Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education

Albrecht, Susan Fread; Skiba, Russell J.; Losen, Daniel J.; Chung, Choong-Geun; Middelberg, Laura V.

doi:10.1177/1044207311407917

Cited by 76 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet despite the existence of policies intent on remediating the "previous wrongs" of education inequities, particularly for students with disabilities, many remain obdurate (Albrecht, Skiba, Losen, Chung, & Middelberg, 2012;Artiles, 2011). While this list is not exhaustive, students with disabilities who are also students of color and/or English language learners continue to progress academically at rates slower than non-disabled peers, graduate from high school and attend post-secondary education at lower rates, and are disproportionately placed within more restrictive educational placements than peers.…”

Section: Special Education Policy and Equity Concernsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Critical Practice Analysis of Special Education Policy

Thorius

Maxcy

2014

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1997, revisions to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have shown promise for addressing special education equity concerns: For example, states have the option to use response to intervention (RTI) for determining and thus reducing inappropriate disability determination, and states and districts are required to assess and address disproportionality in special education eligibility and placement. Yet, despite policy revisions, equity concerns endure. Apparent policy inadequacies necessitate that special education research explores policy as a process whereby it is appropriated by local actors. Accordingly, we draw from critical policy scholarship to propose a framework for study of special education policy appropriation. The approach centers equity and attention to actors' agency and structural forces. We discuss relevance of this framework and its theoretical tools for special education research concerned with how local actors enact federal special education policy. Finally, we provide suggestions for RTI policy research as a case-in-point.

show abstract

Section: Special Education Policy and Equity Concernsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Critical Practice Analysis of Special Education Policy

Thorius

Maxcy

2014

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 Several problems concerning the efficacy of the indicators may result in the ED's inability to monitor special education implementation. A analysis of SPP/APR data found that even though high levels of disproportionality remained constant across the nation for decades (discussed in next section), most SEAs identify few or no districts with disproportionality that used inappropriate identification practices (Albrecht, Skiba, Losen, Chung, & Middelberg, 2012). In 2005 and 2006, TEA reported only 2% and 0.16% of districts, respectively, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that were the result of inappropriate identification (Indicator 9 and 10) (see OSEP, 2018).…”

Section: State Accountability and Special Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Texas special education cap: Exploration into the statewide delay and denial of support to students with disabilities

DeMatthews

Knight

2019

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State accountability systems have been a primary school reform initiative in the U.S. for the past twenty years, but often produce unintended negative consequences. In 2004, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) implemented the Performance Based Monitoring and Analysis System (PBMAS) which included an accountability indicator focused on the percentage of students found eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the nation’s special education law. From 2004 through 2016, the percentage of students found eligible for special education in Texas declined significantly, while the national rate held constant. Eventually, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) investigated TEA and the statewide implementation of IDEA. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (a) to evaluate the potential impact of the the PBMAS indicator on manipulation of special education identification practices; and (b) to describe how the indicator may have influenced school and district personnel. We highlight several concerning trends in state and district data and, through an analysis of publicly available reports from the ED, show how district and school personnel knowingly and unknowingly acted in ways that delayed and denied special education to potentially eligible students. We conclude with recommendations for TEA and implications for future research and policy.

show abstract

“…The federal government is currently considering enacting further compliance monitoring policies (Government Accountability Office, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Calls are also being made to strengthen existing monitoring policies (Skiba, Albrech, & Lorsen, 2013) including requiring LEAs to report any disproportionality instead of reporting disproportionality resulting only from incorrectly applied procedures or policies (Albrecht, Skiba, Losen, Chung, & Middelberg, 2012). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minorities Are Disproportionately Underrepresented in Special Education

Morgan

Farkas

Hillemeier

et al. 2015

Educational Researcher

303

315

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether and to what extent minority children attending elementary and middle schools in the U.S. are over- or under-identified as disabled and so disproportionately represented in special education. To address existing limitations in the field's knowledge base, we (a) analyzed multi-year longitudinal data, (b) used hazard modeling to estimate over-time dynamics of disability identification across five specific conditions, and (c) extensively corrected for child-, family-, and school-level potential confounding variables (e.g., child-level academic achievement and behavior, family-level socioeconomic status, school-level state location). Despite long-standing and on-going federal legislative and policy efforts to reduce minority over-representation in special education, our analyses indicated that this has not been occurring in the U.S. Instead, minority children are less likely than otherwise similar White, English-speaking children to be identified as disabled and so receive special education services. From kindergarten entry to at least the end of middle school, racial and ethnic minority children are less likely than otherwise similar White children to be identified as having (a) learning disabilities, (b) speech or language impairments, (c) intellectual disabilities, (d) health impairments, or (d) emotional disturbances. Language minority children are less likely to be identified as having (a) specific learning disabilities or (b) speech or language impairments.

show abstract

Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education

Cited by 76 publications

References 9 publications

Critical Practice Analysis of Special Education Policy

Critical Practice Analysis of Special Education Policy

The Texas special education cap: Exploration into the statewide delay and denial of support to students with disabilities

Minorities Are Disproportionately Underrepresented in Special Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About