Educational Assessment Bias (Hernandez, 1994; Popham, 2012; Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002; Wood,...

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Educational Assessment Bias (Hernandez, 1994; Popham, 2012; Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002; Wood, Johnson & Jenkins, 1986) by Mind Map: Educational Assessment Bias  (Hernandez, 1994; Popham, 2012; Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002; Wood, Johnson & Jenkins, 1986)

1. Disproportionate Placement (Wood et al, 1986)

2. Public Law 94-142 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975 (Wood et al, 1986)

2.1. Led to changes in educational system to begin correcting disproportionate placement

3. Educational Placement Bias (Wood et al, 1986)

4. Student must receive Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (Wood et al, 1986), in Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (Hernandez, 1994). For this, valid and bias-free assessment is needed

5. Bias in Education beyond Assessment bias (Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002)

5.1. Research about bias in assessment testing

5.1.1. the research does not prove significant bias in assessments

5.1.2. the research does not disprove significant bias in assessments

5.2. Minorities are disproportionately represented in special education (see also Wood et al, 1986)

5.2.1. Need for non-biased assessment

5.2.1.1. test construction

5.2.1.2. test administration

5.2.1.3. test interpretation

5.2.2. Biased components of assessment

5.2.2.1. Inappropriate standardized examples

5.2.2.2. Content/item bias

5.2.2.3. Construct validity

5.2.2.4. Differential predictive validity

5.2.2.5. Examiner language

5.2.2.6. Examiner bias

5.2.2.7. Sampling is based on a majority population within which there is an existing majority, instead of sampling of various populations within the greater student body

5.2.3. Differential opportunities in school magnify education deficits of disadvantaged students

5.2.3.1. minority students enter school with existing disadvantages

5.2.3.2. "A standardized test score may be a relatively reliable predictor of a disadvantaged student's current capabilities. But it also accurately summarizes the tragic history of limited cultural and educational opportunity that led to those depressed capacities" (Skiba et al, 2002, p. 70)

5.2.3.2.1. "As long as cultural & educational inequities systematically disadvantage entire classes of individuals, valid tests will accurately reflect the outcomes of those biases" (Skiba et al, 2002, p. 72)

5.2.3.3. Current assessments lead to biased estimates of individual potential due to cultural and educational factors of disadvantage which have caused the status of current performance

5.2.3.3.1. Underestimates the effects of unequal opportunity and the potential of a minority child, which is a serious error of interpretation reducing the accuracy of inferences that can be made from these assessments

5.2.3.4. "Disproportionate placement of minorities in remedial programs is a problem only if that program is not viewed as beneficial or remedial" (Skiba et al, 2002, p. 71)

5.2.3.5. How to improve the situation?

5.2.3.5.1. Valid, culturally comprehensive assessment which considers individual & system-wide data, must "use the results of assessment to identify and remedy educational conditions that systematically disadvantage certain groups of students" (Skiba et al, 2002, p. 72)

5.2.3.5.2. Implement low-inference assessment strategies

5.2.4. The testing and assessment which "validly" leads to special education program placement for disadvantaged students, which then fail to remediate them, perpetuates the cycle of inequity that led to the lower scores in the first place

6. Overall unequal opportunity throughout lifespan of members of disadvantaged groups

6.1. Minority groups suffer disproportionately from various impeding conditions which affect both preparedness for school and performance while in school

6.1.1. Poverty (which also leads to many of the other conditions which are mentioned)

6.1.2. Less access to healthcare

6.1.2.1. higher rate of infant deaths

6.1.2.2. lack of maternal care

6.1.2.3. lack of nutritional care

6.1.3. Environmental concerns/exposures

6.1.4. Inadequate dense housing

6.1.5. Crime

6.1.6. Noise

6.1.7. Psychological stresses

6.1.8. Lower family income

6.1.9. Lower parental educational attainment

6.1.10. Neighborhood affects

6.1.11. Parenting practice affects

6.1.12. Lack of appropriate physical facilities for education

6.1.13. Inappropriate curriculum

6.1.14. Lower teacher expectations

6.1.15. School discipline effects

6.1.15.1. higher suspension & punishment rates for same offenses as other students

6.1.16. Lack of role models

6.1.16.1. In school

6.1.16.2. In curriculum

6.1.17. Tracking

6.1.18. Low morale

6.1.19. Low teacher retention

6.1.20. Distrust in American institutions resulting from historical treatment of minorities

6.1.20.1. "Resistance Theory"

6.1.20.2. Non-compliance

6.1.20.3. Lack of attention

6.1.20.4. Lack of motivation

7. Educational Litigation resulting from inequities

8. Re-authorization of IDEA 1997

9. Disparate Impact

9.1. Test items may indicate disparate impact, where certain groups perform better than others

9.2. Is not an automatic indicator of bias

9.2.1. May be biased

9.2.2. May indicate that content was improperly taught (instructional inadquacies) and this should be corrected and monitored

9.2.2.1. Keeping such items in an assessment can help monitor improvement to the teaching of such content

10. References

10.1. Hernandez, R. D. (1994). Reducing bias in the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 269-300. Retrieved from https://brandman.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_278759_1&content_id=_11098163_1

10.2. Popham, J. W. (2012). Assessment bias: How to banish it? (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Retrieved from https://brandman.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_278759_1&content_id=_11098163_1

10.3. Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1). Retrieved from https://brandman.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_278759_1&content_id=_11098163_1

10.4. Wood, F. H., Johnson, J. L., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). The Lora case: Nonbiased referral assessment, and placement procedures. Exceptional Children, 52(4). Retrieved from https://brandman.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_278759_1&content_id=_11098163_1

11. The Lora Case class action lawsuit: Lora v. Board of Education of the City of New York 1975-1985 (Wood et al, 1986)

11.1. Lora case fought for non biased referral, assessment & placement procedures for minority students disproportionately represented in special education placements

11.2. Black and Hispanic students diagnosed with severe emotional disturbance at disproportionate rates to other groups

11.2.1. Leads to disproportionate placement in special day school programs

11.2.1.1. According to Lora, violation of their constitutional and statutory rights

11.2.2. They are a minority within the school, but a majority in the special placement

11.2.2.1. Racial discrmination

11.3. Judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs 1978, several appeals until conclusion in 1985

11.4. 1980 Lora Advisory Panel created (members of which are authors of the Wood et al (1986) article

11.5. 1974 Ruling favored Plaintiffs, but did not place extensive demands on schools due to efforts already underway since passing of Public Law 94-142 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act

11.6. 1984 Ruling

11.6.1. Retraining of teachers

11.6.2. Order special in-house materials for training

11.6.3. Recommended use of experts to make information and rights understandable to parents

11.6.4. Conferences of the US Department of Health, Board of Education and Welfare to provide standards training

11.6.5. Main Principles of the final order

11.6.5.1. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

11.6.5.2. Due process for students & parents

11.6.5.2.1. linguistic

11.6.5.2.2. cultural

11.6.5.2.3. ethnic

11.6.5.3. Emotional Disturbance & Behavioral Disorder are subjective, not objective, and should be determined by experts who are watching for bias in assessment

11.6.5.4. Full input from parents & advocates

11.6.5.5. Professional responsibility

11.6.5.6. Paper trail

11.6.5.7. Monitoring system

11.6.6. All parties retain the right to reopen the case at any time if the outcomes/orders are not being followed/implemented

11.7. Changes were made possible through the Lora case

12. New York City Board of Education (Wood et al, 1986)

12.1. Centralized Division

12.1.1. Special Education & Pupil Personnel Services

12.1.1.1. 5 other bureaus

12.1.1.2. Bureau for the Education of the Emotionally Handicapped

12.1.1.2.1. Special Day Schools (Ineffective)

13. Riley v. Board of Education of the City of New York 1971 (Wood et al, 1986)

13.1. Handicapped children are deprived of education due to prolonged delays before being assessed and placed after referral

13.2. No proper education during delay

13.3. Led to Commissioner of Education order to place students immediately after referral

13.3.1. Leads to hasty, potentially biased placement decisions with a lack of due process

14. Lora Advisory Panel 7 members 1980-1982 (Wood et al, 1986)

14.1. Expert panel providing technical expertise & recommendations for developing & implementing nondiscriminatory standards and/or criteria & procedures

14.2. Panel of individuals unaffiliated with parties of the case (to control for bias)

14.3. Assess the claims of the case

14.3.1. Review school documents

14.3.2. Direct observation

14.3.2.1. Regular schools

14.3.2.2. Special day schools

14.3.2.3. Placement committees

14.3.2.4. In-service training sessions

14.3.3. Resulted in final report, including recommendations

14.3.3.1. Influenced practices of the Board of Education of the City of New York

15. Various Factors Make Change Possible (Wood et al, 1986)

15.1. Advisory Boards

15.2. Parents & their organizations

15.3. Concerned citizens

15.4. Individual staff

15.5. Fear of public embarassment

15.6. New laws

15.7. Advocacy

16. Barriers to Change (Wood et al, 1986)

16.1. General Barriers (Wood, 1986)

16.1.1. Internal resistance

16.1.2. Refusal to admit institutional racism

16.1.3. Faulty implementation

16.1.4. Non-committed staff

16.2. Barriers in Assessment (Hernandez, 1994)

16.2.1. Lack of proper assessment tools which eliminate bias

16.2.2. Case overload for qualified SLP for minorities

16.2.3. Lack of qualified SLPs for minorities (trained in specific languages and/or cultural sensitivity)

17. Communication Assessment Bias (Hernandez, 1994)

17.1. Evaluation must be nondiscriminatory and bias free in order to be valid in measuring what it sets out to measure

17.2. Bilingual students often misdiagnosed with communicative disorders

17.2.1. difference v. disorder must be clear

17.3. Diane v. State Board of Education

17.3.1. Bilingual students must be evaluated in both languages

17.4. Nonverbal tests

17.5. Evaluation by SLP that is trained in the language and culture of the student

17.6. If low scores derived from an evaluation of a minority/bilingual student, additional and extensive support data from various sources must be obtained to support placement in special education

17.7. The validity of test materials depends on the intended purpose of the evaluation (also found in Popham, 2012)

17.8. Racially and culturally non-biased test materials (also found in Popham, 2012 & Skiba et al, 2002)

17.9. Must adhere to timely evaluation & placement procedures (various litigation to support this from 1978-1979)

17.10. Must be comprehensive

17.11. Variables to be considered in SLP evaluation to reduce bias in assessment

17.11.1. Linguistic

17.11.1.1. Insertion

17.11.1.2. Is the language acquisition simultaneous or sequential

17.11.1.2.1. effects the transference of skills/faster acquisition for second language if first language is already mastered

17.11.1.3. Bilingual development follows the same order of acquisition as monolingual development

17.11.1.4. Bilingualism

17.11.1.4.1. balance between native and second language, in expressive and receptive areas

17.11.1.5. Language proficiency

17.11.1.5.1. control

17.11.1.6. Language dominance

17.11.1.6.1. varies

17.11.1.7. Second language development

17.11.1.8. Code switching

17.11.1.8.1. nomal

17.11.1.9. Pervasive medical conditions afflicting the community

17.11.1.10. Bilingual development is about 4-5 months behind monolingual development

17.11.2. Cultural

17.11.2.1. What the individual must know to function in society

17.11.2.2. Cultural insensitivity

17.11.2.2.1. considerations

17.12. Issues with current assessment practices

17.12.1. Lack of linguistic realism

17.12.2. Lack of authenticity

17.12.3. Poor psychometric strength

17.12.4. Inherent & unavoidable bias

17.12.5. Many of these are due to the discrete, observable nature of the behaviors being assessed/not natural

17.12.6. Focuses on standardized, replicate result (see also Skiba et al, 2012 pertaining to issues with standardized assessment)

17.12.7. Attempts to maximize stimulus control

17.12.8. "current tests fail to adhere to their own conceptual approach" (Hernandez, 1994, p. 9)

17.13. Strategies to reduce cultural bias in assessment

17.13.1. Increased knowledge/awareness of cultural & linguistic background

17.13.2. Determination of level of acculturation

17.13.3. Controlling cultural variables

17.13.4. Determining language or languages to be used for testing

17.13.4.1. depends partially on the purpose of the testing

17.13.5. Use of interpretors

17.13.5.1. must be properly trained

17.13.6. Testing in natural situations/settings

17.13.7. Recommendation for the use of Descriptive Assessment

17.13.7.1. Satisfies PL 94-142

17.13.7.2. Holistic

17.13.7.3. Evaluate in natural context

17.13.7.4. Evaluates effectiveness of meaning in communication

17.13.7.5. Evaluates for fluency in meaning/message

17.13.7.6. Evaluates appropriateness of the communication

17.13.7.7. Evaluates proficiency

17.13.7.8. Provides Explanatory Analysis

17.13.7.9. Provides Oral Dialogic Assessment

17.13.7.10. Results in:

17.13.7.10.1. Further evaluation for special education

17.13.7.10.2. Bilingual programming

18. Banishing Bias (Popham, 2012)

18.1. Nature of Bias

18.1.1. May be intentional or unintentional

18.1.2. Unfair

18.1.3. Prejudice

18.1.4. Leads to bad decisions

18.1.5. Types of bias

18.1.5.1. Racial/Ethnic

18.1.5.2. Gender

18.1.5.3. Socioeconomic (most common)

18.1.5.4. English Language Learners

18.1.5.5. Religious beliefs

18.1.5.6. Political preferences

18.1.5.7. Geographic location

18.2. Instructional decisions made based on assessments are only valid if the inferences made from them are valid

18.3. Biased test items

18.3.1. unfairly penalize students based on personal characteristics

18.3.2. Offend students

18.3.3. Hurt students performance on a test

18.3.4. Should be eliminated for the test, and resulting inferences, to be valid

18.4. Bias detection

18.4.1. Judgmental approaches (by individual or panel)

18.4.1.1. Review assessment items individually and make determination

18.4.1.1.1. Yes, potential bias

18.4.1.1.2. No, not biased

18.4.1.2. Method of detection for classroom teachers

18.4.1.3. Can review self, or ask colleagues

18.4.2. Empirical approaches

18.4.2.1. Used for large scale assessments

18.4.2.2. Not enough sample size of disparate groups within individual classrooms for use by teachers on small scale

18.4.2.3. Field testing of assessment items

18.4.2.3.1. differential item functioning (DIF) analysis

19. Educational Tests

19.1. Large scale standardizes tests

19.1.1. require wide score-spread

19.1.1.1. more easily achieved through socioeconomically biased questions

19.2. In-classroom tests assessing content learning

19.3. Inferences about skills of students

19.4. Inferences about knowledge of students

19.5. Lead to instructional decisions