Disproportianate Representation by Karen Pavlansky

     The primary goal of special education programs is to offer students with disabilities a fair chance to receive an effective educational experience and an opportunity to achieve, as other “mainstream” students, regardless of race, ethnicity or cultural diversity. 

    Overrepresentation/disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities and culturally and linguistic students in special education is a highly debated issue and what we are ultimately trying to resolve. 

    Historically racism (seeded in early American history and culture) targeted; African Americans, white ethnic immigrants, Chicano/Latinos, American Indians, and Asian Americans.  White America excluded these minorities from formal education and went as far as sterilizing, incarcerating, and euthanizing these minorities.  Unbelievable!  These practices limited educational access, equity and social mobility for all students (disabled or not).

     Placing students with disabilities in the general education classroom is a goal for optimizing their education outcomes.  This creates a non-restrictive environment and gives access to the same expectations and curriculum as mainstream students without outcast labels.  This challenges general education teachers to be responsible for evaluating and deciding which students need special attention or assessments, especially at the K-3, early childhood level.  The solutions are the Response to Intervention (RTI) and Culturally Responsive Instruction (CRI) or teaching, in response to intervention.  My personal opinion, is if implemented properly, it is a solution for alleviating some of the issues of placement that are happening in schools today.

     Let me introduce you to Student X. When I first met her at the start of this school year 2013-14, her parents were expressing great concerns with her behavior, lack of academic and social skills.  Student X had issues of biting, physical aggressiveness, defiance with adults and combativeness with everyone. The parents shared that she hadn’t been in pre-school for the past ten months.  She was in the process of being tested at the T-Cap preschool where she was attending, but they moved and she was placed on a waiting list but never got in.   She scored a 3 out of 27 on the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment of Learning (KRA-L).  Her speech and language skills were often babbling, difficult in understanding and unrelated to the conversation.  Student X would fight with the other students.  She was defiant with all of the adults she came in contact with during the day.  She would yell and scream “No” when ask to do anything.  The assistant Principal nicknamed her the “She Devil”.  Her special (gym, art, music, computers) teachers would come to me, complaining about her behavior and asking what was wrong with her.  I was having concerns that there might be a serious problem and possible disability.  I started RTI almost immediately.  I met with the building IAT coach.  Intervention Central became my favorite website.  Little progress was being made, while more complaints were being made.  The parents, Step-Dad and Mom met with the principal requesting to have Student X tested.  Even the school nurse came to me when she couldn’t complete the hearing and vision screening because of communication skills.  About five weeks into school, (our regular routines and procedures had been established) I stated to notice positive changes in her behaviors.  She would sit and listen during story time.  She started responding to questions related to activities we were engaged in.  She enjoyed having jobs and responsibilities.  I was able to use that to help motivate her to complete little tasks.  I had a scheduled meeting with the IAT coach to begin paperwork for testing.  While reviewing the contextual factors of this child, our thoughts turned towards contextual factors that might be the “cause” of some of the behaviors and skill deficits.  Student X comes from a low-income family.  Mom works at a convenient store and step-dad, who acknowledged has a learning disability, struggled throughout school.  He didn’t want Student X to endure the same, is the primary care taker and unemployed.  She hadn’t been in a social setting for almost a year.  With no siblings and when ask how their time was spent, “we watch tv” was the response.  This child hadn’t experienced any of the normal developing social activities, let alone any academics.  The RTI would now take a different focus with more emphasis on socialization and proper communication.  Having the assistance of an IAT professional made a huge difference for the teacher and the student.  RTI requires a lot of creative planning and research but is extremely effective.  Seven weeks into school, there have been huge improvements with this child.  She is receiving Title I and speech services. She is starting to make friends and participating more in academic activities.  She has only said “no” once in the past few days.  RTI and collaboration with staff is working for this child. 

     Implementing the ideas of RTI and CRI programs is a “best practice” and IDEA solution for disproportionate representation, inappropriate placement and misclassification of minority students.  It works, but takes work.   Communication between administrators, the special education department and general educators is the key.  Together, the conflict of the “who, what, when and how” can be achieved. 

      Why isn’t it being achieved?  There are many limitations and concerns pointed out in our text book and readings, but here are some of the issues that I have encountered.   The administrators faced with budget issues, per student dollars, and state/federal funding limitations pressure the special education department to conserve costs while the sped in turn point to general educators not doing enough to properly implement practices to best serve the students diverse needs.  The General educators in turn are feeling inadequately served and prepared because of the lack of information and preparation by the special education department.  All entities are blaming each other for failure to carry out valid plans and solutions such as RTI and CRI.  Instead of getting things done and collaborating to service these students they point fingers and try and blame someone else. The bottom line is it only hurts the students.