Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status …equity/docs/exceptionalchildren.pdf ·...

Vol. 74. No. 3. pp. 264-288.©2008 Council for Exceptional Children.

Achieving Equity in SpecialEducation: Historjy StatuSyand Current Challenges

RUSSEUL J. SKIBA

ADA B. SIMMONS

SHANA RITTER

ASHLEY C. GIBB

M. KAREGA RAUSCH

JASON CUADRADO

CHOONG-GEUN CHUNG

Indiana University

ABSTRACT:r: Among the most-longstanding and intransigent issues in the field, the disproportionate

representation of minority students in special education programs has its roots in a long history of

educational segregation and discrimination. Although national estimates of disproportionality have

been consistent over time, state and local estimates may show varying patterns of disproportionality.

A number of factors may contribute to disproportionality, including test bias, poverty, special edu-

cation processes, inequity in general education, issues of behavior management, and cultural mis-

match/cultural reproduction. This article provides a report on the history, measurement, status, and

factors contributing to disproportionate representation in special education, and offers recommen-

dations based on an understanding of racial and ethnic disparities in special education as a multi-

ply determined phenomenon.

Special education was borne out education legislation (Individuals With Disabili-

of, and owes a debt to, the civil ties Education Act, IDEA, Public Law No. 94-

rights niovement. That is, the 142, 1975). Thus, it is highly ironic that racial

inspiration for, and the strate- disparities in rates of special education service re-

gies used by, advocates whose main one of the key indicators of inequity in our

efforts resulted in the first national special educa- nation's educational system. ''•'

tion legislation emerged from the struggles of the The disproportionate representation of mi-

civil rights movement (Smith & Kozleski, 2005). nority students is among the most critical and en-

Concerns about racial inequity were central to Ut- during problems in the field of special education,

igation (e.g.. Mills v. Board of Education, 1972) Despite court challenges {Larry P. v. Riles,

that led to the promulgation of the first special 1972/1974/1979/1984; PASE v. Hannon, 1980);

264 Spring 2008

federal reports (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller,Holtzman, & Messick,1982); and abundant re-search on the issue (e.g., Chinn & Hughes, 1987;Harry & Klingner, 2006; Hosp & Reschly, 2003;Losen & Orfield, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best,& Singh, 1999), the problem of disproportionaterepiresentation of minority students in special ed-ucation has persisted. Indeed, although consis-teritly documented, it is fair to say that the fullcomplexity of minority disproportionality has notyet been understood, nor has a clear or compre-hensive picture emerged concerning the causes ofdisproportionality (Donovan & Cross; Harry &Klingner). To address the issue of disproportion-ate minority placement, the 1997 reauthorizationof the Individuals With Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA 97, Public Law No. 105-17) stressedthe iniportance of efforts to "prevent the intensifi-cation of problems connected with mislabelingand high dropout rates among minority childrenwith disabilities" (p. 5) and that effort has beenfurther amplified in the Individuals With Disabil-ities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004,Public Law No. 108-446).

This article provides a status report on mi-nority disproportionality in special education.What is the historical context for current prob-lems of racial/ethnic disparity? What are the cur-rent levels of disproportionality and how are thosemeasured? What are the possible causes and con-ditions that create or maintain disproportionality?What interventions have been suggested? Finally,the history and currerit status of the field suggeststhat any comprehensive strategy for addressingdisproportionality must attend to three aspects ofthe issue: (a) examination of current data, (b)comprehensive hypot:hesis formulation and inter-pretation, and (c) culturally responsive interven-tion and evaluation.

HISTORY: A BRIEF SYNOPSIS

OF A VERY OLD PROBLEM

The initial identification of the problem of dis-proportionate representatioh of some groups,most notably African American students, in spe-cial education is often traced back to Dunn's(1968) classic critique of the field. Yet the prob-lem itself has its roots far deeper, in the problems

of oppression and discririiination that have char-acterized race relations throughout American his-tory (Smedley, 2007). In 1853, Margaret Douglaswas sentenced to 1 month in jail for her attemptsto teach the children of freed slaves to read andwrite (Blaustein & Zarigrando, 1968). In 1896,Plessy V. Eerguson legitimated the doctrine oi sepa-rate but equal, even though segregated educationin the Jim Crow period was by no means equal(Jackson & Weidman, 2006). In the late 19thcentury and early 20th century, attacks on Blackcommunities during race riots included the burn-ing of Black schools (Harmer, 2001). Early 20thcentury mental testing was grounded in thepremise of American eugenics that races otherthan those of northern European stock were intel-lect:ually inferior, and that the purity of the supe-rior races should be preserved by vigorouslysegregating the "feeble-minded" (Terman, 1916).From Reconstruction until the 1950s, the domi-nant view of African American education was thatit was intended not to educate for equal citizen-ship, but rather for the lower ranked positionsthat it was assumed African Americans would oc-cupy (Rury, 2002).

It is not surprising then that leaders in theemerging field of special education documentedracially-based disparities in service in the 1960sand 1970s. In his classic critique of special educa-tion, Dunn (1968) suggested that the overrepre-sentation of ethnic and language minoritystudents in self-contained special education class-rooms raised significant civil rights and educa-tional concerns. Mercer (1973), highlightingethnic differences in rates of special education ser-vice as part of her critique ofthe "6-hour" or situ-ationally retarded child, fourid that public schoolstended to identify more children as mentally re-tarded than any other child service setting.

In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education(1954) and legislative action to provide equal ac-cess to education, institutional structures, such asability grouping and significantly separate specialeducation classrooms, continued to keep minoritystudents segregated from their White peers (Losen& Welner, 2001). Addressing violations of theEqual Protection Clause of the Constitution andTide VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, de factosegregation was challenged in the Washington,DC public school system in the case of Hobson v.

Exceptional Children 2 6 5

Hansen (1967). Continued challenges werebrought in court under Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of1973, and the Education for All HandicappedChildren Act of 1975, addressing the role of stan-dardized testing and the reduced educational op-portunity afforded by the racial isolation ofminorities in special education programs {DianaV. California State Board of Education, 1970;Guadalupe Organization v. Temple ElementarySchool District #3, 1972; Larry P. v. Riles,1972/1974/1979/1984; PASE v. Hannon, 1980).Although the earliest of these cases were highlyinfiuential in the generation of state and federalstatutes establishing special education in the earlyto mid-1970s, the outcomes ofthe cases were byno means uniform (Bersoff, 1981; Reschly, 1996).Nevertheless, concerns about bias in testing led toa profusion of research in the 1970s and early1980s examining that issue.

In the 1980s, examination ofthe U.S. De-partment of Education Office for Civil Rightssurvey data began to produce estimates of the ex-tent and distribution of disproportionality, whichhave been consistent over time (Chinn &Hughes, 1987; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Finn,1982). Yet this research did not, in and of itself,provide any understanding of the mechanismsthat contribute to racial and ethnic disparities inspecial education. Recent disproportionality re-search has seen a sharper focus on the forces thatshape and maintain disproportionate representa-tion (e.g., Artiles, 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2006;Hosp & Reschly, 2003; Skiba et al., 2006a).

Policy pressure to remediate disproportionalityin special education at the state and local levels in-creased significantly with the inclusion of provi-sions concerning disproportionality in IDEA 1997and especially with the expansion of provisions inthe reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 (see Figure1). Under the provisions of IDEA 2004, statesmust monitor disproportionate representation byrace or ethnicity in disability categories and specialeducation placements and require the review oflocal policies, practices, and procedures when dis-proportionate representation is found. One of themost significant new requirements under IDEA2004 is that local educational agencies (LEAs) de-termined to have significant disproportionalitymust devote the maximum amount of Part B fiinds

allowable (15%) to early intervening programs.Early intervening services are distinguished fromearly intervention services for infants and toddlerswith disabilities in that they identify and target"children who are struggling to learn . . . andquickly intervening to provide support" (Williams,2007, p. 28). Significant disproportionality is notdefined in IDEA 2004 nor its implementing regu-lations, and discretion is left to the states todevelop the quantifiable indicators of dispropor-tionality used for determining significance.

MEASUREMENT ISSUES IN

DISPROPORTIONALITY

Disproportionality may be defined as the repre-sentation of a group in a category that exceeds ourexpectations for that group, or differs substan-tially from the representation of others in thatcategory. Although concerns have historicallytended to focus on issues of overrepresentation inspecial education or specific disability categories,groups may also be underrepresented in a cate-gory or setting (e.g., underrepresentation in gen-eral education settings, gifted education, or visualimpairment). Although the concept of dispropor-tionate representation seems relatively straightfor-ward, measurement of disproportionality can bequite complex. In measuring disproportionality,one may assess (a) the extent to which a group isover- or underrepresented in a category comparedto its proportion in the broader population {com-position index) or (b) the extent to which a groupis found eligible for service at a rate differing fromthat of other groups {risk index and risk ratio).

COMPOSITION INDEX

The most intuitive method of measurement ofdisproportionality, the composition index (CI;Donovan & Cross, 2002), compares the propor-tion of those served in special education repre-sented by a given ethnic group with theproportion that group represents in the popula-tion or in school enrollment; that is, it provides ameasure of representation in the target phe-nomenon compared to our expectations for thatgroup. At the national level, African Americanstudents account for 33% of students identified asmentally retarded, clearly discrepant from their

2 6 6 Spring 2008

representation in the school-age population of17% (Donovan & Cross).

Although the CI is a clear cut measure, thereare some difficulties with its use. First, there is nocriterion for determining when a discrepancy incomposition indices is meaningful or significant(Coutinho & Oswald, 2004). Chinn and Hughes(1987) suggested setting a confidence level of10% around the population enrollment percent-age of the group in question (e.g., for an overallAfrican American enrollment of 17%, dispropor-tionality would be expressed by special educationenrollment rates outside of a range of 17% +/-1.7%, that is, 15.3% to 18.7%). The CI is alsobeset by scaling problems: discrepancies at the ex-tremes of the scale may not have the same mean-ing as those in the middle. Finally, the CIdiminishes in usefulness as groups become morehomogeneous (Westat, 2003, 2005). In severalurban settings, African American enrollment ex-ceeds 92%, making it impossible to find overrep-resentation (e.g., 92% + 9.2% = 101.2% usingChinn & Hughes' criteria).

RISK INDEX AND RELATIVE RISK RATIO

An alternative approach to describing dispropor-tionality is to measure a group's representation inspecial education compared to other groups. Therisk index (RI) is the proportion of a given groupserved in a given category and represents the bestestimate of the risk for that outcome for thatgroup. Donovan and Cross (2002) reported, forexample, that, at the national level, 2.64% of allAfrican American students enrolled in the publicschools are identified as having mental retardation(MR). By itself, however, the RI is not particu-larly meaningful. In order to interpret the RI, aratio of the risk of the target group to one ormore groups may be constructed, termed a riskratio (RR; Hosp & Reschly, 2003; Parrish, 2002).A ratio of 1.0 indicates exact proportionality,whereas ratios above or below 1.0 indicate over-and underrepresentation, respectively. ComparingAfrican American risk for MR identification(2.64%) with the risk index of 1.18% of Whitestudents for that disability category yields a riskratio of 2.24 (2.64/1.18), suggesting that AfricanAmericans are more than two times more likely tobe served in the category mental retardation than

F I G U R E 1

Provisions of IDEA 2004 Witb Respect to MinorityDisproportionality in Special Education

States must have policies and procedures inplace to prevent the inappropriate overidentifi-cation or disproportionate representation by raceor ethnicity of students with disabilities, includ-ing children with a particular impairment.[34 CFR 300.173] [20 U.S.C. I4l2(a)(24)]

Each State that receives Part B funds mustcollect and examine special education data todetermine if significant disproportionality basedon race and ethnicity is occurring at the State orlocal level with respect to disability, placementin particular settings or disciplinary actions, in-cluding suspensions and expulsions.[34 CFR 300.646(a)] [20 U.S.C I4l8(d)(l)]

If significant disproportionality is found. Statesmust provide for a review and, if appropriate,revision of policies, practices, and proceduresused in identification and placement. Localeducation agencies identified with significantdisproportionality must devote the maximumamount of funds (15% of Part B) to compre-hensive early intervening services directedparticularly but not exclusively towards childrenfrom groups found to he disproportionatelyrepresented. Changes to policies, practices, andprocedures must be publicly reported by theLEA.[34 CFR 300.646(b)] [20 U.S.C. 14l8(d)(2)]

States must disaggregate data on suspension andexpulsion rates by race and ethnicity, comparingthose rates either among local educationagencies in the state, or to the rates of non-disabled children within those agencies.[34CFR300.646(b)] [20 U.S.C I4l8(d)(2)]

States must monitor local education agenciesusing quantifiable indicators of disproportionaterepresentation of racial and ethnic groups inspecial education and related services, to theextent the representation is the result ofinappropriate identification.[34CFR300.600(d)(3)][20 U.S.C l4l6(a)(3)(C)]

Note. Adapted from Disproportionality and Over-identification [Policy Brief], by the U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Special Education Programs.Retrieved February 27, 2007 from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C7%2C


White students. The same data can also be usedto compute an odds ratio, representing both theprobability of being in special education and theprobability of not being in special education forboth groups (Finn, 1982). In contrast to the RR,the odds ratios assess both occurrence and nonoc-currence data.

There are also limitations and issues of inter-pretation with the RR. Although less sensitive tochanges in relative proportions of population, theRR may become unstable with small « s (Hosp &Reschly, 2004). Risk ratios may also provide anincomplete picture of racial and ethnic disparities;although both 30% of Blacks versus 15% ofWhites in a category will provide the same RR(2.0) as 2% of Blacks and 1% of Whites in thatcategory, the meaning of those discrepanciesvaries greatly. Finally, there is no consensus in thefield on the appropriate group against which tocompare a target group's RI. A case can be madethat, being the largest and historically dominantgroup. White enrollment represents the appropri-ate criterion against which to compare otherracial/ethnic group representation and may be amore appropriate measure for assessing Latinodisproportionality. Using White as the indexgroup precludes the calculation of a RR for thatgroup, however, making estimation of White un-derrepresentation in special education impossible(Westat, 2004). The U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Office of Special Education Programs rec-ommends using all others as the denominator inthe calculation of disproportionality (Westat,2005), but the use of either Whites and All Oth-ers as the index group appears to be acceptable inthe research literature (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger,Simmons, Feggins, & Chung, 2005).

In order to aid states in the reporting of dis-proportionality data, the U.S. Department of Ed-ucation, Office of Special Education Programsand Westat convened a national panel to considermethodologies for monitoring disproportionality.The guidance developed as a result of that panel(a) recommends the use of a RR approach tomeasure disproportionality; (b) provides instruc-tion on the calculation of those measures; and (c)recommends an alternative "weighted" RR whenthere are fewer than 10 students from a targetgroup in a given school district, or to compareRRs across districts (Westat, 2004, 2005). Again,

absolute criteria for significant disproportionalityare left undefined.

Although there has been progress in recentyears in standardizing the measurement of dispro-portionality, significant areas of confiision remain.Although different measures such as RRs andodds ratios are sometimes equated or conflised inthe literature (see e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002),they provide similar data only under certain con-ditions (Davies, Crombie, & Tavakoli, 1998).Further, the issue of a definitive criteria in deter-mining disproportionality is complex. Theframers of IDEA 2004 may have deliberately in-tended to avoid cutoffs identifying significant dis-proportionality in order to allow responsiveness toregional and local variation; rigidly defined crite-ria might also encourage local districts to meetthose criteria by simply cutting minority referrals.Yet, the absence of criteria for defining significantdisproportionality may perpetuate confusion byfailing to provide sufficient guidance to those atthe state and local level who may be unfamiliarwith statistical analysis.

STATUS OF DISPROPORTION AUITY

PATTERNS OE DISPROPORTIONALITY

Analyses of data from the U.S. Department of Ed-ucation, Office for Civil Rights (OCR; e.g., Chinn& Hughes, 1987; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Finn,1982) have revealed consistent patterns of dispro-portionality. African American students are typi-cally found to be overrepresented in overall specialeducation service and in the categories of mentalretardation (MR) and emotional disturbance (ED),whereas American Indian/Alaska Native studentshave been overrepresented in the category oflearning disabilities (LD). Data from the 26th An-nual Report to Congress on tbe Implementation oftheIndividuals With Disabilities Education Act (U.S.Department of Education, 2006; see Table 1) in-dicates that American Indian/Alaska Native stu-dents received services under the categorydevelopmental delay at a higher rate than othergroups, Asian/Pacific Islander students receivedspecial education for hearing impairments andautism at a somewhat higher rate than other stu-dents, and Latino students were somewhat morelikely to receive services in the category of hearing

268 Spring 2008

TAB LE 1

Risk Ratios for All Disability Categories and Racial/Ethnic Categories Erom tbe 26tb AnnualReport to Congress

Disability

Specific learning disabilities

Speech/language impairments

Mental retardation

Serious emotional disturbance

Multiple disabilities

Hearing impairments

Orthopedic impairments

Other health impairments

Visual impairments

Autism

Deaf-hlindness

Traumatic brain injury

Developmental delay

All disabilities

AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative

1.53

1.18

1.10

1.30

1.34

1.21

0.87

1.08

1.16

0.63

1.93

1.29

2.89

1.35

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0.39

0.67

0.450.28

0.59

1.20

0.71

0.35

0.99

1.24

0.94

0.59

0.68

0.48

Black

(notHispanic)

1.34

1.06

3.04

2.251.42

1.11

0.94

1.051.21

1.11

0.84

1.22

1.59

1.46

Hispanic

1.10

0.86

0.60

0.52

0.751.20

0.92

0.44

0.92

0.53

1.04

0.62

0.43

0.87

White(not

Hispanic)

0.86

1.11

0.61

0.86

0.990.81

1.15

1.63

0.94

1.26

1.031.21

1.06

0.92

Note. Drawn from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (2006).26th annual report to Congress on the implementation ofthe Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004.Washington, DC: Westat. Risk ratios were calculated by dividing the (prerounded) risk index for the racial/ethnicgroup by the risk index for all other racial/ethnic groups combined for students ages 6 through 21 with disabilities,by race/ethnicity and disability category.

impairment. Parrish (2002) reported that AfricanAmerican students are the most overrepresentedgroup in special education programs in nearlyevery state.

A number of characteristics of disproportion-ality have heen noted. Disproportionate represen-tation is greater in the judgmental or "soft"disahility categories of MR, ED, or LD than in thenonjudgmental or "hard" disahility categories,such as hearing impairment, visual impairment, ororthopedic impairment (Donovan & Cross, 2002;Parrish, 2002). Parrish reported that rates of over-representation tend to increase as a minority groupconstitutes a relatively high percentage of theirstates' population. Finn (1982) reported a com-plex relationship hetween school district size andpercentage of minority enrollment—for smallerdistricts, disproportionality was greatest in districtswith the highest minority enrollment, whereas forlarger districts (30,000 or more students), dispro-portionality was greatest when minority enroll-

ment was 30% or less. Finally, states may show ev-idence of disproportionality in categories that ap-pear proportionate at the national level, and localschool districts may show evidence of dispropor-tionality in a category not disproportionate at thestate level (Harry & Klingner, 2006).

In contrast to the relative stability of AfricanAmerican disproportionality over time, there havebeen inconsistencies in estimates of the degreeand direction of Latino disproportionality. Somestate- and district-based studies, primarily basedon data from California or New York, havetended to show Latino overrepresentation in spe-cial education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar & Hi-gareda, 2002; Wright & Santa Cruz, 1983).National data, however, show that the most com-mon finding is the underrepresentation of Latinostudents in overall special education service andin most disability categories (Chinn & Hughes,1987; National Center on Culturally ResponsiveEducational Systems, NCCRESt, 2006). Exami-


nation of Table 1 suggests Hispanic overrepresen-tation in Hearing Impairments and perhaps LD;underrepresentation is a much more commonfinding across a number of disability categories.

Discrepancies between fmdings of overrepre-sentation for African American students and un-derrepresentation for Latino students may be duein part to the tendency for overrepresentation tobecome more pronounced as minority studentsrepresent a larger proportion of the population.In contrast to the case of African American stu-dents, where overrepresentation in certain cate-gories has been found to be relatively consistentacross time and locale, overrepresentation ofLatino students appears to be concentrated inthose areas in which Latino students represent arelatively higher proportion of enrollment (Par-rish, 2002). Formal studies to evaluate these dis-crepancies have been limited (Klingner, Artiles, &Mendez Barletta, 2006). The difficulty in accu-rately distinguishing between language acquisi-tion difficulties for English Language Learnersand a language disability also complicates identifi-cation and assessment issues for Latino students(Barrera, 2006; Ortiz, 1997).

DISPROPORTIONALITY IN EDUCATIONAL

SETTINGS

Although less well researched, available datademonstrates that students of color, especiallyAfrican Americans, are overrepresented in morerestrictive educational environments and under-represented in less restrictive settings (Fierros &Conroy, 2002; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini,Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006b). Civen theconceptual importance of inclusion and the dra-matic increases in recent years in general educa-tion placements for students with disabilities(McLeskey, Henry, & Axelrod, 1999), it could beargued that disproportionality with respect to ac-cess to less restrictive educational environmentsmay be more important conceptually than dispar-ities in disability category (Skiba et al., 2006b).

Different interpretations might well be ap-plied to findings of racial disparities in educa-tional settings. It might be presumed, forexample, that "differences in placement byrace/ethnicity may reflect the disproportional rep-resentation of some minority groups in disability

categories that are predominately served in morerestrictive settings" (U.S. Department of Educa-tion, 2002, p. 111^5). Yet failure to fmd such apattern may suggest that disproportionality inspecial education settings is driven, to some ex-tent, by systemic responses, such as educatorswho may mistake cultural differences for cogni-tive or behavioral disabilities (Harry, 2008; Os-wald et al., 1999; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008).

To test that hypothesis, Skiba et al. (2006b)explored the extent to which African Americanstudents were proportionately placed in more andless restrictive settings witbin five disability cate-gories in one state's data for a single year. In fourof the five disability categories, African Americanchildren were more likely than their peers with tbesame disability to be overrepresented in more re-strictive settings, or underrepresented in the gen-eral education setting. Further, disproportionalityin placement increased as the severity of the dis-ability decreased: African American students withdisabilities were much more likely than peers withthe same disahility label to be served in a separateclass setting in milder, more judgmental cate-gories such as learning disabilities (RR = 3.20) orspeech and language (RR = 7.66). Such results donot support the hypothesis that minority dispro-portionality in educational environments is sim-ply a function of disproportionality in disabilitycategory. That is, the overuse of more restrictiveplacements for African American students withdisabilities is likely due to factors other thanseverity of disability; further research is criticallyneeded to identify what those factors might be.

CAUSES OF DISPROPORTIONATE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

REPRESENTATION

A fairly extensive database has consistently docu-mented African American disproportionality inspecial education service and across educationalenvironments, although fmdings regarding Latinodisproportionality are less extensive and less con-sistent. Describing the extent of the problem ismerely the first step in understanding the causesand conditions that create and maintain racialdisparities in special education. A number of pos-sible conditions or causes related to special educa-

Spring2008

tion disproportionality have been explored, begin-ning in the 1970s with test bias.

PSYCHOMETRIC TEST BIAS

In the 1970s, the issue of psychometric test biasplayed a central role in court cases concerning mi-nority disproportionality, specifically overrepre-sentation. These cases appeared to be based onthe presumption that tests that yielded groupracial differences in results must, of necessity, bebiased (Mercer, 1973). Although the presidingjudge in Urry P v. Riles (1972/1974/1979/1984)appeared to agree with this assessment, othercourts failed to find evidence that bias in assess-ment has yielded misclassification (Bersoff, 1981).The possibility of bias against minorities in stan-dardized tests of intelligence and achievement wasexamined fairly extensively in the 1970s and1980s, although there has been less research onthe topic in recent years (Valencia & Suzuki,2000), focusing mainly on the impact of high-stakes testing (Madaus & Clarke, 2001). Exten-sive reviews of that literature have reachedsomewhat different conclusions.

Perhaps the most infiuential review of cul-tural bias in psychometric tests was conducted byJensen (1980). That review and others (Brown,Reynolds, & Whitaker, 1999; Cole, 1981) con-cluded that data from a number of convergingsources indicates little or no evidence of biasagainst minority students in intelligence tests.First, a similar factor structure for intelligencetests for Black and White students suggests thatthe major constructs underlying those tests arecomparable across ethnic groups (Brown et al.).Second, although it has been argued that under-sampling of minority populations will lead totests that are biased against minority populations(Harrington, 1975), tests ofthe hypotheses withhuman samples have not yielded such results(Hickman & Reynolds, 1987). Finally, compar-isons of African American and White perfor-mance on a wide range of tests have generallyfailed to find a significant bias at the item level(Brown et al.). For these reasons, it has been ar-gued that the case against test bias has been con-clusively made (Jensen) and some have expressedfrustration about the failure of the field to fullyaccept such findings (Reynolds, 2000).

Other equally extensive reviews of the sameliterature have not always reached the same con-clusions, however. Valencia and Suzuki (2000)noted that, because the majority of studies on testbias were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, al-most all of what we know regarding test bias isbased on the WISC and WISC-R intelligencetests, neither of which is currently in use. Further,the literature on test bias has underrepresentedstudents in special education and some minoritygroups. Nor are the results of available researchentirely consistent. Of 32 investigations of con-tent and predictive bias reviewed by Valencia andSuzuki, 50% yielded findings concerniHg biasthat were at least mixed; in the area of predictivevalidity, 6 out of 18 investigations (involving pri-marily Mexican Americans, but also AfricanAmericans and Asian Americans) showed evi-dence for bias in predictive validity.

In particular, recent research has pointed topossible sources of item bias. Shepard (1987), ar-guing that analysis at the individual item levelmay be insufficient for exploring test bias, sug-gested that more sophisticated methodologies,such as itein response theory, have yielded pat-terns of bias that explain a small but significantportion of the variance in Black-White test scorediscrepancies. In particular, concerns have beenraised in regard to item selection processes oncommercially available standardized tests thatmay be weighted differentially against minoritytest takers (Freedle, 2003; Kidder & Rosner,2002). Examining the test construction processfor the SAT, Kidder and Rosner found that ques-tions more frequently answered correctly byAfrican American students than White studentsare rejected at a higher frequency for inclusion,because such items do not correlate with a totalscore that is higher for White than Black test tak-ers. Further research is necessary to determine towhat extent such processes may apply in the con-struction of standardized tests of intelligence orachievement used in special education assessment.

Finally, language differences and examiner ef-fects may also contribute to bias in testing. Abedi(2004) demonstrated that tests normed for nativeEnglish speakers have lower reliability and validityfor English Language Learners and noted thattests standardized on native English speakers mayinadvertently function as English language

Exceptional Children

proficiency tests. The examiner may also representa source of bias. In a meta analysis ofthe effects ofexarhiner familiarity on test performance, Fuchsand Fuchs (1986) reported that examiner unfa-miliarity, defined in part as membership in a dif-ferent group from the examinee, had a significantimpact on standardized test performance. In pai:-ticular, the examinees of low socioeconomic status(SES) were more significantly affected than exam-inees of higher SES.

SUMMARY

An extensive literature exploring psychometrictest bias has, in general, tended not to identify alevel of cultural bias in standardized tests of intel-ligence sufficient to account for the inappropriateclassification of students as disabled. Yet, giventhe failure to include relevant populations irisome areas of study, a literature base that is, forthe most part, more than 20 years old, and incon-sistent evidence in certain areas (e.g., item bias,examiner bias), the assertion that test bias hasbeen conclusively rtiled out as a possible source ofminority disproportionality in special education isat best premature.

Even a demonstration that standardized testsof cognition were completely free of psychometricbias wotild not in and of itself identify the sourceof the Black-White test score gap; in particular,findings that tests are unbiased does not mean thatracial differences in IQ scores are inherent or ge-netic. Tests that are technically unbiased may stillprovide an index that is essentially still unfair tocer'tain groups if interpreted uncritically. Wide andconsistent disparities have been identified in thequantity and quality of educational resources avail-able to White and African American students inAmerican education (Donovan & Cross, 2002;Kozol, 2005). While depressed minority test scoresare an indicator of current performance, they arealso a product that accurately reflects the impact ofecohomic and educational disadvantage. Tests thatare unbiased may provide an accurate estimate ofcurrent individual aptitude; yet they also providean unbiased and accurate record of the effects ofuhequal educational opportunity. Indeed, at thispoint in history, tests that failed to refiect someform of disadvantage for victims of racial or socioe-conomic bias might be said to lack concurrent and

predictive validity with respect to the conditions ofbias present in our educational and social systems(Skiba, Bush & Knesting, 2002).

SOCIO-DEMOCRAPHIC EACTORS:

THE INELUENCE OE POVERTY

A second factor that might contribute to a dispro-portionate rate of representation in special educa-tion among students of color are socio-demographic factors associated with economicdisadvantage. One might expect that because mi-nority students are more likely to be exposed topoverty in American society (U.S. Census Bureau,2001), the risk factors associated with poverty willresult in increased academic underachievementand emotional/behavioral problems among mi-nority students, thus increasing the risk of minor-ity referral to special education.

[Fjindings that tests are unbiased does

not mean that racial differences in

IQ^scores are inherent or genetic.

A number of demographic factors related togeographical location and SES have been shownto be associated with student educational achieve-ment ot early cognitive development. These in-clude neighborhood and housing stability(Ainswotth, 2002); the student's home environ-ment (Caldas & Banbton, 1999); family healthcare (Kramer, Allen, & Cergen, 1995); and geo-graphic location (Huebner, 1985). McLloyd(1998) reported that the effects of poverty onearly cognitive development, school achievement,and socio-emotional functioning are dependenton the duration, timing, and neighborhood con-text of poverty; deep and persistent poverty con-sistently predicts more deleterious effects. The2002 National Research Council panel exploringdisproportionality in special education (Donovan& Cross, 2002) affirmed that biological and so-cial/environmental factors that disproportionatelyaffect minority students have been found to con-tribute to poor cognitive and behavioral out-comes, and they recommended a nationalcommitment to early intervention to offset so-cioeconomic risk factors.

2 7 2 Spring 2008

The consistent overlap of race and poverty inthis country has led some to suggest that race issimply a "proxy" for poverty (Hodgkinson, 1995).MacMillan and Reschly (1998) argued that thecorrelation of ethnicity and social class suggeststhat class may explain more variance than race inpredicting service in high-incidence disabilities.That view is also widely shared among school per-sonnel (see e.g., Harry, Klingner, Sturges, &Moore, 2002; Skiba et al., 2006a).

Yet showing that poverty influences academicachievement is not the same thing as demonstrat-ing that poverty causes minority disproportional-ity in special edtication, Skiba et al. (2005) notedthat developing a link between poverty and mi-nority disproportionality requires a series of logi-cal connections, not all of which arewell-documented in the literature. Although thereis a fairly strohgly documented connection be-tween minority status and poverty (U.S. CensusBureau; 2001), direct links between poverty andacademic and behavioral outcomes are not as im-pressive (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Nordo academic or social/behavioral problems neces-sarily predict special educatioti eligibility, becausethe specific disability definitions of IDEA are in-tended to ensure that not all students with aca-demic or emotional/behaviorai problerhs arefound eligible for special education. Thus, todemonstrate that poverty contributes significantlyto special education disproportionality, it wouldbe necessary to show that economic disadvantageincreases the risk, not merely of underachieve-ment, but of the specific types of learning and be-havior problems defined by IDEA as disability.

Given this complexity, it is not surprisingthat investigations of the association of povertyand special education disproportionality haveyielded inconsistent results that sometimes con-tradict the race—poverty hypothesis. Some havefound that poverty indeed creates higher rates ofminority placement in the disability categories ofLD (Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002); MR(Finn, 1982); and ED (Oswald, Coutinho, &Best, 2002). Others, however, have reported anopposite direction of effect, finding that as levelsof poverty decrease, minority students are atgreater risk for referral as LD (Zhang & Katsiyan-nis, 2002); MR (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, &Nguyen, 2001); and ED (Oswald et al., 1999).

In order to directly assess the contribution ofpciverty to the disproportionate representation ofAfrican American students in special education,Skiba et al. (2005) studied the relationship of spe-cial education enrollment, race, socioeconomicand demographic factors, and test score outcomesin a sample of 295 school districts in a midwesternstate. Across ordinary least squares and logistic re-gression equations, poverty made a weak, inconsis-tent, and often counter-intuitive contribution tothe prediction of disproportionality across a num-ber of disability categories. Where poverty madeany contribution above and beyond race in pre-dicting disabiht)^ identification, its primary effectwas to magnify existing racial disparity.

Generalizations about the effects of povertyon parenting may also yield unwarranted assump-tions about families from groups overrepresentedin special education. Although poverty has beenshown to be associated with more negative par-enting styles (McLloyd, 1998), there is no evi-dence that African American or Latino familiesare, on average, more dysfunctional than otherfamilies. Yet, in their recent ethnographic study ofracial disproportionality in special education,Harry and Klingner (2006; Harry, Klingner, &Hart, 2005) found negative beliefs about AfricanAmerican families to be pervasive among educa-tors. Families of African American students weredescribed as neglectful, incompetent, and dys-functional, often absent any firsthand knowledgeof those families' actual circumstances. Such de-scriptions also ignore significant cultural strengthsin African American and Latino communities,such as the involvement and expertise of extrafa-milial adults, who may act as protective factorsdespite economic disadvantage (Harry & Kling-ner, 2006; King, 2005).

In summary, a variety of poverty-associatedrisk factors have been shown to predict academicand behavioral gaps that might be expected tolead to special education referral, suggesting thateconomic disadvantage makes some contributionto minority disproportionality in special educa-tion. Yet the path from initial referral to ehgibilitydetermination is complex and governed by policyregulations that are by no means strictly linear. Itis not surprising, then, that research to this pointhas not supported the hypothesis that poverty isthe sole or even primary cause of racial and ethnic


disparities in special education. In particular, al-though poverty creates conditions that reduceparenting efficacy, assumptions made about thegeneral quality of African American or Latinofamilies and their contributions to disparate ratesof special education referral are unwarrantedgiven the extent of available data.

Finally, regardless of the relationship amongpoverty, academic achievement, and racial dispari-ties, mechanisms for the negative effects ofpoverty remain uhclear. It is often presumed thateconomic disadvantage affects educational readi-ness by increasing biological or family-based riskprior to school entry. Yet students placed at riskfor the biological or social effects of poverty arealso more likely to attend schools with reducededucational resources and fewer opportunities forquality instruction (McLloyd, 1998; Peske &Haycock, 2006). In an educational system inwhich poor students of color routinely receive aninferior educatioh, the possible contributions ofthe schooling itself to disparities in special educa-tion service must also be considered.

UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN GENERAL

ED UCA TION

One, of the most consistent findings in educa-tional research is that students achieve in directproportion to their opportunity to learn (Wang,Haertel;<& Walberg, 1997). It might well be ex-pected that students whose educational opportu-nities are limited will be more likely to be referredfor special education services (Artiles & Trent,1994; Harry, 1994). Differential access to educa-tional resources has been consistently demon-strated for some minority groups in a number ofareas (Kozol, 2005; Peske & Haycock, 2006).

Of the possible links between general educa-tion practices and special education dispropor-tionality, however, only the proportion ofculturally consonant teachers in the teaching forcehas been directly investigated. Serwatka, Deering,and Grant (1995) found that as the percentage ofAfrican American teachers increased, overrepre-sentation of African American students in theemotionally disturbed category decreased. Simi-larly, in a cross-state comparison, Ladner andHammons (2001) found that the discrepancy ofAfrican American and White rates of eligibility

for special education rose in direct proportion tothe percentage of the teaching force that wasWhite, especially in districts with a White per-centage of more than 60%.

More generally, however, inequity in thequality and quantity of educational resources hasbeen extensively documented. Curricula and in-structional presentation appear to disfavor work-ing-class students or students of color (Ferri &Connor, 2005, Sleeter & Grant, 1991). Seriousdeficiencies in physical facilities and resources inurban schools have been documented (Kozol,1991, 2005; Oakes, Ormseth, Bell, & Camp,1990). Such resource disparities may have theirorigin in inequitable school funding formulas(Rebeli, 1999) or in historical patterns of segrega-tion and re-segregatiOn (Katznelson, 2005; Or-field & Eaton, 1996). Finally, a number of factorsranging from inadequate teacher preparation(Barton, 2003); to teacher inexperience (Peske &Haycock, 2006); to teacher reticence to teach inwhat are perceived to be challenging areas maylimit the access of students in high poverty, highminority districts to quality teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Students from poverty back-grounds and students of color are also more likelyto be taught by teachers with less experience andexpertise, in more poorly funded schools thathave difficulty recruiting and maintaining bothteachers of color in particular and a sufficientteaching force in general (Barton; Donovan &Cross, 2002; Peske & Haycock).

These inequities have a demonstrable effecton the educational opportunity and schoolachievement of low SES children. In a rhultiyearobservational study. Greenwood, Hart, Walker,and Risley (1994) reported that inferior instruc-tion in low SES schools resulted in students inthose schools receiving an equivalent of 57 weeksless academic engagement than students in highSES schools by the sixth grade; as a result, anachievement gap equal to 0.3 of a grade level atschool entry grew to a gap of 3.5 grade levels byGrade 6. These data make a strong case that stu-dents of color in low SES communities are atgreater risk for poor quality educational experi-ences that undermine their academic achievement.

It is reasonable to presume that factors thatlimit educational opportunity will impact educa-tional achievement, thereby increasing the risk for

2 7 4Spring 2008

special education referral (Skiba, Bush, & Knest-ing, 2002). Although suggestions that equity inspecial education services might best be achievedby ensuring that quality educational services forall students are longstanding (Heller et al., 1982),the infiuence of general educational quality onspecial education referral is still remarkably un-derstudied. Although the link between teacherdemographics and special education dispropor-tionality has been explored to some extent (Lad-ner & Hammons, 2001; Serwatka et al., 1995),the influence of other systemic factors such asquality of curriculum, instruction, resources, orteacher training on differential rates of special ed-ucation referral and eligibility determination haveyet to be directly studied.

SPECIAL EDUCATION ELIGIBILITY AND

DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Disparities in special education could be infiu-enced by inadequacies in practice or bias gener-ated at the level of special education referral anddecision making. Although this possibility has re-ceived some research attention, the pattern of re-sults is somewhat unclear.

Referral Available data suggest that racial dis-parities in the classification of students as disabledbegin at the stage of initial classroom referral. Re-viewing records of students referred for special ed-ucation evaluation in an urban school system,Gottlieb, Gottlieb, and Trongone (1991) foundthat teachers referred minority children moreoften than nonminority children and tended torefer minority students for behavioral rather thanacademic issues. In a meta-analysis of 10 studiesbetween 1975 and 2000 examining referral tospecial education, Hosp and Reschly (2003)found that both African American and Latinostudents were referred more often to special edu-cation than White students.

Examination of prereferral decision makingby teachers has yielded mixed results. Bahr, Fuchs,Stecker, and Fuchs (1991) found that, despite rel-atively minor differences in descriptions of aca-demic and behavioral functioning, generaleducation teachers were more likely to describeAfrican American students as difficult to teachand, hence, more likely to be referred to specialeducation. Shinn, Tindai, and Spira (1987) com-

pared teacher recommendations for referral basedon curriculum-based measures and found thatteachers were more likely to refer Black thanWhite students based on those results in Grades 2to 4. In contrast, MacMillan and Lopez (1996)found that Black students referred to a studentsupport team prior to special education referralwere more likely to have lower test scores andmore severe behavioral ratings, leading the re-searchers to conclude that teachers may wait torefer Black students until their academic or be-havioral problems reach a higher level of severity.On a positive note, Gravois and Rosenfield(2006) found that changes in prereferral practicecan significantly impact disproportionate repre-sentation: Schools using an instructional consul-tation model significantly reduced both theiroverall rate of special education referral and iden-tification and reduced racial/ethnic discrepanciesin rates of referral and identification.

Assessment and Decision Making. Investiga-tions of the possibility of bias duting the assess-ment and decision-making process have not beenundertaken recently and present a somewhat con-fiicting picture. Analogue studies using a casestudy vignette (e.g., Prieto & Zucker, 1981) founda greater willingness among both general and spe-cial education teachers to recommend minoritystudents for special education given identical refer-ral information. In two studies using a similar sim-ulated research paradigm, Tobias and colleagues(Tobias, Cole, Zibrin, & Bodlakova, 1982; Tobias,Zibrin, & Menell, 1983) found that teachers ratedstudents of minotity backgrounds different thantheir own as more appropriate for special educa-tion identification in the first but not the secondstudy. Reviewing tapes of case review teams mak-ing placement decisions, Ysseldyke, Algozzine,Richey, and Graden (1982) reported that factorssuch as student race and SES contributed more toplacement decisions than did performance data.Tomlinson, Acker, Canter, and Lindborg (1978)examined special education referral and decision-making processes and found that minority stu-dents were referred more often, that their parentswere contacted significantly less often to partici-pate in the special education process, and that therecommendations to minority parents were morerestrictive and less comprehensive than recom-mendations for nonminority parents.

Exceptional Children

Large discrepancies between actual practiceand the ideal due process provisions outlined inIDEA have been documented in the literature, andthose discrepancies may well contribute, to someextent, to disproportionality in service. Gottlieb,Alter, Gottlieb, and Wishner (1994) noted that, inthe urban school districts they studied, many stu-dents received services for learning disabilities de-spite not meeting the LD discrepancy criteria foridentification. Similarly, MacMillan and Reschly(1998) argued that up to half of all students identi-fied as LD do not meet their state's criteria foridentification. In their ethnographic exploration,Harry and Klingner (2006) described numerousinconsistencies in the special education conferenc-ing phase that may contribute to disproportional-ity, including rates of special education referraldiffering by the race and ethnicity of the teacher,the disproportionate weight given the opinion ofthe referring teacher at the case conference, and theweak emphasis on prereferral strategies.

Thus, racial and ethnic disparities in specialeducation identification appear to begin at thestage of initial teacher referral, and it seems likelythat breakdowns in the due process provisionsgoverning special education can contribute to theinappropriate identification of minority studentsin special education. Yet given the lack of consis-tency in this research, as well as the age of manyof the studies, the extent to which current specialeducation eligibility determination processes con-tribute to special education inequity is unclear.The most recent National Research Council(NRC) panel (Donovan & Cross, 2002) con-cluded that evidence of bias in the referral toplacement process was mixed, but that the processhas sufficient shortcomings as to be unable to en-sure that the correct students are being identified.Further, the panel contended that the entire pro-cess is weighted toward referral and placementonly after a student has experienced failure, thusensuring that child's problems will be relativelyintractable by the time he or she is finally placedin special education.

BEHAVIOR AS THE NEXUS OE RACE AND

DISABILITY

Special education is, of course, not the only educa-tional domain in which students of color are dis-

proportionately represented. Consistent evidencehas documented large gaps between students ofcolor and their peers in academic achievement asmeasured by accountability test scores (Jencks &Phillips, 1998); graduation and dropout rates(Holzman, 2004); and placement in educationalprograms such as gifted and talented and Ad-vanced Placement/Honors courses (Donovan &Cross, 2002; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008;Joseph & Ford, 2006).

The disproportionate representation ofAfrican American students in school suspensionhas been widely documented. For more than 30years, in national, state, district, and local data,African American students have consistently beenfound to be suspended out-of-school at higherrates than other students, and similarly overrepre-sented in office referrals, corporal punishment,and school expulsion (e.g.. Children's DefenseFund, 1975; Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003;Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Wu,Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982). In one study of alarge and diverse school district, 50% of AfricanAmerican male and one third of African Americanfemale middle school students experienced out-of-school suspensions during one school year (Raf-faele Mendez & Knoff), rates that weresubstantially higher than White male (25%) andWhite female (9.3%) middle school students. Dis-proportionality in school stispension has not beenas consistently documented for Latino or otherethnic minority groups (Skiba & Rausch, 2006).

The contributing factors or causes of racialand ethnic disparities in school discipline havenot been conclusively determined. Although ithas been argued that disproportionality in schoolpunishments is primarily a function of poverty(National Association of Secondary School Princi-pals, 2000), race remains a significant predictor ofsuspension and expulsion, even when socioeco-nomic status is controlled in multivariate analyses(Skiba, Michael, et al., 2002; Wu et al., 1982).Nor does disciplinary disproportionality appear tobe the result of differential rates of misbehaviorby African American students. Any racial differ-ences in reasons for suspension that have beenfound suggest that African American students re-ceive more severe punishments for less serious in-fractions (Shaw & Braden, 1990) or are referredto the office more frequently for more subjective

2 7 6 Spring 2008

reasons, such as disrespect or loitering (Skiba, Pe-terson, et al., 2002). Other explanations for disci-plinary disproportionality include the possiblemisinterpretation by classroom teachers of cultur-ally based behaviors (Townsend, 2000) or stereo-types regarding Black males that increase thelikelihood of office referral (Ferguson, 2001).

There are also indications of racial dispropor-tionality in the application of the specific disci-plinary provisions of IDEA. A recent state report(Rausch & Skiba, 2006) found that about 3% ofAfrican American students with disabilities re-ceived at least one of the IDEA disciplinary provi-sions, a rate 2.8 times higher than all otherstudents with disabilities. Further, the greatestracial disparities were found in the IDEA disci-plinary provision other suspension/expulsion greaterthan 10 days, in which African American studentswere found to be 3.4 times as likely as their peerswith a disability to receive this provision. Dispro-portionality in specific school districts rangedfrom relatively proportional use (relative risk ratio= 1.03) to a rate in one school district in whichAfrican American students with disabilities weremore than 10 times more likely than other stu-dents with disabilities to receive one of the IDEAdisciplinary provisions.

The intersection of disproportionality inschool discipline and special education has beencommented on (Gregory, 1997) but insufficientlyexplored. Investigations of disproportionality inreferrals to special education or prereferral teamsconsistently find that African American studentsare more likely to be referred for behavioral rea-sons (Gottlieb et al., 1991; MacMillan & Lopez,1996). The nature and causes of disciplinary dis-proportionality represent an important avenue forfiirther research on racial disparities in special ed-ucation.

CULTURAL MISMATCH AND CULTURAL

REPRODUCTION

Emerging scholarship has conceptualized the dis-proportionate representation of minority studentsin special education, African American studentsin particular, as a symptom of a broader discon-nect between mainstream educational culture andthe cultural orientations of communities of color.A number of scholars have argued that contempo-

rary mainstream educational systems, special edu-cation systems in particular (Patton, 1998),closely reflect the knowledge, values, interests,and cultural orientations of White, middle-classcultural groups (Delpit, 1995; King, 2005). Edu-cation that fails to explicitly teach the codes andrules necessary for successful participation in un-familiar cultural contexts (Delpit), does not con-nect knowledge produced in schools to students'lived experiences (Ladson-Billings, 1994), or ig-nores the foundational role of culture in knowl-edge production (Sheets, 2005) may yieldinadequate and inappropriate educational experi-ences for a range of cultural groups.

Notably, such knowledge is not well-repre-sented in mainstream scholarship (Trent et al.,2008). The intensive observation required bysuch research may make it more difficult to con-duct, compared to tests of more prevalent hy-potheses present in contemporary scholarship(e.g., poverty, test bias). Alternatively, it has beenargued that non-mainstream epistemologies,paradigms, discourses, and research orientationshave been systematically devalued or "silenced"(Delpit, 1995), producing a database that has ex-plored only a limited range of hypotheses for un-equal educational outcomes of African Americanand Latino students in general (King, 2005), anddisproportionality in special education in particu-lar (Patton, 1998).

One theoretical perspective that holdspromise for providing a framework within whichto view racially disparate educational outcomes isthe model of cultural reproductive systems and ac-tions (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Developed as anexplanation of the perpetuation of social class hi-erarchies, the theoretical framework of cultural re-production has been utilized by equity researchersto demonstrate how institutional and individualactions maintain a hierarchical status quo at theexpense of less-privileged groups (Harry &Klingner, 2006; Mehan, 1992; Oakes, 1982).Cultural reproduction implies that individualscan become a part of institutional patternsthrough constitutive actions (Mehan, 1992;Mehan, Hertweck, & Miehls, 1986) that can re-produce the status quo without being consciouslyaware of their contribution to inequity.

Recent ethnographic investigations havefound clear evidence of reproductive processes


that may well contribute to inequitable outcomesin special education. In an ethnographic study fo-cusing primarily on the role of school psycholo-gists in assessment decision making, Harry et al.(2002) found that although psychological testingis often perceived as an objective procedure de-signed to reduce the influence of individual judg-ment, in fact, the process is often highlyidiosyncratic, as psychologists choose tests or testbatteries more likely to produce the results they,or the teachers making the referral, wish to see.Using Heller et al.'s (1982) conclusion that dis-proportionality could be viewed as a problem ifthere is evidence of inappropriate practice or biasat any phase of the process, Harry and Klingner(2006) tracked opportunity to learn, the specialeducation eligibility decision-making process, andspecial education programming. They found evi-dence of a number of institutional constraints andconstitutive actions that appeared to influence thecourse of special education placement and pro-gramming for minority students, including poorteacher quality, large class sizes, arbitrary applica-tion of eligibility decision-making criteria, tardi-ness in placement processes, and special educationprograms that were themselves ineffective oroverly restrictive. The authors argued that suchfindings suggest the need for increased attentionto school-based risk as a contributing factor to in-equity in special education.

DISPROPORTIONALITY AS A MULTIPLY

DETERMINED PHENOMENON

It should be apparent from the preceding discus-sion that there is no single simple explanation thatappears to fit the data on special education dispro-portionality. Rather, minority disproportionalityin special education appears to be multiply deter-mined, a product of a number of social forces in-teracting in the lives of children and the schoolsthat serve them (see Trent et al., 2008).

Qualitative findings have highlighted the in-teracting forces that may set the context for andmaintain racial disparities in special education. Inan intensive case study interviewing teachers, prin-cipals, school psychologists, and administratorsabout their perspectives on special education andculture, Skiba et al. (2006a) reported a complexpicture of the factors that contribute to referral.

Teachers feel highly challenged to meet the needsof students with economic disadvantages, yet feelthey are given insufficient resources to meet thoseneeds. Classroom behavior proved to be a difficultissue for many teachers, exacerbated by culturalgaps and misunderstandings. Prereferral or generaleducation intervention teams were seen as poten-tially usefiil in supporting teachers working withstudents with academic or behavioral challenges,but the use and perceived effectiveness of thoseteams varied widely. Perceiving special educationas the only resource available for helping studentswho are not succeeding, classroom teachers werequite willing to err in the direction of over-referralif it meant access to more resources for their needi-est students. Finally, there was clear discomfortamong many respondents in discussing issues ofrace; although comfortable and even eloquent indescribing the impact of poverty, many respon-dents seemed anxious to avoid talking about issuesinvolving race or ethnicity.

The multidetermined nature of dispropor-tionality likely means that there is no single causethat can be called on to explain racial and ethnicdisparities in special education in all states orschool districts. In urban schools and districts, alack of physical and personnel resources may cre-ate a pressure to refer low performing studentswho are predominantly minority to one of thefew services available for students who are strug-gling (Gotdieb et al., 1994; Skiba et al., 2006a).Yet Ladner and Hammons (2001) found that thehighest rates of racial/ethnic disparities in specialeducation service were not evident in those urbandistricts, but rather in higher-income suburbandistricts. These types of discrepancies suggest thatthe search for the causes of disproportionality willneed to become more attuned to differential ratesof disproportionality across locales and differentfactors that may contribute to disproportionalityin those locales. Widely differing racial/ethnicpatterns of disproportionate representation sug-gest that the causes of disparities will vary consid-erably for African Americans in Washington, DCor New York City and Latino students in Hous-ton or Los Angeles, and that both of these willshow a pattern of disproportionality dramaticallydifferent from a predominantly White school sys-tem in a suburban or rural location.

2 7 8 Spring 2008

STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING

DISPROPORTIONATE

REPRESENTATION

If disproportionality in special education is multi-ply determined, no single intervention strategycan be universally relied on to reduce racial dis-parity. Rather, complex causality clearly suggeststhe need for comprehensive and multifaceted as-sessment and intervention plans. In particular, thepossibility that the determinants of dispropor-tionality are locale-specific suggests that remedia-tion plans must be driven by local needsassessment capable of identifying unique localpatterns. Team-based needs assessment models foraddressing disproportionate representation havebeen described by Ritter and Skiba (2006) andKlingner et al. (2005). Central to such an ap-proach is a process that moves from data collec-tion and examination, to interpretation, toculturally competent intervention and evaluation.

EXAMINATION OF THE DATA

Data on disproportionality serves to establishboth a baseline and a method of monitoringprogress. The NRC recommended a national ef-fort to establish both a standard data collectionsystem and a longitudinal assessment of trends indisproportionality (Donavan & Cross, 2002).One important fiiture course for practical remedi-ation of disproportionality at the local level willbe to disseminate practical methods of data col-lection analysis (Salend, Garrick Duhaney, &Montgomery, 2002). It seems likely that the con-tinuous feedback loop afforded by the examina-tion of local data on racial disparities can createchange at the systems level (Johnson, 2002). Yet,it is only relatively recently that the field of specialeducation has identified a set of measures (e.g.,the composition index, the relative risk ratio)with which to monitor disproportionate represen-tation. If local efforts are to be made to addressracial disparities, practical and efficient methodsfor calculating disparities will need to becomeavailable to school personnel.

DATA INTERPRETATION

A range of possible hypotheses might be broughtto bear in interpreting a set of data indicating

racial disparity. On one end, hereditarian inter-pretations (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994)have tended to focus on inherent and genetic ex-planations of the achievement gap and group dif-ferences in performance. Alternatively, criticalrace theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) suggests that racial andeconomic disparities result from the use of theconcept of race in structuring institutions and in-teractions to maintain the power and privilege ofthe dominant group. It is clear that each of thesetheoretical orientations yields very different impli-cations for intervention.

[CJomplex causality clearly suggests the

need for comprehensive and multi-faceted

assessment and intervention plans.

Indeed, the effectiveness of an interventionchosen to address disproportionate representationdepends, to some degree, on the accuracy of diag-nosis of the causes of disparity. Early interventionappears to be an extremely promising interven-tion for a range of developmental issues related tosocioeconomic disadvantage (Barnett, 1995).Early intervention approaches could be expectedto reduce disparities only to the extent that eco-nomic disadvantage is at work. Early interventionwould not be expected to address systemic failuresor bias and would hence fail to address dispropor-tionality that is due to institutional inequity.

Unfortunately, interpretation of data on dif-ferential racial treatment itself appears to be con-ditioned by race. The difficulty that educators,especially White educators, have in openly talkingabout race and racism has been well documented(King, 1991; Skiba et al., 2006a; Trepagnier,2006). A number of authors have noted that it iscommon for interpretations of equity data to bebased on a majority viewpoint (King, 2005; Pat-ton, 1998). Recent history from the Simpson trialto reactions to Hurricane Katrina indicate that, atthis point in our nation's history, interpretationsof data on racial and ethnic disparities will varydepending on the cultural makeup of the audi-ence confronting the data. Thus, educators andpolicy makers seeking effective interventions toclose special education equity gaps must be will-


ing to openly discuss and address issues of race,ethnicity, gender, class, culture, and language.Moreover, processes chosen to address inequity •must have at their core a mechanism to ensurethat the perspectives of all stakeholders, especiallythose of historically marginalized groups whohave been the recipients of unequal treatment, arerepresented when interpreting data on racial andethnic disparities.

INTERVENTION AND EVALUATION

Until such time as the understanding of the com-plex interactions that create disproportionalityimproves, intervention plans addressing dispro-portionate service must be both comprehensive •and local. In the context of a multideterminedphenomenon, debates about individual versus sys-temic contributions to disproportionality distractfrom the need to carefully craft and implementcomprehensive intervention programs that cantarget a variety of sources of disparity. Thus, de-veloping a needs assessment process to ensure thatany and all strategies are tailored to address localneeds may well be more important (and effective)than the choice of any single intervention.

Although there is scant evidence regardingthe effect of any specific interventions on mea-sured disproportionality, recommendations havebeen offered based on research related to bestpractices in instruction, education leadership, and .academic and behavioral interventions, as well asresearch relating to culturally and linguistically re-sponsive practice:

• Teacher preparation. Issues of cultural hiis-match, suggesting that teachers may simplylack the knowledge and skills to successfullyinteract with students different from them-selves (Ladson-Billings, 1995), highlight theimportance of teacher training in culturallyresponsive pedagogy (Klingner et al., 2005;Trent et al., 2008).

• Improved behavior management. The most re-cent NRC panel identified inadequate class- •room management as a factor increasing therisk for overreferral of minority students(Donovan & Cross, 2002). Culturally re-sponsive behavioral supports have been iden-tified as a promising method for addressingissues of classroom disruption and school dis-

cipline (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Klingneret al., 2005)

Prevention and early intervention. The dispro-portionate representation of minorities inspecial edtication is due, in some measure, tosocial and demographic factors that concen-trate risk factors in minority populations(Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). A primary pre-vention model, wherein universal supportsare offered to all students and more specificsupports, such as cultural brokering, are of-fered to students more at risk appears to be apromising model for addressing dispropor-tionality (Serna, Forness, & Nielsen, 1998).Prereferral intervention/response to interven-tion. Heller et al. (1982) argued that "It isthe responsibility of teachers in the regularclassroom to engage in miiltiple educationalinterventions and to note the effects of suchinterventions on a child experiencing aca-demic failui'e before referring the child forspecial education assessment" (p. 94). Guid-ance provided by the National Alliance ofBlack School Educators (NABSE) and theCouncil for Exceptional Children (NABSE,2002) specifically charges school administra-tors with responsibility for selecting and im-plementing effective prereferral interventionsystems in their schools.Assessment. Irrespective of the possibility ofcultural bias in standardized tests, there ap-pears to be ample opportunity for bias tooccur during the process of special educationeligibility decision making. Artiles and Trent(1994) suggested that a Rinctional assessmentmodel with its increased emphasis on contextfor understanding a student's academic or be-havioral diffictilty will provide a hnore ctiltur-ally responsive means of assessment. Salend etal. (2002) add that factors related to ctdture,language, and experience must be distin-guished from learning and behavior problems.Eamily and community involvement. To en-able more active parent involvement, Artilesand Trent (1994) recommended that educa-tors assess their own levels of cross-culturalcompetency. In particular, parents and fami-lies should be involved in the prereferral/re-sponse to intervention (RTI) process, and the

2 8 0 Spring 2008

values of families and culture integrated intoall special education decision-making pro-cesses (Harry, 2008; NABSE, 2002).

• Policy and systems reform recommendations.The rriultifaceted and longstanding riature ofthe disproportionality problem almost cet-tainly necessitates systemic reform or policychange. Klingner et al. (2005) recommendedexamination of federal, state, district, andschool policies to create culturally responsiveeducational systems, including such areas asschool financing, the influence of high-stakestests, teacher performance with culturally di-verse populations, and teacher training inculturally competent pedagogy.

D I S C U S S I O N A N D

C O N C L U S I O N S

Given that disproportionality in special educationis grounded in a long history of inequity, it shouldnot be surprising that the factors that maintain orsustain disproportionality are complex, embeddedin social and institutional practices in ways that arenot yet fully understood. Although a number ofpossible causes and maintaining conditions of spe-cial education disproportionality have been identi-fied, in no area is the literature sufficient to acceptany single cause as ftilly determinative of racial dis-parity. Claims of some researchers in the area oftest bias notwithstanding (Jensen, 1980), bias inthe process of assessment, and perhaps even in testitems, has not been conclusively ruled out (Valen-cia & Stizuki, 2000). There are also abundantsources of inequitable educational opportunity inotir nation's educational system (Kozol, 2005), butfew studies have explored the impact of racial dis-parities in educational resources or instructionalquality on rates of special education referral. Someplausible sources of bias in the special education el-igibility decision-making process have been identi-fied, but inconsistencies in that literature suggestthat evidence for special education bias is mixed(Donovan & Cross, 2002). Factors contributing toracial and ethnic disparity may to sonie extent begrourided in a social reproductive model of school-ing (Bowles & Gintis, 1976) in which educationalprofessionals participate in institutional practicesthat, lefi: unanalyzed, reinforce a status quo thatmaintains class- and race-based hierarchies.

The most fitting conclusion that can bedrawn from the available literature predicting spe-cial education referral and eligibility is that dis-proportionality in special education is determinedby a combination of forces both within and exter-nal to our educational system. It seems likely thatfuture research will find complex and perhaps un-expected interactions among variables that have,to this point, been studied only in isolation or ona limited scale. It is reasonable to presume, for ex-ample, that students from economically disadvan-taged backgrounds will exhibit academic orbehavioral problems at a higher rate that makethem more likely to be considered by teachers asappropriate candidates for special education ser-vices. Yet, it also seems likely that a teacher's y«< -ment of appropriateness for referral is conditionedby that teacher's self-efficacy with respect to in-structing or interacting with students from a classor cultural background different from his or herown. Further, institutional structures, sometimesat variance with state or federal policy, appear tochannel the behaviors of the individuals withinthose institutions into habitual patterns thatmaintain existing inequities (Mehan, 1992). Inshort, any view that racial disparities are duesolely to either individual characteristics or sys-tems or individual bias must be regarded as highlysimplistic. Ultirnately, it is likely that more so-phisticated research designs will demonstrate thatracial disparities in special education eligibilityand service are due to an interaction of studentcharacteristics, teacher capabilities and attitudes,and unanalyzed sources of structural inequity andracial stereotype. The challenge in addressing in-equity in special education is to recognize the si-niultaneous contribution of those multiplesources, and to design interventions that can re-spond to the full complexity of the problem.

It cannot be assumed that interventions thathave been shown to work on average in improvingeducational outcomes will also be effective forgroups that have been traditionally marginalized.Systemic strategies such as functional assessment(Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan-Burke, 2000) andresponse-to-intervention models (Fuchs & Fuchs,2006) hold some promise for addressing generalinstitutional issues that may well result in over-identification of minority children and youth.Yet, simply improving the referral process for

Exceptional Children 281

students in general will not, in and of itself, guar-antee an effect on the differential rates of specialeducation referral for racially and ethnically di-verse students. To ensure that the needs of thosewho are tatgeted in disproportionality interven-tions are met, it will be necessary to develop andimplement approaches specifically designed to beculturally responsive (Klingner et al., 2005). In thiscase, culturally responsive interventions might bedefined as those that are not only intended to im-prove academic and behavioral outcomes in gen-eral, but are also specifically designed andevaluated in terms of their capability to reducemeasured inequity.

There have been very few investigations,however, of the impact of any intervention ondisparate rates of special education service per se.One notable exception is Gravois and Rosenfield(2006), who provided evidence that a 2-year im-plementation of Instructional ConsultationTeams was effective in reducing both total refer-rals to and placements in special education anddisproportionality in teferral and service. Untilsuch time that certain interventions can be shownto reliably create reductions in racial disparities inspecial education identification, continued moni-toring of disaggregated data is a critical compo-nent of all intervention efforts in order to ensurethat systemic efforts are truly having an impact onthe variable of concern—disproportionate repre-sentation by race and ethnicity.

Finally, the fact that a multiplicity of vari-ables, across both general and special education,may contribute to disproportionate representationhas important implications for the implementa-tion of special education policy. In promulgatingIDEIA. 2004, Congress deemed disproportionaterepresentation that is the result of inappropriateidentification sufficiently important as to consti-tute a key monitoring priority (IDEA 2004, 34CFR 300.600(d)(3)). There may be some tempta-tion to restrict the interpretation of "inappropri-ate identification" so as to focus primarily onspecial education policies, practices, and proce-dures. Yet, the data clearly indicate that racial andethnic disparities in special education are notsolely a special education problem, but are alsorooted in a number of sources of educational in-equity in general education, including curriculum(Ferri & Connor, 2005); classroom management

(Donovan & Cross, 2002); teacher quality (Dar-ling-Hammond, 2004; Peske & Haycock, 2006);and resource quality and availability (Barton,2003; Kozol, 2005). Students who are referred tospecial education because they have failed to re-ceive quality instruction or effective classroommanagement have been inappropriately identifiedas much as if they were given an inappropriatetest as part of special education assessment.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) indeedrepresented a key milestone in the struggle for eq-uity of opportunity for all children (Blanchett,Mumford, & Beachum, 2005; Smith & Kozleski,2005). Yet, it is important to understand thatBrown represented only the beginning of the endof institutionalized and legal segregation in theUnited States. It was not until 1969, in AlexanderV. Holmes County Board of Education, that theSupreme Court set aside the notion of "due delib-erate speed" and set deadlines for the end of edu-cational segregation (Lowery & Marszalek, 1992).Thus, the period of American history character-ized by an absence of state-sponsored segregation,discrimination, and oppression represents onlyabout one tenth of the time that governmentalpolicies supported a clearly defined and explicitracial hierarchy. Nor has the progress since Brownbeen entirely consistent: Policy changes since1980 have led some to question to what extentthe promises of that decision have been fulfilled(Blanchett et al., 2005; Orfield & Eaton, 1996).In the face of a nascent and perhaps still tenuousnational commitment to equity, it should not besurprising that vestiges of America's history of raceremain embedded in our consciousness, actions,and institutions. There is still abundant work thatremains to be done if such vestiges are to be onceand for all erased.

REFERENCES

Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act andEnglish language learners: Assessment and accountabil-ity issues. Educational Researcher, 33{\), 4-14.

Ainsworth, J. W. (2002). Why does it take a village?The meditation of neighborhood effects on educationalachievement. Social Forces, 81{\), 117-152.

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396U.S. 1218 (1969).

2 8 2 Spring 2008

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing iden-tity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture andspace. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-202.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I.(2002). English language learner representation in spe-cial education in California urban school districts. InD. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in spe-cial education (pp.117-135) Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducation Publishing Group.

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresenta-tion of minority students in special education: A con-tinuing debate. The Joumal of Special Education, 27{A),410-437.

Bahr, M., Fuchs, D., Stecker, P, & Fuchs, L. (1991).Are teachers' perceptions of difficult-to-teach studentsracially biased? School Psychology Review, 20{4), 599-608.

Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of defmitional and assess-ment models in the identification of New or SecondLanguage Learners of English for special education.Joumal of Learning Disability, 39, 142-156.

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long term effects of early child-hood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. TheFuture of Children, 5(3), 25-50.

Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Base-lines for tracking progress. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service.

BersofF, D. N. (1981). Testing and the law. AmericanPsychologist, 36, 1047-1055.

Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F (2005).Urban school failure and disproportionality in a post-Brown era: Benign neglect of the Constitutional rightsof students of color. Remedial and Special Education,26'(2), 70-81.

Blaustein, A. P, & Zangrando, R. L. (Eds.). (1968).Civil rights and the Black American: A documentary his-tory. New York: Clarion Books.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalistAmerica. New York: Basic Books.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effectsof poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2),55-71.

Brown, R. T., Reynolds, C. R., & Whitaker, J. S.(1999). Bias in mental testing since Bias in Mental Test-ing. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 208-238.

Brown V. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. L. (1999). Multilevel ex-amination of student, school, and district-level effectson academic performance. Journal of Educational Re-search, 93(2), 91-100.

Cardedge, G., & Koutea, L. (2008). Culturally respon-sive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and atrisk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351-371.

Children's Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions:Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: WashingtonResearch Project.

Chinn, P C, & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation ofminority students in special education classes. Remedialand Special Education, 8, 41—46.

Cole, N. S. (1981). Bias in testing. American Psycholo-gist, 36, 1067-1077.

Coudnho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P (2000). Dispropor-tionate representation in special education: A synthesisand recommendations. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 9{2), 135-156.

Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P (2004). Dispropor-tionate representation of culturally and linguistically di-verse students in special education: Measuring theproblem. Practitioner Brief Series: National Center forCulturally Responsive Educational Systems.

Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P, & Best, A. M. (2002).The influence of sociodemographics on the dispropor-tionate identification of minority students as havinglearning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,23, 49-59.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequity and the right tolearn: Access to qualified teachers in California's publicschools. Teachers College Record, 106{\Qi), 1936-1966.

Davies, H., Crombie, I., & Tavakoli, M. (1998). Whencan odds ratios mislead? British Medical Journal, 316,989-991.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2002). Critical race theory:The cutting edge (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple Uni-versity Press.

Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people's children: Culturalconflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Diana v. California State Board of Education, No. C-70, RFT, (N.D. Cal. 1970).

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minor-ity students in special and gifted education. Washington,DC: National Academies Press.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education fot the mildlyretarded—is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Chil-dren, 23,5-21.

Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools and themaking of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow ofBrown: Special education and overreptesentation of


students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26,93-100.

Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeop-ardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in spe-cial education. In D. J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.),Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39-70). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Finn, J. D. (1982). Patterns in special education place-ment as revealed by the OCR survey. In K. A. Heller,W. H. Holtzman, & S. Messick (Eds.), Placing childrenin special education: A strategy for equity (pp.322-381).Washington, DC: National Academy of Sci-ences National Academy Press.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C , & Whiting, G. W.(2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students ingifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Ex-ceptional Children, 74, 289-306.

Freedle, R. O. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic andsocial-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores.Harvard Educational Review, 73{l), 1—43.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1986). Test procedure bias:A meta analysis of examiner familiarity effects. Reviewof Educational Research, 56, 243-262.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to re-sponse to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 4l{\), 93-99.

Gotdieb, J., Gotdieb, B. W, & Trongone, S. (1991).Parent and teacher referrals for a psychoeducational ev^-\x3.non. Joumal of Special Education, 25{2), 155-167.

Gotdieb, J. M., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W, & Wishner,J. (1994). Special education in urban Ametica: It's notjustifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27,453-465.Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of in-structional consultation teams on the disproportionatereferral and placement of minority students in special ed-ucation. Remedial and Special Education, 27{\), 42-52.

Greenwood, C. R., Hart, B., Walker, D., & Risley, T. R.(1994). The opportunity to respond revisited: A behav-ioral theory of developmental retardation and its preven-tion. In R. Gardner III et al. (Eds.), Behavior analysis ineducation: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp.213-223). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gregory, J. F. (1997). Three strikes and they're out:African American boys and American schools' re-sponses to misbehavior. International Joumal of Adoles-cence and Youth, 7(1), 25-34.

Guadalupe Organization v. Temple Elementary SchoolDistrict #3, No. 71-435 (D. Ariz, 1972).

Harmer, H. (Ed.). (2001). The Longman companion toslavery, emancipation, and civil rights. Harlow, UK:Longman.

Harrington, G. M. (1975). Intelligence tests mayfavour the majority groups in a population. Nature,258, 708-709.

Hatry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation ofminority students in special education: Theories and rec-ommendations. Alexandria, VA: National Association ofState Directors of Special Education.

Hatry, B. (2008) Collaboration with culturally and lin-guistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Excep-tional Children, 74, 372-388.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many mi-nority students in special education? Understanding raceand disability in schools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Harry, B., Klingner, J., Sturges, K. M., & Moore, R. F.(2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using qualitativemethods to investigate dispropottionality. In D. J.Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special ed-ucation (pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educa-tion Press.

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K, & Hart, J. (2005). AfricanAnierican families under fire: Ethnographic views offamily strengths. Remedial and Special Education, 26,101-112.

Heller, K. A, Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.).(1982). Placing children in special education: A strategyfor equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve:Intelligence and class structure in American life. NewYork: Free Press.

Hickman, J. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (1987). Are racedifferences in mental test scores an artifact of psycho-metric methods?: A test of Harrington's experimentalmoAd. Joumal of Special Education, 20, 409-430.

Hobson V. Hansen, 269 E Supp. 401 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1995). What should we call peo-ple? Race, class, and the census for 2000. Phi DeltaKappan, 77, 173-179.

Holzman, M. (2004). Public education and Black malestudents: A state report card. Cambridge, MA: TheSchott Foundation for Public Education.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates fotintervention and assessment: A meta-analysis of tacialdifferences. Joumal of Special Education, 37, 67-81.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionaterepresentation of minotity students in special educa-

2 8 4 Spring 2008

tion: Academic, demographic, and economic predic-tors. £x«/>rioW CA/ii rf«, 70, 185-199.

Huebnet, E. S. (1985). The influence of rural, subur-ban, and urban student background and school settingupon psychoeducational decisions. School Psychology Re-view, 14(2), 239-241.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),20 U.S.C. §§ UQl etseq.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amend-ments of 1997, Pub L. No. 105-17,105di Cong., 1st sess.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Regula-tions, 34 C.ER. 300.1 etseq.

Individuals With Disabilities Education ImprovementAct of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).

Individuals With Disabilities Education ImprovementActof2004, 118 Stat. 2739.

Jackson, J. P, & Weidman, N. M. (2006). Race, racism,and science: Social impact and interaction. New Btuns-wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jencks, C , & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). TheBlack-White test score gap. Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York:Free Press.

Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achieve-ment gap: How to measure equity in our schools. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Joseph, L. M., & Ford, D. Y. (2006). Nondisctimina-tory assessment: Considerations for gifted education.Gifted Child Quarterly, 50( 1), 42-51.

Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action wasWhite: An untold history of racial inequality in twentiethcentury America. New Yotk: W. W. Norton & Co.

Kidder, W. C , & Rosner, J. (2002) How the SAT cre-ates "built-in headwinds": An educational and legalanalysis of disparate impact. Santa Clara Law Review,43{l),l5\-2n.

King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology,identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Joumal ofNegro Education, 60(2), 133-146.

King, J. E. (Ed.). (2005). Black education: A transforma-tive research and action agenda for the new century.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates fot theAmerican Educational Research Association.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B.,Zion, S., Tate, W et al. (2005). Addressing the dispro-portionate representation of culturally and linguisticallydiverse students in special education through culturallytesponsive educational systems. Education Policy Analy-sis Archives, 73(38), 1-39.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Mendez Barletta, L.(2006). English Language Learners who struggle withreading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Leam-ing Disabilities, 39, 108-128.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame ofthe nation: The restorationof apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown.Kramer, R. A., Allen, L., & Getgen, P J. (1995).Health and social characteristics and children's cogni-tive functioning: Results ftom a national cohort. Ameri-can Joumal of Public Health, 85(5), 312-318.Ladner, M. & Hammons, C. (2001). Special but un-equal: Race and special education. In C. E., Finn Jr.,A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr. (Eds.), Re-thinking special education for a new century (pp.85-110). Washington, DC: The Ptogressive Policy In-stitute & The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successfulteachers of African American children. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teach-ing! The case fot culturally relevant pedagogy. Theoryinto Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G., &Tate, W. (1995). Toward a criti-cal race theory of education. The Teachers CollegeRecord, 97(1), 47-68.

Larry P v. Riles, 343E Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972),aff'd 502 F 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974); 495 E Supp. 926(N.D. Cal. 1979), aff'd793 E 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).Losen, D. J., & Otfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity inspecial education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPress.

Losen, D. J., & Welner, K. G. (2001). Disabling dis-crimination in our public schools: Comprehensive legalchallenges to inappropriate and inadequate special edu-cation services for minority children. Harvard CivilRights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 36(2), 407-460.

Lowery, C. D., & Marszalek, J. E (1992). Encyclopediaof African American civil rights: From emancipation tothe present. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

MacMillan, D. L., & Lopez, M. F. (1996). Compari-son of students nominated for prerefettal interventionsby ethnicity and gender. Journal of Special Education,30(2), 133-152.

MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Overrepte-sentation of minority students: The case for greaterspecificity ot reconsideration of the variables examined.Journal of Special Education, 32, 15-24.

Madaus, G. E, & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverseimpact of high stakes testing on minority students:


Evidence ftom 100 years of test data. In G. Orfield &M. Kotnhabet (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barri-ers: Inequality and high stakes testing in puhlic education(pp. 85-106). New Yotk: The Century Foundation

McLeskey, J., Henty, D., & Axelrod, M. I. (1999). In-clusion of students with learning disabilities: An exami-nation of data ftom tepotts to congress. ExceptionalChildren, 66, 55-66.

McLloyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantageand child development. American Psychologist, 53,185-204.

Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequity in schools:The contribution of intetpretive studies. Sociology ofEducation, 65, 1-20.

Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986).Handicapping the handicapped: Decision making in stu-dents' educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berke-ley: University of California Press.

Mills V. Board of Education of the District ofColumbia, 384 E Supp. 866 (1972).

National Alliance of Black School Educators. (2002).Addressing over-representation of African American stu-dents in special education: The prereferral interventionprocess. Washington, DC: National Alliance of BlackSchool Educators.

National Association of Secondary School Principals.(2000, February). Statement on civil rights implicationsof zero tolerance programs. Testimony presented to theUnited States Commission on Civil Rights, Washing-ton, D.C.

National Center on Culturally Responsive EducationalSystems (NCCRESt). (2006). Disproportionality byrace and disability 2003-2004 [Data file]. RetrievedFebruary 23, 2006, from National Center on Cultur-ally Responsive Educational Systems Web site:http://nccrest. eddata. netldatalindex.phpHd=47&fl =2003-20046f2=Hispanic

Oakes, J. (1982). The reproduction of inequity: Thecontent of secondary school tracking. The Urban Re-view, 14, 107-120.

Oakes, J., Ormseth, T, Bell, R., & Camp, P (1990).Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class,and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics andscience. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling deseg-regation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Educa-tion. New York: New Press.

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurringconcomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal ofLeaming Disabilities, 30, 321-332.

Oswald, D., Coutinho, M. J., & Best, A. M. (2002).Community and school ptedictots of overrepresenta-tion of minority children in special education. In D. J.Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special ed-ucation (pp. 1-13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard CivilRights Project.

Oswald, D. R, Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., &Nguyen, N. (2001). Impact of sociodemographic char-actetistics on the identification rates of minority stu-dents as having mental retardation. Mental Retardation,39(5), 351-367.

Oswald, D. P, Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh,N. N. (1999). Ethnic teptesentation in special educa-tion: The influence of school related economic and de-mographic variables. The Joumal of Special Education,32, 194-206.

Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identifica-tion, funding, and provision of special education. In D.J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in specialeducation (pp. 15-37). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Edu-cation Ptess.

PASE (Parents in Action on Special Education v. Han-non, 506 E Supp. 831 (D.N.D.I. 1980).

Patton, J. M. (1998). The disptoportionate representa-tion of African Americans in special education: Look-ing behind the curtain for understanding and solutions.The Joumal of Special Education, 32(1), 25-31.

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequity:How poor and minority students are shortchanged onteacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Prieto, A. G., & Zucker, S. H. (1981). Teacher percep-tion of race as a factor in the placement of behaviorallydisordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 7, 34-38.

RafFaele Mendez, L. M., & KnofF, H. M. (2003). Whogets suspended from school and why: A demographicanalysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a largeschool district. Education and Treatment of Children,26,30-51.

Rausch, M. K., & Skiba, R. J. (2006). Examining pat-terns of disciplinary disproportionality hy disability statusand racial group. Bloomington, IN: Center fot Evalua-tion & Education Policy.

Rebeli, M. A. (1999). Fiscal equity litigation and thedemocratic imperative. Fquity and Excellence in Educa-tion, 32, 5-18.

Reschly, D. J. (1996). Disproportionate minority repre-sentation in general and special education programs:

2 8 6 Spring 2008

Patterns, issues, and alternatives. Des Moines: IowaDepartment of Education Bureau of Special Education.

Reynolds, C. R. (2000). Why is psychomettic researchon bias in mental testing so ofi:en ignored? Psychology,Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150.

Ritter, M. K., & Skiba, R. J. (2006). Local equity actiondevelopment (LEAD). (Education Policy Brief Vol. 4,No. 9). Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Ed-ucation Policy.

Ruty, J. L. (2002). Education and social change: Themesin the history of American schooling. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Etibaum.

Salend, S. J., Gartick Duhaney, L. M., & Montgomery,W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifyingand addressing issues of disproportionate representa-tion. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 289-299.

Setna, L. A., Forness, S. R., & Nielsen, M. E. (1998).Intervention versus affirmation: Proposed solutions tothe problem of disproportionate minority representa-tion in special education. Joumal of Special Education,3^(1)48-51.

Serwadca, T S., Deering, S., & Grant, P (1995). Dis-proportionate representation of African Americans inemotionally handicapped classes. Journal of Black Stud-ies, 25, 492-506.

Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. P (1990). Race and genderbias in the administration of corporal punishment.School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383.

Sheets, R. H. (2005). Diversity pedagogy: Examining therole of culture in the teaching-learning process. Boston:Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Shepard, L. A. (1987). The case for bias in tests ofachievement and scholastic aptitude. In S. Modgil &C. Modgil (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and contro-versy (pp. 177-190). New York: Falmer Press

Shinn, M. R., Tindai, G. A., & Spira, D. A. (1987).Special education referrals as an index of teacher toler-ance: Are teachers imperfect tests? Exceptional Children,54, 32-40.

Skiba, R. J., Bush, L. D., & Knesting, K. K. (2002).Cultutaljy competent assessment: More than non-biased tests. Joumal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1),61-78.

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C , & Peterson,R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial andgender dispropottionality in school punishment. UrbanReview, 34, 317-342.

Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Sim-mons, A. B., & Feggins-Azziz, L. R. (2006b). Disparateaccess: The disproportionality of African American stu-

dents with disabilities across educational environments.Exceptional Children, 72, 411-424.

Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B.,Feggins, L. R., & Chung, C. G. (2005). Unprovenlinks: Can poverty explain ethnic disptoportionality inspecial education? The Journal of Special Education,39(3), 130-144.

Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance,suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and ef-fectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research,practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063-1089).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Etibaum.

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A., Rittet, S., Kohler, K., Hen-derson, M., & Wu, T. (2006a). The context of minot-ity disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives onspecial education referral. Teachers College Record,108(7), 1424-1459.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1991). Race, class, gen-der and disability in current textbooks. In M. W. Apple& L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics ofthe text-book (pp. 78-110 ). New York: Roudedge & Chap-man-Hall.

Smedley, A. (2007). Race in North America: Origin andevolution of a worldview (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: West-view Press.

Smith, A., & Kozleski, E. B. (2005). WitnessingBrown: Pursuit of an equity agenda in American educa-tion. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 270-280.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T , & Hagan-Burke, S.(2000). Overview ofthe functional behavioral assess-ment process. Exceptionality, 8(3), 149-160.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Tobias, S., Cole, C , Zibrin, M., & Bodlakova, V.(1982). Teacher-student ethnicity and recommenda-tions for special education referrals. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 74(1), 72-76.

Tobias, S., Zibrin, M., & Menell, C. (1983). Specialeducation referrals: Failute to replicate student-teachetethnicity interaction. Joumal of Educational Psychology,75, 705-707.

Tomlinson, J. R., Acker, N., Canter, A., & Lindborg, S.(1978). Minority status, sex, and school psychologicalservices. Psychology in the Schools, 14(4), 456-460.

Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate disci-pline of African American learners: Reducing schoolsuspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66,381-391.


Trent, S. C , Kea, C. D., Oh, K., (2008). Preparingpreservice educators for cultural diversity: How far havewe come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328-350.

Trepagnier, B. (2006). Silent racism: How well-meaningWhite people perpetuate the racial divide. Boulder, CO:Paradigm.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Poverty in the UnitedStates: 2002 (Series P60-222). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-cation Programs (OSEP). (2002). 24th Annual Reportto Congress on the Implementation ofthe Individuals withDisabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Cov-ernment Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-cation Programs (OSEP). (2006). 2^;(h annual report toCongress on the implementation of-.t^f Ifteiividuals withDisabilities Education Act, 2004. Waijijngton, DC: We-stat. , • ••-''

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-cation Programs (OSEP). Disproportionality and Qver-identification [Policy Brief]. Retrieved February 27,2007 from http://idea.ed.gOv/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C7%2C

Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2000). Intelligencetesting and minority students: Foundations, performancefactors, and assessment issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wang, M. C , Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.(1997). Learning influences. In H. J. Walberg & G. D.Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp.199-211). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Westat. (2003). Special populations study final report.Washington, DC: United States Department of Educa-tion, Office of Special Education Programs.

Westat. (2004). Summary of task force meeting onracial/ethnic disproportionality in special education.Washington, DC: Author.

Westat. (2005). Methods for assessing racial/ethnic dispro-portionality in special education: A technical assistanceguide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Office of Special Education Programs. RetrievedOctober 5, 2006, from https://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf

Williams, P. (2007). Disproportionality and overrepresen-tation. Building the legacy: Training curriculum on IDEA2004 (Module 5 in the National Dissemination Centerfor Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). Washing-

ton, DC: NICHCY. Retrieved July 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.nichcy.org/training/contents.asp^toc

Wright, P, & Santa Cruz, R. (1983). Ethnic composi-tion of special education programs in California. Learn-ing Disability Quarterly, 6, 387-394.

Wu, S. C , Pink, W. T , Crain, R. L., & Moles, O.(1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. TheUrban Review, 14, 245-303.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J.(1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disabil-ity services: Why bother with the data? Leaming Dis-ability Quarterly, 5, 37-44.

Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority repre-sentation in special education: A persistent challenge.Remedial and Special Education, 23, 180-187.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

RUSSELL J. SKIBA (CEC IN Federation), Pro-fessor, Counseling & Educational Psychology andDirector of the Equity Project at Indiana Univer-sity; ADA B. SIMMONS; Executive AssociateDirector, Indiana University School of EducationCenter for Research and PT16 Collaboration.SHANA RITTER, Project Coordinator; ASHLEYc. GIBB, Graduate Research Assistant;M. KAREGA RAUSCH, Graduate ResearchAssistant; J A S O N C U A D R A D O , GraduateResearch Assistant; and CHOONG-GEUNCHUNG, Statistician, The Equity Project at Indi-ana University; Center for Evaluation and Educa-tion Policy, Indiana University, Bloomington.

The preparation of this manuscript was madepossible by a discretionary grant from the IndianaDepartment of Education Division of ExceptionalLearners. Opinions expressed herein do not nec-essarily reflect the opinion of the Indiana Depart-ment of Education.

Correspondence about this article and requestsfor reprints should be sent to Russell J. Skiba,Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 509E. 3rd St., Bloomington, IN 47401 (e-mail:[email protected]).

Manuscript received October 2006; acceptedOctober 2007.

2 8 8 Spring 2008

Date post:	19-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyentram
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times

Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status …equity/docs/exceptionalchildren.pdf ·...

Documents