Minority Disproportionality in Special Education

Representation Data

Both over- and underrepresentation patterns have been noted in special education, indicating that some groups may be at particular risk for being falsely identified as having a disability (false positives), and others may be at risk of having disabilities that go unnoticed and untreated (false negatives). For example, whereas African American students are overrep-resented in programs for mental retardation and emotional disturbance, and Native Americans in programs for learning disability, Asian students have [Page 503]been underrepresented in all disability categories and overrepresented in programs for the gifted. White students are underrepresented in programs for mental retardation but generally proportionately represented across the other disability categories. Although both over- and underrepresentation may indicate inequitable circumstances, overrepresentation has generally received more attention because of its potential for undue stigmatizing of already stigmatized groups and because special education programs have not consistently proven to be effective.

There are two kinds of scores used in determining disproportionality—a composition index and a risk index. The composition index compares the group's proportion in the entire population with its proportion in special education programs. For example, as African American students represent approximately 17 percent of the entire school population, they represent approximately 33 percent of the population of programs for mental retardation. The risk index examines the rate of placement within an ethnic group and compares it to the rate of placement within another group. For example, 2.64 percent of all African American students are in mental retardation programs, compared with 1.18 percent of all White students.

There are two key aspects of disproportionality that present importance nuances of the overall picture: Variability in patterns of placement across disability categories and variability across place and time.

Variability in placement rates across disability categories highlights the role of professional judgment in disproportionality. Of thirteen disability categories used in the United States, minority overrepresentation has been noted consistently in three categories—mental retardation at the milder end of the spectrum, learning disability, and emotional disturbance. These categories are determined mainly by the clinical judgment of psychologists and educators, as opposed to those categories that represent verifiable biological anomalies or physiological impairments. The latter types occur much less frequently, for example, hearing, visual, or physical impairments, and multiple disabilities marked by severe cognitive limitations. The subjective nature of the clinical judgment categories suggests the possibility of biases resulting from historically based negative stereotypes of marginalized groups, which may be compounded by continuing inequities in educational opportunity.

...