Demystifying Disproportionality: Exploring Educator Beliefs about Special Education Referrals for English Learners

Background Federal civil rights law requires that English learners (ELs) with potential disabilities be identified in a timely and appropriate manner. Decades of research documenting the problem of disproportionality among ELs in special education suggest, however, that educators struggle with the proper identification of ELs with disabilities. ELs are found to be underrepresented in special education in the early elementary years and overrepresented beginning in upper elementary school. Although these disproportionality patterns are well documented, little is known about why this phenomenon persists. Purpose of Study This study addresses this gap by following 16 ELs and their educators in real time through the special education referral process. Using participant observation research methods, I explore mechanisms in the field that might explain disproportionality. Specifically, I examine educator beliefs about whether and when to refer ELs to special education, as well as how those beliefs manifest in the referral process for ELs. Research Design This qualitative research study was part of a yearlong multilevel project looking at the special education identification process for 16 ELs at two elementary schools in an urban district. The project involved data collection and analysis at the federal policy, district, school, and student levels. I used a combination of document analysis methods, participant observation research methods, and triangulation among interviews, field observations, and archival documents. Whereas the larger study investigated the entire special education identification process for ELs, this article focuses on just the referral process. Relevant data collected include interviews with school staff, observations of the referral process for ELs, and documents tied to the ELs’ special education referrals. Conclusions The educators in this study were found to adopt one of two stances regarding EL referrals to special education: wait to be sure and the sooner the better. These stances reflected educators’ beliefs about special education, ELs, and teachers. Teachers acted on these beliefs in way that led to the co-construction of “English learner” and “disability.” The findings suggest that educator beliefs about whether and when to refer ELs to special education serve as mechanisms that help to explain disproportionality for this student group. This study brings to light how the prevention of erroneous co-construction of EL and disability statuses requires changing the ways in which English learner and disability are conceptualized—shifting away from deficit views of these student groups and toward recognition of their many assets.

Special Education Referrals and Disciplinary Actions for Latino Students in the United States

Latino students are the largest growing minority group in the U.S. school system. However, there are critical barriers that impeded the development of sustained academic success for this particular population. Latino students have been found to be over-represented in the delivery of disciplinary actions and in the identification of disabilities in special education populations. While the two concerns may appear to be separate, they are interdependent as a history of disciplinary actions can lead to an unjustified referral to special education for evaluation. The coupling of high disciplinary actions and biased referrals to special education has led to the over-representation of Latino students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD). In this article, we discuss the contextual background of Latino students in today’s schools, the excessive use of disciplinary actions for them, and their disproportionate representation in special education populations. Additionally, we present two recommended actions as a pair of first steps to address the improper referral pipeline.

Adoption Is a Successful Natural Intervention Enhancing Adopted Children's IQ and School Performance

Is the cognitive development of adopted children different from that of (a) children who have remained in institutional care or in their birth families or (b) their current (environmental) nonadopted siblings or peers? We attempt to answer these questions on the basis of a meta-analysis of 62 studies including 17,767 adopted children. Compared to their nonadopted siblings or peers who stayed behind, adopted children scored substantially higher on IQ tests and they performed much better at school. Compared to their current nonadopted environmental peers or siblings, adopted children showed similar IQ scores but their school performance and language abilities lagged somewhat behind. Most importantly, we found a twofold increase in special-education referrals in adopted children compared to their nonadopted peers. Taken together, the findings document the positive impact of adoption on children's cognitive development and adopted children's remarkably normal cognitive competence but somewhat delayed school performance.

Effects of Teacher Assistance Teams on Special Education Referrals in Elementary Schools

School-based problem-solving teams recently have received much attention as a possible support for children who are at risk for school failure and for over-referral to special education. However, no controlled studies of the effects of such teams on numbers of referrals for special education or for proportion of appropriate referrals for special education have been conducted. The lack of adequate research concerning school-based problem-solving teams, coupled with the widespread promotion of their use, suggests that further study of such teams is important. In this study, we investigated the effect of one team model, Teacher Assistance Teams, on special education referrals in elementary schools of a large urban district. To address limitations of previous research, schools with such teams were compared with those without across several years of implementation. Analysis yielded a significant decrease in referrals in both groups of schools but no significant differences between groups. These findings may be explained by the context in which both groups of schools functioned.