We synthesized empirical work to evaluate whether Black children are disproportionately overrepresented in special education. We identified 22 studies that met a priori inclusion criteria including use of at least 1 covariate in the reported analyses. Evidence of overrepresentation declined markedly as the studies included one or more of 3 “best-evidence” methodological features (i.e., analyses of individual-level data, a nationally representative sample, a control for individual-level academic achievement). Among 48 coefficient estimates from studies with the strongest internal and external validity, only 1 (2.1%) indicated significant overrepresentation. This coefficient suggested a school characteristic (a high percentage of minority students) that may help explain underrepresentation. None of the remaining 47 (97.9%) regression coefficients indicated that Black children’s overrepresentation in special education was explained by misidentification based on race or ethnicity. Instead, the best evidence indicates that Black children are significantly less likely than otherwise similar White children to receive special education services.

We conducted a best-evidence synthesis of 22 studies to examine whether systemic bias explained minority disproportionate overrepresentation in special education. Of the total regression model estimates, only 7/168 (4.2%), 14/208 (6.7%), 2/37 (5.4%), and 6/91 (6.6%) indicated statistically significant overrepresentation for Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and English language learner (ELL) or language-minority children, respectively. Among studies with the strongest internal and external validity, none of the 90 estimates (i.e., 0%) indicated overrepresentation attributable to racial or ethnic bias. Of the 18 estimates for language-minority and ELL children combined, only 3 (16.7%) indicated overrepresentation attributable to language use. Two of the 4 ELL-specific estimates (50%) indicated that children receiving English-as-a-second-language services may be overrepresented in special education. Overall, and replicating findings from a prior best-evidence synthesis, this synthesis indicated that children are underidentified as having disabilities based on their race or ethnicity and language use.

More than 40 years after passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), some special education teacher preparation programs offer limited coursework on parent involvement, advocacy, or home–school collaboration. For pre-service special education teachers and/or novice special education teachers working with students with disabilities and their parents in practice, prior parent involvement coursework often enhances knowledge and abilities to provide resources, advocacy support, and insight. Yet, for this to occur in practice, special education teacher preparation program faculty should continue to consider how curriculum that instructs and provides resources regarding home–school collaboration, advocacy, conflict resolution, and federal legislation and programmatic support can enhance parent involvement. Therefore, this article examines IDEA parent involvement provisions, IDEA-mandated and federally funded conflict resolution options, and Parent Training and Information Centers that provide parents resources and support. Also, this article offers suggestions for teacher preparation faculty developing or refining parent involvement curricula.

No abstract

States have been granted increasingly greater agency both to determine standards for minority disproportionate representation (MDR) monitoring in special education placements and to set the relevant cutoffs and sanctions when significant disproportionality is found. State authority has been bolstered by an education federalism framework, case law, and updated legislative and regulatory guidance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Using legislative and judicial analysis to both examine education federalism and its impact on state and federal authority and analyze the legislative history associated with MDR monitoring and recent judicial trends within federal case law regarding equal protection constitutional challenges brought by plaintiff parents and students with disabilities in MDR litigation, this article finds that states are increasingly granted greater authority from judicial opinions and policy to monitor states’ practices. Legal and policy implications for stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, school districts) are also discussed.