Content uploaded by Alfredo J. Artiles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alfredo J. Artiles on Sep 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The National Technical Assistance Center for Personnel Preparation in
Special Education at Minority Institutions of Higher Education
Over-Identification of Students of Color in Special Education:
A Critical Overview
Alfredo J. Artiles, Vanderbilt University
Beth Harry, University of Miami
Daniel J. Reschly, Vanderbilt University
Philip C. Chinn, California State University, Los Angeles
2001
The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the over-representation of students
of color in special education programs. For this purpose, we outline background history on
the problem and discuss its magnitude. The authors also identify several forces that shape
this problem such as poverty, structural factors, instructional and assessment issues, and
the cultural discontinuity between teachers and students. We conclude with a brief
discussion about ways to address over-representation.
Alfredo Artiles, the senior author, may be contacted at: Peabody College/ Vanderbilt
University , Box 328 Room, Magnolia Circle, 415A MRL, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
37203-5701; email: aj.artiles@vanderbilt.edu
Authors' Note: This manuscript originated with the Alliance Project of Peabody College,
Vanderbilt University, which commissioned an earlier version as a background paper for a series
of technical assistance workshops, funded under Grant No. H920T97006 (Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education). In addition, the first author acknowledges
the support of the COMRISE Project at the University of Virginia under Grant No. H326M990001
awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Address
correspondence to: Alfredo J. Artiles, Peabody College, Box 328, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN 37203-5701; email: aj.artiles@vanderbilt.edu HYPERLINK
"mailto:aj.artiles@vanderbilt.edu"
The Monarch Center is supported by a cooperative agreement (H326L020001) with the Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.
2
Over-Identification of Students of Color in Special Education:
A Critical Overview
Background and Magnitude of the Problem
The placement of students of color in special education classes is perhaps one of the most
complex problems facing educators as we move into the new millennium. The issue itself is
not new (Note 1). In 1968, Dunn, citing U. S. Office of Education statistics, reported that
"about 60 to 80 percent of the pupils taught by [teachers in mild mental retardation or MMR
classes] are children from low status backgrounds -- including Afro-Americans, American
Indians, Mexicans, and Puerto Rican Americans; those from nonstandard English-speaking,
broken, disorganized, and inadequate homes; and children from other non-middle class
environments" (p. 6).
In 1968, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began surveying special education placement in
school districts. The survey has since been taken approximately every two years (Note 2).
Meanwhile, several studies had a significant impact on our awareness and understanding of
this problem. For instance, Mercer published in 1973 the results of her circa 1968 study of
students in Riverside, California. Hispanics comprised 7% of the age 6-15 school sample in
Riverside, but 12% of the similar-age students placed in classes for students with MMR; at
that time, these students were referred to as "educable mentally retarded" or EMR.
Conversely, while white students comprised 82% of the school population, they represented
only 53% of students placed in EMR programs. African Americans represented 9.5% of the
district population though they comprised 32% of students in MMR classes (Reschly, 1996).
With the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 (subsequently the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act), continuous monitoring by OCR, and years of litigation, some argue that the
degree of over-representation has receded slightly, though the basic findings have remained
fairly consistent: over-representation affects the so-called high incidence (emotional
disturbance, MMR, and learning disabilities) or "judgmental" disabilities, and the students that
are consistently affected at the national level are African Americans, particularly males in
Note 1. Scholars refer to this problem as "disproportionate representation," which is defined as
"unequal proportions of culturally diverse students in (special education) program" (Artiles &
Trent, 2000, p. 514). This problem includes both over-representation and under-representation.
The former is observed in high-incidence disability programs, whereas the latter is observed in
programs for students with gifts and talents. Due to space constraints, we focus on the over-
representation problem only.
Note 2. Although the OCR data are perhaps the most widely used source, researchers also rely
on various databases such as the U.S. Department of Education's data included in the Office of
Special Education Programs' Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA and the
National Longitudinal Transition Study. These databases have limitations that must be
considered when interpreting research reports. For instance, the OCR data include 50 large
urban schools plus a selection of districts throughout the nation; although this is not a nationally
representative database, projections can be made from these data at the State and national
levels. Also, the database is based on school self-reports; there is some variation in data
collection across regions; sampling procedures may vary from year to year; and critical
information, such as social class and language proficiency, is omitted.
3
mental retardation (MR) and emotional disturbance (ED) programs (Note 3). Latinos and
American Indian students are over-represented in some disability categories in selected
school districts and states.
The misplacement of students in special education is problematic in that it is not only
stigmatizing, but it can also deny individuals the high quality and life enhancing education to
which they are entitled. But what are the factors that shape this problem? And have there
been changes since the problem was first identified over three decades ago? Before we
answer these questions, however, we must first define how over-representation is
calculated. There are two equally valid ways to present over-representation figures
(Reschly, 1997). The first, favored by OCR, looks at special education enrollment by (ethnic)
group. For example, if 33% of the MR enrollment is African American, but 17% of the overall
school population is African American, the representation of these students is about twice
the level expected. Clearly there is over-representation that is of concern. However, what
percent of African American students are classified as MR?
The answer to that question often is surprising. In fact, it is neither 17% nor is it 33%. The
actual percentage of African American students classified as MR according to the 1997 OCR
survey was 2.54%. The latter percent is the percent of the (ethnic) group in the special
education program. The confusion about these two indicators is harmful because it may
establish or perpetuate the myths that large proportions of African Americans and other
minority children have disabilities, that something is fundamentally wrong with certain minority
children, or that special education is primarily used to deny educational rights to minority
children. In fact, small, but clearly disproportionate, percentages of minority children are
placed in special education.
Understanding the difference between the proportion of program by group and group in
program is very important to gauge the magnitude of the problem. Both indicators are valid
and useful. For example, looking at the percentages in special education placements of
African American in MMR (e.g. 33%) or emotionally allows us to see the over-identification
problem in relation to all the students served in these disability programs. These figures,
however, do not tell us anything about the actual percentage of the African American
population placed in these programs.
Such information is obtained by looking at the percent of group indicator, which suggests the
percent of all African American students that is placed in MR classes is 2.54% and in ED
programs is 1.29%. The 2.54% figure may not appear to be very large. However, when one
realizes that it is five times that of Asian/Pacific Island group and over twice that for whites,
the problem should be deemed as serious. The following summary of data will illustrate both
approaches.
Note 3. MacMillan and Reschly (1998) argue that over-representation is a problem restricted to
the "judgmental" disability categories, since ethnic over-representation in certain biologically
based conditions (e.g., PKU among white, Tay Sachs among Jewish, and sickle cell anemia
among African American children) is not debated.
4
OCR always presents data as the special education enrollment by (ethnic) group. In 1978,
African Americans comprised 16% of the school population. However, 38% of the students
in EMR classes, 27% of the students in "trainable (moderate) mentally retarded" (TMR)
classes, and 24% of the students in ED classes were African American. In the 1997 OCR
survey, African Americans comprised 17% of the student population. Yet, African American
students comprised 33% of the classes for students with MR and 28% of ED classes. This
means that, at these two moments in time, African Americans had the greatest risk of being
placed in MR and ED classes and that such representation was almost twice as large as
their representation in the general education system.
Let us contrast the aforementioned figures on special education enrollment by group with the
data on percent of (ethnic) group in special education programs: The actual proportion of all
African American students that is placed in MR classes was 2.54% v. 0.49% for
Asian/Pacific, 0.74% for Latino, 1.31% for American Indian, and 1.13% for white students.
This means that while only a small percentage of all African Americans are actually classified
as MR, clearly, these students are over-represented in this category.
The OCR survey in 1997 included only three of the 13 categories of disabilities recognized in
federal law (MR, learning disabilities or LD, and ED). The other categories were not included
because prior OCR surveys did not find over-representation in those categories or the other
categories have had relatively equal representation across all groups. However, there is
preliminary evidence that over-representation of English learners may be emerging in the
Speech and Language Impairment category in some states.
In conclusion, two commonly used indicators of over-representation are the special
education enrollment by group and the percent of group in special education. Each indicator
offers important yet partial information. We recommend the use of both indicators to get a
clearer idea about the magnitude of the problem. At the same time, these indicators do not
offer a comprehensive perspective on the problem unless other aspects are taken into
account such as whether placement data are examined cross-sectionally or longitudinally
and the need to disaggregate the data by disability, diverse subgroups, and geographical
region.
One problem with the examination of national cross-sectional data is that it masks potentially
important trends. For instance, the difference between the percent of African American and
White students placed in high-incidence disability classes declined in the late 1980s but it
seems to be rising in the 1990s (Artiles & Trent, 2000). These trends vary as we
disaggregate the data by disability category; more specifically, the Black-White difference
declined in the MR category from 1986 to 1992 but it begun to rise again in 1994. In contrast,
the Black-White difference in ED placement has remained relatively stable after a decline in
the late 1980s (Artiles & Trent, 2000).
Another problem associated with reporting national data and general group categories is that
statistics on subgroups are obscured. For example, Asian and Pacific Islanders are reported
as a single category. This Federal category includes Asian groups such as Chinese,
Japanese, and Pakistanis. It also includes Pacific Island groups such as Hawaiians,
Samoans, and Tongans. Native Hawaiians are placed in special education classes at
disproportionately high percentages. However, the categorical reporting of Asian/Pacific
Islanders obscures this fact (see also Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, in press, for an
analysis of English learner subgroups).
5
National data also obscure individual state variability. For example, 1997 OCR national data
indicate African Americans and American Indians are over-represented in high-incidence
programs; in the case of African Americans, it is particularly noticeable in ED classes.
However, the problem is even more acute in states such as Kentucky, where African
Americans comprised 9% of the total student population, and an estimated 26% of the ED
classes. These data could suggest that African Americans in Kentucky are more prone to ED
at a disproportionately higher level than national trends. This variability in placement rates
raises questions about flaws or discrepancies in the identification process, the diagnostic
criteria utilized, as well as the definition of the ED category. State variations in placement
rates are also evident for Latino, Asian/Pacific, Native American, and White students in
states such as Arizona, Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska (see also Artiles et al., in press).
Another factor that is reportedly associated with over-representation is the availability of
alternative programs such as bilingual education.
Factors Shaping Minority Representation
Multiple factors are entangled in this complex predicament. Explanations range from the
pervasive impact of poverty on minority children's development to institutional discrimination
that may result in lower expectations, over-referrals, and over-identification. The following
discussion illustrates the complex interconnections among the multiple factors that shape this
problem.
Socioeconomic Issues: The Complex Mediating Force of Poverty
While poverty and special education placement are associated, it is important to note that
poverty can contribute both directly and indirectly to the risk of school failure and/or special
education placement. This has important implications for people of color since, while there
are more white Americans living in poverty than any of the racial/ethnic groups of color, the
percentages of the latter living in poverty, far exceeds that of whites. The booming U. S.
economy in the late 1990s, enabled the United States Census Bureau (2001) to report
poverty rates that were below or equal to the lowest recorded rates for all groups except
whites. In 1999, the overall poverty rate was 11.9, the lowest since 1979. The poverty rate
for whites was 8%, compared to 11% of Asian/Pacific Americans, 23% of Latinos, 24% of
African Americans, and 26% of American Indians.
Poverty contributes to a significant number of problems such as less than optimal medical
care both at the pre-natal stage for expectant mothers, as well as post-natal care for the
newborn. Physicians providing medical care through governmentally supported clinics and
agencies are often overburdened with large patient loads, and are unable to provide the
more thorough care purportedly offered by private physicians or health maintenance
organizations. Because of the long waits, language differences, immigration issues, and
limited access (e.g., inefficient public transportation) that many poor people may face, even
the medical care to which they may be entitled is perceived as less accessible and may not
be utilized as often as necessary. Furthermore, appropriate nutrition for expectant mothers
and for newborn, infants, and children is problematic for those living in poverty. Expectant
mothers who out of necessity work late into term, and who have inadequate nutrition and
pre-natal care, are more prone to have children born at risk. Children born pre-term (i.e.
those who weigh less than 3 lbs. 5 oz.) may be at risk of cognitive and sensory impairments
(Drew, Logan, & Hardman, 2000).
Though more closely aligned with socioeconomic status (SES), pre-term births have been
associated with ethnicity. Gelfand, Jenson, and Drew (1988) report that 51% of non-white
births have complications, as compared to 5% of white upper-class births. Children living in
6
older homes (which may be the case of many living in poverty) may be at greater risk for
lead poisoning; it has been reported that one in six children suffers from lead poisoning
(Carolina Environment, Inc., 1999). Lead poisoning can be associated with reading and
LD, language impairments, lowered I.Q., neurological deficits, ED, MR, kidney disease, heart
disease, stroke, and death (Carolina Environment, Inc., 1999). Other medically related
problems include crack babies and babies with fetal alcohol syndrome being born to poor
mothers involved in substance abuse (Drew et al., 2000).
Aside from the pervasive potential impact of poverty on children's development, it should be
acknowledged that poverty is associated with lower academic achievement, which in turn
exacerbates the chances of special education placement. At the same time, recent research
suggests the need to assess the contexts of schools and communities to better understand
over-representation patterns. For example, Oswald et al. (1999) found that African
American over-representation in MMR classes worsens as the school poverty level
increases, whereas African Americans have a greater chance to be placed in ED programs
in low-poverty schools.
Furthermore, the latest research on the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and child
development is moving from descriptions of the impact of poverty to more dynamic analyses
of the processes by which these effects come about (McLoyd, 1998). Alternative measures
of poverty, the duration, timing, and the context of poverty (e.g., neighborhood-level poverty)
are important considerations. Recent findings suggest early and persistent exposure to
poverty has negative developmental outcomes. Moreover, research has traditionally focused
on African Americans or racially diverse samples; McLoyd argues these practices might limit
the generalizability of findings to groups with high rates of poverty such as Latinos and some
Asian American subgroups.
It is equally important to examine the processes and factors that protect children from the
negative influence of poverty, given the growing knowledge base that suggests
"competence develops in the midst of adversity when, despite the situation at hand,
fundamental systems that generally foster competence in development are operating to
protect the child or counteract the threats to development" (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998, p.
212). Examples of such protective systems/influences include bonds to prosocial adults
outside the family and effective schools. Indeed, we must strive to craft a knowledge base
that emphasizes "possibility" for poor minority students.
Antecedents of Referrals: Structural and Instructional Factors
Funding, resources, and quality of schooling. Poverty itself cannot be assumed to
be the cause of poor educational outcomes. Schools, after all, are the agencies responsible
for educating children, and it is well known that children in poor neighborhoods are likely to
attend poor schools. Kozol's (1991) study of the "savage inequalities" endured by children in
five urban school districts has been corroborated by studies that implicate funding policies
and teacher quality as prime contributors to low achievement in such schools. For instance,
Parrish, Matsumoto, and Fowler (1996) reported that districts with the greatest poverty spent
an average of 79% the amount spent by the most affluent school districts. Similarly, in a
report on school funding practices nationwide, Rothstein (2000) pointed to inequalities at all
levels of spending -- state, school district, neighborhood, classroom placement, and within-
class treatment. Detrimental funding practices result in inequalities in staffing, teacher
salaries, quality of teachers and principals, and conditions of teaching (Darling-Hammond &
Post, 2000).
7
School size, climate, and achievement. Lee and Loeb (2000) reported that
elementary school size (fewer than 400 students) is associated with stronger teacher
collective responsibility for student learning and with greater student math achievement. In
turn, the increasing bureaucratization of the secondary school (e.g., larger general and
special education populations, greater density of conflicting political demands, more acute
resource constraints), particularly in urban contexts (Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993), may be a
fertile terrain for over-representation. Unfortunately, we do not know how over-
representation is shaped by these factors.
Personnel qualifications, student demographics, and instructional issues. The
most recent Title I Assessment reports that the highest poverty schools have a greater
percentage of inexperienced and uncertified teachers. Specifically, in high- poverty schools,
15% of elementary and 21% of secondary teachers had less than three years of
experience, as contrasted with 8% of elementary and 9% of secondary teachers in low-
poverty schools. Similarly, in high-poverty schools, 12% of teachers had emergency or
temporary certification, and 18% were teaching out of field. In low-poverty schools, less
than 1% of secondary teachers had temporary or emergency certification or were teaching
out of field. Further, the report indicates that paraprofessionals are often given responsibility
for instruction in Title I schools, with 84% of high-poverty schools using these personnel for
instruction, as contrasted with 54% in low-poverty schools. Providing instruction accounted
for 60% of Title I aides' time, and 41% reported that half or more of this time was spent
working on their own with students.
High poverty schools serve primarily ethnic minority students. However, the connection
between student demographics, personnel qualifications, and special education placement is
not straightforward. On the one hand, research indicates poor students are being served by
less qualified personnel, which, in turn, is linked to low quality instruction and low academic
achievement (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000); on the other hand, it is not clear whether
these conditions exacerbate special education placement rates. Moreover, the district
demographic composition may be a mediating force. For example, Ladner and Hammons
(2001) report that districts with high minority enrollment have a lower percentage of special
education students and that, compared to primarily minority districts, predominantly white
districts place a slightly higher percent of their minority population in special education.
Cultural Discontinuity in Referral and Placement Practices
Assessment Issues. The assessment process has been controversial in the special
education process. Major court decisions have raised red flags, and have resulted in
mandates for the use of culturally responsive procedures and tools with African Americans
and English learners in special education eligibility decisions. Two California court cases
largely shaped these regulations, namely Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) and Larry
P. v. Riles (1979) (see Reschly, 1997 for a discussion of these cases). Some of the most
important outcomes of Diana include a mandate to test in students' primary language, use
non-verbal tests, and use extensive supporting data in future placement decisions. A major
outcome of Larry P. was a ban on the use of I.Q. tests for identification and placement
purposes with African American students in California.
There is considerable evidence about the inadequacies of traditional assessment models
with culturally diverse groups (Garcia & Pearson, 1994); however, research about the role
of norming, content, linguistic, and cultural biases and test result uses on minority placement
in special education is scarce. Future research on assessment and placement of students of
color should focus on the complexities associated with these processes and thus, research
8
should document not only the impact of instruments' technical inadequacies, but also the
institutional, historical, and political contexts of assessment and placement practices. Such
focus will imply a shift in assessment practices from an exclusive attention to children's
individual factors to an understanding of children's development as situated in cultural
contexts.
In this vein, evidence from a three-year ethnographic study in Florida (Harry, Klingner,
Sturges, & Moore, in press) points to the many ways in which the assessment process is
influenced by unofficial, undocumented practices. These include informal pressures from
school administrators and/or referring teachers, teachers' and psychologists'
unacknowledged biases regarding children's family structures and practices, and widely
varying choice and implementation of psychological assessment tools. Furthermore, this
research revealed that child study teams seldom take into account information regarding the
atmosphere and practices obtained in the classrooms of referring teachers. In the study,
several children were referred from classrooms where very poor instruction and classroom
management were the norm, making it impossible to know whether the children's difficulties
might have been mitigated in more effective classroom environments.
Addressing the Problem
Over-representation is a multifaceted problem; thus more and better research is the foremost
priority. Future inquiries must be comprehensive, inter-disciplinary, and should transcend
analyses of placement figures. Efforts should concentrate on at least two broad domains: (a)
structural antecedents and mediating forces, and (b) the contexts and activities associated
with the special education process.
Structural Antecedent and Mediating Forces
Because the poverty rate is higher among minority people, some scholars argue that this is
the main explanation of minority over-representation. Poverty indeed can have a brutal
impact on people's lives. At the broadest level, therefore, we should invest in the prevention
of the nefarious consequences of poverty. Educators and public health professionals need
to develop curricula and public education campaigns that emphasize good nutritional
practices throughout one's life, but especially during the pre-natal period and with infants and
young children. Such efforts should also emphasize the hazards of lead poisoning and other
health dangers. In addition, it is necessary to empower students and their families to access
available health care.
At the same time, the complexities associated with poverty have been understudied in the
context of over-representation. For instance, we know little about the potential mediating
effects of the duration, timing, context, and various definitions of poverty on special
education placement. Moreover, the literature on poverty cited above suggests that, just as
poverty brings poor health care and numerous environmental hazards, it also brings poor
schooling. Some of the evidence cited above hints at the need to study the politics of special
education placement in various socioeconomic contexts. For example, we must examine the
dynamics behind the differential placement of African Americans in high- v. low-poverty
districts. Indeed, research on the effects of poverty must include measures or descriptions
of the quality of schooling to which poor children are exposed, including funding, availability
of resources, and the quality of instruction.
Another compelling mediating force is society's notion of "difference" and the ways in which
the educational system responds to "different" people. Let us remember that "difference" is
a comparative notion. Patton (1998) suggests that those who produce the special education
9
knowledge base have attempted to understand and explain the behavior and life experiences
of African Americans through their own ethnocentric perspectives and against an equally
narrowly constructed cultural/ethnic standard. Thus, it is imperative that future research
focuses on questions that are relevant to issues of difference, such as: What are the
assumptions about difference that inform decisions to place students in special education?
What functions are served by the maintenance of a rigid demarcation between general and
special education? When (under what circumstances) is over-representation a problem?
What are the consequences of over-representation? For whom? And what is the function
of special education in an increasingly diverse society?
An elusive factor with deep structural roots is bias. Discussions about the contributions of
bias to school failure and to the likelihood of special education placement should
acknowledge that bias is more than the personal decisions and acts of individuals. Rather,
bias against minorities should also be thought of in terms of historical residua that are layered
in social structures and that may lead to various forms of institutional discrimination. It is
necessary that educators learn to recognize biases in educational settings and institutional
practices and learn to deal with them appropriately.
Contexts and Activities Linked to the Special Education Process
The special education process encompasses multiple aspects that include the preparation of
school personnel, the social organization of learning in general education classrooms, pre-
referral interventions, referrals, assessment, eligibility, and placement practices. The
literature on solutions in each of these stages is growing. A review of solutions for each of
these phases is beyond the scope of this manuscript. A reference list on this topic is
available from the first author. In this section, we only highlight a couple of basic ideas as
they pertain to personnel preparation and pre-referrals, for these are among the least
developed in the literature on over-representation.
Personnel preparation. Teacher education and school psychology programs must
address the curricular needs of their preservice students by insuring their preparation in the
areas of diversity and multicultural education. It is essential that personnel recognize how
the culture they bring to school differs from that of their students. Differences in cultures
can often translate in different values, knowledge, and communication, which in turn
exacerbate the chances for bias formation and its unintended consequences.
Pre-referral interventions. A means of addressing student learning or behavioral
difficulties is the use of teacher assistance teams (TATs). Ortiz and Wilkinson (1991) report
the effective use of TATs, in providing support to teachers experiencing difficulty with some
students. The TATs review student files, observe students and teachers in the classroom,
and develop strategies for intervention by the teachers. Ortiz found that, in schools utilizing
TATs, referrals to special education were significantly reduced.
Conclusion
The problem of the disproportionate representation of students of color in special education
classes has been addressed in the literature for well over thirty years. However, it has only
been within the last few years that educators have made larger-scale efforts to address it.
Many of the variables contributing to these problems relate to societal problems, which are
beyond the work scope of our schools. However, it is the responsibility of educators to
continually draw attention to this problem, and to urge our national and community leaders to
bring about necessary changes. There are many areas that educators can address. While
assessment instruments and procedures may never be completely unbiased, we must work
10
toward that end. Teacher education programs and school districts must continue to prepare
individuals at the preservice and in-service levels in matters related to student diversity.
Perhaps more important, we must work diligently to continue redefining the goals and
functions of special education in an increasingly diverse society. Together, we can begin to
make a difference.
References
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (2000). Representation of culturally/linguistically diverse
students. In C. R. Reynolds, & E. Fletcher-Jantzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special
education, Vol. 1 (2nd edition) (pp. 513-517). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, I., & Higareda, J. (in press). English learner
representation in special education: Unpacking contextual influences in large
urban school districts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group.
Carolina Environment, Inc. (1999). How lead affect your child’s health.
HYPERLINK “ http://www.knowlead.com/affect.htm”
http://www.knowlead.com/affect.htm
Census Bureau (2001). Poverty: 1999 highlights. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Division.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty99/pov99h.html.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Post, L. (2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling:
Supporting high quality teaching and leadership in low income schools. In R. D.
Kahlenberg (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for
social mobility (pp. 127-168). New York: The Century Foundation Press.
Diana v. State Board of Education, Civil Action No. C-7037RFP (N. D. Cal. Jan. 7, 1970 & June
18, 1973).
Drew. C. J., Logan, D. R., & Hardman, M. L. (2000). Mental retardation, a life cycle
approach. Columbus, OH: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly mentally retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 23, 5-21.
GarcÌa, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. Review of Research in
Education, 20, 337-391.
Gelfand, D. M., Jenson, W. R., & Drew, C. J. (1988). Understanding child behavior
disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Harry, B., Klingner, J., Sturges, K., & Moore, R. (in press). Of rocks and soft places: Using
qualitative methods to investigate the processes that result in disproportionality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers.
Ladner, M., & Hammons, C. (2001). Special but unequal: Race and special
education. In C.E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C.R. Hokanso (Eds.), Rethinking
Special education for a new century (pp. 85-110). Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham
11
Foundation.
Larry P. v. Riles. (1979). C-71-2270, FRP. Dis. Ct.
Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on
teachers' attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 3-31.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary
schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Over-representation of minority students: the case
of greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. The Journal of
Special Education, 34, 15-24.
Masten, A.S., & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in
favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful
children. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Ortiz, A. A., & Wilkinson, C. Y. (1991). Aim for the best, assessment and intervention model
for the exceptional bilingual student. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Austin.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in
special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables.
The Journal of Special Education, 32, 194-206.
Patton, J.M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in
special education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and
solutions. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 25-31.
Reschly, D. J. (1997). Disproportionate minority representation in general and
special education: Patterns, issues and alternatives. Des Moines, IA:
Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center, Drake University
(99 pages). ERIC Document No. 415 632.
Reschly, D. J. (1996). IQ and special education: History, current status, and
alternatives. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences.
Rothstein, R. (2000). Equalizing education resources on behalf of disadvantaged
Children. In R.D. Kahlenberg (ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an
engine for social mobility (pp. 31-92). New York: The Century Foundation Press.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Vanderwood, M. L., & Shriner, J. (1997). Changes over the past
decade in special education referral to placement probability: An incredibly reliable
practice. Diagnostique, 23, 193-201.
Students of Color
Distributed by Monarch Center, University of Illinois at Chicago September 2001
