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