Guzmán, N. (2008). CLD Students at the Intersection of Bilingual Education and Special Education in...

CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS

AT THE INTERSECTION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION

AND SPECIAL EDUCATION IN TEXAS

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Bertha Pérez, Ed.D., Chair

Ellen Riojas Clark, Ph.D.

Patricia Sánchez, Ph.D.

Jianmin Guan, Ph.D.

Accepted:

Criselda Guajardo Alvarado, Ed.D.

Dean, Graduate School

DEDICATION Esta investigación está dedicada a las familias Guzmán y Noyola. ¡Gracias por sus labores!




by

NORMA A. GUZMÁN, M.A.

DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Faculty of

The University of Texas at San Antonio In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CULTURE, LITERACY AND LANGUAGE

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO College of Education and Human Development

Division of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies August 2008

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Deseo dar gracias a mi familia, amigos/as y colegas que me apoyaron durante este

camino. ¡Muchisimas gracias a todos! I would like to take the time to express my appreciation

to my family, friends and classmates for their support and encouragement. This journey would

not have been possible without the assistance of everyone I was blessed to encounter.

Special thanks to my dissertation committee members for their guidance and support

throughout this process. Thanks to the College of Education at UTSA, for their financial support

through the graduate student research and travel grants. Thanks to the Division of Bilingual-

Bicultural studies for the foundation and support in reaching this goal.

I would like to acknowledge the staff at the Texas Education Agency for their assistance

in providing the data that I requested. To the school districts, elementary campuses and the

educators who participated in the study, ¡muchas gracias!

August 2008

v




Norma A. Guzmán, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at San Antonio, 2008

Supervising Professor: Bertha Pérez, Ed.D.

Abstract. This study explored the phenomenon of disproportionality with regard to

culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students at the intersection of bilingual education and

special education in four districts and thirteen elementary campuses in South Texas. This mixed

methods research design included a survey developed to investigate educator perceptions of the

problem of over-representation. A total of 439 surveys were completed by educators in the

South Texas area. Educator perceptions are compared to existing data from the Texas Education

Agency (TEA) on the rates of representation of CLD students in special education. TEA data

was used to calculate the composition index, risk index, and odds ratios for CLD students in the

state, district and elementary campuses. The study used a concurrent data collection method and

data convergence occurred at the data analysis and interpretation stages. Findings show that

CLD students are over-represented in special education when data are disaggregated by

eligibility category and race/ethnicity at the state, district and campus level. Three-Way

ANOVA findings indicate that general education teachers lack familiarity and training in regards

to federal policies and programming that directly affect CLD students. Differences were also

noted among White and Latina educators in terms of their perceptions of CLD student over-

representation and appropriate educational programming practices. Latina educators rated CLD

student programming and services to be less than adequate, while White educators felt that

vi

special education programming and services were adequate in meeting the needs of CLD

students. Educator responses significantly show that over-representation is not seen as a problem

and is not consistent with the rates of representation of CLD students in special education (TEA

data). Findings support the need for collaboration among all educators (bilingual, special and

general education) in meeting the needs of CLD students in order to address the long standing

problem of disproportionate representation. The study also finds that a survey of educator

perceptions may be a viable method for districts and campuses to focus on the problem of over-

representation by investigating educator knowledge, previous experience and perceptions of

disproportionality.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiv Chapter I Introduction .............................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................6

Research Questions .................................................................................................8

Assumptions ............................................................................................................9

Significance of the Study ......................................................................................11

Limitations ............................................................................................................13

Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................14

Organization of the Study .....................................................................................25

Chapter II Review of Literature ..............................................................................................27

Introduction ..........................................................................................................27

Sociohistorical Perspectives .................................................................................29

Current Perspectives ............................................................................................33

Deficit Thinking ....................................................................................................37

Federal Policies .....................................................................................................39

Bilingual Education ..................................................................................41

Special Education ......................................................................................42

Bilingual Special Education ......................................................................43

Court Cases and Litigation ...................................................................................46

viii

Language and Language Policy .............................................................................48

Appropriation of Policies .....................................................................................51

School District Policies and Practices ...................................................................53

Pre-referral ................................................................................................54

Assessment ...............................................................................................56

Eligibility Determination ..........................................................................58

Framing the Research Study .................................................................................59

Measuring Disproportionality ...............................................................................61

Rates of Representation ........................................................................................64

National Rates............................................................................................64

State Rates..................................................................................................66

San Antonio Rates of Representation ......................................................66

Qualitative Research Methods ..............................................................................70

Survey Research Review ..................................................................................... 72

Methodological Difficulties ................................................................................77

Summary .............................................................................................................79

Chapter III Methodology .........................................................................................................82

Introduction ...........................................................................................................82

Research Design and Questions ............................................................................82

Participants ............................................................................................................83

Survey Participants ...................................................................................83

District and Elementary Campus Demographics ......................................84

District and Campus Educator Demographics...........................................85

ix

Student Demographics...............................................................................87

State................................................................................................87

District and Elementary Campuses................................................87

Texas Education Agency .........................................................................89

Instrumentation ....................................................................................................91

Survey Development..................................................................................91

Rates of Representation ............................................................................98

Composition Index.........................................................................98

Risk Index and Odds Ratio ............................................................99

Procedures ..........................................................................................................100

Survey Participation.................................................................................100

Texas Education Agency Data.................................................................101

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................102

Limitations ..........................................................................................................103

Summary ..............................................................................................................104

Chapter IV Results ................................................................................................................105

Introduction..........................................................................................................105

Research Question One .......................................................................................105

Measuring Disproportionality..................................................................105

State Rates of Representation .................................................................106

Composition Index ......................................................................107

Risk Index and Odds Ratio .........................................................110

Sample Rates of Representation .............................................................112

x

Composition Index ......................................................................112

Risk Index and Odds Ratio .........................................................120

Research Question Two .......................................................................................124

Survey of Educator Perceptions...............................................................124

Reliability.....................................................................................124

Validity ........................................................................................125

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) .............................................................127

Dependent and Independent variables .........................................127

Open-Ended Survey Responses ..............................................................138

Training Attended .......................................................................138

Training Needs.............................................................................139

CLD and Special Needs Training ...............................................140

Additional Comments..................................................................140

Research Question Three ....................................................................................143

Chi Square Analyses................................................................................144

Rates of Representation and Educator Perceptions .................................147

Summary ..............................................................................................................154

Chapter V Discussion............................................................................................................156

Introduction..........................................................................................................156

Findings................................................................................................................157

Discussion............................................................................................................160

Implications..........................................................................................................162

Future Research ..................................................................................................164

xi

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................165

Appendix A Institutional Review Board Approval .................................................................166

Appendix B District and Campus Approval Letters ................................................................169

Appendix C Consent to Participate .........................................................................................173

Appendix D Educator Perceptions Survey ..............................................................................175

Appendix E District and Elementary Campus Student Demographics, 2005-2006 ................182

Appendix F District and Elementary Campus Educator Demographics, 2005-2006 ..............185

Appendix G Latino/a District and Campus Rates of Representation, 2005-2006....................188

Appendix H ELL District and Campus Rates of Representation, 2005-2006 .........................189

Appendix I Three-Way ANOVA Results by Survey Subscale ..............................................190

References ...................................................................................................................................196

Vita

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Review of Early Research Studies...........................................................................4

Table 2 Survey Participant Demographics..........................................................................84

Table 3 District and Elementary Campus Participation......................................................85

Table 4 Educator Demographics by State and Participating District, 2005-2006 ..............86

Table 5 State and District Demographics, 2005-2006 ........................................................90

Table 6 Survey Subscales and Number of Items ................................................................96

Table 7 Texas Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 ............................................107

Table 8 Texas Special Education Rates of Representation, 2005-2006 ...........................108

Table 9 African-American Students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006......109

Table 10 Latino/a Students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006......................109

Table 11 White Students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 .........................110

Table 12 Texas Risk Index and Odds Ratio by Ethnicity and Eligibility, 2005-2006........111

Table 13 Composition Index of Students in Special Education by Eligibility ...................113

Table 14 Latino/as in Special Education by District, 2005-2006 .......................................114

Table 15 Latino/a Rates of Representation by Eligibility, 2005-2006 ...............................115

Table 16 African-Americans in Special Education by District, 2005-2006 .......................117

Table 17 African-American Rates of Representation by Eligibility, 2005-2006 ...............119

Table 18 White Student Rates of Representation by Eligibility, 2005-2006......................119

Table 19 ELL/LEP Student Representation in Special Education by District ...................120

Table 20 Learning Disabled Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District .................................121

Table 21 Mental Retardation Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District ...............................122

Table 22 Emotional Disturbance Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District .........................122

xiii

Table 23 Speech Impaired Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District ....................................123

Table 24 Survey Subscale Mean, Standard Deviation and Chronbach’s Alpha.................126

Table 25 Dependent and Independent Variable Descriptive Data for ANOVA.................129

Table 26 Chi Square Results, District One .........................................................................146

Table 27 Chi Square Results, District Two.........................................................................146

Table 28 Chi Square Results, District Three.......................................................................147

Table 29 Chi Square Results, District Four ........................................................................147

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Ethnic/Racial Diversity in Texas and San Antonio, 2003-2004............................67

Figure 2 State and San Antonio ELL/LEP and SpEd, 2003-2004. ......................................69

Figure 3 Interaction for Race/ethnicity on Job/position for S1 ..........................................131

Figure 4 Interaction for Job/position on Total Years Teaching for S2 ..............................133

Figure 5 African-American Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D1 ..............149

Figure 6 Latino/a Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D1.................149

Figure 7 White Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D1 ....................150







1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The problem of over-representation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) or

minority students in special programs and classrooms within U.S. schools has a long history

(Artiles & Trent, 1994; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; Losen &

Orfield, 2002; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). The trend of disproportionate representation of CLD

students includes over-representation in special education and under-representation in gifted

education programs. Factors that influence the rates of representation of minority or CLD

students in special programs include the appropriation (Koyama, 2004) of federal, state and

district policies that guide practices in terms of pre-referral, assessment, eligibility determination

and program placement processes within districts and schools. The term appropriation (Koyama,

2004) is used to describes how educators selectively implement and ignore parts of policy. In

this sense, educators appropriate federal, state, district and campus policies based on their ways

of knowing or understanding.

Research on minority student placement in special education indicates that, “From the

enactment of the 1975 federal law requiring states to provide a free and appropriate public

education to all students with disabilities, children in some race/ethic groups have been identified

for services in disproportionately large numbers” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 1). According to

Artiles and Ortiz (2002b), research findings reveal that some racial and ethnic groups had

disabilities in greater numbers than would be expected, given their percentage in the general

student population, while other groups were significantly under-represented (p. 3).

Disproportionate representation is defined as “the extent to which membership in a given group

affects the probability of being placed in a specific special education disability category”

(Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999, p. 198). A study using ethnographic methods to

2

investigate disproportionate placement in special education, Harry, Klinger, Sturges and Moore

(2002) state that “disproportionality in special education placements occurs through a process of

social construction by which decisions about disability and its appropriate treatments are

negotiated according to official and unofficial beliefs and practices” (p. 71). Research on the

phenomenon of disproportionality has been conducted from interdisciplinary perspectives and

through the use of mixed methods approaches.

Two large scale studies have been commissioned by the Department of Education to the

National Research Council (NRC) to address the problem of over-representation of minority

students in special education. The NRC efforts resulted in two reports, the first, Placing children

in special education: A strategy for equity, (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982), and the most

recent, Minority students in special and gifted education, (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Heller,

Holtzman and Messick (1982) found that although the magnitude of the difference in terms of

over-representation of minority students in special education varies from state to state, the

disproportionate classification of minority students as educable mentally retarded (EMR) was

evident by race/ethnicity nationwide. Donovan and Cross (2002) found that minority students,

particularly American Indian and Black children, are represented in disproportionately large

numbers in some high incidence special education categories (p. 357). Donovan and Cross

(2002) focused on recommendations for both general and special education in addressing

disproportionality. In other words, the education of students who are culturally and linguistically

diverse is the responsibility of all stakeholders and not solely the responsibility of bilingual

educators and/or special educators.

The investigation of the trend of over-representation of CLD students has included the

collection and analysis of national, state and district data obtained through surveys by the Office

3

for Civil Rights (OCR) since the 1970s and now includes the collection of race/ethnic group

placement patterns in ‘high incidence’ eligibility categories mandated by the Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP) through the re-authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (1997, 2004).

Dr. Jane Mercer conducted research in California that focused on Mexican-

American/Hispanic students before the federal special education law of 1975. She found that

Mexican-American students in this CA school district had similar referral rates as other students,

but were more likely to be misdiagnosed and misplaced in special education (Valdés & Figueroa,

1994). Dr. Mercer investigated the use of intelligence tests, acculturation factors, as well as the

referral, testing and placement practices implemented by district personnel with the Mexican-

American/Hispanic student population. Early calls to attention on the problem of over-

representation (See Table 1) indicate problems with the use of a within-child deficit model,

reliance on IQ test scores, and highlight the high referral to placement pattern for Hispanic

students in the early 1970s.

In addition to the early calls to attention on the problem of over-representation, two

research institutes were established in Texas and California (Handicapped Minority Research

Institutes) in the 1980s to investigate factors related to testing, eligibility and placement

outcomes for bilinguals and minorities (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Studies undertaken by the

research institutes found similar patterns of practices that contributed to disproportionality, such

as testing CLD students only in English; reliance on IQ test scores; and high rates of placement

in classrooms for students with mental retardation (MR).

4

Table 1. Review of Early Research Studies

Researcher Year Study Findings

Dunn, Lloyd 1968 Disproportionate numbers of minority students placed in classrooms for educable mental retardation (cited in Artiles & Trent, 1994).

Deno, Evelyn 1970 Preoccupation with, and use of, a pathological model to place and serve students in special education programs is a factor in disproportionality (cited in Artiles & Trent, 1994).

Mercer, Jane 1971

IQ score below 80 was a “necessary but not sufficient” condition for [CLD students] being placed in the Educable Mentally Retarded classes (cited inValdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 125).

Mercer, Jane 1973

Mexican-American students were referred at equal number to White students in the population, but were found eligible and were overrepresented in the number that failed IQ tests and were recommended for placement in classes for educable mentally retarded (cited in Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 125)

Furthermore, Artiles and Trent’s (1994) review of over-representation of minority

students in special education suggested that the early calls to attention on the problem by Dunn

(1968), Deno (1970) and Mercer (Table 1) point toward a need to develop “an encompassing

reform agenda that will include: (a) concept refinement, (b) a culturally sensitive research

agenda, (c) systemic reform, (d) personnel preparation reform and (e) advocacy and policy

making” (p. 426). Although changes in policies have been enacted since these early calls to

attention to the problem of disproportionality, systemic modification, advocacy, and litigation

have not resulted in amelioration or deterrence of the problem.

Artiles and Trent (1994) concluded that “the over-representation problem ought to be

examined from a multivariate perspective and that the problems exhibited by culturally different

children ought to be explained beyond the traditional within-child deficit view” (p. 426). Artiles

and Ortiz (2002b) state that taking into account the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of

5

students within “a comprehensive system of services — from prereferral to instruction — will

force professionals to transcend what until now has been the field’s almost exclusive focus on

student deficits” (p. 19). Research, educational policies and practices need to move beyond

ascribing special education labels based on perceived within-child, home or community

deficiencies. Furthermore, research efforts must be multivariate in nature.

Using national and state level data on minority student representation may not reveal

local district and campus patterns of disproportionality (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda,

2005; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Losen & Orfield, 2002; Rhodes, Ochoa, &

Ortiz, 2005; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). In addition, the differential appropriation of federal,

state and district policies by educators’ results in a wide range of practices that develop.

According to Donovan and Cross (2002), imprecision is inherent in specifying variables in

datasets used by federal government agencies, OCR and OSEP, which provides a limitation to

the findings in the area of disproportionality.

The research points to a need for disaggregation of data in order to discern

disproportionality and examine it from a district and local campus level. Investigations should

encompass both the sociocultural and linguistic backgrounds of students (Artiles & Ortiz,

2002b). The variables explored in disproportionality studies include systemic factors (e.g.,

tracking, segregation), as well as the variables of race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status,

program availability and placement. In addition, implementation and appropriation of district

policies, practices and procedures is affected by educational funding and top-down

accountability measures.

6

Statement of the Problem

Demographic changes in the U.S. indicate that a large proportion of students entering

schools come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Studies that have

investigated the question of over-representation point to variability across time and place in

terms of the patterns of ethnic disproportionality in special education (Harry & Klingner, 2006,

p. 2). Disproportionality studies have focused on categorical variables and tend to be: a)

aggregated in terms of the placement rate of CLD students in all disability categories; b)

aggregated by state level placement rates; and c) do not account for the shift in use of specific

disability categories over time (Harry & Klingner, 2006). The variability in results points to a

need for disaggregation of the data at different levels within district and campus in terms of

program availability and placement as well as diversity within groups represented in the school

population, such as Hispanics/Latinos (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Artiles &

Trent, 1994).

Furthermore, investigations need to include “the proclivities of teachers, administrators,

and parents” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 76) on the problem of over-representation. Losen and

Orfield (2002) state that one of the key elements to the problem, is “the perceptions and

decisions of classroom teachers, as well as school-level policies and practices that have an

impact on students in regular classrooms” (p. xxv). Research studies that focus on the outcomes

rather than the processes and practices provide limited insight into the static phenomenon of

over-representation; therefore, studies need to start from an investigation of educator

perceptions, or ways of knowing. There is limited research that includes the examination of the

problem of over-representation through the examination of mediating variables such as teacher

beliefs and perceptions within decision-making processes (Artiles & Trent, 1994, p. 428). In this

7

sense both special education and the general education practices, need to be explored in terms of

the construction of difference and disability (Artiles, 1998; McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne,

2006).

Due to policies, practices and the political nature of schooling, educators may have been

socialized to equate cultural diversity with disability (Artiles & Trent, 1994, p. 425). Current

practices that encompass deficit perspectives, as well as the continued use of a medical model for

the process of referral, assessment, eligibility determination and placement of students into

special education, require a paradigm shift from school personnel involved in the educational

decision-making process (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Artiles and Trent (1994) concluded that

from a social perspective, we have continued to develop educational structures without examining and considering how the belief systems, biases, prejudices, and socioeconomic inequities that have existed for centuries in the American society would be played out and perpetuated in our nation’s schools…and reiterate that the time to extend [the] analyses of the problems and pitfalls of special education needs to encompass sociohistorical and political perspectives (p. 432).

An investigation of educator perceptions appears pertinent, given that deficit

thinking models continue to (re)surface in educational thought and practice (Valencia,

1997b), in times of sociopolitical tensions. This study utilizes theoretical frameworks

(Artiles, 1998; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998; Valencia, 1997b) that challenge deficit

theories of CLD students. Deficit theories have guided general and special education

policies and programming which shape educators’ perceptions of CLD students. The

investigation of educators’ perceptions of CLD students may provide a better

understanding of the problem of over-representation.

In addition, the current school reform agenda (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act) aimed at

equity and inclusion of all students in U.S. education, appears to penalize the students, such as

8

English Language Learners (ELL) and those identified as needing special education, whom the

Act claims to ‘help’ through measuring accountability. The institutionalized practices that have

been appropriated based on federal policies serve as mechanisms for the continuation of deficit

thinking and subtractive educational practices (see Valenzuela, 1999, 2005). The negative

consequences for CLD students is in part the ascription of a label after having been measured

against a monolingual, monoliterate English-language standard that results in inaccurate and

invalid assessment of their capabilities (De la Luz Reyes & Halcón, 2001; Valencia & Suzuki,

2001) and leads to misplacement and misdiagnosis (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994) in special

education programs.

The research on the phenomenon of disproportionality requires not only understanding

the measurement of over-representation indexes, ratios, and odds, but calls for an examination of

the belief systems, biases, and prejudices of all stakeholders. Educators’ epistemological beliefs

shape the selection and implementation of policies that directly impact CLD and ELL students in

U.S. schools.

Research Questions

Based on a review of the literature on the problem of disproportionality of CLD students

at the intersection of bilingual education and special education, there appears to be a need for

further research in terms of educator perceptions, as well as a need to understand the

measurements used in reporting rates of representation of CLD students by way of

disaggregating of data, to discern the continued trend from the bottom-up. The study seeks to

determine if over-representation of minority students in special education is perceived as a

concern/problem in the South Texas area and compare these perceptions to actual Texas

Education Agency (TEA) data. The research questions are:

9

1) What are the rates of representation of CLD students in special education by

ethnicity/race, eligibility category, and language status in the South Texas area?

What are the rates of representation of ELLs (LEP) in special education?

2) Do educator perceptions differ in regards to disproportionality of CLD students in

special education? Do school personnel perceptions differ based on their school

position, ethnicity/race, gender, or years of experience?

3) Do school personnel perceptions on disproportionality of CLD students differ in

comparison to actual TEA data for the selected school district and campus?

The complex nature of the phenomenon of over-representation is a daunting area of

investigation. This seems to be complicated by the variability in results based on determining

relative rates of representation (e.g., risk index, odds ratio). In addition, states and districts vary

in how they select, report, and implement federal and state policies that guide practices.

Assumptions

The research suggests that CLD students are over-represented in special education

programs within ‘subjective, soft or judgmental’ disability categories such as mental retardation

(MR), Learning Disability (LD), Emotionally Disturbed (ED) and Speech and Language

Impaired (SI). Although the OCR does not collect data on the rates of representation for the

speech impaired (SI) category, this is an area that has shown variability in over-representation

rates for CLD students by geographic region (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Valdés & Figueroa,

1994). At the national and state level, Hispanic/Latino students tend to be over-represented in

LD categorization and have historically been over-represented and placed in programs for

students with Mental Retardation (MR). Variability in representation rates is affected by the

composition or density of ethnic/racial groups as well as by geographic area (Donovan & Cross,

10

2002; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). School districts in the

South Texas area may display variability in terms of the rates of representation of CLD, Latino/a

and students considered ELLs.

Educator perceptions of over-representation of CLD students in special education could

differ from the actual data reported from TEA. Educators’ previous experience and training may

influence their perception of students who are CLD. Educators who work in districts considered

higher in socioeconomic means (based on TEA indicator) and have lower concentrations of CLD

and LEP/ELL students may not consider over-representation of CLD students in special

education a problem regardless of the eligibility category or language status of the student

(Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). Educators who work in school districts considered

to be in the lower socioeconomic brackets (based on TEA indicator) and have high

concentrations of CLD and ELL/LEP students may not consider over-representation a problem

due to the lack of ethnic/race, and class diversity in the population (Heller, Holtzman, &

Messick, 1982).

Lastly, school personnel perceptions of CLD, Latino/a and ELL students differ based on

their educational background, training, and school position as well as by ethnicity/race, gender or

years of experience. Familiarity with education policies that guide practices influence educator

perceptions of CLD students and the phenomenon of over-representation. In survey data

collection, researchers assume that educators’ responses are valid and reflect their beliefs. The

purpose of the research is twofold: 1) to examine the rates of representation of CLD students in

special education in selected districts and elementary campuses, and 2) determine differences in

educator perceptions of the phenomenon of disproportionality.

11

Significance of the Study

The problem of over-representation of CLD students in special education “has largely

been ignored by researchers and practitioners in general education” (Artiles, Klinger, & Tate,

2006, p. 3). The traditional explanations of CLD or minority school failure and over-

representation in special programs requires a paradigm shift away from binary explanations such

as race/ethnic differences, as well as a move away from the division of professional

responsibility for the ‘problem’ lying solely with education specialties, such as bilingual or

special education (Artiles, Klinger, & Tate, 2006).

This mixed methods research design (Creswell, 2003) aims at understanding the

complexities of the problem of over-representation through the use of multiple methods of data

collection to compare and converge findings within one study. Concurrent data collection

includes survey collection and TEA data from selected districts and campuses. CLD students’

language, culture, and socio-economic class background are variables that compound the

phenomenon of disproportionality grounded in educator ways of knowing, as well as the

selection and implementation of federal and state policies within U.S. schools. Additionally,

data is provided that demonstrates how educators’ interpretation of policies at the campus level

affects CLD students’ educational programming.

Another aspect of the study aims to provide baseline data, which includes descriptive

profiles of districts and elementary schools in the South Texas area through the examination of

data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA). The TEA data was used to 1) compare

campus/district educators’ perceptions to the actual proportions of CLD students in special

education, and 2) obtain the composition index, odds ratio and risk index of CLD students. Data

disaggregation included the variables of ethnicity/race, eligibility category, program placement

12

and language status. An investigation of the rates of representation of CLD students in high

incidence eligibility categories of MR, ED, LD and SI in the selected South Texas districts and

elementary campuses may provide the basis for further qualitative and quantitative research.

Therefore, the use of a mixed methods approach provides an avenue for understanding the

complex nature of the problem of over-representation.

Current federal regulation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997,

2004), mandate that states and districts collect and report data on minority student representation

in special education by category and educational setting. Using national and state level data on

minority student representation may not reveal local district and campus patterns of

disproportionality (Artiles, et al. , 2005; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). In addition, examining

data solely based on statistics may not provide insight into the perceptions of school/district

personnel involved in the decision-making process. The entrenched educational thoughts and

practices could preclude individuals from realizing the existence and perpetuation of a decade’s

long problem of disproportionality.

Finally, the ramifications of discriminatory sociopolitical and sociohistorical schooling

practices do not appear to be deterring the negative trend in education reform policies focused on

accountability and use of standardized testing (e.g., No Child Left Behind). Further, there is a

lack of research on within-group diversity, such as Puerto Ricans, Central Americans, and Cuban

Americans, under the category of Hispanic/Latino, which simultaneously examines the influence

of language and ethnic status on special education representation (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, &

Higareda, 2005; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005, p. 19).

13

Limitations

Any research design has limitations based on knowledge claims and the approach to the

research inquiry. Strategies associated with mixed methods approaches involve collecting and

analyzing data that could be qualitative and quantitative in nature within one study (Creswell,

2003). This study aims to collect and analyze data concurrently, to capture a picture of the

phenomenon of disproportionality, which in itself is varied and complex. The data for this study

cannot be dichotomized as strictly quantitative or qualitative, but rather is a collection and

analysis of mixed/multiple sources of data to provide a broad perspective of the problem of

disproportionality (Creswell, 2003).

Research utilizing surveys has limitations based on the participants’ views of CLD

students and the ensuing education programming and practices appropriated within the

classrooms and schools in which they work. Survey data is based on participant self-report and

one assumes that participants answer the questions truthfully. The reliability of survey

items/domains is important as well. Due to this, statistical analysis of the survey developed was

completed for internal consistency (reliability) and evidence of validity of the scores based on

items adapted from a review of the literature. The items developed for inclusion in the survey

attempt to capture complex multivariate phenomena. A review of the literature in

multidisciplinary areas was conducted to locate previous surveys on disproportionality and

educator perceptions. The review of the literature found questionnaires that addressed educator

perceptions, training, and practices, but did not include questions directly related to

disproportionality; therefore, items from previous surveys were adapted in addition to new items

developed for the survey entitled, “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:

Educational Practices, Policies and Programming” (See Appendix D). The review of the

14

research included the areas of general education, bilingual education, special education, bilingual

special education, as well as school psychology.

A limitation of databases, such as the one used by the Texas Education Agency, includes

the narrow criteria set for categories/variables. For example, recent immigrants/refugees from

Africa may be erroneously coded as African-American by district personnel (Gershberg,

Danenberg, & Sánchez, 2004) due to the lack of specificity available for coding race/ethnicity.

There is great variability in not only the reporting of data, but in the interpretation of the

categories offered as choices, such as ethnicity/race, language, and socioeconomic status. In

addition, the criteria for eligibility may differ at any level in which federal and state regulations

are selectively implemented. The individual entering the data becomes a factor in which

accuracy of reporting would come into question. For state and federal level data, these figures

are directly tied to funding, school and district ratings, and with the current NCLB act, the data

are tied to accountability. The negative consequences involved with the reporting of data to state

and federal databases for CLD students may be a factor that affects educator perceptions of

disproportionality. At the same time, the lack of understanding the direct impact of the data,

educators’ responsibility for considering or ameliorating disproportionality as a ‘problem’ is

perhaps not evident.

Definition of Terms

Due to the multivariate nature of the phenomena of over-representation of students in

special education, terms are used from several disciplines. The meanings of words change over

time, based on the relationship to changing political, social and economic situations and needs;

therefore, a term in general use can have variable meanings and uses (Bennett, Grossberg, &

Morris, 2005). A review of the terms within the intersection of bilingual and special education,

15

as well as education in general, along with some operational definitions, are provided. To assist

with the understanding and consistency of terms and categories, language used by federal

education policy and laws, which are primarily used for reporting purposes by U.S. institutions,

was a starting point from which definitions that encompass the scope of this study were

expanded or (re)structured.

The following terms and acronyms are situated within the context of schooling within the

U.S., as well as in the state of Texas, according to the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Texas

Education Agency (TEA) and the State Board of Education (SBOE). Federal terms and

categories are used to provide consistency of terms at a national level (e.g., Hispanics) when

appropriate in referring to policy or law. Unique terms and acronyms used in the state of Texas

include ARD and LPAC, which are not applicable to terms used in other states in the U.S. In

addition, the field of education is embedded with a plethora of acronyms which are used in lieu

of the entire term and are appropriated with variability by state, district and school. The

definitions pertinent to this study are presented in alphabetical order.

Admission Review and Dismissal Committee (ARD): The ARD committee is specific to

the state of Texas. This is comprised of campus based personnel which includes administrators,

teachers, parents, and specialists that convene when making decisions on students who are being

admitted to special education initially, or being considered for exit. The committee is charged

with annually reviewing the progress of students with disabilities based on the individualized

education program (IEP). It is the responsibility of a multidisciplinary teams, sometimes

referred to as MDT, to review the results of assessments and to determine whether a student has

a legally defined disability and due to the disability requires special education services (Ortiz &

Yates, 2002). “By law, the multidisciplinary team is made up of a representative of the school

16

administration, instructional representatives from special education and general education,

assessors, the student’s parent, and if appropriate, the student” (Ortiz & Yates, 2002, p. 79).

Team members who are familiar with the student and his/her educational programming, such as

ESL, bilingual education or special education, along with the general education personnel should

participate in the meeting.

Bilingual and Bilingualism: Hakuta (1986) describes bilingualism as a pattern of co-

existence, cooperation and competition formed by two languages in the individual. Bilingualism

is a relative term that researchers have described as one phenomenon in which individuals

possess knowledge of two languages rather than one (Hakuta, 1986; Mackey, 2000; Romaine,

1995; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Valdés and Figueroa (1994) indicate that because of the

complex nature of bilingualism, researchers have developed categories to help with measuring

and describing these differences within individuals and groups. One typology is that of elective

and circumstantial bilinguals. Circumstantial bilinguals are individuals who acquire a second

language out of necessity, compared to elective bilinguals who have chosen to learn a second

language. Circumstantial bilinguals may be groups or individuals who come from various

backgrounds and may be immigrants or descendents of colonized groups in the U.S. (Valdés &

Figueroa, 1994). The categories of circumstantial vs. elective bilingual are not mutually

exclusive, in that a circumstantial bilingual can elect to learn another language.

Bilingual education: Bilingual education is broadly defined as an educational program

that involves the use of two languages of instruction at some point in a student’s school career

(Nieto, 2004, p. 224).

Bilingual Special Education (BSE): The use of the home language and the home culture,

along with English in an individually designed program of special instruction for the student in

17

an inclusive environment, is described as bilingual special education (Baca & De Valenzuela,

1998). Fernandez (1992) defines bilingual special education as special instruction and related

services individually designed to meet the educational needs of LEP students with disabilities.

In Texas, BSE is described in terms of the service delivery options and is not designated as a

separate educational program.

Competencies: A review of training related to English language learners by Ochoa,

Rivera and Ford (1997) used competencies identified by Figueroa, et al. (1984). These include

knowledge of: (a) cross-cultural issues involved in bilingual psycho-educational assessment; (b)

second language acquisition factors and their relationship to assessment; and (c) methods to

conduct bilingual psycho-educational assessment (Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997, p. 333). Ochoa,

et al. (1997) added a fourth competency that pertains to the ability to interpret the results of the

bilingual psycho-educational assessments. In this study, these four competencies were kept in

mind when developing survey items for educators involved in the referral to special education

placement process. Ochoa, et al. (1997), developed a survey to investigate school psychologist

training in regards to the bilingual evaluation process. This study expands on the use of these

competencies to include educators’ level of training and experience in these areas with culturally

and linguistically diverse students.

Composition Index: The composition index is calculated by dividing the number of

students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category by the total

number of students (summed across all racial/ethnic groups) enrolled in that same disability

category (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). The composition index (CI) would reflect the

proportion of students placed and served in special education by eligibility category/disability.

18

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD): Culturally diverse refers to students who

may be distinguished by ethnicity, social class, and/or language (Pérez, 2004). The term

linguistically diverse refers to students whose first language or home language is either a

language other than English or a language other than the middle-class, mainstream English used

in schools (Pérez, 2004, p. 6). Artiles and Ortiz (2002a) state that the term culturally and

linguistically diverse is the broadest term and encompasses students, from African-Americans to

recently arrived immigrants, whose language and cultural backgrounds vary from that of the

mainstream (p. 19). The term culturally and linguistically diverse is preferred and used

throughout the study to be inclusive of all students, while specific terms used for government

categorization (e.g., Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, ELL, minority) are applied based on

the original study/research cited, as well as for consistency in data clarification in quantitative

methods.

Culture and Cultural Studies: According to Raymond Williams (1983), culture is one of

the most complicated words in the English language (p. 87). Traditionally culture has been

described as a social phenomenon that encompasses a set of norms, values, beliefs, and customs

shared by a group of people. Culture is a socially constructed concept. Conventional definitions

of culture include all the external factors that influence an individual’s behavior, ideology,

thought process, and everything that an individual is born and socialized into. Culture is referred

to as a “particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or a group” (Bennett, Grossberg, &

Morris, 2005, p. 67). Some of the social components of culture include the description of a

particular way of life, which expresses itself in certain meanings and values as part of ‘ordinary’

behavior. According to Gray (2003) one key focus in cultural studies research is that of

understanding culture as constitutive of and constituted by ‘the lived,’ that is the material, social

19

and symbolic practices of everyday life (p. 1). In this study, the term culture is used to describe

students, homes and communities as diverse with the understanding that groups are not

monolithic.

Deficit Thinking Models: Valencia (1997b) and colleagues indicate that the concept of

deficit thinking is 1) a mind-set molded by the fusion of ideology and science; 2) a dynamic form

of social thought allegedly accounting for between-group behaviors; and 3) an actual way of

thinking to combat problems. For example, a top-down approach or blaming the victim (p. xi).

Valencia (1997a) describes six characteristics of deficit thinking in the following contexts: 1)

blaming the victim; 2) oppression; 3) pseudoscience; 4) temporal changes; 5) educability; and 6)

heterodoxy (p. 3). Deficit thinking models are ideologically based on blaming the victim.

School segregation, high-stakes testing, compulsory ignorance laws are examples of how deficit

thinking models were forms of oppression for groups in the U.S. Valencia (1997a) also

describes how pseudo-scientific investigations have been used to advance deficit theories for

CLD groups. Deficit thinking is also dynamic and fluid, in that deficit thinking changes based

on the sociopolitical context of the time. In terms of educability, Valencia (1997a) states that

educators frequently attribute school failure to students and success to themselves. Lastly,

models which challenge deficit thinking models have been present (heterodoxy), yet they had

little influence on changing the status quo (orthodoxy).

Disproportionate representation: Defined as the extent to which membership in a given

group affects the probability of being placed in a specific special education category” (Oswald,

Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999) or special education service option (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, &

Higareda, 2005).

20

Educators and Practitioners: Throughout the study, the word educator is used to be

inclusive of all stakeholders in education, such as teachers, policymakers, evaluation specialists,

administrators, counselors, as well as university researchers/professors, etc. The term educator

thus would not solely apply or refer to classroom teachers. Koyama (2004) indicates that

practitioners include those involved in policy making, interpretation and implementation. In this

sense, all educators within the micropolitical space of the classroom, as well as the

macropolitical space (public sphere) of state and federal institutions would be ‘educators,’ and

would participate in daily practices that include policymaking through interpretation and

appropriation. Koyama (2004) is guided by Sutton and Levinson (2001, p.1), who define policy

as “a complex social practice, an ongoing process of normative cultural production constituted

by diverse actors across diverse social and institutional contexts” (cited on p. 404).

Emotional Disturbance (ED): Refers to a condition exhibiting one or more of the

following characteristics that adversely affects a child’s educational performance: an inability to

build or maintain interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; inappropriate types of

behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or

depression; a tendency to develop physical symptoms of fears associated with personal or school

problems (Smith, 2001, cited in Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b, pp. 3-4).

English Language Learner (ELL) and Limited English Proficient (LEP): The term

limited English proficient has a negative connotation and the most current term is English

Language Learner (Carrasquillo & Rodríguez, 2002). Other terms used to describe linguistically

diverse students are second language learners and language-minority students (Pérez, 2004).

English language learners are students whose first or home language is other than English and

whose English skills are so limited that they cannot profit from instruction provided entirely in

21

English without support (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002a, pp. 19-20). In addition, Artiles and Ortiz state

that educators are increasing using the term English language learner (ELL) in place of limited

English proficient (LEP) to avoid the negative connotation of ‘limited’ as a descriptor of student

abilities, although LEP is still the official designation in government, laws and public policy

(Artiles & Ortiz, 2002a, p. 20).

Language minority student: The term refers to individuals from homes where a language

other than English is actively used, who therefore have an opportunity to develop some level of

proficiency in a language other than English (August & Hakuta, 1998). Minority refers to

quantitative differences in which the most relevant characteristic is that of a superordinate–

subordinate status relationship with the majority within a nation-state.

Language, Language Policy: Language is the medium by and through which individuals

define and inhabit their own identities and, in the process, assess and ascribe the identities of

others. It is often these differences in identities (whether achieved or ascribed) that lead to

conflicts in which language would play an important role (Ricento, 2006a). Sutton and Levinson

(2001), define policy as “a complex social practice, an ongoing process of normative cultural

production constituted by diverse actors across diverse social and institutional contexts” (p. 1)

(cited in Koyama, 2004, p. 404). Ricento (2006b) states that Language Policy is an

interdisciplinary field that focuses on research relevant to language matters in education, history,

sociology and other fields. Schools are sites where language policies determine or influence

what language(s) we will learn and speak.

Language rights: have been referred to as language minority rights, and linguistic

human rights. These terms can be described as the cultural, linguistic, and wider social and

political rights attributable to minority-group members, usually, but not exclusively, within the

22

context of nation-states (May, 2006). In the U.S., bilingual education programs emerged through

the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The notion of language rights plays a role in the development

and maintenance of bilingual education programs in the U.S. The definition of language rights,

is based on the usual distinction between so-called minority and majority groups employed in the

sociological and political literature; a distinction that is based not on numerical size, but on

clearly observable differences among groups in relation to power, status, and entitlement (May,

2006).

Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC): The LPAC committee is charged

with the identification, assessment and placement of students considered LEP in bilingual

education programs in Texas. These campus-based committees are regulated by state policy and

mandated by federal education policies aimed at students considered English language learners

(ELL) or limited English proficient (LEP).

Learning Disability: A learning disability indicates that an individual’s overall

development is within the normal range, but that there is a specific area of learning (most

frequently reading) in which the child falls significantly below the norm for his/her age (Harry &

Klingner, 2006). Learning disability as refers to “a disorder in one or more of the basic

psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that

may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do

mathematical calculations” (Smith, 2001, cited in Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b, p. 3).

Mental Retardation: The term mental retardation is defined as substantial limitations in

present functioning. It is characterized by significantly below average intellectual functioning as

well as adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community

use, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work (Smith, 2001, cited in Artiles &

23

Ortiz, 2002a, p. 3). Educable mental retardation is used to refer to a significant delay or

impairment in overall global development and functioning (Harry & Klingner, 2006, p. 4).

Distinctions in terms of the level of severity of mental retardation include mild, moderate,

severe, and profound. Students determined to fall within the mild range of mental retardation

have historically been classified as ‘educable’ (EMR). Special education and the label of EMR

have had stigmatizing and negative effects for CLD students from a sociohistorical perspective

(Harry & Klingner, 2006).

Odds ratio: The odds ratio divides the risk index of one racial/ethnic group (e.g.,

Hispanic) by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group (e.g., White) and provides a

comparative index of risk (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). The odds ratios for ethnic/racial

groups are typically presented in comparison to White students, in which a ratio greater than 1.0

indicates that ethnic/racial groups are at greater risk of identification for special education

(Donovan & Cross, 2002).

Psycho-educational evaluation/assessment: Students being referred for special education

go through an evaluation process in order to determine eligibility. A psycho-educational

evaluation includes both academic and psychological testing for students referred to special

education. Bilingual psycho-educational evaluations are those that are required for CLD

students. Since Public Law 94-142, students are required to be evaluated in their primary

language (Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997).

Risk Index: The risk index (RI) is calculated by dividing the number of students in a

given racial/ethnic category (e.g., Hispanic) placed in a given disability category (e.g., LD) by

the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population (Donovan & Cross,

24

2002). The RI provides the percentage of all students in a given ethnic/racial group identified in

a specific eligibility category (e.g., MR) (Donovan & Cross, 2002).

Special Education: Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to

the parents, to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability.

Speech and Language Impaired: Although a speech impairment is not considered within

the ‘high incidence’ disability categories, this eligibility may be problematic for ELL and CLD

students. A speech impairment is defined as a the lack of production of sounds (words) that have

meaning in a given culture (language), which is indicative of a disorder (Kirk, Gallagher,

Anastasiow, & Coleman, 2006). Kirk, et al. (2006) distinguish between a communication

disorder and a language disorder because they have different origins and require different

interventions. A speech disorder is one that affects articulation, voice, or fluency (Kirk,

Gallagher, Anastasiow, & Coleman, 2006, p. 260). A language disorder is “the impairment or

deviant development of comprehension or use (or both) of a spoken, written, or other verbal

symbol system” (p. 260). A communication disorder, according to the American Speech and

Hearing Association (ASHA), is an impairment in the ability to receive, send, process, and

comprehend concepts of verbal, nonverbal, and graphic symbol systems (Kirk, Gallagher,

Anastasiow, & Coleman, 2006, pp. 262-263).

Student with a disability: Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow and Coleman (2006) state that the

term exceptional child is generally accepted to include both the child with developmental

disabilities and the child who is exceptionally able. The exceptional child is defined as a child

who differs from the average or normal child in (1) mental characteristics, (2) sensory abilities,

(3) communication abilities, (4) behavior and emotional development, and (5) physical

characteristics (Kirk et al., 2006, p. 3). Students with differences do not automatically require or

25

qualify for services, unless these differences occur to such an extent that the child requires either

modification of school practices or special educational services to meet his/her unique needs. A

student identified as eligible for special education services under the federal guidelines of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) must be determined to receive special

education and related services by a team of qualified professionals and the parent based on a

variety of sources.

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is presented in five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem of

disproportionality and the purpose of the study. The research questions and assumptions are

presented followed by the significance of the study and the limitations. The definition of terms

is followed by the organization of the study.

Chapter Two introduces the problem of over-representation along with a review of the

relevant literature in terms of the trends within a sociohistorical perspective. The role of deficit

thinking is reviewed within the backdrop of federal and state policies relating to bilingual

education, special education and bilingual special education. A review of language policies and

litigation relating to CLD students is included. The tools used to ‘measure’ the problem of

disproportionality, such as the composition index, odds ratio and risk index, are reviewed.

School district policies and practices are delineated within the scope of a review of previous

small scale studies, which frame the development of the current study. A review of

methodological difficulties encountered in research with CLD populations is discussed.

Chapter Three outlines the research design, including a description of the participating

districts and schools. Four school districts and 13 elementary campuses are included in the

sample. Four hundred and thirty-nine educators in the selected districts and elementary

26

campuses completed a survey on educator perceptions of bilingual education and special

education programming, policies and practices related to CLD students and disproportionality.

Utilizing the review of literature, Chapter Three begins with the methodology for data collection

including survey development and participation, data from Texas Education Agency (TEA),

followed by the procedures for data collection and analyses.

Chapter Four contains a restatement of the research questions followed by the analyses

and findings. Each research question is presented along with the corresponding analyses. The

three research questions provide insight into the problem of disproportionality from the

perspective of educators in addition to data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

Chapter Five provides a discussion of the findings and conclusions. Implications and

recommendations are provided for research, practice and policy.

27

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

One of the challenges that has re-surfaced for educators is the prevention, reduction and

elimination of the problem of disproportionality of CLD students placed in special education.

Valencia, Menchaca and Valenzuela (1993) stated that, “As our nation approach[ed] a new

century, the improvement of schooling for economically disadvantaged racial/ethnic minority

students [would present] one of the greatest challenges ever faced by educators and policymakers

(cited in Valencia, 1997a, p. 1). CLD students who enter U.S. schools have their cultural and

linguistic capital devalued, and are perceived as a ‘problem.’ Over-representation of CLD

students in special education continues as a dilemma, a problem, and a nationwide phenomenon

which calls for an affirmation of the problem within the educational context where it originates

− general education; as well as a collaborative effort in ameliorating this static phenomenon

(Artiles, Klingner, & Tate, 2006).

Educational services for CLD students must take into account their linguistic and cultural

backgrounds, in which Artiles and Ortiz (2002b) argue requires an emphasis on a comprehensive

system of program options. One that will force professionals to transcend what until now has

been almost an exclusive focus on student deficits (p. 19). CLD student over-representation in

special education occurs within ‘high incidence’ categories, such as learning disabled (LD),

mental retardation (MR), speech impaired (SI), and emotional disturbance (ED). Low incidence

disabilities include multiple disabilities, visual impairment, orthopedic impairment, other health

impairment, visual impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blind, and developmental

delay. In these ‘low incidence’ categories, there does not appear to be evidence of systematic

variation by ethnicity/race (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006).

28

The problem of over-representation of CLD students in special education is complicated

by the apparent paradox of special education. In that, special education resources provided

through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the right to an

individualized education program are framed within a process that requires a child to be “labeled

as having a disability” in order to receive services (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 2). The label

signals substandard performance, although intended to provide accommodation, assistance and

support, it may bring lowered expectations on the part of teachers, other children, and the

identified students (Donovan & Cross, 2002).

In this study, the theoretical frameworks used to help understand educator perceptions of

CLD students include deficit thinking models that have influenced general education and special

education policies and practices (Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998; Valencia, 1997b). Deficit

theories have held the longest currency in educational thought and practice. Valencia and

colleagues (Valencia, 1997b) provide an analysis of these deficit theories which is a term used

for the theory of school failure of CLD students. Trent, Artiles, and Englert (1998) argue toward

a change in theory, research and practice in special education that historically, has relied on

models that attributed learning and behavior problems to deficits within children. Trent, et al.

(1998) state that special education instructional approaches were derived from deficit thinking

perspectives.

This chapter provides a review of the literature in both sociohistorical and contemporary

perspectives that frame the study on disproportionality. A general review of the research include

a critique of deficit thinking models in educational thought and practice and federal education

policies, such as bilingual education and special education. Court cases and litigation are

reviewed after a discussion on language and language policy which shape educator practices.

29

Next, a review of school district policies and practices in terms of the prereferral to eligibility

determination is included. Finally, empirical research conducted to date is reviewed to frame the

dissertation.

Sociohistorical perspective

In tracing the problem of over-representation of CLD student in special education, Artiles

and Trent (1994) begin by asking the pertinent question, “Is over-representation a problem?” (p.

410). As Artiles and Trent (1994) argue that disproportionality is a problem, this study attempts

to fill a need in the research utilizing multiple lenses and an interdisciplinary perspectives that

incorporates a multivariate layered approach to understanding the continuing discussion. Artiles

and Trent (1994) argue that the issue of over-representation needs to be reexamined from a

broader perspective in order to understand how and why it has stubbornly persisted.

The majority of investigations on disproportionality suggest that over-representation has

continued to be a problem for CLD students in which the referral, evaluation, eligibility and

placement process comes into question. The social movement of the 1960s brought the plight of

the poor and minority groups in the U.S. to the forefront. This era resulted in the creation of

federal education programs that addressed the needs of CLD and minority students/groups in the

U.S. Before this era, students with special needs were simply denied access to the educational

system (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Losen & Orfield, 2002). The earliest calls to attention of

minority over-representation in special education included the segregation and placement of

CLD students in classrooms for students with mental retardation, as well as concerns in the use

of the “medical model” to diagnose, place, and serve students in special education programs

(Artiles & Trent, 1994, p. 410; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

30

The research has suggested a trend for over-representation of CLD students under the

classification categories of mentally retarded in the 1970s, which shifted in the 1980s and 1990s

into the categories of learning disabilities and speech and language problems (Coutinho &

Oswald, 2004; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; National Research Council, 2002; Rhodes,

Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Variation by race/ethnic group eligibility in

low incidence disability categories (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006) has been

a concern, with much of the research focusing on African-American/Black students, as well as

on racial/ethnic group differences. Studies on over-representation have indicated clear

geographic and demographic conditions in the trend of over-representation of CLD students in

the U.S. (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982).

For Hispanic/Latino children, the work of Dr. Jane Mercer in the 1970s has been

“unparalleled in documenting how the school-based diagnostic process presents two alternatives.

Either Hispanic children are less intelligent and hence should be over-represented in classes for

mentally retarded, or the process, particularly the testing, fails with Hispanic children” (cited in

Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 127). A trend in disproportionality of placement of students in

special education appears to be evident based on the availability of educational programming

(e.g., bilingual education, ESL, and special education).

Research trends in the area of disproportionality have primarily focused on over-

representation and racial/ethnic differences (Hosp & Reschley, 2003; Losen & Orfield, 2002).

Studies have also focused on African-American student [males] (Harry & Klingner, 2006;

Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999) placement in restrictive settings. Katzman (2003)

indicates that the problem of over-representation of students of color, especially of African-

American males, dates back to 1954 and the Brown vs. Board of Education decision (p. 225).

31

Disproportionality tends to measured by comparing ethnic/minority group representation to the

rates of White students.

Less research on disproportionality has been conducted on other ethnic groups, and less

research is available on within-ethnic group diversity in terms of disproportionality (Artiles,

Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). While Katzman (2003) traces the problem of

disproportionality for African-American students from 1954, Yzquierdo Mclean (1995) and B.

M. Flores (2005) provides historical reviews of bilingual assessment, and deficit thinking related

to bilingual and Spanish speaking children beginning at the turn of the century (1900).

Historically, public schools were not compulsory, and before its enforcement at the turn

of the twentieth century, relatively few children of working-class families completed or were

expected to complete a high school education (Aronowitz, 1997). At the advent of compulsory

schooling, segregation for non-White groups have been constructed in implicit and explicit ways.

Yet, Giroux (1997) and others involved within a progressive education frame, argue that

education has been necessary to human progress, not only technically and economically but also

in terms of emancipation.

A review of bilingual special education programming (Baca & Cervantez, 1998; Bernal,

1983; Ruiz, Figueroa, Rueda, & Beaumont, 1992) and bilingual assessment (Hamayan &

Damico, 1991; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Yzquierdo Mclean, 1995) practices point to the

continued phenomenon of disproportionality and the continuation of questionable practices, such

as testing (IQ tests) for basing educational placement decisions. For Hispanic students Ruiz, et

al. (1992), state that “they continue to enter the special education process under suspect

circumstances” (p. 350). The establishment of two Hispanic Minority research institutes

indicated a significant increase in Hispanic student identification for special education.

32

According to Valdés and Figueroa (1994) the data from the Hispanic Minority Institutes

established in the 1980s concluded that the laws and court cases proscribing malpractice with

bilingual children did not have an affect on diagnostic testing practices (p. 152) or the

improvement of Hispanic/Latino student outcomes. In addition, there continues to be a scarcity

of appropriate assessment instruments and a lack of personnel trained to conduct linguistically

and culturally relevant assessments (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

Donovan and Cross (2002) state that since the passage of the federal special education

law in 1975 (PL 94-142), now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

there has been racial disproportion in the assignment of students to special education, most

persistently in the category of mental retardation but also in the categories of emotional

disturbance and increasingly, learning disabilities. Disproportionality exists when students’

representation in special education programs or specific eligibility categories exceeds their

proportional enrollment in the school’s general population (Blanchett, 2006, p. 24). For all

students, the learning disabled (LD) category accounts for the largest number of students in

special education and for the largest growth rate of placement in special education (Donovan &

Cross, 2002).

One study, conducted by Brewer and Kakalik (1974) in the early history of Public Law

94-142, noted that one of the major implementation problems associated with federal policy on

special education was the mislabeling of students as handicapped (cited in Donovan & Cross,

2002, p. 18). Heller, et al. (1982) found that the larger the educable mental retardation (EMR)

program in the district, state or geographic area, the higher the minority over-representation in

these classes. In districts with small or nonexistent bilingual programs, Hispanics were

disproportionately served in EMR programs (Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002; Valdés

33

& Figueroa, 1994). This suggests that a lack of language support programs influences the

placement rates for CLD students.

Each decade in which efforts to ameliorate the problem of over-representation have been

investigated has resulted in increased policies and an increase in ‘best practices’ in regards to the

(pre)referral (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; NABE & ILIAD Project, 2002), assessment and evaluation

(Hamayan & Damico, 1991; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994), eligibility identification (Bernal, 1983),

placement, and pedagogical practices (Cummins, 1984; Maheady, Towne, Algozzine, Mercer, &

Ysseldyke, 1983) within U.S. schools. Although these efforts provide data on the problem, the

solutions adopted by districts/schools focus on standardizing practices that may be

decontextualized from the students’ lived experiences in terms of culture and language. The

focus is on ‘helping’ the student rather than changing the school (Artiles, Klingner, & Tate,

2006).

The historical reviews, as well as the suggested changes to the system, do not appear to

have resulted in a comprehensive reform agenda in which the problem of over-representation

needs to be examined from a multivariate perspective. In addition, current school reform

legislation includes a system that (re)creates CLD students and communities as ‘at risk’ of school

failure. A review of the problem of over-representation suggests that it is rooted in

sociohistorical, sociocultural, and sociopolitical processes.

Current perspectives

The trend in over-representation of minority students in special education has not

changed or been eliminated. In reviewing the debate, Artiles and Trent (1994) state that the

sociohistorical and political contexts of the problem of disproportionality has not been fully

examined. For states and districts, current federal regulation, the Individuals with Disabilities

34

Education Act (IDEA) (1997, 2004), mandates a collection and reporting of data on minority

representation in special education by category and educational setting. The passage of

legislation focused on the long-standing concern of disproportionality does not seem to have

changed the institutionalized practices, such as the continued use of testing for eligibility and

placement determination; or the use of a medical model in the pre-referral and identification

process. The disability labels continue to be socially constructed based on the schooling context

and the epistemological beliefs of educators, which results in special education programming

that sorts and stratifies CLD students (Harry & Klingner, 2006). A focus on establishing

standardizing practices (efficiency) now include pre-referral committees, prescribed intervention

programs, increase in bilingual/nonverbal testing materials as well as paperwork driven

procedures.

In a review of the dilemmas and paradoxes of the changing identity of special education

Artiles (2003) provides a review of the literature on inclusion and over-representation. Artiles

states that “unless researchers and practitioners surface their assumptions about difference, as

well as culture and space, the special education field will continue to perpetuate the silences that

threaten the educational and life needs of students who have historically been marginalized” (p.

164). In this sense, CLD students may continue to be relegated to the margins of educational

programming, practices, and research unless educators recognize their perceptions and

acknowledge the silences in terms of policies and practices that perpetuate the problem. In

addition to Artiles’ theoretical work in special education, several studies have been conducted to

address the problem of disproportionality.

In a study of eleven urban school districts in Southern California, Artiles, et al. (2005; ,

2002), investigated the patterns of disproportionate representation in special education for

35

English Language Learners (ELLs). The study found that students considered English Language

Learners displayed over-representation patterns related to grade level, language proficiency

status, disability category, type of special education program, and type of language support

program at the district level (Artiles, et al., 2005). The disproportionate representation patterns

show that students considered ELLs and who displayed limited proficiency in L1 and L2 were

the most affected. In other words, students with limited language skills in their native language

and English were over-represented in special education at the secondary level within the eleven

districts in southern California.

Artiles, et al. (2005) state that “a weakness of research on minority placement in special

education is the tendency to overestimate the homogeneity of populations by failing to

disaggregate factors such as language proficiency or to consider other relevant variables, … such

as program type” (pg. 283). A recent publication on English language learners with special

needs (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b) seems to find a shift in the terms used for the processes (e.g.,

child study team, teacher assistance team, student support team) and educational services in

identification, assessment and instructional programming. The diagnosis and eligibility

determination for students within the high incidence eligibilities are “typically made by school

personnel after the child has started school, relying on a subjective referral and eligibility

determination process that varies from district to district and from school to school within the

same district” (Blanchett, 2006, pp. 24-25). The research denotes that students do not arrive at

school with a diagnosis and ELLs appeared to be affected by both policies and practices for

bilingual education and special education. Artiles, et al. and others support the need for research

that disaggregates data by groups and language status.

36

An early call for examination of disaggregation of data in order to be more precise in the

reporting of trends in over-representation was made by Artiles and Trent (1994). Within a

review of the continuing debate, Artiles and Trent (1994) contend that multiple variables must be

considered when investigating the phenomenon of disproportionality. In addition to research

pointing to ethnic/racial disproportionality, litigation and court cases appear to have had little

impact on changing the practice of psychoeducational evaluation in determining or ‘diagnosing’

disabilities. The use of an IQ measure continues to be current practice, which impacts the

decision-making process, although research has shown this practice to have negative

consequences for CLD students (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). There is a dearth of research on

Latino/a students and ELLs. In addition, OCR surveys have not collected data or monitored

placement rates for low incidence disability categories because “few would question the

professional judgment or accuracy of a diagnosis in these cases. Moreover, the representation of

racial/ethnic groups in these categories has not been an issue in the court system (Donovan &

Cross, 2002, pp. 54-55).

Data for disproportionality needs to be investigated in as many levels as possible, which

includes national, state, district and school (Artiles, et al., 2005; Rhodes, et al. 2005). Research

indicates that studies need to disaggregate data when investigating disproportionality. In

addition to Composition indices, Odds ratios, and Risk indices, the following factors need to be

considered: 1) educational program availability; 2) within group differences; and 3) language

status (ELL).

The research foci on disproportionality appears to be toward an interdisciplinary

perspective, in that general education, bilingual education, and special education researchers and

practitioners are called to acknowledge and address the problem (Artiles, Klinger, & Tate, 2006).

37

The onus for the educational outcomes of students in U.S. schools rests squarely on the shoulder

of all educators.

Deficit thinking

Within the relationship of culture, knowledge, and power, educators “always work and

speak within historical and socially determined relations of power” (Giroux, 1997, p. 232).

Education practices encompassed within bilingual education, special education, and the process

of referral-evaluation-placement, work within multiple layers of policies, practices and

programming. Educators within these areas are involved in the social world of participation and

negotiation within the micropolitical sphere of the classroom as well as the macropolitical sphere

of U.S. democratic schooling.

In tracing the history and resurgence of deficit thinking models, Valencia (1997b) and

colleagues indicate that the notion of deficit thinking is: 1) a mind-set molded by the fusion of

ideology and science; 2) a dynamic form of social thought allegedly accounting for between-

group behaviors; 3) an actual way of thinking to combat problems (for example, top-down

approach or blaming the victim) (p. xi). In addition, Valencia (1997b) states that the deficit

thinking theory has held the longest currency among researchers, educators and policymakers; in

which, this model suggests that CLD students who fail in school do so because of inherent,

internal, cultural, social, and linguistic factors which deflects the responsibility of education from

systemic factors such as school segregation, inequalities in school financing, educational

tracking, the increased use of standardized testing, shortage of ‘highly qualified’ educators, and

curriculum inconsistencies. In addition, educator perceptions of CLD students place them at

higher risk of being referred, evaluated and found eligible for special education services based on

deficit thinking models as well as flawed institutionalized practices.

38

The continuation of deficit-ridden views of children who come from poor and minority

homes continue to have an impact on the education to which they are exposed (Purcell-Gates,

1995). The changing demographic landscape of the U.S. population, as well as changes in

federal schooling programs has resulted in imbedded practices that reconfigure CLD students as

‘needing’ special education rather than a need to change the institution of schooling in the U.S.

The current trend in education accountability policies have created a new guise for deficit

thinking through an ‘at risk’ category when referring to students exhibiting educational and

behavioral difficulties. Valencia (1997b) states that the construct of ‘at risk,’ now entrenched in

educational circles, views poor and working class children and their families as being

predominately responsible for school failure, while holding structural inequalities blameless (p.

xi).

Flores (2005) provides a historical review of the intellectual presence of deficit thinking

of Spanish speaking children during the 20th century. The research literature points to an early

trend in which Latino/a children’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds “came to be a ‘problem’ to

educators…and [have] been explained from an intrinsic cause-and-effect point of view” (p. 75).

In attempting to understand the ignorance or lack of knowledge by school personnel on bilingual

children, bilingualism, bilingual education, and pedagogical practices since the 1960s, Flores

(2005) contextualizes the nature of the research that emerged which provided contradictory

evidence to federal, compensatory, programs that were being implemented based on de-bunked

notions of deficiency and deprivation of bilingual children. Flores (2005) states that

by the 1970’s and 1980’s the new research in the area of linguistics (Chomsky), sociopsycholinguistics (Goodman, Flores), sociolinguistics (Krashen), sociocultural traditions (Moll and Diaz; Scribner and Cole; Vygotsky), critical pedagogy (Freire; Giroux) child language and thought development (Ferreiro and Teberosky), and educational linguistics, which was available and provided, was ignored by policy makers and resisted by educators (p. 88).

39

In concluding her review, Flores (2005) cites Garcia (1977), who states that “the

research [based on deficit thinking] and documents of the first six decades of the [20th] century,

in effect, rendered the Mexican American and his bilingualism—which have a history of more

than two hundred years of linguistic and cultural development—speechless and cultureless,” p.3

(cited on p. 76). This summary provides evidence of the trend in which the intellectual presence

of the deficit view of Spanish-speaking children emerged; and as Valencia (1997) has alluded,

continues to hold currency with educators. The deficit views of CLD groups, in terms of culture

and language seem to re-appear when sociopolitical issues of power and a fear of change to the

status quo surfaces through time and place in U.S. history. The various communities of practice

encompassed with the institution of schooling suggests that the tacit knowledge and practices

embedded within these entities requires an “urgent need for reflection and rethinking” (Wenger,

1998, p. 9).

In addition to policies related to general education, special education instructional

approaches have historically also relied on a deficit thinking perspective. In addition, there has

been an over-reliance on models that attributed learning and behavior problems to deficits within

children (Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). Over the history of attention to the problem of

disproportionate representation, scholars and policymakers have privileged a child deficit

explanation (Artiles, Klinger, & Tate, 2006). Trent, et al. (1998) advocate for a paradigm shift

that would transcend deficit thinking and promote equitable programming for special education

students that considers the sociocultural contexts in which students with disabilities learn.

Federal Policies

Educational policies in the U.S. have been enacted at the federal level in terms of

compulsory education for all U.S. citizens in the 1900’s with an ensuing cycle of trickle-down

40

education reform described as “a pendulum continuously oscillating from left to right” (Halcon

& de la luz Reyes, 1992, p. 304). In general, the swings of the pendulum are ruled by the

sociopolitical and economic conditions in society. The passage of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (1965) was followed by an amendment to ESEA in 1968 that included the

implementation of the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII). For culturally and linguistically

diverse groups, the problem of trickle-down reform is that “proposed initiatives designed for

mainstream students are not necessarily the most appropriate” (Halcon & de la luz Reyes, 1992,

p. 306). The federal policies for education are interconnected with civil rights, language rights,

and human rights, as well as the sociopolitical context of the time.

The current education reform agenda is embedded with rhetoric that claims to hold

educators accountable and provide parents with greater flexibility in making decisions on their

children’s schooling. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 claims to be designed to help close

the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers (U.S. Dept. of

Education, 2004). This section traces federal policies for bilingual education, special education

and the intersections within bilingual special education in the U.S. Within this discussion, the

notion of language/linguistic rights (minority language rights) needs to be considered.

The general tendency throughout U.S. history in terms of policies has been an attempt to

do away with differences, based on the notion that unity creates harmony whereas diversity

breeds instability and discord (Nieto, 2004, p. 145). Schooling practices have been developed

from policies within this frame of thinking, which tends to ignore the historical and systemic

inequalities in U.S. schooling for CLD students. The intersections of bilingual and special

education policies and programming for CLD students provided the foundation for this research

investigation.

41

Bilingual Education. In the 1960s, the concepts of cultural and linguistically deprivation

resulted in the development of educational programs geared at providing a ‘remedy’ to the

disadvantaged child’s problem (B. M. Flores, 2005). Lindholm (1990) states that the current

bilingual education programs developed in the 1960s out of a need for a system of education

where language minority students would receive equal access to education (p. 92). Bilingual

education, a program established based on research in the areas of linguistics and

psycholinguistics, advocated for the teaching of literacy to Spanish-speaking children in their

mother tongue (B. M. Flores, 2005, p. 85), in addition to providing a setting in which the

student’s native language and culture would be valued (Lindhom, 1990). According to Flores

(2005), bilingual education was a welcomed option in attempting to solve the problem of the

Latino/a child’s language problem as long as the program was transitional in nature.

Bilingual education can be defined as an educational program that involves the use of two

languages of instruction at some point in a student’s school career (Nieto, 2004, pg. 224). In the

U.S., the goal of bilingual education is to transition to English as soon as possible. According to

Hakuta (1986), the history of bilingual education in the U.S. can be divided into pre-World War I

and post-1960. Since its passage, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968, bilingual

education has consistently been criticized as a method of instruction for linguistic minorities.

According to Padilla (1990), the key issue has been whether bilingual education has provided a

benefit to students or “whether federal monies could be better spent on other educational

programs” (p. 15).

The passing of the BEA was seen by many as a victory for linguistic human rights as well

as a research based program. Yet the BEA has been positioned as an educational program that

threatens national unity, which makes the practice of bilingual education controversial and

42

political. In addition, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (BEA) did not define or mandate the

specific type of bilingual program to be created, but districts were provided with federal fund to

develop bilingual programs for students considered LEP/ELL. Unfortunately, researchers such

as Rosen and Ortego (1969) “reported that poorly trained and unsophisticated teachers with

cultural biases and profoundly ignorant notions concerning how language is learned were…too

common in the schools” (cited in B. M. Flores, 2005, p. 85). In this case, educators’

interpretation of policies and best practices for ELL students produces a different reality in terms

of the services that CLD students receive at the campus level and within the classrooms.

Special Education. Special education policy, passed in 1975 as the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) is a landmark piece of legislation, which, for the first

time “guaranteed that all handicapped children in the U.S. had a right to a free appropriate public

education, an individualized education program (IEP), education in the least restrictive

environment, nonbiased assessment procedures, and a series of due process protections” (Ruiz,

Figueroa, Rueda, & Beaumont, 1992, pp. 350-351). Prior to PL-94-142, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established that:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States as defined in Section 7(6) shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (Fernandez, 1992, p. 121). Fernandez (1992) states that the Section 504 regulations of 1990 were similar to the non-

discrimination requirement under Title VI and Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) of

1974, which pertains to all students, including those with disabilities.

The Education of all Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) was passed in 1975.

This legislation guaranteed that all handicapped children in the U.S. have a right to a free

appropriate public education, an individualized education program (IEP), education in the least

43

restrictive environment, nonbiased assessment procedures, and a series of due process

protections (Ruiz, Figueroa, Rueda, & Beaumont, 1992). The processes for receiving special

education services were delineated in terms of referral, assessment and placement. The

mandated federal policies are interpreted and appropriated in a variety of ways by state, district,

and campus educators. PL 94-142 also established guidelines that included parents as an integral

part of the educational program (Fernandez, 1992).

The establishment of bilingual education and special education programs aimed at

providing equity in services erases the historical inequity and segregation of CLD students in

U.S. history. These programs have provided a shift in responsibility, ideologically and spatially,

for educators to who feel that they are or were not trained to ‘deal’ with differences. Educators

may use special education programming as a way to justify the rationale for student’s lack of

educational progress in mainstream classrooms, in which reflection and awareness of over-

representation of CLD students in special education is lacking.

Circumstantial bilinguals may be seen as slow in acquiring English and have an increased

risk of being referred for special education services. Intelligence scores in the assessment

process have a long history of use for eligibility and placement determination of CLD students’

perceived differences. The ‘ideology of normalcy’ (Reid & Knight, 2006) and its subsequent

legacy have made it “seem natural to see students of color and those living in poverty as ‘other’

by associating them with disability” according to Gallagher (1999) (cited in Reid & Knight,

2006, p. 18).

Bilingual Special Education. Bilingual special education is defined as the use of the

home language and the home culture along with English in an individually designed program of

special instruction for the student in an inclusive environment (Baca & De Valenzuela, 1998). In

44

his review, Fernandez (1992) defines bilingual special education as special instruction and

related services individually designed to meet the educational needs of students who are

considered LEP/ELL and also have disabilities.

Fernandez (1992) offers a comprehensive review of legislation, regulations and court

decisions related to students who are ELL/LEP and students with disabilities, which have

established legal support for bilingual special education (pg. 118). According to Fernandez

(1992), the legal base for bilingual education and language appropriate related services for

ELL/LEP students with disabilities began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).

Fernandez claims that in order to interpret IDEA’s appropriate education mandate, Title VI,

Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA) and the department of Health, Education and Welfare

(HEW) guidelines should be consulted.

According to Baca (1990 and 1998), there are currently no laws formulated to deal

specifically with bilingual special education as an entity. The development of bilingual special

education can be viewed as an extension of the equal educational opportunity movement in the

1960s and 70s. Fernandez (1992) indicates that in 1984, the BEA addressed ELL/LEP students

with special needs by funding Special Populations Programs, intended to meet the needs of

students with disabilities who may not be participating in regular bilingual programs (p. 119).

School systems are then obliged to provide equal access to bilingual education for students who

are ELL/LEP and disabled (Fernandez, 1992). It is further asserted that students who are

ascribed as ELL/LEP and disabled should be provided with related services designed to meet

their linguistic needs (e.g., counseling and speech therapy).

In 1990, IDEA, for the first time addressed the needs of students who are ELL/LEP and

disabled. Fernandez (1992), claims that IDEA regulations indicate that students who are

45

ELL/LEP and disabled should be afforded bilingual education, special education and related

services to meet their needs, including their linguistic needs. The language in the Lau decision

(1974) also included students who are ELL/LEP and disabled, in terms of their right to

specialized language appropriate services (Fernandez, 1992). The Lau remedies were codified

by the passing of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (EEOA).

Ruiz, Figueroa, Rueda and Beaumont (1992) state that Hispanic students continue to

enter the special education process under suspect circumstances. In addition, Romaine (1995)

claims that there has been an unacknowledged relationship between bilingualism and special

education. These suspect circumstances and the unacknowledged relationship between

difference and disability tends to surround the practice of special education in which, one may

not be able to distinguish (with the naked eye) the presence or absence of a high incident

disability (LD, MR, ED, SI). The mystery and the lack of knowledge on the part of educators

seem to create a schism between policy, practice and research.

Ruiz, et al. (1992) state that early literature on bilingual special education as defined by

Baca (1990, 1998) was predominately prescriptive on how to merge bilingual and special

education, and it had a very small empirical database (pg. 356). One major criticism with the

early development of bilingual special education was that it appeared to suggest a system

modification approach which “accepts the system as currently structured and attempts to improve

practices without making fundamental changes in the referral, assessment and placement system”

(Ruiz, Figueroa, Rueda, & Beaumont, 1992, p. 356). The research institutes, the standardization

in practice and the increased federal control of education seem to implicitly or explicitly

perpetuate the negative cycle of disproportionality of CLD student placement in special

education.

46

Court Cases and Litigation

In terms of disproportionality, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) does not collect data or

monitor rates of representation of CLD students found eligible for special education in one of the

low incidence categories because “few would question the professional judgment or accuracy of

a diagnosis in these cases. Moreover, the representation of racial/ethnic groups in these

categories has not been an issue in the court system” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 54-55).

Baca (1998) states that litigation related to special education can be grouped into the

following categories: 1) right to education; 2) right to adequate treatment, and 3) improper

classification and placement (pg. 95). In terms of court cases addressing both bilingual and

special education, Fernandez (1992) points to the Jose P v. Ambach (1979) from NY. This

litigation merged three cases in which the rights of student with disabilities living in New York

City were being violated.

Jose P. was a class action suit on behalf of CLD students 1) who claimed they were

denied an appropriate education due to failure to properly evaluate and place students into

special programs; 2) an individual with central nervous system impairment; and 3) Hispanic

students not receiving needed bilingual special education (Fernandez, 1992). Based on Jose P.,

the court ordered the state of NY to: 1) provide data on all the students who were ELL/LEP and

disabled; 2) provide a plan that described the programs available to ELL/LEP and disabled

students; 3) establish an outreach office for dissemination of information regarding special

education; and 4) establish procedures for the provision of competent interpreters (Fernandez,

1992). This case appeared to set the precedent for ELL/LEP and disabled students in terms of

providing appropriate educational services within the all educational programs available to

students based on the notion of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). The results of

47

the Jose P. case also included the training and use of competent interpreters within the referral to

placement process.

In Valdés and Figueroa’s (1994) review of the most relevant court cases concerning the

testing of Hispanic students, they pay particular attention to the Diana v. California State Board

of Education (1970) case for three reasons:

(a) it covers most of the issues involved in Hispanic testing cases – cf. Arreola v. Board of Education (1968), Guadalupe v. Tempe School District (1978), Ruiz v. State Board of Education (1971), Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District (1972), Jose P. v. Ambach, 1979, Lora v. Board of Education of the City of New York; (b) it is a case that is still evolving and that may yet change the predominant over concern of the courts with just tests; and (c) it is a case that typifies the resistance extant in many who are charged with the responsibility of executing court mandates, federal laws, and state regulations concerning Hispanic testing (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 130). The Diana v. SBOE case was the first to challenge the testing and practice of placement

of Hispanic students in special education, specifically in classes for students with mental

retardation. This case set the precedent for the Larry P. v. Wilson Riley (1971/1979) case which

had an impact on decreasing the use of intelligence testing with African-American students in

California for program placement in classes for students with MR (Lambert, 1981). In 1975, the

California State Board of Education imposed a moratorium on the use of intelligence tests as a

result of the civil rights suit based on the over-representation of minority children in special

education under the MR category (Lambert, 1981). Lambert (1981) states: 1) the court

prohibited the use of individual intelligence tests with black children; 2) required numbers of

children of all ethnic groups in special classes to reflect the proportions in the school population;

3) and concluded that the state deliberately intended to discriminate against the black children

who were placed in programs for the educable mentally retarded (p. 973). Lambert (1981)

48

positions the article as taking exception to the court ruling in Larry P. and states that the article

provides evidence:

that the required method for determining over-representation of minority children in special classes is flawed; that there is no evidence that the tests are biased; and that informed consent procedures and regular review of children's progress in special education would protect rights to equal protection under the law; as well as rights to special education services when needed (Lambert, 1981, p. 973).

These court cases and litigation have spanned decades. The results of the lengthy and

contested court case decisions, especially Larry P., suggest the deep rooted ideologies which

seem to suggest that current practices are justified, unbiased, and are in the best interest of the

student while ignoring the social, cultural, linguistic, as well as sociohistorical context of

segregation and systemic inequalities in schooling practices for CLD students. Current

education policies for CLD students disregard the barriers to enrichment programs, and access to

higher education that have resulted in the perpetuation of school practices that continue to sort

and track CLD students.

Language and Language Policy

Language is the medium by and through which individuals define and inhabit their own

identities and, in the process, assess and ascribe the identities of others (Ricento, 2006a, p. 231).

Language plays an important role in terms of the epistemologies (ways of knowing) developed

by educators in U.S. schools as well as what becomes valued or devalued based on minority

group status. Language policy prescribes the schooling linguistic minorities receive (Koyama,

2004, p. 417). Ascribing CLD student language and culture as deficient or deficit-ridden begins

from a perspective on bilingualism.

Hakuta (1986) describes bilingualism as a pattern of co-existence, cooperation and

competition formed by two languages in the individual. Wei (2000) states that language is a

49

human faculty that co-evolves and is given life by those who use it (humans). We also have the

ability to change it or abandon it if we desire to do so (p. 3). Individuals who are bilingual can

vary in their ability to speak, read, write, and comprehend in each language (AERA, APA,

NCME, 1999; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

Hakuta (1986) states that the term bilingualism has meaning beyond the use of more than

one language, “the bilingual child in the American classroom commonly evokes the image of a

child who speaks English poorly, has difficulty in school, and is in need of remediation” (p. 10).

The image of a bilingual child, I would add, may be constructed as a student who comes from a

working class background (low SES), speaks with an accent, and needs to be provided with skills

that deem him/her as a legitimate member of U.S. society. However, the assimilation or

‘Americanization’ process has not proved to be a means by which individuals from CLD

backgrounds are granted full participation in U.S. democratic society, bur rather has prevent

groups and individuals from obtaining an equitable share of the power and resources.

For a student who comes from a home in which English is not the mother tongue, the

process of labeling begins at school enrollment in which the mandated (Lau remedies) home

language survey is completed by the parent. This practice sets into motion the process by which

a student is tested to determine his/her English language proficiency status and subsequent

participation in a regular education program. Students who are categorized as limited English

proficient (LEP) or as English Language Learner (ELL), may be eligible for bilingual education

programming as part of the regular education curriculum. In this sense, when a bilingual student

is ascribed as LEP/ELL, school personnel may no longer talk about the student and his abilities,

but rather refer to him/her based on the label, which as stated indicates something lacking and

50

limited which then becomes reified (made into a thing) (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Wenger, 1998)

as the cause and consequence of any difficulty exhibited within the educational process.

Skutnabb-Kangas (2006) states that educational linguistic human rights include both the

right to have the basic education mainly through the medium of the home language and the right

to learn the dominant language as well. In an additive environment, children learn the dominant

language without eliminating or erasing their native language. Hernandez-Chavez (1988)

claims that for minority groups, language rights should include the right to learn, use, and keep

their own language in all domains. All languages spoken by a group of people have worth or

value; therefore, Skutnabb-Kangas (1988) claims they should have the same rights. She also

defines linguicism as:

ideologies and structures, which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and non material) between groups, which are defined on the basis of language (on the basis of their mother tongues) (pg. 13, emphasis in original). Although there is a claim that all languages ought to have the same rights, the status of

the language spoken by an individual plays a part in the distribution of power and rights

(Romaine, 1995).

The term language rights encompasses both the terms of language minority rights, and

linguistic human rights. These terms may be described as the cultural, linguistic, and wider

social and political rights attributable to minority-group members, usually, but not exclusively,

within the context of nation-states (May, 2006). In terms of official language policy for students

considered bilingual and needing special education services, these are addressed in both the

bilingual education and special education regulations (Fernandez, 1992).

In the U.S. bilingual education programs emerged through civil rights acts in the 1960s.

The notion of language rights plays a role in the development and maintenance of bilingual

51

education programs in the U.S. The definition of language rights, is also based on the usual

distinction between so-called minority and majority groups employed in the sociological and

political literature; a distinction that is based not on numerical size, but on clearly observable

differences among groups in relation to power, status, and entitlement (May, 2006).

The daily practice of interpretation and appropriation of education policy, including

language policy by educators produces variability in the education provided to

CLD students, specifically those who enter whole speaking a language other than English.

Sutton and Levinson (2001), define policy as “a complex social practice, an ongoing process of

normative cultural production constituted by diverse actors across diverse social and institutional

contexts” (p. 1) (cited in Koyama, 2004, p. 404). Using Koyama’s (2004) frame of practitioners

as policymakers, the definition of policymakers is inclusive of all educators.

Appropriation of Policy

Koyama (2004) investigated the processes by which official language policy creates

structures that are institutionally interpreted and appropriated at the federal, state and school

district levels. The ethnographic study focused on the processes by which school district

administrators, campus based teachers and students appropriate policies. An ethnographic study

situated in a California high school within the sociopolitical context of bilingual education and

Proposition 227, revealed that teachers appropriated federal, state and district policy to delineate

positions for ELLs. Teachers negotiate and give meaning to these positions by selectively

implementing and ignoring parts of policy in which ELL students are positioned as particular

‘types,’ situated within a deficit model of school outcomes. ELLs are framed as “immigrants”

and “foreigners” by their use (or non use) of English (Koyama, 2004, p. 402). Analyzing school

policy as practice, Koyama (2004) links the discursive practices of normative control [by

52

educators] to the processes by which official language policy (re)creates structures that are

institutionally interpreted and appropriated at the practitioner level.

Unlike previous studies that focus on the end product of policy implementation (e.g.,

Proposition 227), Koyama (2004) investigates the ongoing processes which construct ELL

student placements and ultimately affect their educational outcomes by focusing on two

interrelated reflexive phenomena, that of standardized testing for English language proficiency

and the instruction provided in classes designated for students who are categorized as limited

English proficient (LEP/ELL). Based on the state required standardized tests for English

language proficiency, students are limited in their ability to change positions from LEP to fluent

English proficient (FEP) due to these two structures (Koyama, 2004). Moreover, Artiles, et al.

(2005) indicated that a small proportion of ELLs were redesignated as fluent English proficient

in the eleven districts in Southern California. Artiles, et al. (2005) state that by fifth grade (1998-

1999 school year) only half of ELLs had been reclassified as FEP. The data on students in the

Artiles, et al. study indicates that these ELL were not recent arrivals (< 3 years) to the U.S., and

were primarily of Latino/a heritage. The ELL population comprised 94% of the elementary and

91% of secondary school students (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005, p. 287).

An understanding and appropriation of federal and state policies at the local district and

campus level is rooted in sociohistorical and sociopolitical events which ground epistemologies

of all stake holders. The implications of school personnel appropriation of school policies,

practices and programming may be affected by national education debates as well as the

construction of the U.S. as a monolingual English speaking nation. English is then considered

the legitimate language of instruction as well as the sole criterion by which CLD and ELLs are

judged to be successful in U.S. education institutions.

53

The appropriation of policies by practitioners then appears to re-establish a system of

stratification through sorting students by ‘labels.’ The discursive process of policy appropriation

positions CLD students as ‘at risk’ of school failure based on a sole criterion to measure student

success—high stakes tests. The practices that evolve within the micropolitical spaces of schools

have negative affects for CLD students (Valenzuela, 2005). The factors affecting the re-

establishment of subtractive educational programming and placement of students in special

classrooms now include policies that mandate pre-referral, assessment and eligibility

determination processes. The passage of landmark education policies aimed at equity and

inclusion of students in U.S. education, have not been realized. The institutionalized practices

that have resulted from federal regulation and policies have served as mechanism for the

continuation of subtractive schooling (Valenzuela, 1999) practices.

The implications of appropriating federal and state policies at the local district and

campus level for CLD students requires the disaggregation of data in which one is able to

investigate the multiple factors that affect over-representation through multiple lenses and

techniques, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

School District Policies and Practices

Within each school district, educational program options are made available based on

federal and state laws and program availability. Special education policies mandate that students

be ‘labeled’ before they are eligible to receive services (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Educators

have also been charged with identifying students eligible for special services through IDEA

(Artiles & Ortiz, 2002a). Educators may lack adequate training or an understanding of the CLD

students’ skills, as well as the nature of the families and communities ways of doing and being.

This becomes pertinent when educators participate in campus based decision-making teams.

54

Schools can serve as both institutions of emancipation or oppression. Educators within schools

are able to create spaces for freedom, transformation, critical engagement, as well as oppression

(McLaren, 2003).

Pre-referral. “In the best educational settings, numerous steps are taken to remediate

concerns prior to an evaluation” (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001, p. 191). According to Lambert

(1981), “it is failure in school, rather than test scores, that initiates action for special education

consideration” (p. 940) (cited in Valencia & Suzuki, 2001, p. 191). In other words, students do

not arrive at school already identified as disabled, or labeled as ED, LD, MR, or SI. Rather,

students are referred to special education when they have ‘failed’ to achieve in the general

education classroom (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 209). Acknowledging that CLD students do

not arrive at school with a disability or an innate problem, places educators in a position to affect

change through praxis (Freire, 1970, 1993). Educators should question the policies and

practices, specifically when considering subjective eligibility categories, for which no organic

cause is known and a diagnosis rests on professional judgment (O'Connor & DeLuca Fernandez,

2006).

Factors that contribute to the over-representation of minority students in special

education have been investigated from the point of differences between ethnicity/race in terms of

ability (IQ) and capacity. Both of these variables are confounded with culture and language.

The variable of acculturation, according to Rhodes, et al. (2005) is not one “that is as readily or

intuitively understood by school psychologists and other school personnel. Indeed, the exact

nature of acculturative influences are often misunderstood and frequently ignored altogether” (p.

124) with the pre-referral process. The lack of focus and understanding of acculturative

influences can occur at any point within the referral to placement process by educators. One

55

possible consequence of this practice may be directly related to the over-representation of

minority students in special education when CLD is viewed as a deficit and not an asset.

CLD students and groups are comprised of diverse individuals. Pre-referral teams faced

with investigating the factors related to a student referral, based on perceived academic difficulty

in general education programs, cannot oversimplify or dichotomize contributing factors, such as

poverty (SES), culture, language, or race/ethnicity. Research has reported that teacher

prejudices, racial bias, expectations and differential treatment influence referral decisions of

minority students (Harry, 1992, cited in Artiles & Trent, 1994, p. 421). Educators should not rely

on comparisons of CLD student performance to other students, specifically to that of a

mainstream, middle-class (White) norm (O'Connor & DeLuca Fernandez, 2006).

With the limited number of bilingual evaluation staff, one would need to take the roles of

advocate, gatekeeper, and expert within their respective and districts in order to prevent or

reduce the problem of disproportionality. Currently, in some districts, non-bilingual evaluators

probably engage in the assessment of bilinguals when CL factors are not discussed or ignored in

the pre-referral process.

Donovan and Cross (2002) clearly states that the responsibility for addressing over-

representation does not lie with one program (special and regular education) and IDEA as well as

the Standards (AERA, APA, NCME 1999; Yzquierdo Mclean, 1995) provide guidelines for all

educators involved in decision-making teams and practices. Therefore, this burden and

accountability fall with all evaluation staff, teachers, principals, counselors, etc. in

acknowledging and addressing disproportionality through discourse and praxis. The state and

federal regulations since NCLB further state that both regular education and special education

programs must work together in addressing the needs of ELLs in U.S. schools.

56

Assessment. Within the realm of education assessment in the public schools, those

primarily involved in the assessment include school psychologists, educational diagnosticians

and speech and language pathologists. Figueroa (2002) states that the federal law that opened

the door for public education for children with disabilities, affected the practices of evaluation

specialists. According to Figueroa, “this landmark legislation had profound implication for their

professional work, in which they were made into testers, sometimes almost exclusively” (p. 62).

Evaluation personnel may not be provided with university training in the areas of second

language acquisition, as well as cultural and linguistics differences that are needed for providing

bilingual psychoeducational evaluation services. Personnel involved in this activity, would be

practicing what Rhodes, Ochoa and Ortiz (2005) have describes as the testing of bilinguals

within the framework of a monolingual English evaluation and interpretation process. Educators

may fail to comprehend or recognize that “when a bilingual individual confronts a monolingual

test, developed by monolingual individuals, and standardized and normed on a monolingual

population, both the test taker and the test are asked to do something they cannot” (Valdés &

Figueroa, 1994, p. 87). The scores on this test would not reflect a student’s abilities; therefore,

educational decisions should not be based on one type of evaluation method or score.

Although this varies by district, evaluation specialists who are considered ‘bilingual’ as

well as those considered or consider themselves to be non-bilingual evaluators may enter the

practice of assessment of bilinguals, which brings into question, ethics, standards, as well as

accountability for educational practices and outcomes. This accountability would include

acknowledging and accepting responsibility for addressing the problem of disproportionality as

well as being reflective of their assessment practices. Educators need to engage in dialogue over

controversial topics, rather than following institutionalized practices without considering the

57

consequences. As has already been noted, that the laws and court cases proscribing malpractice

with bilingual children did not have an affect on diagnostic testing practices (Valdés & Figueroa,

1994, p. 152).

In Ochoa, Powell and Robles-Piña(1996) research investigating the use of assessment

instrument in the practice of bilingual psychoeducational evaluations by school psychologists,

the reasons given for the over-representation of minorities in special education include: (a)

socioeconomic status of the student, (b) test bias associated with cultural differences, (c) factors

associated with second language acquisition, and (d) inappropriate referrals (p. 251). Given the

amount of research available on bilingualism, bilinguals and the sociohistorical nature of

schooling for CLD students in the U.S., educators need to become aware of the limits within

their areas and establish collaborative relations with other members in different fields. This may

include establishing a relationship with their elected government officials, attending workshops

within different fields, as well as becoming involved in local and state education organizations

that promote equity and equality in practices and policies that benefit all students.

Educators as well as evaluation specialists may have a difficult time understanding the

nature of bilingualism and testing with CLD students, in light of the current sociopolitical

climate and NCLB, requires educators to make a paradigm shift in their practices. One such

practice is that of ascribing labels, deficits, weaknesses, and disabilities to individual students as

well as basing educational decision solely on standardized measures of ‘accountability.’ For

CLD students, referrals, evaluations and eligibility determination for special education services

should not be based on language, culture, or ‘failure’ rates on high stakes testing. Campus based

decisions based on policies, processes and practices are affected by educators existing worldview

of CLD.

58

Eligibility determination. Before federal legislation and education policies were

introduced, educational and psychological research had pointed to the use of intelligence

measures as a primary factor in the determination of special education eligibility, classification,

and placement affecting the disproportionality (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001; Mercer, 1971, 1973).

Evaluation specialist and special educators need to understand that judgmental, soft, high

incident, or ‘invisible’ disability categories are ambiguous, and usually confounded by an array

of sociocultural factors, such as socioeconomic status, family educational history, gender,

ethnicity, as well as the sociopolitical nature of schooling.

Factors that affect the problem of over-representation of CLD students in special

education can be based on the construction of CLD students by educators, policymakers and the

mainstream as deficient due to innately or inherited factors (e.g., culture, language, and ability)

rather than external factors, such as subtractive schooling policies and systemic practices

embedded within the U.S. education system. These decades of research on the ‘problem’ of

Mexican children in terms of their culture, their language and perceived mental deficiencies have

had negative effects on the educational outcomes, as well as having been ascribed as ‘disabled’

and placed in segregated special education classroom. Recent research has been redirected to

investigate the subtractive schooling practices to dismantle the myth of equitable education for

Latinos (Valenzuela, 1999, 2005) which points to the increased trend in eligibility determination

for CLD populations in the U.S.

With the limitations of testing of CLD students, any evaluation and process of

determinations of a disability that does not take into account the student’s cultural, linguistic and

educational background (sociological factors) would be considered uninterruptible and invalid

for use in making educational decisions. Yet this may appear to be a common practice, by

59

evaluators that has gone un-scrutinized. Historically assessment personnel have not been

subjected to investigation in terms of their linguistic and assessment skills, knowledge and

abilities in performing the practice of bilingual evaluations (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

Evaluation specialist and educators need to understand that the categories of ‘invisible’

disabilities are not clear, ambiguous, and are usually confounded by an array of sociocultural

factors, such as socioeconomic status, family educational history, gender, ethnicity, as well as the

sociopolitical nature of schooling make the practice of assessment and special education

eligibility determination with bilingual students questionable at best.

From the prereferral, assessment, eligibility to program placement process, educators

needs to incorporate practices that provide insight into, the culture and language of the student,

his/her previous educational exposure, as well as previous instruction in the native language. In

addition to shortages of bilingual educators, a lack of evaluation specialists and adequate testing

materials adds an additional layer of complexity to the problem of over-representation.

Framing the Research Study

The research indicates a need for disaggregation of data to the district and campus level

in order to present a picture of the trends on disproportionality as well as to include data on

program availability and implementation, based on the number of students in the district. In

addition, data on district and campus placement rates in special education continue to focus on

the rates of representation in high incident categories, such as learning disabled, mental

retardation, speech impaired, and emotional disturbance (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda,

2005; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

Research approaches necessitate the investigation of multiple factors through multiple

methods. Strategies associated with a mixed methods approach involve collecting and analyzing

60

data that may be qualitative and quantitative in nature within one study (Creswell, 2003). The

collection of data can be in different phases in order to capture a broad and in-depth picture of

the problem/question. Disproportionality is a varied and complex phenomenon which would

suggest the data varied collection approaches that cannot be dichotomized as strictly quantitative

or qualitative. Therefore a mixed method research design tends to be less dichotomized as

strictly quantitative or qualitative (Creswell, 2003).

The findings by Donovan & Cross (2002) suggest that data documenting disproportionate

representation is difficult to interpret and that “without a measure of true incidence of special

needs or gifted, we cannot know whether there are too many …students in any racial/ethnic

group assigned to any of the categories” (pg. 20). The report (Donovan & Cross, 2002) outlines

four questions addressed by their investigation:

1. Is there reason to believe that there is currently a higher incidence of special needs or giftedness among some racial/ethnic groups? Specifically, are there biological and social or contextual contributions to early development that differ by race or ethnic group?

2. Does schooling independently contribute to the incidence of special needs or giftedness among students in different racial/ethnic groups through the opportunities that it provides?

3. Does the current referral and assessment process reliably identify students with special needs and gifts? In particular, is there reason to believe that the current process is biased in terms of race or ethnicity?

4. Is placement in special or gifted and talented education a benefit or a risk? Does the outcome differ by racial/ethnic group? (p. 21)

The questions posed by the committee seem to (re)construct the problem of

disproportionality based on deficit thinking models and excludes the sociohistorical and

sociopolitical context, as well a critical view of the embedded practices within a social learning

theory approach to the processes. For example, question one is framed as an attempt to

investigate differences based on debunked notions of ethnic/racial differences based on the

dichotomized biological (nature) vs. social (nurture) debate, with an addition of ‘contextual

61

factors.’ The second question privileges the notion of ‘knowledge and success or failure’ of the

student and not the schooling process. Question three frames the referral and assessment

process as ‘reliable’ when in fact the consistency in research results point positively that these

processes have reliably over identified CLD students as special needs (Valdés & Figueroa,

1994). Question four points to the need to investigate the proclivities and tacit knowledge

educators have of CLD students in determining eligibility and practices. Framing the questions

in this manner seems to make the proclivities of educators in the macropolitical sphere of

research − ambivalent.

In framing the current study, prior small scale empirical investigations qualitative and

quantitative in nature were conducted (Fall 2004 – Fall 2006) and brief findings leading to this

investigation are provided below. Each of the studies was guided by the question: “Is over-

representation of CLD students a problem?” In which each study attempted to offer one piece of

the puzzle in this area. The section begins with a review of literature to gain an understanding of

the rates of representation, and how is over-representation measured. A mini-case study of the

referral and decision-making process in an urban elementary school supplied qualitative data to

frame the research. A survey was developed and piloted to understand educator epistemologies

(ways of knowing), in relation to factors that affect disproportionality.

Measuring Disproportionality

Donovan and Cross (2002) indicate that data that attempts to explain the representation of

minority students in special education through statistically aggregated state or national data

cannot be explained due to the variability between states in terms of eligibility criteria used

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Valdés and Figueroa (1994) state

that the entire question as to what constitutes a disparity has evolved into a full-blown debate,

62

which continues to confound the problem of over-representation with the use of aggregated data

and without considering intervening variables.

Factors that contribute to over-representation range from the community, school policies,

practices and educator perceptions. Rhodes, et al. (2005) state that research in the area of

disproportionality includes the following factors that may contribute to the disparity:

socioeconomic status (poverty); unequal educational opportunities for cultural and linguistically

diverse students; ethnic diversity; linguistic diversity and the special education referral and

placement process itself. Socioeconomic status (poverty) appears to be a significant factor in the

referral, assessment and placement outcomes for special education (Harry & Klingner, 2006;

O'Connor & DeLuca Fernandez, 2006). Artiles and Trent (1994) indicate that a correlation

between ethnicity, school failure, and placement in special education programs has been reported

consistently in the literature (p. 422). In addition, research has reported that teacher prejudices,

racial bias, expectations and differential treatment influence referral decisions of minority

students (Harry, 1992, cited in Artiles & Trent, 1994, p. 421). Research appears to point to the

complexity of determining disproportionality, especially over-representation of CLD students in

special education.

For cultural and linguistic minorities, these practices result in the construction of a

‘disability’ (category) in the referral-to-placement process. The programs, which established

legal access to education for students with disabilities has become the preferred method of

‘intervention’ or solution for ‘problems’ exhibited by CLD students in U.S. schools. Students

who come from low SES backgrounds may be at higher risk for referral and placement in special

education.

63

Coutinho and Oswald (2004), claim that the research community has not reached a

consensus on the preferred method for measuring the extent of disproportionality (p. 4). The

following calculation methods for determining disproportionate representation were reviewed by

Donovan and Cross (2002). The composition index (CI) which is calculated by dividing the

number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category by

the total number of students (summed across all five racial/ethnic groups) enrolled in that same

disability category. The CI reflects the proportion of all children receiving services under a

specific category who are members of a CLD group (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Artiles, et al.

(2005) used a rule established by Chinn and Hughes (1987) to identify over-representation; in

that a group is over-representation in special education is equal or greater than 10% of the

percentage expected on the basis of the school-age population (cited in Artiles, Rueda, Salazar,

& Higareda, 2005, p. 289). The CI index answers the question, What proportion of Latino/a

students are in Special Education?

The risk index (RI) is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial or

ethnic category (e.g., Hispanic/Latino) placed in a disability category or program (e.g., Learning

Disabled) by the total enrollment for that racial or ethnic group in the school population

(Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). The RI provides the percentage of all students in a given

ethnic/racial group identified in a specific eligibility category (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004;

Donovan & Cross, 2002). The risk index answers the question: What percent of Latino/a

students in the school or district are identified as LD? The risk index illustrates the rate in which

a disability occurs by ethnic/racial group.

The Odds ratio (OR) is calculated, which determines an ethnic group’s (e.g., Hispanic),

‘odds’ of being assigned into a specific eligibility category (e.g., Learning Disabled). The odds

64

ratio (OR) divides the risk index of one racial/ethnic group (e.g., Hispanic) by the risk index of

another racial/ethnic group (e.g., White) and provides a comparative index of risk (Donovan &

Cross, 2002, p. 43). The odds ratios for ethnic/racial groups are typically presented in

comparison to White students, in which a ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that ethnic/racial groups

are at greater risk of identification for special education (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Odds less

than 1.0 indicate that the ethnic/racial groups are less at risk for identification. The risk indexes

are expressed as a percent and are placed in a ratio, which results in a single number that

characterizes the extend of disproportionality and can be compared across groups (Coutinho &

Oswald, 2004). The relative risk ratio, or OR, takes into account race/ethnicity base rates in the

population (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004).

Given that these three different indices are used in the disproportionate representation

research, it is important to understand what each means to reduce confusion and to be able to

interpret the findings from different studies on this topic (Rhodes, et al., 2005).

Rates of Representation

National rates. Twelve years before the first National Research Council (NRC) report

(Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982) was conducted, Lloyd Dunn (1968) brought attention to

high placement rates of minority students in segregated classrooms for students considered

mentally retarded. Heller at al., (1982) found that the trend in disproportionality had not changed

for CLD students. With the second NRC report (Donovan & Cross, 2002) we find that fourteen

percent (14%) of the African-American, thirteen percent (13%) of the Native American, twelve

percent (12%) of the White, and eleven percent (11%) of the Hispanic/Latino, and five percent

(5%) of the Asian/PI school age population are placed in special education nationwide1

1 Calculation based on 1998 OSEP data; Total number of students by ethnicity labeled with a disability divided by the total number of students by ethnicity in the population.

65

(Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 1 & 57). For all ethnic groups, the learning disability (LD) category

accounts for the largest number of students in special education. Donovan and Cross (2002)

report notes that the LD category is the fastest growing category for special education

placements. MacMillan and Reschly (1998) found that the variability of identification rates

across states for LD, SL [speech and language], MR, and ED were substantial, and far greater

than one would expect for any disability, given that disproportionality is not found in eligibility

categories considered ‘low incidence’ (cited in Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 37)

Current research investigating school district level data point to several patterns of

placement of minority students in special education under the categories of Learning Disabled

(LD), Emotionally Disturbed (ED) and Mentally Retarded (MR) or ‘high incidence’ disability

categories (Donovan & Cross, 2002). At both the national and federal level, Latino/a over-

representation in special education programs has persisted throughout the 1980s and 1990s,

although this was often masked when the data are not interpreted through disaggregated means

(Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). Valdés and Figueroa (1994) contend that over-

representation and under-representation vary by Hispanic concentration, state, rural-urban

setting, availability of bilingual instructional settings, and local policies, in which large

aggregates of data will bury meaning information (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, p. 128).

A review of the literature has indicated that at the national level, states with large

Hispanic/Latino populations tend to have over representations in certain special education

categories (e.g., Mental retardation) which may suggest the same pattern for districts and schools

(Rhodes, et al., 2005, p. 17). Researchers have noted that Texas is one of the few states that

collect data on the number of Limited English Proficient (LEP/ELL) students along with other

factors, such as race/ethnicity in regards to student enrollment in special education by eligibility

66

category (Ladner & Hammons, 2001; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). TEA data thus lends itself

to analysis to district and selected elementary campuses, focusing on variables that affect

disproportionality.

State rates. Texas school enrollment for the 2003-2004 (Texas Education Agency, 2003-

2004b) school year was approximately 4,311,500. Of the total students in Texas public schools,

Latino/Hispanics make up the biggest proportion of students in the state at 44%, Whites make up

39%, followed by African-Americans 14.3% and Other 3.2%. During the 2003-2004 school

year, 40% of the special education population was Latino/Hispanic, 41% White, and 18%

African-American. At the state level, Whites (41%) are the largest ethnic group represented in

special education.

The number of students in Texas (2003-2004) who received special education services

accounted for 11.8% of the population. Of the student’s in special education, 50% were

categorized as Learning Disabled (LD). Based on the aggregated data for the state, Texas

provided services to student in special education by eligibility category: MR, 5.9%, ED, 7.1%,

and SI, 20%.

San Antonio rates of representation. Bexar County which includes San Antonio, has

fifteen school districts (TEA). Situating a study within San Antonio provided a look at

perceptions within and among school district personnel as well as perceptions on the rates of

representation of CLD students in special education. Research studies on disproportionality tend

to use ethnic/racial categories which are socially constructed dichotomies. Few studies have

been conducted, that investigate within-group (race/ethnicity) diversity or language status.

67

State and San Antonio Ethnic Diversity

14.3%

43.8%

38.7%

3.2%

8%

66%

24%

0.02%

African American Hispanic White Other

Ethnic Category

Perc

ent o

f Pop

ulat

ion

State Pop SA Pop

Figure 1. Ethnic/racial Diversity in Texas and San Antonio, 2003-2004

In the San Antonio area, Latinos/Hispanics account for 66% (See Figure 1) of the total

school district student population. The next largest group is White at 24%, followed by African-

American at 8% (Texas Education Agency, 2003-2004a). The school district populations in San

Antonio vary by ethnic/race, SES, and language status. The Latino/a population in the San

Antonio may vary in terms language and generation status in U.S. For example, some Latino/as

can claim their ancestry and heritage in current day Southwest U.S. (Texas) back to the

colonization period (1848), while other Latino/as may be recent immigrants to the U.S.

Over half of the twelve districts in the San Antonio area have a Latino/Hispanic

population of over 80%. Two school districts in the area had a White population of over 45%

and only one school district had over 25% of their population listed as African-American (2003-

2004 school year). For San Antonio area districts, the ethnic/racial proportions would not reflect

the state population proportions given that only 24% of the student population in San Antonio is

68

categorized as White. This suggests that rates of representation in special education and

bilingual education would not reflect the state population proportions.

Sixty-four percent of the students in twelve of the San Antonio districts are considered

economically disadvantaged. Of the students in the 12 San Antonio districts 8% receive

bilingual/ESL services (See Figure 2). The districts in SA have 14% of the population receiving

special education services, based on aggregated data. This would suggest that SA area districts

place a higher proportion of students in special education compared to the state aggregated data

by all disability categories, indicating 11.8% of the students in Texas, receive special education

services.

In the SA area, data from TEA (2003-2004) indicated that 9% of students are categorized

as both LEP/ELL and Special Education (See Figure 2). The state proportion of students

categorized as both is 3% overall. The LEPSpEd category suggests that students are categorized

as eligible to receive services in both Bilingual/ESL and Special Education services to receive a

free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Based on the programs available on each campus,

students in the LEPSpEd would have an Individual Education Program (IEP) that would indicate

the location, amount of time, and language of instruction for each subject area in their daily

schedule. The variability in program options, and school personnel, students in this category

LEPSpEd may have a schedule that seems fragmented.

69

LEP and SpEd Comparisons

11.8%

15.0%

3.0%

14%

10%

9%

Sp. Ed. LEP LEPSpEd

Category

Perc

ent o

f Pop

ulat

ion

State Pop SA Pop

Figure 2. State and San Antonio LEP/ELL and SpEd, 2003-2004

In their ethnographic study, Harry and Klinger (2006) noted that schools, “with the best

of intentions…[and] some serving the neediest children were detrimentally affected” by the

proliferation of programs at the school, that gave an impression of “overall curricular

fragmentation, [that] were, in themselves, excellent programs or represented some very

convincing educational philosophy” but resulted in difficulty providing consistency in

educational programming for students (p. 36). In other words, programs that were intended to

serve the needs of CLD students tended to fragment their school day and resulted in

discontinuity in terms of instruction provided to students by teachers. The students spent more

time moving from room to room or program to program that the ‘needs’ of the students may not

have been met due to the disjointed schedule.

A recent study of eleven urban school districts in Southern California, Artiles, et al.

(2005) investigated the patterns of disproportionate representation in special education for

English Language Learners (ELL). The study indicated that students considered ELL displayed

70

over representation patterns related to grade level, language proficiency status, disability

category, type of special education program and type of language support program at the district

level (Artiles, et al., 2005). The disproportionate representation patterns noted indicates that

students considered ELLs that displayed limited proficiency in L1 and L2 were the most

affected. In other words, student with limited language skills in their native language and

English, were over represented in special education within the eleven districts included in the

study.

Oswald, Coutinho, and Best (2000) investigation at the school district level suggests that

higher rates of representation of Black and Hispanic students as LD and ED was noted in

districts characterized as high-poverty. Black and Hispanic students were identified as MR more

often in school districts characterized as low-poverty (Cited in Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 76).

This study points to a need to investigate the variables of race and socioeconomic status in the

problem of disproportionality.

Qualitative Research Methods

An investigation of the “Special Education Referral Process in an urban elementary

school” (IRB # 06-095) was conducted during the Fall 2005 semester. The case study research

project focused on the decision-making processes in one elementary school in a school district in

the southwest area of San Antonio. Formal and informal interviews were conducted (n = 5) as

well as observations of the school and community. The principal provided the names of the

special education and bilingual education teachers that may be interested in participating in the

study. From the list, the special education and one bilingual educator consented to formal

interviews. In addition, two participants offered informal data via conversation and unstructured

71

interviews; one was the former vice principal at the campus and the other was the current vice

principal that was new to the campus that year.

The study found that decisions for special education evaluations were ultimately not

decided by the campus team. The pre-referral team meetings were held on a regular basis

(monthly). Cases were reviewed and a small proportion of cases were submitted for further

evaluation, once the campus staff completed a ‘referral packet’ and included additional

documentation requested in the ‘packet.’ The completed information packet was then forwarded

to the special education office for review and final approval. Therefore, the decision for an

evaluation was finalized by the special education office rather than the campus based team. This

finding was surprising and could be unique to this district in terms of practices. Research on pre-

referral and special education assessment place the decision on the local campus team as part of

the regular education process (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988).

In addition, one participant indicated that some of the referrals were denied because the

campus did not complete the correct form(s), which were changed on a yearly basis. At this

elementary campus, the educators interviewed indicated that the pre-referral and evaluation

process was time consuming, and it deterred teachers from making referrals for special

education. The teachers interviewed were clear to state that students who are LEP/ELL and need

special education are not denied services in either program. The participants indicated that they

did not think over-representation was a problem at their campus/district, but that it probably was

a problem at the state and national level. The special education teacher stated that she is aware

that statistically, there is an over-representation of CLD students in special education in the U.S.

and in Texas. The bilingual and special education teachers interviewed indicated that they had

never received any training on collaboration regarding bilingual and special education issues,

72

and that over-representation was not a topic that had been discussed at the campus (each had

worked at the campus over 10 years).

Survey Research Review

In Fall 2006, a survey was developed for a pilot study based on a review of the literature.

The survey was developed to encompass factors that affect disproportionality based on educator

epistemological beliefs. The survey attempts to investigate policy implementation and practices

that may possibly result in disproportionality. A review of the literature in the areas of school

psychology, education, bilingual education and special education yielded a range of information

for the survey development. No current surveys were found that addressed disproportionality or

over-representation building from educator perceptions.

Ochoa, et al. (1996, 1996) developed a large scale survey entitled, “Bilingual Psycho-

Educational Assessment Survey” to obtain data from school psychologists on their previous

training and current bilingual evaluation practices for ELL/LEP students. One article published

from this survey included a review of assessment practices (Ochoa, Galarza, & González, 1996)

in terms of testing for language proficiency for ELLs, as well as the frequency of formal and

informal testing methods used. Ochoa, et al. (1996) found that 62% of assessment personnel

conduct their own language proficiency testing, while 32% relied on data from other sources,

which suggests decisions being make from outside data could place ELL students at greater risk

of mis-identification for programs and services.

Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Piña (1996) found that school psychologists testing bilingual

and students considered LEP were using English assessment instruments primarily, but obtaining

additional data sources as well. There was a need to examine the use of intermixing of languages

during test administration. Overall, Ochoa, et al. (1996) did not find that dynamic assessments

73

were being used, but there had been an increase in the use of non-verbal testing instruments or

procedures. Achievement testing was also primarily in English. This survey study points to the

need for the development of testing materials appropriate for bilingual students and appears to

point to the questionable validity of the assessment process for bilingual students which has been

cited as on area of concern for over-representation (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller, Holtzman,

& Messick, 1982).

In terms of training received in the area of bilingual psycho-educational evaluation

methods for primarily Hispanic students, Ochoa, River and Ford (1997) found that school

psychologist in eight states in the U.S. southwest, did not believe that they received adequate

training in this area. The focus of this section of the larger survey of National Association of

School Psychologist (NASP) members was to determine the level of training received in their

university programs. Nearly seventy percent (70%) of the respondents indicated that they had

received less than adequate training in the following competency areas that affect the evaluation

process. Ochoa, et al. (1997), utilizing the competencies identified by Figueroa, et al. (1984) as a

guide in developing survey items related to training received by school psychologists when

working with English Language Learners (p. 331). These competencies include knowledge of:

(a) cross-cultural issues involved in bilingual psycho-educational assessment; (b) second

language acquisition factors and their relationship to assessment; and (c) methods to conduct

bilingual psycho-educational assessment (Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997, p. 333). Ochoa, et al.

(1997) added a fourth competency that pertains to the ability to interpret the results of the

bilingual psycho-educational assessments.

Ochoa, et al. (1997) state, that “the field of School Psychology must ask itself whether

the lack of adequate training” in conducting bilingual psycho-educational evaluations contributes

74

to the over-representation of minority students in special education (p. 341). In addition, Ochoa,

et al. (1997) assert that the profession of school psychology does not appear to have made

sufficient progress in addressing the assessment practices with culturally and linguistically

diverse students, since the Diana v. California SBOE case in 1970. Investigating school

psychologist training and practices, twenty five years later, Ochoa, Rivera, and Ford (1997)

indicate that university training programs do not appear to have changed, in terms of preparing

school psychology graduate students for the increased diversity in schooling as well as best

practices for assessment of CLD students. In other words, the university training programs in

school psychology do not appear to have made changes in course work offered to address the

changing demographics of the U.S. school population.

An additional article investigated questions related to the referral-to-placement practices

for CLD students (Ochoa, Robles-Piña, Garcia, & Breunig, 1999). The investigation found that

campus team reasons for referrals to school psychologists could be plausibly associated with the

process of second language acquisition for CLD students (p. 1). A review of the survey results

by Ochoa, et al. (Ochoa, Galarza, & González, 1996; Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997; Ochoa,

Robles-Piña, Garcia, & Breunig, 1999) in the 1990s provides an indication of the shortage of

school psychologist who are adequately trained in bilingual psychoeducational evaluations and

the possible misuse of assessment when evaluating CLD students and the questionable validity

of the assessment practices for determining special education eligibility using test results

obtained primarily in English.

These trends point to the lack of adequate that training received by school personnel in

understanding as well as interpreting the results of bilingual psycho-educational evaluations

within the pre-referral to placement process. The validity of the assessment practices in terms of

75

appropriately determining students as eligible for special education is depicted. The lack of

adequate training in the bilingual psycho-educational evaluation process suggests that campus

based decision teams may lack crucial data in which to base educational decisions for

assessment, eligibility, and placement of students who are culturally and linguistically diverse.

A follow-up survey, based on Ochoa, et al. (1996) and others focused on bilingual school

psychologists practices with English Language Learners (Lopes, 2005). Similar to Ochoa, et al.

(1996), Lopes (2005) surveyed bilingual school psychologists listed in the National Association

of School Psychologists (NASP) directory on current issues related to training, evaluation and

decision-making practices. Similar to Ochoa, et al. (1996) Lopes found that the assessment of

language proficiency and the presentation of this information at pre-referral and assessment

teams varied. Less than half of the psychologists surveyed indicated that they conducted the

language proficiency assessments for CLD students they worked with. Lopes (2005) found that

additional training may be needed for monolingual school psychologist who work with CLD

students as well as additional research on the practices of monolingual school psychologists

working with CLD students.

A study addressing the aspects of training and skill knowledge of school psychologists in

working with cultural and linguistic diversity, resulted in the development of a multicultural

competence inventory (Moreno, 2003). The purpose of the survey was to develop a self-report

inventory of school psychologists’ multicultural competencies when providing assessment,

intervention and consultation services to multicultural individuals most represented in their work

setting (p. vii). Reviewing the literature within the area of multicultural competencies began

from the multicultural counseling field and then transitioned to multicultural school psychology

(Moreno, 2003). The self-report survey was intended to assist school psychologist who work

76

with multicultural groups as well as provide a way for university trainers a identify their

student’s competency levels and identify competency areas that need improvement. Few

graduate training programs offer adequate training on how to best provide services to

multicultural students, families and communities (Moreno, 2003; Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997).

The review of the literature, also yielded several surveys that addressed specific groups of

educators, such as general education teacher behaviors and attitudes (Lester & Bishop, 2000) as

well as teacher multicultural attitudes – Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (Ponterotto,

1998). The TMAS is a 20-item scale (alpha = .86) that assesses the multicultural awareness of

K-12 teachers.

One study utilized a survey to investigate bilingual teachers knowledge and beliefs about

bilingual students cognition as well as their teaching strategies (B. B. Flores, 1999). Interviews

were also utilized for this mixed methods design. Flores (1999) found that bilingual teachers had

specific views on how bilingual children learn and the teacher’s prior experiences (professional)

shaped their beliefs. The findings also show that teacher’s beliefs influence their teaching

practices.

The use of languages other than English in society and in schools specifically is an area of

considerable debate (See Haukuta, 1996). A review of surveys included in Baker (1996) were

ones that examine attitude to bilingualism, use of Spanish, attitude to Spanish and language use

survey samples. Many factors relating to the politics of language may influence educators’

beliefs about language maintenance and use in regards to CLD students, as well as language of

instruction for students with disabilities.

77

Methodological difficulties

Both quantitative and qualitative research with cultural and linguistically diverse

individuals is multifaceted and encompasses a large range of variables and questions.

Quantitative research with ethnic minorities has a long history (Padilla, 2004). According to

Padilla (2004) the earliest studies with educational implications focused on the intellectual

assessment and school achievement of ethnic minorities. “This research legacy is now well

known for its failure to consider the many variables that are critical for assessment” of student’s

skills and abilities (Padilla, 2004, p. 127). Padilla outlines a set of assumptions which were part

of the historical IQ studies and continue to date in educational research that involves culturally

and linguistically diverse students. Padilla asserts that one reason this set of assumptions have

been maintained is that they conform to common sense qualities yet the variables are complex

and interrelated. The assumptions are that: (a) the White-middle-class ‘American’ is the

standard against which other groups are measured or compared, (b) the instruments used for

assessing differences are universally applicable across groups, with minimal adjustment for CLD

groups, and (c) although there is a need to recognize the sources of potential variance, such as

social class, educational attainment, gender, cultural orientation, and proficiency in English,

these are variables that tend to be ignored or discarded in the interpretation process (Padilla,

2004, p. 127).

Padilla states that educational research has tended to adopt a universalistic (etic)

approach, which seeks confirmation of general truths across cultural groups. Emic principles are

relativistic in that they seek to uncover a particular truth that is confined to a single culture or

social group (Padilla, 2004, p. 128). Some of the problems with this approach are that

researchers tend to circumvent important cultural variables within their research methodologies.

78

The universalist approach to research is problematic because “it lends itself to a narrow database,

resulting in biased conclusions of substantive educational outcomes that are problematic even for

White samples that differ from the normative population” (Padilla, 2004). Another problem with

the universalist approach has been exacerbated by the procedures and instruments used in the

research (e.g., IQ tests) which have been applied to CLD students who do not share all of the

demographic characteristics of the normative sample. This is especially problematic for CLD

students, some who may be recent immigrants, who may not speak or comprehend English and

are not familiar with the tasks or the requests being made, even when translated (another

questionable practice).

In establishing standards for educational and psychological testing, joint committees from

the American Educational Association, American Psychological Association and the National

Council on Measurement in Education (1999) prepared the Standards in order to provide criteria

for the evaluation of tests, testing practices, and the effects of test use within the behavioral

sciences and society (p. 2).

Chapter nine of the Standards specifically addresses the testing of individuals of

diverse linguistic backgrounds and introduces the chapter with the following statements:

for all test takers, any test that employs language is, in part, a measure of their language skills…which is a concern for any test taker whose first language is not the language of the test…In addition, language differences are almost associated with concomitant cultural differences that need to be taken into account (p. 91).

Standards proposed may not be as powerful a guide to practice as federal, state, district

and campus policies embedded in the sociopolitical and sociohistorical nature of schooling in the

U.S. As McDermott, Goldman and Varenne (2006) indicate, the practical existence inside a

school system is one in which “the American classroom is well organized for the production and

79

display of failure, one child at a time if possible, but group by group if necessary” (p. 15).

Educators within the school system may feel justified in referring and evaluating CLD students

based on epistemological beliefs as well as the sociohistorical attention by scholars and

policymakers based on child deficit explanations for special education ‘labeling’ and placement

of CLD students.

Summary

Due to the demographic changes in the U.S. within the last decades, there has been an

increase of culturally and linguistically diverse students entering public schools. With the

increase in diversity and the continuation of flawed institutionalized practices, the problem of

over-representation of minority students in special education appears to be a static phenomenon.

Artiles, et al. (2005) state that “a weakness of research on minority placement in special

education is the tendency to overestimate the homogeneity of populations by failing to

disaggregate factors, such as language proficiency or to consider other relevant variables,… such

as program type” (pg. 283). Artiles (2003) states that “unless researchers and practitioners

surface their assumptions about difference, as well as culture and space, the special education

field will continue to perpetuate the silences that threaten the educational and life needs of

students who have historically been marginalized” (p. 164). In this sense, CLD students

continue to be relegated at the margins of educational programming, practices, and research

rather than placed at the center.

In addition, the prevalence of deficit thinking models in educational thought and practice

contribute to the construction of CLD students, language, culture and communities as

inadequate. The perpetuation of deficit based practices in school districts stifles a shift toward

multicultural education (Nieto, 2004). The sociopolitical influences contribute to the disparities

80

in educational outcomes and serve to divert the focus from systemic and historical inequalities in

education for CLD students in the U.S. A lack of understanding of the disproportionality from

both sociohistorical and sociopolitical perspectives diverts individuals (educators) from the

responsibility of addressing and ameliorating the problem.

The continued need for investigation called for a move beyond looking at aggregated data

at national and state levels. The need for continued investigation requires critical reflection and

praxis by educators on the institutionalized nature of ‘best practices’ for assessment, referral and

eligibility currently in place. Researcher requires an inspection of the attitudes and perceptions

of differences, which supply the base for the continued status quo based on practices which

perpetuates over-representation of minority students in special education. A problem, which

may appear to go unnoticed or disregarded, is that of school/district personnel ideological stance,

attitude and perception of CLD students. With all of the research over the last thirty five years as

well as the historical view of the subtractive education practices, one has to wonder what forces

would be needed to break these hegemonic traditions, trainings, and practices. The entrenched

hegemonic ideologies that facilitate the schooling practices in today’s education system suggest a

climate in which once more it is becoming “increasing inhospitable to minority ethnicities and

identities” (San Miguel, 1999, p. 31).

This study extends from the need for investigations of disproportionality to look at

district and school level perceptions and practices. The disaggregation of data on minority

representation in the South Texas area provides a unique area for research. One unique feature

of investigating school district practices is South Texas is that this is one area of the U.S. in

which Latino/as account for the majority of the population (e.g., Miami and San Diego). The

research indicates a need for the inclusion of factors, such as program availability, program

81

implementation, number of students in district, number of placements in special education ‘high

incident’ categories, such as learning disabled, mental retardation, speech impaired, and

emotional disturbance (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Valdés

& Figueroa, 1994)

82

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter provides information on the research design, research questions, and data

collection. Chapter four presents the findings of the research. The mixed method research

design is introduced, followed by a restatement of the research questions. The procedure of

obtaining the research requests from districts and principals is provided along with the

descriptive data per district and elementary campus. The study developed and utilized a survey,

“Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Educational Practices, Policies and

Programming,” to obtain information on educator perceptions of factors that affect

disproportionality. In addition, the researcher utilized data from the Texas Education Agency

(TEA) to determine the rates of representation of CLD students in special education in the

selected districts and elementary campuses. Ethnic/racial group categories used in data analysis

and reporting were based on federal/state (TEA) terms for consistency.

Research Design and Questions

The phenomenon of disproportionality and the diverse sets of practices that emerge from

policies provide the framework for this mixed methods research design, mostly quantitative in

nature (Creswell, 2003). A mixed methods research design tends to be less dichotomized as

strictly quantitative or qualitative (Creswell, 2003) and includes a need for collecting and

analyzing ‘mixed’ sets of data. The study included concurrent data collection of surveys and

existing data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), as well as qualitative data from open-

ended questions included in the survey. Convergence of survey and TEA data occurred at

analysis and interpretation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the following research

questions:

83

1) What are the rates of representation of CLD students in special education by

ethnicity/race, program placement, eligibility category/disability, and language status

in the South Texas area? What are the rates of representation of ELLs (LEP) in

special education?

2) Do educator perceptions differ in regards to disproportionality of CLD students in

special education? Do school personnel perceptions differ based on their school

position, race/ethnicity, gender, or years of experience?

3) Do school personnel perceptions on disproportionality of CLD students differ in

comparison to actual TEA data for the selected school district and campus?

Participants

Survey Participants. A stratified sample of 439 educators (See Table 2) at four districts

and thirteen elementary campuses in South Texas and San Antonio served as participants for

survey data collection. Of the 439 survey participants the majority were female (87%) and

Latino/a (60%). White educators made up the second largest group of participants (34%), with

African-American, Native American and Asian American educators comprising 6% of the

sample. The majority of educators possess a bachelor’s degree (63%) and had graduated

between the years of 2000 and 2007 (45%). General education teachers (42%) make up the

largest group of educators in the sample, followed by bilingual educators (31%),

administrative/support staff (14%), and special educators (8%). The administrative/support staff

subgroup is comprised of administrators, counselors, curriculum specialists, speech and language

pathologists and other itinerate staff members that may not be in a classroom teaching

environment on a daily basis. The educators ranged in age from 21 to over 45. The majority of

educators in this sample had between six and twenty years of experience (46%).

84

Table 2. Survey Participant Demographics (N = 439)

Demographic Variables Categories n %

Gender Male 34 8

Female 381 87

Age Range 21 - 34 156 36

35 - 44 124 28

> 45 152 35

Race/Ethnicity Latina 261 60

White 150 34

Af-Am, Asian, Other 24 6

Degree Bachelor’s 276 63

Master’s + 161 37

Year Graduated 2000 - 2007 196 45

1990 - 1999 102 23

< 1989 87 20

Job Title/Position Admin/Support 63 14

General Ed 184 42

Bil Ed/ESL 137 31

Special Ed 36 8

Total Years Teaching < 5 yrs. 142 32

6 – 20 yrs. 201 46

> 21 yrs. 85 19

District and Elementary Campus Demographics. Research requests were submitted to

districts in the South Texas area. Two districts in the San Antonio area provided support for the

study. Five elementary campuses in District one (D1) and six elementary campuses in District

two (D2) participated in the research. In addition, one elementary principal in the Rio Grande

Valley (RGV) and one elementary principal in another San Antonio district agreed to allow their

campus to participate in the research study for a total of 13 elementary campuses (See Table 3).

85

District approval allowed the researcher to contact and select the elementary campuses in D1, but

the decision to participate rested with the campus principal. A total of 231 surveys were

completed by educators in D1.

Table 3. District and Elementary Campus Participation

District Elementary Campuses

Surveys collected

%

District 1 (D1) 5 231 53

District 2 (D2) 6 153 35

District 3 (D3) 1 27 6

District 4 (D4) 1 28 6

Total 13 439 100

In D2, six elementary schools were selected for participation by the director of district

initiatives with input from the researcher. Campus participation was dependent on principal’s

approval. A total of 153 surveys were completed by educators in D2.

In district three (D3) and district four (D4), the researcher provided each principal with a

letter describing the purpose of the study, and provided a copy of the consent from and a draft of

the survey to review. The principals then provided the researcher with a letter of support.

Twenty seven surveys were completed by educators in D3 and twenty eight surveys were

completed by educators in D4. A total of 439 surveys were obtained from elementary educators

in the South Texas area.

District and Campus Educator Demographics. Educators in each of the participating

districts ranged in terms of diversity (See Table 4). Data from AEIS district profiles (Texas

Education Agency, 2005-2006) show that minority educators make up over half of the teaching

Table 4. Educator Demographics, State and Participating Districts, 2005 – 2006

Texas District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

n % n % n % n % n %

Educator

Professional staff 372,671 63 4,938 65 4,556 59 6,148 61 419 48

Teachers 302,149 51 3,937 52 3,516 45 4,866 48 344 39

Total Minority staff 247,645 42 2,727 36 6,030 78 4,999 49 854 97

African-American 27,465 9 87 2 409 12 153 3 1 0.3

Hispanic 60,817 20 779 20 1,900 54 1,516 31 316 92

White 209,743 69 3,038 77 1,177 34 3,155 65 21 6

Other 4,123 2 34 1 30 1 42 1 6 2

Males 69,103 23 814 21 868 25 1,014 21 124 36

Females 233,045 77 3,124 79 2,648 75 3,851 79 220 64

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 State and District Profile

86

87

staff in D2 (54%) and D4 (92%), while the majority of educators in D1 (77 %) and D3 (65%)

were categorized as White. Overall, there were few African-American, Asian/PI, and Native

American educators represented in the participating districts and elementary campuses. The

majority of educators in Texas and the participating districts were female (64-79%).

Administrative and support staff were also included in the survey data collection. Table four

shows that the majority of district and campus staff were educators.

Student Demographics

State. For the 2005-2006 school year, Texas students totaled 4,505,572 (See Table 5). Of

these students, 45% were Latino/Hispanic. Over half of the students in Texas were classified as

economically disadvantaged (55%). The state Limited English Proficient/English Language

Learner (LEP/ELL) population was sixteen percent. Of these ELLs, fifteen percent received

Bilingual/ESL programming in the 2005-2006 school year. Eleven percent of the student

population receives special education services with two percent of students in Texas also

categorized as LEP/ELL.

Districts and elementary campuses. Five elementary campuses were selected from

district one (D1) for participation. District one has forty two elementary campuses; therefore,

twelve percent of elementary campuses were included in the sample. D1 has a total student

population of 59,556 (See Table 5). The ethnic majority in this district were Latino/Hispanic

students (44%). The second largest group of students in D1 were White (42%). African-

American and other ethnic groups make up 14% of the district student population. Thirteen

percent of the student population in the district receives special education services and five

percent receive bilingual/ESL instruction. Nearly 40% of the students in D1 were categorized as

economically disadvantaged.

88

For each elementary campus participating from D1, Latino/Hispanic students comprised

over half of the student population ranging from a high of 94 percent (ES 2) to a low of 53

percent (ES5). The second largest group of students at the elementary campuses were White (35

– 5%). The five elementary campuses have over half of their student population classified as

economically disadvantaged (91 – 43%). The elementary campuses in the sample have higher

rates of students considered economically disadvantaged than the district as a whole. See

Appendix E (Table E1) for D1 elementary campus student and program demographics.

Six elementary campuses were selected from D2 for participation. District two has a

total student population of 56,371 (See Table 5). Overall, the Latino/Hispanic group comprises

88% of the student population in D2. African-American students make up 9% of the population.

Ninety-two percent of the student population was classified as economically disadvantaged.

Seventeen percent of the students were considered ELL/LEP and 15% of the students receive

bilingual/ESL programming. Twelve percent of the students received special education services.

See Appendix E (Table E2) for further demographic data on D2 elementary campuses.

District three (D3) has a total student population of 78,154 (See Table 5) and

Latino/Hispanic students comprise over half of the student population (61%). White students

make up 27% of the population, followed by African-Americans (8%). Thirteen percent of the

student population received special education services, and only 5% received bilingual education

programming in the 2005-2006 school year. Six percent of the student population in D4 was

considered English Language Learners (ELLs). Nearly half of the student population in D4 was

categorized as economically disadvantaged. See Appendix E (Table E3) for D3 and D4

elementary campus demographics.

89

The smallest school district in the sample has a student population of 5,471 located in the

Rio Grande Valley of Texas (See Table 5). This area is considered rural and is comprised of

Latino/a students (99.6%) predominantly. Ninety-two percent of students in D4 were

categorized as economically disadvantaged. Eight percent of the student population receives

special education services, while 42% receive bilingual education programming. Forty-two

percent of the population was considered English language learner (ELL).

Texas Education Agency. Data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) was requested

to obtain information on the districts and campuses corresponding to the selected survey

participants. The Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), Performance-Based

Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) reports available to the public were utilized. Additional

data was requested from TEA from the Public Education Information Management System

(PEIMS). Specific data requests were made to obtain program referral and participation data for

the state, school districts, and elementary campuses participating.

The Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) encompasses all public

education data requested and received by TEA, including student demographics, student

academic performance, school personnel, district financial, and organizational information

(Texas Education Agency, 2008c).

The AEIS profile reports are available for the state, and disaggregated by districts and

campuses. The AEIS was established in 1984, when the Texas Legislature sought to emphasize

student achievement as the basis for accountability (Texas Education Agency, 2008a). The

student performance and the accountability system profile reports are used by the Texas

legislature to establish and revise educational policies and funding. The AEIS state, district, and

campus profile reports for the 2005-2006 school year were utilized for the current study.

Table 5. State and District Demographics, 2005-2006

State District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

n % n % n % n % n %

Students

Af-Am 664,242 14.7 5,851 9.8 4,969 8.8 6,270 8.0 05 0.1

Latino/a 2,040,449 45.3 26,222 44.0 49,486 87.8 47,795 61.2 5,471 99.6

White 1,644,308 36.5 25,264 42.4 1,699 3.0 21,560 27.6 17 0.3

Other 156, 573 3.3 2,219 3.7 217 0.4 2,529 3.2 0 0

LEP/ELL 711,237 15.8 3,461 5.8 9,438 16.7 5,095 6.5 2,325 42.3

Eco. Dis. 2,503,755 55.0 22,846 38.4 51,988 92.2 38,664 49.5 5,062 92.1

Bil/ESL 657,716 14.6 2,874 4.8 8,385 14.9 3,935 5.0 2,310 42.0

Sp. Ed. 500,037 11.1 7,774 13.1 6,839 12.1 10,367 13.3 469 8.5

LEP/SpEd 79,245 1.8 275 0.5 1,085 1.9 785 1.0 * *

Total 4,505,572 59,556 56,371 78,154 5,495

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 State and District Profile

90

91

which is an automated data system that reports annually on the performance of school districts

and the selected program areas, such as, Bilingual education/English as a second language,

special education, and programs under the No Child Left Behind Act (Texas Education Agency,

2006, 2008b). The current study used the 2006 PBMAS reports to obtain data on the

representation of CLD students in special education.

This study used public information from the TEA web site that included the

characteristics of districts and elementary campuses with regard to student ethnic diversity,

educational program participation, and educator demographics. Additional information on

characteristics of students served in special education by eligibility, ethnicity and language status

was requested from TEA personnel through the PEIMS as this information was not available on

the public website.

Instrumentation

Survey Development

The survey, “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Educational

Practices, Policies and Programming,” was developed for this study. In fall 2006, a pilot survey

was developed based on a review of the literature and prior surveys found in the literature. The

survey was developed and a pilot study (IRB # 07-046E) was completed to obtain data on

teacher perceptions of disproportionality. The survey encompassed factors that affect

disproportionality based on educator epistemological beliefs. The pilot survey (Fall 2006) was

administered to focus groups and to master-level education students including special education

majors. The initial survey was refined and revised by deleting items and including items specific

to the research questions.

92

A review of the literature in the areas of school psychology, education, bilingual

education and special education yielded a range of information for the initial survey

development. No current surveys were found that addressed disproportionality or over-

representation from educator perceptions.

A review of the literature, yielded several surveys that addressed specific groups of

educators, such as general education teacher behaviors and attitudes (Lester & Bishop, 2000) as

well as teacher multicultural attitudes – Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (Ponterotto,

1998). One study with bilingual teachers (B. B. Flores, 1999) utilized a survey to investigate

bilingual teacher epistemology and teaching practices along with interviews. Surveys that

investigated the practices and training of school psychologists related to the assessment of

culturally and linguistically diverse students were also reviewed (Ochoa, Galarza, & González,

1996; Ochoa, Powell, & Robles-Piña, 1996; Ochoa, Rivera, & Ford, 1997). Other surveys

focused on multicultural competencies of school psychologists (Moreno, 2003) and a follow-up

survey on bilingual school psychologists’ practices with English Language Learners (Lopes,

2005) were investigated. Similar to Ochoa, et al. (1996, 1997), Lopes (2005) surveyed bilingual

school psychologists listed in the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

directory on current issues related to training, evaluation and decision-making practices.

The following scales framed the items adapted from the review of previous surveys, the

literature and the research questions for this particular study: 1) Familiarity with policies; 2)

Previous training/experience; 3) Racial/ethnic over-representation; 4) Decision-making practices;

and 5) Language and Bilingual Education. The items included in the survey were framed within

one of the five areas of interest. The items were either adapted from previous surveys or

developed by the researcher. The survey developed for the pilot study, contained eighty-one

93

questions. The majority of the items were developed by the researcher while some were adapted

from a review of the literature (Baker, 1996; B. B. Flores, 1999; Lopes, 2005; Moreno, 2003;

Ochoa, Galarza, & González, 1996; Ochoa, Powell, & Robles-Piña, 1996; Ochoa, Rivera, &

Ford, 1997).

Data for the pilot study was collected (Fall 2006) from current graduate students in the

College of Education and Human Development at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Four

graduate classrooms were visited by the researcher to solicit survey participation. Graduate

students were asked to participate by completing the survey on a voluntary basis. The only

requirement for participation was that individuals would have experience and knowledge in

schools, such as participation in decision-making teams. Participants were provided with a

consent form that described the purpose of the study, their rights to refuse to participate, as well

as information on how to contact the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the

researcher.

A total of forty-seven surveys were collected from five graduate classes. In terms of

gender, 72% of the respondents were female (n = 34) and 23% were male (n = 11). In terms of

ethnic/racial affiliation, 46% of the respondents identified as Latino/Hispanic, 34% as White,

10% as African-American, and 4% identified as Asian/Pacific Islander.

In age and years of experience, the results indicate 76% of respondents to be between the

ages of 25-44 (n = 36). Three respondents were 24 years old or younger and eight respondents

were over 45 years of age. In terms of educational experience (n = 45), half of the participants

(53%) had between 3-10 years of experience. There was one respondent who had been teaching

less than a year, ten respondents had less than 2 years of experience and ten participants had

more than 11 years of experience (21%). The majority of the participants were enrolled in a

94

master’s class (93%) and three respondents indicated they were enrolled in a doctoral program at

UTSA. Over 40% of the participants indicated they were certified as general education teachers,

6% as bilingual education teachers, and 4% had special education certifications. In terms of

school districts, participants worked at ten districts in the San Antonio area, with over half (53%)

of the respondents indicating they were employed at Northside ISD and 17% in San Antonio

ISD. The remainder of the participants were employed in one of eight other districts in the San

Antonio area. Forty-seven percent of the respondents indicated they had experience working in

elementary campuses.

Preliminary analysis of the survey developed for the pilot study indicated that there were

more than five factors being measured and the item clustering was not adequate. No further

analysis was possible due to the low internal reliability of the pilot survey. The survey items

were then re-organized into subscales that would provide insight into the problem of

disproportionality in addition to the factors addressed in the pilot survey, such as educational

programming, policies and practices by campus-level educators.

The current survey, “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:

Educational Practices, Policies and Programming,” is comprised of 18 demographic questions

followed by 12 subscales with a total of 92 items (See Table 6) to address educator perceptions

of educational programming, policies and practices in regards to CLD students in the South

Texas area. Educators are involved in school decision-making teams and also have explicit

knowledge of school policies, programs and practices.

The first two pages of the survey contain demographic questions in addition to a guide to

the acronyms used in the survey (See Appendix D). The survey is comprised of twelve subscales

and the item response format is a five-point Likert scale, from Not at all (1) to Very Much (5) for

95

all items. A description of the survey items by subscale is provided. The majority of survey

items was used for the pilot study and have been revised. Survey items for subscales four

through seven were developed by the researcher.

Subscale one, Familiarity with federal/state policies (Q 1-2). Subscale one (S1) includes

questions related to educators’ familiarity with federal and state policies in regards to bilingual

education, special education and pre-referral practices. The six items encompassed in question

one (Q1) include state and federal practices within the pre-referral to special education process

for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. The sentence stem for the six sub-items

is, “How familiar are you with the federal/state guidelines.” Question two asks participants to

rate their level of participation in campus-based decision team meetings. The items on this

subscale were developed by the researcher.

Previous training/experience with CLD (Q 3-13). Items for subscale two (S2) include

questions related to educators’ previous training and experience in regards to practices related to

first and second language acquisition, bilingual education, special education, and interpretation

of bilingual psycho-educational evaluations for CLD students. The sentence stem for this

subscale is, “To what degree do you believe your previous experience and training prepared you

in understanding….” Three of the 11 items on subscale two were adapted from Ochoa, et al.

(1997) and the remainder were developed by the researcher.

Racial/ethnic disproportionality (Q 14-20). The seven items for subscale three (S3) were

developed by the researcher and include questions about the perception of over-representation

for racial/ethnic groups (e.g., To what degree do you believe…African-American students are

over-represented in special education).

96

CLD (Q 21-28), Latino/a (Q 29-36), ELL (Q 37 – 44) and Gender (Q 45-46) Over-

representation. These four subscales (S3 – S7) were designed to obtain educator perceptions on

the over-representation of sub-groups of CLD students. Identical questions were asked for each

subscale, with the exception of the perception of the gender over-representation which is

comprised of two items (e.g., Girls are over-represented in special education). The sentence

stem for these subscales is, “To what degree to you believe that CLD, Latino/a, or ELL students

in your school are….” The items for subscales four through seven were developed by the

researcher.

Table 6. Survey Subscales and Number of Items

Subscale Question Number of items

1 Familiarity with federal/state policy (S1) 1-2 7

2 Previous experience and training (S2) 3-13 11

3 Racial/Ethnic Over-representation (S3)

14-20 7

4 CLD student Over-representation (S4) 21-28 8

5 Latino/a student Over-representation (S5) 29-36 8

6 ELL student Over-representation (S6) 37-44 8

7 Gender Over-Representation (S7) 45-46 2

8 Educational Programming for CLD (S8) 47-55 9

9 Pre-referral/Student Support Team process for CLD (S9)

56-64 9

10 Bilingual Psycho-educational Evaluation (S10) 65-69 5

11 Special Education and CLD (S11) 70-76 7

12 Culturally Relevant Teaching Practices (S12) 77-87 11

Total 92

97

Educational Programming (Q 47-55). Subscale eight (S8), includes questions relating to

the educational programming available and provided to CLD students in terms of bilingual

education and special education. The sentence stem for subscales eight through ten and a sample

question is as follows, “For your school, to what degree do you believe that…appropriate

educational programming is provided for all students.” Eight of the nine questions in this

subscale were developed by the researcher. One question was adapted from Moreno (2003).

Pre-referral/Student support team process for CLD (Q 56 – 64). Question for subscale

nine (S9) specifically targeted practices related to pre-referral intervention teams and the special

education process for CLD students. The sentence stem for these items is similar to subscale

eight. A sample question from this subscale, “For your school, to what degree do you believe

that …the pre-referral intervention (student support) team is effective in monitoring referrals for

special education.” The nine items in subscale nine were developed by the researcher.

Bilingual psycho-educational evaluation practices (Q 65-69). A sample question from

this subscale, “…trained bilingual evaluation personnel are available to complete testing.” The

five items on subscale ten were developed by the researcher.

Special Education and CLD (Q 70-76). This subscale includes questions related to

special education practices as they relate to CLD students. For example, “…the special

education committee reviews student language proficiency data.” The researcher developed four

of the seven items for this subscale. Three items were adapted from Moreno (2003) and Ochoa,

et al. (1999).

Culturally Relevant Teaching Practices (Q 77- 87). The eleven items that comprise

subscale twelve are aimed at providing insight into educator’s perception of their teaching

practices with multicultural populations. One item on attitude to language was adapted from

98

Baker (1996); one item on teaching methods was adapted from Flores (1999) and five of the

items on educators attitudes toward cultural and linguistic diversity and working with students

from CLD backgrounds were adapted from Ponterotto, et al. (1998).

Rates of Representation

Texas Education Agency (TEA) data for the 2005-2006 school year was requested to

calculate measures used for determining disproportionality: a) the composition index; b) risk

index; and c) odds ratio for CLD students in special education by state, district and elementary

campus when possible. Student data was disaggregated by race/ethnicity, disability, program

placement and language status (LEP SpEd) by state, district and campus level when possible.

Data from TEA was collected and entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet by district, campus,

program placement and eligibility category. The following calculation methods were used to

produce the CI, RI, and OR for the districts and elementary campuses in this sample.

Composition index. The composition index (CI) was calculated by dividing the number of

students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category by the total

number of students (summed across all five racial/ethnic groups) enrolled in that same disability

category. The CI index reflects the proportion of all children receiving services under a specific

category who are members of a CLD group (Donovan & Cross, 2002). The composition index

(CI) would reflect the proportion of students placed and served in special education, as well as

those served by eligibility category. The composition index answers the questions: 1) What

percent of students placed in special education are Latino/a? and 2) What percent of the Learning

Disabled student population is Latino/a? Knowing the composition index for Latino/as in special

education is not interpretable unless we know what percent of the students in the district, campus

or eligibility category who are Latino/a (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004, p. 5). The extent of

99

disproportionality was determined by calculating the difference between the composition index

(CI) and the percent of all students in the district, campus or eligibility category who were

Latino/a. Any positive differences indicate over-representation, while a negative number

suggests under-representation.

Risk index and Odds ratio. The risk index and the relative risk ratio or odds ratio

(Coutinho & Oswald, 2004) were calculated using the data from TEA at the state, district and

campus level when possible. The risk index (RI) was calculated by dividing the number of

students in a given racial/ethnic category (e.g., Hispanic) placed in a given disability category

(e.g., LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population (Donovan

& Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). The RI provides the percentage of all students in a given

ethnic/racial group identified in a specific eligibility category (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004;

Donovan & Cross, 2002). The risk index answers the question: What percent of Latino/a

percent in the school or district are identified as LD? The risk index illustrates the rate in which

a disability occurs by ethnic/racial group.

The odds ratio (OR) divides the risk index of one racial/ethnic group (e.g., Hispanic) by

the risk index of another racial/ethnic group (e.g., White) and provides a comparative index of

risk (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). The odds ratios were calculated for Latino/a and African-

American students compared to White students. If the ratio is greater than 1.0, this indicates that

the ethnic/racial groups are at greater risk of identification for special education (Donovan &

Cross, 2002). Odds less than 1.0 indicate that the ethnic/racial groups are less at risk for

identification. The risk indexes expressed as a percent were placed in a ratio, which resulted in a

single number that characterizes the extent of disproportionality and can be compared across

100

groups (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004). The relative risk ratio, or OR, takes into account

race/ethnicity base rates in the population (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004).

Procedures

Survey participation. Letters of support and permission to conduct the research were

obtained from two school districts, and two elementary principals in the South Texas area (Fall

2007). Following district approval to conduct research, principals at elementary campuses were

contacted to determine their willingness to allow school staff to participate. In district one (D1),

seven elementary campuses were contacted by the researcher. Each principal was given a letter

describing the purpose of the research, a copy of the district approval letter, and a draft of the

survey and consent form to review. Two principals chose not to participate in the research.

Upon meeting with the five principals willing to allow their campus to participate, data

collection was planned for a regularly scheduled staff meeting. At each phase of the data

collection process, the district director of research was notified of the elementary campuses

contacted by the researcher and the number of participants. I also plan to share the outcomes of

the study with each of the participating schools.

In district two (D2), six elementary schools were selected for participation by the director

of district initiatives with input from the researcher. Campus participation was dependent on

principals’ approval. Each principal was given a letter describing the purpose of the research, a

copy of the district approval letter, and a draft of the survey and consent form to review. All of

the schools selected were within the same geographical area within the district’s west side. Upon

meeting with each of the principals at the elementary campus, data collection was planned during

a regularly scheduled staff meeting, with the exception of one elementary campus in which the

surveys were administered and collected by the principal during grade level meetings.

101

Survey data collection was scheduled during regularly scheduled staff meetings − after

school − therefore, there was no interruption to the teacher or student educational program. At

each elementary school, the principal or his/her representative determined where the research

survey would be administered within the staff meeting agenda.

The researcher was available to answer questions before, during and after the survey

completion. Participants were provided with a copy of the consent form explaining the purpose

of the study and were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary. No personally

identifiable information was obtained or requested from participants. The consent form was

provided to the educators for their records, which included contact information for the researcher

as well as the UTSA IRB office (See Appendix A and C). If the educator agreed to participate,

they were asked to complete the survey entitled “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and

Linguistic Diversity: Educational Practices, Policies and Programming.” Participants were

provided with a ballpoint pen with the UTSA logo as a token of appreciation, which were handed

out along with the survey. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete. All surveys

were completed and collected during the staff meetings, with the exception of one elementary

campus in district two (D2). The researcher assigned the districts and elementary campuses a

unique number for coding and data entry. Following survey data collection completion, thank

you letters were sent to all elementary campus principals and district directors of research.

Survey data collection began October, 2007, and ended January, 2008.

Texas Education Agency Data. Concurrent data collection of Texas Education Agency

AEIS and PBMAS reports occurred. AEIS district and campuses reports as well as district

PBMAS reports were downloaded for each district and campus as approval for participation was

obtained. PEIMS data requests on special education eligibility, ELL/LEP status and bilingual

102

education participation continued through each stage of data collection and analysis. TEA

personnel were contacted by phone and e-mail for data requests in fall 2007 and spring 2008.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program and the

Microsoft Excel application programs were utilized for data entry and analysis. The SPSS

software program was used to analyze data and provide descriptives, frequencies, internal

consistency statistics, and ANOVAs. Frequencies were calculated for demographic variables

and subscale responses. Descriptive data for each subscale was obtained. Chronbach’s alpha

coefficients were calculated to examine internal consistency of the twelve survey subscales.

ANOVA’s were conducted to determine differences in educator perceptions on each of the

scales/domains using the independent variables of ethnicity/race, job/position, and years of

experience. The twelve survey subscales served as the dependent variables for each ANOVA

analysis.

The Chi square test was used to analyze five survey subscales that focus on over-

representation (S3-S7). The five point Likert scale items for each subscale were re-coded into

two categories for analysis. The subscales responses were re-coded as, one (1) indicating no

over-representation and two (2) signifying over-representation. Subscale 3: Ethnic/Racial over-

representation scores were recoded, 7 to 20 = 1; 21 to 35 = 2; Subscale 4 – 6: CLD student over-

representation, Latino/a student over-representation, and ELL/LEP student over-representation

scores were recoded, 8 to 20 = 1 and 21 to 40 = 2; Subscale 7: Gender over-representation scores

were recoded 2 to 4 = 1 and 4 to 10 = 2. Differences in categorical scores were investigated.

103

Limitations

Due to the large number of factors associated with disproportionality and over-

representation of CLD students in special education, this study is limited in scope. The study

aimed to investigate educator perceptions based on their ethnicity/race, job position, gender and

years of experience. Due to the small number of male participants, the gender variable was not

used for analyses. Survey subscales include items related to ethnic/racial group over-

representation, CLD student over-representation, gender over-representation, bilingual and

special education programming, pre-referral process, bilingual psycho-educational evaluations,

special education, and teaching practices. The survey and other data collected were limited to

these factors.

Second, the survey results are based on educators’ self-reports and perceptions, and is

limited to the one time veracity of responses. The goal of the study was to include all

professionals on the campus, but educational diagnosticians, school psychologists and speech

and language pathologists did not appear to attend regularly scheduled staff meetings, and

therefore, their representation in the sample is limited.

The majority of students in the South Texas area are Latino/Hispanic. Therefore, White,

African-American and other student groups may not be represented at each elementary campus

or district. Without the representation of other racial/ethnic groups, calculation and analyses of

odds ratios was not possible. Using data from TEA has limitations in terms of the variability of

reporting methods used by the districts and campuses as well as the state. The present study

utilized the federal terms and categories used by TEA when reporting data on ethnic/racial group

differences.

104

Summary

This research study, utilizing mixed sets of data, examines the phenomenon of

disproportionality of CLD students in the South Texas area in four districts and thirteen

elementary campuses. Data was collected from elementary educators through the use of a survey

developed for this study. A total of 439 surveys were collected for educators in the South Texas

area. In addition, data was collected from the Texas Education Agency to include the

disaggregation of data on student disability and program placement rates in special education.

The twelve survey subscales served as the dependent variables for ANOVA analyses in

examining differences in educator perceptions of disproportionality. TEA data was used to

calculate and compare the rates of representation of CLD students in special education by

race/ethnicity, program placement and disability category in each of the participating school

districts and elementary campuses. CLD student composition indexes were used to compare

educator perceptions on the problem of over-representation. The results of the study are

presented in Chapter Four.

105

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter provides the results of the data analyses for each research question. Each

research question provides insight into the problem of disproportionality from the perspective of

educators. Data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) on culturally and linguistically diverse

(CLD) student representation in special education was disaggregated to the district and campus

level when possible. Data from the TEA and data from participant survey responses are

provided and analyzed.

Research Question One

What are the rates of representation for CLD students in special education by

ethnicity/race, eligibility category/disability, program placement and language status in the South

Texas area? What are the rates of representation of ELLs/LEP in special education?

TEA data for the 2005-2006 school year was requested and the following calculation

measures were used to determine and examine disproportionality: a) the composition index; b)

risk index; and c) odds ratio for CLD students in special education by state, district and

elementary campus when possible. Student data was disaggregated by race/ethnicity, disability,

program placement and language status (LEP SpEd) by state, district and campus level when

possible.

Measuring Disproportionality

The Composition Index (CI) was calculated by dividing the number of students of a given

racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category by the total number of students

(summed across all racial/ethnic groups) enrolled in that same disability category (Donovan &

Cross, 2002, p. 43).

106

The risk index (RI) was calculated by dividing the number of students in a given

racial/ethnic category (e.g., Hispanic) placed in a given disability category (e.g., LD) by the total

enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-

43). The odds ratio (OR) was calculated by dividing the risk index of one racial/ethnic group

(e.g., Hispanic) by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group (e.g., White) and provided a

comparative index of risk (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). The odds ratios for ethnic/racial

groups are typically presented in comparison to White students, in which a ratio greater than 1.0

indicates that ethnic/racial groups are at greater risk of identification for special education

(Donovan & Cross, 2002). Odds less than 1.0 indicate that the ethnic/racial groups are less at

risk for identification compared to Whites. The risk indexes are expressed as a percent and were

placed in a ratio, which resulted in a single number that characterizes the extent of

disproportionality and was used for comparison across groups (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004). The

relative risk ratio, or OR, takes into account the race/ethnicity base rates in the population

(Coutinho & Oswald, 2004).

State Rates of Representation

Latino/a students make up 45% of the student population in Texas, followed by White

students (36%) and African-Americans (15%). Eleven percent of the students in Texas received

special education services (See Table 7) during the 2005-2006 school year. Almost half (49%)

of the special education students were considered Learning Disabled (LD), 6% receive services

under the Mental Retardation (MR) category, 7% as Emotionally Disturbed (ED) and 20% as

Speech Impaired (SI).

107

Table 7. Texas Sp. Ed. by Eligibility, 2005-2006

Texas

n %

Special Ed 500,037 11.1

Learning Disabled (LD) 244,736 48.9

Mental Retardation (MR) 30,462 6.1

Emotional Disturbance (ED) 36,801 7.4

Speech Impaired (SI) 99,997 20.0

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports.

Composition index. During the 2005-2006 school year, Latino/a students comprised 41%

of the special education population (see Table 8), followed by White students with 39%, and

African-American students with 18%. English Language Learners (ELLs) account for 16% of

the special education students in Texas. Utilizing the composition index, which reflects the

proportion of students served in special education, African-American (+ 3.4), and White (+

2.9) students were over-represented in special education while Latino/a (- 3.9) students would

not be considered over-represented in special education in Texas. Difference scores were

calculated by subtracting the composition index of African-American, Latino/a and White

students in special education by the percent of African-American, Latino/a and White students

in the state population. Any positive differences indicate over-representation, while negative

numbers suggest under-representation. White student rates of representation in special

education are not typically monitored for disproportionality.

108

English language learners (ELL/LEP) made up approximately 16% of the student

population in Texas during the 2005-2006 school year. The composition index of ELLs in

special education was also close to sixteen percent; therefore, ELLs would not be considered

over-represented in special education at the state level.

Table 8. Texas Special Education Rates of Representation, 2005-2006 Texas

Demographics n % Sp. Ed. (CI)

% in Population

Difference

African-American 90,507 18.1 14.7 + 3.4

Latino / Hispanic 206,961 41.4 45.3 - 3.9

White 197,034 39.4 36.5 + 2.9

LEP / ELL & SpEd 79,245 15.84 15.78 + .06

Total Students 500,037 11.1 4,505,572


African-American students make up 14.7% of the student population and 18.1% of the

special education population in Texas (See Table 9). Investigation of the high incidence

eligibility categories reveals that 19% of the LD population is African-American. Overall,

African-American students appear to be over-represented in special education under the

categories of learning disabled (+ 4.3), emotionally disturbed (+ 7.3), and mental retardation (+

13.6).

109

Table 9. African-American Students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006

African- American Students

Disability Category n % Af-Am by Elig.(CI) % in pop Difference

Learning Disabled 47,735 19.5 14.7 + 4.8

Emotionally Disturbed 8,097 22.0 14.7 + 7.3

Mental Retardation 8,614 28.3 14.7 + 13.6

Speech Impaired 12,556 12.6 14.7 - 2.1

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS data.

Latino/a students account fors45.3% of the state population and account for 47% of the

learning disabled population in Texas (See Table 10). Latino/as make up 29% of the students

considered ED, 41% of students considered MR and SI. Latino/a students appear to be over-

represented, at the state level, in the category of learning disabled (+1.7). Over-representation

was not noted in the category of LD.

Table 10. Latino/a students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 Latino/a Students

Disability Category n % Latino/a by Elig.(CI)

% Latino/a in Population Difference

Learning Disabled 115,057 47.0 45.3 + 1.7

Emotionally Disturbed 10,728 29.0 45.3 - 16.1

Mental Retardation 12,562 41.3 45.3 - 4.0

Speech Impaired 41,613 41.6 45.3 - 3.7


White students make up 36% of the student population in Texas. White students

comprise 39.4% of the special education population and were considered over-represented (See

Table 11) in special education (+ 2.9). White students were also over-represented in two of the

110

four subjective disability categories, ED (+ 11.3) and SI (+ 6.9). White students would be

considered under-represented in the categories of LD and MR.

Disaggregation of special education data indicates variability in the rates of

representation of CLD students in special education by eligibility category at the state level when

utilizing the composition index as the tool for measuring over-representation. For example,

Latino/a students would not be considered over-represented in special education at the state level

(-3.9), but examination of the rates of Latino/a students by eligibility category indicate over-

representation as learning disabled (+1.7).

Table 11. White Students in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 White Students

% in Sp.Ed. (CI)

% in Population

Difference

State 39.4 36.5 + 2.9

Learning Disabled 32.3 36.5 -4.2

Mental Retardation 28.4 36.5 - 8.1

Emotionally Disturbed 47.8 36.5 + 11.3

Speech Impaired 43.4 36.5 + 6.9


Risk index and odds ratio. Other tools used by researchers to measure disproportionality

are the risk index and odds ratio. A risk index illustrates the rate in which a disability occurs by

ethnic/racial group in the state, district or school population. In Texas (See Table 12 below),

nearly 5% of White students were labeled LD, less than 1% as MR, 1% as ED, and 3% as SI.

Over 7% of African-American students were labeled LD, over 1% as MR, over 1% as ED, and

111

over 2% as SI. Over 5% of Latino/a students were labeled LD, less than 1% as MR, 1% as ED,

and 2% as SI in the 2005-2006 school year.

The odds ratios (OR) for ethnic/racial groups are typically presented in comparison to

White students; therefore, odd ratios were not calculated for the comparison group (White

students). A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that ethnic/racial groups are at greater risk of

identification for special education. The odds ratio indicates that compared to White students,

African-American students had a 49% greater likelihood of being assigned to LD, were twice as

likely to be identified as MR, and had a 22% greater likelihood of being identified as ED (See

Table 12).

In Texas, Latino/a students had a 17% greater likelihood of being identified as LD, a 17%

greater likelihood of identification as MR, but were less at risk of identification as ED in

comparison to White students. In the speech impaired (SI) category, both African-American and

Latino/a students were less at risk of identification compared to White students in the state (OR

less than 1.0).

Table 12. Texas Risk Index and Odds Ratio by Ethnicity and Disability Category, 2005-2006 Texas

White African-American Latino/a

Disability Risk Index Risk Index Odds Ratio Risk Index Odds Ratio

LD 4.81 7.19 1.49 5.64 1.17

MR 0.53 1.30 2.47 0.62 1.17

ED 1.07 1.22 1.14 0.53 0.49

SI 2.64 1.89 0.72 2.04 0.77


112

Overall, the largest proportion of special education students were Latino/a (41%), but

African-American students have the highest risk of representation and have greater odds of

identification as LD, MR, and ED in relation to White students. Latino/a students were over-

represented as LD and have a higher risk of identification in this category (RI = 5.64). White

students were over-represented as ED and SI and have a greater risk of representation as SI (RI =

2.64) compared to Latino/a and African-American students in Texas. The data reveals a need for

continued monitoring of disproportionality of CLD students in special education in Texas.

Sample Rates of Representation

In the four districts in this sample, Latino/a students ranged from 44 to 99.6% of the

student population (See district demographics Table 5 in Chapter 3). White students ranged

from less than 1% to 42% of the district population. African-American students ranged from less

than 1% to 10% of the student population in the districts in this sample. The composition index,

risk index and odds ratios were calculated to determine the rates of representation of CLD

students in special education for the districts in this sample. White and African-American

students made up less than 1% of the student population in D4 and therefore, CI, RI and OR

could not be calculated. The CI and RI for Latino/a students in D4 were calculated when

possible.

Composition index. Three of the four school districts participating in the research study

had a higher percentage of students in special education than the state rate (See Table 13).

Investigating the number of students receiving special education reveals that the learning

disabled (LD) category accounts for 28% of the students in D1, 48% in D2, 40% in D3 and 67%

in D4. There were fewer students receiving Special Education services as MR in two of the four

districts (<5%) in this sample compared to the state rate. In D1 and D4, about 7% of the students

113

received services as MR. Under the ED category, D1, D2 and D3 have more students receiving

services than the state rate (7.4%). Each district had about 12% of the population receiving

special education services as ED. District four had 1% of their students categorized as ED.

Twenty three percent of students in D1 receive services as speech impaired while 19% in D2,

22% in D3 and 13% of students in D4 receive services as speech impaired. D1, D2 and D3 may

be contributing to the problem of over-representation of CLD students in special education in

Texas, specifically under the category of Emotional Disturbance.

Table 13. Composition Index of Students in Special Education by Eligibility State D1 D2 D3 D4

Special Education 11.1 13.1 12.1 13.3 8.5

Learning Disabled 48.9 38.5 47.6 40.4 66.7

Mental Retardation 6.1 4.2 6.6 4.6 7.5

Emotional Disturbance 7.4 11.9 11.9 12.6 1.1

Speech Impaired 20.0 23.2 19.0 22.3 13.2

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, PEIMS Note: D1 = District One; D2 = District Two; D3 = District three; D4 = District four

Utilizing the composition index, Latino/a students were over-represented in special

education in D1 (+2.0) and D3 (+ 2.2). Latino/a students in these two districts were also over-

represented in special education in three of the four subjective eligibility categories (LD, MR and

SI). Difference scores were calculated by subtracting the composition index of Hispanic/Latino

students in special education by the number of Latino/as in the district (See Table 14). Any

positive differences indicate over-representation, while negative numbers suggest under-

representation in our sample. Although D1 and D3 had an over-representation of Latino/a

students in special education, the five elementary schools in D1 and the ES in D3 did not appear

114

to have an over-representation of Latino/a students in special education (See Appendix G).

Further investigation may be warranted in D1 and D3 to determine which schools could be

contributing to the district over-representation of Latino/a students in special education.

At the state level, Latino/a students were over-represented as LD (+1.7). Two of the four

districts in the sample (Table 15) also indicate an over-representation of Latino/a students

receiving services as LD (D1 and D3). The difference score was calculated by subtracting the

composition index by the percent of Latino/a students in the district population.

Table 14. Latino/as in Special Education by District, 2005-2006 Latino/as in Special Education

% in Sp. Ed. CI

% in Population

Difference %

State 41.4 45.3 -3.9

District 1 46.0 44.0 + 2.0

District 2 83.1 87.7 - 4.6

District 3 63.4 61.2 + 2.2

District 4 * * *

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports. * Not applicable

In the MR category, Latino/a students were not over-represented at the state level (-4.0).

In the sample, Latino/a students were over-represented in two of the districts (D1 and D3).

District 1 has the largest proportion of Latino/a students over-represented as MR (+4.0).

Latino/a students were under-represented at the state level under the category of ED (-16.1) and

were under-represented in the districts in the sample as well.

Table 15. Latino/a Student Rates of Representation in Sp. Ed. by Eligibility, 2005-2006 State D1 D2 D3 D4

CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff

LD 47.0 45.3 +1.7 52.6 44.0 +8.6 86.6 87.7 -1.1 70.1 61.2 +8.9 100 99.6 +0.4

MR 41.3 45.3 -4.0 46.5 44.0 +2.5 78.3 87.7 -9.4 62.6 61.2 +1.4 100 99.6 +0.4

ED 29.2 45.3 -16.1 37.2 44.0 -6.8 74.2 87.7 -13.5 56.0 61.2 -5.2 * 99.6 *

SI 41.6 45.3 -3.7 44.5 44.0 +0.5 89.3 87.7 +1.6 65.2 61.2 +4.0 100 99.6 +0.4

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports. Note: CI = Composition Index; % pop = percent of the population; Diff = Difference

115

116

Under the speech impaired (SI) category, Latino/a students were not over-represented at

the state level (-3.70), but disaggregating the data to the district level (Table 15) reveals that

three of the four districts in our sample have an over-representation of Latino/a students

receiving special education services as SI (D1, D2 and D3). District 3 has the largest rate of

over-representation (+4.0) of Latino/a students as SI.

In general, Latino/a students were over-represented in the LD category at the state level

and in two of the districts in the sample (D1 and D3). Latino/as were over-represented as MR

and SI in two of the school districts in the sample (D1 and D3). Latino/a students would be

considered under-represented in the category of ED. Latino students account for nearly 100% of

the student population in D4; and therefore, only Latino students are represented in special

education. Utilizing the composition index to measure over-representation was of limited use in

D4.

Over-representation of African-American students in special education was determined

by subtracting the composition index of African-American students in special education by the

percent of African-American students in the district population. The difference scores (Table 16)

indicate that, African-Americans would be considered as over-represented in special education at

the state level (+ 3.4), as well as in D1 (+2.4) and D2 (+1.8). White and African-American

students make up less than 1% of the student population in D4 and therefore the CI was not

calculated.

117

Table 16. African-Americans in Sp. Ed. by District, 2005-2006 African-American

% in Sp. Ed. CI

% in Population

Difference

State 18.1 14.7 + 3.4

District 1 12.2 9.8 + 2.4

District 2 10.6 8.8 +1.8

District 3 7.8 8.0 - 0.2

District 4 * * *

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports. * Not applicable

African-American students were over-represented as learning disabled (Table 17) at the

state level (+ 4.8) and in three of the four districts in our sample (D1, D2 and D3). District 1

appears to have the greatest rate of over-representation (+ 4.2) of African-American students

under the category of LD.

Under the MR category, African-American students were over-represented at the state

level (+13.6) and in three of the four districts in the sample. D2 had the largest proportion of

over-representation of African-American students as MR (+4.5).

African-American students were over-represented at the state level in the category of ED

(+7.3) and were over-represented in three of the four districts in the sample. D2 had the largest

proportion of African-American students receiving special education services as ED (+8.8).

African-American students were not over-represented as speech impaired (Table 17) at the state

level (- 2.1) or in any of the districts in our sample for this category.

118

Overall, African-American students were over-represented in special education in three

of the four soft disability categories (MR, ED, and LD) at the state and district level compared to

the percent of African-American students in the state and district population. The data suggests a

pattern of over-representation in placing African-American in special education, that has

persisted since early studies on this problem (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982).

White students make up 36% of the student population in Texas. In our sample, White

students make up 42% of the population in D1, 3% of the population in D2, and 27% of the

population in D3 (See Table 18). The composition index for White students in special education

reveals that they were over-represented as ED in three of the districts in the sample. White

students were under-represented as LD. White students were over-represented as SI (+ 2.6) in

D1 and MR (+ 5.2) in D2.

At the state level, ELL students were not over-represented in special education (See

Table 19). In the sample, D3 appeared to display a small over-representation of ELLs in special

education (+0.57). Three schools in D2 had an over-representation of ELLs in special education,

but disproportionality was not indicated when data was aggregated to the district level (See

Appendix H). The data suggests a need for further investigation of ELL student representation in

special education.

Table 17. African-American Student Rates of Representation in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 State D1 D2 D3

CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff CI % Pop Diff CI % pop Diff

LD 19.5 14.7 +4.8 32.0 9.8 -10 2.9 8.8 -0.1 20.3 8.0 -7.3

MR 28.3 14.7 +13.6 13.7 9.8 +3.9 13.3 8.8 +4.5 8.4 8.0 +0.4

ED 22.0 14.7 +7.3 15.6 9.8 +5.8 17.6 8.8 +8.8 9.7 8.0 +1.7

SI 12.6 14.7 -2.1 8.0 9.8 -1.8 6.7 8.8 -2.1 5.8 8.0 -2.2

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports. Note: CI = Composition Index; % pop = percent of the population; Diff = Difference Table 18. White Student Rates of Representation in Special Education by Eligibility, 2005-2006 State D1 D2 D3

CI % pop Diff CI % pop Diff CI % Pop Diff CI % pop Diff

LD 39.4 36.5 +2.9 32.0 42.0 -10 2.9 3.0 -0.1 20.3 27.6 -7.3

MR 28.4 36.5 -4.2 37.4 42.0 -4.6 8.2 3.0 +5.2 25.3 27.6 -2.3

ED 47.8 36.5 -8.1 45.9 42.0 +3.9 7.7 3.0 +4.7 33.5 27.6 +5.9

SI 43.4 36.5 +6.9 44.6 42.0 +2.6 3.7 3.0 +0.7 26.5 27.6 -1.1

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2005-2006, AEIS, PBMAS, PEIMS reports. Note: CI = Composition Index

119

120

Table 19. ELL/LEP Student Representation in Special Education English Language Learners

% ELL/LEP Sp.Ed. (CI)

% ELL/LEP in population

Difference

State 15.84 15.78 + 0.06

District 1 3.5 5.8 - 2.3

District 2 15.86 17.0 - 1.14

District 3 7.57 7.0 + 0.57

District 4 * 42.0 *


Risk index and odds ratios. An exploration of the risk index illustrates the rate in which a

disability occurs by ethnic/racial group. In D1, over 7% of African-American students were

labeled LD, over 6% in D2, and over 5% in D3 (See Table 20). About six percent of Latino/a

students were identified as LD in all four districts in our sample. Over 3% of White students

were identified as LD in D1, over 5% in D2, and nearly 4% in D3.

The odds ratio, using White students as the comparison group (See Table 20), shows that

African-American students have a 90% greater likelihood of being identified as LD in D1, 20%

greater likelihood in D2, and a 39% greater likelihood of identification as LD in D3.

Latino/a students have a 58% greater likelihood of identification in contrast to White

students as LD in D1, a 3% greater likelihood in D2, and a 56% greater likelihood identification

as LD in D3.

121

Table 20. Learning Disabled Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District White LD African- American LD Latino/a LD

Risk Index Risk Index Odds Ratio Risk Index Odds Ratio

District 1 3.79 7.18 1.90 6.00 1.58

District 2 5.53 6.66 1.20 5.69 1.03

District 3 3.93 5.47 1.39 6.13 1.56

District 4 * * * 5.72 *


An examination of the risk index, for the category of Mental Retardation (Table 21)

reveals that less than 1% of African-American students were identified as MR in three of the four

districts. Less than 1% of Latino/a students were also identified as MR in the four districts in our

sample. The RI for White students reveals that overall less than 1% of White students were

identified as MR in D1 and D3, while 2% of White students were identified as MR in D2.

In terms of the relative risk ratio or odds ratio for MR, African-American students had a

58% greater likelihood of identification in D1, were less likely to be identified as MR in D2 and

had a 14% greater likelihood of identification as MR in D3 in relation to White students.

Latino/a student has a 20% greater likelihood of identification as MR in D1, a 12% greater

likelihood in D3, and were less likely to be identified as MR in contrast to White students in D2.

An examination of the risk index for the category of Emotional Disturbance (ED) shows

that about 2-3% of African-American students were identified under this category in three of the

four districts in our sample (See Table 22). About 1-2% of Latino/a students were identified as

ED in three of the four districts in our sample. About 2% of White students were identified as

ED in D2, over 3% in D2, and 2% in D3.

122

Table 21. Mental Retardation Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District White MR African- Am MR Latino/a MR


District 1 .053 0.77 1.58 .58 1.20

District 2 0.49 1.21 0.55 .072 0.33

District 3 2.18 0.64 1.14 0.63 1.12

District 4 0.56 * * 0.64 *


The odds ratio indicates that in comparison to White students, African-Americans had a

47% greater likelihood of identification as ED in D1. In D2, African-Americans were less likely

to be identified as ED and in D3, African-Americans were equally likely as White students to be

identified as ED. Latino/a students were less likely to be identified as ED, compared to White

students in three of the four districts in the sample.

Table 22. Emotional Disturbance Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District

White ED African-Am ED Latino/a ED


District 1 1.68 2.46 1.47 1.31 0.78

District 2 3.71 2.88 0.78 1.22 0.33

District 3 2.03 2.03 1.00 1.53 0.75

District 4 * * * * *


123

The risk index reveals that 3% of African-American students were labeled as SI in D1,

about 2% in D2 and D3 (Table 23). The risk index for Latino/a students reveals that 3% were

labeled as SI in D1 and D3, over 2% in D2, and a little over 1% in D4.

The odds ratio shows (See Table 23) that African-American students were less likely to

be identified as SI, in comparison to White students, in three of the four districts in the sample.

Latino/a students were less likely to be identified, in contrast to White students, as SI in D1 and

D2. In D3, Latino/a students had an 11% greater likelihood of identification as SI in relation to

White students in the district.

Table 23. Speech Impaired Risk Index and Odds Ratio by District White SI African- Am SI Latino/a SI


District 1 2.18 2.48 0.78 3.06 0.96

District 2 2.83 1.75 0.62 2.34 0.83

District 3 2.83 2.12 0.75 3.15 1.11

District 4 * * * 1.13 *


In summary, investigating disproportionality with three of the calculation methods

identified in the research (CI, RI, OR) shows that variability in identification exists when data is

disaggregated to the district and campus level by eligibility category and ethnic/racial group

identification. The composition index reflects the actual proportion of students identified and

served under a disability category, the risk index reveals the percentage of all students in a

racial/ethnic group identified in a given eligibility category and the odds ratio provides a

comparative index of risk for identification of CLD/minority students compared to White

124

students in the district. Overall, African-American and Latino students were at greater risk of

identification for special education than White students.

Research Question Two

Do educator perceptions differ in regards to disproportionality of CLD students in special

education? Do school personnel perceptions differ based on their school position, race/ethnicity,

gender or years of experience? Survey data was used to answer this question, utilizing a three-

way ANOVA. Survey reliability and validity are presented, followed by the findings of the

ANOVAs. See Appendix I for Three-Way ANOVA SPSS results.

Survey of Educator Perceptions

The survey, “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Educational

Practices, Policies and Programming” was developed to for this study. Based on a pilot study

(Fall, 2006), the survey was refined and revised by deleting items and including items specific to

the research questions for the investigation of disproportionality. The survey developed is

comprised of 18 demographic questions followed by 12 subscales with a total of 92 items to

address educator perceptions of educational programming, policies and practices in regards to

CLD students in the South Texas area (See Table 24).

Reliability

The survey responses were analyzed to determine internal reliability. Field (2005)

indicates that reliability is the ability of a measure to produce consistent results when the same

entities are measured under the same conditions. For this sample, respondents answered the

items in each subscale consistently within the overall questionnaire (Chronbach’s alpha = .98).

According to Field (2005), Chronbach’s alpha is the most common measure of scale reliability

125

and for this survey, the Chronbach’s alpha range from .42 to .95 by subscale. The survey

descriptive data and reliability indexes are presented in Table 24 by subscales.

The Chronbach’s alpha for ten subscales are within an acceptable range (.7 to .8), with

the perception of gender over-representation (Q 45 - 46), and the culturally relevant practices (Q

70 - 76) subscale alpha’s falling below .70. The perception of gender over-representation

subscale is comprised of two items, which lowers subscale reliability. The culturally relevant

practices subscale (S12) contains 11 items, but perhaps may be measuring more than one

construct. Item deletion would assist with internal consistency of the culturally relevant teaching

practices subscale.

Validity

The survey was developed with the intent to measure educators perceptions related to

educational policies, programming and practices for CLD students. Based on a review of the

literature in bilingual education, special education, school psychology and education did not

produce an existing instrument for this study. To this end, a survey was developed to determine

educator perceptions of disproportionality. The majority of items for the survey were developed

by the researcher based on a review of the literature and the research questions. Items for the

survey were also adapted from a review of questionnaires found in the literature.

The survey is intended to be used with school educators to determine their familiarity

with school policies, previous experience and training related to CLD, perceptions of over-

representation in special education, and perception of educational practices and programming

that affect CLD students at the intersection of bilingual education and special education.

Table 24. Survey Subscale Mean, Standard Deviation and Chronbach’s alpha

Subscales # of items Q n M SD Alpha

1. Familiarity with Federal / State Policy (S1) 7 1-2 345 22.17 5.52 .79

2. Previous Experience and Training (S2) 11 3-13 396 28.07 9.89 .95

3. Racial / Ethnic Over-representation (S3) 7 14-20 402 16.33 5.47 .84

4. CLD student Over-representation (S4) 8 21-28 411 19.09 5.56 .80

5. Latino/a student Over-representation (S5) 8 29-36 406 18.70 5.81 .82

6. ELL student Over-representation (S6) 8 37-44 401 18.07 5.75 .83

7. Gender Over-Representation (S7) 2 45-46 401 4.06 1.89 .67

8. Educational Programming for CLD (S8) 9 47-55 387 28.27 6.22 .80

9. Pre-referral / Student Support Team process for CLD (S9) 9 56-64 386 31.18 7.93 .93

10. Bilingual Psycho-educational Evaluation (S10) 5 65-69 355 16.50 5.15 .93

11. Special Education and CLD (S11) 7 70-76 383 25.24 6.41 .94

12. Culturally Relevant Teaching Practices (S12) 11 77-87 387 33.62 4.67 .42

126

127

According to the Standards for educational and psychological testing (1999), validity is a

unitary concept in which the degree of accumulated evidence supports the intended interpretation

of a result for the proposed purpose (p. 11). In other words, validity refers to the appropriateness

of interpretation of survey subscale results.

The survey was administered in a consistent fashion at each research site by the

researcher or her representative. The data was entered and coded consistently. Each educator

who chose to participate was provided with information about the study and was given time to

complete the survey during a staff meeting. No educators required or requested modifications or

adaptations to survey, time, or location during data collection. Participants were allowed to ask

questions during the administration process.

Analysis of Variance

Dependent and independent variables. Following the analyses of internal reliability for

survey subscales, a series of Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs) were conducted using

race/ethnicity, job title/position, and total years teaching as independent variables. The

independent variable, gender, was dropped due to the small number of participants in the sample

that were male (8%). The twelve survey subscales served as the dependent variables for each of

the ANOVA analysis. Each of the survey subscales provide data on educator perceptions of

education policies, programming and practices that directly affects schooling for CLD students

and the issue of disproportionality. See Table 25 for survey descriptives, dependent and

independent variables.

Subscale One, Educator’s familiarity with federal/state policies (Q1 and 2)

A three-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect F (3, 290) = 4.73, p = .003, η2 =

.05, for job title/position on the familiarity with policies subscale (Q1 and 2). A significant

128

interaction F (6, 290) = 2.58, p = .019, η2 = .05, for race/ethnicity on job title/position (See

Figure 3). For this analysis, the interaction effect is the combined effect of the two variables

(race/ethnicity and job title/position) on the dependent variable, familiarity with policies

subscale.

A post hoc Tukey revealed a significant difference (p = .001) between general education

educators and administrative/support staff, bilingual education, and special education educators

on familiarity with federal/state policies. General education teachers were the least familiar with

federal/state policies related to CLD students, while administrative/support staff indicated greater

familiarity with federal/state policies related to pre-referral teams, bilingual education, and

special education.

Because the Univariate ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between job

title/position and race/ethnicity on the dependent variable familiarity with policies (F (6, 290) =

2.58, p = .019) an analysis of simple effects was warranted (See Figure 3). The results from the

simple effect analyses, revealed significant differences on general education teachers (F (2, 290) =

6.02, p = .003) and special education teachers (F (2, 290) = 3.26, p = .04). No significant

differences were found on job title/position in administration/support staff and bilingual/ESL

educators on the familiarity with policies subscale.

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) indicated a significant difference among general education

teachers who are White and both Latino/a (p = .026) and other (p = .013) educators. White

general education teachers indicated significantly lower scores than Latino/a and other educators

on the familiarity with policies subscale.

Table 25. Dependent and Independent Variable Descriptive Data for ANOVA Race / Ethnicity Job Title / Position Total Years Teaching

Latino/a White Others Admin Gen Ed Bil / ESL Sp Ed < 5 Ys 6-20 Ys > 21 Ys

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Subscale

S1 23.1 5.4 20.5 5.5 22.7 4.6 24.6 5.6 19.9 5.1 23.5 5.1 24.7 4.5 20.9 5.5 22.7 5.2 23.0 6.0

S2 29.2 8.9 25.9 11.4 29.9 6.7 27.8 11.8 25.3 8.9 31.2 8.3 32.7 10.4 28.0 9.3 28.5 9.8 27.6 11.0

S3 17.2 5.2 14.9 5.7 16.4 5.0 18.2 6.0 15.5 5.0 16.9 5.6 16.3 5.7 16.3 5.4 16.3 5.5 16.3 5.6

S4 20.1 5.4 17.4 5.1 19.8 7.2 19.0 5.9 18.7 5.7 19.8 4.9 18.7 5.9 19.7 5.7 18.6 5.4 19.3 5.8

S5 19.9 5.5 16.6 5.7 19.6 6.1 18.5 5.8 18.5 6.2 19.5 5.2 17.7 5.5 19.3 5.8 18.2 5.8 18.9 5.7

S6 19.2 5.5 16.1 5.5 18.4 6.5 17.9 5.7 17.6 5.9 19.0 5.4 17.4 5.4 18.7 5.6 17.6 5.8 17.9 5.9

S7 4.4 1.9 3.4 1.8 4.5 1.9 4.4 2.1 3.9 1.7 4.1 2.0 4.2 1.8 4.1 1.4 4.0 1.9 4.0 1.9

S8 27.8 6.2 29.1 6.0 28.4 6.5 30.0 5.6 27.9 6.4 27.8 6.1 28.5 6.2 27.2 6.2 28.7 5.6 28.4 7.0

S9 30.2 7.8 32.8 7.9 32.7 8.1 34.4 7.3 29.9 8.3 30.3 6.9 34.9 7.9 29.9 7.9 32.2 7.4 30.1 8.6

S10 15.8 5.1 17.4 5.2 18.1 4.0 19.1 4.9 15.4 5.0 15.8 4.8 19.5 4.6 15.4 4.6 17.3 5.0 16.1 5.8

S11 24.2 6.4 26.6 6.4 28.4 4.3 26.3 5.9 24.6 6.6 24.9 5.8 28.3 6.7 24.4 6.3 25.7 5.9 25.3 7.4

S12 33.9 4.6 32.8 4.8 35.4 4.4 34.5 4.8 33.5 4.7 33.4 4.2 33.9 5.1 32.7 4.5 34.2 4.4 33.7 5.4

129

130

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) indicated a significant difference among special education

teachers who are African-American, Asian, or other and White educators (p = .04). African-

American, Asian and other special education teachers had significantly lower scores than White

special education teachers on the familiarity with policies subscale. White educators in the

South Texas area indicated less familiarity with policies and programming related to pre-referral,

bilingual education and special education.

The results from the simple effect analyses, revealed significant differences between

White educators (F (3, 290) = 12.96, p = .001) and Latina educators (F (3, 290) = 7.81, p = .001) on

S1, familiarity with federal/state policy. No significant differences were found on job

title/position by African-American, Asian or other educators on this subscale.

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) indicated a significant difference between White general

education teachers and admin/support staff (p = .004), as well as White general education and

special education (p = .000) teachers. General education teachers had significantly lower scores

than admin/support staff and special education teachers. No significant differences were found

between White bilingual/ESL teachers and special education teachers on job title/position for the

familiarity with federal/state policies subscale.

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) also revealed significant difference in Latina general

education teachers and admin/support staff (p = .001) and bilingual/ESL (p =.000) teachers.

Latina general education teachers had significantly lower scores than Latina admin/support staff

and bilingual/ESL teachers. No significant differences were found between Latina

admin/support staff and special education educators. No significant differences were found on

African-American, Asian American or other educators on job/position on the familiarity with

federal policies subscale.

131

Figure 3. Interaction for Race/ethnicity on Job/position for S1

Subscale Two, Previous experience and training (Q 3-13)

A three-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect F (3, 338) = 2.79, p = .04, η2 =

.04, on the previous experience and training subscale by job title/position. There was a

significant interaction F (6, 338) = 2.62, p = .017, η2 = .04, between job title/position and total

years teaching on the experience and training subscale (See Figure 4).

A post hoc Tukey revealed a significant difference between general education teachers

and both bilingual education (p = .001) and special education (p = .001) teachers on the previous

experience and training subscale. General education teachers indicated less experience and

training related to CLD students and students with disabilities in relation to bilingual and special

education teachers. Special education teachers indicated the most amount of training in these

areas.

132

Because the Univariate ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between job

title/position and total years teaching on the dependent variable experience and training subscale

(F(6,338) = 2.68, p = .017), an analysis of simple effect was warranted (See Figure 4). The results

from the simple effect analyses revealed no significant differences between the total years of

teaching in job title/position. The results from the simple effect analyses, however, revealed

significant differences of title/position in 6-20 years of teaching F(3,359) = 9.36, p = .000) and over

20 years of teaching (F(3,359) = 5.39, p = .001). No significant difference of title/position was

found in < 5 years of teaching.

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) indicated a significant difference among educators with 6-20

years experience. A difference was noted between general education and admin/support staff (p

= .021), as well as between general education and bilingual/ESL (p = .000) teachers. General

education teachers placed significant lower scores than admin/support staff and bilingual/ESL

teachers on the training and experience subscale.

Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) also revealed significant difference in educators with over 20

years of teaching. A significant difference was noted between special education teachers and

admin/support (p = .003), and between special education and general education (p = .012)

teachers. Special education teachers had significant higher scores than admin/support and general

educators on the training and experience subscale.

Figure four displays the interaction between job title/position on total years teaching,

which shows that general education teachers, had the lowest amount of experience and training

related to CLD issues, such as disproportionality, special education, bilingual education, the

evaluation process, and cultural and linguistic diversity in relation to the other three group of

educators in the sample.

133

Administrators and support staff with over 20 years of experience did not appear to have

had experience and training in CLD issues compared to administrators and support staff with less

than five years of experience. Special educators appear to acquire experience and training in

terms of CLD issues, the longer they have been teaching (> 20 Ys).

Figure 4. Interaction for job/position on total years teaching for S2

Subscale Three, Ethnic/Racial Over-representation (Q 14-20)


.04, for job title/position on the perception of ethnic/racial over-representation subscale (Q 14-

20). No significant interactions were noted on this subscale.

A post hoc Tukey (p = .006) revealed a significant difference between admin/support

staff and general education teachers on their perceptions of racial over-representation in special

134

education. Administrators and support staff responses suggest that students could be over-

represented in special education by race/ethnicity. General education teacher responses did not

suggest racial/ethnic over-representation in special education.

Item response analysis revealed that seventy to eighty percent of the survey respondents

did not feel that White, Asian, and Native-American students were over-represented in special

education (Likert scale responses 1-3). Forty-eight to fifty percent of respondents indicated that

Latino/a and African-American students were not over-represented in special education

respectively. Overall, respondents did not perceive any one ethnic/racial group to be over-

represented in special education.

Subscale Four, CLD Over-representation (Q 21-28)


.03, for race/ethnicity on perception of CLD over-representation subscale (Q 21-28). No

significant interactions were noted on this subscale.

A post-hoc Tukey (p = .000) revealed a significant difference between White and

Latina/o educators on the CLD student over-representation subscale. White educators did not

perceive CLD students to be over-represented in special education, while Latina educator

responses indicated that CLD students could be over-represented in special education.

Subscale Five, Latino/a Over-representation (Q 29-36)


.03, for race/ethnicity on the Latino/a student over-representation subscale (Q 29-36). No


A post-hoc Tukey (p = .001) revealed a significant difference between White and

Latina/o educators on subscale five. White educators did not perceive Latino/a students to be

135

over-represented in special education, while Latina educators indicated that Latino/a students

could be over-represented in special education.

Subscale Six, ELL Over-representation (Q 37-44)


.04, for race/ethnicity on the perception of ELL student over-representation subscale (Q 37-44).

No significant interactions were noted on this subscale.

A post-hoc Tukey (p = .001) revealed a significant difference between White and Latina

educators on perceptions of ELL over-representation. White educators perceived that ELL

students were less over-represented in special education than Latina educators.

Item response analysis revealed that educators did not perceive CLD, Latino/a or ELL

students to be over-represented as LD, SI, MR or ED. Educator responses suggest that they are

not aware of the problem of disproportionality.

Subscale Seven, Gender Over-representation (Q 45-46)


.04, for race/ethnicity was noted on educators perception on the gender over-representation

subscale (Q 45-46). No significant interactions were noted on this subscale.

A post-hoc Tukey indicates a significant difference between White and Latina educators

(p = .001) educators on their perceptions of gender over-representation in special education. A

post-hoc Tukey (p = .01) indicates a significant difference between White educators and African-

American, Asian or Native American educators on their perceptions of gender over-

representation in special education. White educators tended to perceive less gender over-

representation in special education than educators from other ethnicities.

136

Subscale Eight, Educational Programming for CLD (Q 47-55)

A significant main effect F (2, 330) = 4.05, p =.018, η2 = .02, for race/ethnicity on the

perception of appropriate educational programming subscale (Q 47-55). No significant

interactions were noted on this subscale.

A post-hoc Tukey (p = .05) indicated a significant difference between White and Latina/o

educators on their perceptions of appropriate educational programming for CLD students.

Responses suggest that White educators perceive that CLD students receive appropriate

educational programming, while Latina educators indicated that the needs of CLD students may

not be adequately met.

Subscale Nine, Pre-referral/Student Support Team (Q 56-64)

A significant main effect F (2, 326) = 5.97, p = .003, η2 = .04 was detected for

race/ethnicity on the pre-referral/student support team practices subscale (Q 56-64). No


A post hoc Tukey (p = .003) showed a significant difference between White and Latina/o

educators on the pre-referral/student support team practices subscale. Responses suggest that

White educators perceive SST practices for CLD students to be appropriate, while Latino/a

teachers perceived that these practices may not be adequate.

Subscale Ten, Bilingual Psycho-educational Evaluations (Q 65-69)


.04 for job title/ position on the bilingual psycho-educational evaluation subscale (Q 65-69). A

significant main effect F (2, 303) = 3.25, p = .040, η2 = .02, was found on total years teaching.

No significant interactions were noted on this subscale.

137

A post-hoc Tukey indicates a significant difference between general education teachers

and administrators/support staff (p = .001). A significant difference was also noted between

general education and special education teachers (p = .001) on the bilingual evaluation practices

subscale. Administrators/support staff and special education personnel responses suggest that

bilingual evaluation practices appear to be adequate, while general education teacher responses

suggest that these practices may not be adequate.

A post-hoc Tukey (p = .002) revealed a significant difference between educators with less

than five years of experience and educators with 6-20 years of experience on the bilingual

psycho-educational evaluation practices subscale. Educators with five or less years of

experience did not believe that bilingual evaluation practices were adequate, while educators

with 6-20 years of experience indicated these practices to be appropriate.

Subscale Eleven, Special Education and CLD (Q 70-76)

A significant main effect F (2, 326) = 9.29, p = .001, η2 = .05 for race/ethnicity was

found on the special education subscale (Q 70-76). No significant interactions were noted on

this subscale.

A post-hoc Tukey revealed a significant difference between Latina/o educators and

African-American, Asian American, Native American and other educators (p = .006). A

significant difference was also noted between Latina/o educators and White educators (p = .001)

on the special education practices subscale. Latina/o educators perceived special education

services for CLD students to be less than adequate, while White and other educators felt these

services to be adequate.

138

Subscale Twelve, Culturally Relevant Practices (Q 77-87)

No significant main effects or interactions were noted on the culturally relevant teaching

practices subscale for any of the independent variables.

Open-Ended Survey Responses

The last page of the survey, “Educator Perceptions on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:

Educational Practices, Policies and Programming” included four open-ended questions and an

opportunity for participants to provide comments on the survey. The first question asked

participants to reflect on any training they had attended in regards to cultural and linguistic

diversity or special needs students. The second question asked participants to indicate their

opinion on the training their school may need for CLD students in their district. The following

question asked participants to indicate any training needs for their school in regards to cultural

and linguistic diversity. The third question asked participants to indicate from seven specific

trainings, which were needed by their campus on topics from second language acquisition to

under-representation of CLD students in gifted education. The last item on this page provided

participants with space for additional comments. An analysis of participant responses for each of

the open-ended questions is provided.

Trainings attended. Seventy percent of the 439 survey participants included a response

for question one: “What training on cultural and linguistic diversity and/or special needs

students have you attended.” Twenty-five percent (25%) of the respondents framed their

response to this question based on their educational background, such as college courses for their

bachelor or master’s degree. The highest response was thirty-four percent (34%) for training in

the Structured Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of

the respondents indicated training related to diversity or bilingual-bicultural studies. Eight

139

percent (8%) of respondents indicated training in English as a Second Language (ESL).

Nineteen percent (19%) of participants included training in special education related topics (e.g.,

ARD, dyslexia) in their responses. While eight percent (8%) included training on Language

Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), Texas Observation Protocol (TOP) or the Texas

English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS), the remaining responses included

training by Ruby Payne (5%), and differentiated instruction (3%).

In addition to trainings at the university level, participants indicated training was

provided by the school district, campus specialist, or the region service center. The next open-

ended question asked participants about training needs in their district.

Training needs. The second open-ended question in regards to training needs, based on

they type of CLD students in their district, provided an array of responses. “What training do

you feel your school may need in regards to CLD students in your district?” A total of 238

participants provided a response to this question (54%). The examples provided on the survey

included social justice, parental involvement, critical pedagogy, biliteracy development, and

identity. Of these, the most frequent response by participants was training needs pertaining to

parental involvement (39%) followed by biliteracy development (32%). Within the parental

involvement area, respondents integrated the following needs into their responses on parent

training needs: learning English; teaching parents strategies to help their children learn; and the

importance of education for the future.

In addition, 13% of respondents stated that training in all areas and for all teachers is

needed. One respondent states that training was needed, “…for everyone not just bilingual

teachers, [for] all teachers so that everyone can be sensitive to diversity.” Two respondents

added that the state and legislators needed the training on these issues as well. Twelve percent

140

(12%) of responses included the need for training on identity development, critical pedagogy or

social justice issues. Nine percent of the respondents indicated that no training was needed. The

remaining 8% of responses included a need for training on the legal issues related to special

education changes, CLD and special needs, social issues, and second language acquisition.

Specific training needs for CLD and special needs. The third open-ended question related

to specific training needs for school personnel in regards to areas that directly affect CLD

populations and special needs classifications. Seven topics were listed which included: first and

second language acquisition, bilingual education, special education, pre-referral intervention or

student support teams, response to intervention, over-representation in special education, and

under-representation in gifted education. Thirty percent (30%) of survey participants provided a

response to question three.

The majority of respondents indicated a need for training in Response to Intervention

(RTI), since this is a new federal requirement for early intervention (31%). Twenty-seven

percent (27%) of participants indicated a need for training in first and second language

acquisition, followed by special education (25%), student support team training (24%), bilingual

education (22%), and under-representation of CLD students in gifted education (21%). Training

in over-representation of CLD students in special education was perceived as least important to

participants at this time, with only a 14% response rate.

Specific training needs included by participants ranged from the process and procedures

in the pre-referral stages (e.g., paperwork, faster interventions, and documentation),

modifications, and as one participant wrote, “what to do if nothing works.”

Additional Comments. Participants were also provided with space for additional

comments at the end of the survey. Ten percent (10%) of survey participants included additional

141

comments, which offer some insights on issues related to CLD students and campus specific

dilemmas. The responses varied, but tend to include statements that reinforce the need to

investigate educator perceptions on these topics. Participants elaborated on the previous open-

ended questions as well as responded to survey questions in the space provided.

Open-ended survey responses were reviewed and coded as negative or positive in regards

to culturally and linguistically diverse students, families, and communities. Using the frame of

deficit thinking (Valencia, 1997b), the responses were grouped as deficit oriented (negative) or

anti-deficit oriented (positive). Deficit thinking typically offers a description of behavior, by

referring to deficits, deficiencies, deprivation, disadvantages, and limitations or shortcomings of

students, families or communities (Valencia, 1997b). Positive responses were considered anti-

deficit thinking in orientation, while negative responses were viewed as deficit-oriented in that

differences are linked to lack of academic progress, and blame is placed within the child, or with

the parent.

One example which appears to blame the parent, suggests that schools were not able to

provide appropriate educational programming, such as bilingual education because parents, “do

not tell the whole truth on home language surveys.” In addition, the respondent stated that,

“there has to be something more teachers can do when they know a parent has lied on a home

language survey.” Another example that uses the blame-the-parent approach stated, “I think that

parents often expect the teachers to teach correct reading, grammar, and vocab[ulary] in English,

yet do not reinforce it at home.”

The next set of deficit-oriented responses center on the notion of educability and appear

to suggest a prescriptive approach to services for CLD students. For example, one participant

shared that their “district has a policy of sink and swim;” while another felt that it was “time to

142

teach only in English for students that start school in Pre-K through second grade. Recent

immigrants in 3, 4, [and] 5 should have Spanish support, not be taught in Spanish all day.”

Fifteen percent (15%) of the responses indicated problems with special education and

bilingual education programs. For example, one participant stated that in her school, “[they]

have many students who should be in a bilingual class and are not.” While another felt that

placing students in bilingual programs was not appropriate just because they did not “score a

high enough score in English.” Another respondent stated that ELL students that were also

eligible for special education “were ‘encouraged’ to be placed in English only classes even

though they could not speak or understand English [because] bilingual resource personnel were

unavailable.”

In terms of special education, respondents stated that “teachers are reluctant to spend

precious time on the paper work to no avail” and that “too many students who need special

education services are not serviced.” The referral process was also perceived as not effective.

Anti-deficit-oriented responses included positive rather than deficit-oriented statements in

regards to the students’ language and development of their native language skills. For example

one educator stated, “I believe a child learns best in their own native language.” Another

educator stated that there was “too much focus on transitioning kids into English instead of

developing true biliterate-dual language students.”

Similar to previous statements about training needs for all educators, one educator stated

the he/she felt that “regular-general education teachers do not understand, and maybe do not

wish to understand what an ESL/Bilingual teacher go[es] through;” and in addition, “All teachers

including general education need to understand the importance of bilingual education.” One

143

respondent felt that general education teachers “need more training to understand bilingual and

special education needs.”

In addition to the open-ended responses, participants also wrote in comments to questions

within the survey. During survey administration, the researcher was asked to clarify what

psycho-educational evaluation meant or was at two research sites. Subscale ten (Q 65-69),

which includes questions about the bilingual evaluation process for CLD students, tended to have

the most blanks (9-15% of the items missing). Educators did not appear to be familiar with the

bilingual evaluation process for special education purposes on their campus, or were not sure

how to answer these questions. Evaluations play a major role in the referral to special education

placement process, but this appeared to be an elusive topic for educators. As one participant

wrote, “I am not aware if any psycho-educational evaluations are performed at this school.”

The open-ended responses suggest that educator perceptions on these topics are varied,

but play a critical role in how each perceives the education of CLD students. The referral to

special education process tends to be an area of concern to educators in terms of the paperwork

driven process and the changing guidelines for special education.

Research Question Three

Do school personnel perceptions on disproportionality of CLD students differ in

comparison to actual TEA data for the selected school districts and campuses?

Using the composition index as the tool for measuring the proportion of CLD students

over-identified in special education in the district and by eligibility category, the findings show

that African-American, Latino/a and White students all display over-representation in special

education at various levels when data is disaggregated. At the state level, African-American

(+3.4) and White students (+2.9) would be considered over-represented in special education. At

144

the district level, African-American students were over-represented in D1 (+2.4) as LD, ED and

MR; in D2 (+1.8) in the categories of LD, ED, and MR; and in D3 as LD. Latino/a students

were over-represented as LD at the state level. In D1 (+2.0), Latino students were over-

represented in the categories of LD and MR; in D2 as SI (+1.6); and in D3 (+2.2) as LD, MR,

and SI. White students were over-represented in D1 as ED and SI; in D2 as ED and MR; and in

D3 as ED.

Chi Square Analyses

The Chi square test was used to analyze five survey subscales that focus on over-

representation (S3-S7). The five point Likert scale items for each subscale were re-coded into

two categories for analysis. The subscales responses were re-coded by dividing the scale into

two categories, the subscale totals at the lower end of the scale were re-coded as one (1)

indicating no over-representation and responses at the higher end of the scale were re-coded as

two (2) signifying over-representation. The Chi Square test was used to analyze whether the

observed number of responses in the two categories differ from the expected responses by

educators on subscale three through seven. These subscales attempt to measure educator

perceptions of over-representation of CLD students.

The Chi Square tests are used most often to analyze data that consists of counts or

frequencies (Coolidge, 2000). The frequency of responses (how many) was analyzed to

determine if a difference exists between the number of educators who indicated no over-

representation (1) and educators who indicated over-representation (2). The educator responses

were analyzed by district to obtain a descriptive comparison to the composition index of CLD

students in special education.

145

District One. For D1, the Chi Square analyses for each of the five subscales were

significant (See Table 26). Subscale 3, Racial/Ethnic Over-Representation, χ2 (1) = 49.62, p =

.001, Subscale 4, CLD student Over-Representation χ2 (1) = 42.23, p = .001, Subscale 5,

Latino/a student Over-Representation, χ2 (1) = 43.01, p = .001, Subscale 6, ELL student Over-

Representation χ2 (1) = 59.39, p = .001, and Subscale 7, Gender Over-Representation

χ2 (1) = 21.49, p = .001.

The Chi Square analysis indicates that the observed cell frequencies vary from the

expected. Educators in D1 perceived that over-representation was not a problem for racial/ethnic

groups, CLD, Latino/a and ELL students. Sixty-five percent of responses by D1 educators did

not perceive boys or girls to be over-represented in special education.

District Two. In D2, a significant difference between educator responses (See Table 27)

was found for S3, χ2 (1) = 18.38, p = .001 and S6, χ2 (1) = 4.11, p = .043. D2 educators did not

perceive over-representation to be evident among racial/ethnic groups or for ELL students.

Educator responses were not significant for subscales four, five, or seven, based on Chi Square

analysis.

District Three. The Chi Square analysis for D3 educators (See Table 28) denotes a

significant difference on S3, ethnic/racial student over-representation. Eighty-one percent (81%)

of responses by educators in D3 suggest that ethnic/racial group over-representation in special

education was not perceived as a problem, χ2 (1) = 10.70, p = .001. No significant findings were

noted on any of the remaining subscales.

Table 26. Chi Square Results, D1 (n = 231)

S3, Racial/Ethnic Over-Rep S4, CLD Over-Rep S5, Latino/a Over-Rep

Observed % Expected Observed % Expected Observed % Expected

No Over-representation 161 69.7 109 157 68.0 109 155 67.1 107

Over-Representation 57 24.7 109 61 26.4 109 59 25.5 107

Table 26. Chi Square Results, D1 (table cont.)

S6, ELL Over-Rep S7, Gender Over-Rep

Observed % Expected Observed % Expected

No Over-representation 164 71.0 107.5 149 64.5 114

Over-Representation 51 22.1 107.5 79 34.2 114


S3, Racial/Ethnic Over-Rep S6, ELL Over-Rep

Observed % Expected Observed % Expected

No Over-representation 93 60.8 68 82 53.6 70

Over-Representation 43 28.1 68 58 37.9 70

146

147


S3, Racial/Ethnic Over-Rep

Observed % Expected

No Over-representation 22 81.5 13.5

Over-Representation 5 18.5 13.5

District Four. The Chi Square analysis for D4 educators (See Table 29) show a

significant difference χ2 (1) = 5.76, p = .016, on S3, ethnic/racial over-representation. Responses

for D4 educators did not find over-representation in special education by racial/ethnic groups.

No other subscale response frequencies were significant.

Table 29. Chi Square Result, District Four (n = 28)

S3, Racial/Ethnic Over-Rep

Observed % Expected

No Over-representation 16 57.1 10.5

Over-Representation 5 17.9 10.5

Overall, educator responses on the five over-representation subscales were more likely to

perceive that ethnic/racial groups were not over-represented in special education. Significant

differences in frequencies were noted for all five over-representation subscales only for D1

educator responses.

Rates of Representation and Educator Perceptions

The significant differences in educator responses on the Chi Square analyses for the over-

representation subscales were compared to findings from the composition indexes for African-

American, Latino/a and White students by district special education placement and eligibility.

148

Data from the TEA was used to calculate the composition indexes, odds ratio, and risk indexes

for research question one and was used to compare educator perceptions of over-representation.

The D4 student population was entirely Latino/a and no other ethnic groups were represented;

therefore analyses for African-American and White students was not possible and are not

included for comparison of student over-representation and educator perceptions for D4.

District One. Educator responses were significantly different on S3, ethnic/racial over-

representation and S4, CLD student over-representation. Figure five below links educator

responses to the rates of representation of African-American students, who were over-identified

in special education in D1 under the categories of LD, MR and ED.

The composition index for African-Americans in the LD category was 14%. Educator

responses for S3 (70%) and S4 (68%) indicate no over-representation of CLD students. Fourteen

percent of African-Americans were serviced as MR and 16% of African-American students were

serviced in special education as ED, while African-Americans only account for ten percent

(10%) of the district student population. The first bar in figure five shows the composition index

is above 10%, and therefore, African-American students were considered over-represented in the

categories of LD, MR, and ED. The S3 and S4 bars represented in figure five indicate the

percent of educator responses which responded that racial/ethnic groups or CLD students were

not over-represented in special education.

149

District One

14 14 16

70 70 7068 68 68

01020304050607080

LD MR ED

Perc

ent

Af-Am Over-Rep S3 S4

Figure 5. African-American Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D1

Latino/a over-representation was also noted in D1 in the categories of LD, MR and SI.

Figure six below shows that Latino/as make up 53% of the students serviced as LD, 47% of

those as MR, and 45% of students serviced as SI, while they account for 44% of D1 student

population. Educator perceptions on S3, ethnic/racial over-representation (70%), S4, CLD

student over-representation (68%) and S5, Latino/a student over-representation (67%) show that

educators do not perceive Latino/a students to be over-represented in special education.

District One

5347 45

70 70 7068 68 6867 67 67

01020304050607080

LD MR SI

Perc

ent

Latino Over-Rep S3 S4 S5

Figure 6. Latino/a Student Over-representation and Educator Perceptions D1

White students in D1 make up 42% of the student population. Forty-six percent of White

students receive services as ED (See Figure 7) and 45% receive services as SI, which indicates

150

that White students were over-represented in these two eligibility categories. Chi Square

analyses revealed a significant difference between educator responses on S3, ethnic/racial over-

representation. Seventy percent (70%) of educators responded that over-representation of

ethnic/racial groups was not evident in D1.

District One

46 45

70 70

01020304050607080

ED SI

Per

cent

White Over-Rep S3

Figure 7. White Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D1

District Two. Chi Square analysis revealed a significant difference on D2 educator

responses for S3, ethnic/racial over-representation. Sixty-one percent (61%) of educator

responses suggest that over-representation was not perceived as a problem by educators for

racial/ethnic groups (See Figure 8). The composition index revealed that African-American

students in D2 were over-represented in special education as LD (10%), MR (13%) and ED

(18%) while they only account for nine percent (9%) of the student population in D2.

151

District Two

10 1318

61 61 61

010203040506070

LD MR ED

Perc

ent

Af-Am Over-Rep S3

Figure 8. African-American Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D2

Latino/a students in D2 were over-represented in special education in the category of SI

(89%). Latino/a students account for 87.7% of the student population in D2. Educator responses

on the Chi Square analysis indicated a significant difference on S3, ethnic/racial over-

representation and S6, ELL student over-representation. Sixty one percent of S3 and 54% of S6

educator responses suggest that student over-representation in special education was not evident

(See Figure 9).

District Two

89

6154

0102030405060708090

100

SI

Perc

ent

Latino Over-Rep S3 S6

Figure 9. Latino/a Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D2

152

White students encompass only three percent (3%) of the student population in D2. Eight

percent (8%) of White students receive special education services as ED and MR in D2 and were

considered over-represented in special education in these two categories (See Figure 10). Chi

Square analyses revealed a significant difference on educator responses for S3, ethnic/racial

over-representation. Sixty-one percent (61%) of educator responses to S3 suggest that no over-

representation of ethnic/racial groups in special education was evident.

District Two

8 8

61 61

010203040506070

ED MR

Perc

ent

White Over-Rep S3


District Three. In D3, African-American students were over-represented as LD (8%), ED

(10%) and MR (8%), while they only make up eight percent (8%) of the student population in

D3. Chi Square analyses were significant on S3, ethnic/racial student over-representation (82%).

Figure 11 shows that educator responses for S3 do not suggest ethnic/racial group over-

representation in special education.

153

District Three

8 10 8

82 82 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

LD ED MR

Perc

ent

Af-Am Over-Rep S3

Figure 11. African-American Student Over-Representation and Educator Perceptions D3 The composition index of Latino/a students in special education, indicates an over-

represented in D3 in the categories of LD (70%), MR (63%), and SI (65%). Latino/a students

represent sixty-one percent (61%) of the student population in D3. A significant difference in

educator perception of over-representation was found utilizing the Chi Square for subscale three

(S3), ethnic/racial over-representation. District three educator responses (Figure 12) indicate that

over-representation of ethnic/racial groups in special education was not apparent.

District Three

7063 65

82 82 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

LD MR SI

Perc

ent

Latino Over-Rep S3

Figure 12. Latino/a Student Over-Representation and Educator Perception D3

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the student population in D3 was White. White students

were over-represented in special education in D3 in the category of ED (34%), while they make

154

up 28% of the student population. Figure 13 shows that educator responses to S3, racial/ethnic

group over-representation (82%), denotes that over-representation of students in special

education was not apparent.

District Three

34

82

0

20

40

60

80

100

ED

Perc

ent

White Over-Rep S3


Overall, educator responses to over-representation subscale questions suggests that over-

representation of CLD students was not observable. D4 was not included in the analysis due to

the lack of ethnic student diversity in the district. Calculations for over-representation were not

possible and were therefore not included in research question three.

Summary

This chapter provided the data analysis for each of the research questions. The results are

wide-ranging and provide insight into educator perceptions of disproportionality. Practices vary

between districts and schools, which results in an array of educational outcomes for CLD

students in the South Texas area. Measures of disproportionality provide tools in which to

calculate the proportion of students serviced in special education as well as a means to examine

student group placement rates. Educator perceptions on disproportionality point to variability in

responses based on the race/ethnicity and job position of the participant. Responses to survey

155

subscales on over-representation reveal that educators may not be aware of the decade’s long

problem of disproportionality and placement of CLD students in special education. Linking data

from the TEA with educator responses to survey subscales that focus on over-representation

show that educators may not be aware of the number of CLD students in their school and district

that are placed in special education.

156

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the research and study findings followed by

implications. These findings and implications will help educators in linking research to policy

and practice. Areas for future research in terms of rates of CLD students in special education

and educator perceptions are provided.

This study on disproportionality is an extension of decades of research that have

previously shown that culturally and linguistically diverse students are at higher risk of referral

and placement into special education programs (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b; Chinn & Hughes, 1987;

Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; Losen &

Orfield, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). This study investigates educator

perceptions that may be shaped by historical and contemporary deficit thinking theories of CLD

students (Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998; Valencia, 1997b). Theories that rely on deficit

thinking (Valencia, 1997b) when examining schooling outcomes for CLD student have held the

longest currency in educational thought and practice. Special education approaches have also

relied on a within-child deficit view (Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). This study investigates

disproportionality utilizing the framework of deficit thinking theories to help understand the

referral to placement process as well as offer recommendations for changes in pre-service and in-

service teacher training.

This study supports other researchers’ calls for the need for disaggregation of data to the

district and campus level allowing for additional means of examining the problem of

disproportionality. Disproportionality studies utilizing the composition index, odds ratios, and

risk index have shown variability when using these tools to measure and examining the rate and

157

extent of disproportionality. This study fills a gap in the research by examining the perceptions

of educators on the phenomenon of disproportionality and comparing these perceptions to state

data on the rates of representation of CLD students. In addition, this study adds to the dearth of

research on disproportionality with Latino/a students.

Findings

The primary findings of this study is that overall, educators in the sample did not perceive

over-representation of any racial/ethnic group or CLD students in special education, and they did

not perceive disproportionality to be an existing problem at their campus or district. Data from

the composition index by district, however, indicates that CLD students were over-represented in

high incidence or soft disability categories of LD, MR, ED, and SI. This study found that district

educators’ perceptions of the problem of over-representation were not consistent with actual

TEA data.

States and school districts are mandated to collect and report data on minority student

representation in special education and educational settings based on the current federal

regulation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997, 2004). Previous studies have

reported that using national and state level data on minority student representation may not

reveal local district and campus patterns of disproportionality (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, &

Higareda, 2005; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Losen & Orfield, 2002; Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005;

Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). In fact, in this study, investigating disproportionality using the

composition index, risk index and odds ratio, show that variability in identification exists when

data is disaggregated to the district and campus level by eligibility category and ethnic/racial

group.

158

The data also show that Latino/a and African-American students are at greater risk of

identification for special education compared to White students at the state and district level.

The data also indicate an increase in the identification of CLD students for special education

under the category of Learning Disabled (LD).

Using the composition index to calculate the proportion of students identified in special

education, the findings show that African-American, Latino/a and White students are over-

represented in special education at state and district levels when ethnic/racial groups are not

separated by individual eligibility categories. At the state level, African-American and White

students were considered over-represented in special education. At the district level, African-

American students were over-represented in special education under the categories of LD, ED,

and MR. There was an over-representation of Latino/a students in special education as LD at the

state level and at the district level in the categories of LD, MR and SI. In the districts from the

sample, White students were over-represented to some extent under the categories of ED, SI, and

MR. Differences in African-American and White student representation in special education has

primarily been the focus of studies of disproportionality (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982;

Hosp & Reschley, 2003; Losen & Orfield, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999).

Latino/a student rates of representation in special education have varied based on geographic

region, density of student population as well as the availability of bilingual education services

(Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).

The current study finds variability in terms of the rate of White student representation

based on district demographics. Districts with a smaller number of White students tended to

show over-representation of White students in special education. When there were fewer White

students in the population, White students seemed to be placed in special education at a higher

159

rate. African-American and White students were also over-represented as ED in three of the four

districts in the sample, while Latino students would be considered under-represented in this

category.

For ELLs, district level data did not reveal over-representation, but variability was found

among the elementary campuses in the sample. This finding is different from a study by Artiles,

et al. (2005), found a pattern of over-representation of ELL students in special education in

twelve urban school districts in California, at the secondary level. Further investigation of

secondary campuses in South Texas may be useful in determining a pattern of ELL student

representation. Further research on student language status is needed (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz,

2005).

This study examined educators’ perceptions of personnel preparation and over-

representation of CLD students. Artiles and Trent’s (1994) review of over-representation of

minority students in special education recommended “an encompassing reform agenda,” which

would include personnel preparation reform (p. 426). This study supports that recommendation

and finds that personnel preparation reform is needed specifically related to the training of

general education teachers. The study shows that general education teachers had the least

familiarity with policies and had the least amount of training in regards to CLD students and

students with special needs. Other research (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006)

stressed the need for collaboration between general and special educators to better meet the

needs of students with disabilities and in particular CLD students. This study also finds that

racial/ethnic differences among educators are a factor in terms of their perceptions of CLD

student over-representation in special education and educational practices.

160

Discussion

The general education teacher makes the determination that a student’s lack of academic

progress or behavior is not acceptable (Donovan & Cross, 2002) and therefore their decision to

refer a student becomes the most important in the determination of special education eligibility

(Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b; Losen & Orfield, 2002). The finding that educators lacked familiarity

with policies paired with the finding that general educators have less experience and training in

regard to working with CLD students and students with disabilities, suggests that university

training programs need to re-evaluate the courses and field experiences offered in their teacher

preparation programs. The findings support previous studies that suggest that educator

preparation programs are not preparing general education teachers to work with CLD students

(Sleeter, 2000-2001), as well as students with disabilities. In addition, districts and schools need

to provide educators with professional development opportunities (in-service) that add to their

knowledge and skills relating to cultural and linguistic diversity including disabilities. A need to

understand the problem of disproportionality also appears to be pertinent for all educators.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (Snyder, 2008), 83% of

teachers in public elementary and secondary schools are White. With the growing number of

CLD students in our public schools, and the low percentage of teachers from racial/ethnic

minority groups, there appears to be a need to recruit and graduate teachers prepared to work

with a diverse range of students, including students with special needs. White educators in this

sample were less likely than Latina educators to perceive over-representation of CLD students in

special education as a problem. Latina educators were also more likely to indicate that

educational programming offered or provided for CLD students was less than adequate.

161

Researchers (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002b; Losen & Orfield, 2002) point to the need for

collaboration or shared knowledge among educators when working with students; therefore,

training is needed for all educators rather than narrowing the training to only specialists

(bilingual/ESL and special education). Prevention and amelioration of the problem of

disproportionality point to the need to involve all educators in ensuring that the educational

environments provide adequate instructional programming and use of culturally relevant

instructional practices for all students.

In addition to the lack of training and experience of general education teachers, the

survey results from this study indicate that campus-based teams lack training and understanding

of the bilingual psycho-educational evaluation process. This suggests that campus-based

decision teams may not be prepared to understand and make educational decisions for

assessment, eligibility, and placement of students who bilingual/bicultural and are being

considered for special education. These findings together with those reported by Ochoa, et al.

(1996, 1997, 1999), which indicated that there is a shortage of school psychologists who are

adequately trained to conduct and interpret bilingual psycho-educational evaluations, point to

additional problem areas. These findings point to a need to investigate alternative means of

assessment for bilingual/bicultural students in the referral to special education process. The

over-use of IQ testing (Figueroa, 2002; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994) has historically proven to be a

questionable practice for evaluating culturally and linguistically diverse students; therefore

alternative forms of measuring students’ strengths may be needed rather than relying on

standardized testing for eligibility determination.

Educators in the sample indicated a need for further training related to cultural and

linguistic diversity and students with special needs. Respondents indicated a need for all

162

teachers, not just bilingual/ESL teachers, to be trained and be sensitive to diversity. Participants

indicated a need for training in Response to Intervention (RTI), second language acquisition,

biliteracy development and parental involvement in addition to training on the changes to special

education policies.

Having worked in the public school system for over ten years as a bilingual school

psychologist, I have found the study findings unusual. The lack of awareness of the problem of

disproportionality was evident year in and year out when the number of referrals for special

education evaluations did not decrease, but rather seemed to increase following the re-

authorization of IDEA and the passage of NCLB. Policies and school reform efforts did not

appear to deter the rate of referrals. Finding a difference between White and Latino/a educators

in terms of their perceptions of over-representation and educational programming for CLD

students was unexpected. The last school district I worked in was comprised of primarily

Latino/a students and the teaching force was also primarily Latino/a. The race/ethnicity of the

teacher or the educational program (general and bilingual education) would not appear to make a

difference in terms of the rate of referrals; therefore, finding that Latino/a educators in this study

responded significantly different than White educators was surprising. In addition, Latino/a

educator responses suggest that CLD students may not be receiving adequate educational

programming.

Implications

The over-representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special

education and the quality of their educational experiences have been regarded among the most

significant issues faced by the U.S. education system in the past 30 years (Coutinho & Oswald,

2004). Educators may not perceive over-representation as a problem, which may continue to

163

perpetuate disproportionality at the campus, district and state levels. Educators’ lack of

awareness on this topic should also be a concern.

The mis-perception that students are not over-represented in special education does not

compel educators to change policies and practices. In addition, these mis-perceptions may lead

them to be more likely to refer students to special education and to continue to view CLD student

educational difficulties from a deficit perspective (Valencia, 1997b). Educators indicated a need

for training in the referral process to special education (RTI) and felt the process was paperwork

driven and time consuming. Paired with the fact that educators did not indicate a need for

training on the problem of over-representation suggests that a paradigm shift is needed for

educators in terms of the difference between diversity and disability (Artiles, 1998).

There continues to be a real need for better data reporting to inform decision-making by

states, districts and campuses. If federal policies (IDEA) would mandate states and districts to

collect disaggregated data by race/ethnicity, disability category and educational setting (Losen &

Orfield, 2002), as well as language status, research on over-representation would be improved.

This need for adequate data collection requirements by federal and state agencies was also noted

by Donovan & Cross (2002). Collection of data disaggregated would better assist educators in

understanding the extent and proportion of the problem within their own schools and districts.

Educators’ awareness of the problem may help produce changes at the school and classroom

level that can improve the educational outcomes for CLD students. Improving data collection

methods would improve understanding of student outcomes and would be more useful for

determining changes for general, bilingual and special education programming and policies.

Bilingual education, special education and general education teachers need to find ways

to collaborate in order to meet the educational needs of all students. Campus educators need to

164

be provided with ongoing training that focuses on cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as

disproportionality.

Future Research

Further research is needed to include evaluation specialists, which tend to be the

gatekeepers in the special education process for CLD students. The current study did not obtain

sufficient data from evaluation specialists, including bilingual evaluation specialists, such as

speech and language pathologists, educational diagnosticians, and school psychologists to

provide a wider view of the proclivities of assessment staff on this topic. As key decision-

makers in the process of special education eligibility and placement, evaluation specialists’

knowledge of this topic may play a role in changing policies and practices for special education

eligibility. These decisions directly affect the rates of representation of students in special

education and would have an impact on disproportionality.

Future research utilizing the survey on educator perceptions may provide a means in

which to measure change in educator perceptions following awareness training on the topic of

disproportionality. This study shows that training appears to be needed in districts and schools

for general education teachers as well as for schools and districts that are composed of primarily

White educators.

Research in rural districts and schools that may not be as ethnically diverse is needed.

The current research study found that attempting to measure the rates of representation in one

small district (D4) was limited due to the lack of student diversity. This district is an example of

the difficulties faced in the research on disproportionality when data is both aggregated at the

state level as well as disaggregated to the district level. The survey on educator perceptions

developed for this study may provide a viable option in examining the problem of

165

disproportionality in districts and schools that may not be as ethnically diverse. In other words,

addressing educators’ perceptions of disproportionality may be more useful than examining

composition indexes, risk index, and odds ratios at the district level.

Conclusion

This study fills a gap in the research on educator perceptions of disproportionality of

CLD students in special education. This study adds to the limited research on ELLs and Latino

students on the issue of over-representation. Prior research has focused primarily on the

disparities between White and Black student rates of representation. Latino/a student over-

representation at the national level appears to be masked when data is aggregated. This study

shows that educator perceptions as well as disaggregation of state and district data are viable

methods for studying the rates of representation of CLD students in special education, including

language status (ELL/LEP).

Considering that deficit thinking theories have held the longest currency among educators

and policymakers (Valencia, 1997b), this study demonstrates that the problem of

disproportionality is not one that has been changed in the past thirty-five years with the addition

of federal mandates and policies for CLD students, bilingual students and students with

disabilities. As the diversity of our schools increases, the lack of trained and knowledgeable

educators places the public education system in a quandary.

Changes to practices and policies may need to begin from the bottom-up rather than from

the top-down. In other words, changes to over-representation need to begin with educator

perceptions, as current policies do not seem to produce a deterrence or amelioration to the

problem of over-representation.

166

APPENDIX A

Institutional Review Board Approval

169

APPENDIX B

District and Campus Approval Letters

173

APPENDIX C

Consent to Participate in Research as a Human Subject

175

APPENDIX D

Educator Perceptions Survey

APPENDIX E District and Elementary Campus Demographics

Table E1. District1 (D1) and Elementary School Demographics, 2005-2006

District 1 ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Students

Af-Am 5,851 9.8 85 15.9 02 0.3 45 8.4 30 4.5 92 8.3

Hispanic 26,222 44.0 381 71.1 648 93.6 383 71.7 613 91.2 583 52.7

White 25,264 42.4 47 8.8 35 5.1 93 17.4 47 7.0 392 35.4

Other 2,219 3.7 23 4.3 07 1.0 13 2.4 04 0.6 40 3.6

LEP/ELL 3,461 5.8 188 35.1 284 41.0 258 48.3 205 30.5 311 28.1

Eco. Dis. 22,846 38.4 487 90.9 597 86.3 404 75.7 615 91.5 478 43.2

Bil/ESL 2,874 4.8 177 33.0 275 39.7 251 47.0 192 28.6 299 27.0

Sp. Ed. 7,774 13.1 81 15.1 76 11.0 44 8.2 61 9.1 108 9.8

LEP/SpEd 275 0.5 25 4.7 23 3.3 12 2.2 10 1.5 19 1.7

Total 59,556 536 692 534 672 1,107

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 District and Campus Profile

182

Table E2. District 2 (D2), Elementary School Student Demographics, 2005-2006

District 2 ES6 ES7 ES8 ES9 ES10 ES11

n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Students

Af-Am 4,969 8.8 17 3.4 36 6.5 05 0.1 03 0.8 03 0.5 04 0.8

Hispanic 49,486 87.7 481 94.9 514 92.6 722 98.9 370 98.4 605 99.3 521 99.0

White 1,699 3.0 07 1.4 04 0.7 02 0.3 02 0.5 00 0 01 0.2

Other 217 0.4 02 0.4 01 0.2 01 0.1 01 0.3 01 0.2 00 0

LEP/ELL 9,438 16.7 91 17.9 79 14.2 302 41.4 145 38.5 184 30.2 74 14.1

Eco. Dis. 51,988 92.2 498 98.2 549 98.9 682 93.4 338 98.9 583 95.7 514 97.7

Bil/ESL 8,385 14.9 81 16.0 65 11.7 270 37.0 138 36.7 178 29.2 67 12.7

Sp. Ed. 6,839 12.1 72 14.2 43 7.7 61 8.4 22 5.9 54 8.8 76 14.4

LEP/SpEd 1085 1.9 07 1.4 5 0.9 19 2.6 12 3.2 18 3.0 13 2.5

Total 56,371 507 555 730 376 609 526

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 District and Campus Profile

183

Table E3. District three (D3) and four (D4) Elementary School Demographics, 2005-2006 District 3 ES 12 District 4 ES 13

n % n % n % n %

Students

Af-Am 6,270 8.0 40 6.3 05 0.1 0 0

Hispanic 47,795 61.2 422 66.4 5,471 99.6 506 99.8

White 21,560 27.6 165 25.9 17 0.3 01 0.2

Other 2,529 3.2 9 1.4 0 0 0 0

LEP/ELL 5,095 6.5 146 23.0 2,325 42.3 353 69.6

Eco. Dis. 38,664 49.5 384 60.4 5,062 92.1 501 98.9

Bil/ESL 3,935 5.0 135 21.2 2,310 42.0 353 69.6

Sp. Ed. 10,367 13.3 73 11.5 469 8.5 23 4.5

LEP/SpEd 785 1.0 16 2.5 * * 17 3.4

Total 78,154 636 5,495 507

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 District and Campus Profile; * Missing data, unable to calculate

184

APPENDIX F

District and Elementary Campus Educator Demographics

Table F1. District One (D1) Elementary Campus Educator Demographics, 2005-2006

ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5

n % n % n % n % n %

Educator

Professional staff 57 90 62 86 50 90 65 90 78 87

Teachers 49 77 54 74 42 77 57 78 69 77

Total Minority staff 34 53 47 64 31 56 30 41 42 46

Af-Am 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 4 6

Hispanic 25 51 34 63 25 59 20 35 24 35

White 23 47 20 37 17 39 35 61 39 56

Other 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

Males 8 16 2 4 3 7 4 7 1 2

Females 41 84 52 96 40 93 53 93 68 99

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 Campus Profile

185

Table F2. District Two (D2) educator demographics by elementary campus, 2005–2006

ES6 ES7 ES8 ES9 ES10 ES11

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Educator

Professional staff 37 69 36 81 54 77 28 80 43 84 38 76

Teachers 31 58 30 66 44 64 23 66 35 69 32 64

Total Minority staff 44 83 37 81 56 81 30 87 48 94 38 76

Af-Am 1 3 2 7 2 5 2 9 0 0 2 6

Hispanic 22 71 21 70 31 70 16 71 31 89 20 63

White 8 26 7 23 11 25 5 20 2 6 10 31

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0

Males 4 13 3 10 6 14 2 9 5 14 3 9

Females 27 87 27 90 38 86 21 91 30 86 29 91

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 Campus Profile

186

Table F3. District Three (D3) and District Four (D4) Educator Demographics, 2005-2006

District 3 ES 12 District 4 ES 13

n % n % n % n %

Educator

Professional staff 6,148 61 54 84 419 48 33 65

Teachers 4,866 48 45 69 344 39 29 57

Total Minority staff 4,999 49 36 57 854 97 50 98

Af-Am 153 3 0 0 1 .3 0 0

Hispanic 1,516 31 23 52 316 92 28 97

White 3,155 65 22 48 21 6 1 3

Other 42 1 0 0 6 2 0 0

Males 1,014 21 4 9 124 36 5 17

Females 3,851 79 41 91 220 64 24 83

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2005-2006 Campus and District Profile

187

188

APPENDIX G

Latino/a Rates of Representation in Special Education, 2005-2006 Latino/a Rates of Representation

% Latino/as in SpEd Composition Index (CI)

% Latino/as in Population

Difference

State 41.4 45.3 - 3.6

District 1 46.0 44.0 + 2.0

ES1 57 71.1 + 14.1

ES2 59 93.6 - 34.6

ES3 54 71.7 - 17.7

ES4 88 88.6 - 0.6

ES5 35 52.7 - 17.7

District 2 83.1 87.7 - 4.6

ES6 76 94.9 - 18.9

ES7 65 92.6 - 27.6

ES8 99.0 98.9 + 0.1

ES9 99 98.4 + 0.6

ES10 99 99.3 - 0.3

ES11 92 99.0 - 7.0

District 3 63.4 61.2 + 2.4

ES12 60 66.4 - 6.4

District 4 99 99 0

ES13 99 99 0


189

APPENDIX H

English Language Learner Rates of Representation, 2005-2006 English Language Learner

% ELL in Sp.Ed. Composition Index (CI)

% ELL in Population

Difference

State 15.84 15.78 + .06

District 1 3.5 5.8 - 2.3

ES1 30.7 35 - 4.3

ES2 30. 3 41 - 10.7

ES3 27.3 48 - 20.7

ES4 16.4 30 - 13.6

ES5 17.6 28 - 10.4

District 2 15.86 17 - 1.1

ES6 9.7 18 - 8.3

ES7 11.6 14 - 2.4

ES8 31.1 41 - 9.9

ES9 54.5 39 + 15.5

ES10 33.3 30 + 3.3

ES11 17.1 14 + 3.1

District 3 7.57 7 + 0.57

ES12 21.2 23 + 1.8

District 4 * 42 0

ES13 73.9 70 + 3.9


190

APPENDIX I

Three-Way ANOVA Tables by Subscales Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I1. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Federal/State Policies (Q1-2), Subscale 1

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 2745.981(a) 32 85.812 3.543 .000 .281Intercept 40468.578 1 40468.578 1670.769 .000 .852RaceEthnicity_M 6.369 2 3.185 .131 .877 .001JobTitle 343.496 3 114.499 4.727 .003 .047TYrsTeaching 61.110 2 30.555 1.261 .285 .009RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 374.451 6 62.408 2.577 .019 .051

RaceEthnicity_M * TYrsTeaching 67.544 4 16.886 .697 .594 .010

JobTitle * TYrsTeaching 188.567 6 31.428 1.298 .258 .026

RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle * TYrsTeaching

242.352 9 26.928 1.112 .354 .033

Error 7024.242 290 24.222 Total 168709.000 323 Corrected Total 9770.223 322

a R Squared = .281 (Adjusted R Squared = .202) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I2. Dependent Variable: Training and Experience (Q 3-13), Subscale 2

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 6699.084(a) 31 216.099 2.582 .000 .191Intercept 76743.241 1 76743.241 916.835 .000 .731RaceEthnicity_M 156.403 2 78.201 .934 .394 .005JobTitle 701.055 3 233.685 2.792 .040 .024TYrsTeaching 7.764 2 3.882 .046 .955 .000RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 815.749 5 163.150 1.949 .086 .028

RaceEthnicity_M * TYrsTeaching 620.188 4 155.047 1.852 .118 .021



1150.083 9 127.787 1.527 .137 .039


a R Squared = .191 (Adjusted R Squared = .117)

191

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Table I3. Dependent Variable: Over-representation (Q 14-20), Subscale 3

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1783.937(a) 32 55.748 2.008 .001 .157Intercept 23537.890 1 23537.890 847.874 .000 .711RaceEthnicity_M 39.721 2 19.861 .715 .490 .004JobTitle 415.608 3 138.536 4.990 .002 .042TYrsTeaching 39.436 2 19.718 .710 .492 .004RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 255.370 6 42.562 1.533 .166 .026

RaceEthnicity_M * TYrsTeaching 219.902 4 54.976 1.980 .097 .023



347.992 9 38.666 1.393 .190 .035


a R Squared = .157 (Adjusted R Squared = .079) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I4. Dependent Variable: CLD Over-Rep (Q 21-28), Subscale 4

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1367.237(a) 32 42.726 1.491 .046 .119Intercept 30492.627 1 30492.627 1064.438 .000 .750RaceEthnicity_M 346.280 2 173.140 6.044 .003 .033JobTitle 99.376 3 33.125 1.156 .326 .010TYrsTeaching 92.809 2 46.404 1.620 .199 .009RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 165.259 6 27.543 .961 .451 .016


JobTitle * TYrsTeaching 95.214 6 15.869 .554 .767 .009


163.929 9 18.214 .636 .766 .016



192

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I5. Dependent Variable: Latino/a Over-Rep (Q 29-36), Subscale 5

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1565.182(a) 32 48.912 1.540 .034 .123Intercept 27948.569 1 27948.569 879.999 .000 .715RaceEthnicity_M 396.612 2 198.306 6.244 .002 .034JobTitle 46.189 3 15.396 .485 .693 .004TYrsTeaching 80.380 2 40.190 1.265 .283 .007RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 106.192 6 17.699 .557 .764 .009




126.054 9 14.006 .441 .912 .011


a R Squared = .123 (Adjusted R Squared = .043) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I6. Dependent Variable: ELL Over-Rep (Q 37-44), Subscale 6

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1485.619(a) 32 46.426 1.528 .037 .124Intercept 26311.132 1 26311.132 866.236 .000 .715RaceEthnicity_M 467.655 2 233.827 7.698 .001 .043JobTitle 22.662 3 7.554 .249 .862 .002TYrsTeaching 69.578 2 34.789 1.145 .319 .007RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 31.455 6 5.243 .173 .984 .003




286.982 9 31.887 1.050 .400 .027



193

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I7. Dependent Variable: Gender Over-Rep (Q 45-46), Subscale 7

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 183.668(a) 30 6.122 1.874 .004 .140Intercept 1616.151 1 1616.151 494.707 .000 .590RaceEthnicity_M 40.939 2 20.470 6.266 .002 .035JobTitle 18.109 3 6.036 1.848 .138 .016TYrsTeaching 1.191 2 .595 .182 .834 .001RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 7.535 5 1.507 .461 .805 .007




29.737 8 3.717 1.138 .337 .026


a R Squared = .140 (Adjusted R Squared = .066) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I8. Dependent Variable: EducProgamming for CLD (Q 47-55), Subscale 8

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1150.676(a) 32 35.959 .972 .515 .086Intercept 63777.836 1 63777.836 1723.099 .000 .839RaceEthnicity_M 299.935 2 149.967 4.052 .018 .024JobTitle 6.680 3 2.227 .060 .981 .001TYrsTeaching 145.518 2 72.759 1.966 .142 .012RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 159.457 6 26.576 .718 .635 .013




338.942 9 37.660 1.017 .426 .027


a R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = -.003)

194

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I9. Dependent Variable: SST Practices for CLD (Q 56-64), Subscale 9

Source


Partial Eta Squared





476.443 9 52.938 .929 .500 .025



Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I10. Dependent Variable: BilEval Practices (Q 65-69), Subscale 10

Source


Partial Eta Squared





170.790 8 21.349 .949 .476 .024



195

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I11. Dependent Variable: SpEd Practices for CLD (Q 70-76), Subscale 11

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 2474.564(a) 32 77.330 2.121 .001 .172Intercept 54750.647 1 54750.647 1501.964 .000 .822RaceEthnicity_M 677.473 2 338.736 9.292 .000 .054JobTitle 157.153 3 52.384 1.437 .232 .013TYrsTeaching 28.256 2 14.128 .388 .679 .002RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 318.563 6 53.094 1.457 .193 .026




606.747 9 67.416 1.849 .059 .049



Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table I12. Dependent Variable: Cult Relevant Practices (Q 77-87), Subscale 12

Source


Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 852.890(a) 32 26.653 1.272 .154 .110Intercept 87935.402 1 87935.402 4197.342 .000 .927RaceEthnicity_M 37.573 2 18.787 .897 .409 .005JobTitle 55.795 3 18.598 .888 .448 .008TYrsTeaching 19.564 2 9.782 .467 .627 .003RaceEthnicity_M * JobTitle 84.615 6 14.102 .673 .671 .012




50.965 9 5.663 .270 .982 .007



196

REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National

Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and

psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Aronowitz, S. (1997). A different perspective on educational inequality. In H. A. Giroux & P.

Shannon (Eds.), Education and cultural studies: Toward a performative practice (pp. 179-

196). New York: Routledge.

Artiles, A. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with

theory and context. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 32.

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of

culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164-204.

Artiles, A. J., Klinger, J., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Representation of minority students in special

education: Complicating traditional explanations, Editor's theme issue introduction.

Educational Researcher, 35(6), 3-5.

Artiles, A. J., Klingner, J., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Representation of minority students in special

education: Complicating traditional explanations, Editor's theme issue introduction.


Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002a). English language learners with special education needs:

Contexts and possibilities. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners

with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 3-30). Mc

Henry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.

Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.). (2002b). English language learners with special education

needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction. Mc Henry, IL: Center for Applied

Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.

197

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority

disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts.

Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education:

A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410-438.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Baca, L., & Cervantez, H. (1998). The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed.). Columbus,

OH: Prentice Hall.

Baca, L., & De Valenzuela, J. S. (1998). Background and rationale for bilingual special

education. In L. Baca & H. Cervantez (Eds.), The bilingual special education interface

(3rd ed., pp. 98-118). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baker, C. (1996). Foundations in bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Philadelphia,

PA: Multilingual Matters.

Bennett, T., Grossberg, L., & Morris, M. (Eds.). (2005). New keywords: A revised vocabulary of

culture and society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bernal, E. M. (1983). Trends in bilingual special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4),

424-431.

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special

education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 24-28.

Carrasquillo, A. L., & Rodríguez, V. (2002). Language minority students in the mainstream

classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Chinn, P. C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education

classes. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 41-46.

198

Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2004). Disproportionate representation of culturally and

linguistically diverse students in special education: Measuring the problem. Denver, CO:

National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.

Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

De la Luz Reyes, M., & Halcón, J. J. (Eds.). (2001). The best for our children: Critical

perspectives on literacy for Latino students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fernandez, A. (1992). Legal support for bilingual education and language appropriate related

services for limited English proficient students with disabilities. Bilingual Research

Journal, 16(3&4), 117-140.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Figueroa, R. A. (2002). Toward a new model of assessment. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.),

English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and

instruction (pp. 51-64). Mc Henry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems

Co., Inc.

Flores, B. B. (1999). Bilingual teachers' epistemological beliefs about the nature of bilingual

children's cognition and their relation to perceived teaching practices. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Flores, B. M. (2005). The intellectual presence of the deficit view of Spanish-speaking children in

the educational literature during the 20th century. In P. Pedraza & M. Rivera (Eds.),

199

Latino education: An agenda for community action research (pp. 75-98). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Freire, P. (1970, 1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans. 30th Anniversary

Edition ed.). New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc.

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority

students to special education [Electronic Version]. Focus: The National Clearinghouse

for Bilingual Education, Occasional papers in Bilingual Education, 5. Retrieved

2/20/2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/focus/05referral.htm.

Gershberg, A. I., Danenberg, A., & Sánchez, P. (2004). Beyond "bilingual" education: New

immigrants and public school policies in California. Washington, DC: Urban Institute

Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Is there a place for cultural studies in colleges of education? In H. A.

Giroux & P. Shannon (Eds.), Education and cultural studies: Toward a performative

practice (pp. 231-247). New York: Routledge.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Halcón, J. J., & de la Luz Reyes, M. (1992). Bilingual education, public policy, and the trickle

down reform agenda. In R. V. Padilla & A. H. Benavides (Eds.), Critical perspectives on

bilingual education research (pp. 303-323). Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press.

Hamayan, E. V., & Damico, J. S. (Eds.). (1991). Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual

students. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?

Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K., Sturges, K. M., & Moore, R. F. (2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using

qualitative methods to investigate disproportionality. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.),

200

Racial inequality in special education (pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights

Project at Harvard University, Harvard Education Press.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special

education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschley, D. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A meta-analysis

of racial differences. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67-80.

Katzman, L. (2003). Editors review: Minority students in special and gifted education. Harvard

Educational Review, 72(2), 225-240.

Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., Anastasiow, N. J., & Coleman, M. R. (2006). Educating exceptional

children (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Koyama, J. P. (2004). Appropriating policy: Constructing positions for English language learners.

Bilingual Research Journal, 28(3), 401-423.

Ladner, M., & Hammons, C. (2001). Special but unequal: Race and special education. In C. E.

Finn, A. J. Rotherham & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new

century (pp. 85-110). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, Thomas B. Fordham

Foundation.

Lambert, N. M. (1981). Psychological evidence in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles: An evaluation by a

witness for the defense. American Psychologist, 36(9), 937-952.

Lester, P. E., & Bishop, L. K. (2000). Handbook of tests and measurement in education and the

social sciences (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Lindhom, K. J. (1990). Bilingual immersion education: Criteria for program development. In A.

M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and

strategies (pp. 91-105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lopes, C. (2005). Bilingual school psychologists' practices with students with limited English

proficiency. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rhode Island.

201

Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge,

MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Harvard Education Press.

Mackey, W. F. (2000). The description of bilingualism. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader

(pp. 26-54). NY: Routledge.

Maheady, L., Towne, R., Algozzine, B., Mercer, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Minority

overrepresentation: A case for alternative practices prior to referral. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 6(4), 448-456.

May, S. (2006). Language policy and minority language rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Introduction

to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 255-272). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning disabilities.


McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of

education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Moreno, V. J. (2003). Development of the multicultural School Psychology competency

inventory: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis study. Unpublished

dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) & ILIAD Project. (2002). Determining

appropriate referrals of English language learners to special education, A self-assessment

guide for principals. Washington, DC; Arlington, VA: National Association for Bilingual

Education; Council for Exceptional Children.

National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. In M. S.

Donovan & C. T. Cross (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

202

O'Connor, C., & DeLuca Fernandez, S. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality: Reevaluating

the relationship between poverty and special education placement. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

Ochoa, S. H., Galarza, A., & González, D. (1996). An investigation of school psychologists'

assessment practices with bilingual and limited English proficient students. Diagnostique,

21(4), 17-36.

Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Piña, R. (1996). School psychologists' assessment

practices with bilingual and limited English proficient students. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(3), 250-275.

Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B., & Ford, L. (1997). An investigation of school psychology training

pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarily Hispanic students:

Twenty-five years after Diana v. California. Journal of School Psychology, 35(4), 329-

349.

Ochoa, S. H., Robles-Piña, R., Garcia, S., & Breunig, N. (1999). School Psychologists'

perspectives on referrals of language minority students. Multiple Voices for Ethnically

Diverse Exceptional Learners, 3(1), 1-14.

Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2002). English language learners with special education needs:

Contexts and possibilities. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners

with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 65-85). Mc

Henry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.

Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. N., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in

special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables.

Journal of special education, 32, 194-206.

203

Padilla, A. M. (1990). Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild

& C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 15-26).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Padilla, A. M. (2004). Quantitative methods in multicultural education research. In J. A. Banks &

C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.,

pp. 127-145). Somerset, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Pérez, B. (2004). Literacy, diversity, and programmatic responses. In B. Pérez (Ed.),

Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (2nd ed., pp. 3-24). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ponterotto, J. G., et al. (1998). Teacher multicultural attitude survey (TMAS). In P. E. Lester & L.

K. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of tests and measurement in education and the social

sciences (2nd ed., pp. 374-375). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A critical

history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.

Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse

students: A practical guide. New York: The Guilford Press.

Ricento, T. (2006a). Topical areas in language policy: An overview. In T. Ricento (Ed.),

Introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 231-237). Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishers.

Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2006b). Introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA:


Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

204

Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). An analysis of special education as a

response to the diminished academic achievement of Chicano/Latino students: An update.

In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present and future

(2nd ed., pp. 310-332). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Ruiz, N. T., Figueroa, R. A., Rueda, R., & Beaumont, C. (1992). History and status of bilingual

special education for Hispanic handicapped students. In R. V. Padilla & A. H. Benavides

(Eds.), Critical perspectives on bilingual education research (pp. 349-380). Tempe, AZ:

Bilingual Press.

San Miguel, G. (1999). The schooling of Mexicanos in the Southwest, 1848-1891. In J. F.

Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education

(pp. 31-51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Review.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and linguistic human rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.),

An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 273-291). Malden, MA:


Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Cummins, J. (Eds.). (1988). Minority education: From shame to

struggle. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher

preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25,

209-250.

Snyder, T. D. (2008). Mini-digest of education statistics, 2007. Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Texas Education Agency. (2003-2004a). Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), District

Profile. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2003-2004b). Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), State


205

Texas Education Agency. (2005-2006). Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), District


Texas Education Agency. (2006). Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System 2006 Manual.

Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2008a). Academic Excellence Indicator System. from

www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/.

Texas Education Agency. (2008b). Performance-Based Monitoring and Analysis System. from

www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/.

Texas Education Agency. (2008c). Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS).

from www.tea.state.tx.us/peims/.

Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism:

A review of theory, reserach and practice in Special Education. Review of Research in

Education, 23, 277-307.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, & Office of Public Affairs. (2004). A

guide to education and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved April, 2007. from

www.ed.gov/nclb.

Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Valencia, R. R. (1997a). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.),

The evolution of deficit thinking (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997b). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and

practice. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority students: Foundations,

performance factors, and assessment issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

206

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. NY:

State University of New York Press.

Valenzuela, A. (Ed.). (2005). Leaving children behind: How "Texas style" accountability fails

Latino youth. NY: State University of New York Press.

Wei, L. (Ed.). (2000). The bilingualism reader. NY: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Yzquierdo Mclean, Z. (1995). History of bilingual assessment and its impact on best practices

used today. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal, 10, 6-12.

VITA

Norma A. Guzmán was born in Raymondville, Texas in June 1970 to Guadalupe

Rodriguez and Arturo G. Guzmán. After graduating from Raymondville High School, Norma

entered college at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, and received her

Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology (May 1992). In August of that year, Norma began

graduate work in school psychology at the University of Texas – Pan American in Edinburg,

Texas. Norma completed her Master of Arts degree in School Psychology in 1995, after

completing an internship with the Dallas Independent School District. Norma has provided

school psychological services for over 10 years in Dallas, Texas, Las Vegas, Nevada and San

Antonio, Texas. Throughout her career, Norma has worked as a bilingual evaluation specialist

and has taught bilingual assessment courses at UTSA. Norma began her doctoral coursework at

the University of Texas at San Antonio in the fall of 2004 in Culture, Literacy and Language.

Guzmán, N. (2008). CLD Students at the Intersection of Bilingual Education and Special Education in...

Documents

Transcript of Guzmán, N. (2008). CLD Students at the Intersection of Bilingual Education and Special Education in...