Disproportionality is understood as a problem of access and equity in both general and special education. It is defined as “the extent to which membership in a given (…) group affects the probability of being placed in a specific disability category” (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999, p. 198). For decades, the issue of disproportionality has been related to overrepresentation of children from ethnic and racial minority groups in classrooms for cognitively impaired students. It has been a matter of intense research due to the adverse effects it may bring about. Specifically, disproportionality, if wrongly identified, is likely to prevent students from achieving academic potential; it leads to development of negative stereotypes with reference to certain minorities; leads to lowered expectations of the students on the part of educators and parents; serves as an impediment to adjustment of curriculum so that it could include the needs of diverse children, etc (NASP, 2013). This paper examines the issue of disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse groups in special education. It traces the recent research trends in solving the issue of disproportionate representation of minorities in special education and summarizes the findings on the issue.
First, the article “Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language Learners” by Amanda Sullivan from Arizona State University identifies an important predictor of disproportionality in a southwestern state with English-only legislation. Sullivan (2011) examined the extent of disproportionate representation during identification and later placement of CLD students identified as ELL in special education. She used abbreviations CLD to denote culturally and linguistically diverse students and ELL to identify English language learners. The highest rate of identification and placement in special education was found among ELL. Therefore, Sullivan’s (2011) research has identified the need to consider the importance of not only race but also of language while assessing the identification and placement practices. Besides, Sullivan (2011) found that the district factors that predict ELLs disproportionality are different from those that predict the disproportionality of students from racial minorities. Namely, teacher and student demographics and availability of resources were weak predictors of ELL disproportionality, which points to the need of exploring other related factors.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Special Education".
Further, the study by Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz (2010) focused on critique of the views of culture that have been used as a ground for justification of disproportionality in special education. The authors have found that the color-blind approach has been used as a means of justification of disproportionality. At the same time, the benefits of special education have been often exaggerated since in most cases they remained what Artiles et al (2010) call an “unfulfilled promise”. Ambiguity and lack of credible assessment practices are attributed to flawed explanations of the problem based on the fragmented culture views; oversimplification or sophistication of the disproportionality issue; lack of accurate specification of the role of culture in the issue of disproportionality. The scholars suggest that the academy adopt theoretical integrity, consider the element of culture when addressing the extant knowledge gaps, and model activity settings to inform theory.
Finally, Booker & Mitchell (2011) used the variables of gender, ethnicity, special education status, and current grade level to find how they related to probability of placement in a disciplinary alternative education setting and return within one and the same year. The research showed that minority students faced a greater likelihood than Caucasian students to get placed in establishments of disciplinary alternative education for the reasons that were discretionary rather than mandatory; besides, they were found more likely to come back within the same year. However, certain differences exist between boys and girls. Yet, Booker & Mitchell (2011) found none between students that qualified for the services of special education and students that did not.
In conclusion, the review of these articles has facilitated a better understanding of the issue of disproportionality in special education. It highlighted the importance of considering the language factor when identifying students as those that need to be provided with special education; it broadened the understanding of the role of deficiency of adequate cultural explanations; and confirmed the relationship between race and placement to establishments of disciplinary alternative education.
- NASP (2013). Communique: Helping children achieve their best. In school. At home. In life. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org
- Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of schoolrelated economic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 194–206.
- Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Trent, S., Osher, D., Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and Explaining Disproportionality, 1968-2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture. Exceptional Children, 76 (3), 279-299.
- Booker, K. & Mitchell, A. (2011). Patterns in Recidivism and Discretionary Placement in Disciplinary Alternative Education: The Impact of Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and Special Education Status. Education and Treatment of Children, 34 (2), 193-208.
- Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 317-334.
