A weakness of research on minority placement in special education is the tendency to overestimate the homogeneity of populations by failing to disaggregate factors such as language proficiency or to consider other relevant variables, for example, social class or program type. Similarly, certain groups have been understudied, such as English language learners (ELLs). We addressed these gaps by examining ELL placement patterns in California urban districts. Disproportionate representation patterns were related to grade level, language proficiency status, disability category, type of special education program, and type of language support program. Students proficient in neither their native language nor in English (particularly in secondary grades) were most affected. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.

Approximately 25 years ago, Lloyd Dunn (1968) tal retardation. Unfortunately, this problem conand Evelyn Deno (1970) provided us with analyses tinues to hover over us today and has extended regarding the problems and pitfalls of special eduto other special education categories. Based on our cation. One of the primary areas of focus was the analysis of the problem then and now, we extend overrepresentation of minority and low-income the recommendations provided by advocates, edustudents in programs for students with mild mencators, researchers, and policymakers.In 1968 Lloyd Dunn called our attention to the disproportionate numbers of minority students placed in segregated classrooms for students with educable mental retardation. Just 2 years later, Evelyn Deno (1970) called our attention to what she considered to be a preoccupation with, and use of, a pathological model to place and serve students in special education programs. Both authors presented an analysis of the problems in special education and outlined agendas for change. The contributions made by these child advocates helped to shape special education as we know it today. Their analysis of problems and recommendations contributed to the emergence of litigation, the enactment of legislation, and the creation of current organizational structures and service delivery models in the field. However, even though 25 years have passed, many of the problems stipulated by Dunn and Deno still plague the field today. Arguments about overrepresentation of minority and poor students and the overreliance on the medical model still remain as critical issues to be resolved. Furthermore, these issues have continued to surface as a source of conflict among special educators, advocacy groups, and policymakers.We believe that the arguments presented by these authors were relevant 25 years ago and continue to be relevant in 1993. However, in light of the changes that have occurred in this country since 1968, we need to reexamine the overrepresentation issue from a broader perspective in order to better understand how and why it has stubbornly persisted. Perhaps first and foremost, we need to ask the question, is overrepresentation a problem? We argue that it is, and we maintain Address: Alfredo J. Artiles,

The author argues for an interdisciplinary perspective to study the complexities of educational equity and transcend the limits of previous research. He focuses on the racialization of disability as a case in point; specifically, he reviews the visions of justice that inform the scholarship on racial and ability differences and situates their interlocking in a historical perspective to illustrate how race and ability differences have elicited paradoxical educational responses. The author also examines how the convergence of contemporary reforms is creating fluid markers of difference that change meanings across contexts, thus having distinct consequences for students’ identities and schools’ responses. He concludes with an outline of guiding ideas for interdisciplinary research on inequities that emerge at the intersections of race and ability differences.

r: special education has made considerable advances in researcb, policy, and practice in its short history. However, students fiom bistorically underserved groups continue to be disproportionately identified as requiring special education. Support for color-blind practices and policies can justify racial disproportionality in special education and signal a retrenchment to deficit views about students fiom historically underserved groups. We respond to these emerging concerns through an analysis of arguments that justify disproportionality. We also identify explanations of the problem and critique tbe views of culture that underlie these explanations. We conclude with a brief discussion of implications and future directions.

In this article, Alfredo Artiles identifies "paradoxes and dilemmas" faced by special education researchers and practitioners who are seeking to create socially just education systems in a democratic society that is currently marked by an increasing complexity of difference. He argues that the two primary discourse communities — inclusion and overrepresentation — must engage in a fuller dialogue and recognize the "troubling silences" within and between their respective literatures. Placing his analysis within the larger political context of current efforts and debates over educational reform, the author gives readers a broad overview of the literature on inclusion and overrepresentation. He then presents a multilayered analysis of culture and space that identifies the limitations of current research, while offering new possibilities and directions for the field. Artiles concludes that unless researchers and practitioners surface their assumptions about difference, as well as culture and space, the special education field will continue to perpetuate the silences that threaten the educational and life needs of historically marginalized students.

In this article, we present a conceptual framework for addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. The cornerstone of our approach to addressing disproportionate representation is through the creation of culturally responsive educational systems. Our goal is to assist practitioners, researchers, and policy makers in coalescing around culturally responsive, evidence-based interventions and strategic improvements in practice and policy to improve students’ educational opportunities in general education and reduce inappropriate referrals to and placement in special education. We envision this work as cutting across three interrelated domains: policies, practices, and people. Policies include those guidelines enacted at federal, state, district, and school levels that influence funding, resource allocation, accountability, and other key aspects of schooling. We use the notion of practice in two ways, in the instrumental sense of daily practices that all cultural beings engage in to navigate and survive their worlds, and also in a technical sense to describe the procedures and strategies devised for the purpose of maximizing students’ learning outcomes. People include all those in the broad educational system: administrators, teacher educators, teachers, community members, families, and the children whose opportunities we wish to improve.

We reviewed the research on professional development (PD) for inclusive education between 2000 and 2009 to answer three questions: (a) How is inclusive education defined in PD research? (b) How is PD for inclusive education studied? (c) How is teacher learning examined in PD research for inclusive education? Systematic procedures were used to identify relevant research and analyze the target studies. We found that most PD research for inclusive education utilized a unitary approach toward difference and exclusion and that teacher learning for inclusive education is undertheorized. We recommend using an intersectional approach to understand difference and exclusion and examining boundary practices to examine teacher learning for inclusive education.

In this technical comment, we argue that Morgan et al.’s claim that there is no minority overrepresentation in special education is in error due to (a) sampling considerations, (b) inadequate support from previous and current analyses, and (c) their failure to consider the complexities of special education disproportionality.