Disproportionality, in special education, is the overrepresentation or under-representation of a particular population or demographic group relative to their presence in the overall student population (Ralabate, & Klotz, 2007). There are many factors thought to contribute to disproportionality: cultural differences, lack of appropriate assessment strategies, socioeconomic status, race, and gender (Kanaitsa, 2010).
Cultural differences pose several barriers for students and may impair their opportunity to learn. These barriers are created by differences in language expression, communication style, preferred learning style, gender-role customs and behaviors, and limited parental involvement due to these cultural or socioeconomic barriers (Ralabate, & Klotz, 2007).
The lack of appropriate assessment strategies unfairly puts cultural and language diverse students at a disadvantage. These types of tests are geared towards assessing the majority of the population, not the minority. This poses a serious problem when trying to correctly identify students who may have learning or behavioral problems (Ralabate, & Klotz, 2007).
Socioeconomic barriers can limit a student’s success due to a lack of resources, and lower parental involvement. This can impact a student’s performance in school, indicating a possible disability when there might not be one.
Culturally and socioeconomic diverse students already have to overcome one stigma, but when they are placed in special education, they find their selves struggling to overcome another. If they need the support of specialized education then the eventual outcome is more beneficial than the label. One the other hand, when students are placed in special education services they do not need i...
... middle of paper ...
...cial education. Retrieved from Bright Hub.com website: http://www.brighthub.com/education/special/articles/73541.aspx.
Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt). (2005). Cultural considerations and challenges in response-to-intervention models. An NCCRESt Position Statement.
Ralabate, P., & Klotz, M. B. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education (NEA educators’ guide 18456). Retrieved from National Education Association website: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/EW-TruthInLabeling.pdf
Sands, D., Kozleski, E., & French, N. (2000). Inclusive education for the 21st century: A new introduction to special education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Wedl, R. J. (2005). An alternative to traditional eligibility criteria for students with disabilities. In Response to Intervention (pp. 1-19). Education Evolving.
Among the predominant explanations offered for the existence of disproportionate ethnic representation in special education is the influence of poverty or socioeconomic disadvantage on the academic readiness of minority students. The National Research Council (NRC) reported on research that was conducted and concluded with a “definitive yes” that there are “biological and social/contextual contributors to early development that differ by race and that leave students differentially prepared to meet the cognitive and behavioral demands of schooling” (Skiba, et al. 131). The NRC suggested that the effects of a number of biological and social factors could be included under the broader heading of poverty. The relationship between disproportionality and poverty
Children living in poverty experience a different environment compared to their fellow peers who are in a higher socioeconomic class. The environment around them can often be unsafe (Thompson, 2012) due to drug activity, gang violence, unsafe or unsanitary living conditions; as well as experiencing an inadequate or unbalanced diet (Thompson, 2012). These environmental conditions are noted to having an impact on a child resulting in lower cognitive abilities, lower academic performance, and an increase in behavior problems (Engle & Black, 2008) (Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, & Maczuga, 2012), all of which are standards a teacher uses to refer students for special education.
The education system is arguably the most beneficial system in the world; however, it also contains many controversial practices. Proper funding, discrimination, and curriculum are just some of the problems in today’s education system. Everyone has a different opinion about what is best for our children and it is impossible to please everyone. As long as the educational system is in tact, then there will be confusion and debate within the system and its’ administrators. The only thing that can be done is attempting to make it so that everyone will benefit equally, but this is much more difficult than one would assume. I will focus on the aspect of discrimination on minorities within special education and more specifically the following questions: Does the special education system discriminate against minorities? If so, how? What can be done, if anything, to correct or improve this system?
Novel ideas in special education have unlocked the gate for developing a more heterogeneous and comprehensive approach of thinking about agendas in special education. While a number of topics have captured the attention of educators and advocates, perhaps one of the most anticipated areas of discussion continues to be the ED population. The overrepresentation of United States minority students identified ED in special education programs plagues schools and challenges researchers and practitioners. While Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA) does specify guidelines, the process of identifying learners as ED and thus qualifying them for services can nevertheless be a subjective process. Research emboldens this subjective process and the issues surrounding the robust inequities among the ED population (Oswald & Coutino, 1999). Additionally, the next step is to openly critique, discuss and debated the issues and foster policy change. Moreover, this paper discusses the ED population and the critical issues regarding eligibility/labeling, FAPE, access to the general curriculum and continuum of placement.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice (2nd edition ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Peterson, J. Michael and Hittie, Marie Michael. Inclusive Teaching : Creating Effective Schools for All Learners. Pearson Publishing. (2003)
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive Education: What Makes It a Good Education for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities?. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 32(1), 16-30.
Disproportionality: Inappropriate Identification of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children (2006). National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/-mf_PB02_Disproportionality.pdf.
Social and environmental factors that disproportionately affect minority students contribute to poor cognitive and behavioral outcomes. (Donovan & Cross, 2002) A variety of poverty-associated factors have been shown to predict academic and behavioral gaps. These factors may lead to special education referral. This might suggest that economic disadvantages make a contribution to minority disproportionality in special education.
The implementation of policy and legislation related to inclusive education, thus being a focus on the diversity and difference in our society (Ashman & Elkins, 2009), would have vast implications on the way society views that which is different to the accepted “norm”.
High Incidence disabilities are mild disabilities that affect most of the special education students in schools today. “Approximately 36 percent of all students with disabilities served under IDEA have specific learning disabilities.” (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2016 p. 104)The three areas that fall under the title of a high incidence disabilities are learning disabilities, mild intellectual disabilities, and emotional/ behavioral disorders. Students with high incidence disabilities are taught and spend most of their time in the general education classroom. They are supported in the classroom with accommodations, modifications, paraprofessionals and related services to help them succeed. They may spend a portion of their day receiving support from a special education teacher, or another related service providers such as a speech pathologist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, or social worker outside of the classroom. It becomes apparent when students start school which ones have a high incidence disability. This is because when they start school educators begin to notice they are different from their peers sometimes socially, behaviorally, or they begin to struggle academically. They all share some similar traits such as a short attention span and lower academic skills in certain areas or subjects. They may also have difficulties with their behavior or social development. At that point they may be referred to for testing or an evaluation to see what might be going on with the student.
Cultural issues affect mostly the students and we can recognize these barriers in students when they have difficulty in communicating when they have no language in common, which affects their social life as well. Also, if the students feel uncomfortable talking or mingling with students of opposite gender or different religion due to what they grew up with. The issue of cultural or language barrier can lead to behaviours such as prejudice, restrict them access to resources, may make them feel over-stressed (Poputoaia). In addition, they also have a
However, it still met with inconsistent criticism due to the myth that “positive intervention” doesn’t work and draining resources of regular courses. However, evidences shown prove the opposite effect. Special education is constant need of more funding – especially when it constantly gets budget cuts from congress and thus, schools are unable to keep up with the afford to provide the necessary need of special education (Wall 2014). So the myth of special education draining resources is the no way the truth. How could they be able to drained resources from other students if the programs themselves are in limited supply? Lack of understanding and easy to become a scapegoat for the blame of overall score of a school being poor is quite easy to pit the blame. Another reasoning is due to socialization—the label of being placed in special education is rather an unfortunate burden that could follow the child (Huerta 2015). Often times, stereotypes are attached and are considered inferior to other students, potentially adding onto potential fears. In order to improve any form of education for special education, funding a provided them resources should be considered the first thing to look
“What does inclusive education mean for me as a teacher in 2014 and beyond? “