Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with a Learning Disability

Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with a Learning Disability Dara Shifrer, Department of Sociology Rebecca Callahan, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Population Research Center The University of Texas at Austin Abstract (Word Count: 156) Labeling theorists perceive labels as stigmatizing, and as leading others to perceive the labeled differently. They predict that others perceptions will alter the self-perception and attitudes of the labeled to the end that the prophecies of the label are fulfilled. We explore the predictions of labeling theory in this study with national data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. We find that both teachers and parents hold significantly lower educational expectations for students labeled with LD than they do for similarly performing students who are not labeled with disability. The differences between the educational expectations of parents of labeled and unlabeled adolescents are larger among higher SES families than they are among lower SES families. Labeled students' educational expectations for themselves are significantly lower even than those of similar students not labeled with disability, and can be attributed at least in part to the lower educational expectations of their parents and their teachers, in particular. Keywords: Stigma, Labels, Educational Expectations, Special Education, Learning Disabilities Handout for roundtable presentation at the 2012 annual meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Direct all correspondence to Dara Shifrer, Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, G1800, Austin TX 78712 or email: dshifrer@prc.utexas.edu. This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (HRD-0834177, Chandra Muller, PI, and HRD- 0965444, Rebecca Callahan, PI). This research was also supported by grant, 5 R24 HD042849, Population Research Center, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development. Lastly, this research has received support from the grant, 5 T32 HD007081, Training Program in Population Studies, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies. 1

Background Why the Educational Expectations of Students Labeled with Learning Disabilities Matter Important determinant of whether students complete the preparatory steps that enable admission to a 4-year college Even in this era of inflated educational expectations, secondary students labeled with a disability are still much less likely to expect to complete college Although both the general public and researchers often misperceive the label of learning disabled (LD) as indicative of a low IQ, LDs are ostensibly a distinct set of disorders thought to hinder the academic achievement of students with average or high IQs These students learning potential makes it imperative to understand why their educational expectations appear to be lower than their peers How Adolescents Educational Expectations are Shaped By their own academic history By the reactions of adults around them to their academic progress How Teachers and Parents Educational Expectations are Shaped By the adolescent's: Academic history Race and social class Attitudes and behaviors Students labeled with LD: Have poorer academic histories Are more likely to be racial minorities and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged Exhibit more negative academic attitudes and behaviors Thus teachers and parents may hold lower educational expectations for students labeled with LD for all of these reasons Stigma Related to the Learning Disability Label Labeling theorists predict that labels are stigmatizing and alter the perceptions of others Although students labeled with LD typically have average or above average IQs, people tend to perceive the label as symbolizing a lack of potential or even a low IQ Labeling theorists predict that teachers and parents hold lower educational expectations for students labeled with LD than they do for otherwise similar students not labeled with disability, because of what the label of LD symbolizes Variation in the Meaning of the LD Label Variation between Teachers and Parents An institutional perspective of disability portrays disabilities as a product of certain contexts, schools in the case of LDs, and predicts that perceptions of disability may vary depending on the context Labels are more powerful in the settings in which they originate and so institutionalists expect that the label may be more closely related to the expectations of teachers than parents. Variation depending on Student s Socioeconomic Status (SES) Because lower SES parents are described as being excluded from the discourse of special education, institutionalists expect that they will be less likely than higher SES parents to even recognize the school's label of LD or to understand what it means. Institutionalists also expect that the process of interpreting the label of LD is based in social comparison, and that the label of LD will be interpreted more negatively in contexts in which academic success is emphasized 2

For all of these reasons, institutionalists expect that labeled students who have lower SES will actually experience less stigma than labeled students who have higher SES Fulfilling the Prophecies of the LD Label Labeling theorists discuss how people shape their selves on the basis of others perceptions, and predict that labeled people fulfill the prophecies of the label as a result of others altered perceptions of them Students labeled with LD may have lower educational expectations for themselves than unlabeled students with similar levels of performance, as a result of their teachers' and parents' altered perceptions of and expectations for them Previous studies have emphasized the impact that parents have on their children's educational expectations, but institutionalists expect that in the case of the LD label and matters of academic potential, teachers would be more influential than parents for adolescents' expectations of educational attainment Research Questions Does there seem to be stigma related to the label of LD? In other words, are teachers and parents educational expectations lower for high school students labeled with LD than they are for similarly performing students who are not labeled with disability? Do high school students labeled with LD experience more or less stigma depending on their SES? Are parents and teachers educational expectations implicated in the educational expectations high school students labeled with LD hold for themselves? Data and Methods The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS): Surveyed 16,373 spring-term 10th graders in 750 public schools in 2002 Large and nationally representative Longitudinal: Surveyed again in 2004 and 2006 One parent, 10th grade math and English teachers, and school administrator also surveyed in 2002 for ELS Analytic sample size: 11,670 students in 542 schools 3

Results: Teachers and Parent s Educational Expectations for Adolescent as a 10 th Grader Figure 1 (above) Both teachers and parents hold significantly lower educational expectations for students labeled with LD than they do for students not labeled with disability These predicted probabilities were estimated from models controlling on the student s socio-demographic backgrounds, academic histories, early high school course placement and performance, and the student s academic attitudes and behaviors (see Appendix 1 for more information on these variables) Table 1 (next page) Teachers and parent s perceptions of the adolescent as disabled are among the biggest mediators between the LD label and their lower educational expectations (15.6% and 19.1% of the total effect of the LD label, respectively) 4

Table 1: Largest Mediators between the LD Label and Teachers' and Parents' Lower Educational Table 1.1: Decomposition of Estimated Effect of LD Label on Expectations Teachers' Expectations Parent's Expectations B Overall B Overall Total Effect (Reduced Model) -2.62*** Confounding -1.39*** Confounding Total Direct Effect (Full Model) -0.78*** Percentage a -0.11 Percentage a Total Indirect Effect (Difference) -1.84*** 70.3% -1.28*** 92.3% Table 1.2: Comparison of Indirect Effects of LD Label on Expectations Teachers' Expectations Parent's Expectations Indirect Indirect Effects P_R Effects P_R Early High School Course Placement and Achievement Credits in low-level coursework during 9th gr. -0.17 6.4% -0.07 4.8% Credits in regular level coursework during 9th gr. -0.10 3.7% -0.06 4.6% Credits in advanced level coursework during 9th gr. -0.08 3.1% -0.08 6.0% Credits in non-core coursework during 9th gr. -0.03 1.0% -0.04 2.9% 9th grade position on math course sequence -0.03 1.3% -0.07 4.9% 9th grade position on science course sequence 0.02-0.8% 0.00 0.0% Number of core semesters failed during 9th gr. 0.00 0.0% 0.00-0.2% 9th grade GPA in all courses -0.17 6.7% -0.12 8.6% Score on 10th grade reading test -0.29 11.1% -0.29 21.0% 10th Grader's Attitudes and Behaviors Teachers' reports of negative academic behaviors -0.26 9.9% -0.07 5.1% Teachers' reports of negative social behaviors -0.08 3.1% 0.00-0.2% Teachers' reports of student's passivity -0.02 0.8% -0.01 0.7% Student's reports of negative behaviors -0.04 1.5% -0.03 1.9% Student's reports on positive attitudes toward learning 0.04-1.6% -0.07 4.8% Student's reports on academic self-efficacy -0.12 4.6% -0.02 1.3% Teachers' and Parent's Perceptions of Disability in 10th Grader Teachers report 10th grader has disability -0.41 15.6% -0.10 6.9% Parent reports 10th grader has learning disability -0.11 4.0% -0.27 19.1% Overall Confounding Percentage a 70.3% 92.3% Overall Confounding by All Mediators Together b -1.84-1.28 P_R' = 'P_Reduced': How much of the Total Effect is due to confounding of the respective mediator. a - The 'Overall Confounding Percentage' is the Total Indirect Effect divided by the Total Effect, as well as the sum of P_Rs. b - The 'Overall Confounding by All Mediators Together' is the Total Indirect Effect, or the sum of the Indirect Effects. 5

Results: Differences in Parent s Educational Expectations Depending on SES Figure 2 (above) The gap between parents educational expectations for labeled and unlabeled students is larger among higher SES adolescents than among lower SES adolescents This may be attributable to: Lower SES parents lesser likelihood to report that their adolescent who is labeled by the school with LD has an LD than higher SES parents of adolescents labeled by the school The starker contrast adolescents labeled with LD present among their peers in terms of academic performance and behaviors: the gaps between the GPAs and negative behaviors of labeled and unlabeled students are larger among higher SES adolescents than they are among lower SES adolescents Table 2 (next page) Adolescents labeled with LD have significantly lower educational expectations for themselves than adolescents not labeled with disability but similar on a wealth of measures (See Appendix 1 for all controls) Teachers and parent s expectations for the adolescent are the biggest mediators between the LD label and the adolescent s lower educational expectations (24.1% and 16.6% of the total effect of the LD label, respectively) 6

Table 2: Largest Mediators between the LD Label and Adolescents' Educational Expectations as 12th Graders Table 2.1: Decomposition of Estimated Effect of LD Label on Expectations B (SE) Overall Total Effect (Reduced Model) -1.18*** (0.06) Confounding Direct Effect (Full Model) -0.18* (0.07) Percentage a Indirect Effect (Difference) -0.99*** (0.05) 84.5% Table 2.2: Comparison of Indirect Effects of LD Label on Expectations Indirect Effects (SE) P_R Early High School Course Placement and Achievement Credits in low-level coursework during 9th gr. -0.09 (0.02) 7.8% Credits in regular level coursework during 9th gr. -0.02 (0.01) 1.5% Credits in advanced level coursework during 9th gr. -0.05 (0.01) 3.9% Credits in non-core coursework during 9th gr. -0.03 (0.01) 2.3% 9th grade position on math course sequence -0.06 (0.01) 4.7% 9th grade position on science course sequence 0.00 (0.01) 0.4% Number of core semesters failed during 9th gr. 0.00 (0.00) -0.2% 9th grade GPA in all courses -0.09 (0.01) 7.7% Score on 10th grade reading test -0.08 (0.02) 6.7% 10th Grader's Attitudes and Behaviors Teachers' reports of negative academic behaviors -0.05 (0.01) 4.0% Teachers' reports of negative social behaviors 0.00 (0.01) 0.3% Teachers' reports of student's passivity -0.01 (0.00) 0.6% Student's reports of negative behaviors -0.02 (0.01) 1.6% Student's reports on positive attitudes toward learni 0.01 (0.01) -1.1% Student's reports on academic self-efficacy -0.11 (0.02) 9.3% Teachers' and Parent's Perceptions of and Expectations for 10th Grader Parent's educational expectations -0.19 (0.01) 16.6% Parent reports 10th grader has learning disability -0.04 (0.03) 3.7% Teachers' educational expectations -0.28 (0.02) 24.1% Teachers report 10th grader has disability that effects 0.11 (0.03) -9.2% Overall Confounding Percentage a 84.5% Overall Confounding by All Mediators Together b -0.99 Note: These analyses are a post-estimation of Model 5 in Table 5.5. P_R' = 'P_Reduced': How much of the Total Effect is due to confounding of the respective mediator. a - The 'Overall Confounding Percentage' is the Total Indirect Effect divided by the Total Effect, as well as the sum of P_Rs. b - The 'Overall Confounding by All Mediators Together' is the Total Indirect Effect, or the sum of the Indirect Effects. 7

Appendix 1: Weighted Means and Proportions Not Labeled Labeled LD Not Labeled Labeled LD Dependent Variables 9th grade position on science course sequence 2.37 1.84 Teachers expect 10th grader graduate 4-yr college 0.63 0.14 (1.21) (1.18) Parent expects 10th grader graduate 4-yr college 0.76 0.39 Number of core semesters failed during 9th gr. 0.61 0.82 12th grader expects to graduate from 4-yr college 0.73 0.41 (1.41) (1.52) Social Background 9th grade GPA in all courses 2.74 2.24 Male 0.49 0.66 (0.80) (0.71) Race: Age at 10th grade survey 15.86 16.15 White 0.63 0.60 (0.59) (0.69) Black 0.13 0.14 Score on 10th grade reading test 51.06 39.77 Hispanic 0.15 0.17 (8.98) (7.96) Asian 0.03 0.02 10th Grader's Attitudes and Behaviors Other race 0.05 0.07 Teachers' reports of negative academic behaviors 6.65 9.41 Socioeconomic status -0.04-0.35 (4.81) (5.15) (0.91) (0.85) Teachers' reports of negative social behaviors 5.46 7.54 Lives with both biological parents 0.59 0.48 (3.47) (4.46) Ever in remedial English 0.07 0.19 Teachers' reports of student's passivity 0.25 0.37 Ever in remedial math 0.09 0.19 (0.48) (0.57) Ever retained a grade 0.11 0.35 Student's reports of negative behaviors 6.75 9.04 Linguistic history: (4.15) (5.37) Native English speaker 0.82 0.75 Student's reports on positive attitudes toward learning 21.06 18.05 Language minority never in ESL 0.09 0.10 (6.66) (6.42) In ESL before high school 0.06 0.12 Student's reports on academic self-efficacy 37.23 31.67 In ESL during high school 0.04 0.03 (11.42) (11.03) Early High School Course Placement and Achievement Teachers' Perceptions of and Expectations for 10th Grader Credits in low-level coursework during 9th gr. 0.23 0.89 Teachers report 10th grader has disability 0.17 1.51 (0.46) (1.00) Teachers' educational expectations 3.63 2.13 Credits in regular level coursework during 9th gr. 3.63 2.67 (1.23) (1.09) (1.32) (1.44) Parent's Perceptions of and Expectations for 10th Grader Credits in advanced level coursework during 9th gr. 0.33 0.07 Parent reports 10th grader has learning disability 0.05 0.52 (0.59) (0.24) Parent's educational expectations 3.91 2.66 Credits in non-core coursework during 9th gr. 2.26 2.52 (1.29) (1.44) (0.97) (1.20) 9th grade position on math course sequence 3.64 2.30 (1.51) (1.51) Students (n) 10,990 690 Note: Standard deviations are provided within parentheses below means. All differences between labeled and unlabeled students are statistically significant (at least p < 0.05). In the interest of space, school characteristics are not shown in this table. Unweighted sample frequencies are rounded to nearest 10 per NCES guidelines. 8