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

Abstract

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.

Waived English Learners: The Understudied Intersection of English Learner and Special Education Status

“…Most notably, the likelihood of SLD placement for ELs remained lower than that of never-ELs between kindergarten and third grade, but soon outpaced never-ELs’ likelihood for SLD placement at fourth grade and remained elevated into middle school (Umansky et al, 2017). Likewise, studies on SLD representation of Hispanic students—which is the predominant background of ELs in our study—also reported a gradual increase in SLD placement likelihood from lower to upper elementary grades, at which point the likelihood declines (e.g., fifth grade; Morgan et al, 2015) or remains elevated through middle school (Cruz & Firestone, 2022).…”

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

“…The ways in which BIPOC are pathologized, labeled, and suspended all serve as sources of discrimination that maintain White, ableist power hierarchies. Past research has suggested that although stakeholders have agency in these educational systems, teachers’ perceptions of students also depend on structural factors (Cruz & Firestone, 2021; Fish, 2019; Hibel et al, 2010). Though these factors may be enacted differently in exclusionary discipline than in special education placement, our results provide evidence that students are affected by how practitioners view them within their school contexts.…”

“…For example, Fish (2019) found that school racial composition was linked to the likelihood that African American students would be sorted into more subjective and stigmatizing disability categories. Relatedly, Cruz and Firestone (2021) found that African American and Latinx students were more likely to be diagnosed with subjective disabilities later in their school careers and suggested that teachers pathologized students differently based on perceived preparedness for school—a perception that was often linked to students’ race. This aligned with Okonofua and Eberhardt (2015) finding that students’ race affected how teachers perceived and interpreted behavior, ultimately recommending harsher punishments for African American children even when the behavioral violation was similar and especially after multiple offenses.…”

“…Acknowledging that numbers are not neutral means recognizing how quantitative analyses have reinforced the power and perceptions of whiteness and “typical” development (Zuberi, 2001). In particular, the principle of moving beyond static categories is an important consideration, as identity markers, including dis/ability and race, continue to be imposed and normalized through labeling practices (Cruz & Firestone, 2021; Fish, 2019; Link & Phelan, 2001; Shifrer, 2013). Disproportionality studies have used different mathematical formulas (e.g., risk and relative risk, multivariate regression; see Girvan et al, 2019) to compare outcomes of a given minority group either with White students (e.g., Cruz & Rodl, 2018b) or with all students collectively (e.g., Gregory et al, 2016).…”

A State-by-State Document Analysis of Official Guidance on Paraprofessional Allocation

“…Disability Studies, like other forms of critical inquiry, centers disability as a socially constructed phenomenon, rather than viewing it as a fixed and natural state (see Cruz et al, 2023; Goodley, 2013). Furthermore, Disability Studies challenges researchers to shift the focus from disability at the individual level to view how systems sort, label, disable, and disenfranchise communities (Connor, 2019; Cruz & Firestone, 2021; Reid & Knight, 2006; Skrtic et al, 2021). From this framework, decisions about paraprofessionals should be viewed from a lens of how to best support the environment in which the child learns rather than creating further physical and social isolation from peers (Giangreco, 2021).…”