1

The Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in

Special Education

Critical Issues in Special EducationMaria Woolery

Dr. Felicia ValdezNovember 5,2008

2

What is disproportionality?

A child's race and ethnicity significantly influences the probability of being misidentified, misclassified, and inappropriately placed in special education programs. Variables include:

1. language

2. poverty

3. assessment practices

4. systemic issues

5. Professional development opportunities for teachers

3

HISTORY: A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF A VERY OLD PROBLEM

The problems of oppression and discrimination has characterized race relations throughout American history

In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson legitimated the doctrine of separate but equal.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, attacks on Black communities during race riots included the burning of Black schools

Early 20th century mental testing was grounded in the premise of American eugenics that races other than those of northern European stock were intellectually inferior.

4

Supreme Court CaseDiane v. California Board of

EducationFiled by Chinese and Mexican-American Students.

Argument centered on IQ test (Stanford-Benet/WISC):student were administered in English rather than their primary language

Decision: (1970)• Retest student in their own native language.• Students were transferred back to general education

classrooms.• Seven out of ten students were not eligible for special

education.• Claims or hidden racial and cultural bias in these test.

5

Supreme Court CaseLarry v. Rile (1972)

Six African American students filed a suit against San Francisco United School District alleging a violation of civil rights based on the 14th amendment

• Based on use of standardized IQ test to place student in special education

• Claim or hidden racial and cultural bias in these test

Decision (1979):

Immediate injunction to bar the use of IQ test as sole basis form placement.

Judge concluded that lower scores on IQ test did not reflect the genetics or socio-economic status and therefore concluded that the test have some racial bias (1979).

6

Education for All Handicapped Children

Public Law 94-142Act of 1975

• Assures that all handicapped children have available to them, a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.

• To assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all handicapped children and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children.

7

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Role OSEP administers the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97)

The law requires states to collect and analyze data to determine if significant disproportionally based on race is occurring in the state or schools.

Revises policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification and placement if it is determined that significant disproportionally does exist.

8

How are school districts monitored? The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights

(OCR) undertakes pro-active compliance reviews of disproportionate representation

This office gathers information on the racial breakdown of general and special education enrollments in districts and states. If disparities occur in these data, OCR conducts statistical analysis to determine if there is statistical significance.

Even if statistical significance is found, the district may not be in violation of the law. Instead, in citing a district, OCR is alerting that district that it has a disproportionate amount of minorities in special education

9

Disability categories (African Americans)

The 22nd Annual Report to Congress indicates:

African-American students are over-represented in 9 of 13 disability categories

In particular, African-American students represent more than twice the national population estimates in mental retardation and developmental delay categories.

• Specific learning disabilities• Speech and language

impairments• Mental retardation• Emotional disturbance• Multiple disabilities• Hearing impairments• Autism• Traumatic brain injury• Developmental delay

10

Disability Categories (American Indians)

American Indian students also exceed the national average in 9 disability categories with deaf-blindness and traumatic brain injury reaching the largest percentages.

• Specific learning disabilities

• Speech and language impairments

• Mental retardation

• Emotional disturbance,

• Multiple disabilities

• Hearing impairments

• Visual impairments

• Deaf-blindness,

• Traumatic brain injury, with deaf-blindness and traumatic brain injury reaching the largest percentages.

11

Disability Categories (Hispanics)

• Hispanic students exceed population estimates in 3 categories

• Specific learning disabilities

• Hearing impairments • Orthopedic impairment

12

Disability Categories (Asian/Pacific Islander)

• Asian/Pacific Islander students are also disproportionately represented in 3 categories:

• Hearing impairments• Autism• Deaf-blindness

13

National Center for Education Statistics

Table A-2.3. Number of children ages 3 to 21 and number of children served under the Individuals with DisabilitiesTable A-2.3. Education Act (IDEA) ages 3 to 21, in thousands, by race/ethnicity: 1998 to 2006

Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander American

Indian/Alaska Native

Year  

Number of

children

Number of

children served under

IDEA  

Number of

children

Number

of children

served under

IDEA  

Number of

children

Number

of children

served under

IDEA  

Number of

children

Number

of children

served under

IDEA  

Number

of children

Number of

children served under

IDEA  

Number of

children

Number of

children served under

IDEA

1998 75,622 6,024 48,524 3,860 11,587 1,194 11,775 788 2,940 106 796 76

1999 76,460 6,016 48,558 3,807 11,708 1,199 12,332 821 3,050 112 812 76

2000 77,004 6,295 48,741 3,958 11,607 1,259 12,867 878 3,027 121 762 80

2001 77,302 6,401 48,655 3,976 11,645 1,288 13,167 929 3,072 124 763 84

2002 77,380 6,523 48,428 4,015 11,642 1,311 13,442 981 3,106 130 762 87

2003 77,454 6,634 48,188 4,036 11,630 1,335 13,734 1,035 3,143 138 759 90

2004 77,681 6,727 47,967 4,045 11,683 1,356 14,078 1,082 3,197 144 755 100

2005 77,802 6,720 47,684 4,004 11,706 1,346 14,418 1,119 3,245 150 750 101

2006   78,158 6,693   47,465 3,949   11,738 1,336   14,887 1,154   3,322 153   745 101

NOTE: Data have been revised from previously published reports. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS), "Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act," 2006.

14

ImplicationsMisclassification or inappropriate placement in special

education programs can have devastating consequences.

• Students are removed from the regular education setting.• Students experience exclusionary practices.• Likely to encounter limited curriculum and lower teacher

expectations.• Students often have more negative post-school outcomes.• Students experience significant racial separation.

This situation raises concerns that unlawful racial segregation

may be occurring, in violation of IDEA.

15

Strategies for reducing Over -representation

• Utilize a comprehensive approach that encompasses teacher training

• Culturally appropriate assessment and instruction• Cultural sensitivity• Home and school collaboration• Effective pre-referral process. that includes ,

analyzing of the problem, identifying of existing resources, allocating and using resources, and correcting current practices.

16

Congratulations

Barack Obama

17

References

• Artilles, A., & Trent, S. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special

education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410-437.• Artilles, A. (1998). The dilemma difference: Enriching the disproportionally

discourse with theory and context. Journal of Special Education, 32, 25-31.

• Baca, L. & Cervantes, H. (1998). The bilingual special education interface. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Banks, J. A. (1986). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

• Bynoe, P. (1998). Rethinking and retooling teacher preparation to prevent perpetual failure by our children. Journal of Special Education, 32, 37-40.