Racism and the Unrealized Ideals of IDEA

Racism and the Unrealized Ideals of IDEA

H. Bradford

6/27/21

The 1975 passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was  landmark legislation to ensure the education of students with disabilities. However, compliance with the six pillars of IDEA is an ongoing issue. IDEA created the funding and framework for supporting the education of students with disabilities. It also ensured the right to free and appropriate public education irrespective of disability (FAPE). This means that all children can access appropriate preschool through secondary education at no cost which meets the standards of the state. All students with disabilities also have the right to an Individualized Education Plan and must be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment. Other provisions under IDEA are that children with disabilities must have access to all areas of school participation, students and their families are guaranteed confidentiality, non-discriminatory testing, and due process (Beratan, 2006). While these rights are guaranteed to all students with disabilities, racism continues to nurture educational segregation.

For historical context, both IDEA and Brown v. The Board of Education were meant to end educational segregation. Yet, in the early years of desegregation, special education was used to continue racial segregation by other means. In the 1950s and 1960s, ten Southern states adopted pupil placement laws, which gave school districts the ability to place students in classrooms on the basis of ability and a new tool to segregate classrooms by race. At times, schools themselves were closed, such as the case of Prince Edward County in Virginia wherein between 1959 and 1964, 2000 African American children received no formal public education on account of schools closing to avoid desegregation. Between 1955-1956, 77% of the students in special education in Washington DC were African American as a means of avoiding desegregation. Ability tracking was also used in southern schools to sort children into groups according to ability, but in practice by race, to avoid white flight from desegregated schools. More recently, there is a tendency to blame racial disparities on economic disparities, but when controlling for income, Southern states continue to have a disproportionate number of Black students in special education (Ferri and Connor, 2005).  IDEA was passed to provide the same educational opportunities to disabled students as those without disabilities, or in other words, to end a functional segregation of disabled students. However, in many ways schools remain racially segregated as students of color are concentrated into low income schools. Despite IDEA’s promise of free and appropriate public education, students with disabilities continue to face a segregated experience from general education.

A major theme in the intersection between racism and special education is disproportionality. Ahrams, Fergus, and Noguera define disproportionality as an overrepresentation by a group, such as Black and Latino students, within special education (2011). For example, Native American students are 1.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with a specific learning disability. African American students are twice as likely to be diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance (ED) than other students and 2.3 times more likely to be diagnosed with Mental Retardation (MR). Research has indicated that students impacted by disproportionality are less likely to receive a rigorous and full curriculum and less likely to have employment and post secondary opportunities (Ahrams, Fergus, and Noguera, 2011). Although African American students are 14% of the student population, they make up 20% of students in Special Education. Once labeled, students of color are more likely to be placed in restrictive educational environments than their white peers (Ferri and Connor, 2005). Disproportionality is most common in learning disabilities, emotional behavioral disorders, and learning disabilities. These labels allow for the most bias as they are the most subjective categories (Johnson, 2021). Black students in the United States are also more prone to be given other subjective labels, such as “at risk”(Gilborn, 2015). In general, Black students are more likely to be in segregated educational settings. This is correlated with higher dropout rates, higher rates of arrest, unemployment, and incarceration after graduation. In contrast, students in inclusive settings are more likely to have a rich learning environment, have more effective teaching strategies, have higher expectations, experience positive academic modeling from peers, achieve IEP goals, and have better social and emotional outcomes (Johnson, 2021). 

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA recognized the trend of overrepresentation of minority students in special education. In 2004, IDEA acknowledged the intersection between racism and disability, recognizing that more needed to be done to address racially based educational disparities. In section 12 of IDEA, it was noted that African American children are placed in special education at higher rates, have higher dropout rates, and are diagnosed with emotional behavioral disorders and mental retardation at higher rates than white children. The 2004 update to IDEA also mandated that this disproportionate representation be addressed by increasing funds for early intervention services to overidentified groups. To quote the actual language in the legislation, “to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the local educational agency, particularly children in those groups that were significantly overidentified under paragraph (1) (Beratan, 2006).” The U.S. The Department of Education has also required that State Performance Plans include three indicators for disproportionality (Ahrams, Fergus, and Noguera, 2011).

Disproportionality is nothing new as the The United States Office of Civil Rights noted a pattern of overrepresentation of racial minority students in special education as early as the 1970s (Ferri and Connor, 2005). Likewise,  Lloyd Dunn’s seminal 1968 study already noted that students of color were disproportionately represented among students deemed to have mild mental retardation (Ahrams, Fergus, and Noguera 2011). Several court cases drew attention to the issue of racism and special education. For instance, Diana v. the State Board of Education was a class action lawsuit on behalf of nine Hispanic students who were made to take IQ tests in English and were subsequently labeled as mentally retarded. When retested by a Spanish speaker, only one of the students was diagnosed with mental retardation. Larry P. v Riles was a similar case wherein African American students at a San Francisco school were found to be diagnosed with mental retardation disproportionately to their population within the school (Ferri and Connor, 2005). It was decided through Larry P. v. Riles that testing used for minority children must be validated for use within minority populations (Harlep and Elis, 2012). These court cases are important since they demonstrate a racial bias in how students are assessed and ultimately labeled. 

Black and Latino students are more likely to be placed in restrictive classroom settings, which diminishes their connection to peers and access to general education. This is difficult to remedy due to the broad interpretation of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Least Restrictive Environment is commonly believed to imply inclusive education. Yet, the law does not define what level of inclusive education or “least restrictive environment” is appropriate. Case Law has typically supported the idea that general education may not be the least restrictive environment for a student with disabilities, such as in cases like Board of Ed. v. Rowley, Roncker v. Walter, and Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Ed. LRE therefore puts the onus on the student with a disability to fit into existing school structures rather than on the school structures to change. This constructs the disability as the problem rather than the school system. This understanding stems from a deficit model of disability rather than a social model (Beratan, 2006).

Johnson (2021) wrote that according to the social model, disability is not a disorder or deficit, but a difference. Like race, disability is a construct. It exists in contrast to the myth of “normal.” For instance, autism, ADHD, and intellectual disabilities can only be understood in contrast to an ill defined concept of typical. But, what is typical is subjective and based upon what is functional to the needs of a particular society. Thus, the social model of disability posits that people are impaired or disabled by the way that society acts.  Within educational settings, disability is generated in classrooms by class sizes that are too large, poor instruction, one size fits all instruction, high stakes testing, teacher bias, and harsh or unjust discipline. These factors are more pronounced in poorer schools, which are also the schools which have larger populations of students of color. The key to an inclusive classroom is not simply putting students with disabilities in a general education classroom nor bringing in a special education teacher to that classroom. It entails equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to differentiate instruction such as Universal Design for Learning, contract learning, workshop reading, stations, flexible grouping, etc. Smaller class sizes are also important, with a maximum of 20 students for grades 2 and above and under 15 for preschool to 1st grade. Professional development opportunities and planning are also key components (Johnson, 2021).

In addition to the suggestions Johnson (2021) made to build inclusive classrooms, a study of disparities schools in New York State also offers insights. In 1999, New York schools were cited by the state’s department of education for disproportionality of Black and Latino students in special education. The schools undertook a five year project under the guidance of New York University’s Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TACD) to uncover the root causes of this problem and create a three year professional development plan to address it. In a case study of two New York school districts, TACD was able to reduce the number of Latino and Black students identified for special education based upon more judgement based assessments such as learning disorders and emotional behavioral disorders.  Two factors which contributed to the racial disproportionality in special education was deficit thinking regarding race and socio-economics and inadequate institutional safeguards to prevent the referrals of students to special education whose needs as struggling learners could be met in the classroom with assistance. Disproportionality began with teacher referrals. This was often based upon student behavior over academic performance. Interviews with teachers prior to the TACD intervention indicated that teachers often faulted parents and poverty for the student performance. The teachers had cultural deficit thinking regarding the families. The schools also did not have adequate referral and classroom interventions for struggling learners. Institutional changes such as empowering families and giving them a voice improved outcomes. Data collection, usage, and the development of an Response to Intervention framework also improved outcomes. In order to qualify for special education, a student must first be identified. This may be where problems begin, as this is based upon an academic discrepancy model which requires struggle as a precursor for identification. Response to Intervention (RtI) reduces over representation through multi-tiered interventions which monitor and respond to student performance. It is based upon early intervention rather than waiting to fail (Ahram, Fergus, and Noguera, 2011). 

 From a critical race theory perspective, measures like RtI still fall short. Critical race theory posits that race and racial differences are socially constructed and that racism is a culturally and structurally ingrained part of society. Whiteness is at the center of what is considered normal and everyday. White supremacy, rather than the rare and extreme expression of white power, is the mundane everyday exertion of white dominance that shapes the world. In this sense, race and disability have a lot in common, since both are constructed and both are often seen as obvious and fixed. They are also both seen as individual characteristics rather than social constructs. Also, both serve a function in a society. Racial disparity in school preserves white dominance (Gillborn, 2015). Critical race theorists argue that Response to Intervention (RtI) may merely tinker with the edges of inequity and does not challenge the structures and logic of special education. For instance, teachers are still mostly white (Harlep and Elis, 2012). According to Ferri and Connor (2005) 90% of public school teachers are white, whereas 40% of students are students of color. Aside from these demographics, teachers continue to focus on standardized tests and still look at disability as a problem with a student rather than a school system. The dominant culture looks to students as the problem rather than addressing the problematic ways in which education is implemented. Again, educational systems serve the function of maintaining dominant white culture. Even after more widespread adaptation of RtI, the overall trend of overrepresentation of African American, Native American, and Latino students in special education has not changed and risk ratios for these groups have held steady. Harlep and Elis (2012) argue that culturally responsive implementation of RtI culturally responsive interventions are crucial. They also argue in favor of ethnic desegregation, which means collecting data on both race and ethnicity. The benefit of this is that racial groups get lumped together, so while Asian Americans as a whole are less likely to be in special education, there is no data for Asian subgroups such as Hmong, Chinese, Indonesian, etc. students. The same is true of all ethnic groups. Finally, they support equity audits for special education.

The United States is founded upon the racism of slavery, genocide, segregation, and mass incarceration. People with disabilities have also been systematically excluded from society through institutionalization, incarceration, isolation, forced sterilization, and lack of access. Critical race theory and the social model of disability both offer insights to mechanisms by which racism and ableism operate through educational systems. Yet, critical race theory has been a recent battleground in the struggle for racial justice, as 24 states have introduced legislation to ban critical race theory in schools and six have enacted bans (Rufo, 2021). While IDEA was a step forward in the struggle for equal education for students with disabilities, special education continues to be an arena for racial segregation through dispoportionality. There is little recourse for families who face this, other than persistent advocacy within schools and through community agencies, if they exist. These problems are systemic, so there is no single entity which can fully address them. But, desegregation arose from a social movement for racial equality. ADA and IDEA also arose from the activism of people with disabilities. It is only through continued, massive, social struggle that the issues of ableism and racism can be fully addressed. Teachers can attend training, adopt inclusive practices in the classroom, advocate for their students, and be mindful of their biases, but IDEA will never be ideal until teachers can join these struggles in solidarity with the communities and students which they serve.      

Sources:

Ahram, R., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Addressing racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2233-2266.

Beratan, G. D. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: Ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disability studies quarterly, 26(2).

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow of Brown: Special education and overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special education, 26(2), 93-100.

Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: Race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277-287.

Hartlep, N., & Ellis, A. (2012). Just What Is Response to Intervention and What’s It Doing in a Nice Field Like Education? A Critical Race Theory Examination of Response to Intervention. Counterpoints, 425, 87-108. Retrieved June 26, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42981792

Johnson, A. (2021). Racism In A Broken Special Education System. In Essential Learning Theories: The Human Dimension. essay, Rowman and Littlefield. 

Rufo, C. F. (2021, June 27). Opinion | Battle Over Critical Race Theory. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-over-critical-race-theory-11624810791.