Posting #1

[Keith McNamara]

What do you feel are the key contributing factors to the over-
representation of minorities in special education?

This is a very good question, one that I can only assume has to do
with the kinds of biases mentioned particularly in the Harry and
Anderson article. What I thought as especially salient was not just
how referrals can be biased (e.g., by teacher's cultural expectations
and attitudes towards what is thought as inappropriate behavior) but
also how the tests themselves (at least the standardized ones commonly
used to assess eligibility) can retain bias that could also result in
disproportionate (and inappropriate) placement. This is particularly
worrisome given the universality of their application nationwide, and
(to my knowledge) their reputation as valid instruments of special
needs identification.

The article reminded me of a recent eligibility meeting I participated
in. The number of tests and the kind of tests performed on this
particular student (including several tests to assess various auditory
processing and speech-language capacities, as well as a long series of
standardized batteries aimed to assess various cognitive, emotional/
social, and affective aptitudes) were nothing if not thorough. This
led me to conclude (especially given my lack of knowledge or
experience in these instruments) that the identification of the
specific areas of weakness these tests presumably discovered allowed
the team to thoughtfully construct a meaningful intervention plan.

But if these tests did exhibit an unrecognized (or unacknowledged)
bias, then perhaps our conclusions were not so well grounded.
Nevertheless, these assessments were not used to "label" the student
or place him in a different academic track. Rather, they were used to
decide on targeted academic goals, and differentiated strategies to
effectively meet those goals (which were, by the way, well aligned to
grade level standards). So even if they were biased, the tests did not
in any way undermine the student's potential. On the contrary, they
were used to ensure his potential could be actualized.

Are there particular policies or law that appear to have affected
this
trend?

Obviously the aims of the IDEA were not fully realized (what
legislation is?), and abuse of the system belies its original intent.
The Larry P. Case (1979) appears not to have significantly undermined
the use of what are arguably biased standardized tests for purposes of
placement in special services. Thus if these assessments do in fact
contribute to disproportionate representation, and issues of content
validity (not to mention predictive validity) are not addressed, it is
unlikely the trends will change much.

What recommendations or solutions seem to make sense to you?

I agree with most, if not all, of the authors' (Harry and Anderson)
recommendations. But given that this article was written in the
mid-90s, and based on my own personal experience over the last two
years, it appears that there has been noticeable progress adopting
many of these recommendations (at least in my school, recommendations
2 through 5) I also fully agree that services should be labeled and
not students, and that assessing students in terms of individual needs
and the appropriateness of various services is far more effective (not
to mention less stigmatizing) than giving students in a particular
category. this will help ensure that special services are supplemental
and not exclusionary.

But also, any kind of assessments must be made with the aim of finding
out what the students actually need in order to succeed academically
(and socially). If standardized assessments are used properly,
identifying specific difficulties for the purpose of finding effective
remedies should be the aim.