Connecticut's Special Education

Labeling and Placement Practices:

Analyses of the ISS IS Data Base
Submitted by:
.James w. Conroy, Ph.D.
The Center for Outcome Analysis
1062 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 18C
Rosemont, PA 19010
610-520-2007 and 610-520-5271 FAX
e-mail jconroycoa@aol.com
March, 1997
Revised September, 1999
Purpose
This is a report on a series of investigations of Connecticut's practices in special
education. The .analyses utilized Connecticut's educntion data. set, called ISSIS, obtained via the
CARe v. Tir07..zi lawsuit. The original intent of working with the data was to understand
labeling and placement practices at the macro level. and also to be able to draw a representative
sample of students for in-depth study. These activities were planned as part of the lawsuit.
The data reveal extremely wide variations in labeling and placement practices across
school districts. Mental retardation labeling rates vary from less than I % of labeled children to
more than 20%. Learning disabilities labeling vary from 20% of the labeled students to more
than 70%. 1 do not believe such wide variations can be accounted for by genuine prevalence
difierences. These extraordinary variations have led me to examine other including
gender, ethnicity, age, and integration, Variations were found across these variables as well, and
we believe some of these variations have important policy implications.
This brief report summarizes my basic findings to date. The data show that:
1. Labels vary so wildly across districts that they cannot possibly be reliable;
2. Placement and integration are strongly related to a student's label;
3. Labels vary sharply by gender and ethnic group;
4. Therefore placement and integration are strongly affected by gender and ethnicity;
5. Students with the mental retardation label are far less integrated than others;
6. Integration decreases rapidly with more severe mental retardation;
7. The disproportionate JabeJing of minorities with mental retardation combines with
discriminatory placement and integration practices to put minority students in double
jeopardy;
8. Integration practices vary tremendously across districts for students with mental retardation;
9, From 1986-87 to 1995-96. the distribution of labels has not ehanged greatly, although the
severity of mental retardation labels has decreased, and the number of students labeled
mUltihandicapped has roughly doubled;
to. The general patterns indicative of gender and ethnic bias, and exclusionary effects, have not
changed a great deal from the 1986-87 to the 1995-96 school year.
2
Methods
----.
Data Base
The data base utilized for these analyses was the 1SS1S. ISS1S contained one basic record
for each studentinvolved in special education, The data were colle<..ied on the forms called ED-
331, ED-332, and ED-333. Each record contained the student's age, grade, gender, primary and
secondary exceptionality labels, placement type, and a variety of other demographic and
progrnmmatic infonnation.
In 1995-96, 95,442 children were in special education programs, according to the ISSIS
data. I excluded from my analyses the children with the labels shown below.
"uncategorized i n f a n t ~
"gifted"
"art talented"
"regulaT ed"
3,876
16,516
1,865
57
I selected. only the children between age 6 and 21 who had a disability label, and there were
69;549 of them in the 1995-1996 data set.
Procedures
The original data files were provided on tapes from a mainframe computer. The first year
for which ISSIS data were sent was 1986-1987. The data were provided as ASCII (American
Standard Code for Infonnation Interchange) files. The ASCII data files residing on that tape
were read and downloaded to a personal computer for analysis. The data dictionaries provided
by the state were translated into programs to read each bit of information about each student.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was utilized to read the data and perform
analyses. The 1995-1996 data were supplied on a ZipDisk in SPSS format.
3
Students in the ISS'S Data Base
-The students involved in Connecticut special education had the disability labels shown in
Table 1. The Table compares labels from 1986-87 to 1995-96 .
Table 1: Distribution of Primary Disability Labels,
1986-87 and 1995-96
86-87 86-87 95-96 95-96
Disability Label
AUTISTIC 143 0.2% 402 0.6%
DEAF-BLIND 37 0.1% 24 0.0%
HEARING: 213 0.4% 165 0.2%
HEARING: HARD 473 0.8% 585 0.8%
LD 29271 48.8% 34308 49.3%
MREDUCABLE 2718 4.5% 2993 4.3%
MR TRAINABLE 1114 1.9% "32 1.1%
MRSEVERE 167 0.3% 88 0.1%
MRPROFOUND 174 0.3% 24 0.0%
MULTIHANDICAPPED 785 1.3% 1714 2.5%
NEUROLOGICAL 677 1.1% 1600 2.3%
ORTHOPEDIC 292 0.5% 225 0.3%
OTHER HEALTH 349 0.6'% 3220 4.6%
SOC-EMOT MAlADJ 13366 22.3% 11508 16.5%
SPEECH: ARTie 4938 8.2% 3783 5.4%
SPEECH: LANG 4378 7.3% 7193 10.3%
SPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY 446 0.7% 410 0.6%
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY 0 0.0% 61 0.1%
VISUALLYHC 262 0.4% 271 0.4%
VISION PLUS OTHER 165 0.3% 243 0.3%
TOTAL 59967 69549
Table 1 provides data from two years, 1986-87 and 1995-96. The Table shows the
number of students with each label, and the percentage, for the two years.
The Table shows that the number and percentage of students with '"trainable;'- "severe,"
and mental retardation labels has decreased, while the "educable" label has increased.
Utilization of the "multihandicapped" label has approximately dOUbled.
4
In 1995-96, the 69,549 students were distributed across 169 school districts. The largest
nwnbetofspecial education students in a district was 4732 (Hartford), and the smallest was 4
(Union). Table 2 provides the breakdown of students by district. The name of the district is in
the column at the left. The district's numeric code is in the second column. The third column
gi yes the total nwnber of special education stlldents in the district, and the fourth and fifth
columns gives the percentage - what percentage of all special education students are in each
district. The sixth column, on the right, gives the cwnulative percentage, adding up as it goes
down the school districts alphabetically.
5
Table 2: Number of special education students by Scbool District

Voalid Cum
L.oel Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
ANDOVER 1 34 .0 .0 .0
AHSO.IIA 2 1.47 .6 ,6 .7
ASK FORD 3 76 .1 .1 .6
AVOIt 4 270 .4 .4 1.2
9ARICIIAMSTED 5 38 .1 .1 1.2
BERLIN 7 375 .S .5 1.B
BETHANY 8 64- .1 .1 1.9
BeTHEL 9 415 .6 .6
BLOOMfIELD 11 374 .5 .5 3.0
8ot.TON 12 78 .1 .1 3.1
BOZRAH 13 6.2 .1 .1 3.2
BRANFORD 14 496 .7 .7 3.9
6RIOG!!POQ1' 15 2280 3.3 3.3 7.2
17 1047 1.5 1.5 8.7
BROOKfl!LD 18 2.75 .4 .4 9.1
BROOICLYll 19 143 .2 .2 9.3
CANAAN 21 29 .0 ,0 9.4
CANTERBURY 22 133 .2 .2 9.5
CANTON 23 152 .2 .2 9.5
ClfAPL1N 24 40 .1 .1 9.8
CIiESHIRE 25 564 .8 .8 10.6
CIlESTER 26 57 .1 .1 10.7
CLINTON 27 372 .S .5 11.2
COLCHESTER 28 310 .4 .4 11, T
COL8ROOK 29 22 .0 .0 11.7
COW"SIA 30 104 1 .1 11.9
catNWALL 31 22 .0 .0 11.9
COVENTRY 32 233 .3 .3 12.2
CROHI.'ELL 33 229 .3 .3 12.6
DANBURY 34 1172 1.7 1.7 14.3
DARIEN 35 355 .5 .5 14.8
DEEP RIVER 36 74
. ,
.1 14.9
DERBY 37 198 .3 .3 15.2
EASTFORD 39 49 .1 .1 15.2
EAST GRANBY 40 84 .1 .1 15.3
EAST IIAODAM 41 173 .2 .2 15.6
EAST HAMPTON 42 291 .4 .4 16.0
EAST HARTFORD 43 1137 1.6 1.6 17.6
EAST HAVEN 44 396 .6 .6 1S.2
EAST LYf(E 45 28S .4 .4 18.6
EASTOH 4h 1!.5 .1 .1 18.7
EAST \H lIDSOR 47 200 .3 .3 19.0
ELLINGTON 43 184 .3 .3 19.3
49 858 1.2 1.2 20.5
ESSEX 50 5S .1 .1 20.6
FAIRfIELD 51 1072. 1.5 1.5 22.2
FARMINGTON 52 Z92 .4 .4 22.6
FIWIKLlN 53 32 .0 .0 22.6
GLASTONBURY S4 708 1.0 1.0 23.6
GIWIBY 56 230 .3 .3 24.0
GREENWICH ,7
1"9 1.6 1.6 25.6
GllltWOLD 56 270 .4 .4 26.0
GROTON 59 760 1.1 1.1 27.1
GUILFORD 60 578 .8 .21 27.9
HAMD!Y 62 893 1.3 1.3 29.2
63 19 .0 .0 29.2
HARTFORD 64 4732 6.8 6.S 36.0
HAR,LAND 65 51 .1 .1 36.1
KBRON 67 64 .1 .1 36.2
KENT 68 46 .1 .1 36.3
KILLINGLY 69 437 .6 .6 36.9
LEBANON 71 194 .3 .3 37.2
LEDYARD 72 391 .6 .6 37.7
LISIOON 73 19 .1 .1 37.6
LITCHFIELD 74 134 .2 .2 33,0
MADISON 76 1039 .6 .6 38.7
6
I1ANCliESTEit 71 994 1.4 1.4 40.1
MAMSHELD 78 154 .2 .2 40.3
-
MARLSORWGH 79 60 .1 .1 40.4
-.
MERIDEN 80 1216 1.7 1.7 42.2
MIDDLETOWN 53 at2 1.2 1.2 43.3
MILFORD 84 1101 1.6 1.6 44.9
MONROE 85 311 .5 .5 45.4
MONTVILLE 86 420 .6 .6 46.0
NAUGATUCJC 88 n9 1.0 1.0 47.1
NEW 8RITAIN' 89 1494 2.1 2.1 49.2
.. New CANAAN 90 312 .4 .4 49.7
NEY FATRFIELD 91 238 .3 .3 50.0
N!W HAItT FORO 92 85 .1 .1 50.2
NEW HAVEN 93 2390 3.4 3.4 53.6
NEWINGTON 94 433 .6 .6 54.2
NEW LONDON 95 551 .8 .8 .55.0
N!W MIL.FORD 96 558 .8 .8 55.a
NEWTOWN 97 386 .6 .6 56.4
NORFOLK 98 29 .0 .0 56.4
NORTH BRANFORD 99 32& .5 .5 56.9
NORTH CANAAN 100 60 .1 .1 57.0
HORTI! HAV!H 101 311 .4 .4 57.4
NORTH STONINGTON 102 141 .2 .2 57.6
NOIt\IALK 103 952 1.4 1.4 59.0
NOR\lICH 104 735 1.1 1.1 60.0
OL.D SAYBROOK 106 187 .3 .3 60.3
ORANGE ,07 164 .2 .2 60.5
OXFORD 108 220 .3 .3 60.9
PLAINFIEL.D 109 468 .7 .7 61.5
PLAINVILLE 110 259 .4 .4 61.9
PLvt40UTH 111 287 .4 .4
POMFRET 112 84 .1 .1 (la.4
PORTLAND 113 145 .2 .2 62.6
PitES'TON 114 89 .1 .1 b<.S
PUTNAM 116 216 .3 .3 (($.1
REDDING 117 116 .2 .2 63.3
RIDGiF1ILD 118 336 .5 .5
ROC::Y KILL 119 296 .4 .4 64.2
SALEK 121 71 .1 , 64.3
SAUS8URY 122 74
. ,
.1 64.4
SCOTLAND 123 33 .0 .0 64.4
SEYMOUR 124 336 .5 .5 64.9
SKAAON 125 51 .1 , 65.0
SHELTON 126 457 .7 .7 65.6
SHERMAN 127 25 .0 .0 65.7
SIMSBURY 12.6 484 .1 .7 66.4
SOMERS 129 164 .2 .2 66.6
souttllNGTOIi 131 964 '1.4 1.4 66.0
SCXITH WINDSOR 132 477 .7 .7 68.7
SPRAGUE 133 76 .1 .1 68.S
STAFFORD 134 341 .5 .5 69.3
STAMFORD 135 1667 2.4 2.4 71.7
STERllNG 136 95 .1 .1 71.8
STOlltNGTCI 137 333 .5 .5 72.3
STRATFORD 138 891 1.3 1.3 73.6
SUFfiELD 139 244 .4 .4 73.9
THCMASTOH 140 187 .3 .3 74.2
TH(JIPSON 141 254 .4 .4 74.6
'TOLLAND 142 225 .3 .3 74.9
TORRINGTON 143 569 .8 .8 75.7
TItI.lC8ULL. 144 620 .9 .9 76.6
UNION 145 4 .0 .0 76.6
VERIION 146 667 1.() 1.0 "17.6
VOLUNTOWN 147 78 .1 .1 77.7
1c.a 784 1.1 1.1 78.8
WAUP.aURY 151 2331 3.4 3.4 SZ.2
UATERFORD 152 328 .5 .5 8l.6
WATeRTOWN 153 371 .5 .5 &3.2
WESTBROOK 154 61 .1 ,
83.3
WEST HARTFORD 155
"66
1.7 1.7 as.O
7
WEST HAVEN 156 1.7 1.7 86.7
WEStON 157 155 .2 .2 86.9

WESTPORT 1Sl! 491 .7 .7 87.6
IJETHERSFIELO 159 397 .6 .6 88.2
WILLINGTON 160 93 .1
. ,
SS.3
WILTON 161 400 .6 .6 88.9
WINCHESTER 162 20' .3 .3 89.2
WINDHAM 163 583 .8 .8 90.0
WIIIDSOR 164 506 .7 .7 90.7
WINDSOR I.OCJ:;S 165 266 .4 .4 91.1
.. WOLCOTT 166 281 .4 ,I. 91.5
IoIOOOBRlDGE 167 130 .2 .2 91.7
WOOOSTOCK 169 162 .2 .2 91.9
REG DJST 1 201 69 .1 .1 92.0
REG DIST 4 204 133 .2 .2 92.2
REG DIST 5 205 ZTT .4 .4 92.6
REG DIST 6 206 129 .2 .2 92.8
REG DIST 7 201 115 .2 .2 93.0
REG orST 8 2013 136 .2 .2 93.2
REQ DIST 9 209 101 .1 .1 93.3
REG 01ST 10 210 332 .5 .5 93.8
REG OIST 11 211 65 .1 .1 93.9
REG C[ST 12 212 152 .2 .2 94.1
REG DIST 13 213 176 .3 .3 94.4
REG crST 14 214 305 .4 .4 94.B
REG DIST 1S 215 467 .7 .7 95.5
REG DIST 16 216 205 .3 .3 95.S
REG DIST 17 217 3Q8 .4 .4 96.2
REG DI5T 18 218 176 .3 .3 96.5
REG DIST 19 219 132 .2 .2 96.7
347 396 .6 .6 97.2
900 1567 2.3 2.3 99.S
DEPT OF CORR 942 364 .5 .5 100.0
Total 69549 100.0 100.0
cases 69549 Missing C:lSO$ 0
8
Results]: District Variations in the Mental Retardation Label
--The mental retardation label is applied in a grossly inconsistent manner. Nationally,
11.6% of all children in special education are labeled mentally retarded. In Connecticut, the rate
is significantly lower. at 5.3%. However, the mental retardation labeling rate varies wildly across
,..
school districts. Restricting the analysis to districts with more than 400 special education
students, Glastonbury has only 0.8% ofits special education students labeled rnen1Ally retarded,
while Bridgeport has 23.1 %. There is little likelihood of a rational explanation for a 20-fold
variation in this label. The figures are given in Table 3.
9
Table 3
The Mental Retardation Label
As P a ercen 0 a a e u en s, c 00 IS t filL bel d St d t B S hiD' trict
Perc:eot of Number of
School District (Town) Special Ed Students in
Students with Special Ed
theMRLabel
GIIl.-:r.onhury .8 708
MadisOn .9 439
WlUon U 400
BtartCOtd 1.6 992
Mootvllle 1.9 420
Fairfield 2.t 1072
Berlin 2.t 750
... nD
2.2 964
2.2 :550
Vernon 2.5 687
New Milford 2.5 SS8
Newil\llton 2.5 433
Trumbull 2.6 620
Greenwkh 2.6 1119
Avoll 2.1'\ :;40
GIIi11ore! 2.6 S1S
Bethel 2.7 830
Simsbury 2.9 484
Ansonia 3.1 894
South WindKor 3.1 477
East IlotU'ord 3.2 1137
West Hart1brd 11M
Shelton 3.5 457
New London 3.8 :SSt
H.u1fW'd 3.8 4732
WflIltport 3.9 491
Cheshire 4.3 962
Groton 4 . .3 760
Middletown 4.7 812
Bristol 4.7 2094
Mllnche5lcr 4.7 994
New Driwn S.2 1494
Illoomfield 5.3 748
Milford 5.4 1101
KUligly. 5.5 437
Sfarntilfd 5.1 1667
Wind50r H
Stralmrd 6.0 897
Enfield 6.3 8S8
Tonin!;tan 6.3 569
Hmnclcn 6.4 893
Wl1l1ingfllTd 6.5 784
Danbury 7.3 1172
Plainfield 7.5 468
Windbam 7.5 583
Nauaaruck 8.1 n9
NotWich 9.1 735
Wawbury 9.3 1.131
WcstHtlYOD 9.8 1176
Norwalk 10.1 <)52
MmdGn 12.7 12Hi
NCIW Haven 21.1
Bridj:1cpnrt 23.1 4560
10
Table 3 makes it obvious that labeling practices vary tremendously across the school
.
districts. Such large geographic variation cannot easily be explained. Socioeconomic factors
cannot possibly explain the variations, since Hartford labels only 3.8% of its special education
students with mental retardation, while Bridgeport so labels 23.1 %. This infonnation can only be
interpreted to mean that labeling practices have more to do with geography than with students'
characteristics andlor needs.
Results 2: Gender and Ethnic Variations in the Mental Retardation Label
The mental retardation label also varies dramatically by gender and ethnicity. Table 4
and Figure 1 show this pattern.
Table 4
Variations in Mental Retardation Labeline by Gender and Ethnicity
Caucasian African- Hispanic Caucasian Arrieaa- Hispanic Total
Male American Male Fcmale American Female
Male Female
Total Students in 33,105 7,620 6,134 15,546 3,463 2,954 68,822

## Students Labeled 977 630 469 840 487 386 3,789
MR
Percent with the MR 3.0% 8.3% 7.6% 5.4% 14.1% 13.1% 5.5
Label
11
CaucMaIe
H'-PMa.a
CaucFalMla
Afr.Am Female
Figure 1
Gender/Ethnic Variations: Percent of Labeled
Students Given the Mental Retardation Label
14..1
1&
The graph shows the proportion cf each gender/ethnic group in special educatio.n who.
received the mental retardatien label. Afriean American females in special education received
the mental retardation label 14.1 % of the time, in contrast to Caucasian males. at 3.0%. This is
mere than a fcur-fold difference in the probability cf being labeled. mentally retarded. The ISSIS
data do. not provide any compelling rational explanation(s) for this very clear and powerful effect.
I strongly recommend immediate and serieus research on labeling practices so that we can
understand better why such discriminatory practices are in evidence.
Results 3: Students with the Mental Retardation Label are Among the Least
Integrated of All Students in Special Education
Having shown that the mental retardation label is incensistently applied across school
districts, and is very differently applied to gender and ethnic groups, it is appropriate to ask how
integrated students with that label are. Table 5 shews the average number afhours per week that
12
the special education students are reported to be "in the presence of" non-disabled peers. The
Table- shows that students with the mental retardation label are among the least integrated of all
students in special education,
Table 5
Hours Per Week Spent Among Non-Disabled Peers
By Disability Group
Avcrage Number of
Disability Label HounPer Students
WeekID
Presence of
Non-Disabled
Peers
AUTISTIC 10.8 402
DEAF-BLIND 11.1 24
HEARING; DEAF 8.0 165
HEARING: HARD OF 21.7 585
LD 22.7 34308
MREDUCABLE 9.9 2993
MR TRAINABLE 5.3 732
MRSEVERE 2.2 88
MRPROFOUND 1.4 24
MULTI-He 10.4 1714
NEUROLOGICAL 16.9 1600
ORTHOPEDIC 23.8 225
OTHER HEAL TI.:t" 24.0 3220
SOC-EMOT MALADJUSTED 13.9 11508
SPEECH: ARTICULATION 28.3 3783
SPEECH: LANGUAGE 24.9 7193
SPEECH: VOICE FLUENCY 28.1 410
TBI 16.8 61
VISUALLY He 24.4 271
VISION PLUS OTHER 8.1 243
ALL SPECIAL ED 20.5 69549
Students with the mental retardation label are less integrated than students with autism, or
even students who are deaf and blind. The integration data show a very strong pattern of less
integration with more severe nlental retardation levels. It is difficult to understand why the
13
inclusion experiences of students with the mental retardation label are even more impoverished
than_Ul.?se with the multihandicapped label. In any case. the ISSIS data clearly show that the
mental retardation label is associated with significantly less integrative school experiences than
any other label.
Equally important is the fact that integration ratings vary greatly across districts. 1
selected only the students with mental retardation, and further selected only the districts with
more than 50 such students (to be sure that the numbers are stable). Table 6 shows that the
average number of hours per week in the presence of non -disabled peers varies from 5.0 in West
Haven to 162 in Naugatuck.
14
Table 6
Variations in Integration
For Students with Mental Retardation Labels
By School District
(For Districts with More than SO Labeled Mentally Retarded)
Average Number
Hours of
with Students
Non-
Town Disabled
WestHaven 4.97 115
Hartford 4.99 182
Stamford 5.28 95
New Haven 5.62 505
Waterbury 6.76 217
Hamden 6.91 57
Bridgeport 7.04 527
Wallingford 7.29 51
New Britain 8.18 78
Danbury 8.59 85
Enfield 8.79 54
Norwich 8.87 67
Milford 9.23 60
Norwalk 9,72 96
Meriden 10.15 ISS
Stratford 10.91 54
Naugatuck 16.17 59
The reasons for these variations need to be explored, both because integration
opportunities should not depend on geography, and because the system could potentially learn. a
great deal from the high inclusion school districts.
15
Results 4: Double Jeopardy: Minority Students, Once Labeled with Mental
Retardation, are Less Likely to be in Integrated Settings
---....,",
We now know that. minority students have a much higher probability of receiving the
mental retardation label1han do Caucasian students, once they are brought into the special
..
education system. We also know that students with mental retardation are less likely than other
special education students to experience integration. What is the impact upon placement and
integration of having the mental retardation label and being a minority group member?
The way to frame this question empirically is to ask, "What lU'e your odds of being in a
"regular classroom' if you are labeled mentally retarded mM1 you are a minority group member?"
To address this question in the 1995-96 data, we use the Federal definitions in the 17th Annual
Education Report. Regular Class means segregated special education time is less than 21 % of
the week. Resource Room is defined as 21 % to 60% segregation, and Separate Class means
more than 60% segregated. The ISS IS contains a field showing the number of hours per week
that each student is in the presence of non-disabled peers, and another field showing the total
hours per week in school. A simple division yields the percentage oftime spent with non-
disabled peers, and the Federal definition provides the formula for classroom types. Applying
these rules to the lSSlS data yields the data shown in Figure 2,
16
ArrAmMaie
HispMaie
Afr-AmFemaie
HlspFamale
o 1
Figure 2
Percent of Students in 'Regular Classrooms'
By Gender/Ethnic Group
For Students Labeled Mentally Retarded
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
These data are compelling evidence of a pattern of double jeopardy. Minority children
are more likely to be assigned the stigmatizing label of mental retardation, and then, once labeled
with mentnl retardation, are yet again less likely than Caucasian students to be placed into
integrated settings and situations.
Although not shown in Figure 2, this pattem of ethnically linked segregation practices
holds true across the disability groups; it is not only seen among the students labeled with mental
retardation. For all disabilities, 64% of Caucasian students are in Regular Classrooms according
to the Federal definition, while for minorities the figure is 40%.
17
Results 5: Have These Patterns Changed Over 10 Years?
These patterns of gender and et1mic bias in labeling and placement have becn essentially
constant since the 1986-87 school year. The ISSIS data show that labeling practices varied
wildly across scpool districts then, just as they do now, The data show that minorities and
females were just as disproportionately labeled mentally retarded then as they are now. Students
with the mental retardation label were sharply less likely to be integrated than students with other
labels then. just as now.
In the summer of 1999, Connecticut delivered the latest ISSIS data file for the 1998-99
school year. We analyzed the new data file following the same methods utilized previously.
Table 7 shows that the situation with regard to ethnic and gender bias in labeling is practically
unchanged.
Table 7
Variations in Mental Retardation Labeling by Gender and Ethnicity
Caucasian Afrie-dn- Hispanic Caucasian African- Hispanic Total
Male American Male Female American Female
Male Female
1995-96 percent of 3.0% 8.3% 7.6% 5.4% 14.1% 13.1% 5.5%
special cd students
with the MIl Label
1998-99 p r ~ n t or 2.7% 8.8% 7.1% 5.1% 14.5% 12.4% 5.4%
spedal ed studentll
with the MR Label
The small changes within the table from 1995-96 to 1998-99 should probably not be .
overinterprcted. The central meaning of the table is that the disparities in labeling are still
present in Connecticut in the 1999 school year, and they are undiminished.
18
This situation has now been documented in the special education literature. In his book,
Eliding Discrimination in Special Education (1998, Charles C. Thomas Publisher), Dr. Herbert
Grossman states on page 19:
When setecting the most appropriate placement for students with ~ same behavioral
and academic problems, educators and psychologists are more likely to choose the
.\pecial educalion program for non European Americans and poor students and a regular
education program for middle class European American students. When they choose a
special education program for stucknts, they are likely to select a program for sludent.v
with mild developmental disabilities for non European American and poor students and a
learning disabilities program for middle class European American students. They also
are likely to recommend a more restrictive, custodial environment/or non European
Americans and poor sludems thanjor middle class European American students.
Grossman also describes gender discrimination in combination with ethnic discrimination on
page 20;
Unlike the preferential treatment many teachers give their brightest European American
students, they give bright African American students, especially females, the least
attention and criticize them the most.
19