=gram, but this review seldom moVesthe child out of EMH.

What dianges need to be made to keepchildren4rom being misclassified inEMH in the first place?

JILRegular classroom teachers need tobe required to deal with morellearn-ing and behavior problems wANin the

i regular classroom and be given'expert help in doing so. Childrenshould beplaced in EMH classes onlyas a lait resort, after a set ofstringent safeguatds have been met.-In school systems where^these safe-guards.are in place, less than 1.25%of children from any ethnic.groupend upin EMH classes.

laWhat thould be done for children nowin EMH classes to see if they belongthere?

A All children in EMH should be testedusing the strict criteria descrjbedin this section. Children who arereturned to the regular school pro-gram as a result of this retestingshould be given special transitionalhelp and so should their teachers.

,

I;What should be done for children whoremain in EMH?

,

A Eveh children who meet the new stand-ards for EMH at a certain point in

. -their school career quite frequentlycan return full-time to the regular

.

program later on if they are giventhe right help. One key change thatneeds to be made in EMH programs is .

that many EHH children should spenda substantial amount of their schoolday.in a regular classroom.

29

41

As hoted in Section 1, EMH misclas-sification has been recognized forthe'past decade as a serious educa-tion pioblem in the United States,and much concrete research has'been

iry

co ducted about the nature of thepr blem and about practical ways toso e it. A strong consensus isemergjng about what needs to be doneto eliminate EMH misclassificationand to upgrade EMH instructionalprograms.

,..,

.

This consensus is.reflected inthe recent recommendations ofa national commission that studiedthe problem, the repott of the con-sultants that the Chicago PublicSchools hited,to advise them aboutthe problei, the experiences of

.other cities who have attempted tosolve the problem, the standardsestablishtd by professional organ-

\ izations of psychologists, and therequirements_of federal and statelaw.**

Based on consistent recommendationsand requirements coming from thesesources, the steps that Chicagoshould be taking to solve the EMHproblem are clear.

Areas of Educ ationalPractice WhereMisclassification Is CreatedThere is no single factor thatcauses the EMH misc assificationproblem, but there are a limited,number of key Policies and Practicesthat together create misclassifica-tion and severely limit the educa-tional opportunities open to stu-dents onctthey are placed in EMHclasses. Table 10 indicates ten keyareas in which these problems arise.

In the middle of the diagram are thesix of these ten areas of activitythat most directly touch childreh:.

30

Referral. Most children who endup in EMH classes art "referred"for a special education evaluationby their regular classroomteacher.** Teachers usually referchildren because they see them ashaving learning or behavior prob-lems that can't be dealt with inthe regular classroom."

Child Evaluation. If a child isreferred and preliminary testingand-observation suggest the childhas a problem, the child is typi-cally evaluated by a psychologist,who gives the child sexeral tests.Usually, other information isgathered about the child (forexample, a social worker inter-views the chires parents).

Child Placement. Using the in-formation gathered in the evalua-tion, a team of educators makes adecision about the child's place-ment, with parents having a rightto participate.- The team canreturn the child to the regularprogram, deciding that he she isnot handicapped, or they can putthe child in a part-time or full-time special education program.By law, the team must also writean "Individualized.WcationalPlan" to guide the childts specialeducation program.**

EMH Program Instruction. If a childis placed in an EMH program, it hasfrequently resulted in the childbeing taught in a separate EMH class-room for almost all of his/herschool day. More recently, someschool systems have establishedEMH programs that allow many chil-dren to spend some or most of theirtime in the regular.classroom.''-*

Child Reevaluation. By law, achild's placement, in EMH must bereviewed annually, to see if the

42

Table 10Ten.Crucial Areas in Which

Changes Are Needed to/Eliminate Misclassification

SCHOOL DiNICTLEADERSHIP

EMH PROGRAMINSTRUCTION

CHILD REEVALUATION

CHILD PLACEMENT

TRANSITIONAL HELP

CHILD EVALUATION

REGULARCLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

SCH04,..LEVEL

LEADERSHIP

STATE AND FEDERALENFORCEMENT AND FUNDING

31 43

,

child should remain in EMH. and acomplete reevaluation of the childmuSt be done every three years."This process can result in thechild being kept in EMH, beingreturned to the regular classtoom,or being assigned to another spe-cial education program. Customar-ily, very few children labelledEMH have been returned to the .

regular program as a result ofroutine reevaluations."

In the past decade, a number ofschool systems thathave acknowl-edged a significant misclassifica-tion problem have undertaken"large-scale reevaluation project*using new procedures and standardsfor'deciding whether a childshould remain in an EMH program. .These reform efforts have sometimes led to large-numbers ofchildren being returned to theregular school program.'2

Transitiónal Help. Some schoolsystems have returned misclassi-fied children directly from EMH tothe regular,schooi program, with-out any further special help.Others have recognized a need togive the transitioned child and .

the regular classroom teacher whowill work with the child assis-

.

tance in making the transitionsuccessful. Usually this meanstutoring for the child and train-ing or in-classroom assistance forthe teacher."

What happens in these processes ofevaluation. placement. and instruc-tion is shaped fundamentally byactivities in the other four areasrepresented in Table 10:

II Parent Participation. As notea, inSection 1, parents have extensivelegal rights to participate in allaspects of the special education

. decisions that affect their chil-dren. In actual practice, thisparticipation can range-from

32

signing 'Permission forms to beingactive participants in decision-making about chlildren's placementsand programs.

Schopl Level Leadership. Theschool principal sets, the eone forthe way that special education ishandled in each school. Princi-pals encourage or discourage spe-cial education referrals, affecthow thoroughly student evaluationsand reevaluations are done, affectthe degree of cooperation betweenEMH teachers and regular classroomteachers in their school."

111 School District Leadership.School district lea0ers establishand maintain cruc.ial po.11.cies andpractices,for student evaluation,

, placement, and instruction. Theyare the key source Of leadership.for initiating and maintaining anycomprehensive changes in regularand special education programsadequate to address the misclas-sification problem."

State 'sad Federal Enforcement andFunding. The state and federalgovernments have clearly definedlegal responsibilities to overseespecial education programs and toprevent misclassification." Theycan carry out these responsibili-ties vigorously or ignore them. ,The state especially plays a majorrole in funding pecial education,and the amount and nature of thisfunding affects the way specialeducation is carried out at thelocal level."

These brief descriptions of theareas where problems need to beaddressed to eliminate misclassifi-cation and improve the quality ofEMH programs should illustrate thatP meaningful solution touches manyparts of the educational svstem.Changes must occur not onlv inpolicies, but also the customaryways that educators developed

44

for dealing with children dav-to-day. Powerful misconceptions aboutchildren labelled mentally retardedmust be overcome. Mjsclassificationdoes not lend itself to a quick fix.

However, weil-prtirned adtions in theten areas just described over aperiod of several years can elim-inate the EMI misclassificationproblem.

Changes Needed toEliminate Misclassification -

Below, we describe in more detailthe actions needed in each of theten areas portrayed in Table 10 ifmisclassification in EMB and thedetrimental effects of EMH clas.seson children are going to heeliminated.

Limiting Inappropriate Referrals.In school districts with large num-bers of children in EMH classes,some regular classroom teachers andschool principals have "referredout" large numbers of children forspecial education evaluations, al-though the child's learning or be-havior problems should have beenhandled in the regular classroom."Many who have studied misclassifica-tion see such continued inappropri-aXe referrals as the basic drivinzforce that creates misclassificationpnd frustrates attempts to eliminateit." A number of school systemselsewhere have instituted large-scale projects to return misclassi-fied students to the regular schoolprograni, similar to.the one nowunderway in Chicago. However, tbeydidn't attack the problem of inap-propriate referrals, and within afew years.the numbers of childrenending up in EMH classes (or inother stigmatizing special educationprograms) started to creep back uptoward former levels.'"

One crucial change that is'needed toavoid such long-term problems is

33

al,t

that regular classroom teachers mustbe required to deal with more learn-ing and behaviar problems within theregular classroom and they must begiven expert help in doing so.

When a child is having difficulty inthe regular classroom and thechild's teacher,believes that thechild may need special educationhelp, two things should happens (1)the teacher should seriously attemptat least three different approachesto dealing with the child's problemwithin the regular program beforethe child is referred for specialeducation evaluation, and (2) theteacher should receive help in mod-ifying the child's program from anexpert resource teacher.'°1 (Researchabout the circumstances under whichthis process actually takes,placeindicates that the school principal's le ip is critical inmakin ocess happen, as Ais-

102cusse

So s ool districts have respondedto the' ''ferral problem merely byh ding.training sessions fort achers:but this is inadequate.Such training sessions are helpfulin dealing with the problem only asa part of an ongoing program ofin-class help for regular classroomteachers from an expert resourceteacher who'has the active supportof the school principal.10' Unlessskilled resource teachers work withclassroom teachers .on a continuingbasis to solve specific children'seducational problems, merely offer-ing a few training sessions on cor-rect referral procedures will dolittle to prevent' misclassificationfrom recurring'in the long term.

. P

Improvinz Safeguards in Case StudyEvaluations. Given the dangersinvolved in placing a child in anEMH class, a series of safeguards ,

should be used in evaluating chil-dren for EMH placement, so that onlythose children will be'placed in EMHclasses who show extremely limited

4 5

skills for functioning both insideand olltside school and who havefailed to respond to other teachingmethods. The law, the judgment ofprofessional groups involved intesting, and research about theissue reflect a broad consensus thata child who is referred for specialeducation evaluation should .berecommended for EMH placement as alast resort. and only if all threeof the following requirements areMII:

The child has been tested forother handicaps, such as healthproblems, vision problems, hearingproblems, emotional problems, andlearning disabilities that mightaccount for the child's difficulty

in learning.10'

Al The child ranks in the bottom 2.37.

of students on a "valid and reli-

able" test of intellectualability.'"

The child ranks in the bottom 2.3%

on a "valid and reliable" test of"adaptive behavior," which drawson jnformation about the child'sability to perform everyday tasksof living outside of school, such

as dressing, making purchases,moving independently around theneighborhood.'"

The requirements that these tests be

"valid and reliable," which aredemanded by federal_and state law,as well as of such professionalgroups as the American PsychologicalAssocfation and the National Asso-ciation of School Psychologists, areabsolutely vital protections forstudents.';' Test procedures for EMHplacement are reliable if, amongother things, testing procedures areclear enough so that two differenttesters administering the test-to astudent would come up with the sameresults.'" Test procedUres for EMHplacement are valid if there isevidence that the test (or set of

tests) is effective in consistentlyidentifying that small number ofstudents who demonstrate such lim-

ited intellectual functioning inside_and outside of school that they will

profit more from being in an EMHclass than from being in the regular

school program.°'

When suct; safeguards are in place, .

It has consistently been found that

po more than 1.25% of the studentsenrolled in a school district whoAre from a particular ethnic groupend up in EMH classes.'" As Table 3

indicates, this is the case in LosAngeles anckin Houston,rtWo of thelargest urban school systems, wherespecific safeguards have been put in

place.'"

The&e standards have not been metin many special education testing

programs in the oast. including

Chicago's. As a result, the per-centage of both black and white

students in Chicago's EMH classesfar exceeds 1.25% (see Table 3), In.

Chicago, adequate tests of adaptivebehavior outside of school have notbeen used.'" Placement has often beenbased.primarily on an IQ test score,

40' and experts on mental retardationagree that the cut-off score that

students had to achieve to avoid

being placed in EMH was much.toohigh.'" Further, there is no researchinditating that the IQ.test scoreaccurately identifies childien whocan benefit more from being in EMHclasses than being in the regularclassfoom, and this'is particularlytrue in the case of minoritystudents."'

34

.1mproving Safeguardi in StudentPlacement Decisiona. Once a studentis evaluated, the law requires thata number of educators familiar withthe student, as well as the stu-dent's parents, meet to discusswhether the student should be placedin an EMH program or some otherspecial education program or should

4 6

remain in the regular classroom."'If the student.is to be placed in anEMH program or some other specialeducation program, an "Individual-ized Educational Plan" or "IEP" mustbe drawn up to guide the student'sprogram.'"

One crucial aspect of the placementdecision for a child labelled EMH iswhether the child can contintle tospend most of his/her time in thcregular Program, while receivingpart-time tutoring in a resourceroom, or whether the child shouldspend the most time in a "self-contained" EMH classroom. Schooldistricts are required by law tohave both options available for EMHstudents', but there are almost noresource room programs for EMH stu-dents in many cities, includingChicago."' Further, as discussed inAppendix B, children assigned to EMHclasses are often bused to otherschopls for the EMH program forreasons of administrative conven-

.

ience rather than educationalbenefit.'" 4

Ideally then, the decision about achild's placement should be madewith %he full participation of thechild's parents; should result in anIndividualized Educational Plan thatdescribes the specific educationalprogram the child should receive;should be based on°his/herdual strengths and weaknesses;should normally allow a child toremain'in'his/her neighborhoodschool; and should place the.childin a part-time resource room if thisis appropriate.

The reality of the placement pro-cess, in Chicago and in many otherschool systems, is that parentinvolvement often consists Merely of"signing off" on a decision made by, .

educators,'" that IEPs are.oftenvaguely written,110 that EMH placementresults in the child being bused toanother school, and that EMH place-

35

ments almost always put the child ina self-contained EMH classroomrather than a part-time resourceroom. 1 2 1

Improving the Quality of EMH In-struction. As described earlier,EMH instruction is frequently basedon very low expectations for thechildren ihvolved; who are regardedas permanently impaired. EMH cur-ricula are often a slightly upgradedversion of the curricula designedfor TMH children.'" IndividualizedEducation Plans for EMH children areoften not adequate to guide theirday-to-day learning, or they are otfollowed.

A set'of needed improvements in thequality of EMH instruction areclear. EMH childre_n_shouid be seenas children who have learning_prob-lems that can be overcome with theright instruction."' Many shouldspend the majority of theie time inthe regular school programLam_d re-ceive extra help in a part-timeresource room.'" Detailed individualplans for their education must bedevelopFd and followed. based on thegoal of returning_manv children tothe regular school program on aPart-time or full-time basis.'"

Reevaluating EMH Students Thor-ous,hly. In a school system likeChicago, which has not applied ade-quate safeguards in assessing EMHstudents in the past, all childrencurrently in EMT! classes should becarefully reevaluated. It should_bethe working assumption of the eval-uators that the children beingtested belong in the regular Programunless the testing proves other-wise."' Children should stay in EMHonly if, as noted above, the evalua-tion shows that the child's problemsare not caused by another handicap,the child ranks in the bottom 2.3%on a valid and reliable test ofintellectual functioning, and thechild ranks in the bottom 2.3% on a

4 7

valid and reliable test of adaptivebehavior outside of school. Basedon this reassessment, one of three

things Should happen:

Children who do not qualify as EMHand do not have other handicapsshould be returned to the Tegularclassroom. However, since thesechildren are likely to havesuffered harmful effects frombeing in an EMH class, both the"transitioned" children and theirregular classroom teachers shouldbe given special help from anexpert resource teacher for atransition period.'"

Children who have other handicapsshould be given the appropriateform of special education help(for example, help from a learningdisabilities resource room whilethey spend most of their time inthe regular school program).'"

Children who are still judged to-be "Educable Mentally Handicapped"should have a new IndividualizedEducational Plan drawn up forthem. Those developing thechild's program should tailor theplan to his/her strengths andweaknesses, as well as the child'sability to spend part or most ofthe time in the regularclassroom.'"

After this major reclassificationproject is completed, students'placements in EMH classes ehouldcontinue to be reviewed annuall$, tosee if-they still belong in EMH.Teachers and evaluators working withEMil students should always assumethat their goal is to help as manystudents as possible move back intothe regular school program.'"

Carriing Out an Adequate TransitionErogrAm. For both a large-scalereclassification project and for theongoing process of helping childrenmove from the EMH program back into

36

the regular classroom, it is vitalthat the transitioned student begiven special help for a period oftime from an expert resource teacherand that the children's new teachersin the TeAular classroom also begiven special training and. mostimportant. in-classroom help.'"

Champaign, Illinois, carried out sucha transitional program, and it is

considered a national model for thedesign of an effective program."'Follow-up research in Champaignindicates that students formerly inEMH classes have made very goodacademic progress in the regularclassroom as a result of thdlIransi-tional help given them and their newteachers.'" In contrast, when mis-classified children who have beenin EMH programs are merely "dumped"back into the regular classroom,they stand a good chance of fallingbehind, becoming discipline prob-lems, being expelled, dropping out,or being referred for special educa-tion evaluations once again.'"

The longer a student has been in anMI class and the older the studentis, the more serious the_problems oftransition become. Students whohave been mistakenly treated asretarded fôr many years are typi-cally fir behind their age group intheir academic achievement. Andhigh schools, with their menycourses taught,by differentteachers, find it harder to adjusttheir program,to help a misclassi-fied student make a successful tran-sition to their regular program. In

a school system like Chicago's witha substantial percentage of EMHstudents in high school, inadequatetransitional programs are especiallylikely to result in transitionedstudents leaving schoolaltogether.'"

Strengthening rarents' InformedFarticipatioa. Experts on misclas-sification conclude that much

eht

misclassification could be avoidedif educators made a greater effartto seek information from parents abouttheir children and to insure_Dare_n_t_s'informed Participation in decisionsabout their children, as required bylaw."' However._ rithts that D rentshave on naoeiaLeoiten_In practice. Parents have not beenfully informed about what is goingto happen to their children; manyparents in Chicago and 'elsewherewhose children have been placed inEMIL classes have only been told thattheir children were going to getsome "special help." Educators oftenask parents to give written permis-sion for evaluations and placementsbut become hostile when parents tryto offer opinions in thisprocess.'"

Both the law and sound educationallitactice demand that parents beasked to help educators understand achild's problem when the child firshas trouble in the regular class-room; that parents approve a casestudy evaluation 'for special educa-tion after a full explanation ofwhat is involved; that systematicobjective information be gatheredfrom parents as part of the child'scase study evaluation; and thatparents be encouraged to participatein placement decisions and IEPdevelopment, with their views beingtaken seriously.13'

Strentthening 'Leadership from Slhoolprincipals. School principals havegften played a crucial role 4 cre-ating misclassificationand theyore kev to stooping it. In schoolswhere excessive numbers of studentsace referred for EMH assessment, theprincipal often condones the atti-tude that regular classroom teachers.can "refer out" or "blue-slip" largenumbers of children and that regularclassroom teachers don't need to

ve learning and behavior problemsin their own classroom.'" The prin-cipal who is a poor educationalLead-Ef-aci2s not insure that help is

37

provided to teachers who are havingprobrems and making many refer-fals.1.0 Some principals encourageteachers to make referrals whenthere are not enough students inspecial education and the school isin danger of losing a special edu-cation te-acher.141

The needed changes in referral,assessment, instruction, and reclas-sification will not work in practiceunless principals provide leadershipin making these thinis happen ineach local school and are heldaccountable for doing so.'"

Strengthening Leadership from TODSchool District Administrators.Since an adequate solution to themisclassification problem involvesmajor changes in the behavior ofspecial education administrators,school principals, psychologists,special education teachers, regularclassroom teachers, and other schooldistrict staff, this change must beactively directed by the superinten-dent of schools."' The superinten-dent, as well as the superinten-dent's top administrators in chargeof regular edutation and specialeducation programs, must make surethat formal policies for studentevaluation are changed, that suffi-cient well-qualified staff are al-located for student reassessment andfor transition.programs, thatteachers are provided with effectiveheip so they can avoid excessivereferrals, etc. Top leadership mustfight to overPome_ the pervasive lowtuectations about students labelledEMH that iill threaten the effec-.tiveness of each step taken to solvethe misclassification problem.

Once stmff are allocated and poli-cies set, top administrators mustcontinue to monitor these plans tosee that they are actually carriedout. There are particular dangersfor breakdowns when several differ-ent parts of the school system (suchas the special education department

49

and the school principals) mustcoordinate with each other; onlystrong consistent leadership fromthe top can eliminate theseproblems.'"

In the model reclassification andtransition program carried out inChampaign, Illinoisi the schoolsuperintendent, Dr. James Mahan,made reform of the EMR program oneof his top priorities for severalyears.14' Reform efforts have encoun-tered major problems when they havebeen carried out primarily by spe-cial education departments, sincecritical aspects of the problem areoutside the control of specialeducators.'"

Besides providing leadership for amajor short-term change in the EMRprogram, lop school district admia-istrators must monitor the specialeducation system from year to veer,looking for any indications that themisplassification Problem is reemerx-int. They should, for instance,ibilect, analyze, and make availableto the public information-about thenumber of referrals for specialeducation and the number of place-ments in special education by ethnicgroup originating in each school in

the system.'" This will allow schooldistrict leadership and the publicto look for evidence that the mis-classification problem is reappear-ing and to take appropriate actiOn.

Increased _Slate ark(' Federal Enforce-ment-and Chpnxes in State Funding

Procedures. While strong state andfederal requirements are on thebooks that could be used to helpeliminate misclassification, neitherlevel of government has typicallycarried out its legal responsibili-ties to enforce these require-ments.14' Data about the racial com-position of special educationprograms have not been used as abasis for investigating potentialmisclassification and discrimination

38

in many states.14' The standard formatfor state and federal site reviewsof special education programs hasnot included investigating misclas-sification issues.'14° When complaintshave been lodged about misclassifi-cation problems, investigations havenot been carried out vigorously andsanctions have not been applied.'1

The state. which has a clear lezalpbligation to enforce both state andtederal reauirements Prohibitingdiscrimination, must carry out itsletal ressonsibilities.

Further, state funding procedureshave played a role in encouragingmisclassif.ication by providing anincentive to create and to maintainEMI! classes.'" In addition to enforc-ing present law so that the statedoesn't encourage misclassification,state Eovernments should_providesome financial help to encourageldcal school districts to_solve themisclassification Problem. Statesshould provide funds for resourceteachers to work with regulae class-room teachers in solving learningand behavior problems within theregular classroom and funds fortransitional programs to returnspecial education students to theregular school program with appro-priate help in making the transi-tion.'" And states should considerchanges in their definitions ofhandicaps that will guarantee spe-cial services to children who need .

them while protecting these childrenagainst unnecessary stigma and iso-lation from the regular schoolprogram.'"

Applying theStandards to ChicagoSection 5 judges the Chicago reclas-sification program in light of thegenerally accepted criteria for acomprehensive solution to-the mis-classification problem justdescribed.

Chicago's Reclassificatiozn Project:Shortcomings and Unknowns

Q.

A.

Q.

liiptS

How adequate are the testing proce-dures being used in the reclassifi-cation project?

Chicago decided to ignore well-established standards for testingchildren to see if they belong inEMH. Instead they decided to devel-op their own "Experimental Battery"of tests. In the early phases ofpilot-testing this ExperimentalBattery, the school system abandonedessential research efforts needed toestablish whether the experimehtaltests were adequate for the deci-sions being made about children.The school system then moved ahead Ato use these unproven tests inmaking deciAions about thousands ofchildren. °

sitional programs that are availablefail to meet minimum standards ofadequacy when compared with effec-tive transition programs in othercities. ,Staff from individualschools and administratiVe districtsare being left largely totheir owndevices in deciding how to handlereclassified children without ade-quate resources or guidance. Theresult is being referred to byteachers involved as "a fiasco,""a disaster."

GIHow is the EMH program being changedfor those children who reMain in it?

What are these experimental testslike?

411,The school system has repeatedlyrefused to allow DFC to examinethese tests. However, the informa-tion available indicates that theygive the psychologist wide latitudeto judge whether a child should stay Ain an EMH class, opening the doorfor thousands of children to remainmisclassified.

Q.

A.

By and large, no change is takingplace. Children still in EMH arenot, for instance, being given newplacements that allow them to spendmore time in the regular schoolprogram. Children judged to stillqualify for EMH programs are merelybeing returned to their formerclasses.

.

Q How adequate is the leadership beingprovided for the reclassificationproject?

....

2How adequate a e the transitionalprograms bein provided to childrenwho are reclassified?

In many instances, no transitionalprograms are available. The tran-

39

There is no evidence of effectiveleadership for the reclassification.project in the day-to-day reality ofwhat is happening to the childreninvolved. Chicago's misclassifiedchildren continue-to be caught in aweb of poorly defined and mispidedpolicies and practices.

51

The adequacy of Chicago's responseto the misclassification problem*should be judged in light of the

standards described in Section 4.

Based on these standards, there are

a number of major shortcomings inChicago's efforts to remedy

misclassification:

The tests and testing proceduresbeing employed by the school sys-tem are grossly inadequate for thedecisions about children's futures

that the school system is making.

The transitional programs prom-

ised for the thousands of childrenbeing returned to the regulareducation program either do notexist or fail to meet minimumstandards of adequacy.

Parental involvement in thisdecision making is frequentlyrushed and does not allow parents

to have an impact on decisions

that affeet their children.

No substantial effort is being

made to improve the diversity and

quality of special education ser-

vices for children who will remain

in the EMI' program.

There is no evidence that longer-

term plans are being made or mech-anisms being put in place td'keep

the misclassification problem from

recurring.

Leadership from the top admini-

strators of the school system is

lacking, both for short-term and

long-term changes that are needed.

Below, we briefly discuss each of

these points in turn, elaborating on

the text in explanatory,footnotes.

40

731cInslimproceduumesBeingillaildAyedAretIitadkmaxuateAs described in Section 3, the

school system is using'an "Experi-

mental Battery" to testschildren in

its reclassification project. The

procedures that the-school system -

has employed to develop, pilot test,

and utilize the Experimental Battery

are inconsistent with generallyaccepted approaches to solvidg the

EMH.prOblem and with generally ac-cepted standards for the development

and use of tests.

As noted in Section 4, econsensusof professional opinion indicates

that decision makers retesting chil-

dren classified as EMH should pro-

ceed with the working assumption

that these children belong in the

regular school prograraunless the

testing shows otherwise and shouldrecommend"that a child remain in EMH

classes only if retesting shows

_that:

The child does not have otherhatdicaps, such as vision prob-

lems, emotional problems, and

learning disabilities that might

account for the child's learning-

difficulties.

,

The chiid ranks in the bottom 2.3%of students ot a "valid and reli-

able" test of intellectualability.

The child ranks in the bottom 2.3%of students on a "valip and reli-

able" test of adaptivarbehavior."

The school system's effort to iden-

tify tests and testi9g proceduresadequate for making these critical

a

decisions about children has result-'ed in a set of test instruments itrefers to as the Experimental Bat-tery. According to the "Novemberletter" from the school systemresponding to Designs'for changeinquiries about the misclassifica-tion project, the Exp-Ertmental Bat-tery consists of eight testing in-struments (see Appendix D).'" Someof these instruments were developedelsewhere. However, it appears(although this is not entirelyclear) that the school system iseither developing some of its owninstruments or making major modifi-cations in instruments developed byothers.'" They have repeatedly re-fused or ignored our requests toexamine the instruments directly.'"

Below, we enumerate the problemswith this testi battery and its use,based on the information that hasbeen made available to us.

Iht_Experimental_BatterY Was_Uledfrom the Beginninl ts Make Decisionsabout Children's Futures- Acceptedpractice in test development re-quires that tests or test batteriesIn the developmental stage shouldnot be used to make critical deci-sions about children, or if this isdone, informed consent should beobtained from the child's par-ent.'!' Informed consent involvesexplaining the experimental natureof the testing procedure and'itspossible benefits and risks.1'0 ll

these standards were not followed.

The tests were, beginning in Febru-ary, substituted for previous test-ing procedures for many children andused as the sole basis for deter-mining whether or not they belongedin EMH clasies.1' Parents providedwritten consent for testing, butwere not advised of the experimentalnature of the process, so that theycould reach an informed judgment

41

about whether to allow their chil-dren to participate in it.

The Attempt to Gather Rese4ch Dateabout the Experimental Battery WasAbandoned. .but the Full-Scale Use ofthe Batters, lias_Proceeded. Theschool system initially told DFCthat the pilot reassessment projectConducted from April to June 1982represented an effort to establishthe technical adequacy of the ,Ex-perimental Battery for wider use.DFC repeatedly has sought infor-mation about the results of thispilot testing. In the Novemberletter, the school systeinfinallyresponded by indicating that, infact, no_Luch research anaissisconcerning the technical adequacy ofthe Experimental Battery has beencarried out. As the November letterstates, "limited staff and resources(time and funding) impedes a quickculmination of this activity" (seeAppendix D).

Accepted_arofessional practice woulddictate that the wider use of theExperimental Battery should be sus-pended until appropriate data Lath-ering and analysis have been com-pleted.1' Instead, the school systemis moving ahead to use the Experi-mental Battery to test thousands ofchildren.,

The_Sahool System Has Failed toPresent Adequate Evidence about theReliability and Validity of theExaerimental Battery and Its Compo-nent Tests. Acceptable test reli-ability and validity are two of thebedrock requirements for appropriatetest development and test use."' Asnoted in Section 4, reliabilityrefers to the ability of the testingprocedure to yield consistent re-sults (e.g., if the same child weretested twice either by the sametester or by two different testers,similar test results should occur).Validity refers to the capacity of

,o 3 ,

the testing procedure to 3,czuratelyidentify that small perc6ntage ofchildren who have such limited in-tellectual functioning inside andoutside school that they will profitmore from being in an EMH programthan in a regular classroom.

The_American_EIYOological Associa-tion (APA) and other professionalassociations have ilaintlY developedmore than 100 seRarate standardsthat they term "essential" for testreliability., test validitY. andother aspects of tes/ developmentand use,"' All_osvcholokists areethically bound to adhere to thesestandards.'",The APA notes that it isparticularly important that thesestandards are followed when crucialdecisions are being made about chil-dren$ futures, and APA explicitlycites the placement of minoritystudents in EMH classes as one suchcritical decision.'" One APA standardstates that:

A test user is responsible formarshalling evidence in support ofhis claims of validity and relia-bility. The use ot test scores indecision rules should be supportedby evidenc,t Essential.'"

A table in the school system'sNovember letter (reproduced in Ap-pendix D) constitutes the schoolsystem's attempt to marshal suchevidence.

The MO,St critical Lactar determiningbeneficial or harmful impact of theschool system's testint proceduresOn children is the :reliability andvalidity of the Experimental Battery

"

the Naiegikel_letter.

-Further, the titetae reProduced inAppendix D presen`ang the schoolsystem's analysil'of reliability andvalidity issues Oakes only vague andcursors, statemeots about the reli-

;$.,

42

abili/Y and validity of individualtests.

Concerning test reliabiliky forindividual-test*, the school systempresents no reliatility data aboutfour of- the eight instruments andasserts, without providing furtherevidence, that the reliability bfthree of the remaining instrumentsis °excellent," "relatively satis-factory," and "somewhat poor."'"

Concerning the validity for indivi-dual tests, no information-is pre-sented about four of the individualinstruments. The school system'scomments on validity describe onetest as having "a high degree of 4

correlation," two as having "satis-factory" validity, and one as "rela-tively satisfac.tory" validity, with-out further elaboration. The schoolsystpem's comments about test valid-ity are particularly deficient,since both the law and acceptedprofessional practice require thattests be validated for the parti-cular_ourpose for which they arebeint used.'" The AYA oarticularlycautions test _users to avoid_thesorts_vf_unqualiLied_statementsabout test validity made in theNovember letter.'"

Designs for Change asked schoolsystem staff about the reliabilityand validity of the ExperimentalBattery in the July meeting withthem. We were repeatedly told thatsuch considerations were not rele-vant in the "new approach" theschool system was using. Cone school

system staff membe_r_lespgagibieLorthe reclassification proiect exprls-sed the view that trvint to abide by

0 '1 I

the first place."

The school system staff appear tohold the mistaken view that discrim-ination in test procedures can beavoided if testers are given wide

discretion in interpreting studentresponses. In fact, as is repeat-:edly emphasized in the APA sten-Aards. this sub-jective approachcreates a high risk that discrimina-,tion will occur.'" The schoolsystem's own consultants'clearlyrecognized this.,danger and repeat-edly warned against it in their

_recommendations, but these warnings-were ignored.'73

,The "Test Teach Test" Approach,Which-Is Central, to the School Sys-tem's Effort to Judge Intellectual'Functioning. Has Special Difficulties.In.our conversations with the schoolsystem staff, they placed_greatemphasis on their adaptatipn of anapproach to assessing intellectualfunctioning developed by ReuvenFeuerstein, an Israeli psycholo-'N.

Feuerstein has worked extensivelywith Israeli children labelled cul-turally disadvantaged and retarded.Arguing that conventional intelli-gence tests do not adequately 'fleas-ure the underlying potential tolearn possessed by many children, hehas developed.an alternative testingapproach. Children are taughf toperform a task by the tester andthen the tester judges the chil-dren's capacity to apply,what hasbeen taught in similar tasks.

Feuerstein's method yields informa-tion about how a child learns, andthe strengths and weaknesses of thechild's approach to learning are -

interpreted in light of a complextheory Feuerstein has developedabout the functioning of the humanmind.'"

An essential part of Feuerstein'smethod.is that the child receivefolloW-up instruction based onFeuerstein's scheme for analyzingthe chi4d's strengths and weaknesses,as clarified through the testing."'Feuerstein and his colleagues inISratl have spent years, not only,

testing children, but also providinginstruction to them consistent withFeuerstein's unified scheme fortesting and-instruction."'

Feuerstein acknowledges that manywho, have observed him testing chil-dren "have tended to attribute hissucCess to what they have labelledhis opersonal,charisma'."1" He coun-ter,s that the major proof that histesting approach is va,lid comes whenchildren make progress in remedialinstruction based on the testing."'

Feuerstein's own testing procedureis called the "Learning Potential .

Assessment Device." It appearS thatthe school system hasNadapted hisapproach and developed their owntesting procedure, which they call"Test Teach Test."

We have already noted that theschool system has failed to produceany evidence of,rellability andvalidity of its modified version ofFeuerstein's approach. In addition,none of the key conditions that werePresent in Feuerstein's Program in"Israel are present in the Chicagosituation. The school system psy-chologists who are testing childrenin Chicago are hot working withthese children or their teachersover an extended periOd of'follow-upinstruction. No intention has beenexpressed or reform program set inmotion to incorporate Feuerstein's

. instructional methods into the Chi-cago school curriculum.

In Chicago, psychologists are movingfrom school to school, testing chil-dren for a few hours, and thenmaking recommendations about whetheror not they should remain in EMHclasses. And as we will documentbelow, there could,not be a starker .

contrast between Feuarstein's.attemPt to link testing with subse-quent instruction and the haphazardand largely non-existent transition-al Program for children in Chicago. ,

43,

I

The School System Has Not ProducedEvidence That It Is Using a Reliable,and Valid Test'of Adaptive Behavior.A orieical tool in limiting discrim-ination in other school systems hasbeen the use of an objeotive test ofadaptive behavior, one that focuseson the ability of the child to carry,out the everyday tasks of life out-side the context of the school.'"

Only one test of adaptive behavioris contained in the ExperimentalBattery, and-no'information ispresented about its reliability andvalidity. It is an experimentaltest." Since there are severalwidely used adaptive behavior testsabout whicli considerable researchhas been done, it is unclear why theonly adaptive behavior test beingused in Chicago is still in theexperimental stage."?

There Has Been Insufficient Trainingfor Testers Who Administer theExperimental Battery. The APArequires that administrators whooversee testing insure that staffadministering tests are adequatelytrained.'" Careful training.becomesespecially critical in light of theexperimental and evolving nature ofthe testing procedure being employedin,Chicago.

In the NOvember letter, the schoolsystem provided detailed documenta-tion orless than three hours ofgroup trainicg for the psychologistswho are now using the ExperimentalBattery."' In addition, a schoolsystem progress report released inMay 1982 makes the general statementthat special education administra-tors are providing "ongoing assis-tance and follow-up to staff inalternative assessment techniques,adaptive behavior scales, andinterview/observation skill-building," but no specifics areprovided.'"

44

Wben Feuerstein trained psycholo-gists from the New Haven PublicSchools in the use of his method, heled an intensive ten-day full-timeworkshop for all those giving thetest."'

Based on available evidence. theschool svstem's training in the useOf the Experimental Battery isgrosslv'inadequate.

The Promised TransitionPrograms AreWoefully InadequateReports from individual schoolswhere the reassessment process istaking place indicate that addition--al staff members have not been madeavailable to work. with transitionedchildren, except for EMH teachersfreed up by reductions in theirclass enrollments. Further, nocoherent program of advice and one-to-one follow-up is being providedfor those regular classroom teachers Ldealing with transitioned children.Staff members from individualschools and aAministrative districtshave been left almost entirely totheir own devices to develop a tran-sition program. Some are tryingtheir best to develop a program withlimited guidance and resources; manyare avoiding the problem. Thus,many children are being returned tothe regular classroom with no effec-tive help being Provided either_tothe receiving teacher or the trans-itioned.child.

teachers and other school systemstaff have described the resultingsituation as "a fiasco," "a disas-ter." In contrast, the Novemberletter from Dr. Williams describesthe objectives of the transitionprogram in glowing terms. For

example:

4P

The transition process will incor-porate the following: facilita-,tion of joint turricular planningbetween special and general educa-:tion teachers; provision of a

,

functional delivery system to /transition the student into reg-ular education; and assistance tothe student in obtaining and im-proving the skills and behaviorsnecessary for successful partici-pation in general education.

However, even the November letterdescribes only a very limited tran-sition program as being "operable atthis time." The transition programdescribed in the NoVember letterconsists of four "moders" which aredescribed in an attachment to theletter titled "Transition ProgramModels Piloted in Districts 2 and 19."

It should be noted that if theselprograms are indeed being pilottksted in these two districts, thisprocess began only recently, sincemost students were not reclassifiedin Districts 2 and 19 until the endof thr last school year. It is notclear whether the school system isclaiming that these transitionprograms are operating in the schoolsystem's other 18 districts, eventhough thousands of -children are nowbeing tested in these districts.In at least one administrativedistrict where we interviewed schoolstaff, there is no transitionprogram at all.

In the November letter, the fourmodels for the transition programare each descEibed in one to two,pages, plus afsample student sched-ule. They are. *follows:

A special education resource roomin which transitioned,studentsspend some portion of their day,'while spending the rest of theirtime in the regular program.These resource rooms are to bestaffed by EMH teachers freed up

45

by reduced enrollment in their EMHkclasses.1

A combined class consisting ofboth transitioned EMH students andregular education students withlearning problems. The class isto be taught -collaboratively by aformer EMH teacher and a regulareddcation teacher.

11 A part-time resource rOom fortransitioned high school studentsthat focuses on' basic ski.11 devel-opment and'"skills necessary for "

successful employment in the jobmarket." It is not indicated whoshould teach' in such a program,which is described as "an admini-strative option.,"

A full-time placement in a class, for the Educationally Handicappedin an Education Vocational Guid-ance Center.

The language of these brief _pragrapdescriptions indicates that these'four utionl ar,e suggestions for ,

school administrators. No trainingis promised. Nothing is required.Except in the last option. formerEMH teachers freed up by shiftingenrollment are the only staff madeavailable to teach in these transi-tion program.

In addition to the transition pro-grams, the November letter statesthat in-service sessions are beingcarried out for teachers to informthem about the reassessment and thetransition program and that a. relat-ed set of handbooks is beingdistributed.

Even on paper, this ransitionprogram lacks m e f crucialIngredients that have been Presentin effective transition programscarried out in other School systems:

No strong leaderShip in setting upthe program is coming from the

I

central administration; no re-quirements for trogram quality arebeing set.

No additional staff resources havebeen allocated to the program;'beyond those EMH teachers whohappen to be availAble in indivi-dual schools.

A critical ingredient of othersuccestful transition programi,skilled'advisory help in theclassroom for the regular'class-room teacher, is not' being'provided.,

EMH teachers with a long historyof teaching in self-contpinedspecial education classrooms arenow cast in the role of,resourceteachers. In the-successful tran-sitional program carried out inChampaign, Illinois, program de-signers purposely did not use anyformer EMH teachers in this role,since they felt.that theseteachers had neither the Skillsnor the positive,expectations thatwould help transitioned studentssucceed in the regular class-rodW.'" Despite the obvious mis-match between the EMI teachers'past experianceand their new roleas resource teachers, no intensiveretraining is being proposed orcarried out for them.

The transition plan fails to rec-ognize the special difficulties qfmoving older students from EMHclasses back into the regularschool program.

MIThe fourth transition "model," in'which former EMH students are .placerin full-time classes forthe Educationally Handicapped(EH), consists merely of movingEMH students from one raciallysegregated and isolated setting toanother. As documented in Section2; the EH program is the mostracially segregated of all Chi-

rer .

46

cago's special education programs,being more than 90% black. Fur-

ther, 96% of EH students are inseparate classrooms, including 76%in separate special schools. Aswe recommend in Section 2, thq EHprogram itself is a prime candi-date for intensive scrutiny forpossible discrimination. It ishardly a suitable placement forformer EMH students judged not tobe retarded.

Based on interviews with schoolsystem staff involved in the reas-sessment, one negatiVe effect of theabsence of a well thought out tran-sitionr.program is that psychologistsare reluctant to recommend that achild be reclassified, even if theybelieve that the child could succeedin the regular program with theright transitional help.

Informed Parental InvolvementIs Not Being Effectively EncouragedDFC advises parents throughputChicago in their efforts to obtainappropriate special education,pro-grams for their children. With somenotable exceptions, the school sys-tem's customary methods for dealingwith parents in the special educa-tion decision-making process is toobtain signed permission forms,rather than to encourage parents tobe actively involved in decision-making meetings.

Available evidence indicates thatthese shortcomings are being inten-sified rather than remedied, in thecurrent recJassification effort.DesignF for Change and other gioupsthat,assist the parents of handi-capped children in Chicago havereceived complaints from parentsacross the city that the rushednature of the reclassification doesnot allow them to have meaningfulinput about their children.

5

The EMIL Program ItselfIs Not Being ReformedIn Section 4, we indicated that anessential aspect of addressing theEMH problem was to develop better'Individualized Educational Plans forchildren who will still remain inEMH programs, to take steps to ih-sure that these plans are carriedout, and to move many-EMH studentsfrom self7contained EMH classes topart-time participation in the regui-lar school program.

The school system's greater emphasison generating information throughthe retesting process about how achild learns is one important posi-tive development that might be use-ful in bringing about these neededchanges. However, nothing else inthe school system's description ofthe reclassification project or inour interviews wi,th teachers andassessment staff provides evidencethat an effort is underway to helpEMH teachers use this information.Available evidence indicates thatchildren still judged to be EducableMentally Handicapped in the retest-ing are, merely being returned totheir former classrpoms.

No evidente has been provided by theschool system that new approaches toinstruction are being instituted inEMH classes or that EMH resourcerooms are being set up to allow EMHstudents to participate in the regu-lar school program. Some of theoptions for theAransition program,described above, in which EMHteachers assist former EMH studentswho participate in the regularschool program, would be more appro-priate for students who are still.iudged to be Educable Mentally Hand-icapped but who could spend moretime in the regular classroom.

Reforms in Referral PracticesNeeded for the Longer TermAre Not Being ltdRia.tellAs indicated in Section 4, many whohave studied misclassification be-lieve that one of the most critdcai .places where reform is needed is-inthe regular classroom, where actionis needed to avoid inappropriatespecial education referrals. Regu-lar classroom teachers need new

. skills and extra assistance to dealwith learning problems and must alsobe held accountable for doing so.

47

Clear requirements are needed thatteachers should seriously attemptthree different metehods for aiding achild who exhibits a learning orbehavior problem before referringthe child for special educationassessment. However, paper require-ments will mean nothing unlessteachers are given in-classroom helpin planning such alternative ap-proaches and carrying them out.

'The school system's communicationswith DFC do not indicate that aserious program is underway to avoidinappropriate referrals for EMHassessment_by helping teachers dealwith children's problems within' theregular classroom.

Leadership from TopAdministrators Is LackingThe one aspect of the school sys-tem''s approach to the misclassifica-tion problem that has substantialreality at the school level is theretesting and reclassification ofchlidren. As documented earlier,this effort is misguided and has thepotential to harm mafty_Ahildren, whowill still be misclassified. Since

the reclassification effort flies inthe face of,generally accepted ap-proaches to the problem and to therecommendations of the school sys-tem's own,consultants, the top lead-ership of the Office of PupilPersonnel Services and SpecialEducation Program Development,'whodeveloped the present retestingprogram, must take the responsibi-lity for changing it.

Unlike the retesting process, whichis actually being carried out, otheraspects of the board's effort toaddress the misclassification issueexist primarily on paper. The tran-sitionallprogram,for instance,lacks coherent planning and require-ments, allocation of staff withappropriate skills, and the trainingand follow-up assistance to teachersneeded to bring it off.

A major reason for this lack offollow-through is that such problemsas carrying out a good transitionalprogram and improving the special -

- education referral system requirecollaboration among many parts ofthe school system and cannot becarried out by anysingle office.The General Superintendent ofSchools and other administratorswith responsibility for coordinatingthese diverse parts of the schoolsystem have not acted to avoid orcorrect these inadequacies.

Needed ChangesIn Section 6, Designs for Changedescribes the short-term and long-

- term changes needed to bring Chi-cago's reclassification project up toadequate standards and to eliminatethe EMH misclassification problem.

48

G u e-

Recommendations for ActionHighlights

(iit

_ Overalf, what should be done tosolve Chicago's misclassificationproblem?4

A In Phe short term, the current re-classification project should betemporarily suspended. Nationallyrecognized experts on misclassifica-tion should be engaged by the schoolsystem to recommend how this programcan be put_on the right track: Inthe longer term, the school system,....,must correct 6e deep-seated prob-lems that cause misclassification(such as the excessive numbers ofchildren referred for special educa-tion evaluation). Other problems ofinequity in special education docu-mented in this report (such as thelack of availability of specialeducation services forTispanicchildren) must also be corrected.

4;/

What role should the state of Illi-nois play?

A The state of Illinois has clearlegal responsibilities to guardagainst misclassification. ThestAe should launch an immediate andthorough investigation of misclassi-fication in Chicago's special educa-tion programs.

alerted to apparent violations ofprofessional standards in Chicago. -

If Chicago continues its presentactivities, these groups should,launch an investigation of thereclassification project and shouldimpose appropriate sanctions.

What should parent and citizengroups do?

Parent 'and citizen groups will bethe catalyst for making the needed,short-term and long-term changes.Vocal, well-informed, and long-termadvocacy for children is needed fromparents and citizens, who shouldpress for the suspension of thereclassification project, press forother short-term and long-termaCtion by the school system and thestate, investigateimisclassificationin local schools, and help individ-ual parents whose children are beingreclassified.

What is Designs for Change planningto do?

ADesigns for Change has made a long-term commitment to eliminate themisclassification problem in Chi-cago. In the short term, we willpress for the school system andstate actions described above;operate a parent hotline to adviseparentsoof EMH children; providewritten information to concernedparents, educators, and citizens;and hold training sessions for par-ents of EMH children and those whowant to assist them.

(aWhat should professional associa-tions of psychologists,do?

A The American Psychological Associ a

tion and the National Association ofSchool Psychologists have been

49

61

Short-Term and IsongaerniAction Is NeededThe Present situation demands urgentaction. Although DFC has been amajor voice calling for the retest-ing and reclassification of EMHstudents, ye reluctantly concludethat the_Present reclassificationproxram is so flawed and has so muchpotential to harm Children that itshould be suspended until basicchanges are made. If the schoolsystem refuses to do so, it will benecessary for concerned educa rs,

parents, and citizens to exertsufficient pressure to convince theschool systelm to suspend the presentreclassification effort and edesign

it so that it.serves childrebetter.

However, even when satisfacto yshoit-term changes are achieved, abasic comprehensive improvement inthe misclassification problem will .require a coordinated effort thatextends over a period of years,one should'believe that the basic

dYnamics_ that have created the larg-

e1/__EHE ml_s_classitication Problemin_the United tates will be quicklygr easily changed.

Action Is Needed by theChicago Public Schools andthe State of IllinoisThe Chicago Public Schools bears themost direct responsibility for the

creatioq/of the misclassificationproblem and for the shortcomings ofthe current reclassification processand must take the steps that areneeded to eliminate theseshortcomings.

The state of Illinois is anotherPublic body that bears.a majorresponsibility for the misclassifi-cation Problem and its solutionChicago's huge EMH program has beenmaintained substantially with statefunds. The state is the primaryagency legally charged with enforc-ing both state and federal specialeducation laws intended'to protectchildren against being misclassified.

Later in this section we make aseries of specific recoMmendationsfor needed short-term and long-termaction by bothrthe Chicago PublicSchools and the state of Illinois.

For example, a comprehensive solu-tion involves improving instructionin the regular classroom, so thatinappropriate referralkjor specialOucatidn are avoided. 1R6wever, thetYpical Chicago school already hasthree-foUrths of its regelar class-room students reading below the

national average."'

There are many groups who can playan important role in bringing aboutthis needed change. Below, we havefocused on several specific organi-zations that can make a pivotalcontribution to seeing that a com-prehensive solution to the misclas-sification problem iS put in place

in Chicago.

50-

AclionImiNeededbyParents, Citizens, andProfessional OrganisationsThe key to moving both the ChicagoPublic Schools and the state ofIllinois to make needed changes isYOcal. informed, and long-termaction on the part of individual

1224=1111.--Z-081123-LAILgroups. It is time for the ptiblic

to stand up as advocates for thechildren who have suffered the in-justice of misclassification and whoare still caught in the web of the

school system's misguided policiesand practices.

Another &roup that should take an

62

important leadership role in helpingto solve Chicago's misclassificationproblem are the major arofessionalassociations whose members consistof school psychologists theAmerican Psychological Associationand the National Association ofSchool Psychologists. The currentreclassification project has clearlyviolated the standards of theseorganizations concerning thedevelopment and use of tests.

Later in this section we make speci-fic recommendations for neededshort-term and lohg-term action bythese groups.

What Des Ws for ChangeIs Going: DoDesigns for Change, working withothers who are concerned about Chi-cago's misclassification problem,intends to play a catalytic role inpressing for needed short-term andslong-term action. In the next fewmonths, DFC will collaborate with acoalition of other concerned organi-zations to:

Distribute this report widely tothose concerned aboutmisclassification.

Press the Chicago Public Schoolsand the state of Illinois to carryout the recommendations thatfollow.

Operate a hotline to documentparents' and educators' experi-ences with the current reclassifi-cation project and to provideadvice.

Provide fact sheets and holdtraining sessions for parentswhose children are going throughthe reclassification process.

Hold training a4ssions for activeparents, parent groups, community

51

groups, social service personnel,' and others who wish to act as

'advocates for parents whose chil-dren are being reclassified or toinvestigate the misclassificationproblem in their own localschools.

Designs for Change and other groupsare also committed to staying withthe misclassification issue in thelong term until it is clear thatbasic lasting changes have beenmade.

Below, we describe the recommenda-tions that will be the focus of thisaction.

A. Recommendations tol the

Chicago Board of EducationDFC recommends that in the shortterm the reclassification projectcurrently underway be suspended.DFC makes this recommendation withgreat reluctance, since it meansthat thousands of misclassifiedstudents will remain temporarily.inEMH classes. However, the potentialfor further harm is so great thatsuspending the reclassificatianproject to enable changes to b madein its design and implementation isthe only viable approach to protect-ing misclassified children fromfurther harmful treatment.

Temporary suspension of the reclas-sification project will allow theschools to obtain advice and makeplans that can result in an appro-priate short-term and long-termreform process. (This recommenda-tion should in no way be construedas an endorsement of the schoolsystem's previous practices, as theearlier sections of this reportshould have made clear.)

5hort-Term RecommendationsA-I. 'Because of the inadequacy ofcurrent retesting procedures and the

63

lack of appropriate transitionalprograms, the school system shouldsuspend the current reclassificationproject until appropriate changesare made in its design and implemen-

tation. These changes must be com-pleted in a timely fashion, so thatreclassification can resume beforethe end of the 1982-83 school year.

A-2. The school system shouldcontract with nationally recognizedconsultants on the EMH misclassifi-cation problem (either those theyhave previously employed or otherswith similar qualifications) toreview the adequacy of what has beendone to date and to recommend theingredients for an adequate reformeffort. The consultants shouldgather information trom interestedindependent groups. They shouldmake specific recommendations aboutan adequate program for studentassessment, placement, reassessmentand transition, including suchissues ai testing procedures,resource allocation, qualificationsfor key staff positions, and neededstaff training and in-class support.One issue to which the consultantsshould direct their attention iswhat additional efforts should beundertaken for those students whohave already been retested using theExperimental Battery. The consul-tants' report should be made public.

KLI. The school system should allowpsychologists from Designs forChange and other qualified indepen-dent parties to examine the testsand testing procedures that havebeen used in the reclassificationand should supply other requesteddata about the status of the projectthat will allow the public to moni-tor the school system's perfOrmance.

A-4. Responding to recommendationsfrom the consultants and from inter-ested groups, the school systemshould then develop tentative plansfor a modified reclassification

52

projeet, specifically justifying anyproposed deviations from the consul-tants' recommendations. The consul-.

tants and interested members of thepublic should have an4opportunity tocomment on these plans.

A-5. The school system should thenimplement a new reclassificationplan, to begin before the end of the1982-83 school year. The implemen-tation of the project should includethe regular release of data thatwill allow independent groups tomonitor progress.

A-6. Since the adequate implementa-tion of a reclassification projectinvolves numerous parts of theregular education and special educa-tion system, the General Superinten-dent should assume the major directresponsibility for theimplementation of this project.

Long-TemRecommendationsA-7. After the major reclassifica-tion project is completed, theschool system should continue tocarry out the key features of therevised student evaluation, place-ment, reevaluation, and transitionplan on a permanent bas,is.

A-8. Employing the approach toreform embodied in the short-termrecommendations (use of outsideconsultants, public participation inplanning, public access to informa-tion), the school system shoulddevelop-and implement reforms thataddress the following longer-termissues:

a. Improvements in the referral

process and capabilitiesof regular classr om teachers todeal with learning and behaviorproblems within the regularclassroom.

b. Improvements in the quality ofEMH inttruction and the diversityof settings in which EMB studebtsare instructed.

6,1

A-9. The school system shouldundertake a permanent program formonitoring the misclassificationproblem, which includes collecting,analyzing, and making public thefollowing information on an annualbasis:

a. The number of referrals forspecial education assessment,byethnic group made from eachschool.

b. The numbers of placements invarious special educaion pro-grams (Educationally Handicapped,Specific Learning Disability,etc.) by ethnic group and by typeof placement (resource room,self-contained classroom, etc.).These data should be presented ona school-by-school basis both forthe "sending schools" from whichstudents are referred for specialeducation assessment and the"receiving schools" that housethe sp6cia1 education programs.

A-I0. The school'system should,with the participation of the publicand of outside consultants, developand carry out a plan of action toaddress other issues of misclassifi"cation and inadequate availabilityof special education services indi-cated by the data analysis in thisreport. These include:

a. The under-representation ofHispanic students in a number ofspecial education programs.

b. The over-representation of blackstudents in classes for theEducationally Handicapped, theseparationsof these classes fromthe regular school program, andthe quality of these programs.

%c. The under-representation of black

students in programs for learningdisabilities, speech impairments,and physical handicaps.

53

B. EecOmmendations to the StateGarin:Iona] mud; and tiler IllinoisState Board of EducationThe Illinois state government andparticularly the Illinois StateBoard of Education have the obliga-tion to enforce numerous state andfederal requirements that have beenviolated by the past classificationpractices of the Chicago Board ofEducation and by the present reclas-sification project. These includerequirements that tests and testingprocedures be non-discriminatory,that any tests used be validated forthe purpose intended, that parentsbe encouraged to participate active-ly in decisions about their chil-dren, and that children be educatedto the greatest extent possible inregular classroom and schoolsettings.'"

In addition to enfaiAng the law,the state government provides sub-stantial monetary support for spe-cial education programs, and the waythese funds are Provided createsboth positive and negative incen-tives in relation to the misclassi-fication problem.1'°

Desiigns for Change and ot er organi-zations cooperating with EjFC willask the Illinois Stale Board of .

Education to take both short-termand long-term action on misclassifi-cation in Chicago. .

5hort-Term Recommendations11-1. ISBE should conduct an inves-tigation of the Chicago PublicSchools to identify possible viola-tions of the state and federalspecial education requirementsrelated to misclassification thatISBE is charged wiet enforcing.This investigation should focus onthe misclassification of children inEMB classes and the adequacy of

G;j

reforms initiated by the ChicagoPublic Schools to address thisproblem. ISBE shou4d makerecommendations and, if necessary,apply sanctions, sufficient toinsure that a program is implementedconforming to relevant state andfederal requirements.

LOng-Term Recommendations11-2. ISBE should conduct regularmonitoring of the special educationprograms of the Chicago PublicSchools sufficient to insure compli-ance with relevant requirementsrelated to misclassification. Theseinvestigations should not only focuson problems related to the EMHprogram, butr.also other issues ofmisclassification and inadequateavailability of services indicatedby the data analysis in this report.These include:

a. The under-representation ofHispanic children in a number ofspecial education pr6grams.

b. The over-representation of blackstudents in classes for theEducationally Handicapped, theseparation of 4these classes fromthe regular school program, andthe quality of these programs.

c. The undeT-representation of blackstudents in programs for learningdisabilities, speech impairments,and physical handicaps.

D-3. .ISBE and other branches ofstate government should take leader-ship in identifying possible changesneeded in state law and regulationsthat would create positive incen-tives for school systems to classifychildren accurately. Among thechanges that should be seriouslyconsidered:

a. Illinois is one of the few stateswithout specific requirements.concerning the criteria to beused in placing children in EMH

54

classes.'1 ISBE should adopt thecriteria for EMH placement divecom-mended in this report, which arethe state standards in many otherstates.

b. State funding should be providedfor special education resourceteachers who would have theprimary responsibility for .

preventing unnecessary specialeducation referrals by helpingregular classroom teachers dealwith learning and behaviorproblems.

c. State funding should be providedto staff trensitignal programs toreturn specilil education studentsto full-time participation in theregular program.

d. Modifications should be consi-dered in the present set ofdefinitions for handicaps thatwill both guarantee childrenacces$ to needed services andminimize the associated stigmaand separWtion from the regularschool program.

C. Recommendations to ConcernedParent and Citizen GroupsParent and.citizen groups haveplayed and will continue to play acatalytic role in achieving appro-priate changes in policy aboutmisclassification and seeing thatthey are carried out in practice.Parent and citizen groups can pressthe Chicago Public Schools directlyfor needed short-term and long-termchanges. They can press othergovernmental agencies and officialbodies to investigate what ishappening in Chicago. They caninvestlgate the EMH problem inparticular schools and administra-tive districts. And they can adviseindividual parents whose childrenare being assessed or reassessed.

Short-Term RecommendationsParent and citizen groups should:

C-1. Obtain information andtraining sb that they can aidparents whose children are beingreclassified and can investigatemisclassification in specificschools and administrativedistricts.

.0(

C-2. Press the Chicago PublicSchools to suspend its presentreclassification project andredesign it.

C-3. Encourage other governmentalagencies and organizations to inves-tigate Chicago's reclassificationproject if it refuses to suspend thepresent effort.

C-4. Provide information, training,and advocacy assistance to individ-ual parents whose phildren are goingthrough the reclassificationprocess.

"C-5. Investigate the extent of themisclassification problem and thequality of the school system'sreclassification project in parti- .

cular schools or administrativedistrict's,

Long-Term RecommendationlParent and citizen groups should:

C-6. Press for needed long-termchanges in the practices of theschool system that will eliminatethe EMI' misclassification problemand other inequities in specialeducation.

C-7. Provide information, training,and advocacy assistance to individ-ual parents whose children areinvolved in special education.

C-8. Press for long-term changes inthe quality of special education inparticular schools and administra-tive districts.

55

D. Recommendations to ParentsParents have substantial legalrights in influencing decisionsabout their children's placement andprogramming in special education.However, as we have noted earlier, .

these rights are likely to be under-cut unless parents learn what theirrights are and suppert each other inexercising these rights in thespecial education decision-makingprocess.

Short-Term Recommendationsp-1. Parents should obtain informa-tion and training so that they canrepresent their children's interestin the decision making about theirchild's asseTent and placement inEMH.

Da2. Parents should weigh their ownchild's situation in assessing theadvantages and disadvantages ofagreeing to allow their child to bereassessed in the currentrectassification project, if it iscontinued. Given the inadequaciesof the present process, parentsshould seriously consider refusingto have their child retested at thistime.

p-3. Parents who decide to allowtheir child to be retested have aright to detailed information aboutthe retesting and the transitionprogram. They should press for afull explanation of the way in whichtheir child will be retested and howdecisions will be made about theirchild. They should press fordetailed information about theservices plat will be provided totheir child if he or she istransitioned.

Loml:Jerm PuomincruhaisanlParentl- should obtain informa-

tion and training so that they canrepresent their children's interestin the special educationdecision-making process.

D-5. Parents should join with otherparents in analyzing the adequacy ofspecial education programs in theirlocal schools and advising otherparents when their childreh are-being tested and placed.

E. Recommendations to theAmerican PsychologicalAssociation and theNational Association ofSchool PsychologistsThecAmerican Psychdlogical Associa-tion and the National Association ofSchool Psychologists have codes ofethical standards and standards forthe development and use of teststhat their members are bound tofollow. DFC and the other organiza-tions concerned about misclassificaLion will inform the ethics commit-

4N.

56

tees of these two organizations of -

apparent violations of these stan-dards that are taking place inChicago's reclassification projecl.

6Short-Term Recommendations

If the Chicago Board of Educa-tion suspends the reclassificationproject and agrees to an appropriateprocess for modifying the reclassi-fication project, APA and NASPshould offertechnical assistance tothe school system in planning andcarrying out needed short-term and,long-term changes:

E_12. If the Chicago Board Of Educa-tion continues thekresent reclassi-fication project, APA and NASPshould conduct investigations ofapparent violations of professionalstandards in Chicago's reclassifica-tion project and should seek neededmodifications, imposing appropriatesanctions if necessary.

ree

-APPENDIX _ASumilementary Tables

57 6

Table A-1Percent hnd'Numbers of Stikients .

from Various Ethnic Groups in Programs for

the Educable Mentally Handicapped (ENE)

-in the Nation's Six Largest Cities'2(1980-81 School Year)

CITY(LISTED IN ORDEROF TOTAL SCHOOLENROLLMENT)

% BLACK -

STUDENTS,IN EMH1BY CITY

,% WHITESTUDENTSIN EMHBy CITY

% HISPANICSTUDENTSIN EMHBY CITY,

% TOTALSTUDENTSIN EMHBY CITY

New York 0.91% 0.41% 0.80% 0.70%

(enrollment = 943,952) n - 3,276 n 1,009 n 2,286 n 6,629

Los Angeles 1.07% 0.39% 0.35% 0.51%

(enrollment 538,038) n 1,339 n 503 n 858 n 2-,765

Chicago 3.83% 1.74% 0;83% 2.85%

(enrollment 458,523) n .-10,658 n 1,493 n - 701 n 13;077

Philadelphia 2.39% 1.38% 1.95% 2.03%

(enrollment - 224%152) n 3,361 n 88,7 n 312 n 4,559

Detroit,(enrollMent 213,077)

1.75%n - 3,200

1.66%n 1. 430

0.61%n

1.72%n - 3,659

Houston 0:57% 0.66% 0.88%

(enrollment 194,060) n - 1,058 n - 280 n - 357 n - 1,707

Source: U.S. Department of Edugatipn, Office for CiVil Rights, 5uryey

of Elementary and Secondary School Districts. and Schools in

selected School Districts: School Year 1980-1981.

7 u58

Table A-2Enrollment in Chicago's EMH Program

Compared-with Total School: System Enrollment'(1970 through 1981)

TOTta, SCHOOL ) CHANGE_SCHOOL SYSTEM FROMYEAR ENROLLMENT 1970-71

1970-71 577,679

1971-72 574,495 0.55%

1972-73 -558,825 3.26%

1973-74 544,971 5.66%

1974-75 536,657 7.10%

1975-76 526,716 8.82%

1976-77 524,221 9.25%. .

1977=38 512,052 -11.36%

1978-79 494,988 -14.31%

1979-80 477,339 -17.37%

1980-81 458,523 20.63%

Source: See Note 44.

*r

59

TOTAL % CHANGEgMH FROMENROLLMENT 1970-71

12,386

Not Avail.

Not Avail.

Not Avail.

Not Avail.

13,174 + 6,36%

13,259 + 7.057.

12,909 + 4.22%

12,952 + 4.57%

12,865 + 3.87%

r3,225 + 6.77%

13,303 + 7.40%

13,077 + 5.58%

cr,

SPECIALEDUCATIONPROGRAM

Educable MentaliyHandicapped

'Trainable MentaLly,Handicapped

Specific LearningDisabilitY

EmotionalHandicap

-

EducationalHandicap -

Speech Impaired

Physical Handicap

, A

Total

BLACK

'Taft AA;

Rates of Participation inVarious Special.Education Programs,

by Ethnic Group in Chicago",(1979-80 and 1980-81 School Years)

1979-80 SCHOOL YEARTOTAL WHITE,BLACK, AND

WHITE HISPANIC HISPANIC

3.69r(+) 1.44% 1.24%

it = 10,692 n = 1,373 n = 1,019

, 0.34% 0.34% - 0.29%n = 998 n = 329 n = 23$

2.25t(-) 3.47%

n = 6,535 n = 3,317

.0.77% 0.88%

n = 2,226 n =A840.

0.37%(+) 0.07%n = 1;066 n.= 63

1.34%(-) 2.33%

n= 3,880 .n = 2,223

0:68% 0.75%

n = 1,981 n 720

1.94%(=)n = 1,587

2.80%n = 13,084

0.33%n 1,565

2.45%n = 11,439

0.39%(-) 0.72%

n = 320 n 3,386

0.06% 0.25%

n = 53 , n = 8,102

1.32%(-) 1.54%

n = 1,081 n = 7,184,

0.56% 0.68%

n = 463 n = 3,164

9.44% 9.28% 5.81%(-)n = 27,378 n = 8,865 n = 4,761

Note: In each, case where the rate of participation in a particular program is substentially greater for black or for

,Hispanic students, his rate is marked with aIn each,case whete the,rate of participation in a particular program is substantially lesp for bladk 'or for

Hispanic students, this rate is marked with a '-". tee Note 51.

8.77%,

rt,= 41,004

BLACK

1980-81 SCHOOL YEAR'TOTAL WHITE,'BLACK, ANDEISPANIC .WHITE 'HISPANIC

3.83%(+) 1.74% 0.83%(-) 2.87%

. n = 10,658 n "". 1,493 n = 791. n = 12,852

0.33% 0.18% 0.24%(-) 0.32%

n = 922 n = 329 n = 205 n = 1,456

2.41%(-) 4.22% 1.60%(-) 2.60%

n = 6,744 n is, 3,613 n = 1,347 nc= 1j,664

0.72% 0.96% ,0.32%(-) 0.0%'n = 2,004 n = 822 n = 266 n = 3,092

0.25%(+) 0.0% . 0.02% 0.16%

n = 694 n = 18 n = 21 n = 733

1.52%(-) 2.71% 1.16%(-) 1.67%

n = 4,244 n =2,318 n = 924 n = 7,486

0.62%(-) 0.89% 0.62%(-) 0.67%

n = 1,719' n = 755 n = 520 n = 2,994

9.67% 10.91% 4.73%(-) , 8.98%

n = 26,945 n = 9,348 n = 3,984 n = 40,27

tource: See Note 43.

,

I a

4.

n -Table A-4Four Special Education Programs in Chicago

in Which Black StudentsWere Over- or Under-Represented.Degree of Separation from the Regular School Program.'"

(1979-80 School Year)

LOW(regular class-room or part-tine resourceroom)

HIGH(separatespecial,education ,

classroom)

VERY HIGH(separatespecial schoolor otherfacility)

'TOTAL.'

Educable 10.6% 85.1% 4.3% 100%Mentally n - 1,380 n -,11,140 n - 565 n - 13,085Handicapped

Educational 4.1% 19.7% 100%Handicap n - 48 234 n - 902 n - 1,184

Learning 85.3% 14.0% 0.6% 100%Disability n - 9,217 n 1,517 n'- 68. n - 10,802

Speech 97.4% 2.2% 0.4% 100%Impaired n - 6,483 n - 158 n . 29 % n 44 3,170

" Source: Harold Dent, Robert J. Griffore, and Jane Mercer, "SpecialEducation and Testing," in Consultants.Research Reports onVarious Aspects of the Educational ComPonents, submitted toJudge.Milton I. Shadur in United States of America vs. Boardof Education of the City of Chicago, No. 80 C 5124 (N.D..I11.,filed February 1982), pp. III-10, 111-17. See Note 59.

61

7 4

DISTRICT

Table A-SPercentages and Numbers of Chicago's Black and White Student's

in Elementary and High School EME Classes for theSchool Svstem's Twenty Administrative Districts"'

(1980-81 School Year)

% AND NUMBER*OF ELEMENTARYSTUDENTS TNELEMENTARYEMH CLASSES

Z. AND NUMBER*OF ETCH SCHOOLSTUDENTS INHIGH SCHOOLEMI{ CLASSES

% AND NUMBER*OF ALL BLACK ANDWHITE STUDENTS INCHICAGO'SEM}-T CLASSES

1

BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE BLACK WHITE

2.777

32

0.89%

95___

0.89% 0.83%

31

2.177.

'36

0.87%

126

1,157 10,725

_4

447 3,721 1,66,1 14,498

2 1.677 1.30% 2.177 1.357 1.797 1.32%

58 96 25 47 83 143

3,493 7,378 1,149 3,467 4,642 10,845

3 3.137, 1%187 4%27% 0.737, 3.397 0.987

213 51 88 301 77

-f.,--fTo-f; 4,307 2,063 3,559 8,869 7,866

4 3.26% 2.557 7.137 2.53% 4.01% 2...4e7(7-

182 147 96 139 278 286

5,590 5,764 1,34-7- 5,490 6,937 11,254

5 4.657 2.907 .957 0.257. 5.427, 2.68%

255-57481

128

47410133

4--,674

1 388 129

403 7,155 4,813

5.347 3.20% 2.64% 2.907 4.457 3.14%

108 62 23 11 131 73

2,02,1 1,936 872 379 2,946' 2,325

7 4.49% -** 2.83% - * * 4.10% -**

75C 149 90722,125

5.54% 2.45% 5.487 3.16% 5.427 2.72%

241 46 232 46 473 92

4,352 1,880 4,237 1,456 8,719 3,385

9 3.257 0.657 7.927 0.587 4.817 0.597.

453 2 567 7 1020 . 9

fi:44) 310 1,155 1,26-0 21,201 1,538

10 3.747 4.82% i.69% -A 3.87% 1.177

423 20 92 515 23

11,317 415 1,616 13,320 1,973

62

7 6

DTSTRICT RANKBY % OF LOW-INCOMESTUDENTS IN THEDISTRICT (districtranked first lias thehighest poyeryrate)

20th

18th

12th

19th

10th

1st

4th

6th

2nd

5Ch

% AND NUM3ER* % AND NUMBER*OF ELEMENTARY OF HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS IN STUDENTS INELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL

DISTRICT CLASSES1 EMH CLASSES

% AND NUMBER*OF ALL BLACK ANDWHITE STUDENTS INCHICAGO'SEMH CLASSES

DISTRICT RANKBY % OF LOW-INCOMESTUDENTS IN THEDISTRICT (districtranked first has thehighest poverty rate)

BL4CK WHITE BLACK ,WHITE BLACK WHITE

11 6.567 1.657 '3.237 0.987 5.287 3.257 7th

63 209 3 % 890" 66_681

10,380 1,725 6,474 305 16,854 2,03012 3.777 2.347 7.487 1.377 4.577 1.917 15t..1.1

267 111 146 52 413 1637,085 4,737 1,951 3,807 -9,036 8,544

13 3.11% 1..807 77717 -** 4.057 3.407 3rd

500 19 617 817 "-' 4116,086 1,058 4,109 20,195 1,207

14 3.387 1.857 4.597 1.017 3.827 2.567 8th'It

510 7 290 4 827_ ,2015,083 3-7-8 6,4ro 39A- 21,665 781

15 2.677 1..327 2.277 1.077 2.557 1.227 16th

279 56 , 31 375 8710,451 4,232

_96_4,230 2,887 14,681 7,119

16 3.257 -** 5.427 -** 4.047 -** 9th

458 937__479 _

14,761 8,448 23,209

17 2.377 -** 4.437 -** 2.717 -1.* 13th

410,

154_ 56417,-333 3,474

') 20,807

18 3.247 0.487 3.517 2.077 3.307: 0.94% 17th

493 9 137 16 630 2515,214 1,886 3,898 773 19,112 2,659

19 1.597" 0.687 4.187 2.987 2.881 1.227 14th

127_ 9_ 332 12 459 218,012 1,314 7,939 403 15,951 1,717

20 2.587 1.467 4.287 1.557 3.187 -2.947 llth

324_ 19 290 23 614_ 8212,542 1,302 6,782 1,488- 19,324 2,790

The first number listed under the percentage for each district is the number ofEMH students for the indicated category (e.g., the number of black elementary EMHstudents in District 1). The second number listed is the total distr,ict enrollmentfor the indicated category (e.g., the total number of black elementary studentsenrolled in District 1).

63

a.

** In these instances, the administrative district's total enrollment of a particu-

lar group of children (for example, white high school students) is less than 150,

and a per,centage rate has not been calculated.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey of Elemen-

tary and Secondary School Districts, and Schools in Selected School

Districts, and Schools in Selected School Districts: School Year 1980-81;

Chicago Public Schools, Context for Achievement: Test Scores and Selected

School Characteristics, (Chicago: Author, 1982). See Note 63.

7?64

APPENDIX BInterpreting School-by-School Data

about EMI( Misclassification

As indicated in Section 2, school-by-school data concerning EMHclassification can be extremeky helpful to those seeking to identifymisclassification problems and deficiencies in EMH programs. However,school-by-school data are also complicated to interpret, and the avail-able school-by-school data about Chicago has some significant limita-tions. Nevertheless, this appendix presents school-by-school dataconcerning black and white student enrollment in EMB for the 1980-81school year, along with some guidelines for underStanding it. ThisOformation is intended for the parent group, citizen group, journal-ist, or educator who wants .to understand the'misclassification problemin particular schools and administrative districts.

As noted in Section 2, there are two major types of problems asso-ciated with the EMH program that arise at the school level. First, someindividual schools may reter excessive numbers of children for specialeducation evaluation, and as a result, a high percentage of the black orwhite children from a particular school may end up in EMH classes. Thisis a problem that relates to the "sending school," the school where achild participated in the regular school program before being placed inEMH .

Second, because many EMH students are bused away from their neigh-borhoods-to attend EMI! programs in other schools, there are importantprobleMs related to the "Peceiving schools" for EMH children, theschools that actually house EMH itrograms. Frequently, the EMI! classesfor several neighborhood schools are consolidated in one of theseschools. Or EMH programs may be housed in a school that primarilyserves handicapped children. Or EMH students may be bused to.a.schoolto enhance the racial balance of the school, even though the EMH

students have little contact with the regular programi in the receivingschool (for example, black EMI! students bused to a predominantly whiteschool).

Unber federal and state requirements, handicapped children have aright to attend a.special education program in thpir neighborhoodschool, unless there is some compelling reason why assigning children toanother school is necessary."' And handicapped,,children have a right tospeo.ial education services that maximize their tontact with the regularschool program."' These requirements are undevilined when EMH childrenare transferred for administrative.Jeonvenience'or placed in isolatedspecial education schools withbut an educational justification.

65

The tables presented at the end of this appendix can help you

investigate.these problems in particular schools or administrative

districts. These four tables' present school-by-school data about the

rate oeparticipition in EMIl for black students in elementary school,

black students in high school, white students in elementary school, and

white students in high school (1980-81 school year). For each of these

groups of students, a particular tible lists those schools in rank order

that have more than 1.25% of a particular groub-of students enrolled in i

EMH.

There are several retsons why a particular school might have a high

rate of EME enrollment. The position that someone analyzing particular

schools should .take is that any time there is a high rate of EMH enroll-

ment for black or white students in a particular school, the burden

should be on the school system to Prove that this high rate does not

reflect (1) an excessi'vely high rate of referral for special education

evaluation and placement in EMI classes op (2) the unjustifiable separa-

tion of EME stwdents from the regular education program.

,

Excessive Referral and EMIL Placement

The ideal data needed to investigate the problem of excessive

referral and placement would be:

The number of referrals for special education assessment by

ethnic group made from each "sending" school during a school

year.

The numbers of placements in various special education

programs (Educationally Handicapped, Specific Learning

Disability, etc.) by ethnic group and by type of placeMInt

(resource room, self-contained classroom, etc.) for each

"sending" school during a school year.

As noted in Section 6, we are requesting that the school system make

these data available in the future.

However, the available data about the actual enrollment in EME in

various schools, presented at the end of this appendix, can be used as a

good starting point for investigating the problem of excessive referrals

and placements. To do so, investigate the following questions:

Identify a school you are interested in tht has a high EME

enrollment.

Akk school officials to explain to you what sending schools

transfer children to these particular receiving schools for

EMH programs.

If a school is only serving EMH students, from its regular

attendance area, you oan use the percentages in this appendix

to judge whether the school has a high placement rate in EMH.

66

If a school houses EMH classes,that serve students busedfrom several other schools, you should try to find out howmanyEMH students come from each of these schools, so youcan calculate the EMH placement rate-for each of these'schools. If this information is not available, you can addup the total enrollments by ethnic group for all thesending schools and calculate an overall EMH rate for thegroup of sending schools that feedi children into EMHclasses in a particular receiving school.

Uniustifiable Separation of EMH Studentsfrom the Reeular School Program

'In most cases, there is no reason why EMH students can't be servedin there own neighborhood school and can't spend part or most of theirtime participating in the regular school program. This possibility isundermined when children are bused out of their neighborhood to seParateEMN programs in schools with high concentrations of EMH or other specialclasses. One of the few legitimate justifications for this practice isthat the eceiving chop,' provides highly specialized staff, equipment,or progra s that act ally benefit ENE students and that can't be pro-vided in tke neighbo hood school."' Focusing then on a school with ahigh rate f EMH enr Ilment for black or white students, you should askschool officials questUons like the following:

What are the sending schools for this particular receiving.school? Why can't these sending schools simply have theirown EMH programt?

Are children'being bused to a particular school for EMH pro-grams to improve the racial balance of the school? If so, towhat extent are EMN students really being integrated into theregular school program in the receiving school?

Are there any highly specialized staff (e.g., physical thera-pists), special equipment, or programs in this school thatactually benefit EMH students and that can't be made avail-able in a neighborhood school?

Is this school primarily a school for handicapped children?If so, has the EMB class been placed in this school for someeducational reason or primarily for administrativeconvenience?

FrOblems With the School-Level_Datz

A final issue that you should consider in using these data is thatthey are data for the 1980-81,school year and that thei.e tre undoubtedlysome mistakes in them. But remember, it is the school system's ownitaff who compiled these data, and the school system also has similardata for the most recent school year which have not been released. If

school officials tell youthat the data are inaccurate, remind them that-these are their own data and ask them to correct any misiakes. If

school officials tell you these data are outmo d, ask them to producemore recent data.

67

bki

To understand the four tables, examine Table B-1. Table B-1 lists

all elementary schools with a black student enrollment of more than 50

students and more than 1.257. of these black students assigned to EMH

classes. (Similarly, Table B-3 lists all elementary schools with awhite student enrollment of more than 50 students and more than 1.25%

of these white students assigned to EMH classes.)

Schools in Table B-1 are listed in terms of the percentage of

black students assigned to_EMH, with the school having the highestpercentage of black EMH enrollment listed first. Schools in Table B-1

marked with an asterisk have a total black student enrollment of 51

to 150 black students. The reader should note that in schools indicatecb'Aan asterisk, small changes in the Dumber of students in EMH classes

pan cause significant shifts ui or down in the school's place-on the

list.

A

68

No'

Table 33-1Elementary Schools (K-8) with More Tha

Fifty Black Students-and More Than1.257. of These Students in EMH Classes

(1980-81 School Year)

% BLACKDISTRICT STUDENTS

SCHOOL NUMBER /N EMH

.1

NUMBERBLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

e

S OOL'SBLA Ksnip NTENROL 'T

I

HERZL CHILD PARENT CENTER 10 28.78 40 lp'JOHNSON CHILD PARENT CENT 8 24.82 35 14.1

JAMES WARD ELEM 11 20.12 33 164

fRVING ELEM 9 19.57 27 138

* PLAMONDON ELEM 8 19.30 11 57

* TALCOTT ELEM 4 6 18.87 10 53

DOUGLAS ELEM 11 14.81 96 648

* SMYSER ELEM t . 1 14.29 15 105

* LYON ELEM 4 14.14 14 99

* SCHUBERT ELEM 4 13.33 16 120

* REINBERG ELEM 4 12.86 9 70

ALCOTT ELEM 3 12.72 22 1173

CLARK MIDDLE 7 12.34 103 835

DONOGHUE ELEM 11 11.15 68 610

SCHILLER ELEM 3 10.89 61 560

TULEY MIDDLE SCHOOL . 6 10.64 10 94

MORTON UPPER CYCLE 5 10.61 61 575

* TRUMBULL ELEM 2 9.68 6 62

- PENN ELEM 10 9.50 81 853

LAWLESS UPPER CYCLE 16 9.35 50 535

SHEPARD ELEM 8 9.32 34 365

* HALE ELEM 12 9.26 5 54

* STOWE ELEM 5 9.09 5 55

REILLY ELEM 5 8.97 7 78

DOUGLASS MIDDLE 7 8.87 96 1082

FRAZIER ELEM 10 8.82 41 465

f CLAY ELEM 20 8.65 9 104

PICCOLO MIDDLE 5 8.58 23 268

OAKLAND ElyEM 11 8.55 26 ' 304

JUDD ELEM 14 8.39 25 298

BURNSIDE ELEM 19 8.30 59 711

OAKENWALD S INTERMEDIATE 14 8.28 48 580

JOHNSON ELEM 8 8.24 35 425

* MURPHY ELEM 1 7.94 5 63

i. DEVER ELEM 4 7.81 5 64

WOODSON NORTH ELM 14 7.77 -44 566

* HURLEY ELEM 15 7.69 8 104

KAtNtS ELEM 11 -7.16 34 475

-DOOLITTLE-INTERMft'i. UPPE 11 7.04 46 653

LOW UPPER CYCLE 16 . 7.04 13 469

GLADSTONE'ELEM 9 6.77 42 620

698 4

CTh

ad

SCHPOL

DISTRICT-NUMBER,

% BLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

NUMBERBLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

SCHOOL'S 0BLACKSTUDENTENROLL'T

ELLINGTON ELEM 7 6.74 39 579

MELODY ELEM 7 6.59 44 668

* MOOS ELEM 6 6.56 4 61

DYETT/MIDDLE 13 6.51 49 753

NEWBERRY.ELEM 3 650 13 200,

REED ELEM 16 6.38 51 799

NASH ELEM", CHALMERS ELEM

7,

8^

6.346.31,

9045

.1419713

WHISTLER ELEM 18 ' 6.26 35 559 .

HEARST ELEM 12 \ 6.24 67 1673

ABBOTT ELEMENTARY II `-k20 34 548

- LOWELL ELEM 5 % 6.09 17 279

GOUDY ELEM ° 2 ,6.07 1,3 214

.* KILMER ELEM 2 5.88 6 102

* MOUNT GREENWOOD ELEM 18 5.88 6 102*

BEETHOVEN ELEM 13 5.88 68 1157

EMMET ELEM 7 5.86 48 819

HIGGINS ELEM 18 5.81 29 499

-GRESHAM'ELEM 18 5.67 '46 811

JENSEN ELEM 9 5.66 32 565

SUMNER ELEM 10 5.65 41 726

DARWIN ELEM 5 5.62 5 89

PARKER,ELEM 16 5.60 22 393

VON HUMBOLDT ELEM 6,

5.57 18° 323

RAYMOND ELEM II 5.55 56 1009

EINSTEIN ELEM II 5.53 42 760

PULASKI ELEM 5 5.48 4 ' 73

GUGGENHEIM ELEM 16 5.39 36 668

STEVENSON EtEM 15 5.36 6 , 112

CATHER ELEM 9 5.35 , 33 617

FISKE ELEM 14 5.19 32 617

CARVER PRIMARY 20 5.16 28 543

GOLDRLATT ELEM 7 5.10 44 863-

WILLIAMS ELEM 11 5.04 59 ,1170

SMYTH ELEM 9 5-02 42 837

MCCORKLE ELEM 13 4.97 35 704

BARNARD ELEM 18 4.87 '19 390

PADEREWSKI ELBM 10 4.87 29 596

RASTER ELEM 15 4.81 29 603

FARADAY,ELEM 9 4.79 60 1252

HESS UPPER CYCLE 10 4,79 417 355

LAFAYETTE ELEM 6 4.78 IS 314

'FULLER ELEM 14 '4.65 31 666

POPE ELEM 8 4.0 22 '475

MAY it ELEM 3 4.62 6 130

CAR R MIDDLE 20 4.61 30 651

MEND RSON ELEM, 12 4.59 49 -1068

SHE ELEM ,12 4.57 41 897

PULL ELEM .20 4.55 24 527

HERZL ELEM 10 4.55 40 880

KEY ELEM 7 4.53 40,

883

SCHOOLDISTRICTNUMBER

% BLACKSTUDENTSIN EMB

NUMBER.BLACKSTUDENTSIN EMB

SCHOOL'SBLACKSTUDENTENROLL'T

RYDER ELEM 18 4.51 26 576CARNEGIE ELEM 14 4.51 19 421BASS ELEM 16 35 777GREGORY ELEM A 10

.4.50

4.47 29 649VAN VLISSINGEN ELEM OA.

20 4.35 46 1058COLMAN ELEM 13 4.34 51 1174MAYO ELEM 11 4.33 27, 624ROSS ELEM, 13 4.31 39 904HERBERT ELEM 9 4.31 19 441SABIN ELEM 6 4,2 7 163WEST PULLMAN ELEM 18, 4. 38 902J ROBINSON BRANCH OF OAKE 14 4.18 13 311BIRNEY ELEM 9 4.17 25 599FARREN ELEM 13 4.13 42 1016FERMI ELEM 14 4%09 30 734

nRYERSON ELEM 5 4.08 37 906ESMOND ELEM 18 4.08 33,KOZMINSKI ELEM 14 4.07 22 540YATES ELEM 6 4.07 7 172YALE ELEM 16 4.03 30 745EARLE ELEM 15 '4.02 41 1020,DULLES ELEM 1-4 3.99 36 902MORGAN ELEM 18 3,97 25 630

* LOCKE ELEM 4 3.96 4 101,SHAKESPEARE ELEM 1,4 396 18 455BONTEMPS ELEM 12 3.95 30 760tHMAS ELEM

OOP ELEM14

183.943.92

28'29

711

739XTON ELEM 14 3.88 25 <, 644

BRYANT ELEM 10 3.85 26 675WILLARD ELEM 13 3.85 15 390PRICE ELEM 14 3.84 30 781HOWE ELEM 4 3.83 52 1356NEWTON ELEM 20 3.182 17 445BEIDLER ELEM 7 3.80 28 237JENNER ELEM 3 3.78 58 1534

- BRENAN ELEMSUDER ELEM

air18

9

3.773.77

4728

1246743

BETHUNE EEM 8 3.76 25 665* HAYT ELEM 2 3.70 2 54

,* BRIGHT ELEM 19 3.70 3 81,GREEN ELEM 18 3.68 17 462

, TIETON ELEM 7 3.66 37 1011), MADISON ELEM 17 3.64 29 796

WESTCOTT ELEM 16 \.63 27 744tDENEEN'ELEM 17 1.57 22 617DEWEY ELEM 13 .3;55 20 563STAGG ELEM 16 3.54 30 847CORNELL ELEM 17 3.53 19 538BROWNELL ELEM 17 3.53 14 397

, KING ELEM 9 3.51 12 3'42

PARK MANOR ELEM 17 3.51 17 485MOUNT VERNON 2LEM 18 3.47 22 634

71

8 4

SCHOOL

BYRD ELEM* SCHNEIDER ELEM

JO,PLIN ELEMHARTIGAN ELEM0 TOOLE ELEMJFFERSON ELEMHOLMES ELEMERICSON gLEmMAY ELEMTERRELL ELEMHENSON ELEMCAMERON ELEMWARD, LAURA S ELEMHAY ELEMFORT DEARBORN, ELEMRUGGLES ELEMKOHN ELEMREVERE ELEMMANIERRE ELEM'COPERNICUS ELEMTANNER ELEMHOWLAND ELEMDODGE ELEM

* ANDERSEN ELEMCARTER tLEMBRADWELL ELEMMCCOSH ELEMHEFFERAN ELEMDEPRIEST ELEMWRIGHT ELEM.CALHOUN ELEM 'NORTHMORSE ELEMCULLEN ELEMDETT ELEMYOUNG ELEMBURKE ELEMFOSTER PARK ELEMPICCOLO ELEMRAY ELEMNANSEN ELEMALDRIDGE ELEMHUGHES ELEMOGLESBY ELEMCUFFE ELEMLANGSTON HUGHES ELEMDRAKE ECQLES,S1LEMDELAN ELEM

* GRE EY ELEMSCatr ELEMFERNWOOD,ELEM

DISTRICTNUMBER-

3

5

15

1315"

% BLACKSTUDENTS,IN EMH

3.463.423.373.343.32

NUMBERBLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

234

302941

SCHOOL'SBLACKSTUDEFENR04,'T

6641178918691234

9 3.31 12 362

12 3.30 3A 1029

7 3.28 21, 641

7 3.26 50 1535

13 3.25 31 955

10 3.20 14 438

5 3.19 26 814

5 3.15 20 634 '

4 3.14 37 1177

18 3.13 33 1054 .

17 3.13 20 639

20' 3.11 36 1156

17 3.10 19 . 612

3 3.10 22,,

710

12 3.08 15 487

17 3.03 15 495

8 3.00 19 634

9 2.99 22 735

- 6 2.97 3 7 101

13 2.96, 28 945

17 2.96 40 1352

14 2.95 37 1254

7 2.95 21 712

7 ' 2.94 23 781

5 ' 2.94 11 374

9 2.94 23 782

5 c.93 21 716

20 2.92 14 479

9 2.92 25 856

. 4 2.92 12 411

13 2.87 15 522

-15 2.87 26 905

5 2.87 7 244 '

14 2.87 ' 9, 314 .

18 2.86 16 559

20 2.83 14 494

10 282 14 , 497

16 2.80 I 23 g21

\ 16 2.80 13 465

20 2.79 11 394

11 2.76 16 580

17 2.73 26 953

7 , 2.71, 23 849

2 2.70 2 74

14 2.70 13 481

, 18 2.68 14 523

72

441

DISTRICTSCHOOL Numpgg

PERRY ELEM , 19SCANLAN ELEM 20THORP JAMES N ELEM 19STEWART ELEM'e 2 '

LUELLA ELEM 19HENDRICKS ELEM 13ALTGELD ELEM 15OAKENWALD NORTH PRIMA 14GOMPERS ELEM 20LEWIS ELEM

., 4BEALE ELEM laSBARBARO ELEM 17WHITE BRANCH OF WEST LL 18CORKERY ELEM 10MARCONI EIAM, 7BROWN ELEM 9LIBBY ELEM 12

17AVALQ K ELEM 17MASON TER 10

. BUNCHE ELEM 15BRYN MAWR ELEM ,

17WENTWORTH ELEM 16DUBOIS ELEM 20WOODSON SOUTH ELEM 14BANNEKER ELEM 16BYFORD ELEM 4

OVERTON ELEM 13GERSHWIN ELEM 16BARTON.ELEM isEVERS ELEM 18 *

SPENCER ELEM 7 .

SHERWOOD 13PARKMAN ELEM 13MANN ELEM 17RIIS ELEM 9COOK ELEM i 16MOLLISON ELEM , 14GARVEY ELEM 18LATHROP ELEM 8LAWSON ELEM y 10BRYN MAWR BR 17CALDWELL ELEM 17CARPENTER ELEM 6HOYNE ELEM 19.,

JACKSON MANALIA ELEM 18KERSHAW ELEM 16STOCKTON ELEM 2

MCKINEEYEVGC 9HINTON ELEM 16

* 'FULTON ELEM 12PIRIE ELEM 17HARVARD ELEM 16

73

% BLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

2.672.672.672.662.622.612.602.59

NUMBEiBLACKSTUDENTSIN EMH

1734

165

1914

3012

SCHOOL'SBLACKSTUDENTENROLL'T

63612746001887255371152463,

2.57 15 5842.56 13 5072.55 26 10202.53 19 7522.52 10 3972.51 10 3992.49 19 7642.47 18 7302.42 16 6602.39 18 7542.36 19 8042.35 10 4252.35 21 8932.34 42 17962.33 25 10742.31 18 780/.31 16 6942.28 14 6142.27 17 7482.26 19 8402.26 18 7962.22 27 12152.21 10 4522.21 27 12212.18 10 4582.17 9 4142.12 25 11812.12 12 5672.09 25 11942.08 , 12 5782.05 14 6831.97 14 7101.91 12 6281.89 ' 7 3711.86

J13 698

1.85 3 1621.84 4 2171.82 12 . 659

-* 1.81 13 7181.79

,4 -223

1.79 3 , 168-

1.76 14 7951.75 2 114;1.71 9 5261.64 11 670

4

, 86

DISTRICT% BLACKSTUDENTS

NUMBERBLACK '

STUDENTS

SCHOOL'SBLACKSTUDENT

SCHOOL NUMBER IN EMH IN EMH 'ENROLL'T

DAWES ELEM 15 1.64 1 61

DVORAK ELEM 10 1.57 12 '765

BRENNEMANN ELEM 2 1.54 4 259

KIPLING ELEMDUNNE ELEM

, 18

20

1.531.52

7

10

458659

,9 597

SULLIVAN ELEM 17

'CURTIS ELEM 20 1.44 15 1042

DOOLITTLE PRIMARY 11 1.42 14 , 984

BOND ELEM 16 1.40 0 642

0 KEEFFE ELEM 17 1.38 16 1162

ATTUCKS ELEM 11 1.36 13 958

GRANT ELEM 9 1.35 L8 1329

WADSWORTH ELEM 14 1.30 7 537

74

Table B-2High Schools (9-12) with More ThinFifty Black Students and More Than

1.257. of These Students In EMH Classes(1980-81 School Year)

-

SCHOOL-.

MCLAREN OCCUPAIONAL HIGHBOWEN LAS CASAS- .

KENNEDYftHIGHGAGE PARK HIGH SCHOOLMANLEY HIGH%DUSABLE HT

DISTRICTNUMBER

1912128

13.

BLACKSTUDENTSIN EMB

80.4812.33

,104111

9.349.118.64

NEAR NORTH CAREER MAGNET 3 8.44MARSHALL HIGH ' 9 8.43ORR HIGH SCHOOL 5 8.07PHILLIPS HIGH SCHOOL -11

.7.74

ENGLEWOOD HIGH 16 -- 7.45* HUBBARD HIGH T , 15 7.25

CALUMET HIGH 16 7.15KING HIGH SCHOOL 14 1 7.15MORGAN PARK HIGH 18 6.79TILDEN HIGH SCHOOL 13 6.31,CRANE HIGH. 9, 6.25ROBESON HIGH SCHOOL 16 6.09HARLAN 19 6.03HIRSCH HIGH 17 5.86AUSTIN HIGH - 7 5.85WELLS HIGH SCHOOL 6 5.74FARRAGUT HIGH 10 )5.69

,- FORtMAN HItH SCHOOL 4 5.60HARPER HIGH 15, 5,12,

, FENGER HIGH 20 4.71 'HYDE PARK'CAREER ACADEM1 14 4.55CARVER AREA HIGH .

.

20 4.48COLLINS HIGH 8 4.29CURIE HIGH.,,, 12 4.09

), LINCOLN PARK HIGH 3 3.97SCHURZ HIGH SCHOOL 4 . , 3.86CORLISS HIGH 20 3.71HARRISON HIGH 8 3.60,SOUTH SHORE HIGH SCHOOL 17 3.58

,

Y' LAKE VIEW HGIH SCHOOL.

3 2.96SULLIVAN HIGH suom 2 2.94SENN HIGH SCHOOL' 2 2.40KENWOOD ACADEMT 14 2.39ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL 1 2.31

* AMUNDSEN HIGH SCHOOL 2 2,0§JULIAN HIGH SCHOOL 18 1.99STEINMETZ HIGH SCHOOL 4 1.55

7 5

-

NUMBERBLACKSTUDENTSIX EMH

23520247

68138

'21453

SCHOOL'SBLACKSTUDENTENRQLL'T,

4

I

29216384657281514

.2476628

181 2148133 1649205 2648143 191910 138

156 218113384 18238

103 1633- 143 2288139 2282130 215676 1297

1,49 254622 38392- 16167 12585 1659

112 2376118 2592.89' 198678 182031 75831 781

16 41488 237115 41778 21774 135

12 40811 45838 1592'4 173'2 97

53 26606 387

8. o

. Table t-3Elementary Schools (K-8) with'More Than

Fifty White'Students and More Than1.25% of These Students in EMH Classes

(1980-81 School Year)

* LOWELL ELEMSCHUBERT ELEM.REINBERG ELEM

DISTRICTNWdBEL

5

4

A

% WHIT'ESTUDENTS

24.6217.5512.08

NUMBERWHITESTUDENTS

SCHOOL'SWHITESTUDENT

' I._

16

7629

65433240

ONAHAN ELEM 1 11.64 34 292

* MORRIS ELEM 3 10:89 11 101

* CRERAR ELEM 15 9.93 14 141

* GOUDY ELEM 2 9.48 11 116

PECK ELEMENTARY. 12 9.07 35 386

*, STEWART ELEM 2 9.02 11 122

TALCOTT ELEM 6 8.78 18 205* WHITTIER ELEM 8 8.06 5 62 , 4

JAHN ELEM 5 7.96 23 289,40

* EICCOLO MIDDLE 5 7.75 11 142,* PrCKARD ELEM 8 7.45 7 94

REILLY ELEM 5 7.27 25 344STOCXTON ELEM 2 7.21 23 319STOWE ELEM 5 6.99 13- 186HOLDEN ELEM 11 6.80 .17 250

* GREELEY ELEM. 2 6.36 7 110

SAWYER ELEM 12 6.21 22 354

* SOLOMON ELEM 1 6.1.6 9 146

GREENE ELEM 11 . 5.96 9 151

* GARY ELEM 10 5.94 6 101

MOOS ELEM 6 5.77 6 104CLEVELAND ELEM r\- 5.49 119 346

* BRIGHT ELEM 19 5.33 4 75

BURROUGHS ELEM 8 .5.15 10 194

* BRENNEMANN ELEM 2 5.13 4 78

* AGASSIZ ELEM 3 5.13 6 117

/UNSTON ELEM 5 5.13//)

, 8 , 156

ALCOTT ELEM 3 4.85 165HEALY ELEM 11 4.74 018() 422

* PICCOLO ELEM 5 4.,62 130

ROGERS ELEM , 2 4.23 14 331

* COLUMBUS ELEM 6 4.17 3 72

76

------------

SCHOOL

'%

DISTRICTNUMBER

WHITESTUDENTSIN EMH

NUMBER 'WHITESTUDENTSIN EMH

SCHOOL'SWHITESTUDENTENROLL'T

PULASKI ELEM 5 3.86 8 207SMYSER ELEM 1 3.80 12 316GUNSAULUS ELEM 8 3.79 11 290TRUMBULL ELEM 2 3.77 14 371FULTON ELEM 12 3.60 8 222HURLEY ELEM 15 3.49 9 258KOSCIUSZKO ELEM 6 3.45 6 174CLAY ELEM 20 3.43 14 408COONLEY ELEM 3 3.39 12 354

* RANDOLPH ELEM 15 3.30 3 91DAWES ELEM 15 3.25 19 584

* BURR ELEM 6 3.11 2 64HALE ELEM 12 3.11 13 418SCHNEIDER-ELEM 5 3.09 , 5 162FALCONER ELEM 4 2.96 13 439OTIS ELEM 6 2.09 5 173YOUNG ELEM 4 2.72 8 294

* YATES ELEM 6 2.72 4 147TONTI ELEM 12 2.46 10 406LOCKE ELEM 4 2.40 10 416GRAHAM ELEM 13 2.32 15 646

* SEWARD ELEM 13 2.25 2 89ARMOUR ELEM 11 2.16 8 370STEVENSON ELEM 15 1.96 9 460LYON ELEM 4 1.90 6 316DARWIN ELEM 5 1.88 3 160HAYT ELEM y 2 1.81 6 332

* ANDERSEN ELEM 6 1.71 2 117TWAIN ELEM 12 1.66 5 302GOETHE ELEM 5 1.55 3 193MURPHY ELEM 1 1.55 5 322MCCLELLAN ELEM 11 1.50 3 200MAYER ELEM 3 1.36 4 295BUDLONG ELEM 1 1.33 8 602BURBANK ELEM 4 1.30 4 308NOBEL ELEM 5 1.28 3 235

9u

77

Table /3-4High ScAools (9-12) with More ThanFi-fty White Students and More Than

1.25% of These Students in EMH Classes(1980-81 School Year)

SCHOOL

BOWEN LAS CASASTILDEN HIGH SCHOOLWELLS HIGH SCHOOLJUAREZ HIGH SCHOOLHARRISON HIGHLAKE VIEW HGIH SCHOOLSCHURZ HIGH SCHOOLKELLY HIGH SCHOOLGAGE PARK HIGH SCHOOLLINCOLN PARK HIGHROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOLSENN HIGH SCHOOLAMUNDSEN HIGH SCHOOLSULLIVAN HIGH SCHOOLHUBBARD HIGHSTEINMETZ HIGH SCHOOLRICHARDS VOCATIONAL HIGH

DISTRICTNUMBER

191368

8

3

4

8

123

1

2

2

2

15

11

78

% WHITESTUDENTS

tRIT-

NUMBER SCHOOL'SWHITE WHITESTUDENTS STUDENT

-SKr ---ERROLVT

12.96 7 54

9.40 14 149

6.32 11 174

6.06 4 66

4.69 3 64

3.88 19 490

3.27 61 1868

3.18 39 1226

2.87 19 -663

2.86 7 245

2.82 30 1065

2.36 16 679

2.03 21 1036

1.66 10 604

1.45 19 1310

1.32 23 1741

1.25 2 160

APPENDIX CChronology of Mador Events Related tothekReform of Chicago's EMH Program

ilessmksr...122,4_Parents of Children in Special Education filed a lawsuit,against

the Chicago Public Schools, charging that the school system's practicesfor placing children in classes for the Educable Mentally Handicappedwere discriminatory (FASE v. Hannon).2" The lawsuit focused especially onthe school 'system's heavy reliance on IQ tests in making placementdecisions, although 1p tests have never been validated for the purposeoS placing minority students in EMB classes. Tile lawsuit also objectedto lack of parent involvement in EMH assessment and placement andfailure to determine whether students recommended for EMH classes mighthave other handicaps that accounted for their learning difficulties.

January 1980After preliminary legal procedures that took over five years, the

rASE case went to trial. The.plaintiff parents produced evidence tosupport their claim that the school system's procedures 'were discrimi-natory. The school system argued that the higher percentage of blackstudents in ENE classes could be traced to the higher incidence ofpoverty among Chicago's black students, which "interfered with thedevelopment of intellectual skills."'"

July 1980Judge John Grady ruled that Chicago's EMH placement procedures were

not discriminatory, finding for the defendants (the Chicago PublicSchools). He placed a heavy emphasis in his decision on an item by itemreview of the IQ tests involved, reaching personal judgments aboutwhether or,not particular items were biased, and asserting that most ofthem were not.4.:

AuRust 1980Judge Grady's ruling in the rASE case was appealed to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by the attorneys for theplaintiff parents."'

September 1980The school system and the U.S. Department of Justice entered into

4n agreement (a consent decree) to settle the federal government'slawsuit against the school system concerning alleged segregation in theChicago Public Schools (United Statts_ v. Chicago Board of Education). 2 0 4

This consent decree was approved by federal Judge Milton Shadur. In theconsent decree, the school system agreed to make changes that wouldinsure non-discrimination in all aspects of student assessment and

79

placement, a commitment that had potential implications for- the EMH

program. The consent decree obligated the school system to develop and

implement a detailed plan for studerit desegregation and for the

,.41004rovision of educational services to minority students.-

April to June 1981The Chicago school board approved a plan for the "educational

components" of the deseuegation effort.'" As part of this plan and as a

result of negotiations with attorneys in the rASE case, the school'

system agreed to discontinue the use of IQ tests in EMH assessment-and

to develop new testing methods for EMH.7" The school system begancarrying out the provisions of its plan for the "educational compo-

nents"_immediately, while Judge Shadur was gathering further evidence

and reachirij, eletaidiC-et/nc-erning_tiye- wslegitany -et the- plain..

April 1981Jtr,e7Shadur requested that the public submit formal comments

("amic briefs") commenting on the adequacy of the educational

components of the school district's plan for carrying out-the consent

decree."'

Aulust 19810 Designs for Change submitted an amicus curiae brief focusing on the

EMH misclassification issue. It argued that the school system's plan

for dealing with discrimination in the EMH program was too vague. It

asked the couet to require the board to develop specific timetables for

reassessing EMH students, to allocate sufficient staff for the t

reassessment process, to provide follow-up help to students moved back

into the regular school program, to provide staff development for the

teachers involved, and to establish a record-keeping system for

reporting progress in careying out the reclassification."' DFC also

asked, as did, several other groups who submitted comments, that an

independent monitoring commission be set up that would assess the school

system's progress in implementing its plans and would report directly to

the court and the public.'"

August 1981The school system replied to the Designs for Change brief, arguing

that the court should not require the types of specifics DFC requested,

which should be left to the discretion of the school system. Further,

the school system committed ilself to "confer with these organizations

,DFC and others who had submitted comments] at a staff level and to

provide specific information on the activities of the Board which relate

to these concerns. . .

November )981Judge Shad& ordered the school system to respond to crit.kcisms of

the schoo system's plan made by DFC and several other organizations who

submit.ted amicus curiae briefs.'

80'6

January 1982The school system's attorneys submitted to the court a tentative

plan for dealing with the EMH problem that responded to several of thecriticisms raised by DFC.'" The school system's tentative plan includedrecord-keepihg concerning the numbers of students in EMH, transitionalservices for EMH students returned to the regular classroom, hiring ofconsultants to retest all children in EMH classes by the end of the1982-83 school year, and staff development for both special educationand regular program teachers. However, the school sy&tem indicated thatthis represented only the thinking of its staff, not a binding legalcommitment.'

February 1982.

The School aystem le1ea3ed a-re:port prepared by three consultantswho are nationally known lor their work on misclassification of minoritystudents (Dr. Harold Dent, Dr. Robert Griffore, and Dr. lane Mercer).The report made a series ofspecific recommendations as to how thorougheffective reform of the EMH program could be carried out.21'

February 1982DFC submitted a second amicus curiae brief, observing that while

the staff's plans for dealing with EMH misclassification had severalpositive features, it was a tentative plan that the school system hadmade no firm commitment to carry out.''' Thus, DFC asked the judge toincorporate these tentative plans into the legal commitments that werepart of the "educational components" of the desegregation plan. DFCalso reiterated its earlier request that an independenemonitoringcommission be set up that reported directly to the court and the public.

March 1982Based on the commitments made by the school board in the

desegregation case, the plaintiffs in the pAsE case and the schoolsystem agreed to terminate the legal proceedings in the fASL case,bringing it to an end.'''

Mav 1982To pursue the school system's commitment to provide information to

DFC concerning specific steps for,addressing the EMH problem, DFC met.with Dr. Ora McConnor (who has overall responsibility for specialeducation) and several key members of her staff. These school system,staff members indicated that they were planning a pilot reassessmentproject in two administrative districts for Iprinial982, to befollowed by a massive retesting and reclassifiCatiBn project for allcurrent EMH students to be completed during the 1982-83 school year.

Mav 1922In a follow-up telephone conversation with Dr. McConnor, DFC asked

that DFC psychologists be permitted to examine the specific tests beingused in reclassification, that DFC be provided information about the'nature and results of the pilot reclassification program, and that DFC beprovided with information about specific plans for transitional services ,

to children who were reclassified. Dr. McConnor suggesttd DFC couldobtain.this information by meeting with.several members of her staffindividually. However, when DFC attempted to schedule appointments withthem, they delayed in responding and ultimately indicated that DFCshould again meet with several staff members at once.

81

9 4

Julv 1982 ('

DFC again met with Dr. McConnor and members of her staff'affd again

asked to examine the specific tests being used in reclassification, to

obtain information about the results of the pilot reclassification

project (by Chen completed), and to obta'in information about plans foi'

providing transition services to students who were reclassified. The

school system's staff declined to answer many of these questions, but

provided limited information that raised strong apprehensions about the

quality of tests and testing procedurei being used and the adequaoy of

plans for transitional services.

August 1982DFC wrote a detailed letter to Dr. McConnor, asking foc information

respobsive to unanswered questions.21'

Autust 1982Dr. McConnor telephoned DFC, indicating that she would not be

responding to our letter requesting information, but had referred-the

letter to the school system's attorneys.

5eptember 1982 .

The school system initiated a retesting and re sification

program for all of the approximately 12,000 studen s i EMI( ,classes,

which it aimed to complete by the end of the 1981- 2 sc ool year.

October 1982Not having received information responding to earlier requests, DFC

wrote to Dr. Ruth Love, General Superintendent of Schools, atking her to

meet with DFC staff in early November to facilitate at's access to

requested information and to discuss what appeared tek be serious

shortcomings in the school system's respOnse to the misclastification

problem.21' At the same time, a letter was sent to Robert Howard, the

school system's lead attorney for the desegregation'case, reiterating our

request for information.'"

November 1982Dr. Love indicated in a letter that her schedule made it-impossible

to meet with DFC staff in early November, but that Dr. Ben Williams

would be in contact with us to discuss our concerns."'

November 1982 '

DFC received information responding to some of the tquestions

addressed to Dr. McCeinnor in the form of a letter with attached

material's written by Dr. Ben Williams, who coordinates the school

system's desegregation activities."'

82

APPENDIX DExcerpts from the November 19.1982,Letter from the Chicago Public Schools

NnTE: The followine excerpt, includine an accompanying table,is the school system's response to inauiries by nesigns,fox Change about the procedures throueh which. the"ExpThental Battery" tyas developed and about theter.hnical adequacv of this Experimental Battery. Theexcerpt I s from a letter sent by Dr. Ben Villiams,As!.ociote --;uperintendent for Equal Educational Oppor-tunitv, Chicaeo Board of Education, and dated November1, 1082.

44.

9ts

"""

Nontrad it ional Techniques .

In response to the inquiry concerning specifics of the II Nontraditional

techniques referred to" in the May, 1982 Desegregation Progress Report

(p. 27), the following data is submitted:

- A Research committee was established composed of Bureau of

-,Child Study staff who continued to have evaluattwe responsi-

bilities in the system. The committee included: a clinician

researcher; a test designer; an experienced psychologist who

chaired the original pilot study (see November-1981 Desegregation

Progress Report, p. 20), an expert in quantitative techniques,

\and a non-biased assessment presenter.

- This committee developed e proced-urai design based on:

review of research and field test data

discourse and correspondence with universities and other

school districts (see enclosure #8)

participation of members of Research Committee in thestandardization of innovative in!;truments (Kaufman's ABC-

Revised. Vineland) involving Research Committee members

extensive research of available literature focusing onnon-biased assessment and review of earlier research efforts.

Culmination of these research procedures resulted in the following

conclusions:

Concentration on measuring the end-product, as many currentassessment instruments do, is moet vulnerable to experientialinfluences and/or cultural bias.

Existing instruments yield little information regarding how,

a child "processes" information affording little insightinto "learning style" or underlying deficits that might beamenable to intervention.

Existing Adaptive behavior scales, especially foi older .

children, are limited in interpretative value in that they

fail to nlicit-significant interpretative informationpertaining to learning rate,,learning style, cognitiveflexibility (adaptiveness), end effective social reasoning.

To aid in the integration of complex multi-modal, multi-faceted assessment procedure, the need was suggested todevelop some procedures to add structure to certain techniques.

r 849 7

An initial attempt to develop test procedures which affordedassessment of "process" and avoided the bias associated withtechniques heavily dependent on product, was undertaken by membersof the Research Committee. Utilizing a comprehensive approach,these devices using "test-teach-test" and information processingtasks (Feuerstein, 1979; Sternberg, 1981) together with a selectgroup of relatively culture-free instruments were selected becauseof these features and because they afforded insight into "process",affording additional diagnostic information which could beutilized-by aysychologist together with measures of adaptivebehavior, td aid in determining continued eligibility for EMHprovramming, which was a major objective this year.

The Bureau of Child Study is still in the process of collectingdata from Districts #2 and #19 which constituted the pilot districtson which the experimental battery was begun. As indicated, limitedstaff and resources (time and funding) impedes a quick culmination tothis activity. We require:

. A discriminant analysis of the entire battery,

. Coirelations between independent results,

. ANOVA of 3 Races (White, Black, and Hispanic) x 2 sexes x 3 ages(Primary, Intermediate, and Advanced),

. Cluster analysis of the total set of techniques.

It will be necessary to complete data collection from control grouPsin order to complete the process.

The goals of these activities are to:

develop a locally normed set of non-discriminatory techniquesof student's cognitive and adaptive functioning,

- develop individual intervention techniques to be utilized inthe'classroom setting,

- aid in curriculum planning and development for studentspresenting unique educational needs,

- develop supportive teaching strategies for regular and specialeducation teachers.

8 5

B.C.S. RESEARCH DIVISION

"HIGHLIGHTS OF ASSESSMENT MEASURES"

Title,

Author, andPublisher Description

Norma/Reliability/Validity

.

S. Comment

"Goodenough-HarrisDrawing Test (Draw-A-Man)

Harris, 1963esychological Corporation

Child is asked todraw a man. woman,and self. Providesa Deviation IQ (M100,SD 15). For ages3-0 to 15-11 years.Tdkes approximately5 to 15 minutes toadminister.

,

Norms are excellent.Reliability somewhat ,

poor, but validityis satisfactory.

A useful supplementary instrument for measuringcognitive ability. Can be used as a screeninginstrument. May be less culturally loaded thanother intelligence tests."1)- Gesell,Utilized to assess stages of maturity.

- Piaget,Utilized to estimate level of cognitive development.

- Has been reaearched by Freeman, for use in mese,

ment of cognitive and perceptual development, aevidenced from an information-proceising perapetine. .

Also utilized as a piojective instrument forpersonality assessment.

VMI,

Keith E. Beery, 1967rollett Publishing, Co./flacago

4

Perceptual-motorability test forchildren aged 2through 15 years.Child is asked tocopy forms, inorder, taithout

erasures. Pro-vides acte equiva-

lents for rawscores, withseparate tablesfor boys andgirls.

Reliability isexcellent. Validityis satisfactory.Standardized on urban,rural, and suburbanpopulations.

Useful for measuring visual-motor ability.

.

-

.g,

1) Sattler, Jerome. Assessment of Children's Intelligence and Special Abilities. Boston, Massachusetts:Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, 1982. Appendix D. Pg. 614 6 615.

9 3

Title.

Author, andPublisher DeacriptIoe

Norms/

Reliability/Validity

Comment

"Koh's Block Design"i.C."Kohs

lelting Company

Child la presentedwith a set of blocksand asked to repro-duce an illustrated

design, of progres-sing difficulty.Score is both byspeed and accuracy.Based on raw score,MA's derived rangefrom age 5-3 to19-11.

Approximate adminis-tration time is 5to 20 minutes.

Test Teach TestReuven, Feuerstein

10

Norms standardizedon mentally handi-capped population,yielding a correla-tion of +.67(p,5 + .05); and ongeneral school

population of +.80(PE ± .01).

Test is potentially less culturally and experiencbound as research has shown that the Block Designtests are significantly less affected by schooltraining than the Binet, but possess a high degreof correlation and reliability.

Affords examiner insight into childli ability toperceive spatial relationships, apeed.of performaimpulsivity, and planning ability.

Examiner administersa pretest to achievea baseline score,followed by teaching

principles and-skillswhich are involved.

subsequent to which,a final series oftests are given whichaffords a measure ofchild's learningpotential.

Currently beipg re-searched at the JohnF. Kennedy Center forResearch and Educa-tion and Human Devel-opment at GeorgePeabody College,

Vanderbilt Universiiy.

Ongoing research byFuerstein and Rudolf.Technique bos beenpositively acceptedby Hilliard, Mercer,Jensen, and others.

Field testing has re-sulted in positivepreliminary findings,as well as support by

paychologists who haveemployed it.

Relatively culture-free measures of nonverbal shitIt is an attempt to measure learning abilitydirectly, with the purpose of determining what thechild can learn. It represent& ad attempt to me'krocess" rather than "product."

Findings of research to date indicate significantI.Q. gains when children, previously diagnosed asslow-learners by traditional instruments, weretaught skills evidenced as lacking through evalua-tion of "process," and maintained these mails overa two year period. 2) These research findingssupport the use of these instruments for ovaluatioas well as to develop effective interventionstrategies.

102

3

Title, .

Author, andPublisher

.

Description

. . Norms/

Reliability/Validity

.

i

Comment

.

CSCfrom: Meekerby: Davis

GorsichDaleyBaer

EMIfrom: Meekerby: Davis

GorsichDaleyBaera)7,

Power test in whichchild is required tolook at stimulusfigures, and thenchoose correct figureaccording to.class,from five alternates.

Child is given anincomplete statement,which he must completeby selecting the wordor words which bestcomplete the state-

ment.

Standardized onrural, suburban, andurban Blacks And .

Whites.

Moran are excellent.

,

*

Relatively culture free non-verbal test, which

requires tho child to logically reason the

principal controlling likenesses or similarities.

Standardized on a widely representative populatioh

of Blacks, MeXican-Americans, and Anglo..

Requires child to identify the essential character

istice and logically complete a given concept.

Standardized on a widely representative population

of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Anglos.

.

Memory for Sentences,1Joodcock-Johnson

PsychoeducationalBattery1977Teaching ResourcesCorp.

Sentence is read tochild, which he issubsequently asked to

repeat.

Norms are excellent.Reliability andvalidity relatively

.

-r-

Less culturally loaded test of memory of materpills

presented auditorily. Also offers. measure of

comprehension, as child has to make use of sentence

meaning to aid recall. In addition, organization

ability and expressive syntax,can also be assessed'.

Vineland AdaptiveBehavior Scale(rublication date 1983)

Pat Harris - e4itor

by:

Sparrow, Ph.D.Balla, Ph.D. ,

Cicchetti, Ph.D.

Information obtained

through variousmethods including,observation and

interview.

..

Currently being re-

searched.

Yields a picture of how the student functions in

Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialreatior

Motor Skills, and Maladaptive Behavior domains,

within his cultural milieu.

I U.

c.)

6 8

t̀ 4 V 90 51 F

4 S ". < I1 v. E 6

rii

CA Pi 1 g c):1 ... T 4 2

g tit FI. g ri o E cl 2

5 NI

`4 8 73 a) P. rzt z en ri 03

4 1.4

fit

ca

.

P4

co ,13 .., T )- , NO g o z

.

o

.

.

ND

ID

C

ID

CN

b4D

CPR

OC

ESS

.

N,

.PO

TE

NT

IAL

CA

PAC

I7

N04

MP4

04C

OG

NIT

IVE

AB

ILIT

I-

;

N)4

)4C

OM

PRE

HE

NSI

ON

NN

NN

NE

NT

AL

MA

TU

RIT

Y,

N)4

NC

OG

NIT

IVE

FL

EX

IBIL

ITY

)41

)4)4

I1

CO

NC

UT

UA

LIZ

AII

ON

N

I

PLA

NN

ING

AB

ILIT

Y

NA

NA

LY

SIS

and

SYN

TH

ESI

S

N

1L

ON

OT

ER

X N

EW

RY

'

seI

I

,

.,

SHO

RT

MX

211

:110

E1

.

.

ae,

N)4

.

RE

ASO

NIN

G.

NPE

RC

EPT

UA

L D

EV

UO

PME

NT

`N

'N

NN

.

CO

NFI

GU

RA

TIO

N A

BIL

ITY

,

NN

)4)4

.D

ISC

RIM

INA

TIV

E P

ER

CE

PTIO

N...

--.-

*

)4:4 ,

SPA

ILL

L R

EL

AT

ION

SHIP

S

)4PS

YC

RO

MO

TO

R S

PEE

D

MO

TO

R D

EV

EL

OPM

EN

T

EX

PRE

SSIV

E L

AN

GU

AG

E

asN

.EC

EFT

IVE

LA

NG

UA

GE

)4N

.C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

SK

ILL

S.

)4P4

IA

DA

PTIV

E,B

EH

AV

IOR

se-

sex

IMPU

LSI

VIT

Y

,I

NI

NM

ib4

.W

I.

54.

>4

Ann

an*:

S.

Notes

1/ The fact that the number of stuplentsin Chicago's classes for the Educable Mentally

Handicapped exceeded 12,000_from the1970-71 school year through 1980-81 i indicated in Table 4.

Detailed data from 1981-82 have not 6een made public; however, in a meeting with Designs for

Change staff on May 3, 19,82, Dr. Alice Zimmerman, Director of the Bureau of Mentally Handicapped,

indicated that the 1981-82 EMN enrollment was close to 13,000 students. Further, the school

system responded to DFC's written request for informationAbout the school system's reclassifica-

tion uoject through a letter from Dr. Ben Williams, AssociateSuperintendent for Equal Educa-

tional Opportunity, which was dated November 1, 1982. This letter is subsequently referred to as

"November Letter." The November Letter (T. 6) indicates that moie than 12,000 students were in

the EMil program and were going to be retested.

2/ This estimate is based on theconsistent observation that if proper assessment procedures

are employed in a school system, no more than 1.25% of any ethnic group will be assigned to EMU

classes. The rationale for this standard is explained in Note 110.

3/ Robert L. Green, StudentDemeRreRation Plan for the ChicaRo Public Schools: Recommenda-

tions on Educational Components (Chicago: Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1981), p.

42. This report is subsequently referred to as Educational Components.

4/ The two lawsuits that have addressed the problem of misclassificatibn in Chicago are

Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE) v. Hannon, 506 F. Supp. 831 (N.D. I 1980); and

United States of America v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 80 C 51 N.D. Ill.

1980) (consent decree approved by court). (Subsequently, these cases are referred aa ZAHL...x.

Hannon and United States v. ChicaRo Board of Education.)The relationstqp of these cases to

Chicago's misclassification problemis discussed in Section 3.

5/ The number of students enrolled in EMN iirother U.S. school systems has never approached

the more than 12,000 students enrolled in Chicago's ON program; thus, a reclassification project

of this size has never before been necessary in the U.S. The Task Force on Non-Discriminatory

Assessment and Special Education, convened by the school system, estimated that $8,900,000 would

be needed to complete the realsessment (Task Force on Non-Discriminatory Assessment and Special

Education, Task Force Report (Draft). Mimeographed. No Date.). The consulting firm of Booz,

'Allen, and Hamilton studied Chicago's special education assessment process in,1982 and estimated

that each case study evaluation cost the school system $1,625; based on this estimate, the retest-

ing of 12,000 children would cost $19,500,000. (Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Inc., chicaxo Board of

Education Cost Reduction Survey. Report to Mayor Jane M. Byrne, July 1982, p. v-A-3.) It is not

clear to what extent the school systemis using new funds for this project, am opposed to shiftiali

mrsonnel from other responsibilities. In either case, of course, the project is "costing" the

school system the money paid to staff involved for time they spend on the project.

6/ See Section 4 and Note 127 for explanations of reforms adequate tO eliminate ENE misclas-

s'ification, based on the experience-of other school systems.

7/ The source of this information and of data presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, and A-1 is U.S.

Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Survey of Elementary and Secondary School

12L-s_t_rjitind Schools in SelecLed School Districts: School Year 1980-1981. During every second

school year, the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) collects data about the ethnic composition

of various special education programs in avercentage of U.S. school districts, including the.

largest ones. A computer tape of this data was made available by the Office for Civil Rights to

Designs for Change; this computer tape contains school-by-school dtata and district totals for the

special education programs for Chicago and the five other urban school districts about which data

are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, and A-1. (Office for Civil Righis, Computer Tape ELSEC 80 Master

69.) For New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Drtroit, and Moulton, school district totals for

overall enrollment by ethnic group and EMU enrollment by ethnic group were used to generate the

90

107

fitures presented. For Chicago, a number of further steps were taken to analyze EMH enrollmentand total enrollment figurps, so that the analyses of EMH enrollment for the school system as awhole, for its administrative districts, and for its individual schools would be as accurate aspossible. Chicago submitted infOrmation about its special education programs to OCR on a computertape of its own, called the "Chicago report to OCR" below. The Chicago report to OCR breaksspecial education enrollment down into smaller categories than the Ones requested by OCR. Designsfor Change obtained a printout of the Chicago report to tq OCR and was able to use this informa-tion to cross-check the accuracy of the steps that OCR took in transferring the Chicago data toits own national tape. Based on an analysis of the OCR computer tape and the printout of theChicago repot to OCR, the following adjustments were made to the data on the OCR tape: (1) Aseries of errors in totalling numbers were introduced into the data when Chicago schobl personnelhand-calculated various school totals; these errors were corrected; (2) OCR had ipcluded studentsin Chicago's program for the "Educationally Handicapped" or "EH" as part of t.he EMH total; usingthe Chicago report to OCR, EH students were, subtracted out on a school-by-school basis; (3) datafrom seven schools, eliminated from the OCR tape, probably due to an OCR programming error, wereadded to the OCR tape fumi the Chicago report; (4) the numbers of EMI students in three schoolswere adjusted for the administrative district analysis described 'in Section 2 because white EMHstudents were reported in these schools even though no white studenta were enrolled in theseschools based on the Chivigo report to OCR. Further information about siethods for analyzing theChicago data submitted to OCR is presented pi subsequent notes. This dAa source-is referred tosubsequently as the 1980-81 OCR Survey.

8/ See Tables 4 and A-2.-

9/ 1980-81 OCR Survey. See Note 7.

10/ Ibid.

11/ See Tables 3 and A-1. The unjustified over-repreeentation of black and other minoritystudents in EMH classes is identified as a major national problem 'in education by the NationalResearch Council of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Insti-tute of Medicine. an 1979,.a Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for theMentally Retarded was appointed by the National Research Council to analyze the EMU problem, andthis panel developed detailed recommendations for eliminating discriminatory misclassification(Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded, flacinLChildren in Special Edncatioo: A Strategs_for Equity Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,1982). This report is referred to subsequently as National Academy of Sciences Repprt.

12/ National Academy_of Sciences Repork. (he report summa enitevidence concerning unjnat-ified racial disparities in referral practices for special education evaluation, tests and testingprosedures employed, and informed parental involvement in assessment and placement decisions.

13/ Jane R. Mercer, Labellinz the Mentally Retarded (Berkeley: University of,CaliforniaPress, 1973). This is a ground-breaking study of the characteristics of children and adultslabelled as mentally retarded by the schools and various other social systems within an ethnicallymixed community. See also, M. Stephen Lilly, "Toward a Unitary Concept of Mental Retardation,"Education and Treatment of Children (September 1981).

14/ Ibid.,

15/ Ibid.

16/ NA/42A,LAcademy of Sciences Report, p. 10.

,17/ Ibid., p. 27.

18/ Ibid., p. 169.

19/ Ibid. If proper asseasment procedures were employed (see Section 4) that included anappropriate test of "adaptiv, behavior," only a modest percentage of those children currently inEMI classes would be identilled as experiencing such difficulties.

91

4

1 o

20/ 1980-81 OCR Survey. See Note47.

21/ SRI -International, Studies of Handicapped Students, Volume 2 (Menlo rark, Ca.: Authoe,

1978), p. v.

.22/ National Academy of Science Report, p. 87. The report c4es a variety of research

indicating that children labelled EMil -are usuallyindistinguishable from a Variety of other

children who exhibit.learning problemsin sdhool, such as children protrided with special educaelon

services for the learning disabled and children In compensatory education classes.

23/ Ibid., pp. 101-105. See also, Reuven Feuerstein, 7he Dynamic Assessment of Retarded

Performers (Baltimore: Univer§ity Park,Press, 1979).

.

.

24/ Experts on the EMH misclassification 'issue retained by the Chicago.school system made

this point about the desirability of mainstpeaming EMH students and specifically recommended Winat

the school system do so. See Harold Dent, Robert J. GriffOre, and Jane Mercer, "Special Education

and Test4g," in,

submitted to Judge Milton Shadur in United States of Ametica v. Chicago Board of Education, filed

ebruary 1982, p. 111-18. This report-is referred to subsequentlY asPonsultants° Report.

25/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 84.

26/ See Tables 6 and A-4.

27/ Feuerstein, The Dyngmic Assessgent of Retarded Performers,'p. 17. Feuerstein cites

evidence indicating that 90% of students Who enter special education programs in several large

urban school systems remain in these programs for the duration of their school careers. Suggest-

ing that the fate of retention in EMH is veiy high in Chicago is the fact that the percentage of

Chicago's students in MN increases substantially from elementary school to high school.(see Table

7).

28/ National4Academy of Sciences Report, p. 291.

29/ Feuerstein, The Dynamic Assessment, p. 17.

30/ Intv-view with Joan M. First and W. Alan Coulter, August 12, 1981. Ms. First, currently

director of ehe National Clearinghouse'forMisclassification Information,, and Dr. Coulter, cur-

rently Supervisor, Pupil Appraisal Systems, Louisiana State Department of Education, helped to .

design the model reclassification project in Champaign, Illinois (see Section 4) and have been

consultants to numerous school systems attempting to address the EttH proglem. They described this

pattern of increasing academic deficit for,EMH students with increaning age as characteristic of a

number of school districts with whom they had consulted.

31/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 95-105; Jane R. Mercer, "A Policy Statement on

Assessment Procedures and the Rights of Children," Harvard Educational Review 44 (February 1974):.

125-141.4

32/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 105-110.

33/ Ibid.

347 Ikid. See Note 11.

35/ Ibid., pp. 92-117.

36/ Consuitaats' Report. See Note 24.

c.

37/ See Section 4. .

38/ See, for example, Education for All Handicapped Children Act:.P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C.1412

92

(5)(C), and implementing regulations 34 C.F.R. 300,530-534; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing reguratvions 45 C.F.R. 84.35; and Illinois School Code,ru. REV. STAT. ch. 122, sec. 14-8.02, and implementing Illinois Rules and Regulations to Govern

the Administration and Operation of Special Education, sec. 9-11.

39/ See, for e5cample, P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 1415 (b)(1) and ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 122., sec14-8.01, (parents! right to examine all records and obtain independent evaluation for child;parents' right to receive written notice whenever decision is made to initiate evaluation or makea change in &pecial education placement, and parents' right to object to any matter relating toidentification, evaluation, Or placepent of child).

40/ Consultants' Repo;t, pp. III-10 and III-17..

',41/ 1980-81 OCR Survey. See Note 7.

42/ See Note 1.

43/ The 11-81 data presented in Table A-3 came from.the 1980-81 OCR Surve*v. Note 7explains how the 11980-81 EMH totals for Chicago were generated. The 1980-81 totals for trainablementally handicapped, specific -learning disability, emotional handicap, and speech impaired weretaken from the OCR computer tape (see Note 7) by summing school-level data. The totals foreducational handicap were taken from the Chicago report to OCR (see Note 7) by-summing school-level data. The totals for physical handicap were determined by summing the school district leveldata in the Chicago report to OCR for the following categories: blind, deaf, partially sighted,hard of hearing, other health impaired, and physical (home-hospital).

Note that totals in Table A-3 are for white, black, and Hispanic students lor both 1980-81and 1979-80. Other minorities are not included in the totals.

The 1979-80 data presented in Table A-3 came from the Consultants' Repbrt, p. ILI-10. (seeNote 24)*. To make the categories for handicapping conditidns used by the consqltants consistentwith those reported by OCR, we collapsed the categories that the consultants reported as follows:behavior disordered and emotionally disturbed were combined as emotionally handicapped; EMHprimary and EMH advanced were combined as a single EMH category; severe learning disability andmoderate learning disability were combined as specific learning disability; and blind, deaf,partially sighted, hard of hearing, other health impaired, and physical (home-hospital) werecombined as'physichi handicap.

One indication of the accuracy ofthe'1980-81 data and DFC's analysis of it is that thepercentages by ethnic group for 1979-80 drawn from the Consultant's Report,closely mirror theethnic,Percentages for 1980-81 drawn from the 1980-81.0CR Survey, as Table A-3 clearly indicates.

44/ Total school system enrollment presented in Tables 4 and A-2 came from the Chicago school,system's Comprehensive Student Assignment Plan which-Yes filed with the federardistrict court inUnited States v. Chicago Board of Education. on January 22, 1982. The EMH totals for years1970-71 and 1973-'74 through 1978-79 came from exhibits submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys inthe PASE v. Hannon litigation. The EMH totals for 1979-80 were derived from the Consultants'Report; since the Consultants' Report,presents a total only for black, white, and Hispanic stu-dents in EMH, an estimate of the number of other minorities in EMH was added to the Consultants'Report totals. The 1980-81 totals came from the 1980-81 OCR Survey (see Note 7).

45/ 1980-81 OCR Survey.4

46/ This information is presented in Tables 3 and A-1 and comes from 1980-81 OCR Survey.

47/ National Academy df, Sciences Report, p. 10, indicates that 1 06% of white studentsnationally are placed'in EMH classes. Mercer, Labelling the Mentally 1arded, p. 189, itund thatless than 1% of both black and white individuals in Riverside, California ere mentally reterded(including those who were severely retarded) if standards for judging mental retardation describedin Section 4 were applied. As Table A-1 indicates, two large urban school districts where thesesame standards are being aPplied (Houston and Los Angeles) have reepectively 0.57% and 0.39%-oftheir white students in EMH classes. When these rates for whites are compared with Chicago's EMHplacement rate of '1.74% for white students, these data suggesE that Chicago hap a substantialnumber of misclassified white students in EMH.

93

1 i

4

48/ See Table 5.

49/ Nicholas Hobbs captured this double-edged quality of student classification.mheri he

wrote: "The magnitude and complexity of the problem faced by policy-makers and practitioners_can

hardly be overstated, fot the effects of classification can be both beneficial and harmful. For

example, children who are-categorized and labeled as different may be permanently stigmatized,

rejected.by_adults :and other.children,..and.excluded from oppdrtunities essential for their full

and healthy development. Yet, categorization is necessarY to open -doors-to oppOrtunityi to get

legislation, funds, service programs, sound evaluation, research, and even effective commtnication

about the problems of exceptional-children." Nicholas Hobbs, The Futures of Children: Categor-'

ies. Labels. and Their Consequences', A Summary (San Francisco: Josiey-Bass; 1975), pp. 67'7. ,

50/ ,1980-81 OCR Survey. See Note 43.

51/ "Substantial" over-representation or 'under-representation is defined at occurring when

the percentage of black or Hispanic students in a given special education.program is 30% more or

30% less than the white peicentage. (These instances are represented by (+) and (-) notations in

Tables 5 and A-3.) given the numbers of childien represented by the various cells in Table A-3, a.

30% difference between the white rate and-the black or Hispanic rate is statisticai'fy significant'

at anextremely high level..

52/ The viewpoint that school.systems are under am obligation to explain racial disproPor-

tions in the enrollment in rarious school prograMs by showing that they serve a valid educational

purpose has er long tradition 0 civil rights law. The burden should be on the school system to

either justify practices leading to disproportions or change them. However, we are'not suggesting

that litigation is_necessarily the most effective way to correct these discriminatory practices.

Rather, as recommended in Section 6, informed parent and citizen groups Must press the school

system and its,individual Administrative districts and schools to explain and to alter their

current practices by exerting sustained.pressure on them through meeting with scbool officials,

appealing to elected representatives to intervene, etc.

53/ 1980-81 OCR SurveN, See Note 43.

54/ The National Academy of Sciences Report indicates that large school systems with low

percentages of their Hispanic studen63 assigned to EMH programs and'programs for the learning

disabled also had the highest percentages of their Hispanic students participating in bilingual

programs (see pp. 367-375), suggesting (consistent with nur interviews with Chicago teachers) that

bilingual education is used as a substitute for special education programs for Mispanic atudentA.

55/ The Chicago school system itself has identified the lack of_bilingual special education

personnel as A major need in its own pkanning documents. See Boaill of Education, City of Chicago,

/3ureau of Special Education, "Program Model Description: Bilingual Related Services for Mentally

Handicapped and Learning Disabled Students of Limited English Proficiency" (typewritten, November

1981), p. 1.

56/ The inappropriateness of testing Spanish-dominant students for special education using

tests in English was first raised iribiana v. State Board of Education, No. C-70-37 RFP (N.D.

Cal. June 18, 1973). .Since then, it has become a generally-accepted norm in education that such

testing is inappropriate (^see National Academy of Sciences Report; pp. 58-59). Rather than

utilizing bilingual psychologists and bilingual testing procedures, however, some educators have

responded by dis'couraging special education referrals-for students with limited English profi-

ciency. (See, for example, Donald R. Moore, et al., Student Classification and the Right to Read

(Chicago: Author, 1981), p. 123-152.)

57/ 19.80-81 OCR SurTey.. See Note 43.

58/ November Letter, Appendix A.

59/ The Consultants' Report (p. 114717) presented 1979-80 data which gives the percentage of

students in each special education program who Tderg assigned-to regular classrooms, part-time

94

1

resource rooms, separate special education classrooms, separate facilities, and other facilities(eeg., homehospital care). The consultants referred to these settings-as "various levels ofsegregated ellucatidnal settings." The Consultants' Report (p. III-10) also presents the totalgumber of students in each special education category. Together these data were used to determinethe actual number of students in each educational setting for each special education program. InTables 6 and A-4, we combined the àlevels of segregated settings into three categories: regularclassroom and parttime resource 4oms were collapsed into a single "low" category; separatespecial education classrooms wereflesignated as a "high" level of segregation; and separatefacilities and other facilities wfre combined to form the "very high" category.

60/ The practice of providi g special education services to minority studelts in more restrictive settings than those in which special education is being provided to white students has beendocumented in a number.of school syetems across the country. See, for example, MassachusettsAdvocacy Center, Double Jeopardy: The Plight of Minority Children in Special Education (Boston:Author, 1978). The Consultants' Report singled this out as a major problem that should be rectified in Chicago (pp. 111-17 to 111-18). The consultants further noted that even within the EMH

^, program, the small number of mainstream placements available involved a disproportionate number ofwhite students (pp. 111-34 to 111-35).

61/ 1980-81 OCR Survev (see Note 7). An elementary school EMH student was defined as any EMHstudentattending a school with a grade structure serving grades kindergarten through eight orsome subset of these grades. A high school EMH student was defined as any EME student attending aschool-with a grade structure serving grades nine through twelve or a,ny subset of these grades.Fourteen Chicago schools did not fall into either of these categories and thus were not includedin this analysis.

62/ Ibid.

63/ 1980-,.81 OCR Survey (see Notes 7 and 61). For Tables 9 and A-5, schools were classifiedin terms of their administratiVe district accoiding to Chicago Public Schools, context forAchievement: Test Scores and Selected School Characteristics (Chicago: Author, 1982). Therankings for the percentage of lowincome students in each administrative district were alsoderived from Context for Achievement. "Number Eligible for Free Lunch" was divided by the studentenrollment of the administrative district to obtain the percentage of the district's childreneligible for free lunch. Districts were then ranked based on this percentage, with the,didtricthaving the highest percentage of children eligible for free lunch ranked first.

64/ Ibid.

65/ PASE v. Hannon, p. 878.

66/ See Note 63 for an explanation of how this ranking wtis determined.

67/ Since the chief comparisons of interest in examining Tables 9 and A-5 are among thepercentages of students in EMH in the various administrative districts, all districts with a totalenrollment of 150 students or fewer in a particulir student category (e.g., a district with atotal enrollment of 150 or fewer white high school students) were excluded from the resultspresented in these tables. As Table A-5 indicates, the result is that all percentages are basedon an enrollment figure that exceeds 300 students and most percentages are based on ad enrollmentfigure that exceeds 1,000 students.

681 Moore, Student Classification.

69/ Tbe consolidation of,EME programs in specific schools, including isdlated special education schools, was specifically criticizeddn the COnsultants' Report as creating unwarranted,separation of EMH students from the mainstream program (p. 111-18).

70/ Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 1412 (5)(B); 3.4 C.F.R.300.550, 300.552; Consultante' Report, p. 111-35.

. 71/ The basis for specifying 1.25% as a cutoff criterion is explained in Section 4 andparticularly in Note 110.

95

1 1

72/ In 1960, the Chioago Public Schools reported a total of 6,286 students in EMH classes,

Chicago Public Schools, Facts and Fizures: September 1961, (Chicago: Author; 1961), pp. 15,16.

'For EMH enrollment in Chicago for years 1970 through 1981, see Table 4 and Table A-2. -

73/ PASE v. Hannon

74/ Ibid., p. 878.

75/ See, for example, Donald N. Bersoff, "Testing and the Law," American PaYchologist 36

"(October 1981): 1047-56. Bersoff states that "Judge Grady's (analysis) can best be described,as

naive; at worst it is unintelligent and completely empty of empirical evidence. It rephsents a

single person'saubjective and personal opinion cloaked in the authority of judicial robes" (p.

1049). In another case, Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (1979), the federal cburt for the

Northern District of California reached a contrary result when it ruled on the use of I.Q. tests

to place students in EMI classes in California.- In Larry P., Judge Peckham held that the Califor-

nia schools were in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act for using I.Q.

tests that were found to be racially and culturally biased, and had not been validated for the

purpose of placing black children in EMN classes.- See Note 92 for the effect of this ruling. The

decision in Larry P. is being appealed.

76/ United States v. Chicago BOard of Education, consentdecree approved September 24, 1980.

77/ PASE v. Hannoa, Stipulation tct Terminate Proceedings, filed March 24, 1982.

78/ Response of Designs for Change tO the Chicago School Boaid groposed Detegregation Plan,

filed August 3, 1981, United States v. Chicago Board of Education. this response is subsequently

referred to as "Designs for Change's First Response."

79/ Response by the Staff of the Chicago Board of Education to Comnents of the Hispsnio

Organizations and Designs for Change Concerning.the Educational Components of the Board's Desegre-

gation Plan, pp. 17-19, filed January 29, 1982, United States v. Chicago Board of Education. This

response is subsequently referred to as "Staff's Response."

80/ Response'of Designs for Change to the Chicago School Board Proposed Desegregation Plan

(Second Response), filed February 12, 1982, United Statei v. Chicako Board of Education. This

response is subsequently referred to ea "Designs for Change's Second Response."

81/ See Agenda for City-Wide Orientation for Psychologists, Records Staff Development Day,

Thursday, June 24, 1982, contained-in November Letter.

82/ Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Progress Report on the Implementation of the

Student Desegregation Plan: May 1982 (Chicago: Author,'1982), p. 30. This report is subse-

quently referred to as the Nay 1982 Progress Report.

83/ November Letter, p. 6.

841 Ibid.

85/ National Academy of Sciences Report (tee Note 11); Consultants' Report (see Note 24);

H.J. Grossman, Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Retardation: American Associa-

tion on Mental Deficiency (Baltimore: Garamond/Pridemark, 1977); American Psychological Associa-

tion, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurements Used in

Education, standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (Washington, D.C.: American Psycho-

logical Association, 1974); American Psychological AssoCiation, 'Ethical Principals of Psycholo-

gists," American Psychologist 36 (June 1981): 633-38; Mercer, "Policy Statement on Assessment";

H. James Mahan Joan M. First, and W. Alan Coulter, "An End to Double Jeopardy: The Declassifica-

tion/Transition of Minority EMI Students," 1ntegrateducation (December 1981): 16-19. The classi-

fication standards for mental retardation developed by the American Association on Mental Defi-

96

ltd

ciency are the most widely accepted professional standards employed nationally; they are referredto subsequently as the AAMD Standards. The standards for test de4*lopment and use listed aboveare generally accepted by a wiae range of professional groups; they are'referred to as the APA

Test Standards. The ethical standards of the American Psychological Association are subsequentlyreflfrred to as APA. Ethical Standards.

86/ Bational Academy of Sciences Report, p. 187.

87/ SRI International, Studies of Handicapped Students; national Academy of Sciences Report,

p. 38.

88/ Both federal and state laws require'the development of an individualized educational planfor each handicapped child. See, for example, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act,P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 1412(4); and Article 14 of the Illinois School Code, ILL. REV. STAT. ch.

122, sec. 14-8.02.

89/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 105-108; Consultants' Report, pp. 111-17 to

111-18.

90/ Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 1414 (5) (annual

review requirement); 34 C.F.R. 300.534 (threg-year reevaluation requitement).

91/ See Note 27.

92/ For example, the federal district court's decision in Larry P. v. Riles resulted in the

return of more than 11,000 EMH students to regular classrooms in California. Most received at

least some form of transitional help, although it was often minimal. See C. Edward Myers, et al.,

_Correlates of Success in Transition of MR to Regular Class, Final Report, Bureau of Education for =

the Handicapped, Grant No. OEG-0-73-5363, 1975.

93/ Mahan, "An End to Double Jebpardy,"

94/ Moore, Student Classification

95/'Ibid.

96/ See Note 38.

4

97/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 300-321; William H. Wilken and David O. Porter,

State Aid for Special Education: Who Benefits? (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Educa-

tion, 1977). 40

98/ National Academy of Sciences Repo.rt, pp. 68-73.

991 National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 68-73; James A. Tucker, nineteen Steps forAsluring Nonhiased Placement of Students in Special Education, (Reston, Va.: ERIC Clearinghouse

on Handicapped and Gifted Children, 1980); James E. Ysseldyke and Richard R. Regan, Nondiscrimina-

tory Assessment and Decision Making:, Embedding Asseosment in the Intervention Process (Minneapo-

lis: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, Univeraity of Minnesota, 1979).

100/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 17.

101/ Ibid., pp. 68-73; Consultants' Report, pp. 111-12 to 111-13; Tucker, Nineteen Steps, pp.

1-8.

102/ Moore, Claisification Strategies, pp. 115-118.

103/ Donald R. Moore and Arthur A. Hyde, Making Sense of Staff Development, Final Report,National Institute of Education, NIE-G-79-0070, 1981, describes staff development practices in

three large urban school districts and concludes that staff development influences teacher

behavior in a major way only if it is incorporated into an ongoing.school-level improvement effort.

97

/ 1 4

that goes beyond formal staff development sessions. Moore and Hyde find the school principal to

be pivotal in orchestrating such effective staff development activities. Lorna IdolMaestas, et

al., "Implementation of a Noncategorical Approach to Direct Service and Teacher Education,"

Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbanna, 1981, (mimeographed),describes in detail the necessary training and responsibilities of such a resource teacher. The

state of Vermont has adopted model legislation for the support of such,resource teachers as a

means of preventing inappropriate special education referrals (National Academy of Sciences

Report, p. 103).

104/ Experts on ENE classification uniformly recommend that it is essential that other health

problems or other handicaps not be mistaken for mental retardation and that assessment should

include a systematic screening to identify such problems. See National Academy of Sciences

Report, pp. 62-64. Such steps are specifically recommended in Consultants' Report, pp. 111-20 to

111-21.

105/ This requirement echoes the standard set by the American Association a Mental Deficiency that a child placed in EMH must have "subaverage generalsintellectual functioning," reflected in intellectual performance at least two standard deviations below the norm. The IllinoisSchool Psychologists' Association recommends that this AAMD standard be used in Illinois schoolsystems (Illinois School Psychologists' Association Newsletter, MarchApril, 1982). 97.7% of all

children fall above this standard and 2.3% fall below it. IQ tests have never been validated for

making this distinction, particularly for minority children, as noted in the Consultants' Report,

p. 11-28. The consultants recommended that the tests employed be based on the student's mastery

of the school curriculum (p. 111-30). Another approach that has been used successfully to elim

inate racial disproportions in EMH classes is to modify the standard individual intelligence test

by developing norms for specific ethnic groups in a way that yields an "estimated learning poten

tial" for a child (Jane R. Mercer and J.F. Lewis, System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment

(SOMFA): Student Assessment Manual (New'York: The Psychological Corporation, 1977)). Whatever

test is used, both the law and the professional standards of psychologists require that the

testing procedure be an objective'one that is valid and reliable, as described in detai-1 in APA

Test Standards, pp. 25-55.

106/ This requirement echoes the standard set by the American Association on Mental Defi

ciency that a child placed in EMH must not only have subaverage general intellectual functioning,

but also "substandard adaptive behavior," ranking in the bottona 2.3% of the population (AAMD

$tandards). The AAMD,defines adaptive behavior as "the effectiveness or degree to which the

individual meets the standards of person independence and social responsibility expected of his

age or cultural group." The Illinois School Psychologists' Association recommends rhat this AMID

standard be used in Illinois school systems (Illinois School Psychologists' Association Newslet

ter, MarchApril 1982). One major impetus for the AAMD to adopt this requirement came fromMercer, Labelling the Mentally Retarded. Mercer found that-a test of adaptive behavior, based on

a rating derived from a parent interview, identified children who had academic difficulties but

functioned adequately outside the school context. She further found that the introduction of a

test of adaptive behavior into the process for identifying mildly retarded children eliminated

black overrepresentation resulting from child assessment. The Consultants' Report recommends that

Chicago employ a valid and reliable test of adaptive behavior (pp. 111-15).

107/ APA Test Standards. The National Association of School Psychologists accepts the APA

standards.

108/ APA Test Standards describes the nature and Wortance of test reliability'(pp. 48-50)

and then lists and explain 15 "essential" standards for test reliability (pp. 50-55).

109/ APA Test Standards describes the nature and importance of test validity (pp. 25-31) and

then lists and explains 43 "essential" standards for test validity (pp. 31-48).

110/ In applying these standards in Riverside, California, Mercer, Labelling the Mentally

Retarded, found that less than 1% of black and white students could be considered intellectually

subaverage, including those who were seriously retarded. In Los Angeles, the application of

these standards has resulted in 1.0% of black students and 0.39% of white students being classi

fied as -EMH (see Table A-1); methods used are described in National Academy of Sciences 'apart, p.

98 /

1 I 6

r

201. In Houstoh, the application of these standards through the use of the SOMPA test battery hasresulted id,1.21% of black students being assigned to EMI and .57% of white students beingassigned to EMH. In Champaign, Illinois, use of the SOMPA system in a reclassification project)left 1.02% of black students and .32% of white students in EMH classes. Such data suggest thaiproper assessment techniques will not result in more than 1.25% of any ethnic group being placedin EMH classes.

111/ Ibid.

112/ Consultants' Report, p. 111-14.

113/ The cutoff score of 80 on the IQ test as used in Chicago is well above the criterion setby the AAMD Standards. Plaintiffs' PostTrial Legal Memorandut, Appendix p. 5, filed February 12,1980, RASE v. Hannon.

- 114/ Consultants' Report, pp. 11-28 to 111-29.

115/ 34 C.F.R. 300.533; ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 122, sec. 14-8.02; Illinois Rules and Regulationsto Govern the Administration of Special Education, sec. 9.03.

116/ 20 U.S.C. 1401 (19), 1412 (b); 34 C.F.R. 300.340-349; ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 122, sec.8.02; Illinois Rules and Regulations to Govern the Administration of Special Education, sec.9.18(a).

117/ 34 C.F.R. 300.551 requires each school district to insure that "a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of handicapped children." This includes making"provision for supplementary services (such as resource rooms or itinerent instruction) to'beprovided in conjunction with regular class placement." 34 C.F.R. 300.551 (b)(2). The Consultants'Report, p. 111-18, documents the fact that few of Chicago's EMH students are served in the regularprogram.

118/ Consultants' Report, p. 111-18.

119/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 207-213.

120/ Ibid., p. 39. The Consultants' Report notes that a review of a sample of student filesin Chicago shoved that IEPs and documentation of evalutations were "filled out in a perfunctorymanner." (p. 111-8).

121/ National AcadeMy of Sciences Reports, p. 208.

122/ Interview with Joan M. First and W. Alan Coulter (see Nate 30).

123/ Consultants' Report, pp. 111-29 and 111-30.

124/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 105-106.

125/ Ibid.

126/ Ibid., pp., 108-110.

127/ Consultants' Report, p. 111-6, describes the need for a transitional program in Chicago.Mahan, "An End to Double Jeopardy," describes the characteristics of the successful transitionalprogram carried out in Champaign, Illinois, in which carefully selected and trained resourceteachers played a crucial part. Lorna IdolMaestas, "Implementation of a Noncategorical Approach"describes in detail the necessary training and responsibilities of such a resource teacher.Reuven Feuerstein, Instrumental Enrichment (Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980) describes anapproach to instruction aimed at drawing out the full potential of students who exhibit academicproblems; this approach can be used as the basis for effective transitional programs.

128/ An adequate reclassification project must perform full cdae study evaluations adequateto meet the requirements of federal and state law. Such case study evaluations, if properly

99

1 1 6

conducted, should be adequate to detect other handicaps. It is inappropriate to test children in

EMH classes with the purpose of merely deciding "whether or not they are KMH."

129/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 105-,108.

130/ Ibid., p. 108-140.

131/ See Note 127.

132/ Mahan, "An End to Double Jeopardy.",

133/ Rose M. Adkisson, "Declassified EMH Students Make Gains," Integrateducstion 18 (December

1981): 20-22.

134/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 17.

135/ Ibid.; Interview with Joan M. First and W. Alan Coulter (see Note 30).

136/ Consultants' Report, p. 111-21 to 111-24.

137/ National,Academy of Sciences Report, p. 209-213.

138/ Consultants' Report, pp. 111-21 to 111-24.

139/ The central role of the school principal in numerous aspects of school effectiveness has

,been recently documented, from the promotion of basic skill development to the maintenance of

effective school discipline. Moore, Student Classification,documents the crucial role that

school principals play in promoting appropriate student referral and classification, based on a

study of fifteen elementary schools in two school districts.

140/ Ibid.

141/ Ibid.

142/ Ibid.

143/ Ibid., pp. 96-107.

144/ Ibid.

145/ Interview with Joan M. First and W. Alan Coulter (see Note 30).

146/ For example, reforms in the referral process and successful transition programs must

inevitably involve the active cooperation of the administrators and teachers responsible for the

regular edutation program.

147/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 110-114.

148/ The typically lax andsporadic nature of state and federal enforcement in a variety of

areas has been consistently documented; see, for example, National Institute of Education, The

Vocational Education Study: The Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1981); National Insti-

tute of Education, Administration of Compensatory Education (Washington D.C.: Government Printing

Office, 1977); and Project on Equal Education Rights (PEER), NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund,

Stalled at the Start: Government Action on Sex Bias in the Schools (Washington, D.C.: Author,

1977). With respect to special education, limited federal and state enforcement, especially with

respect to issues affecting minority children, was documented by the federal government in Task

Force on Equal Educational Opportunity for HandicappedChildren, Report to the Secretary of

Education (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1981).

149/ For example, Massachusetts Advocacy Center, Double Jeopardy, documents the failure to

analyze such data and use it in enforcement efforts in Massachusetts. In Illinois, the Illinois

100

- State Board of Education annually collects data about the composition of special education pro-grams by ethnic group, but these data are not published and there is no evidence of their system-atic use in state enforcement efforts.

150/ Task Force on Educational Opportunity for HandicapOerChildren.

151/ Ibid.

152/ In Illinois, state reimbursements for special education through the mid-1970s provided apositive financial incentive to create special education'classes in many instances, because thefunds gained from the state were greater than the additional local funds required to createadditional classes°. Because state reimbursements have failed to keep pace with inflation, this isno longer true. However, once an extensive system of special education classes is in place alllarge numbers of professionals have a stake in their maintenance, the resulting organizational andpOlitical pressures for maintaining these classes are weighed by school district decision makersalongside purely economic considerations in deciding whether it is prudent to eliminate them. See jMoore, Student Classification, pp. 96-113.

153/National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 103-110.

154/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 103. .

155/ See the discussiah of these ariteria in Section 4 and especially in Notes 104, 105, and106.

156/ November Letter, pp, 3-6 and its accompanying appendix titled "Highlights of AssessmentMeasures."

157/ In the July meeting, the individual tests in the Experimental'Uttery, particularly theTest Teach Test instrument, were repeatedly referred to as being in the process of development.We were told that the Test Teach Test Instrument was a "modified version of the Feuersteinmethod," and the school system does not use Feuerstein:a awn name for this test (Learning Appear.ment Potential Device) in referring to it.

158/ These requests were made in a May 1982 telephone conversation with Dr. Ora McCanner, inthe July 16, 1982 meeting with Dr. McConner and her staff, and in an August 21982 letter to Dr.McConner. In May ahd July, DFC was refused access to the tests. The November letter failed torespond to this request.

159/ As a safeguard for subjects involved in research aimed at developing a new testingprocedure and as an important part of the effort to establish a test's validity, customary profes-sional practice entails using the experimental testing procedure along with other testing,proce-dures. In cases where an experimental procedure is used from thf beginning to make importanldecisions about children's futures, qp APA Ethical Standards suggest that it is the researcher'sobligation to obtain informed consent from the child's parent. The pa-rent should be made aware f"all aspects of the research that might reasonably be expected to influence willingness to parti-cipate..." APA Ethical Standards, p. 638.

160/ Ibid.

161/ Board of Education of the City of Chicago, May 1982 ProRress Report, p. 30, states thefollowing; "Phase-In Instituted: Every 4th potential EMU referral (including reevaluation) is tobe evaluated using non-traditional assessment techniques. In March, every 3rd and 4th; in Aprilevery 2nd, 3rd, and 4th; in May, all are to be accomplished in this manner." Neither this reportnor other available evidence indicates that procedures described in Notes 159 and 160 werefollowed.

162/ The section of the APA Test Standards entitled "Standards for Tests, Manuals, andReports" lists essential information that must be assembled in a test manual about a teat that hasbeen developed for widespread use. This section of the APA Test Standards states, "The develop-ment of a test or testing program is based on research; the report of that research is often

$

1017

1 1 tr,

contained in a manual. These standards, therefore, concentrate on the manual... as the full and

proper report of what was done in rest development; they specify standards for reporting from

which one may infer standards for research." (emphasis added, p.9). Since the scHool system

abandoned the effort to collect research data adequate to address the issues that the APA

considers essential for a test manual, the test developers were under a clear obligation to halt

the widespread use of the Experimental Battery.

163/ APA Test Standards, pp. 25-55, describes a total of 58 standards termed "essential" for

test reliability and validity.

164/ APA Test Standards.

165./ APA Ethical Standards, p. 637, states"Psychologists responsible for the development and

standardization of rbychological tests and other assessment techniques utilize established scien-

tific procedures and observe relevadt APAostandards." T1Ite Ethical Standards also state that "As

members of governmental or other organizational bodies, sychologists remain accountable as

individuals to the highest standards of their professiom" APA Ethical Standard p. 633.

3166/ APA Test Standards, pp. 57-59.

167/ APATest Standards, p. 321

168/ In its November letter, the school 'system meiely lists eight tests, citing bits and

pieces of evidence about the alleged reliability and validity of individual test instruments.

However, no indication is provided as to how this test battery is used as a whole to make deci-

sions about children or aboat the reliability and validity of this overall testing and decision-

making process. It is this question, which is of paraMount importance in shaping children's

futures, that must be addressed to copform with professional standards.

0 169/ John Salvia and James E. Ysseldyke, Assessment In_Special and Remedial Education

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981), p. 98, state that testa used to assign a child to a special

class should have a minimum reliability of .90. The school system has not demonstrated that any

of its tests meet this criterion.

170/ APA Test Standards, pp. 25-31', 56-57. See also, Bert F. Green, "A Primer of Testing, "

American Psychologist 36 (October 1981), p. 1006, who states, "A test cannot be valid in general;

it is valid for a purpose." This basic principle of test development and test use is reflected in

federal and state laws governing test use in special education; federal regulations, for instance,

state that tests must be"validated for the specific purpose for Which they are used." 34 C.F.R.

300.532. 1

0

171/ Ibid.

172/ APA Test Standards, pp. 3, 64. 4'

173/ Consultants' Report, pp. 111-15, 111-19, 111-24. On p. 111-27, the sonsultants state .

"Nondiscriminatory assessment cannot take place in an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty."

174/ Feuerstein, Dynamic Assessment. In the July meeting, school system staff spoke repeat-

edly of using the "Feuerstein method" as a central part of their reclassification effort.

175/ Ibid., pp. 57-1'26.

176/ Ibid., pp. 127-274; Feuerstein, Instrumental Enrichment.

177/ Ibid.

178/ Feuerstei4, pynamis Assessmens, p. 329.

179/ Ibid., p. 326.

102 1 1LI

180/ National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 43.

181/ Ibid. Avallable evidence from interviews with school system social workers, who havethe responsibility of conducting a parent interview in the reclassification project, indicatesthat the adaptive behavior test being useedoes not rely on standardized scorable information fromparents. Yet it is precisely this sort of adaptive behavior testing procedu-re that has reducedethnic disproportions in EMN programs.

182/ One adaptive behavior test in wide use that is based on a scorable interview withparents and has been the subject of extensive research is the Adaptive Behavior Inventory forChildren (ABIC). This adaptive behavior test, which is valid for children 5 to 11 years old, ispart of the System of Multicultural Pluralistic. kssessment (SOMPA), but is available separatelyfrom its publisher, The Psychological Corporation. Mercer, "Policy Statement on AssessmentProcedures"; Jane R. Mercer and June F. Lewis, "Nondiscriminatory Multidimensional Assessment forEducational Placement and Planning," UCLA Educator 20 (Spring/ Summer 1978).

183/ APA Test Standards, p. 59.

4184/ Meeting agendas attached tO the November letter. Several additional hours appear to

have been devoted to discussions of various approaches to assessment, but such presentations arenot the same as,focused training in the use of specific test instruments.

185/ May 1982 Progress Report, p. 30.

186/ Interview with ReUven'Feuerstein, December 13, 1982. Dr. Feuerstein indicates that two'weeks of full-time training are needed to properly use his testing methods with children.

187/ Interview with Joan M. First and W. Alan Coulter (see Note 30).

188/ Context for Achievement indicates the reading achievement score for the student at the75th percentile in the elementary'school achievement testing program (see page I-11). An examina-tion of these data for students aged 9 'to 13 indicates that the reading achievement scores forChicago students at the 75th percentile for Chicago were close to the average score for thenation; thus, about 75% of the students tested in Chicago read below the national average in1981-82. Further, the scores of most haddicapped and bilingual students were dot reported, and,

' if they had been, this would introduce a substantial nUmber of low-scoring children into thedistribution of scores. Thus', the true-number of Chicago,public school students reading below thenational average is substantially greater than 75%.

189/ See Notes 38, 39, 70, and 170.

190/ See Section 4.

191/ National Academy of Sciences Report, pp. 19-199. Since this information was prepared,several additional states have adopted specific state-wide standards.

192/

193/

See Note 7.

See Note 44.

144/ SW Rote 43.

4

195/ See Note 59.

196/ See Noten 61 and 63.

197/ See Note 70.

198/ See Note/70.

199/ One iustifiable reason for sending EMH students to such special schools, for example, isthat they are receiving "related services," such as physical therapy, that is impossible to

103

1 2,()

provide in a neighborhood school. The Consultants' Report, however, notes that only a moderate

percentage of EMH students in Chicago receive related services, calling into question the exeent

to which Chicago's EMI students are so starkly separated from the regular school program (p.

111-35).

200/ YASE v. Hannon.

201/ Ibid., p. 878.

202/ Ibid., pp. 836, 837.

203/ PASE v. Hannon, appeal filed August'1980.

204/ United States v. Chicago Board of Education, consent decree approved September 24, 1980.

205/ The Educational Components were adopted by the Chicago school system on April 15, 1981

and submitted to Judge Milton Shadur on April 16, 19811

206r "Modification of Part I of the Student Desegregation P an: 'Special Education and

Testing," adopted by the Board of Education of the City of Cbicag on June 24, 1982.

207/ United States v: Chicago Board of Education, request for public comment, kil.16, 1981.

208/ Designs for Change's First Response, United Stalti v. Chicdgo Board of Education. See

Note 78.

209/ Ibid. Additional comments requesting an independent monitoring commission were submit-

ted by Citizens Schools Committee and Chicago Urban League.c210/ Reply Memorandum, filed August 28, 1981, p. 43, United Stites v. Chicago Board of

Education..

211/ United States v. Chicago Board of Education, Transcript of Proceedings, status hearing,

November 12, 1981, pp. 15, 16.

212/ Staff's Response, United States v. Chicago Board of Education. See Note 79.

213/ Ibid., p. 1.

214/ Consultants' Report.

' 215/ Designs fox Change's Second Response, United Btstep v. chicilito Board of Education. See

Note 80.

216/ PASE v, Hannon, Stipulation to TerminateProceedings, filed:March 24, 1982.

217/ Letter of August 2, 1982 to Dr. Ora McConner, Associate Superintendent for Pupil Person-

nel Services and Special Education Program Development, from Sheila Radford-Hill of Designs for

Change, requesting specific information about the school system's reclapsification project.

218/ Letter to Dr. Ruth Love, General Superintendent of Schools, from Designs for Change,

October 27, 1982, requesting a meeting to discuss the school system's reclassification project.

219/ Letter to Robert C. Howard, attorney for the Chicago schools, from Designs for Change,

October 27, 1982, requesting a response to DFC's August 2, 1982 letter to Dr. Ora McConner.

220/ Letter to Designs for Change from Dr. Ruth Love, November 4, 1982.

221/ November Letter.

104

t