No abstract

Background/Context The last two reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act established a policy mandate for districts to take action to reduce high rates of minority overrepresentation in special education. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study The overrepresentation of Black and Latino students in special education suggests a convergence of two distinct processes: (1) assumptions of cultural deficit that result in unclear or misguided conceptualizations of disability and (2) the subsequent labeling of students in special education through a pseudoscientific placement process. This article explores how the social construct of the “normal child” became racialized through the special education referral and classification process, and subsequently produces disproportionality. Setting This research was conducted in two multiracial suburban school districts in New York State that were identified as having an overrepresentation of students of color. Population/Participants/Subjects Participants in the study consist of teachers and administrators within the two identified districts. Intervention/Program/Practice Intensive technical assistance was provided to these districts to identify the root causes of disproportionality and was subsequently followed by customized professional development. Three overarching activities of technical assistance were: observing in classrooms in each of the school districts; providing root cause analyses of disproportionality; and providing culturally responsive professional development. Research Design This research used mixed methods in collating district data, conducting technical assistance sessions with districts to identify the factors contributing to disproportionality, and creating 3-year professional development plans to address overrepresentation. In addition, researchers facilitated culturally responsive professional development to targeted groups of practitioners on topics related to improving teacher and district effectiveness in meeting the academic needs of children of color. Findings/Results Findings were: (1) cultural deficit thinking in educators’ construction of student abilities; (2) the existence of inadequate institutional safeguards for struggling students; and (3) attempts at addressing disproportionality often result in institutional “fixes” but not necessarily changes in the beliefs of education professionals. Conclusions/Recommendations The implementation of a culturally responsive framework can produce a shift in the special education placement process and lead to a reduction in disproportionality rates. Of note is confirmation that teacher–student interactions that begin the procedures triggering disproportionality are mired in teachers’ cultural deficit thinking. However, although teachers’ beliefs about students may change extremely slowly, effective school practices can interrupt the influence of deficit thinking.

No abstract

In the review, we examine what is known about disproportionality with the intention of informing the direction of policy and practice remedies. We outline the definition, contours, and characteristics of disproportionality and examine some of the prevailing explanations as to why the issue persists. We then pivot the review to consider how policy, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has sought to address disproportionality in special education and disciplining of students with disabilities. We question why a legally sound civil rights law like IDEA has been unable to abate disproportionality for nearly 40 years. We then turn our attention to review interventions embedded in IDEA that have been recommended to address disproportionality and question why they have not improved outcomes for “nondominant” students in special education. We conclude with some recommendations for disrupting disproportionality.

Few studies explicitly examine how opportunity structures impact school safety, school climate, or bullying. This article applies school-centered ecological theory as a heuristic conceptual framework that links opportunity structures and school safety. Historically, opportunity structures identified how institutional characteristics such as labor conditions, combined with factors such as geographic location, gender, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and family background, influence the opportunities open to individuals and shape patterns of entering the labor market. In education, the concept has been used when describing systemic racism in educational inequality. Examples are drawn from several bodies of research that have strong implications for future study of these issues. These areas include research on communities and families, creating positive school cultures and climates, and different types of educator bias that restrict opportunities and result in less safe environments. The authors suggest new research that combines school safety, opportunity, and social justice-oriented school reform. IMPACT STATEMENTOpportunity gaps based on social injustice often overlap with school safety concerns. Yet most school safety studies and interventions focus on individuals or interpersonal relationships and not on structurally changing opportunity or safety gaps. This article calls for new research, intervention, and policy approaches that jointly address opportunity and school safety gaps. Examples include research on (a) school-community opportunity and safety gaps, (b) low resourced schools' opportunity and safety gaps, and (c) racially biased classroom interactions that decrease opportunity and increase safety gaps. A CALL FOR THE CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION OF OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES IN SCHOOL SAFETY RESEARCH Background: Opportunity Structures and School Safety Opportunity StructuresIn 1968, British sociologist Ken Roberts proposed opportunity structure theory to help explain successes and failures in the transition from school to work in the post-World War II British economy (Roberts, 1968). This theory identified how institutional structures, such as labor conditions, combined with factors such as geographic location, gender, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and family background to influence the opportunities open to individuals and shape patterns of entering the labor market.Job opportunities were open for some groups and severely restricted for others. The theory has been expanded to many divergent areas beyond employment, such as legal opportunity structures for LGBT individuals in Costa Rica and Colombia, the social mobility of women in Central Asia, and political opportunities of migrants in Portugal (i.e., Oliveira & Carvalhais, 2017;Urbaeva, 2019;Wilson & Gianella-Malca, 2019).In education, the concept of opportunity structures includes patterns, options, supports, and access to resources that shape the opportunities of K-12 and college students to achieve good outcomes (Weis et al., 2015). The ro...