12:26 p.m.
Being sent papers to review on the over/under representation issue for some reason…this is
one part I put in for a recommendation…the issue I thinking more and more is not so much
under/over representation in special education- it varies according to category, rather,
it is an issue of “attribution” of the over/under issue that is important to understand
and unpack…MDB
Most importantly, expand into a paragraph in terms of "attribution" of
underrepresentation or overrepresentation. The rub or point of contention is the different
results across the studies in terms of the risk factor or covariate adjustment- which
flips the odds ratios from overrepresentation (which has been the assumption for 20+
years) to underrepresentation. That as a raw number, there is overrepresentation, but when
risk factors/indicators/markers are included in the analysis, the odds ratios indicate
underrepresentation.
"Disability under-identification in U.S. elementary schools may be contributing to
social inequities including lower academic achievement, reduced access to mental health
services, and greater rates of exclusionary discipline, adjudication, and incarceration
disproportionately experienced by schoolchildren who are racial, ethnic, or language
minorities across the life course (Moody, 2016)."
Various attributions are:
a. That special education is institutionally racist/biased (with the implication it should
be substantially reformed, if not dismantled and folded into general education).
b. That while there are false positives and false negatives, there are real risk factors
that impact disproportionality in that racial, ethnic, or language minorities are exposed
to that are causal in contributing to disparities and the disparities reflect differences
in the presence of disability at the group level.
c. The process for identification itself is implicitly, if not explicitly biased against
or promotes, over/under identification racial, ethnic, or language minorities. The
categories of disability are "socially constructed" in ways that are biased
toward racial, ethnic, or language minorities and therefore "not objectively
real."
d. The categories are poorly defined (e.g., what is the difference in LD and garden
variety reading problems or ED and garden variety discipline problems or ADHD and garden
variety wandering mind) and biased toward racial, ethnic, or language minorities. Someone
must refer students as part of child find, and general education is institutionally racist
or biased in either over (or under) referring racial, ethnic, or language minorities as
possibility having a disability (with the implication that schools need to make more use
of exclusionary clauses for social maladjustment for example in ED, not less.)
f. Students from racial, ethnic, or language who are being identified for services have
real needs, but as the disabilities are socially constructed, there should be other ways
to serve them. Other areas should be focused on instead as it is a general education
problem, not a special education issue (prevention, MTSS, etc.).
g. Some combination of a-f?
One can now see the field splitting on the issue, with those supporting CRT/Discrit from
Disability Studies perspectives with its emphasis on identity, intersectionality, and
oppression as having a negative view of special education in the attribution:
Is a bridge even possible over troubled water? The field of special education negates the
overrepresentation of minority students: a DisCrit
Analysis: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2019.1599343
Others see it negative views in attribution more to do with politics than science: Kaufman
et al.:
On cultural politics in special education: Is much of it justifiable?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1044207318822262
"At the core of cultural politics in special education is the argument that unless
equal proportions of all specifiable cultural groups are identified for special education
and receive both placements and services in equal proportions to all other cultural
groups, we should assume that cultural bias or incompetence is the primary explanation for
disproportionality."
And as Morgan et al. point out, there is a need for additional special services to address
other disparities related to, in this case special health services, but similar studies in
mental health and health disparities, in the under-identification of racial, ethnic, or
language minorities, not less, in other areas:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347622008460