To understand the challenges associated with the enactment of educational policies that aim to improve equity and opportunity for students of color with disabilities, this article focuses on two separately conducted ethnographic studies. The first investigates district administrators’ approaches to addressing racial disproportionality after the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the second focuses on the emic perspectives of students of color with disabilities given the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) under the auspices of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Using a critical policy studies perspective, the authors examine how policy enactment within varying local contexts is influenced by harsh material realities and a dense policy environment, which exacerbate existing inequalities for students of color with disabilities. Collectively, these factors provide ripe terrain for understanding how policies, at the macro and micro levels, struggle to produce equitable outcomes and instead contribute to the educational inequities experienced by students of color with disabilities. The article ends with recommendations for policymakers on how to address existing procedural practices and compliance measures that are inadequately addressing and contributing to the persistence of racialized outcomes for students of color with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtS. F., SkibaR. J., LosenD. J., ChungC. G., & MiddelbergL. (2012). Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 14–25).
2.
AlbrittenD., MainzerR., & ZieglerD. (2004). Will students with disabilities be scapegoats for school failures?Educational Horizons, 82(2), 153–160).
3.
ArtilesA. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference. The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445).
4.
ArtilesA. J. (2015). Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: Future research on culture in disability and implications for response to intervention. Educational Review, 67(1), 1–22).
5.
BallS. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent educational policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274).
6.
BallS. (2008). The education debate. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.
7.
BallS., MaguireM., & BraunA. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268).
9.
BurawoyM. (2009). The extended case method: Four countries, four decades, four great transformations and one theoretical tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
CartledgeG., TamK. Y., LoeS. A., MirandaA. H., LambertM. C., KeaC. D., & Simmons-ReedE. (2002). Culturally and linguistically diverse students with behavioral disorders. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
11.
CavendishW., ArtilesA. J., & HarryB. (2015). Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize the racialization of disability?Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners. 14(2), 1–11).
12.
D'AgordC., MunkT., & O'HaraN. (2012, July). Looking at race/ethnicity disproportionality in special education from the student outcomes side of the educational system: Why analyzing disproportionality matters for results improvement planning. Paper presented at the 2012 IDEA Leadership Conference, Washington, DC.
13.
Darling-HammondL. (2001). Apartheid in American education: How opportunity is rationed to children of color in the United States. In JohnsonT., BoydenJ., & PittzW. (Eds.), Racial profiling and punishments in U.S. public schools. How zero tolerance policies and high stakes testing subvert academic excellence and racial equity.Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
14.
DiamondJ. B., & SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176).
15.
DonovanS. M., & CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
16.
DuncanG. J., & MurnaneR. J. (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
DunnL. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 23, 5–21).
18.
EdelmanL. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531–1576).
19.
EdelmanL. B., KriegerL., EliasonS. R., AlbistonC. A., & MellemaV. (2011). When organizations rule: Judicial deference to institutionalized employment structures. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 888–954).
20.
ErevelleN. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
21.
FiglioD. N. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307
22.
FineM., & RuglisJ. (2009). Circuits and consequences of dispossession: The racialized and classed realignment of the public sphere for U.S. youth. Transforming Anthropology, 17(1), 20–33).
23.
HanushekE., & RaymondM. (2002). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In PetersonP., & WestM. (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics of school accountability (pp. 126–151)). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
24.
HarrisC. (2001). Equal treatment and the reproduction of inequality. Fordham Law Review, 69, 1753–1783).
25.
HarryB., & KlingnerJ. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
HehirT. (2002). IDEA and disproportionality: Federal enforcement, effective advocacy, and strategies for change. In LosenD.J., & OrfieldG. (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education. (pp. 219–238)). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
27.
JellisonH. J., & HeiligV. J. (2012). High stakes decisions: The legal landscape of high school exit exams and the implications for schools and leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(6), 1177–1197).
28.
KaneT., & StaigerD. (2002). Unintended consequences of racial subgroup rules. In PetersonP., & WestM. (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics of school accountability (152–176)). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
29.
KarpS. (2004). NCLBs selective vision of equality: Some gaps count more than others. In MeirD., KohnA., Darling-HammondL., SizerT., & WoodG. (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
30.
KirpD. (1986). The fourth R: Reading, writing, ‘rithmetic —and rules. In JensenD.N., & KirpD.L. (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 1–21)). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
31.
KleinS., HamiltonL., & BerlingerD. (2002). What do test scores in Texas tell us?Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
32.
KogerL., WiseL., DeatzR., CampbellH., HardoinM., & NemethY. (2008). California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Special Populations Study (Report No. FR-07-75). Human Resources Research Organization, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA.
33.
LosenD. J., EeJ., HodsonC., & MartinezT. E. (2014). Disturbing inequities: Exploring the relationship of discipline disparities for students with disabilities by race with gender with school outcomes. In LosenD.J. (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (89–106)). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34.
LosenD., & OrfieldG. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
35.
LosenD. J., & WelnerK. (2002). Legal challenges to inappropriate and inadequate special education for minority children. In LosenD.J., & OrfieldG. (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 167–194)). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
MinnowM. (2010). In Brown's wake: Legacies of America's educational landmark. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
National Education Association of the United States & National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.
39.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
40.
OzgaJ. (1987). Studying education through the lives of policymakers: An attempt to close the micro-macro gap. In WalkerS., & BartonL. (Eds.), Changing policies, changing teachers: New directions for schooling?Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
41.
PollockM. (2010). Because of race: How Americans debate harm and opportunity in our schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
powellj. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
43.
Rustique-ForresterE. (2005, April 8). Accountability and the pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale from England. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(26). Retrieved from http://epaa.edu/epaa/v13n26/
44.
SkibaR. J., MichaelR. S., NardoA. C., & PetersonR. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317–342).
45.
SkibaR. J., SimmonsA. D., RitterS., GibbA., RauschM. K., CuadradoJ., & ChungC. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288).
46.
SolórzanoR. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English Language Learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329).
47.
TaylorS. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change. New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
TeferaA. A., GonzalezT., & ArtilesA. J. (forthcoming). Challenges to policy as a tool for educational equity: The case of language and ability difference intersections. In SalasS., & PortesP.R. (Eds.), Latinization of K-12 communities: National perspectives on regional change.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
49.
ThurlowM., & JohnsonR. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334–344).
50.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Children with disabilities receiving special education under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems, OMB No. 1820-0043). Washington, DC: Author.
51.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19).
52.
WellsT., HoganD. P., & SandefurG. D. (2003). What happens after the high school years among young persons with disabilities?Social Forces, 82(2), 803–832).
53.
YsseldykeJ., NelsonR. J., ChristensonS., JohnsonD. R., DennisonA., TriezenbergH., … HawesM. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75–95).
