Search results

Little research has been conducted regarding the disproportionate representation of minority learners in programs for students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (E/BD). To date, the majority of the disproportionality literature examines multiple eligibility categories, most frequently the high incidence disabilities of Mild Intellectual Disabilities, E/BD, and Learning Disabilities. This chapter narrows analytical attention to a single category to add specificity and depth to disproportionality knowledge through a review of the E/BD literature between 2000 and 2010. Of the 16 studies reviewed, we found 11 socio-demographic, quantitative studies that analyzed E/BD special education placement patterns or office discipline referrals for students with E/BD. Two quantitative studies explored ecological conceptualizations of behavioral problems to understand interactions between institutions' special education eligibility processes, and socio-cultural and spatial contexts of schools. Finally, we located three studies that targeted families' perceptions of student behavior, and professionals' biases related to disproportionality. We conclude with reflections about what the current literature suggests as necessary for the next generation of research on this important topic.

To date, many environmental policy discussions consider inequalities between groups (typically by comparing the average or aggregate resource use of one group to another group), but most ignore disproportionalities within groups. Disproportionality, as discussed in a small but growing body of work, refers to resource use that is highly unequal among members of the same group, and is characterized by a positively skewed distribution, where a small number of resource users create far more environmental harm than “typical” group members. Focusing on aggregated or average impacts effectively treats all members of a group as interchangeable, missing the few “outliers” that actually tend to be responsible for a large fraction of overall resource use. This chapter offers reasons why we should or should not expect disproportional production of environmental impacts (from both mathematical and sociological perspectives), looks at empirical evidence of disproportionality, and offers a framework for detecting disproportionality and assessing just how much difference the outliers make. I find that in cases where the within-group distribution of resource use is highly disproportionate (characterized by extreme outliers), targeting reduction efforts at the disproportionate polluters can offer opportunities to decrease environmental degradation substantially, at a relatively low cost.

The disproportionate identification of learning disabilities among certain sociodemographic subgroups, typically groups who are already disadvantaged, is perceived as a persistent problem within the education system. The academic and social experiences of students who are misidentified with a learning disability may be severely restricted, while students with a learning disability who are never identified are less likely to receive the accommodations and modifications necessary to learn at their maximum potential. In addition to inconsistent definitions of and criteria for diagnosing students with learning disabilities that may result in misdiagnoses, it is feared that discrimination also plays a role. We use the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002 to describe national patterns in learning disability identification by individual- and school-level characteristics. Our results indicate that sociodemographic characteristics are predictive of being identified with a learning disability. Whereas some conventional areas of disproportionality are confirmed (males and language minorities are more likely to be identified), differences in social class entirely account for black and Hispanic disproportionality. Discrepancy between the results of bivariate and multivariate analyses reaffirms the importance of employing sophisticated methodology in explorations of disproportionality.

In reviewing the special education professional literature using “disproportionality” as a descriptor, most of the articles addressed overrepresentation (Salend, Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002). An Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Digest was titled Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education (Burnette, 1998) yet it focused on “what can be done to reduce over-representation.” Apparently, underrepresentation/underserving students is not an issue of great importance. A recent article in one of special education's premiere journals, Exceptional Children, used the term disproportionality as synonymous with overrepresentation (Skiba et al., 2008). The article did not mention underrepresentation as part of the disproportionality puzzle. In the view of these authors, overrepresentation of minority students in special education is the only part of the disproportionality equation that merits consideration.

Given the global surge toward the decolonization of curriculum and greater educational equity during the past year, this study helps us to understand the forces and factors that support or inhibit greater equitable access to quality education for all children. In this chapter, the authors analyze and compare a myriad of challenges experienced by the United States and South Africa as they attempt to move beyond a history of racial segregation and apartheid to more equitable access to quality education for all learners. The chapter begins with a brief historical synopsis of each country’s attempts to move beyond years of entrenched racial segregation and/or apartheid governance to greater life chances for all individuals. This discussion includes the role and negative impact of race, ethnicity, geography, language, and/or socio-economic status on enhanced access to equitable education for all. A review of key theoretical perspectives follows and will help to explain how such inequities have survived, as well as how they might be transformed into agents for positive social change. The chapter concludes by suggesting a “way forward” derived from positive historical examples of exceptionally high quality education experienced by some learners, even during difficult periods of racial segregation.

Misidentification has two meanings. First, it refers to the identification of a student with a disability when in fact he or she does not have a disability. This is also referred to as a false positive. Misidentification can also mean a student has been identified with the wrong disability (e.g., specific learning disability (SLD) instead of mental retardation (MR)). Disproportionality includes both overrepresentation and underrepresentation. Overrepresentation is identifying more students with disabilities than would be expected based on proportions within a defined population. Conversely, underrepresentation refers to identifying fewer students with disabilities than their prevalence in a population.

A vast amount of educational literature has repeatedly documented the overrepresentation of African American male students in exclusionary school punishment. However, amid the wealth of data and statistics on the topic, a viable theoretical explanation, that helps to make sense of the disproportionately high number of suspensions for Black males, remains relatively absent. Drawing upon the Method of Theory Triangulation, this chapter uses three conceptual frames to develop a plausible, causal narrative for deconstructing how pose, perception, and threat converge create a perfect storm of conditions that perpetuate discriminatory discipline practices. Based on the theoretical considerations implicit in this account, practical recommendations are offered to educational stakeholders who might be interested in improving school discipline practices and reducing the number of Black males disproportionately targeted for disciplinary action.

Racial/ethnic inequities in school discipline are a widespread problem in education. A promising intervention approach is to focus on discipline decisions as an adult behavior and use data to identify situations in which discipline decisions show the greatest disparities for underserved students (e.g., Black, Latinx, Indigenous, students with disabilities). Following a three-step process educators (1) work to identify situations and/or personal states conducive to biased decision-making, (2) develop self-management routines to be used in real time when facing those moments, and (3) teach these strategies to students. By engaging in this work, educators learn to become self-aware of moments when decisions are likely influenced by personal biases known as vulnerable decision points (VDPs). VDP identification helps educators identify actions that may not align with personal values (developing educator self-awareness). Once aware of VDP characteristics, educators can map a neutralizing routine or self-management strategies that slow down decision-making and automatic responses during VDPs. This chapter describes a school-wide approach used to support educators with identification of VDPs, the development of neutralizing routines for themselves, and then teaching these strategies to students.

No person in the United States shall, on the grounds or race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or be so treated on the basis of sex under most education programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United States shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

This introduction chapter provides context to the ubiquitous nature of school discipline disproportionality, which has morphed into what is now commonly known as school-to-prison pipeline (STPP). A sample of major studies on school discipline research is presented to highlight the breadth and depth of the impact of discipline disparity on racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students, low-income students, and students with disabilities. We also address how the interaction between implicit or explicit racism and discipline policies and practices exacerbates STPP. We acknowledge the efforts made by school systems to reverse the STPP trend through interventions such as restorative justice and positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS). We posit that principals and teachers are critical agents in reforming the pervasive STPP trajectory. Finally, this chapter provides a synopsis of the rest of the chapters contained in this book.