No abstract

S pecial education was borne out of, and owes a debt to, the civil rights movement. That is, the inspiration for, and the strategies used by, advocates whose efforts resulted in the first national special education legislation emerged from the struggles of the civil rights movement (Smith & Kozleski, 2005). Concerns about racial inequity were central to litigation (e.g., Mills v. Board of Education, 1972) that led to the promulgation of the first special education legislation (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, Public Law No. 1975). Thus, it is highly ironic that racial disparities in rates of special education service remain one of the key indicators of inequity in our nation's educational system.The disproportionate representation of minority students is among the most critical and enduring problems in the field of special education.

In the context of a national conversation about exclusionary discipline, we conducted a multilevel examination of the relative contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to rates of and racial disparities in out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Type of infraction; race, gender, and to a certain extent socioeconomic status at the individual level; and, at the school level, mean school achievement, percentage Black enrollment, and principal perspectives all contributed to the probability of out-of-school suspension or expulsion. For racial disparities, however, school-level variables, including principal perspectives on discipline, appear to be among the strongest predictors. Such a pattern suggests that schools and districts looking to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in discipline would do well to focus on school- and classroom-based interventions.

Monitoring requirements in the 1997 amendments to and 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) acknowledged the existence and extent of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education, especially when, in 2004, Congress designated this concern among the top three priority areas for monitoring and enforcement of the law. However, federal interpretations of the 2004 requirements have created confusion at the State (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) levels. This article analyzes data from state Annual Performance Reports to assess the progress made in identifying disproportionality. Though high levels of disproportionality remain, an increasing number of states are finding no LEAs with disproportionality when it must be shown that the disproportionality was caused by inappropriate identification. The analyses provided suggest that federal interpretations of IDEA 2004 have not been effective in addressing disproportionate representation in special education. Recommendations for improving policy to remedy this serious problem are provided.

No abstract