Beyond Yes or No: Examiner-Centered Variables Affecting Special Education Eligibility Decisions

• In Event: 69.024 - That's How I See It: How Perceptions, Socialization, and Assessment Impact Opportunities for Equal Education

Abstract

Background
Special education services have been an area of intense investigation, particularly the process of determining eligibility for placement and the over-identification of minority and low SES students; both of which are especially salient for the disability category of Emotional Disturbance (ED; Donovan & Cross, 2002; US GAO, 2013,). Identification has been shown to have serious consequences. When compared to non-disabled peers, children labeled as ED have lower graduation rates, lower academic achievement, higher rates of suspension, and more encounters with the Juvenile Justice System (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008). The impact of identification on a student’s life is significant enough to warrant close consideration of the process of such a determination. This paper will present findings from a recent dissertation study investigating examiner-centered factors effecting eligibility decisions.

Perspective
Implicit social cognitions are thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness. A growing body of literature has linked implicit cognitions with decision making (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). Although disproportionality in special education has received much attention in the literature, little research has systematically investigated the potential underlying mechanisms (Johnson et al, n.d).

Methods
189 currently practicing Licensed Specialists in School Psychology and school psychology graduate students in Texas reviewed a mock eligibility report and provided information about their eligibility decision. Information regarding perceived pressures at work as well as demographic data was collected. Finally, participants took an Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Data was analyzed via logistic regression and ANOVA.

Results
Results indicated that the effect of the ambiguity in the definition of ED is substantially greater than previously thought; examiners appear to have vastly different interpretations of what defines ED, including what meaning can be derived from the presented assessment results. Although respondents reviewed identical data, considerable inconsistency was found in how and why students were determined to be eligible. Overall, sixteen different eligibility decisions were used to justify a determination of ED with considerable variation noted in narrative descriptions of reasons for eligibility. Further, twice as many respondents felt the student did not meet criteria. A related and significant finding indicated that examiners who feel pressure from knowing that support services are dependent on eligibility, qualified students more frequently and rated the severity of the perceived ED as higher.

Significance
The lack of consistency in the application of eligibility criteria reflects a concerning level of subjectivity in the use of the ED eligibility; a concern amplified by the over-identification of students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Given the poor outcomes associated with placement in special education, the haphazard application of eligibility criteria substantially limits educational opportunity for a concerning number of students. Data will be presented on the variability within determinations and other driving factors found to effect eligibility determinations. Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of factors, apart from assessment data, that may influence the likelihood of a determination of an Emotional Disturbance and the potential consequences for the student. Implications for practitioners, future research, and public policy will be highlighted.

Author

• Kris Scardamalia, The University of Texas - Austin