Disproportionality in special education is the unequal representation of certain demographic groups in restrictive placement and discipline, particularly in the United States' public school system.
Disproportionality is often displayed as the under- or over-representation of specific racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, or culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) groups in special education compared to their presence in the overall student population.
[3] States have monitored and enforced disproportionality in special education through requirements set in IDEA and the Annual Performance Reports (APRs).
[4] They are also required to report on specific indicators related to disproportionality for students with disabilities and the proportion of districts exhibiting disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education.
[4] If states identify significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity, according to Section 300.464 of Part B of IDEA, they must: States are not required to identify an LEA with significant disproportionality if the LEA has exceeded the risk ratio threshold but has demonstrated reasonable progress in lowering the risk ratio for the group and category of analysis in each of the two prior consecutive years.
[6] Qualitative research has involved deductive and inductive methods, including the development of codebooks focusing on the conceptual framework and existing literature on education policy and disproportionality.
[4] There is also state and district compliance with procedural aspects of special education identification rather than addressing the systemic factors that contribute to the disproportionality, which may underestimate the true extent of the problem and hinder interventions for students who need them.
[8] Amendments to IDEA in 1997 and 2004 acknowledged the extent of racial and ethnic disproportionality, but federal interpretations of the 2004 requirement have created confusion at the State and LEA levels.
[8] Data suggests that the federal interpretation of IDEA 2004, regulatory guidelines, and the design of indicators for monitoring and enforcement have been ineffective in addressing racial and ethnic disproportionality.
[citation needed] Significant disproportionality, as per IDEA Section 618(d), refers to a substantial disparity based on race and ethnicity in the state and the LEAs regarding the identification of children with disabilities, their placements in certain education settings, and the incidence duration and type of disciplinary actions.
[5] Disproportionate representation, as per IDEA Section 616(a)(3)(C), refers to the overrepresentation or underrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
[5] The significant disproportionality regulations do not apply to or address the obligation to identify disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification under IDEA Section 616(a)(3)(C).
[5] If states identify significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity, they must take several actions according to Section 300.646 of Part B of IDEA: The root causes of racial and ethnic disproportionality in special education referrals may be attributed to deficit thinking related to conceptions of race and socioeconomic status, inadequate institutional safeguards, teachers' perceptions of students' ability, and lack of policies and interventions in schools.
[10] Economic and demographic variables,[7] cultural mismatch, unequal opportunities in general education, and racial discrimination may also contribute to the disproportional representation of minority students.
[4] Students from racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic minority backgrounds are more likely to be labeled as disabled at a higher frequency and removed from mainstream education.
[7] Overrepresentation of students of color tends to increase as a racial or ethnic minority group constitutes a larger percentage of their state's population.
[8] School professionals involved in decision-making (i.e., referrals, assessment, and eligibility meetings for special education placement) mediate disproportionality.
[6] Educator bias can contribute to disproportionality by teachers misinterpreting cultural, language, and dialectical differences as deficits, leading to students of color being misidentified as having learning disabilities.
[1] Interpretations of behaviors by teachers from different cultural backgrounds can disadvantage students of color because it leads to subjective disciplinary actions by staff.
[11] There are concerns that students of color in low economic areas may be more likely to receive special education services in segregated settings, creating barriers to typical academic success.
Yet despite these explicit goals that are set by the Act, significant inequities persist, particularly for racially, linguistically, and economically diverse students with disabilities.
Schools can provide early intervention and prevention strategies that target and support at-risk students with academic and behavioral difficulties.
[4][10] Other strategies for reducing disproportionality for teachers and school professionals include The U.S. Department of Education states that it emphasizes the importance of providing individualized and appropriate supports to ensure that children with disabilities have access to high-quality early childhood programs.
[18] Discrepancies and challenges characterize disproportionality studies across school districts and states, which reveals the inconsistencies in understanding and addressing the issue.
[15] The act of labeling and assigning intellectual, physical, or emotional disabilities not only stigmatizes students socially but has profound implications for their families, especially within certain cultural communities.