Lead Exposure in Children: What Special Educators Need to Know

Journalists have reported large-scale lead poisoning affecting children in cities such as Flint, Michigan. Unfortunately, children’s exposure to lead is not isolated and occurs throughout the country in both urban and rural settings. The effects of lead exposure can cause children to develop disabilities, potentially requiring special education services to address their academic and behavioral difficulties. In this paper, we detail three areas where special education has a major role in addressing the lead crisis: special education identification; intervention; and advocacy, awareness, and prevention. For each area, we provide concrete suggestions for special educators to implement in order to ensure children exposed to lead receive the special education services they need.

Understanding the Empty Backpack: The Role of Timing in Disproportionate Special Education Identification

Studies related to disproportionate special education identification of students from historically marginalized groups have used increasingly complex analyses to understand the interplay of factors that cause and maintain disparities. However, information regarding the influence of students’ grade level at initial special education placement remains limited. Situated in labeling theory and life course theory, we used discrete-time survival analysis to examine temporal student- and school-level factors related to patterns of placement for minoritized students within one large urban school district. Results showed that gender, race, and socioeconomic status were all factors generally associated with special education identification, and that African American and Latinx students were more likely to be placed into special education later in their school careers. This disproportionality in delayed placement was associated with particular special education labels; for example, African American students identified post-elementary school were more likely to be labeled with emotional disturbance and specific learning disability compared to same-age White peers, and Latinx students were more likely to be labeled with specific learning disability and intellectual disability compared to same-age White peers. These results implicate inequities that emerge at the intersections of age, race, and perceptions of ability that should be considered in future studies of educational equity.

A QuantCrit Analysis of Context, Discipline, Special Education, and Disproportionality

Using a dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit) and critical quantitative (QuantCrit) lens, we examine disproportionate application of exclusionary discipline on multiply marginalized youth, foregrounding systemic injustice and institutionalized racism. In doing so, we examined temporal-, student-, and school-level factors that may result in exclusion and othering (i.e., placing into special education and punishing with out-of-school suspensions) within one school district. We frame this study in DisCrit and QuantCrit frameworks to connect data-based decision making to sociocultural understandings of the ways in which schools use both special education and discipline to simultaneously provide and limit opportunities for different student groups. Results showed a complex interconnectedness between student sociodemographic labels (e.g., gender, race, and socioeconomic status) and factors associated with both special education identification and exclusionary discipline. Our findings suggest that quantitative studies lacking in-depth theoretical justification may perpetuate deficit understandings of the racialization of disability and intersections with exclusionary discipline.

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.

Making Visible the Invisible: Multistudy Investigation of Disproportionate Special Education Identification of U.S. Asian American and Pacific Islander Students

Although disproportionality has been a focus of special education research for more than 50 years, relatively few researchers have addressed potential inequitable or inappropriate treatment of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students in the United States, particularly in quantitative research. This multistudy investigation explored patterns and predictors of AAPI representation in special education using (a) data from states’ federal child count reports and (b) a subsample of 4,290 participants from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011). Descriptive analysis of states’ child count data indicated that, compared to White students, Asian and Pacific Islander students’ relative risk of identification differed for most disabilities, with Pacific Islanders generally demonstrating higher relative risk. Multivariate analysis of the ECLS-K:2011 subsample indicated that ethnic group differences in risk of special education identification were not robust to sociodemographic and performance controls. We discuss potential contributors to these patterns and implications for research.

Racial Differences in Special Education Identification and Placement: Evidence Across Three States

In this article, Todd Grindal, Laura Schifter, Gabriel Schwartz, and Thomas Hehir examine race/ethnicity differences in students' special education identification and subsequent placement in segregated educational settings. Using individual-level data on the full population of K–12 public school students in three states, the authors find that racial and ethnic disparities in identification persist within income categories and are stronger for those disabilities that are typically identified in a school setting, such as learning disabilities or emotional disabilities, than those more often identified by a health-care provider, such as blindness or deafness. Also, Black and Hispanic students with disabilities were more likely to be placed in a substantially separate setting, compared to white students, regardless of income status. These results suggest that low-income status is insufficient to explain observed inequalities in the rate at which students of color are identified for special education and placed in substantially separate settings. A better understanding of the ways income status and race contribute to students' interactions with the special education system are critical for building a more equitable and just K–12 education system.

Divergent Discourse in Disproportionality Research: A Response to Kauffman and Anastasiou (2019)

This article is in response to Kauffman and Anastasiou, wherein the authors initiate discussion regarding the cultural politics within special education identification and placement, particularly surrounding the issue of disproportionality. In this article, we identified four points of discussion regarding societal implications of disproportionality; the roles of (a) divergent ideologies; (b) access and advantage; (c) adult, adolescent, and child behavior; and (d) methodology in the debate on disproportionality in special education identification and placement. Furthermore, we highlight the problems with focusing too heavily on either one of these roles, without proposing viable prevention and intervention efforts to eliminate discriminatory identification and placement in the future. We encourage further discourse in the field that will lead to sound policy and improved practices within and for schools.