Wading Through Quicksand: Making Sense of Minority Disproportionality in Identification of Emotional Disturbance

Abstract

The debate surrounding disproportionality in the identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students for special education, and in the category of emotional disturbance in particular, remains highly contentious, particularly as scholars grapple with the meaning and causes of disproportionality. In this article, I discuss assumptions underpinning this line of scholarship and implications for the meaning we make of research findings related to disparities in special education and students' needs. Efforts to understand and address inequity must be juxtaposed with the imprecise, and at times inscrutable, conceptual, psychometric, procedural, and causal issues surrounding identification and potential disproportionality, even while maintaining a fundamental desire to benefit students.

The relationship between behavior at school entry and services received in third grade

“…In general, results support previous research that suggests non‐Hispanic Black children are more likely to be identified as children needing specialized services, especially for behavior (e.g., Donovan & Cross, ; Sullivan & Bal, ) but are contrary to more recent analysis of the issue using an ECLS data set that reported Black children are underrepresented in special education and in ED, specifically (Morgan et al, ). Recent review and commentaries, however, have challenged the validity of their methodology and inferences (for discussion, see Cruz & Rodl, ; Skiba et al, ; Sullivan, ). This could be a result of the additional controls used in their model or the difference in the coding of the outcome in this study.…”

The identification of students with emotional disturbance: Moving the field toward responsible assessment practices

“…The accurate identification of students with ED has presented a significant problem over the history of the category, both in terms of the overall identification rate of all students (e.g., Forness, Freeman, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, ; Merrell & Walker, ) as well as the disproportionate identification of specific subgroups of students (e.g., Losen & Orfield, ; Sullivan, ; U.S. Department of Education, ). Regarding the overall identification rate of students with ED, recent data continue to demonstrate that far fewer students are being identified than estimates suggest should be.…”

“…The accurate identification of students with ED has presented a significant problem over the history of the category, both in terms of the overall identification rate of all students (e.g., Forness, Freeman, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012;Merrell & Walker, 2004) as well as the disproportionate identification of specific subgroups of students (e.g., Losen & Orfield, 2002;Sullivan, 2017;U.S. Department of Education, 2015).…”

Consistently inconsistent: An examination of the variability in the identification of emotional disturbance

“…The identification of students with mental health challenges in schools has been problematic and controversial since the establishment of the current special education system. From poorly operationalized eligibility criteria (Donovan & Cross, ; Gresham, ; Hughes & Bray, ) to the disproportionate identification of racial and ethnic minorities in high‐incidence categories, especially emotional disturbance (ED; Arnold & Lassmann, ; Donovan & Cross, ; Patton, ; Sullivan, ; US GAO, ), practitioners and researchers alike have struggled to align the educational definition of ED with the clinical understanding of mental health. Federal education law provides a single definition of ED with five brief criteria; only one of which must be met to determine if a student is emotionally disturbed.…”

“…The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education has been a concern since the outset of special education (Arnold & Lassmann, ; Donovan & Cross, ; Patton, ; Sullivan, ; US GAO, ) despite the growth of diversity‐focused training and the adoption of systems designed to improve the quality of referrals to special education (Council for Children with Behavior Disorders, ). Three categories of special education have been characterized as high incidence and have been reported to have the highest rates of disproportionality: learning disability, mild intellectual disabilities, and emotional/behavior disorders (Arnold & Lassmann, ).…”