Reframing the Racialization of Disabilities in Policy

Abstract

Racial disproportionality in special education is a deep seated and complex educational inequity plaguing the United States educational system. In this article we outline how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, although a civil rights based legislation, cannot sufficiently address racially disproportionate outcomes in special education. We argue that mandating equity through technical and procedural mandates cannot attend to the sociocultural and social contexts in which policy is appropriated to practice. We outline how symbolic changes to educational practice do not account for the effects of personal biases and the complexities associated with how race manifests in society and within policy mandates. We conclude with recommendations for third order change (Welner, 2001), which challenges practitioners to not just comply with educational policy but, to also reflect on their own capacities, beliefs and understandings of disproportionality within broader social and cultural contexts.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the support of the William T. Grant Foundation Grant Number 184607. The funding agency’s endorsement of the ideas expressed in this article should not be inferred. We also personally acknowledge the research grant team members that contributed to the thinking of the article: Alfredo Artiles, Sarah Diaz, Lisa Jackson, and Alexandra Aylward.

Additional Resources

1. Fergus, E. (2016). Solving Disproportionality and Achieving Equity: A Leader’s Guide to Using Data to Change Hearts and Minds. Corwin Press. The text offers practical examples and strategies for practitioners to identify and address the root causes of disproportionality.

2. Thorius, K. A. K., & Tan, P. (2015). Expanding analysis of educational debt: Considering intersections of race and ability. In D. Connor, B. Ferri, & S. A. Annamma (Eds.) DisCrit: Critical Conversations Across Race, Class, & Dis/ability. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

   The resources provides an example of how to systemically address disproportionality and align resources to reduce inequities.

3. Bal, A., Kozleski, E. B., Schrader, E. M., Rodriguez, E. M., & Pelton, S. (2014). Systemic transformation from the ground–up using learning lab to design culturally responsive schoolwide positive behavioral supports. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 327-339. The resource provides an example of how practitioners made sense of and tried to address racial inequities in practice.

4. US Department of Education. (2016). U.S. Department of Education takes action to deliver equity for students with disabilities. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-takes-action-deliver-equity-students-disabilities?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term= The resource provides information on the new guidelines for addressing disproportionality through IDEA.

Notes

1. Disproportionality is defined by a group’s over- or underrepresentation in an educational category, program, or service in comparison to the groups proportion in the overall population (Donovan & Cross, 2002).

2. About 13% of the US school population.

3. High incidence disabilities include learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, mild intellectual disabilities, and speech and language disorders.

4. States have to monitor special education outcomes through 20 quantifiable and qualitative indicators [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)], known as State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators. Three SPP indicators are focused on disproportionality.

• Indicator 9 refers to the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification

• Indicator 10 refers to disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

• Indicator 4 has two components.

• 4A.

  refers to significant discrepancies in the rates of long-term suspensions of students with disabilities compared to districts in a state.

• 4B.

  refers to significant discrepancies in the rates of long-term suspensions of students with disabilities, based on race and ethnicity, compared to districts in a state due to inappropriate policies, procedures or practices.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides

Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides is an Assistant Professor, Childhood Education and Special Education Grades 1-6, Touro College Graduate School of Education.

Adai Tefera

Adai Tefera is at Virginia Commonwealth University.