Larry P. V. Riles (1979)

Presented by Breanna Dailey

What is causing a seemingly “major disparity” between African American students and Caucasian students assessment scores?

Is it the test, nature, nurture, or something else?

Fundamental questions

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – ◦ made school desegregation mandatory. (Bersoff,

1980; Bersoff, 1981; Fagan & Wise, 2007; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Desegregation process was not instantaneous

Historical Background

Found that through heavy usage of standardized tests, a disproportionate number of African American students were put in the “mildly retarded” track. (Bersoff, 1980; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)◦ Specifically, looked at group ability tests

Therefore, it was ruled that putting students into tracks solely on the basis of standardized tests was unconstitutional and discriminatory. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Hobson v. Hansen (1967)

Plaintiffs – 5 African American children in programs for the Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) in San Francisco (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp. 79-124; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Morris, 1986)

Allegation – Discrimination on the basis of being placed in EMR classes solely from intelligence tests which are biased◦ This included the Stanford-Binet and WISC-R

Larry P. V. Riles (1979) – The Complaint

San Francisco Schools California0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

TotalEMR

Percentage of African American students in…

(Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Requested reevaluation of all African American EMR and provide additional interventions and programs for those eligible to return to regular classes. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Also requested a quota based on the information in the previous slide

Courts decided that there was “undue emphasis and reliance on [the tests]” (Prasse & Reschly, 1986) and allowed the injunction

Preliminary Injunction

Expanded to all of California Stopped using intelligence tests to place a

child in EMR classes on all children regardless of race.

Injunction broadened

Case took a half a year, more than 50 witnesses resulting in a transcript more than 10,000 pages

Main issues (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)◦ Racial bias in tests◦ Nature versus Nurture◦ Disproportionate nature of the tests◦ Policies and procedures of the Department of

Education in California

Trial

Plaintiffs stated that the tests were biased against African Americans and the tests were the only thing that led to placement in EMR classes

The state argued that any bias was due to socioeconomic status and that the tests were the best means to measure IQ at the time

Trial

Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973 Education for All Handicapped Children Act

1975 (Public Law 94-142)

Laws affecting the decision

Ruled in favor of the plaintiff Judge ruled the discrimination was on purpose

and was to separate minority children into special education classes that were a “dead end”. (Bersoff, 1981; Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp. 79-124; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Assessments used in a racially and culturally biased manner◦ Not standardized for African American children –

meant for mainstream (Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Decision

State of California cannot use tests that are not standardized until they are approved by the courts

These tests must be administered fairly Each school district must correct an

imbalance if the rate of African American EMR students is one standard deviation above that of Caucasian EMR students. (Prasse & Reschly, 1986)

Remedies

Determine placement of African American children in Educationally Mentally Handicapped (EMH) classes by IQ tests (Menacker & Morris, 1985)

IQ tests were ruled as not completely biased (although some items can be) when used with multifactored assessment (Bersoff, 1981; Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp. 79-124; Menacker & Morris, 1985; Prasse & Reschly, 1986)◦ Ruled that the tests are more biased on the basis of

poverty than race (Bersoff, 1981)

PASE v. Hannon (1980)

Warner et al (2002) found that African American scored at 1 standard deviation lower than European Americans when looking at college IQ and achievement scores

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYeFNalyJ4

Larry P. V. Riles and today

What is causing a seemingly “major disparity” assessment scores and why?

Are there any comparisons between an IQ test 3.5 decades ago and a student taking the SAT today?

Who needs to care about the results of this case?

What is the most important thing to take away from this case?

What can we do to eliminate bias or understand bias in test situations?

Larry P. V. Riles and today

Mandated under IDEA (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010, pp. 139-162)

Acknowledge that the tests are not perfect (Ortiz, 2008)

Use more than one thing to base a decision on◦ Remember writing our reports

Diagnostic Interview with multiple people Review of Records Behavioral Observations Test

Nonbiased Assessment Practices

Bersoff, D. N. (1980). P. V. Riles: Legal perspective. School Psychology Review, 9, pp. 112-122.

Bersoff, D. N. (1981). Test bias: The judicial report card. New York University Education Quarterly, 13, pp. 2-8.

CNN. (2011). Is the SAT biased? Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYeFNalyJ4.

Fagan, T.K. & Wise, P.S. (2007). Roles and functions of school psychologists, 105-156. School Psychology: Past, present, and future Third Edition. National Association of School Psychologists. Bethesda, MD.

Jacob, S., Decker, D., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in the education of students with disabilities under IDEA. 79-124. Ethics and Law for School Psychologists 6th Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.

Jacob, S., Decker, D., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in psychoeducational assessment, 139-162. Ethics and Law for School Psychologists 6th Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.

References

Menacker, J., & Morris, V. C. (1985). Intelligence testing, civil rights, and the federal courts. The Educational Forum, 49(3), pp. 285-296.

Prasse, D. P., & Reschly, D. J. (1986). Larry P.: A case of segregation, testing, or program efficacy? Exceptional Children, 54(4), pp. 333-346.

Ortiz, S. O. (2008). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. 661-679. Best Practices in School Psychology 5th Edition. National Association of School Psychologists. Bethesda, MD.

Warner, T. D., Dede, D. E., Garvan, C. W., & Conway, T. W. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), pp. 501-509.

References