Disproportionality research has been subject to multiple reviews, but there has been less critical examination of the policy dimension of this enduring educational problem. Given the relevance of federal policies, and interpretations thereof, to educators’ and scholars’ conceptualization of disproportionality and schools’ resultant policies and practices, we provide a brief overview of disproportionality scholarship before focusing on its policy dimensions. We describe the role of federal policy and resultant interpretations to how disproportionality is addressed and our approach to identifying and synthesizing these interpretations. We then analyze the themes apparent in these interpretations: requirements for states’ numerical analysis of “significant disproportionality,” parameters for school systems’ allocation of resources for early intervening services when significant disproportionality is found, and schools’ obligations for nondiscriminatory application of policies and procedures. Finally, we distill implications for school policies, practices, and procedures. We close with discussion of implications for how disproportionality is conceptualized and studied.
AlbrechtS. F.SkibaR. J.LosenD. J.ChungC.MiddelbergL. (2011). Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 14–25. doi:10.1177/1044207311407917
*AngelGet al. v. Texas Education Agency, A-99-CA-035-SC (W.D. Tex. 2004).
4.
ArtilesA. J. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities: An intersectionality critique across disability models. DuBois Review, 10, 329–347. doi:10.10170S1742058X13000271
5.
ArtilesA. J.TrentS. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437. doi:10.1177/002246699402700404
6.
*AugustT. D. (2014). Resolution agreement: Harmony (TX) Public Schools, Case No. 06-11-5004. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (114 LRP 50981)
7.
BellingerD. C. (2008). Lead neurotoxicity and socioeconomic status: Conceptual and analytical issues. Neurotoxicology, 29, 828–832. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2008.04.005
8.
*BlanchardT. C. J. (2013). Resolution agreement: Schenectady (NY) City School District, Case No. 02-10-5001. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (113 LRP 43955)
9.
*Blunt v. Lower Merion School District, 767 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2014).
10.
Boynton HauerwasL.BrownR.ScottA. N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80, 101–120. doi:10.1177/001440291308000105
11.
CavendishW.ArtilesA. J.HarryB. (2014). Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize the racialization of disability?Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 14(2), 30–40.
12.
ChristT.ArañasY. A. (2014). Best practices in problem analysis. In HarrisonP. L.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 87–98). Bethesda, MA: National Association of School Psychologists.
13.
CohenD. R.BurnsM. K.Riley-TillmanC.HospJ. L. (2015). Are minority students under- or overrepresented in special education?Communique, 44(2), 1, 22–23.
14.
CollinsK. M.ConnorD.FerriB.GallagherD.SamsonJ. F. (2016). Dangerous assumptions and unspoken limitations: A disability studies in education response to Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Mattison, Maczuga, Li, and Cook (2015). Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 4–12.
15.
CoutinhoM. J.OswaldD. P.BestA. M. (2002). The influence of sociodemographic and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 49–59. doi:10.1177/074193250202300107
16.
CrammondB.CareyG. (2017). What is policy and where do we look for it when we want to research it?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71, 404–408. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-207945
17.
CruzR. A.RodlJ. E. (2018). An integrated synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466918758707
18.
DonovanS.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
DunnL. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
21.
FordD. Y.RussoC. J. (2016). Historical and legal overview of special education overrepresentation: Access and equity denied. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 50–75.
22.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Response-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150
GutkinT. B.NemethC. (1997). Selecting factors impacting decision making in prereferral intervention and other school-based teams: Exploring the intersection between school and social psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 195–216. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00005-8
26.
HellerK. A.HoltzmanW. H.MessickS. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
27.
HibelJ.FarkasG.MorganP. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education?Sociology of Education, 83, 312–332. doi:10.1177/0038040710383518
28.
*HibinoT. J. (2014). Resolution agreement: Lynn (MA) Public Schools, Case No. 01-10-5004. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (114 LRP 29313)
29.
HospJ. L.HuddleS.FordJ. W.HensleyK. (2016). Learning disabilities/special education. In JimersonS.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeyDenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 43–58). New York, NY: Springer.
30.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2006 & Suppl. V. 2011).
31.
*JacksonG. D. (2008). Settlement agreement: Mount Vernon (WA) School District No. 321, Case No. 10-04-5002. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (108 LRP 64334)
32.
KincaidA.SullivanA. L. (2017). Parsing the relations of race and socioeconomic status in special education disproportionality. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 145–158. doi:10.1177/0741932516671199
*KnudsenW. W. (2008b, September25). [Memorandum to Chief State School Officers re: coordinated early intervening services under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act]. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis_pg2.html
Kramarczuk VoulgaridesC.AylwardA.NogueraP. (2014). The elusive quest for equity: An analysis of how contextual factors contribute to the likelihood of school districts being legally cited for racial disproportionality in special education. Journal of Law and Society, 15, 241–273.
37.
Kramarczuk VoulgaridesC.FergusE.ThoriusK. A. K. (2017). Pursuing equity: Disproportionality in special education and reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41, 61–87. doi:10.3102/0091732X16686947
38.
LanphearB. P. (2015). The impact of toxins on the developing brain. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 211–230. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114413
MartinS.AcsG. (2018). The long-term benefits of preventing childhood lead exposure. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
45.
MorganP.FarkasG. (2015). Evidence of minority under-representation in special education and its implications for school psychologists. Communique, 44(6), 1, 30–33.
46.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.CookM.StrassfeldN. M.HillemeierM. M.Hung PunW.SchusslerD. L. (2017). Are black children disproportionately overrepresented in special education? A best-evidence synthesis. Exceptional Children, 83, 181–198. doi:10.1177/0014402916664042
47.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MattisonR.MaczugaS.LiH.CookM. (2015). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44, 278–292. doi:10.3102/0013189X15591157
48.
*MurphyR. C. (2012). Cooperative agreement: Norfolk (VA) City Public Schools, Case No. 11-08-1259. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (112 LRP 24918)
NelsonA. K. (2011, March). Compensatory education: Where are we?Presentation at the Academy for IDEA Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers, San Diego, CA.
52.
ParkS.MartinezM.ChouF. (2017). CCSSO English learners with disabilities guide. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
53.
PeterP. v. Compton Unified School District, C.D. Cal. Case No. LA CV-15-3726 MWF (PLAx), Memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (2015). Retrieved from http://www.traumaandlearning.org/#!summary–key-documents/c12wl
54.
*PierreC. G. (2011). Resolution agreement: Tallapoosa County (AL) School District, Case No. 04-11-1302. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (112 LRP 7371)
*RapportA. (2013a). Settlement agreement: Iowa City (IA) Community School District, Case No. 05-10-5004. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (113 LRP 39248)
58.
*RapportA. (2013b). Settlement agreement: Sun Prairie (WI) Area School District, Case No. 05-11-5003. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (113 LRP 45357)
*RomineJ. A. (2011). Resolution agreement: Albuquerque (NM) Public School District, Case No. 08-10-1234. Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (111 LRP 49205)
*San Francisco Unified School District California State Educational Agency, Administrative Case No. 2014120778. (2015). Retrieved from LRP Special Ed Connection. (115 LRP 39392)
64.
SadehS.SullivanA. L. (2017). Ethical and legal landmines: Causal inference in special education decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 1134–1147. doi:10.1002/pits.22046
ScanlonD. M.GelzheiserL. M.VellutinoF. R.SchatschneiderC.SweeneyJ. M. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers vs. direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 346–359. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.002
67.
ScanlonD. M.VellutinoF. R.SmallS. G.FanueleD. P.SweeneyJ. M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties: Can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 209–227. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1304_3
68.
ShifrerD.MullerC.CallahanR. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 246–257. doi:10.1177/0022219410374236
SkibaR. J.ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B.LosenD. J.HarryE. G. (2016). Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequalities: A response to Morgan et al. (2015). Educational Researcher, 45, 221–225. doi:10.3102/0013189X16644606
71.
SkibaR. J.HornerR. H.ChungC.RauschM. K.MayS. L.TobinT. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107.
72.
SkibaR. J.Poloni-StaudingerL.SimmonsA. B.Feggins-AzzizR.ChungC. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education?The Journal of Special Education, 39, 130–144. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030101
73.
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. G.RauchM. KGuadradoJ.GhungG. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288. doi:10.1177/001440290807400301
74.
SullivanA. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334. doi:10.1177/001440291107700304
75.
SullivanA. L. (2013). School-based autism identification: Prevalence, racial disparities, and systemic correlates. School Psychology Review, 42, 298–316.
76.
SullivanA. L.BalA. (2013). Dispropor-tionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494. doi:10.1177/001440291307900406
77.
SullivanA. L.LongL. (2010). Examining the changing landscape of school psychology practice: A survey of school-based practitioners’ training and involvement in RTI. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1059–1079. doi:10.1002/pits.20524
78.
SullivanA. L.ProctorS. (2016). The shield or the sword? Revisiting the debate on racial disproportionality in special education and implications for school psychologists. School Psychology Forum, 10, 278–288.
79.
SullivanA. L.SadehS. S. (2014). Differentiating social maladjustment from emotional disturbance: An analysis of case law. School Psychology Review, 43, 250–271.
80.
TeferaA. A.Kramarczuk VoulgaridesC. (2016). Is educational policy alleviating of perpetuating the racialization of disabilities: An examination of “big-P” and little-p” policies. Teachers College Record, 18, 2–24.
81.
ThoriusK. A. K.MaxcyB. D.MaceyE.CoxA. (2014). A critical practice analysis of response to intervention appropriation in an urban school. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 287–299. doi:10.1177/0741932514522100
82.
ThoriusK. A. K.SullivanA. L. (2013). Interrogating instruction and intervention in RTI research with students identified as English language learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29, 64–88. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.741953
83.
UmanskyI. M.ThompsonK. D.DiazG. (2017). Using an ever-English learner framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children, 84, 76–96. doi:10.1177/0014402917707470
*U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Questions and answers on response to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/07-0021.RTI_.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 81 Fed. Reg. 92376 (December 19, 2016) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 300). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30190.pdf
88.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 83 Fed. Reg. 31306 (July 3, 2018) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 300). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-07-03/pdf/2018-14374.pdf
89.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2013). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Standards needed to improve identification of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education. Washington, DC: Author.
90.
VujnovicR. K.FabianoG. A.MorrisK. L.NormanK.HallmarkC.HartleyC. (2014). Examining school psychologists’ and teachers’ application of approaches with a response to intervention framework. Exceptionality, 22, 129–140. doi:10.1080/09362835.2013.865530
91.
WaitollerF.ArtilesA. J.CheneyD. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 29–49. doi:10.1177/0022466908329226
92.
ZirkelP. A. (2015). The “red flags” for child find under the IDEA: Separating the law from the lore. Exceptionality, 23, 192–209. doi:10.1080/09362835.2014.986615
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
