1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Program
The over-representation of Black students in special education and the quality of
their educational experiences have been regarded as among the most significant issues
faced by the U.S. public school system in the past 40 years (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer,
2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968). Despite court challenges (Larry P. v.
Wilson Riles, 1979; PASE v. Hannon, 1980), federal reports (Heller, Holtzman, &
Messick, 1982; National Research Council, 2002), and abundant research on the issue
(Artiles & Trent, 1994; Chinn & Hughes, 1987; Dunn, 1968; Hosp & Reschly, 2004), the
problem of the over-representation of Black students has persisted.
The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles all individuals
with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and mandates non-
discriminatory assessment, identification, and placement of children with disabilities.
Children are not to be identified as disabled because of poor achievement due to
environmental disadvantage or ethnic, linguistic, or racial difference. This was made
clear by the prescribed evaluation procedures and definitions of disability conditions in
IDEA. However, nationally, some ethnic groups, specifically Black students, tend to be
significantly over-represented in two special education categories: intellectually disabled
2
and emotional disturbance (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Oswald & Coutinho, 2001; Oswald,
Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999).
Over-representation, or the disproportionate placement of students of a given
ethnic group in special education programs, means that the percentage of students from
that group in such programs is disproportionately greater than their percentage in the
school population as a whole (Oswald et al., 1999). For example, Black students account
for only 14.8% of the general population of 6- to 21-year-old students, but they make up
20% of the special education population across all disabilities (Losen & Orfield, 2002).
Black students are 2.41 times more likely than White students to be identified as having
mental retardation, 1.13 times more likely to be labeled as learning disabled, and 1.68
times as likely to be found to have an emotional or behavioral disorder (Klingner et al.,
2005).
According to the U. S. Department of Education (2002), Blacks accounted for
16% of the student population; however, Blacks represented 32%, or double the current
representation, of students with mental disabilities in special education. For Blacks to
represent a larger percentage of the special education student population than general
education is indicative of over-representation within special education.
Black students are usually referred to special education during the fourth grade by
general education teachers (Kunjufu, 1986; Morgan, 1980). It is around this grade level
that serious academic difficulties manifest in Black students. The curricular focus shifts
dramatically between third and fourth grades as reading for comprehension becomes a
necessity. At this time, many of these students are still trying to learn fundamental
reading skills. According to results reported from a national survey by the U.S.
3
Department of Education on reading for the 2000 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), more than two-thirds of fourth-graders tested cannot read proficiently
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2001).
Chall (1983) reported that some students may read adequately from kindergarten
to third grade but suddenly begin to struggle when they reach fourth grade. This
phenomenon has been referred to as the “fourth-grade slump.” Chall and Jacobs (1983)
discussed two major stages of reading development: learning to read and reading to learn.
The first stage typically encompasses Grades 1, 2, 3 when students are learning to read.
The second stage encompasses Grades 4 and beyond when students are reading to learn.
Fourth-grade texts become more complex and abstract and contain language and concepts
that are more challenging. Consequently, some students’ reading scores dip precipitously.
Cummins (1984) contends that it is critical for educators to understand the
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) challenges posed by learning to read
and by acquiring new content knowledge. CALP can take about 5 to 7 years to develop.
Therefore, Cummins noted that it may take significantly longer for English language
learners (ELL) to develop the academic language proficiency needed for school success.
Kunjufu (1986) noted the poor transition that Black students, especially boys,
make between the primary and intermediate grades. He contends that there is a marked
decline in achievement beginning at fourth grade and that many factors come together to
contribute to the “fourth grade failure syndrome.” Morgan (1980) found that after the
third grade, the achievement rate of Black students began a downward spiral, which
tended to continue in the child’s academic career. At this transition point the classroom
environment is transformed from socially interactive to a competitive, individualistic,
4
learning environment (Morgan, 1980, p. 51). Hale-Benson (1989) also made similar
observations about several critical periods of Black children’s development. One such
period seems to be the fourth and fifth grades when they experience a slump in their
achievement. Hale-Benson further noted that it is around the fourth grade that many
students are referred to special education programs for assessment.
Referral to special education has been recognized as an important step in
determining eligibility for special education services. Large percentages of referred
students are tested after referral, and large percentages of tested students are determined
to be eligible for special education (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1983). Given that referral is
important in determining eligibility, questions have been raised as to whether racial bias
exists in the referral process and contributes to the disproportionate number of Black
students placed in special education (Ysseldyke, Vanderwood, & Shriner, 1992).
Losen and Orfield (2002) raised concerns about significant disproportionality in
special education classification across the country in a 2000 Harvard study. Losen and
Orfield reported that African American students in Connecticut, Mississippi, South
Carolina, North Carolina, and Nebraska were more than four times as likely to be
identified as mentally retarded than were White students living in those states.
Connecticut has struggled to address over-identification and disproportion in
special education for a number of years. While the state’s overall prevalence rates for
identification of students in need of special education have declined during the past
decade, there are proportional differences among Connecticut school districts within
racial and ethnical segments of student populations. Specifically, data submitted to the
CSDE indicated that African American and Hispanic/Latino students are two to three
5
times more likely to be identified for special education than were their White peers in the
categories of emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, and intellectually disabled.
The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State Education
Resource Center (SERC) are committed to addressing the problem of the over-
representation of Black students in special education. They applied for, and were
awarded, a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Partnerships Coordinating Committee to conduct a state-level summit to examine the
issues in Connecticut. In March of 2003, Connecticut school districts, policy makers,
educational administrators, families, students, advocates, public school educators, service
providers, higher education faculty, elected officials, and community representatives
joined forces at the first of a series of Annual Summits entitled, Closing the Achievement
Gap: Connecticut Summit on Over-Identification and Disproportion in Special
Education. Multiple goals were established: (a) to explore issues and perspectives; (b) to
dialogue about approaches and strategies; and (c) to identify steps in collaboratively
addressing over-identification and disproportion in special education (Closing the
Achievement Gap: Connecticut Summit on Over-Identification and Disproportion in
Special Education, 2003).
Despite Summits and multiple efforts at the state level, results are found to be less
than ideal because the concern of the over-representation of Black students in special
education still remains. Since inception, a total of five Annual Summits have been
conducted. A combination of keynote speeches, concurrent sessions, and opportunities
for districts to engage in Courageous Conversations About Race (Pacific Education
6
Group, 2004) composed the day. Participants were appraised on: School Readiness and
Accountability Schools legislation; addition to general education certification of a 36
credit-hour special education requirement; expansion of professional development
programs on effective instruction; conversations about race; focused monitoring; Black
and Hispanic/Latino Forums; and conferences on the education of students with diverse
learning needs.
In response to this ongoing concern about the over-representation of Black
students in special education, the CSDE and SERC designed an intentional program effort
to address the issues of the over-representation of Black students in special education.
They worked closely with various districts in an engaging professional-development
program. The program was designed to identify, define, and examine the connection
between race and student achievement. In conjunction with Glenn E. Singleton, Director
of Pacific Educational Group and SERC Coaches, participating districts have engaged in
Courageous Conversations About Race as a means to examine philosophies, policies,
procedures, and practices in their district, schools, and classrooms that reflect
institutionalized racism (Pacific Education Group, 2004). The session provided
participating Courageous Conversations districts an opportunity to reflect on their
journeys to achieve equity for all students.
Courageous Conversations About Race is designed to address what educators,
families, and other community group members can do to improve teaching and learning
across racial lines. CC About Race utilizes four agreements: Stay Engaged, Experience
Discomfort, Speak Your Truth, and Expect/Accept Non-Closure; six conditions: Focus
on Personal, Local and Immediate, Isolate Race, Normalize Social Construction and
7
Multiple Perspectives, Monitor Agreements, Conditions and Establish Parameters, Use a
“Working Definition” for Race, Examine the Presence and Role of “Whiteness”; and the
Courageous Conversation Compass—four primary ways people deal with racial
information, events, and/or issues: Emotional, Intellectual, Moral, and Social, in order to
engage, sustain, and deepen interracial dialogue about race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
The issue of the over-representation of Black students in special education cannot
reside solely within the purview of special education (Dunn, 1968; National Research
Council, 2002). It is symptomatic of a larger systemic issue that needs to be viewed
through the lenses of general education. Although various districts have participated in
Courageous Conversations About Race over the years, SERC and the CSDE are
uncertain of its impact on the practice and perceptions of teachers regarding referrals to
special education and race. This study is designed to describe how and in what ways
general education teachers’ behaviors and perceptions have changed as a result of their
school’s/district’s participation in Courageous Conversations About Race?
Context of the Study: Courageous Conversations About Race
In 2004, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State
Education Resource Center (SERC) designed an intentional program effort to address the
issues of the state’s over-representation of Black students in special education. The
CSDE and SERC worked closely with Glenn Singleton, Director of Pacific Educational
Group, and eight school districts in this unique professional-development seminar series,
Courageous Conversations About Race, designed to address what educators, families,
and other community group members could do to improve teaching and learning across
8
racial lines. CC About Race served as a strategy for educators/schools in confronting and
deinstitutionalizing racism (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
CC About Race consisted of a series of seminars designed to train school district
equity leadership teams to engage, sustain, and deepen inter-racial dialogue in order to
examine the impact of institutionalized racism in school. The central purpose of the
seminars was to guide participants in identifying and addressing policies and practices
that negatively impact the ability of students to achieve rigorous academic performance
across racial lines and what educators, families, and other community group members can
do to address the issues.
Through this engaging learning experience, teams from various school districts
were provided with an opportunity to dialogue openly about racial perspectives and their
impact on student achievement. They were provided with four agreements: Stay
Engaged, Experience Discomfort, Speak Your Truth, and Expect/Accept Non-Closure;
and six conditions: Focus on Personal, Local and Immediate, Isolate Race, Normalize
Social Construction and Multiple Perspectives, Monitor Agreements, Conditions and
Establish Parameters, Use a “Working Definition” for Race, Examine the Presence and
Role of “Whiteness.” The agreements and conditions for Courageous Conversations
About Race served as a protocol of sorts to help guide one through the uncomfortable
journey of racial discovery.
The Courageous Conversation Compass was used to illustrate the four primary
ways that people deal with racial information, events, and/or issues in order to engage,
sustain, and deepen interracial dialogue about race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a). The
Compass included the components of emotional (feeling), moral (believing), intellectual
9
(thinking), and social (doing) as equivalent parts of a foundational whole. The CC
Compass graphic was constantly revisited throughout the seminar as an ongoing self-
reflective process that encourages self-monitoring and full participation by each member
of various teams attending the series.
The first year of SERC’s program, Courageous Conversations About Race, served
as a planning year. Members of the District Equity Leadership Team (DELT), consisting
of the superintendents and building-level principals, worked on building their capacity
through professional development seminars and intersession meetings, SERC Coaches,
and other district focus groups. Some of the topics included: (a) Defining Systemic
Equity/Anti-racism Leadership and an Introduction to Courageous Conversations, (b)
Breaking the Silence, (c) Ushering in “Courageous Conversations” About the Impact of
Race on Student Achievement, (d) Engaging Critical Race Theory to Deepen
Understanding of Racial Achievement Disparity and Special Education Disproportion, (e)
Investigating Anti-Racism Education, Cultural Proficiency, and (f) Culturally Responsive
Instruction.
An essential goal of Courageous Conversations About Race was that members of
the DELT teams would in turn replicate and/or turnkey the information and activities
back in their individual districts/schools. DELT team members were expected to lead
their schools/districts in having courageous conversations about race and student
achievement. They were encouraged to use their Pacific Educational Group (PEG)
training materials to provide professional development and other follow-up activities at
their individual buildings.
10
It was acknowledged by Glenn Singleton and his associates that members of the
DELT team sometimes found that they were more willing to engage others in
conversation, first, informally and then formally. Furthermore, the more that they
practiced, the more comfortable they became in imitating formal conversations with
others. Teams were encouraged to use personal examples of how they have perpetuated a
racial achievement gap and called on their staff to reflect on how they also might be
doing so in order to guide staff members through the discovery of their own racial
experiences and how they unconsciously bring them into the classroom. The ultimate
goal of the DELT teams was an expression of a vision for change in which race no longer
predicted student achievement.
In addition, DELT team members were charged with examining their district
policies, practices, programs, structures, climate, and culture that may be barriers to
equity and excellence and lead systemic change efforts that result in high levels of
achievement for all students. They were responsible for aligning the Systemic Equity
Transformation Framework with existing district strategic priorities and board goals,
ensuring that all efforts were streamlined for optimal student achievement results.
During the second year of Courageous Conversations About Race, training
seminars focused on developing a framework for systemic equity transformation. Some
of the topics included: (a) Courageous Conversations and Courageous Leadership:
Crafting the Framework for Systematic Transformation, (b) Culturally Relevant
Teaching, (c) Courageous Conversation and Community Engagement, and (d) Sharing
Equity Frameworks, and other Implementation Issues.
11
Throughout the past three years, CC About Race provided training and follow-up
technical assistance to the DELT teams focused on deepening their understanding of race
and equity, as well as on how to develop and then guide the implementation of the
district’s Equity Transformation Framework. Singleton and Linton (2006a) noted that
central to achieving educational equity, is the development of a strong support for school
and district leaders who serve as the guiding coalition to ensure successful systemic
transformation.
DELT team members were reminded that they must be careful not to judge or
jump to conclusions, make accusations, or assumptions. The use of the tools for
Courageous Conversations, the agreements, the conditions, and the compass was
reinforced. By definition, the conversations and dialogues, even the debates, were not
truly “courageous” if not applied.
Engaging in courageous conversations about race was clearly not an
institutionalized practice in schools (Singleton & Linton, 2006a). Without engaging in
these conversations, educators were denying an essential prerequisite for addressing the
very significant and difficult challenges we have in closing the racial achievement gap.
Darling-Hammond (1997) stated that in order to create a cohesive community and a
consensus on how to proceed, school personnel must have the occasion to engage in a
democratic discourse about the real stuff of teaching and learning. Democratic discourse
means providing enough time and space so that every educator's perspective and
experience are listened to and affirmed (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
12
Experience as a Courageous Conversation About Race Coach
In 2004, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State
Education Resource Center (SERC) designed an intentional program effort to address the
issues of the state’s over-representation of Black students in special education. The
CSDE and SERC worked closely with Glenn Singleton, Executive Director of Pacific
Educational Group, and eight school districts in a unique professional-development
program entitled, Courageous Conversations About Race, designed to address what
educators, families, and other community group members can do to improve teaching and
learning across racial lines. In addition, the central purpose of the seminars was to guide
participants in identifying and addressing policies and practices that negatively impact
the ability of students to achieve rigorous academic performance across racial lines and
what educators, families, and other community group members can do to address the
issues.
Consultants from SERC served as CC Coaches. A majority of the districts
participating in CC About Race were districts that SERC had already had some
involvement in through various initiatives and projects (e.g., Least Restrictive
Environment Initiative, Early Intervention Project, and Positive Behavior Support). In
preparation of the CC About Race’s seminars, SERC initiated an agency-wide
professional-development training session entitled, Beyond Diversity, a two-day seminar
developed and presented by the Founder and President, Glenn Singleton, of Pacific
Educational Group in San Francisco, California, to assist CC Coaches in the provision of
facilitation and follow-up technical assistance. Beyond Diversity is an introduction to CC
About Race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
13
The first year of Courageous Conversations About Race served as a planning
year. Members of the District Equity Leadership Team (DELT) consisted of the
superintendents and building level-principals who worked on building their capacity
through professional-development seminars and intersession meetings, SERC Coaches,
and other district focus groups. The goal of the DELT Teams was to guide staff members
through discovery of their own racial experiences and how they unconsciously bring
them into the classroom. The ultimate goal was an expression of a vision for change in
which race no longer predicts student achievement.
Throughout the past 3 years, CC About Race provided training and SERC
Coaches provided follow-up technical assistance to members of the DELT Teams
focused on deepening their understanding of race and equity, as well as on how to
develop and then guide the implementation of the district’s Equity Transformation
Framework. Singleton and Linton (2006a) noted that central to achieving educational
equity is the development of and strong support for school and district leaders who serve
as the guiding coalition to ensure successful systemic transformation.
Statement of the Problem
There is an over-representation of Black students in special education. Black
students are usually referred for special education consideration by the end of the fourth
grade. One intentional program effort to reduce the large number of referrals in
Connecticut was Courageous Conversations About Race. Although various Connecticut
schools have participated in CC About Race over the past 5 years (2004-2009), SERC
and the CSDE were uncertain about its usefulness in changing the perceptions of teachers
regarding race and referrals of students to special education.
14
Purpose of the Study
A qualitative study was used to examine the perceptions of general-education
elementary teachers about the over-representation of Black students in special education,
specifically why and how Black students are referred to special education. The study
intended to capture the perceptions of 16 general-education elementary teachers from
three districts in Connecticut’s District Reference Group H about the over-representation
of Black students in special education. One-on-one interviews took place at individual
schools for approximately 60 minutes per teacher.
Research Questions
The study is guided by the following research questions:
Research Question #1: How do teachers describe the classroom challenges that
lead them to refer students to special education?
Research Question #2: How do teachers describe the changes in their processes,
attitudes, and behaviors as a result of their district’s participation in Courageous
Conversations About Race?
Research Design
Conducting a qualitative research study best suited the examination of elementary
teachers’ perceptions of why and how Black students are referred to special education.
Qualitative research is used to gain insight into people's attitudes, behaviors, value
systems, concerns, motivations, aspirations, culture, or lifestyles. Broadly defined, it
means “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical
procedures or other means of quantification” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 17) but instead,
the kind of research that produces findings arrived at from real-world settings where the
15
phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally (Patton, 2001, p. 39). Qualitative research uses
a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena as they appear in natural
settings (Patton, 2001). It is described as an umbrella concept covering an array of
interpretative techniques to come to terms with meaning, not frequency, of natural
phenomena in the social world.
Theoretical Framework
The literature on the over-representation of Black students in special education is
growing. However, very few studies have applied a theoretical framework that explains
the history and contextual influences that affect this problem and why it continues to
exist. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a useful perspective from which to explore the
concept of race as a social construct, and the ways this construct is used to maintain the
relative privilege and power of the dominant group (Cook, 1995; Crenshaw, 1995;
Dalton, 1995; Matsuda, 1995). Given the often subtle way in which race and racism
operate, it is imperative that educational researchers explore the role of race when
examining the educational experiences of Black students. Critical Race Theory (CRT)
suggests that over-representation cannot be solved without carefully considering how the
racism experienced by Blacks drives the process (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995).
According to Hilliard (1999), the knowledge and skills to educate all children
already exist. However, the will of society to teach all children is questionable. He further
asserted that because we have lived historically in an oppressive society, educational
issues tend to be framed as technical issues, which denies their political origin and
meaning.
16
CRT is an approach that seeks to transform the relationships that exist among
race, racism, and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
This study discusses ways that engage five prominent tenets of CRT: Counter
Storytelling, Permanence of Racism, Whiteness as Property, Interest Convergence, and
Critique of Liberalism to illuminate institutional policies, practices, and structures that
promote racism and inequity in schools, specifically as they relate to the over-
representation of Black students in special education.
Importance of the Study
The study provided a basis for the examination of current local and state policies,
practices, and philosophies as they pertain to a culturally responsive educational system,
an informed pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and professional development.
Specifically, the results of this study assisted the CSDE in the focused-monitoring efforts
of local public schools relative to over-representation of Black and Hispanic/Latino
students in special education. In addition, the results assisted SERC in the design of job-
embedded and state-wide professional-development activities in order to be more
responsive to the needs of local public schools in: (a) early intervening services, (b)
cultural relevant instruction, and (c) the over-representation of Black students in special
education.
Definitions of Terms
The following list of definitions defines the terms used in this study:
Black: A person having origins in any of the indigenous racial groups of Africa
(Public Policy Research Institute, 2003). For purpose of this study, Black refers to
African American, minority, and students of color.
17
Categories of Disabilities: Thirteen categories of disabilities as defined by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The categories of disabilities are: intellectual
disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments,
visual impairments (including blindness), emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments,
autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, specific learning disabilities,
multiple disabilities, deaf-blindness, and developmental delay.
Courageous Conversations About Race: A means to examine philosophies,
polices, procedures, and practices in districts, schools, and classrooms that reflect
institutionalized racism. It is designed to address what educators, families, and other
community group members can do to improve teaching and learning across racial lines.
Courageous Conversation utilizes four agreements: Stay Engaged, Experience
Discomfort, Speak Your Truth, and Expect/Accept Non-Closure; 6 conditions: Focus on
Personal, Local and Immediate, Isolate Race, Normalize Social Construction and
Multiple Perspectives, Monitor Agreements, Conditions and Establish Parameters, Use a
“Working Definition” for Race, Examine the Presence and Role of “Whiteness”; and the
Courageous Conversation Compass—four primary ways people deal with racial
information, events, and/or issues: Emotional, Intellectual, Moral, and Social, in order to
engage, sustain, and deepen interracial dialogue about race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
Disproportionality: Disproportionality or over-representation can be
conceptualized as:
1. Representation of certain groups of students at proportions significantly
greater than their proportion in the general population (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006).
18
2. The presence of students from a specific group in an educational program
being higher or lower than one would expect based on their representation in the general
population of students (Yates, 1998).
3. Students’ representation in special education programs or specific special
education categories exceeds their proportional enrollment in a school’s general
population (MacMillan & Reschly, 1998; Oswald et al., 1999; Tucker, 1980).
Oswald et al. (1999) best define disproportionate representation as “the extent to
which membership in a given ethnic group affects the probability of being placed in a
specific education disability category” (p. 198). For the purpose of this study,
disproportionate refers to proportions of minority groups that are higher or lower than
proportions for the White group (MacMillan & Reschly, 1998). Disproportionate
representation includes both the over-representation and under-representation (Artiles &
Zamora-Duran, 1997), and is also referred to over-representation.
District Reference Groups (DRGs): Groups of districts that have similar
student and family background characteristics. The Connecticut State Department of
Education (CSDE) developed DRGs to assist in reporting and analyzing school district
data. They are used in CSDE reports to place district resources into perspective. The
state’s 166 school districts and three academies have been divided into nine groups, based
on indicators of socio-economic status, indicators of need, and enrollment.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Special education and/or related
services designed to meet the individual needs of each student at no cost to the parent,
guaranteed to all students with disability by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) of 1997.
19
General Education: Education not specifically designed to meet the unique
needs of students with disabilities (IDEA, 1997).
High Incidence Disabilities: Based upon the U.S. Department of Education’s
definition for low incidence disabilities, high incidence are those that occur in more than
100,000 persons. Examples of high incidence disabilities are speech and language
impairments, learning disabilities, and mental retardation.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Also known as the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), this federal law requires school
districts to provide students with disabilities a Free Appropriate Public Education (IDEA,
1997).
Low-Incidence Disabilities: The United States Department of Education (2000)
defines low-incidence disabilities as “those that occur in fewer than 100,000 persons”
(pp. 11-21). Examples of low-incidence disabilities are deaf and blind impairments,
visual impairments, hearing impairments, and multiple disabilities.
Mis-Classification: Mis-classification occurs in special education when a student
is given a label of disability categorization that is inappropriate or incorrect.
Mis-Representation: Mis-representation occurs when a student is incorrectly
and/or improperly placed in a special education program that is not specific to meet his or
her individual needs, and who is removed from the general education classroom and
placed in an inappropriate educational setting.
Office of Civil Rights: A governmental agency, which enforces several civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal
assistance from the Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
20
Over-Identification: Over-identification is when more students are identified as
disabled and receiving special education services than their proportional rate within the
general population, they are considered to be over-represented in special education
(Artiles et al., 2004; Harry & Klingner, 2007).
Over-Representation: For the purpose of this study, this term refers to the
percentages of minority groups in special education that are higher than the percentage of
the minority group in a school district's general population (MacMillan & Reschly,
1998).
Special Education: Instruction specially designed, at no cost to the parent, that
meets the individual needs of students with disabilities, and confers a Free Appropriate
Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
Delimitations
The study participants were 16 fourth-grade general education teachers from the
Connecticut District Reference Groups H: (a) School District A; (b) School District B;
and (c) School District C. It was also limited to schools/districts that had participated in
SERC program, Courageous Conversations About Race Consortium.
Limitations
A limitation of this study may consist of general education teachers being
unaware of the changes (e.g., processes, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions) or having
the ability to articulate those changes as a result of their school’s/district’s participation
Courageous Conversations About Race. In addition, the generalization of the results may
be limited in scope.
21
Assumptions
A major assumption was that there was a change in attitudes and behaviors of
general education teachers as a result of their school’s/district’s participation in
Courageous Conversations About Race. It was also assumed that each teacher
interviewed was sufficiently knowledgeable and able to respond effectively to questions
and provided his/her honest perceptions.
Organization of Study
The first chapter provides the background to the problem of the study. Chapter 2
provides a review of the literature on the over-representation of Black students in special
education, including a historical context: controversial and unresolved issue; intent of
special education; what is disproportionate representation; and national trends. Chapter 2
concludes with assumptions. Chapter 3 describes the methods of this qualitative study.
The results of the study are reported in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 5 consists of a
summary of the study, delineating the conclusions and recommendations for future study.
22
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The disproportionate representation of Black students in special education classes
has been well established in the educational literature since the late 1960s (Deno, 1970;
Dunn, 1968). For more than four decades, the over-representation and disproportionality
of minority children in segregated special education classes has concerned researchers,
educators, and parents (Artiles et al., 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968).
Though a problematic issue throughout the United States of America, it is most
noticeable among certain minority groups, namely Blacks (Marshall, 2001).
Hubbard and Mehan (1999) contend that racist attitudes and policies, both
institutional and unsanctioned, held by politicians, school officials, or the American
citizenry, have influenced the effectiveness of educational reform efforts. The U.S. Office
for Civil Rights (1964) reported that disproportionate representation of Black students in
special education programs results in significant racial segregation (pp. 1-44). This is a
violation of human rights and federal legislation—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (pp.
1-42). However, racial bias and overtly racist practices remain an integral aspect of the
special education process (Harry, 1994).
23
Legislation and litigation intended to prevent and arbitrate discrimination in
education first came to notice in 1954 with the famous case Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas. In Brown, the court ruled that it was illegal practice under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to arbitrarily discriminate against any
group of people. The court then applied this principle to the schooling of children,
holding that a separate education for Black students is not an equal education. In this
famous ruling, separate but equal would no longer be accepted (347 U.S. 483). The
landmark case of Brown v. Board was the catalyst for dramatic changes in America's
education system. It set the precedent for future discrimination cases in education. The
Supreme Court decision struck down the long-held belief of "separate but equal schools"
for Whites and Blacks and had a profound effect on where and how children are educated
in America. The Brown decision was not only a pivotal case in the fight against racial
discrimination, it also served as the vehicle for improving access to education for children
with disabilities. Court cases were won and laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), were enacted to protect the rights of children with disabilities for
a free and appropriate education.
The current literature on the over-representation of Black students in special
education provides a foundation for understanding the extent of the problem. To that end,
this chapter addresses three major themes emerging from the literature: (a) Historical
Context, (a) National Trends, and (c) Assumptions related to the over-representation of
Black students in special education.
24
A Historical Context of the Over-Representation
of Black Students in Special Education
Legislation and Litigation
Evidence of a pattern of disproportionate representation has been sufficient to
initiate a legal or policy action to reduce disproportionality. Racial and ethnic minorities
are protected from discrimination in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The over-representation of ethnic and linguistic
minorities in special education has resulted in several well-known court cases. However,
findings have been mixed when allegations of discrimination were based on over-
representation (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004). Some of the significant court cases involving
assessment and disproportionate placement of students in special education were:
1. Hobson v. Hansen. The Hobson v. Hansen (1967) case was filed against the
Washington, D.C., Public Schools on behalf of Black students. The claim was that Black
students were assigned in disproportionate numbers to low ability groups or tracks. The
assessment instruments (aptitude tests) were determined to be inappropriate for use with
Black students because they were primarily standardized on White middle-class students.
The court invalidated the school system's educational tracking practices. Special classes
were allowed as long as the procedures used in testing were rigorous with frequent
reassessment (Sattler, 1988). Since this case, both ability grouping and standardized
testing have come under judicial scrutiny (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1991).
2. Diana v. State Board of Education. Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)
was a major court case in California that addressed the issue of over-representation and
mis-classification in special education. It focused on the kinds of tests that were being
25
administered (e.g., verbal versus non-verbal) and the manner in which tests were
administered (e.g., primary versus second language). In Diana v. State Board of
Education (1970), the California Department of Education agreed to the following: (a) to
test all second-language students in both their primary language and English; (b) to
eliminate unfair verbal items for assessment instruments; (c) to reevaluate all Mexican-
American and Chinese students enrolled in classes for the Educable Mentally Retarded,
using only nonverbal items, and testing them in their native language; and (d) to develop
intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that reflect the culture of Mexican-American students and
that are standardized only on Mexican-Americans.
3. Mills v. Board of Education. Concerns about ethnic equity were in fact central
to litigation (e.g., Mills v. Board of Education, 1972) that led to the promulgation of the
first special education legislation (P.L. 94-142, 1975). Since the passage of that act,
issues of cultural fairness with respect to special education have continued to find their
way into court, focused primarily on the use of intelligence testing with Black students
(Artiles & Trent, 1994).
4. Larry P. v. Wilson Riles. In November 1979, Judge Robert F. Peckham,
presiding Judge of the Federal District Court of Northern California, issued a landmark
decision in the Larry P. v. Wilson Riles case. Judge Peckham found that standardized
tests of intelligence (IQ tests) were culturally biased against Black students and did not
take into account their cultural and background experiences. The ruling stated that IQ
tests could not be administered to Black students for purpose of placing them in special
education classes for the Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR). Judge Peckham modified
his judgment on September 25, 1986, issuing to the California State Department of
26
Education a statewide ban on the use of standardized IQ tests with Black students. The
court stipulated that there was no special-education-related purpose for which IQ tests
shall be administered to Black students. The pertinent issues addressed in Larry P. that
arise in other court cases are: (a) tracking; (b) overrepresentation; (c) equity; (d) cultural
awareness and sensitivity; (e) non-discriminatory assessment; and (f) services for
students with achievement difficulties.
5. PASE v. Hannon. PASE v. Hannon (1980) litigation has often yielded very
different conclusions in different courts. The court in PASE v Hannon concluded that
there was no evidence that intelligence tests were biased against minorities.
In these cases the court did not find that reducing disproportionate representation
per se was the appropriate remedy to ensure equal educational opportunity and improve
the educational success of culturally and linguistically diverse students. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (PL 101-476) was first authorized in 1975 as the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act and was recently reauthorized by the United
States Congress in 2004. IDEA was designed to ensure that students with disabilities
receive a free appropriate public education. To accomplish this goal, schools must have
in place appropriate procedures to determine if the child who is referred for special
education services is a child with disability and in fact requires special education and
related services to achieve and progress appropriately in the school curriculum. Providing
a free appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities has been a
challenging and often controversial endeavor. Of particular concern has been the over-
representation of Black students in special education, specifically in particular regions
27
and states and in programs for mental retardation (Artiles & Trent, 1994;Coutinho &
Oswald, 2000; Dunn, 1968).
Critical Race Theory
The volume of literature is growing. However, very few studies apply a
theoretical framework that explains the history and contextual influences that affect this
problem and why it continues to exist. Critical Race Theory (CRT) suggests that over-
representation cannot be solved without carefully considering how the racism
experienced by Blacks drives the process (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995). Furthermore, CRT implies that race should be the center of focus, and
charges an individual to critique school practices and policies that are both overtly and
covertly racist. Historical factors, such as slavery, oppression, inequity, and racist
practices, are not easily changed. However, the pervasiveness of racism and its subtle
ways are still prevalent in our country. The disproportionate number of Black students
placed in special education has its roots in these issues (Hilliard, 1999).
Critical Race Theory (CRT), developed initially from the work of legal scholars
Derrick Bell, Allan Freeman, and Richard Delgado (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001), has
been largely used in the area of legal research (Crenshaw, 1995). It focuses on the
concept of race as a social construct, and on the ways in which this construct has been
used to maintain the relative privilege and power of the dominant group (Cook, 1995;
Crenshaw, 1995; Dalton, 1995; Matsuda, 1995). The goal of CRT is to illuminate racist
practices and bring about social justice to oppressed people (Crenshaw, 1995).
The influence of CRT has expanded into other disciplines. Ladson-Billings and
Tate (1995) are credited for introducing CRT to the education community nearly 10 years
28
ago and has since emerged as a powerful theoretical and analytical framework within
educational research (Duncan, 2002; Lynn, Yosso, Solorzano, & Parker, 2002). The key
theoretical elements of CRT are: (a) counter-storytelling, (b) the permanence of racism,
(c) Whiteness as property, (d) interest convergence, and (e) the critique of liberalism.
1. Counter-Storytelling. As an essential tenet of CRT (Matsuda, 1995), Counter
Storytelling focuses on telling a story that shines the spotlight on racism to counter
accepted notions or myths held by members of the majority culture. Delgado and
Stefancic (2001) define it as a method of telling a story that “aims to cast doubt on the
validity of accepted premises or myths, especially ones held by the majority” (p. 144),
exposing and critiquing normalized dialogues that perpetuate racial stereotypes. The use
of counter-stories allows for the challenging of privileged discourses, the discourses of
the majority, therefore, serving as a means for giving voice to marginalized groups.
Counter-storytelling helps an individual to understand what life is like for others and
invites the reader into a new and unfamiliar world (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 41). In
education, Solórzano and Yosso (2001) and Lynn et al. (2002) suggest that counter-
stories can be found in various forms, including personal stories/narratives, other
people’s stories/narratives, and composite stories/narratives.
2. The Permanence of Racism. “Racism is a permanent component of American
life” (Bell, 1992, p. 13). The acceptance of the idea of the permanence of racism involves
adopting a “realist view” of the American societal structure. Within a CRT framework,
according to Bell (1995), a “realist view” requires realizing the dominant role that racism
has played and continues to play in American society; this can be both a conscious and an
unconscious act (Lawrence, 1995). This theory suggests that institutional racism is
29
embedded in the nation’s culture, evident in the hierarchy of its governmental, financial,
and educational institutions. Furthermore, the notion of the permanence of racism implies
that racist hierarchical structures govern all political, economic, and social domains. Such
structures allocate the privileging of Whites and the subsequent “othering” of people of
color in all arenas, including education.
3. Whiteness as Property. Harris (1995) suggests that functions and attributes of
property historically have been used in establishing Whiteness as a form of property.
Whites have dominated the capitalist system since its inception. In America, Blacks were
brought here as slaves and were considered property. The White power structure
designed and operated an effective, oppressive economic system that kept Black
powerless. When segregation was defeated in 1954, Whites, who were the heads of the
public schools, used tracking and special education placement to maintain the status quo.
Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) suggest that educational inequity exists because Whites
have exclusive access to high quality and rigorous curriculum. Tracking, honors, and/or
gifted programs and advanced placement courses are but the myriad ways that schools
have essentially been re-segregated. The formal ways that selection and admission into
these programs are conducted guarantee that students of color have virtually no access to
a high-quality curriculum or certainly one that will prepare them for college attendance
(Fine, 1991; Oakes, 1995; Solórzano & Ornelas, 2002, 2004). Thus, through the myriad
policies and practices that restrict the access of students of color to high-quality curricula,
and to safe and well-equipped schools, school districts have served to reify this notion of
Whiteness as property whereby the rights to possession, the use and enjoyment of, and
the disposition of, have been enjoyed almost exclusively by Whites.
30
Many schools reinforce “Whiteness as property” through their policies and
practices that regulated the manner in which students expressed themselves, either
verbally or through their dress (Brady, Eitman, & Parker, 2000).
4. Interest Convergence. Bell (1980) suggests that civil rights gains within
communities of color, and, specifically, those for Blacks, should be interpreted with
measured enthusiasm. He argues that the majority group tolerates advances for racial
justice only when it suits its interest to do so. First, early civil rights legislation provided
only basic rights to Blacks, rights that had been enjoyed by Whites for centuries. These
civil rights gains were in effect superficial “opportunities” because they were basic tenets
of U.S. democracy; however, Bell (1980) contends that these very basic rights came only
inasmuch as they converged with the self-interests of Whites. Citing the limited and
uncertain gains of the Brown decision, Bell articulated that losses in terms of human
capital by way of the dismissal of scores of Black teachers and administrators, school
closings in Black neighborhoods, and the limited access to high-quality curricula in the
form of tracking, inflated admissions criteria, and other factors, have made the so-called
“gains” from Brown questionable. In Bell’s shocking proposal regarding Brown v. Board,
the triumph of civil rights litigation may have resulted more from the self-interest of elite
Whites than the desire to help Blacks.
5. Critique of Liberalism. The last tenet of CRT is the critique of liberalism
(Williams, 1997), as in (a) the notion of color blindness; (b) neutrality of the law; and (c)
incremental change. Equal opportunity for all without favoritism is a desirable goal to
pursue; however, given the history of racism in the U.S., rights and opportunities were
both awarded and withheld based almost exclusively on race. Furthermore, the notion of
31
colorblindness fails to take into consideration the persistence and permanence of racism
and the perception of people of color as Other. Colorblindness, as Williams suggests, has
made it nearly impossible to integrate both the ways that White privilege is deployed and
the normalizing effects of Whiteness. Hence, “difference,” in the colorblind discourse,
almost always refers to people of color because being White is considered “normal.”
CRT scholars argue that colorblindness has been adopted as a way to justify ignoring and
dismantling race-based policies that were designed to address societal inequity (Gotanda,
1991). The argument that society should be colorblind ignores the fact that inequity,
inopportunity, and oppression are historical artifacts that will not be easily remedied by
ignoring race in the contemporary society. Moreover, adopting a colorblind ideology
does not eliminate the possibility that racism and racist acts will persist.
Under the notion of incremental change, gains for marginalized groups must come
at a slow pace that is palatable for those in power. In this discourse, equality, rather than
equity, is sought. In seeking equality rather than equity, the processes, structures, and
ideologies that justify inequity are not addressed and dismantled. Remedies based on
equality assume that citizens have the same opportunities and experiences. Race and
experiences based on race are not equal, thus, the experiences that people of color have
with respect to race and racism create an unequal situation. Equity, however, recognizes
that the playing field is unequal and attempts to address the inequality. Hence,
incremental change appears to benefit those who are not directly affected adversely by
social, economic, and educational inequity that come as a result of racism and racist
practices.
32
Special Education
Special education was mandated nationally by law in 1975 with the passage of the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) entitles all individuals with disabilities to a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) and mandates non-discriminatory assessment, identification, and placement of
children with disabilities. Children are not to be identified as disabled because of poor
achievement due to environmental disadvantage or ethnic, linguistic, or racial difference.
This is made clear by the prescribed evaluation procedures and the definitions of
disability conditions in IDEA. However, nationally, some ethnic groups continue to be
over-represented as disabled, particularly as intellectual disabled (ID) and seriously
emotionally disturbed (SED). State and local representation rates vary widely, but in
many cases show even more marked patterns of over-representation (Oswald &
Coutinho, 2001).
The intent of IDEA and other special education laws is and was to address the
special and individual needs of students who do not appear to benefit from general
education programs and services, including curriculum and instruction. It is to provide
specialized services to students who require additional supports and different services
beyond what is offered in the general education. In addition, IDEA was intended to both
regulate and extend to all children, regardless of disability category and severity, and
regardless of demographic variables (i.e., race, gender, income, or socio-economic
status), the provision of educational services that are specific to their needs.
33
Losen and Orfield (2002) concur with Tucker (2002) that in its original and
subsequent conceptualization, special education was not a place or location but rather a
service-delivery structure. This service-delivery structure was supposed to provide
individualized instruction to students who, on the basis of an objective referral,
assessment and evaluation, eligibility determination, placement, and exit process, were
identified as having disabilities (Blanchett & Shealey, 2005). Once students’ needs were
met, or appropriate strategies or modifications implemented, the students would be
integrated into the general education settings. However, Losen and Orfield (2002) noted
that, in reality, special education has not worked out as it was designed. Losen and
Orfield further contend that for many Black students, special education has become a
form of segregation from the mainstream—keeping students of color from receiving an
equitable education in the general education environment.
Special education is criticized as being ineffective and that a stigma of the label is
attached to children receiving services. The National Research Council (2002) noted that
Black students identified as special education are often stigmatized socially. Patton
(1998) added that students can be appropriately placed and fail to receive a quality and
life-enhancing placement as a result (J. Patton, 1998, p. 25) of this stigma. In addition,
students thus placed are likely to encounter a limited, less rigorous curriculum. Research
has shown that the lower expectations can lead to diminished academic and post-
secondary opportunities (Harry & Klingner, 2007; National Research Council, 2002).
Furthermore, students in special education programs can have less access to academically
able peers (Donovan & Cross, 2002). The negative implications that result from
withdrawal from the general education services tend to outweigh these positive effects.
34
Harry and Anderson (1994) and Harry and Klingner (2007) assert that not much is
“special,” different, or unique about special education. They further contend that what is
“special” about special education has lost much of its appeal because Black students’
outcomes are the most disconcerting. The quality of Black students’ educational
experiences has been regarded as one of the most significant issues faced by school
systems in the past years (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000).
Disproportionality is a significant issue in special education because it often
results in: (a) minority students being underserved or receiving services that do not meet
their needs; (b) mis-classification or inappropriate labeling; (c) placement in special
education as a kind of discrimination through school segregation; (d) a stigma associated
with labeling; and (e) lowered expectations as well as a higher incidence for dropouts,
suspensions, and expulsions that contribute to limited options for future success (Harry &
Klingner, 2007; Losen & Orfield, 2002).
The over-representation of Black students in high-incidence special education
programs (e.g., intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance)
has been a concern for more than four decades (Artiles et al., 2004; Donovan & Cross,
2002; Dunn, 1968). The importance of this issue is evident in the fact that it has been
studied twice by the National Research Council (NRC) (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller
et al., 1982). However, in spite of two NRC reports, resolutions, statements, and actions
from professional organizations, such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
(CEC, 2002; Ishi-Jordan, 1997; National Alliance of Black School Educators, 2002),
litigation (e.g., court case such as Larry P. v. Wilson Riles and Diana v. California State
Board of Education), policy and advocacy efforts (e.g., IDEA amendments, CEC
35
Institutes on Disproportionality), pressure from parent groups and researchers, the
problem has not been resolved. The recent NRC report concluded: “Twenty years later,
disproportionality in special education persists” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 1).
The issue of over-representation within special education has primarily affected
Black males who are also classified as having a lower socio-economic status. Moreover,
the high level of Black students placed in special education is due greatly to mis-
understood cultural attributes and believed signs of aggression. For example, Watkins
and Kurtz (2001) surveyed teachers and asked each to nominate difficult-to-teach
students in need of a psychological evaluation and placement in special education from
an equal group of White and Black students. The teachers referred Black students by a
higher margin over their White students.
Currently, Blacks tend to be significantly over-represented in the two special
education categories of mild mental disabilities and emotional/behavioral disabilities
(Oswald et al., 1999). Black students account for only 14.8% of the general population of
6- to 21-year-old students, but they make up 20% of the special education population
across all disabilities (Losen & Orfield, 2002). They are 2.41 times more likely than
White students to be identified as having mental retardation, 1.13 times more likely to be
labeled as learning disabled, and 1.68 times as likely to be found to have an emotional or
behavioral disorder (Klingner et al., 2005).
The disproportionate representation of children of color in special education is a
long-standing problem that continues to concern educators. The newly reauthorized
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L.108-446) once again addresses
the concern and requires states to take more aggressive steps to monitor and respond.
36
Nevertheless, despite national attention and controversy, there remains little consensus
about how best to define and respond to patterns of over- and under-identification by
ethnicity and gender across disability categories.
Connecticut Situation
Connecticut has struggled to address the over-representation of Black students in
special education for many years. While the state’s prevalence rates for identification of
students in need of special education have declined during the past decade, there are
proportional differences among Connecticut school districts within racial and ethnic
segments of student populations. Specifically, Black and Hispanic/Latino students are
more than twice as likely as their White peers to be identified with intellectual and
emotional disabilities.
Losen and Orfield (2002) raised concerns about significant disproportionality in
special education classification across the country, including Connecticut.
Disproportionality occurs when a racial, ethnic, or gender group is represented in special
education at a significantly different rate than the group’s proportional enrollment in the
general school population. For example, nationally, Black students are 2.41 times more
likely to be identified as having intellectual disabilities and 1.68 times more likely to be
identified with emotional/behavioral disabilities than are White students (Blanchett,
2006), and these disparities remain even after accounting for socioeconomic differences
between racial groups (Losen & Orfield, 2002). Similarly, in Connecticut, Black and
Hispanic/Latino students are more than twice as likely to be identified with intellectual or
emotional disabilities as are their White counterparts.
37
The Debate: A Controversial and Unresolved Issue
The debate of disproportionate representation of Black students in special
education has persisted for the last four decades (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Hosp & Reschly,
2004; National Research Council, 2002; Patton, 1998; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002).
Disproportionate representation, or disproportionality, refers to the over- or under-
representation of a given population group often defined by racial and ethnic
backgrounds, but also defined by socio-economic status, national origin, English
proficiency, and gender in a specific population category (Coutinho & Oswald, 2004). It
clearly means that there is a specific group or demographic that has exceeded normal
representation of any said group, and is therefore represented greater than it should be.
Over-representation is an unresolved issue that continues to significantly impact the lives
of children of color (Artiles et al., 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968).
Disproportionate representation of Black students in special education has been
attributed to a variety of circumstances including: racism that is engrained in our culture,
the higher percentage of minorities in poverty, mono-culture schools that are not
responding appropriately to our nation’s growing diversity, and inherently inferior races
(Artiles & Trent, 2000; Baca & Cervantes, 1998; Hosp & Reschly, 2004; Patton, 1998).
In 1968, Lloyd Dunn, the former president of the Council for Exceptional
Children, addressed the over-representation of Black students in our special education
programs in the article entitled, “Special Education for the Mildly Retarded: Is Much of It
Justifiable?” He questioned the academic effectiveness and the detrimental social
implications of special education. Dunn called for a change in the role of the special
educator, to one that served as a consultant to general education teachers so that more
38
students with special needs could remain in the mainstream classroom. In addition, he
disputed the need to label children, describing the negative effects these ‘badges’ cause
(Dunn, 1968).
This debate over how special education services should best be delivered and the
efficacy of labeling continues today. However, there has been a shift from merely citing
the fact that Black students are disproportionately represented in special education to
examining the reasons why this trend continues (Artiles & Trent, 2000; Patton, 1998;
Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002).
Despite the general level of concern, educators and researchers have sometimes
argued that disproportionality should not be the focus of discussion. The National
Academy of Sciences panel of experts regarded disproportionality as harmful when it
resulted from inadequate regular education programs, inappropriate assessment practices,
or ineffective special education programs. High-quality, effective instruction for all
students in both general and special education could diminish the significance of over-
representation. In addition, increasing the appropriateness of assessment practices would
lead to the same decisions at the referral, assessment, and placement steps regardless of
the race or ethnicity of the student given the same behaviors or symptoms. Consequently,
some would contend that if emphasis were placed on improving instruction and
expanding opportunities for all students and on fair and equitable determination of
eligibility for special education, a case could be made that disproportionality should not
be perceived as a problem (Westat, 2003).
On the other hand, working from a different conceptual framework, Patton (1998)
has maintained that disproportionality itself is always a significant problem, with deep
39
sociopolitical and historical roots. From this perspective, factors that cause over-
representation include the failures of the general education system, inequities in the
referral, assessment and placement process, and the subjectivity of high-incidence
disability categories. Similarly, Daniels (1998) has asserted that disproportionate
representation is a significant problem, in and of itself, indicative of inherent inequities
within our educational system that prejudice outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students.
Although the presence of minority over-representation has been well documented
and recognized as significant issues faced by the United States public schools (Coutinho
& Oswald, 2004), it is a complex problem. Its causes have yet to be fully understood.
The Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2000)
documents the extent and seriousness of the problem: Black youth, ages 6 through 21,
account for 14.8% of the general population. Yet, they account for 20.2% of the special
education population. In 9 of the 13 disability categories (i.e., specific learning
disabilities, speech and language impairments, mental retardation, emotional disturbance,
multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, and
developmental delay), the percentage of Black students equals or exceeds the resident
population percentage. The representation of Black students in the mental retardation and
developmental-delay categories is more than twice their national population estimates.
Meanwhile, Black students are less likely to be over-represented in four disability
categories: (a) deaf/blindness, (b) orthopedic impairment, (c) other health impairment,
and (d) visual impairment/blindness (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
40
Poverty is often cited as an explanation for these disparities. However, while
poverty and related factors correlate highly with the incidence of disability, the effects of
gender and race remain significant even after controlling for socio-economic factors.
Furthermore, the most striking finding in 2001, according to the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, was that Black students attending schools in
districts serving mostly middle-class or wealthy White students were at an increased risk
for being labeled intellectually disabled. In fact, Losen and Orfield (2002) reported that
Black children, especially males, are at increased risk for identification in the categories
of mental retardation and emotional disturbance than are members of the White
population of a district.
The real problem of the over-representation of students of color in special
education is that mis-categorization leads to mis-placement, and mis-placement leads to
mis-instruction (Obiakor & Ford, 2002). Further, mis-instruction results in failure and
ultimately a cycle of low expectations and frustration that begets more failure; a vicious
cycle that contributes, ultimately, to in-school and post-school failure for a
disproportionate number of students of color.
Teacher referral is a strong predictor of eligibility for special services. In fact,
studies show that 73 to 90% of the students referred by classroom teachers for special
education evaluations due to academic problems are found eligible for services (Harry &
Klingner, 2007). A child's race and ethnicity significantly influence the child's probability
of being mis-identified, mis-classified, and inappropriately placed in special education
programs. Research shows the relationship between race and ethnicity and other variables
for students' placement in special education classes. Variables such as language, poverty,
41
assessment practices, systemic inequities, and professional development opportunities for
teachers have been cited as factors that play a role in disproportionate representation
(Losen & Orfield, 2002; National Research Council, 2002).
National Trends in the Over-Representation of
Black Students in Special Education
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), has
documented the patterns of disproportionate representation of minority students in special
education programs for more than 40 years. With each OCR survey, the following
patterns have emerged: (a) Black students have been found to be over-represented in the
high-incidence categories of mental retardation (MR) and emotionally disturbed (ED);
and (b) Black students are under-represented in the gifted and talent category (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002, 2006).
Nationally, Black students constitute 35% of the total special education
enrollments in the MR category, yet represent 17% of elementary and secondary student
enrollments. Black students are 2.4 times more likely to be labeled MR than are White
students and 26.4% of Black students are classified as ED, but are only 17% of the
overall student population. No other groups are over-represented in the high-incidence
disabilities of mental retardation and emotionally disturbed. Black students, especially
males who engage in certain behaviors that represent artifacts of their culture, such as
language (Ebonics), movement patterns (verve), and have a certain “ethnic” appearance,
have been found to be over-referred for special education placement (Neal, McCray, &
Webb-Johnson, 2000).
Zhang and Katsiyannis (2002) noted that Black students are disproportionately
referred to and placed in the high-incidence special education categories of intellectual
42
disability, emotional or behavioral disorders, and learning disabilities. Once labeled as
having disabilities and placed in special education, Black students make achievement
gains and exit special education at rates considerably lower than do White students
identified as having disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). These conditions
exist even though the field of special education has moved toward more equitable
treatment of students with disabilities by advocating for inclusive general education
placement as common practice. Many Black students who are placed in the less
subjective, low-incidence categories of developmental disabilities are educated in
segregated, self-contained settings with little or no exposure or access to their non-
disabled peers or to the general education curriculum (Fierros & Conroy, 2002).
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), Blacks accounted for
16% of the student population; however, Blacks represented 32%, or double the current
representation, of students with mental disabilities in special education. The fact that
Blacks represent a larger percentage of special education than the general education
population further substantiates the over-representation of Blacks within special
education.
The National Research Council (NRC, 2002) updated its historic 1982 report on
disproportionate representation of minority students and males in special education
programs for students with intellectual disabilities. While describing significant changes
that had taken place in two decades, most notably, a significant decline of prevalence
rates in the intellectual disabilities category and significant increases in the prevalence of
Blacks identified in the learning disabilities category, there was a continuance in the
43
overall disproportionate numbers of Black students identified as having intellectual
disabilities.
A Harvard study (Losen & Orfield, 2002) found that African American students
in Connecticut, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Nebraska are more than
four times as likely to be identified as mentally retarded as are White students living in
those states. In Florida, Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, and Colorado, the number of
Black students identified as mentally retarded was more than three times the rate for
White students. In a similar comparison of students by race, Losen and Orfield (2002)
found that Black students in Nebraska were six times more likely to be identified as
emotionally disturbed, and those in Iowa were four times as likely to be labeled
emotionally disturbed as compared to their White counterparts. Black students in
Kentucky, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota were three times more likely to be identified as
emotionally disturbed whereas Black students in Louisiana, Washington, Oregon, West
Virginia, and North Carolina were more than twice as likely as White students to be
targeted for such special programs.
Losen and Orfield (2002) argue that despite an increase in civil rights protections
and special education services over the past years, school districts nationwide continued
to improperly and disproportionately place Black students in special education classes.
The Harvard Study also found that a grossly disproportionate numbers of Black students
were identified as eligible for services and were too often placed in isolated and
restrictive educational settings.
44
Assumptions About the Over-Representation of Black
Students in Special Education Programs
Disproportionality is considered one of the most complex issues in the field of
special education (Skiba et al., 2003). It is a phenomenon neither explained simply nor
understood easily. Numerous studies have been affected to determine reasons for this
occurrence. Racism, poverty, assessment bias, language differences, pre-service teacher
training, teacher expectations, and cultural behaviors are among the identified factors
(Artiles, 2003; Artiles et al., 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Losen & Orfield, 2002).
However, among the conceptual factors that can influence disproportionate
representation are issues that involve race (Hilliard, 2001) and its definition and
significance; issues around culture, class, and gender oppressions; and issues around the
definition of disability and the nature of difference (Artiles & Trent, 1994). At the same
time, other conceptual and socio-cultural factors, like the individual and collective use of
stereotypes and assumptions about marginalized groups, also contribute to the over-
representation of students of color in special education (Steele, 1997).
In schools, systemic factors related to teacher effectiveness, biased perceptions
about students, and even the opportunities students have, or have not had, to learn may
influence over-representation in special education (Gadsden, 2001; Hale, 2001; Watkins,
Lewis, & Chou, 2001). Additionally, the region of the country, the size of the school
program, the services available, whether the school is in an urban, suburban, or rural
setting, and the specific disability in question all have an influence on educational
practices, the gathering and interpreting of data, and data-based decision-making.
Inadequate and inappropriate referral, assessment, and evaluation procedures used either
to refer students for possible identification of special education, or to determine their
45
placement in special education, contribute greatly to the large numbers of minority
students in these programs (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Patton, 1998).
Algozzine, Christenson, and Ysseldyke (1982) concluded that there is a socio-
political context in which the referral to placement process operates. This socio-political
context involves the role that teachers play in the disproportionate numbers of students of
color in special education. Since there is a high probability that teacher referrals for
psychological evaluation result in the placement of students into special education,
Algozzine et al. (1982) contended that special education referrals are teacher-driven. This
means that students identified with special needs are tested and subsequently placed in
special education once a teacher initiates the process by making a referral (Algozzine et
al., 1982; Artiles & Trent, 1994).
Labeling students as special education when they really are not leads to
unwarranted services and supports. Mis-identified students are likely to encounter limited
access to a rigorous curriculum and diminished expectations. More important,
mislabeling students creates a false impression of the child’s intelligence and academic
potential. Harry and Klingner (2007) contend that once students are receiving special
education services, they tend to remain in special education classes. Furthermore,
students in special education programs can have less access to academically able peers
(Donovan & Cross, 2002). Black students identified as special education are often
stigmatized socially (National Research Council, 2002). In addition, disproportionality
can contribute to significant racial separation (Harry & Klingner, 2007; Losen & Orfield,
2002).
46
Coutinho and Oswald (2004) noted that the mere fact that disproportionality is
widely viewed as a problem reflects a general belief that the proportion of children who
have a disability should be about the same across all race/ethnicity groups. This belief
leads to the conclusion that if the proportion for one race or ethnicity group is
substantially different from the proportion for another group, then the system for
identifying children with disabilities is not working the same way across groups. The
researchers further contend that if identification confers some benefit, or imposes some
stigma, then the system is not only working differently, but it is discriminatory.
However, an alternative to this general belief has been proposed; it holds that the
proportion of children who are identified as students with disabilities may be higher for a
given race or ethnicity group because factors that cause disability are more common in
that group. An often cited example suggests that Black students are over-represented
among students with mental retardation because mental retardation is associated with
poverty, and a greater proportion of African American students live in poverty, compared
to other race or ethnicity groups (Skiba et al., 2003). Coutinho and Oswald (2004)
indicated that most statements about the causes of disproportionality fall under one of
these two positions: (a) disproportionality is the result of a system that works in a biased,
discriminatory fashion; or (b) disproportionality is the result of social factors that lead to
higher rates of disability in some groups.
Poverty and other socio-economic factors affect the incidence of disability among
all ethnic groups and across all disabilities. Even with socio-economic factors considered,
race and ethnicity remain significant factors in placing children in special education. Also,
it is important to note that poverty itself does not automatically result in low learning
47
potential, as witnessed by a significant number of children and schools who “beat the
odds” (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
Non-Biased Assessment
The assessment process has been controversial in the special education process.
The disproportionate representation of Black students represents a central and continuing
challenge for special education. Concerns about the issue reach back to earlier work done
in the field of education (Dunn, 1968; Mercer, 1973). The belief that test bias was
responsible for over-referral led to a massive exploration of test bias in the 1970s
(Braden, 1999). Major court decisions have raised red flags, and resulted in mandates for
the use of culturally responsive procedures and tools with Blacks and English Language
Learners in special education eligibility decisions. Two California court cases largely
shaped these regulations, namely Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) and Larry P.
v. Wilson Riles (1979). Some of the most important outcomes of Diana include a mandate
to test in students’ primary language, and use non-verbal tests and extensive supporting
data in future placement decisions. A major outcome of Larry P. was a ban on the use of
IQ tests for identification and placement purposes with Black students in California
(Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002).
Subjective and unreliable identification procedures have also been associated with
the over-representation of African American males in special education. Teacher referrals
along with testing are the primary measures used to identify whether or not a student is in
need of special education services. Each of these measures poses unique challenges to the
crisis of the frequent placement of Black students in special education. Both methods
have questionable reliability and have been critiqued for their use. For example, the
48
Executive Committee of the Council for Child Behavior Disorders (1989) suggests that
there are problems with the referral process as the initial screening procedure for
identifying students for special education programs because it is insensitive to students
with internalizing problems.
Hilliard (1990) and Cummins (1986) believed that biased referrals and mis-
diagnosis occur mainly in the “judgmental” categories of special education
classifications. The two judgment categories are most commonly, severe emotionally
disturbed (SED) and mild mentally retarded (MMR). According to Harry and Anderson
(1994), diagnoses of these disabilities are essentially based upon subjective clinical
judgment rather than verifiable biological criteria. It is also important to note that the two
most common types of tests used in the diagnosis of behavioral or learning disabilities are
intelligence tests and behavioral assessments. Critics of testing methods used as tools for
placement of African American students into special education make several
observations: IQ tests inevitably reflect the cultural knowledge base and cognitive
orientation of its creator(s) and of the sample on which they have been standardized;
expectations about students’ language skills are determined by the standard language of
the majority; and education professionals are in need of specific training and
interpretation of speech and language tests. Thus, the entire testing process appears to be
biased, and students whose cultural and social experiences do not include information
and skills tested by these instruments are placed at a disadvantage (Harry & Anderson,
1994). For this reason, the Board of Assessment and Testing (BOTA) concluded that the
usefulness of IQ tests in making special education decisions needed to be reevaluated
(Morrison, White, & Fever, 1996). Townsend (2002) argues that the tests have long been
49
considered unfair and biased against students from ethnic minority backgrounds, because
they are based on the experiences of middle-class Americans.
The disproportionately large number of minority students placed in special
education suggests that too many of the learning difficulties experienced by children of
color may be explained as “something wrong with the child” that special education can
“fix.” The problem is reduced to a discussion of technical issues related to presumed
intrinsic child deficits, with little attention to contextual, historical, or institutional issues
(Artiles, 2003; Artiles, Osher, & Ortiz, 2003; Daniels, 1998; Patton, 1998). Students of
color tend to be frequently mis-identified, mis-assessed, mis-categorized, and mis-placed
(Obiakor & Wilder, 2003).
The most recent National Research Council (NRC) panel (Donovan & Cross,
2002) concluded that evidence of bias in the referral to placement process was mixed, but
that the process has sufficient shortcomings relative to ensuring that the correct students
are being identified. Further, the panel contended that the entire process is weighted
toward referral and placement only after a student has experienced failure, thus ensuring
that child's problems will be relatively intractable by the time he or she is finally placed
in special education.
The over-representation of Black students in special education is considered to be
the result of special education referral, assessment, and eligibility processes. According to
Oswald et al. (1999), instruments used to determine special education eligibility are
culturally and linguistically biased. Losen (2002) found that evaluation instruments are
filled with subjectivity. Ortiz (2002) noted that, over the years, procedures and methods
have been suggested to comply with the directive for nonbiased assessment with ethnic,
50
linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Ortiz contends that the focus has been
generally on modified use of or alternatives to standardized tests, rather than specification
of a comprehensive approach to non-discriminatory assessment (p. 1322). As a result,
professionals have tended to view nonbiased assessment in a very simplistic form.
Pre-referral/early intervention surfaced in response to concerns about
inappropriate identification and labeling of children for special education. The primary
purpose of the various models of early intervention has generally been to differentiate
students with disabilities from academic or behavioral difficulties, including
inappropriate or inadequate instruction. In the models of early intervention, students who
are persistently non-responsive to more intensive and alternative instructional or
behavioral interventions over time are viewed as the most likely candidates for special
education (Fletcher, Barnes, & Francis, 2002; Ortiz, 2002).
The educational system works on a wait-and-fail model. The assumption is that
failure must be documented first to secure assistance for students with academic and
behavior concerns (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002).
Many students who demonstrate an indication for academic and behavior support in
kindergarten or first grade are not provided with the early intervention. Donovan and
Cross (2002) noted that currently there are not mechanisms in place to guarantee that
students will receive adequate opportunities to learn through exposure to effective
reading instruction or classroom management before they are identified as having a
“within-child” problem.
Early interventions have been recognized as a response to reduce the number of
inappropriate referrals to special education. The defining features of the pre-referral/early
51
intervention model include a preventive process, a team-based problem-solving approach,
action-research orientation, and an intervention process that is centered on the enhanced
success of students and teachers within the general education setting (Buck, Polloway,
Smith-Thomas, & Cook, 2003; National Alliance of Black School Educators, 2002).
Early intervention starts with a general education team that meets to discuss a teacher’s
concerns about a student and to suggest strategies that he/she should implement within the
general classroom before a student can be considered for referral to special education services
(Losen, 2002). Most of the solutions proposed to eliminate disproportionality address the
provision of appropriate and preventive intervention for students who are experiencing
difficulty in school and improving teacher training in working with students from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Issues regarding identification or over-identification of students with disabilities
can emanate not only from bias in tests, but from the attitudes and perceptions of the
school personnel who make decisions about the children referred for testing. Duffy,
Salvia, Tucker, and Ysseldyke (1981), in their discussion of nonbiased assessment, state
that there is far more evidence that the use of test data has been the biasing factor rather
than the tests themselves. Steele, Perry, and Hilliard (2004) noted that categorical views
of intelligence as a measurable construct affect the way teachers and schools think about
students. Deeply held assumptions about inferior intelligence among students of color
represent one of the most enduring legacies of Western racism. Furthermore, Steele et al.
feel that these beliefs have been institutionalized in the policies and practices of our
public schools. Biased assessments and other evaluative data gathered and interpreted by
educators, including unconscious stereotypical attitudes, are factors contributing to the
52
lack of appropriate instruction and positive outcomes for students of color (Beauboeuf-
Lafontant, 1999; Hilliard, 2000).
Daugherty (1999) further states that social patterns are often more effectively
stronger than legislation addressing change. Two of the patterns that cannot be changed
by legislation are attitudes and perceptions. While it can be argued that attitudes are not
always overtly demonstrated, beliefs and perceptions can, and do, influence interpretation
and use of data in identifying students for special education, and certain stigmatizing
categories in particular. Decisions made to provide students with perceived necessary
services are sometimes influenced by what Losen and Orfield (2002) refer to as
“unconscious bias.”
In this vein, evidence from a 3-year ethnographic study in Florida (Harry,
Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002) points to the many ways in which the assessment
process is influenced by unofficial, undocumented practices. These include informal
pressures from school administrators and/or referring teachers, teachers' and
psychologists' unacknowledged biases regarding children's family structures and
practices, and widely varying choice and implementation of psychological assessment
tools. Furthermore, the Harry et al. study revealed that child study teams seldom take into
account information regarding the atmosphere and practices obtained in the classrooms of
referring teachers. In the study, several children were referred from classrooms where
very poor instruction and classroom management were the norm, making it impossible to
know whether the children's difficulties might have been mitigated in more effective
classroom environments.
53
The National Research Council (Donovan & Cross, 2002), in concluding its
consideration of assessment issues, called for a focus on children’s intervention needs
rather than a search for intrinsic disability, and for an end to the requirement for IQ tests
as a “primary criterion” for eligibility (p. 313). This report also emphasized that
children’s academic achievement falls along a continuum, and the cut-off points for
“disability” or “giftedness” are “artificial and variable” (p. 26).
Teacher Expectations of Black Students
The literature on teacher expectations for Black students has a long history.
R. Ferguson (2002) summarized research on achievement gap, frequently finding that
teachers often focus on students’ deficits. These deficits are either perceived or real.
Ferguson’s premise is that perceptions and behaviors held by educators increase referrals
and the subsequent placement of Black students in special education. All too often,
educators interpret differences as deficits, dysfunctions, and disadvantages within
students and their cultures (Harry & Klingner, 2007). As a result, many Black students
are referred to special education rather than gifted education (Ford, Moore, & Whiting,
2006).
Ninety percent of United States public school teachers are White. Most of them
grew up and attended school in middle-class, English-speaking, predominantly White
communities and received their teacher preparation in predominantly White colleges and
universities (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003). Researchers (Ladson-Billings, 2002;
Vavrus, 2002) contend that many White educators have not acquired the necessary
experimental and education background that would prepare them for the growing
diversity of their students.
54
Research has shown that the lower expectations of students of color can lead to
diminished academic and post-secondary opportunities (Harry & Klingner, 2007;
National Research Council, 2002). According to Gay (2000) culturally responsive
teachers of Black students have high performance expectations, advocate for their
students, and empower them, as well as use good instructional practices. Gay described
these teachers as demanding, supportive, encouraging, pedagogically persistent, and
intellectually focused (p. 64). These culturally responsive teachers interacted with
students on multiple levels concerned with personal and academic development.
It is critical that teachers examine and change their basic assumptions and beliefs
about students of color. Teachers must believe that all children can learn regardless of
their ethnic group, gender, or social class (Banks, 1992; Collins, 2002). Howard (2007)
emphasizes the critical need for educators of all racial and cultural groups to develop new
competencies and pedagogies to successfully engage students in our ever-changing
diverse student populations.
According to Edmonds and Frederiksen (1979), to be truly effective, a
school/teacher must challenge all students, and must close the achievement gap between
students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, Edmonds and
Frederiksen noted that high expectations for students, particularly those from diverse
backgrounds, and effective family/community involvement are the cornerstones of
effective-schools research. He maintains that schools must have a climate of high
expectations reflected in staff and family beliefs, and must demonstrate that all students
can attain mastery of the essential content and school skills.
55
Effective instruction and improved student outcomes begin with the teacher.
Researchers Brophy and Good (1986), upon review of numerous studies about teacher
impact on student achievement, concluded that the myth that teachers do not make a
difference in student learning has been refuted (p. 370). More recent studies note that the
individual classroom teacher has an even greater effect on student achievement than
originally thought (Sanders & Horn, 1994; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Reeves
(2006) cites an earlier study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) that hypothesizes the
“Pygmalion Effect,” supporting the notion once again that when teachers expect more,
they get more. However, high expectations alone are not enough. High expectations must
be accompanied by effective, explicit instruction in relevant curricular domains.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Effective Instructional Practices
Gay (2000) defines culturally relevant teaching as using the cultural knowledge,
prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make learning more
appropriate and effective for them; it teaches to and through the strengths of the students.
Culturally relevant teaching: (a) acknowledges students’ cultural heritage as it affects
their dispositions, attitudes, and approaches to learning, and recognizes that it contains
content worthy to be included in the curriculum; (b) builds meaning between students’
home and school experiences as well as “school stuff” and the students’ lived realities;
(c) uses of a wide variety of instructional strategies; (d) teaches an appreciation of the
students’ own cultural heritage as well as that of others; and (e) incorporates multicultural
information, resources, and materials in all subjects and skills routinely taught in schools.
Culturally relevant teaching is culturally validating and affirming (Gay, 2000).
56
Culturally responsive teachers specifically acknowledge the need for students to
find relevant connections among themselves, the subject matter, and the tasks they are
asked to perform (Montgomery, 2001; Salend, Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002). They
know that students learn best when their experiences and interests serve as the basis for
curriculum connections, making learning relevant to their lives (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Delpit (1995) helps to expand these concepts by asserting that culturally responsive
teachers must explicitly teach skills and cultural capital, or, in other words, the
knowledge and behaviors valued as being of high status by the dominant culture. Nieto
(1999) describes the expertise of culturally responsive teachers in instruction and
management and their ability to challenge and simultaneously support their students.
Culturally responsive teachers feel a strong sense of responsibility for all students,
including students referred for or already placed in special education (Villegas & Lucas,
2002). Villegas and Lucas assert that unless teachers behave in the culturally responsive
manner, their students may be mis-educated and underachieve, not because they have
internal deficits and should be in special education, but because they have not been taught
in ways that promote their learning.
Patton (2001) suggested that a new category of disability should be created that
more appropriately describes one of the major factors contributing to the perpetuation of
disproportionality. A new category of disability, called “ABT,” translates into “ain’t been
taught.” A host of researchers, among them Irvine (1990), Delpit (1995), Ladson-Billings
(2001), and Ford (1992), has documented that many Black students find their way into
special education by the mere fact of not having been taught (Patton, 2001). Reducing
57
over-representation is a matter of creating a successful school environment for all students
and accurately distinguishing disabilities from cultural differences (Burnette, 1998).
Cummins (1986) asserted that schools and teachers have traditionally failed to
honor African-American heritage and culture by not acknowledging multiple
perspectives and diverse cultures in curriculum and instruction. This approach dis-
empowers students rather than empowering them through validation of their cultural
heritage (Banks, 1992). Culturally responsive teachers developed the dispositions that
support all students’ learning and are knowledgeable and skilled in implementing
effective instructional practices. Gay (2000) describes such teachers as cultural
organizers, mediators, and orchestrators of social contexts. To act in such a manner
requires conscious attention to the ways in which students interact among themselves as
well as with teachers.
Ladson-Billings (1994) noted that if teachers are to be effective, they need to be
prepared to teach children who are not White as well as White children. Providing
children with an equitable and effective pedagogy demands that teachers use the language
and understandings that children bring to school to bridge the gap between what students
know and what they need to learn. These teachers help their students to build bridges
between their home and school cultures, recognize and understand differences in the
social milieus, and build on the knowledge and skills that their students bring with them
to school learning. In doing so, teachers demonstrate their care, respect, and commitment
to each student’s learning abilities, desires, and potentialities.
Kuykendall (2004) makes the argument that minority students must be exposed to
instructional strategies that increase their understanding. Such strategies as understanding
58
how culture impacts the way a student learns, understanding the importance of learning
styles, and understanding the role of differentiating instruction for minority youths can
lead to increased student achievement. By incorporating a variety of culturally relevant
strategies, educators can effectively respond to and instruct minority youths.
A critical piece of effective instruction and part of IDEA 2004 requirements is
consideration of the diversity of the student population and providing teaching/pedagogy
that recognizes and takes into consideration cultural differences within the classroom.
Teachers have to develop culturally relevant instructional strategies and transform
information about home and community into effective classroom practice. Gay (2000)
affirms that a teacher’s experience and background of knowledge of various cultures is
critical to the teaching of students of color. Ladson-Billings (1990) discusses the
importance of a teacher linking schooling and a student’s culture. She makes the point
that if a student’s language, culture, heritage, and experiences are valued, used, and
incorporated into the classroom, students are more likely to experience success.
Culturally relevant educational systems instill ethics of care, respect, and
responsibility in the professionals who serve culturally and linguistically diverse students.
These systems have a transformative goal in all their activities and nurture the creation of
school cultures that are concerned with deliberative and participatory discourse practices
(Gay, 2000). Culturally relevant educational systems create spaces for teacher reflection,
inquiry, and mutual support around issues of cultural differences (Beauboeuf-Lafontant,
1999; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Villegas, 1991).
Gay (2000) contends that culturally relevant teaching makes academic success a
non-negotiable mandate for all students and an accessible goal. It reveals the truth of how
59
minority students learn best in educational settings. Gay further acknowledges that
teachers, not students, are lacking in truly understanding or valuing diversity in the
classroom.
Nieto (1999) argues that, in spite of promising research, a serious problem of
perception remains as culturally responsive pedagogy sometimes is based on the static
view of culture that may even verge on the stereotypical. Attempts to be culturally
responsive may be applied or implemented in ways that defeat the purpose, and the result
is that entire cultures are identified by a rigid set of characteristics. Nieto (1999, p. 70)
warns that it is therefore necessary to look beyond cultural responsiveness alone to help
explain student academic success in light of the impact of structural inequalities with
which so many students contend on a daily basis.
Tatum (2005) contends that effective teachers of Black students understand that
they must go beyond the basic reading, math, and writing lessons. Furthermore, focusing
only on skills and strategies does little to address the turmoil that many Black youths
experience in America, and it may do little to improve their reading achievement. In
addition, Tatum believes that addressing the academic needs of Black students requires
that teachers integrate knowledge from several fields of education, sociology,
anthropology, and social work in their instruction. Doing so is their best chance to avoid
instructional practices that inadvertently contribute to the turmoil and instructional
approaches that Black students may resist.
Effective Culturally Appropriate Classroom Management
Racial disproportionality in school disciplinary practices has a long history and still
continues today (Children’s Defense Fund, 1975; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson,
60
2002; Townsend, 2000). Evidence persists of disproportionality in school disciplinary
practices by race, economic status, gender, and disability category. For example, consider
these points: (a) Students of color have higher rates of office referrals, suspensions and
expulsions from school (Cartledge et al., 2002); (b) Low income Black males receiving
special education services have the highest suspension rates of any subgroup (Skiba et al.,
2003); (c) Black males are more likely to receive more severe punishment than White
students do for the same type of behavior (Cartledge et al., 2002); and (d) Students of
color with disabilities are 67% more likely to be removed from school by a hearing
officer on the grounds that they were dangerous during the 1999-2000 school year than
their White peers (Osher, Woodruff, & Sims, 2002).
Research shows that exclusionary practices, such as suspension or expulsion, are
not effective in reducing problem behaviors. In fact, the use of suspension is linked with
increased school drop-out rates and juvenile incarceration (Skiba et al., 2003). Of
particular concern, rigid discipline systems, such as zero-tolerance rules, may
inadvertently promote lower tolerance for cultural differences. This, in turn, can increase
discipline-related referrals and restrictiveness of placements of culturally diverse
students.
Black students are often viewed as being hostile in the education sphere and non-
compliant (Watkins & Kurtz, 2001). There are social context clues that many educators
mis-interpret. Watkins and Kurtz acknowledge that the issue of discrimination from
White teachers toward Black students exists and is a problem. Many times Black students
are mis-understood through their body language and comments. Some educators believe
that when a Black child is talkative or outspoken, he or she has a behavior problem,
61
which leads to issues of over-representation (Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson, & Bridgest,
2003). Similarly, Losen and Orfield (2002) noted that Black students who are viewed as
having challenging behaviors are referred more often for special education programs
serving children with emotional disabilities. These students usually receive special
education services under the mental retardation category.
Hilliard (1992) noted that mis-understanding of cultural behaviors has been
shown to lead to errors about children’s intellectual potential, which results in mis-
labeling, mis-placement, and mis-treatment of children. Teachers often perceive Black
students from working or low-income backgrounds as incapable of high quality academic
work (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Furthermore, research has also shown that many teachers
make their special education referral decisions primarily on the extent to which they
believe a child is “teachable” or non-threatening (Hale-Benson, 1982; Harry & Anderson,
1994; Kunjufu, 1986).
Tatum (2005) articulated a need for a clearer understanding of how placement
truly affects the student and the student’s family. Placing a child in special education and
giving a child a label irresponsibly can be detrimental. Tatum further contends that the
placement within special education, contrary to belief, can be very beneficial, if in fact
the services are needed. However, placing a child in special education, based on a few
signs of disruptive behavior, is dangerous and a mistake. Patton (1998) maintains that it
has been well documented that Black students, particularly males, are over-represented
both in disciplinary practices and in certain special education categories and typically
receive their special education services in segregated classrooms or buildings.
62
In discussing his own experience in working with Black students in Chicago,
Illinois, classified as behaviorally "out of control" with learning disabilities, Tatum
(2005) reported that many of the students did have some behavior issues. However, being
labeled as out of control was far too extreme. Many of the teachers misread cultural
attributes as signs of defiance and inappropriate behavior. In addition, the same teachers
had so many preconceived notions about the students that it made their efforts highly
ineffective. Tatum expressed that these same teachers lacked an understanding of
diversity and multiculturalism, and many lived in either an upscale neighborhood or were
from a small community.
The contributing factors of racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline have
not been conclusively determined. Although it has been argued that disproportionality in
school punishments is primarily a function of poverty (National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 2000), race remains a significant predictor of suspension
and expulsion, even when socio-economic status is controlled in multivariate analyses
(Skiba et al., 2002; Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982). Any racial differences in reasons
for suspension that have been found suggest that African American students receive
more-severe punishments for less-serious infractions (Shaw & Braden, 1990) or are
referred to the office more frequently for more subjective reasons, such as disrespect or
loitering (Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
Other explanations for disciplinary disproportionality include the possible mis-
interpretation by classroom teachers of culturally based behaviors (Townsend, 2000) or
stereotypes regarding Black males that increase the likelihood of office referral
(Ferguson, 2001). Teachers and students often come from different cultural backgrounds,
63
which results in different learning styles and divergent views about appropriate classroom
behavior (Kea & Utley, 1998). Townsend (2000) noted that while schools have
meticulously designed behavioral norms that require conformity, passivity, quietness, and
individualized competitive participation during teacher-focused instructional activities,
some Black students are accustomed to performing multiple tasks simultaneously and
may therefore prefer to work with others during instructional tasks (Townsend, 2000). As
a consequence, this conflict in orientation may result in teachers perceiving students as
being insubordinate, disrespectful, or inappropriate and in need of disciplinary actions
(Ishi-Jordan, 1997).
Townsend (2000) argues that school districts can engage in a variety of actions to
address the disproportional use of exclusionary disciplinary practices with students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. She contends that school districts and
educators need to examine their behavioral expectations in terms of cultural biases and
their usefulness in contributing to a safe, positive, and supportive learning environment
that respects and affirms student diversity. In addition, educators need to examine their
culturally based viewpoints, attitudes, and behaviors and recognize how their cultural
beliefs may conflict with the cultural beliefs of their students (Obiakor, 1999; Thorp,
1997).
Many researchers have emphasized that personal and cultural norms are
inextricable from decisions about which behaviors are acceptable, to whom, and under
what circumstances (Cartledge et al., 2002; Obiakor & Ford, 2002; Townsend, 2000).
Norms regarding what behaviors are considered appropriate vary across cultures, and yet
64
school personnel tend to judge students’ actions through narrow, White, mainstream
lenses.
In terms of formal assessment of children’s behaviors, even the application of
well-designed rating scales cannot exclude subjectivity in judgment and, in many states,
final judgments rely on projective testing, a set of procedures that have been the subject
of much debate related to unreliability and subjectivity (Gresham, 1993; Motta, Little, &
Tobin, 1993). The ambiguity of the process is exacerbated by historical racist beliefs and
practices (Children’s Defense Fund, 1975) reflected in a “punishment paradigm” (Maag,
2001), which includes zero-tolerance policies, corporal punishment, suspension, and
expulsion. These strategies target African American students at disproportionately high
rates (McFadden, Marsh, Price, & Huang, 1992; Skiba, 2002) and contribute to their
over-representation in disproportionately segregated programs for emotional disturbance
(Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986). The combination of historical racism and
extremely ambiguous definitions, policies, and practices places the most vulnerable
students at increased risk of inappropriate labeling and isolation.
Teacher Relationship and Rapport With Students
In an interview with Sparks (2004, p. 49), Tatum stated that critical to the
academic success of students of color is having quality relationships with their teachers
and the other adults in school. In Dreamkeepers, Ladson-Billings (1994) examined the
unique characteristics of teachers identified as effective with Black students. She
reported that a key characteristic of the culturally responsive teachers she interviewed
was their ability to cultivate relationships and get to know their students beyond the
boundaries beyond the classroom. Research studies on Black students’ perspectives have
65
supported Ladson-Billings, documenting that teacher-student relationships are a critical
factor in students’ achievement (Gay, 2000).
Ferguson (2003) noted that content, pedagogy, and relationships affect how well
ethnic and racial minority students learn. He contends that research has found that
students’ relationships with their teachers differ by their backgrounds and affect their
overall academic achievement. Sather and Henze (2001) concluded that understanding
the students who walk within the hallways of schools is as important as the level of skills
each one brings with him or her. Building positive relationships can be linked to
increased student achievement. Schools can improve racial relations between principals,
teachers, parents, students, and the community by building bridges across the great racial
gap, thus implying the importance of reaching and developing strong interpersonal
relationships before teaching (Sather & Henze, 2001). The concept of caring has long
played a key role in making connections and reaching Black students. It allows educators
time to gain insights into the background and lives of the students they serve. This form
of individual and cultural examinations leads to stronger ties to improve human
relationships and increase student achievement.
Patton (1998) noted that in order for the special needs of students to be
prioritized, educators and/or professionals must be familiar with the cultural and
linguistic background of all ethnicities. Kea and Utley (1998) noted that many students of
color do not succeed in school because their cultural, social, and/or linguistic
characteristics are unrecognized, misunderstood, or devalued. Kea and Utley further
stated that the continuing problems of Black students in special education programs are
due to the fact of teachers not knowing them on a personal and social level.
66
Summary
The disproportionality of minority students in special education has been a
persistent and complex issue (Artiles et al., 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968;
Tucker, 1980). While disproportionality has been well studied, there are no definitive
answers as to why it occurs (Donovan & Cross, 2002). There is an increased need for
researchers to shift their focus to solutions—the conditions as to how disproportionality
occurs and why it continues (Skiba et al., 2003).
The issue of the over-representation of Black students has been viewed for many
years as a “special education” problem. However, this issue cannot reside solely within
the purview of special education (Dunn, 1968; National Research Council, 2002). It is a
symptom of a larger systemic issue that needs to be viewed through the lenses of general
education. The special education process usually begins with the general education
teacher. Teacher referral is a strong predictor of eligibility for special services (Harry &
Klingner, 2007).
Villegas and Lucas (2002) noted that when general education teachers feel that
they are unable to meet the academic and social/emotional needs of students, or when a
student may not conform to the norms of the class/school, teachers often turn to special
education as a resource that is consistently and readily available. The over-representation
of minority students in special education is a complex phenomenon, as well as a
complicated issue, compounded by many factors (Artiles & Trent, 2000).
The 2002 National Research Council report recommended that in order to remedy
the disproportionality of minority children in special education, changes such as early
intervention, teacher training, better assessment, and behavior management strategies
67
would need to be implemented. The report further noted that schools would first need to
recognize and acknowledge the racial root of the issue. The disproportionate number of
Black students placed in special education is considered as having its roots in historical
factors, such as slavery, oppression, inequity, and racist policies and practices in schools
that are both overtly and covertly racist (Hilliard, 1999). The overall pervasiveness of
racism and its subtle ways is still prevalent in our country. Hilliard (1995) noted that race
matters in society and in our schools. He argues that educators must examine their
personal beliefs and practices and engage in anti-racism for the benefit of all students.
Systems change is a difficult undertaking in any organization, even when it does
not involve an emotionally laden issue such as race (Skiba et al., 2003). Fullan (2001)
maintains that effective leaders of change establish a moral purpose. He further makes the
point that educational change is technically simple, socially complex, and never a
checklist. There is not a step-by-step shortcut to transformation. It involves the hard day-
to-day work of reculturing. In addition, Tucker (2002) noted that change should be
systemic and data-based. However, he stresses that instead of a school professional
changing his/her behavior, the individual often changes only his/her rhetoric.
Villegas and Lucas (2002) noted that there is a need for educators to develop the
commitment and skills to act as agents of change. Similarly, Fullan (1999) views change
agency as a moral imperative. Educators are considered as moral individuals whose job is
to facilitate the growth and development of other human beings, especially children.
Villegas and Lucas (2002) contend that students depend on educators to have their best
interest at heart and to make sound educational decisions. Villegas and Lucas further
68
articulated that educators have an obligation to do all they can to fulfill these expectations
and to do so for all children.
69
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
There is an over-representation of Black students in special education. Students
are usually referred to special education by or during the fourth grade by general
education teachers. One effort to reduce the large number of referrals in Connecticut
elementary schools is Courageous Conversations About Race. The purpose of this study
was to examine the perceptions of general education teachers about the over-
representation of Black students in special education, specifically why and how Black
students were referred to special education. This study described how teachers’ attitudes
and behaviors changed as a result of their district’s participation in Courageous
Conversations About Race.
The study was guided by the following research questions: (a) How do teachers
describe the classroom challenges that lead them to refer students to special education?
(b) How do teachers describe the changes in their processes, attitudes, and behaviors as a
result of their district’s participation in Courageous Conversations About Race?
Qualitative Methods
A qualitative research study was designed to gain an in-depth understanding of
fourth-grade general education teachers and about the over-representation of Black
students in special education, specifically why and how Black students are referred to
70
special education. Qualitative research uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to
understand phenomena as they appear in natural settings (Patton, 2001). Qualitative
research tends to study situations and objects intact. In qualitative research, the researcher
is the instrument that engages the situation and makes senses of it (p. 34). Another feature
of qualitative study is that it is interpretive. This includes not only the ability to explain
why something is happening but the meaning of the experience for those involved in the
situation (Eisner, 1991). In addition, voice, or expressive language, is evident in text.
Using subjects' own words becomes part of the evidence in the researcher's quest for
understanding. Qualitative research is characterized by its thick descriptions of the data,
which often include interview transcripts.
This qualitative study intended to capture the perceptions of general education
elementary teachers about the over-representation of Black students in special education.
These data enabled me to further clarify the problems related to the subject of the study
and answer the research questions.
Self as the Researcher Instrument
I came to this research experience with much interest and enthusiasm. I am a
Black male originally from South Carolina on a journey of increased racial consciousness
and becoming an anti-racist leader. This journey began in 2003, when SERC initiated an
agency-wide professional development training session entitled, Beyond Diversity, a two-
day seminar developed and presented by the Founder and President, Glenn Singleton, of
Pacific Educational Group in San Francisco, California. Beyond Diversity is an
introduction to Courageous Conversations About Race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a). One
71
of the conditions of CC About Race is to “establish a racial context that is personal, local,
and immediate” (p. 73).
The first day of the training, Mr. Singleton asked participants to consider, “To
what degree does race impact my life?” I recalled having a difficult time completing this
activity. I have never considered the impact of race in my life. So, I thought that my life
was impacted by race only about 50% of the time. Mr. Singleton proceeded with his
presentation by discussing with the group numerous experiences that illuminated the fact
that race impacts every aspect of my life, 100% of the time. After the discussion, it was
clear to me that when I chose 50% to represent the impact of race in my life, 50%
actually represented my own racial consciousness rather than the degree that race
impacts my life (Singleton & Linton, 2006a, p. 76).
Mr. Singleton discussed with the SERC staff that, “because people are defined by
their racial identity in this society, race is constantly present and having an impact on
your experience and perspective” (Singleton & Linton, 2006a, p. 76). With that being
said, “race disappears only when you no longer have your skin, and thus, the omnipresent
skin that you are in defines your omnipresent racial impact” (p. 76).
As the training progressed over the 2 days, the group participated in another
activity regarding the role and presence of “Whiteness.” Throughout the training, it
became apparent that I was not conscious of the role and presence of “Whiteness” in my
life. Essentially, I identified more with the White culture than with Black culture. I
thought that as a Black man from the South, I should have been more racially conscious
and identified more with people of color. As the result of the 2-day training and other
follow-up activities, I frequently consider the role and presence of “Whiteness” in me and
72
in my life and the impact of race in my life. My journey of increased racial consciousness
and becoming an anti-racist leader began as a result of the training.
I later realized that the real work of CC About Race lies in the will and ability of
participants to participate in racial self-examination. One of the guiding principles of CC
About Race is the belief that racial equity transformation begins with an individual at a
personal level: keeping it personal, local, and immediate. Participants are asked to use “I”
and/or “me” instead “they and/or them” when speaking. It is easier to judge and examine
the attitudes and behaviors of others, but not ourselves. CC About Race has taught me to
focus on personal, local, and immediate in order to engage, sustain, and deepen
interracial dialogue about race.
CC About Race is a learning experience that provides an opportunity to dialogue
openly about racial perspectives and their impact on student achievement. CC About
Race provided SERC staff with an understanding of the four agreements: (a) Stay
Engaged; (b) Experience Discomfort; (c) Speak Your Truth; and (d) Expect/Accept Non-
Closure; and conditions: (a) Focus on Personal, Local, and Immediate; (b) Isolate Race;
(c) Normalize Social Construction and Multiple Perspectives; (d) Monitor Agreements,
Conditions, and Establish Parameters; (e) Use a “Working Definition” for Race; and (f)
Examine the Presence and Role of “Whiteness” that is necessary in order to engage,
sustain, and deepen interracial dialogue about race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a). Through
the prism of race, SERC has utilized CC About Race as a means to examine its own
philosophies, polices, structures, and practices.
SERC is committed to improving the achievement of all of Connecticut’s children
and youth and to eliminating the racial predictability of our state’s achievement gaps.
73
Since 2003, SERC has worked to shed light on race and racism in education, studying the
intersection of race and culture with educational achievement, special education, and
student outcomes and success. SERC staff members have explored institutionalized
racism and how the maintenance and perpetuation of differential distributions of power
and privilege in schools result in significant disparities in educational outcomes between
students of color and their White peers.
SERC has also established in-house professional development and structures to
support its employees in their personal and professional journeys. By engaging in
conversations about race and racism, employees heighten their awareness and deepen
their knowledge about concepts and realities that might remain unconscious and/or about
which people usually avoid talking. Both inside and outside the workplace, SERC staff
members often find themselves considering their new insights about racial equity in
their conversations, interactions, and activities.
My participation in CC About Race has increased my own racial consciousness. I
am now more aware of the impact of race in my life. On a daily basis, my racial
awareness and consciousness continue to grow. I also continue to grow and develop as an
anti-racist leader. I am now viewing my life and experiences through a different set of
lenses. As I progress on my journey as an anti-racist leader, I am finding myself more and
more concerned about the over-representation of Black students in special education.
During my 12 years at SERC, I have had the opportunity to participate in the
planning of a state-level summit to examine the issues of over-identification and
disproportion of minority students in special education in Connecticut, while
simultaneously addressing the achievement gaps in order to ensure success for all
74
students. The Summit was entitled, Closing the Achievement Gaps: Connecticut Summit
on Over-identification and Disproportion in Special Education. I worked closely with
George A. Coleman, Former Deputy Commissioner of Education (CSDE), to coordinate
and design professional development activities to focus the state’s attention on issues
regarding the achievement of Black and Hispanic/Latino students, in particular Black and
Hispanic/Latino male students. These activities have included the following: (a) Black
Men’s Forum; (b) Connecticut State Department of Education/SERC Book Study
entitled, Teaching Reading to Adolescent Males; and (c) 2-day conference addressing the
achievement of Connecticut’s Black and Hispanic/Latino male students.
Purposeful Sampling
The sample used in this study was purposefully selected. In purposeful sampling,
the researcher intentionally selected individuals to learn or understand the central
phenomenon. Groups, individuals, or settings for study were based on their likelihood
that the processes being investigated occurred (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Purposeful
sampling (Creswell, 2003) was used to select participants who were informationally rich
and able to provide useful information for addressing the research questions (Patton,
2001).
Teachers in this qualitative study included a total of 16 fourth-grade general
education teachers from three school districts that participated in SERC’s program,
Courageous Conversation About Race. All teachers participating in this study were from
three school districts with similar demographics located in Connecticut’s District
Reference (DRG) Group H (see Table 1). The school districts had been identified by the
Connecticut State Department of Education as having disproportionate numbers of Black
75
Table 1
Characteristics of Participating School Districts
School District A School District B School District C
Student Enrollment 7,459 6,372 3,992
Free and Reduced
Lunch 3,356 2,752 2,199
PK-12 Students Who
Are Not Fluent in
English
479 470 383
PK-12 Students
Receiving Special
Education in District
1,058 634 574
American Indian 22 34 103
Asian American 445 259 289
Black 2,645 1,622 928
Latino/Hispanic 2,680 1,439 824
White 1,667 3,018 1,848
students in special education and participated in SERC's program, Courageous
Conversations on Race Consortium, for the past 5 years.
Teachers were selected by the district’s superintendent in collaboration with
building administrators, Courageous Conversation District Leads, and myself. The
selection of general education teachers were based on the following criteria: (a) district’s
participation in SERC’s Courageous Conversations About Race Consortium; (b) fourth-
grade general education teachers; (c) teacher of 5 or more years of experience; (d)
balance in gender; (e) balance in race/ethnicity of teachers; and (f) referred five or more
Black students to special education.
76
Teachers were selected to participate in the study that best met the eligibility
criteria for the study. Therefore, each teacher chosen for the study had more than 3 years’
teaching experience, and some had as many as 15 to 30 years’ teaching experience. The
names of each teacher and the research sites have been changed to protect their identities.
A qualitative research was designed because of the desire to study the issues of
over-representation of Black students in special education narratively. As previously
noted, teachers selected to participate in the study were all from three school districts
located in District Reference Group H. DRG is a classification of districts whose
students' families are similar in education, income, occupation, and need, and that have
roughly similar enrollment. The Connecticut State Board of Education approved DRG
classification for purposes of reporting data other than student performance. DRGs are
based on the following seven variables: income, education, occupation, family structure,
poverty, home language, and district enrollment. They include nine groups, from Group
A (very affluent, low-need suburban districts) to the seven high-need, low socioeconomic
(SES) urban districts of Group I.
Data Collection
Qualitative research seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process,
or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved (Merriam, 1998). For the
purpose of this dissertation, the purposeful selection process included selected fourth-
grade teachers who were able to provide useful data for addressing the objective of the
research. Fourth-grade teachers were purposefully selected to provide useful information
for addressing the research questions.
77
The research design consisted of a total of 16 semi-structured one-on-one
interviews with fourth-grade general education teachers from across the three District
Reference Groups (DRGs): (a) School Districts A, (b) School District B, and (c) School
District C. The groups of school districts selected to participate in the study are a part of
the same DRG with similar student and family background characteristics. All three of
these districts have also participated in SERC's program, Courageous Conversations on
Race Consortium, for the past 5 years.
Data collection consisted of interviews and a review of special education data
submitted to the Connecticut State Department of Education from schools in District
Reference Group (DRGs) specifically, School District A, School District B, and School
District C at the conclusion of the training for patterns of referral by race and disabilities
(see Appendix E for full DRGs description).
Semi-Structured Interviews
The primary data collection method of this study was semi-structured interviews
with 16 fourth-grade general education teachers from schools/districts that participated in
SERC’s program, Courageous Conversations About Race, for the past 5 years (2004-
2009). The use of semi-structured interviews with open-ended interview questions
elicited the perceptions of general education teachers about how and why Black students
are referred to special education. Interviews took place at individual schools for
approximately 60 to 90 minutes.
One-on-one semi-structured interviews with fourth-grade teachers included
questions related to: (a) attitudes; (2) beliefs; and (c) perceptions about the over-
representation of Black students in special education. Interviews with teachers provided a
78
fuller understanding of how and why Black students are referred to special education.
Each question focused on facilitating a deeper understanding of the perceptions general
education fourth-grade teachers have about over-representation. Interviews involved
questions that were clear, singular, and open-ended in order to elicit the views of the
participants. Additionally, strategies such as rephrasing statements and the use of probes
were employed to encourage participant elaboration (M. Patton, 1990). The interviews
were digitally recorded with the permission of each participant and assured
confidentiality verbally and in writing. According to Eisner (1998, p. 183), conducting
interviews requires the researcher to listen to what people have to say about their
activities, their feelings, their lives.
Documents
In addition to one-on-one interviews, I reviewed special education data submitted
to the Connecticut State Department of Education for patterns of referral by race and
disabilities from District Reference Groups (DRGs) (School District A, School District B,
and School District C).
Eisner (1998) noted that another important source of information about schools is
the records that frequently reveal what people will not or cannot say. He further
mentioned that school records relevant to the issues a researcher wishes to address are
also potentially relevant resources for generating a context in which meaning can be
deepened. The use of multiple forms of data provided the material that contributed to
credible interpretation from School Districts A, B, and C (see Tables 2-4).
Individual semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 1998) were conducted with
fourth-grade teachers at their schools. Questions asked during the semi-structured
79
Table 2
Special Education Referrals: K-12 Students With Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity, District A
Disability
Category Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2007-2008
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2008-2009
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2009-2010
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2010-2011
Learning
Disability 23.6% 23.7% 20.7% 19.2%
Intellectual
Disabilities 3.6% 3.9% 4.6% 4.4%
Emotional
Disturbance 13.2% 10.6% 11.2% 10.5%
Speech or
Language
Impairments 23.8% 26.3% 28.0% 28.7%
Other
Disabilities 14.5% 10.3% 11.2% 10.0%
Other Health
Impairments 10.8% 17.3% 15.8% 17.3%
Autism
7.6% 8.0% 8.5% 10.0%
Total Sum of
Black
Students with
Disabilities
380 388 411 411
Note. From Students With Disabilities in Connecticut: A Statistical Report, by Connecticut State Department of
Education, 2007-2011, Hartford, CT: Author.
80
Table 3
Special Education Referrals: K-12 Students With Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity, District B
Disability
Category Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2007-2008
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2008-2009
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2009-2010
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2010-2011
Learning
Disability 38.8% 38.2% 37.7% 35.0%
Intellectual
Disabilities 7.8% 7.8% 7.1% 8.3%
Emotional
Disturbance 12.1% 13.2% 13.7% 15.0%
Speech or
Language
Impairments 10.7% 12.7% 12.7% 13.9%
Other
Disabilities 11.7% 11.8% 11.9% 10.6%
Other Health
Impairments 16.5% 13.7% 15.1% 14.4%
Autism 2.4% 2.5% 1.9% 2.8%
Total Sum of
Black
Students
with
Disabilities
206 204 212 180
Note. From Students With Disabilities in Connecticut: A Statistical Report, by Connecticut State Department of
Education, 2007-2011, Hartford, CT: Author.
81
Table 4
Special Education Referrals: K-12 Students With Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity, District C
Disability
Category Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2007-2008
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2008-2009
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2009-2010
Students With
Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
2010-2011
Learning
Disability 24.3% 30.6% 37.7% 35.0%
I
ntellectual
Disabilities 2.3% 1.4% 7.1% 8.3%
Emotional
Disturbance 9.6% 8.2% 13.7% 15. %0
Speech or
Language
Impairments 27.1% 30.6% 12.7% 13.9%
Other
Disabilities 16.1% 11.9% 11.9% 10.6%
Other Health
Impairments 14.7% 12.3% 15.1% 14.4%
Autism
6.0% 5.0% 1.9% 2.8%
Total Sum of
Black
Students
with
Disabilities
218 219 220 213
Note. From Students With Disabilities in Connecticut: A Statistical Report, by Connecticut State Department of
Education, 2007-2011, Hartford, CT: Author.
interviews with 16 fourth-grade teachers were open-ended to allow for in-depth
responses. Some responses led to additional questions, which enabled the respondents to
elaborate further on their answers, thereby adding to the richness of the descriptions
contained in this analysis. A set protocol for all interviews was followed in an attempt to
address the research questions while still allowing for dialogue and discussion to take
82
place. Merriam noted that as the researcher conducts interviews, the main purpose of an
interview is to obtain a special kind of information (p. 71).
I followed the process outlined by both Creswell (2003) and Patton (2001) for
data analysis, which included identifying key words and phrases, organizing the
information thematically, interpreting the meanings of phrases, and analyzing the
meanings for what they revealed. The goal of this approach is to uncover the meaning an
individual attributes to his or her understanding in a systematic way, using themes or
clusters of data.
Data Analysis
Bogdan and Bilen (1982, p. 145) define qualitative data analysis as working with
data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for
patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you
will tell others. Qualitative researchers tend to use inductive analysis of data, meaning
that the critical themes emerge out of the data (M. Patton, 1990).
Merriam (1998) noted that the right way to analyze data in a qualitative study is to
do it simultaneously with data collection. Data analysis was conducted using systematic
qualitative methods. First, a coding scheme was developed based on the recurring issues
and concerns that emerged. Through the interviews, conceptual categories were identified
that directly related to the perceptions of general education teachers about the over-
representation of Black students in special education, specifically why and how Black
students are referred to special education. Transcripts of interviews were sorted and
grouped under the related category (e.g., identifying, categorizing the primary patterns in
the data). Both an open and closed coding system were employed. A process referred to
83
as coding facilitated the constant comparison method, as a way to develop and refine
interpretations of the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I coded for specific predetermined
categories. Next, as those categories were identified and labeled, subsequent categories
were developed as having significance and relevance to the research questions. By
chunking the coded transcripts, it condensed large amounts of information into short
statements using overarching themes that emerge as the data are analyzed.
Trustworthiness/Validity Issues
Trustworthiness and validity are seen as the strengths of qualitative research.
However, they are used to determine whether the findings are accurate from the
standpoint of the researcher, the participant, or the reader of an account (Creswell &
Miller, 2000). The researcher seeks believability, based on coherence (Eisner, 1991) and
trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To enhance validity issues in this study,
member checking was used. Member checking is taking the data and tentative
interpretations back to the people from whom they were derived and asking if they are
plausible (Merriam, 1998).
Through this process, participants become members of the interpretive
community and validate the interpretations of the researcher. Individual transcribed data
were typed and shared with participants of the study to ensure that their words were not
taken out of context and to validate interview data by verifying that I captured their
thoughts accurately. Establishing the trustworthiness and the validity of the conclusions is
a critical aspect of qualitative study.
84
Ethics
Merriam (1998) noted that concerns about the validity and reliability are common
to all forms of research, as well as that the investigation be conducted in an ethnical
manner. In qualitative studies, ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard to the
collection of data and in the dissemination of research findings. In conducting this study,
the following safeguards were employed to protect the participants’ rights:
1. The research objectives were articulated verbally and in writing so that they
were clearly understood by schools/districts. This included descriptions of how data will
be used.
2. A copy of the written permission from the superintendent to proceed with the
study was given to participants. Participants were assured confidentiality.
3. Verbatim transcriptions and written interpretations and reports were made
available to the participants.
4. Interviews with fourth-grade teachers included questions related to: (a) biases,
(b) attitudes, (c) beliefs, and (d) perceptions about the over-representation of Black
students in special education.
5. The risks and benefits of participation in the study. I shared with
schools/districts that there were no known risks for participating in the study. Interviews
about the perceptions of general education teachers assisted in providing a fuller
understanding about how and why Black students are referred to special education.
6. The information collected during this study would be used in a doctoral
dissertation. The participants’ rights, interests, and wishes would be considered when
reporting data.
85
7. Schools/Districts understood that their participation in this study was
voluntary. They understood that they could withdraw their participation in this study at
any time without any penalty or prejudice.
Generalizability Issues
The issue of generalizability centers on whether it is possible to generalize from a
single case, or from qualitative inquiry in general, and if so in what way? According to
Eisner (1998), individual generalizations are derived from life itself and direct contact
with the qualitative world. It is one of our important sources of generalizations.
Individuals tend to generalize using the natural abilities afforded to many in life such as
hearing, touching, taste, smell, and sight, which facilitate the capacities to create ideas,
images, analysis, matching of images, and application of skills. Eisner further commented
that what we generalize is what one learns, and that these generalizations can be regarded
as skills, images, and ideas.
The conditions that restrict the scope of this study were the selection of the
sample and the generalizable nature of the research. Several factors in the study limited
attempts to generalize results about the over-representation of Black students in special
education in selected Connecticut public schools to other school districts. The sample
was purposeful. The study was limited only to fourth-grade general education teachers in
selected DRGs in Connecticut’s public schools that participated in SERC’s program,
Courageous Conversations About Race. Additionally, the participants of this qualitative
study were limited to no more than 16 general education teachers. The reliability of the
data depended on the honesty of the interviewees. Finally, the findings of this study do
not claim to be generalizable to all school districts.
86
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to gain a greater understanding of how and in what
ways teachers’ processes, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions have changed as a result
of their schools’/districts’ participation in SERC’s program, Courageous Conversation
About Race. In spite of the existing abundance of data highlighting the over-
representation issue and the extant literature challenging special education processes that
lead to identification and placement, the problem of over-representation of African
American students in special education continues to persist (Patton, 1998). However,
very few studies have applied a theoretical framework that explains the history and
contextual influences that affect this problem and, therefore, why it continues to exist.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) suggests that over-representation cannot be solved without
carefully considering how the racism experienced by Blacks drives the process (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
Critical Race Theory, an emerging field of inquiry (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001),
has the potential to serve as both a framework and a tool for critique and analysis in K-12
education research. CRT deals directly with race and racism in response to White
dominance and privilege. The goal of CRT is to place a mirror in front of racist practices
and bring about social justice to oppressed people. In an attempt to apply this knowledge
87
to American schooling, Lasdson-Billings and Tate (1995) introduced CRT to education
about 10 years ago. CRT address five areas to counter the perceived hegemony of White-
dominate culture: (a) counter-storytelling; (b) permanence of racism; (c) whiteness as
property: (d) interest convergence; and (e) critique of liberalism.
1. Counter-storytelling (Matsuda, 1995). Counter-storytelling has become an
important part of educational research and focuses on telling a story that shines the
spotlight on racism to counteract notions or myths held by members of the majority
culture. These stories expose racial stereotypes that are used against members from
minority racial groups. It presupposes the necessity of allowing the voices of minority or
marginalized groups to be expressed and is effective mostly due to the emotional and
political empowerment implicit in the stories and the storytelling process.
2. Permanence of racism. A belief in the CRT is that racism does not disappear
even after it is exposed as historical and its effects are both visible and invisible (Bell,
1992). The theory suggests institutional racism that is embedded in the nation’s culture,
evident in the hierarchy of its government, financial, and educational institutions.
3. Whiteness as property. Harris (1995) suggests that functions and attributes of
property historically have been used in establishing Whiteness as a form of property.
Whites have dominated the capitalist system since inception. In America, Blacks were
brought here as slaves and were considered property. The White power structure
designed and operated an effective, oppressive economic system that kept Blacks
powerless. When segregation was finally defeated (Brown v. Board of Education) in
1954, Whites who were the heads of the public schools used tracking and special
education placement to maintain the status quo. Ladson-Billings (1995) suggests there is
88
educational inequity because Whites have exclusive access to high quality and rigorous
curriculum. While there is re-segregating of America’ special education classes in public
schools due in part to tracking, they are vastly underrepresented in gifted and talented
placement courses.
4. Interest convergence (Bell, 1980). The author here argues that gains by
African Americans, especially the Civil Rights Movement, took place only when there
was a convergence with self-interests of Whites.
5. Critique of liberalism (Williams, 1997). In this fraction of CRT, the emphasis
is a criticism of liberalism. The three specific areas are: (a) the notion of color blindness;
(b) neutrality of the law; and (c) incremental change.
The thoughtful reflections of the teachers in this study provided a basis for the
examination of current local and state policies, practices, and philosophies regarding
culturally responsive educational systems and inform pedagogical, curricular, assessment,
and professional development. Specifically, the results of this study assisted the CSDE in
their focused monitoring efforts of local public schools in the area of over-representation
of Black and Hispanic/Latino students in special education. In addition, the results
assisted SERC in the design of job-embedded and state-wide professional development
activities in order to be more responsive to the needs of local public schools in the
following areas: (a) early intervening services; (b) cultural relevant instruction; and (c)
the over-representation of Black students in special education.
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of general education
elementary teachers about the over-representation of Black students in special education,
specifically why and how Black students are referred to special education. Secondarily,
89
this study described how and in what ways the processes, attitudes and behaviors of
fourth-grade teachers changed as a result of their schools’/districts’ participation in CC
About Race. This chapter describes the results of interviews with general education
teachers. The interviews of the teachers are presented as individual stories using
pseudonyms. Through their stories, the “voices of teachers” are heard, and the stories
capture their essence.
The findings are organized in the following order: (a) Essence of their Stories;
and (b) Emerging four major themes from the one-on-one interviews with teachers. The
themes that emerged included: (a) A Teacher’s Dilemma; (b) I See Color Now; (c)
Teacher Mis-Match; and (d) Affirming a Need for Ongoing Professional Development.
The findings are reported by a discussion of the themes that emerged relevant to the
guiding questions.
The Essence of Their Stories
Please note that teachers interviewed for this study were from urban high-need
districts/schools where a majority of the teaching and administrative staff are White and
from middle/upper-class backgrounds, whereas the student population consisted mostly
of Black and Hispanic/Latino students.
The Essence of Miss Griffin
I refer students to special education to get the necessary support they
need. This is the only way for them to get the help they need.
Miss Griffin
Miss Griffin, who is White, has taught in several schools in her district for the
past 25 years. She has been at her current school for 5 years. Miss Griffin loves teaching
in this district because of its rich diversity of students and families. As a teacher, she does
90
everything that she can before a referral is considered. Miss Griffin uses a combination of
data, guided reading, and differentiated instruction. In addition, she uses a variety of
whole- and small-group instruction to meet the individual needs of students. However,
Miss Griffin feels that the current educational system is based on a wait-and-fail model.
She believes that the assumption is that failure of a Black student must first be
documented in order to secure support and help for students with academic and behavior
concerns.
The Essence of Mrs. Hicks
Students are referred because of behavior, low academic
performance, and assumptions by the teachers/schools.
Mrs. Hicks
Mrs. Hicks, who is a White teacher, has been teaching fourth grade for more than
20 years in an urban high-need district. She feels that Black students are often referred to
special education because of a lack of skill development and experience of the classroom
teacher. In addition, she feels that students are referred due to low academic performance.
Mrs. Hicks believes that the prior knowledge and cultural background of a teacher is
critical and makes a difference. She grew up in the town where she teaches and has seen
the changes. Mrs. Hicks felt that she needed to embrace the changes in the diversity of
the student body. Today, she is a better teacher because she is open to the different
cultures of the students and their families.
The Essence of Miss Green
Black students are sometime referred to special education because of
their appearance. Not only their appearance but, where
the student lives and the language spoken.
Miss Green
91
Miss Green, who is a Black teacher, has been teaching fourth grade for the past 6
years. She feels that there are different beliefs about students of color. Miss Green has
noticed that in her school many Black students are referred to special education because
of their appearance and where they live. She believes that a teacher does not need to be
Black in order to teach Black students. However, the teacher needs to understand the
norms, various cultures of students, and be comfortable within their own culture.
The Essence of Miss Ellis
The cultural background of a teacher is important. Many of our teachers
in this school are White and middle class. A teacher does not need
to be Black to teach students of color, but they need to have
a desire and passion to teach all children.
Miss Ellis
Miss Ellis, who is a Black teacher, has been teaching fourth grade for the past 10
years. She teaches in a high-need urban district. Miss Ellis believes that a teacher does
not necessarily need to be Black in order to teach Black students, but the teacher needs to
have a desire and passion to teach all children. She further believes that students should
be referred to special education only if the service is needed. Miss Ellis feels that special
education should not be the only place where a child can receive support.
The Essence of Mr. Trapper
I refer students to special education so that they can get the necessary
help they need. Many of the students in my classroom are
reading below grade level. Students of color need
to fail in order to get the services they need.
Mr. Trapper
Mr. Trapper, who is a White teacher, has been teaching fourth grade for the past
10 years. He feels that many Black students are referred to special education to get the
extra academic support that they may need. Personally, he has referred students to special
92
education so that they could get the necessary help they need beyond the general
education classroom. When Mr. Trapper thinks about the over-representation of Black
students in special education, he feels that teachers are wasting a significant amount of
teaching time completing endless paperwork in order to get help for students in need of
extra support.
The Essence of Mr. Matthew
I believe that Black students are not expected to achieve because
of the low expectations that are placed upon
them by schools and teachers.
Mr. Matthew
Mr. Matthew, who is White, has been teaching fourth grade for the past 15 years.
He is of the opinion that Black students are not expected to achieve because of the low
expectations that have been placed upon them by schools and teachers. Mr. Matthew
strongly believes that there is a mis-match between student and teacher. He further feels
that teachers are unprepared for an ever-changing, diverse student body.
The Essence of Miss Cohen
The cultural background of a teacher is important. Many of our
teachers in this school are White and middle class. They are
nice people and love children. However, they teach
who they are through their own racial lenses.
Miss Cohen
Miss Cohen, who is White, has been teaching fourth grade for 12 years. She has
always taught fourth grade. Miss Cohen feels that teachers’ understanding of the culture
of their students is the missing link. She has come to realize that as White teachers, they
teach based on their own perspectives and assumptions. Miss Cohen feels as if she has
transformed over the past few years. She noticed a change in herself regarding the
93
selection of curriculum materials and the ability to build sincere relationships with her
students.
The Essence of Miss Sutton
I think that many of our teachers are just not skilled or have the
necessary training. They do not have the capacity to
teach students with “different” learning styles.
Miss Sutton
Miss Sutton, who is White, has been teaching fourth grade for 15 years. She feels
that without prior experience and exploring various cultures, teachers make assumptions
about their students and families. Through her participation in CC About Race, Miss
Sutton is more aware of who she is as a person and her own prejudices. She feels that if
educators do not have a racial awareness of self, tracking of Black students, students not
being challenged to take honor classes, low expectations, assumptions, and last names
determining the placement of students, more and more students will continue to be placed
in special education.
The Essence of Mrs. Carter
I refer students to special education to get the extra help that they need.
I also believe that Black students are referred to special education
because of racism. Many others feel that schools and teachers
are exempted from racism. But, they are not.
Mrs. Carter
Mrs. Carter, who is Hispanic, has been teaching fourth grade in Connecticut for
the past 6 years. However, she taught in another state for 14 years. She feels that factors
leading to a Black student being referred to special education include low student
performance, language difference, and perceived behaviors. Miss Carter used “perceived
behaviors” because she believes that everything is based on the “norm” reference of the
94
teacher. Mrs. Carter feels that there are students who may not fit the behavioral norms
and expectations of the classroom or the teacher’s style of teaching.
The Essence of Miss Ryan
Students are referred to special education also because of
misperceptions about their culture. Also, racism is alive
in schools, both consciously and unconsciously.
Miss Ryan
Miss Ryan, who is Hispanic, is a veteran teacher and has been teaching for 25
years. She has taught various grades throughout her teaching career. Miss Ryan believes
that the over-representation of Black students in special education is equivalent to an
individual who is uninformed, frightened, too sensitive, and afraid to have an honest
conversation about race. Instead, they dance around the real issue of race.
The Essence of Miss Norwood
There is something to be said about shared experiences. I am unable to
identify with many of my students, but I take the necessary
time to get to know them and their families.
Miss Norwood
Miss Norwood, who is a White fourth-grade teacher, has been teaching for the
past 25 years. She has been teaching in this particular school for the past 5 years. She
believes that a teacher’s cultural background is a major factor for a special-education
referral being initiated for Black students. Miss Norwood has an increased awareness of
her own culture, cultures of her students, and other cultures in general. She feels that the
cultural background of teachers is critical. Miss Norwood believes that she is a better
teacher today because she is more open to the different cultures.
95
The Essence of Miss Vaughters
Black student behavior is different from other students in the class—students
who are not conforming to the norm (e.g., loud talking, movement
of hands, speaking out) are referred to special education.
Miss Vaughters
Miss Vaughters, who is Black, has been teaching fourth grade for 7 years. She
believes that there are different beliefs and assumptions about Black students. Miss
Vaughters feels that Black students with “aggressive” behaviors, as defined by the
teachers, or behaviors displayed as different from other students in the class are usually
referred to special education. She used to think that not seeing color was the right thing to
do. However, Miss Vaughters has learned that if she did not see the color of her students
then she did not see them.
The Essence of Miss James
A teacher’s referral decision is based on the behaviors of students.
Students of color would need to fail first prior to referral. The
educational system works on a wait-and-fail model.
Miss James
Miss James, who is Black, has been teaching fourth grade for the past 10 years. It
is her belief that schools are not designed for Black students. Miss James feels that
special education is a superficial means of addressing the real issue—race. She feels that
a teacher’s referral decision is based on the behaviors of students. Miss James further
believes that Black students are not expected to or directed to take honors classes. She
feels that many Black students are not being challenged to achieve more. In addition,
Miss James is of the opinion that many of the teachers in her districts are not skilled, nor
do they have the will or the necessary training to teach students with “different” learning
and behavioral styles.
96
The Essence of Miss Vitale
Socioeconomics and the behavior of the student play a role in
Black students being referred to special education.
Miss Vitale
Miss Vitale, who is White, has been teaching fourth grade for 16 years. She feels
that there are numerous factors that contribute to a Black student being referred to special
education (e.g., behavioral issues, language, low academic performance, and low state
test scores). Miss Vitale believes that some teachers seem to think that special education
is the best option for getting students the extra support they need. Miss Vitale admits that
she does not know everything about race or that she has even shared similar experiences
as her students. Yet, she is open to learning more about the individual cultures of
students.
The Essence of Miss Johnson
Black students are sometimes referred to special education when their
behavior is a little different from other students in the class, the
student is out of the “norm” per se of the classroom: he/she is
loud, talks back to the teacher, questions a teacher’s decision,
or demonstrates cultural behaviors (e.g., not looking
at the teacher when she is speaking to him).
Miss Johnson
Miss Johnson, who is Black, has been teaching fourth grade for 14 years. She
believes that a teacher’s lack of interactions with his/her students, behavior, and academic
standing are factors for determining special education referrals. She thinks that if a Black
student’s behavior is a little different from other students in the class, the student is out of
the “norm” per se of the classroom: he/she is loud, talks back to the teacher, questions a
teacher’s decision, or demonstrates cultural behaviors (e.g., not looking at the teacher
when she is speaking to him). Miss Johnson feels that there is an over-representation of
97
Black students in special education because of a lack of understanding of the student’s
culture.
The Essence of Miss Brown
There is a different belief system about students of color. Many teachers’
referral decision is based on student behavior. In addition, students
with English as a Second Language are automatically referred
to special education based on language alone.
Miss Brown
Miss Brown, who is Black, has been teaching for the past 20 years. She believes
that Black students are usually referred to special education for various reasons, from
behavioral issues to low performance. Miss Brown feels that the process begins with the
classroom teacher. She further thinks that many teachers actually feel that they are
helping Black students by referring them to special education. Furthermore, Miss Brown
feels that there is a fear that overcomes teachers. They feel that “something” has to be
done and that something all too often is a referral to special education.
The preceding 16 individual accounts are intended to provide a greater
understanding as to how and in what ways the processes, attitudes, behaviors, and
perceptions of fourth-grade teachers have been affected as a result of their
school’s/district’s participation in SERC’s program, Courageous Conversation About
Race.
Emergent Themes
This section describes the results of individual interviews with fourth-grade
teachers, with findings categorized into themes with explanations, and discussion
presented for each. Analysis of the rich data led to a number of findings. The themes that
emerged included: (a) A Teacher’s Dilemma, (b) I See Color Now, (c) Teacher Mis-
98
Match, and (d) Affirming a Need for Ongoing Professional Development. Each theme
sheds light on how and why the processes, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of
teachers have changed as a result of their school’s/district’s participation in SERC’s
program, Courageous Conversation About Race.
A Teacher’s Dilemma
Teachers in general are knowledgeable about the provisions of special education
services/the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They are aware that
special education is a place to provide additional services, support, programs, specialized
placements, or environments to ensure that all students' educational needs are met.
Special education is provided to qualifying students at no cost to the parents. There are
many students who have special learning needs, and these needs are addressed through
special education. Students qualifying for special education have needs that require
support that goes beyond what is normally offered in the general classroom. However,
teachers are often in a dilemma when in pursuit of extra support for struggling students.
Teachers generally want to see all of their students achieve, both academically and
social/emotionally. They utilize various instructional strategies and behavioral
intervention methods, such as before- and after-school programs, one-on-one
instruction/interventions, small groups, homework club, lunch with the principal or social
worker, and reading tutoring. Teachers monitor and document the levels of success and
improved progress of students. A decision to refer a student to special education is made
as a last resort and represents a serious dilemma for many teachers.
Teachers are aware that Connecticut has struggled for a number of years to
address minority over-identification and disproportion in special education. However,
99
they are searching for extra support beyond the general education classroom setting in
order to improve the success of all students. The intent of IDEA and other special
education laws is and was to address the special and individual needs of students who do
not appear to benefit from general education programs and services, including curriculum
and instruction.
The first theme that emerged from my study, I have called A Teacher’s Dilemma
with the following subheadings: (a) Special Education: A Place to Get Extra Support for
Students; (b) Challenging Behaviors; (c) Students with Language and Reading Concerns;
(d) Low Expectations and; (e) Racism in Schools.
In today’s classrooms, teachers are faced with an array of challenges and
dilemmas in meeting the diverse academic and social/emotional needs of students. The
analysis of interviews in this study revealed that teachers are dedicated individuals with
the best intentions for their students in spite of the numerous demands and
responsibilities placed upon them. Many teachers are overloaded. On a daily basis you
find them juggling three to four reading groups, teaching below-grade-level students,
large class sizes, dealing with challenging student behaviors, school and district priorities,
and federal mandates and regulations. If all of the demands and responsibilities were
placed on a platter, they would quickly begin to spill over. The items placed on the platter
do not include or take into consideration future programs and initiatives. Teachers
become burned out easily from the high level of demands—accountability being placed
upon them by their individual schools and districts, the No Child Left Behind Act (2001),
and IDEA. The demographic shifts in the student population along with accountability
legislation have led to changes in school curriculum and instruction. Schools are being
100
held accountable for improved achievement of all students. Despite the enormous
demands and dilemmas teachers face, they still want to do their best for the students they
serve.
Classroom teachers are constantly being challenged with a range of dilemmas from
designing differentiated lesson plans to meet the individual needs of their students, to the
organization and management of their classrooms. They are repeatedly in a dilemma
regarding the implementation of various instructional strategies and methods to meet
students’ needs. When students need extra support beyond what the teacher can provide
in the general education classroom, or when students are not making academic progress,
teachers are in a dilemma as to what to do and which services would be most appropriate
for the student.
Special Education: A Place to Get Extra
Support for Students
Teachers in general are confronted every day with the dilemma of getting extra
support for students who are not making progress in the general classroom setting.
Teachers in the study shared that special education is a means of getting additional
academic support for struggling students. They further noted that many of their students
require small-group or one-on-one instruction. Miss Ellis noted that she refers students to
special education to get the necessary support they need. She also pointed out that
students should be referred to special education only if the service is needed—if the
student has a true disability. In addition, Miss Norwood contended that students of color
in her schools were referred to special education because it was the only way they get the
extra help needed. Mrs. Carter remarked, “I refer students to special education to get the
extra help that they need.”
101
Given that the average class size consists of 20 to 25 students, this makes it
difficult to provide students with the attention that they need in the general education
classroom. The implications of large, crowded classrooms are all too clear—issues with
classroom management, time on task, and opportunities to provide students with
individualized attention are all compromised.
Teachers in the study provided an exhaustive list of academic and social/emotional
supports for students in general education that were in place in their schools/districts
prior to a referral to special education (e.g., Early Intervention Project, before- and after-
school programs, literacy tutoring, lunch bunches, and Positive Behavior Intervention
Support). But the teachers still seemed to feel that special education is the most
appropriate place to get extra support for academic and social emotional/behavioral
concerns. Teachers are committed to making positive changes in the lives of students. It
is very evident that they refer students to special education to get the necessary extra help
that they need.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles all individuals
with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and mandates non-
discriminatory assessment, identification, and placement of children with disabilities.
Children are not to be identified as disabled because of poor achievement that is due to
environmental disadvantage or ethnic, linguistic, or racial difference. Because of various
factors contributing to over- and under-representation, debate has developed that affects
the referral, identification, and placement process of special-needs students. The debate
continuously points to issues that are grounded in socio-culturally deprived children
102
(Valles, 1998). These specific issues deal with race, ethnicity, gender, religion, culture,
socioeconomic class, and language/dialect differences.
The number of students with culturally diverse backgrounds, such as African
Americans, continues to increase every day in the school systems. Diversity in general
may cause and present significant challenges for the educational world. In many urban
schools, Kea and Utley (1998) describe the seriousness and eruption of social
consciousness about the “savage inequalities” (Kozel, 1991) faced by minorities and poor
children. Schools that participate in these actions judge African American students as
having learning deficits and limited potential and place these students disproportionately
in low-track, remedial programs.
According to Banks (1992), multiculturalism education is a reform movement
designed to bring about educational equity for all students, including those from different
races, ethnic groups, social classes, exceptionality, and sexual orientation. How teachers
perceive, believe, say, and do can disable or empower multicultural students with
disabilities. All teachers must be knowledgeable about cultural diversity, even if they do
not teach in communities involving multiculturalism. The lack of teacher awareness of
their own ethnocentric views and their limited cultural competence regarding minority
and diverse students inhibit the effective practices with students and families from
different backgrounds (Kea & Utley, 1998).
Challenging Behaviors
Challenging classroom behavior is an especially demanding issue for many of the
teachers in this study. Special education is perceived by several of the teachers as the
only resource available for helping students who are not succeeding in the general
103
education classroom. Teachers are persistently being confronted with behavioral issues
and are in a dilemma that attempts to balance providing effective instruction and
classroom management. In order to manage some of the behavioral issues, teachers work
with other specialists in their schools to design behavioral intervention plans, strategies,
and techniques to support students with challenging behaviors. Teachers have to contend
with student behavioral issues, which takes away time from teaching. They are constantly
in a dilemma ensuring that the classroom is well organized, students are on task in spite
of the behavioral disruptions, meeting with various reading and math groups, and
working individually with students. Miss Vitale commented, “Socio-economics and
behavior of the student certainly play a role to them being referred to special education.”
Miss Hicks declared that students are referred because of behavior and assumptions by
the teachers. Miss Brown noted, “Many teachers’ referral decision is based on student
behavior.”
Miss Sutton shared that her decision as a teacher to refer a student to special
education is not a decision that is taken lightly. Miss Sutton continues by explaining that
she first observes the student to verify that there is actually a behavioral issue or an
instructional one. She further noted that work is modified for students in order to build
upon the student’s success. She looks at what a student can do, focusing on the positives.
Conversely, Mr. Matthew commented, “There are some teachers that are informally
giving students labels–Learning Disabled (LD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), because they are active—moving around the classroom without permission.”
He further noted that “students are getting out of their seats without permission and not
following the classroom expectations.” Mr. Matthew further noted that students are
104
referred to special education for behavioral issues, such as talking out in class. In
addition, teachers shared that they do everything possible to meet the individual needs of
students before a referral is considered.
Students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are disciplined
more often and more severely than are White students for comparable inappropriate
behaviors (Cartledge, 1999). Data from the Office of Civil Rights have shown that
African American students, particularly males, are disciplined by suspension, expulsion,
and corporal punishment at significantly higher rates than their percentage in the general
school population, and than are other ethnic groups (Townsend, 2000). The differential
treatment of African American students and other students of color in terms of
disciplinary actions appears to be related to race more than socioeconomic status or
student behavior (Skiba & Peterson, 2000) and serves to hinder their learning by limiting
their access to instructional and social activities, causing them to be tracked in lower
ability groups, lowering their self-esteem, and alienating them from school (Townsend,
2000).
Teachers and students often come from different cultural backgrounds, which
results in different learning styles and divergent views about appropriate classroom
behavior (Kea & Utley, 1998). For instance, although schools have meticulously
designed behavioral norms that require conformity, passivity, quietness, and
individualized competitive participation during teacher-focused instructional activities,
some African American students are accustomed to performing multiple tasks
simultaneously and may therefore prefer to work with others during instructional tasks
(Townsend, 2000). Hence, this conflict in orientation may result in teachers’ perceiving
105
students as having a behavioral problem (e.g., insubordinate, disrespectful, or
inappropriate) (Ishi-Jordan, 1997). Students whose ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds
are different from their teachers’ may get into trouble if they behave in ways that are
acceptable in their homes and communities but not in school (Grossman, 1995).
Cultural variations in verbal and non-verbal communication also affect behavioral
norms and expectations in the classroom with students of color (Duhaney, 2000; Kea &
Utley, 1998; Neal, McCray, & Webb-Johnson, 2001). For example, because some
African American speakers may be more active and animated than their teachers,
teachers may misinterpret this communication process as confrontational (Patton &
Townsend, 1999).
School districts can engage in a variety of actions to address the disproportional
use of exclusionary disciplinary practices with students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds (Townsend, 2000). According to the researchers, school districts
and educators need to examine their behavioral expectations in terms of cultural biases
and their usefulness in contributing to a safe, positive, and supportive learning
environment that respects and affirms student diversity. In addition, educators need to
explore the extent to which student behavior is related to differences between students
and teachers in terms of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Because many students
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may have different cultural
perspectives from their teachers, common communication misunderstandings between
students and teachers are often interpreted by educators as behavioral problems.
Therefore, educators need to examine their culturally based viewpoints, attitudes, and
106
behaviors and recognize how their cultural beliefs may conflict with the cultural beliefs
of their students (Obiakor, 1999).
When dealing with students from any different racial group it is important to
understand the cultural aspects of that particular group. African-American students are
often viewed as being hostile in the education sphere and non-compliant (Watkins &
Kurtz, 2001). Actually, many students who are viewed as being hostile “may not be
hostile” in any way. There are social context clues that many teachers and adults miss and
mix.
According to Watkins and Kurtz (2001), the issue of discrimination from White
teachers toward African American students exists and is a problem. Many times African
American students are misunderstood through their body language and comments, which
leads to issues of over-representation. Watkins and Kurtz further noted that many of the
teachers misread cultural attributes as signs of defiance and inappropriate behavior.
Furthermore, the same teachers had so many preconceived notions about the students that
it made their efforts highly ineffective.
Students With Language and Reading Concerns
Teachers are often in a dilemma in meeting the needs of students with language
and reading concerns. However, a student should be referred to special education if they
have low language and reading skills. Elementary education teachers are primarily
responsible for all content areas (e.g., math, science, social studies, reading/literacy,
writing, and health). For the most part, they are generalists. The teaching profession is not
like any other profession. Teachers have backgrounds within their training in which they
are stronger than others (e.g., working with lower level students, higher performing
107
students, students with language and speech issues, and ESL students). Teachers do their
best to work with all students and improve their academic achievement. However, there
are times when teachers are confronted with the needs of their students which are beyond
the area of expertise of the general education classroom setting.
Elementary teachers do everything within their knowledge and skill set to meet
the academic and social/emotional needs of students. However, when a student does not
conform to the norms of the class/school (e.g., reading at grade level, following
classroom behavior expectations, low test scores) and the student is still not showing
progress, teachers often turn to special education for support and as a resource.
The teachers in this study commented that students are referred to special
education because of language and low reading skills. They further pointed out that
students with English as a Second Language (ESL) are often automatically referred to
special education based on language alone. Teachers also reported that many of their
Black students are reading below grade level (e.g., reading at the first or second grade
level), and have issues with language and speech. Miss Cohen noted that some factors
contributing to Black students being referred to special education are language, academic
performance, test scores, and skill defects. Miss Carter shared, “Other factors may
include low student performance and language difference.”
Teachers asserted that Black students would not be referred to special education
unless they were not making academic progress or because of test scores. They also face
dilemmas when students are not performing as well as other students in the classroom.
Teachers mentioned that a student is often referred to special education “because of their
inability to produce what is expected of them academically.” Teachers further stated that
108
test scores of students are also a factor for special education referrals. Miss Hicks
reported that students are referred to special education because of low academic
performance and assumptions about their learning by teachers.
Teachers are proactive and do not want to see a student fail, or wait until they
have failed prior to doing something to provide extra support for them. They feel
compelled to do something, and that “something” is often special education, which is
thought to provide students with specialized instruction. Teachers are extremely devoted
and take their roles very seriously. They are committed and have an obligation to teach
all students, regardless of their learning potential. Teachers do not give up easily on doing
their best to effectively teach all students.
Teachers who participated in CC About Race received training on culturally
relevant instruction and have implemented relevant strategies in their classrooms. There
are many teachers trying hard to implement culturally relevant strategies, although they
may not have received staff development to teach them what to do. Kuykendall (2004)
noted that minority students must be exposed to instructional strategies that increase their
understanding. Such strategies as understanding how culture impacts the way a student
learns, understanding the importance of learning styles, and understanding the role of
differentiating instruction for minority children can lead to increased student
achievement. By incorporating a variety of culturally relevant strategies, educators can
effectively respond to and instruct minority youths.
The literature suggests that all children should receive culturally responsive
literacy instruction that builds on their prior knowledge, interests, motivation, and home
language, and emphasizes cultural relevance (August & Hakuta, 1998; Au, 2000; Rueda,
109
MacGillivray, & Monzó, 2001). The researchers support a balanced approach to literacy
instruction that promotes authentic literacy experiences in a supportive learning
environment while providing the high level of explicit instruction needed for students to
gain important skills and strategies (Delpit, 1995). This instruction should include
frequent opportunities to practice reading with a variety of rich materials in meaningful
contexts (Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001). It should
also include explicit instruction in phonological awareness, the alphabetic code, fluency,
and vocabulary development (National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998), as well as comprehension strategies. We believe that a focus on the complete
literacy event does not mean that traditional skills are unimportant. “Rather these skills
are situated within a holistic context that is intimately linked with goals and conditions of
reading” (Roller, 1996, p. 34). If students do not receive such instruction, how can we be
assured they have in fact received an adequate opportunity to learn and are appropriate
candidates for a special education referral?
Literacy instruction should take into account the socio-cultural contexts within
which students learn (Artiles, 2002). A fundamental assumption of this approach is that
culture matters, that disproportionate representation is due in part to the inadequate
attention to culture by researchers and practitioners. Culture is not a unitary construct, but
rather is complex and dynamic. In any given classroom, there are multiple cultures “as
embodied in the cultural toolkit that each person brings to school and the cultures that are
created as students, teachers, and school staff interact over time” (p. 696).
But what does it mean to account for culture when teaching children to read?
First, it means taking a broad view of what counts as being literate in a multiethnic,
110
diverse society. It means understanding the complex socio-cultural, institutional, and
political contexts that influence students’ acquisition of literate behaviors (Artiles, 2003).
It means recognizing that when children begin school, they may not have experienced all
the same interactions with print as their mainstream peers, but they still have had
valuable experiences that teachers can and should build upon. It means explicitly
connecting home, community, and school literacy practices. It means recognizing that
students’ discourse and behavioral styles may not match school-expected ways, but are
still to be validated (Cazden, 1988; Heath, 1983). It means recognizing that bilingualism
is an asset and that learning English should be an additive rather than a subtractive
process (August & Hakuta, 1998). Finally, it means making sure students are motivated
and engaged in reading activities (Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000; Rueda et al.,
2001). Although teachers need not be “insiders” in a particular culture to offer culturally
responsive instruction, they should make an effort to learn about the cultures represented
in their classrooms, respect students’ values, and view differences in students’ literacies
as strengths, not deficits (Alvermann, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Culturally responsive literacy instruction requires choosing relevant multicultural
literature and other reading materials (Bieger, 1995/1996; Godina & McCoy, 2000).
Multicultural literature should be used in transformative ways that reconstruct the
curriculum so that students are able to view concerns, themes, problems, and concepts
from the perspectives of diverse groups (Banks & Banks, 1997). Literature should also be
selected that allows students to identify social problems and to read about how the main
character takes action to solve these problems. This approach helps students realize that
all ethnic groups have roots in the past and a strong heritage (Bieger, 1995/1996).
111
Culturally responsive literacy programs tap into community resources that
promote children’s literacy. One way to do this is by enlisting volunteers to serve as
reading tutors (Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001; Invernizzi, Juel, &
Rosemary, 1997; Wasik, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). Another is to invite parents and
others in the neighborhood to share their expertise or “funds of knowledge” on a
multitude of topics (Moll & González, 1994). For example, an effective model includes
local elders in the schooling of American Indian youth (Aguilera, 2003). Programs that
focus on developing partnerships with parents and other caregivers to enhance home
literacy experiences also are beneficial. Parents can learn to interact with their children in
ways that promote literacy achievement (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994;
Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al.,
1994).
Low Expectations
To further shape the theme of A Teacher’s Dilemma, teachers reported that there
are different beliefs about Black students. Miss Johnson commented, “Black students are
not expected to achieve because of low expectations that are placed upon them by schools
and mostly White teachers.” Mr. Mathew noted, “Black students are not expected to
achieve because of the low expectations that are placed upon them by some schools and
teachers.” Mrs. Griffin stated, “Some teachers in my building feel that if the student is
failing, it is not their fault.” Furthermore, there was consensus expressed that teachers
assume responsibility for the success of their students.
Teachers further noted that many of their colleagues and schools as a whole have
placed extremely low expectations upon Black students. Ferguson (2002) summarized
112
research on achievement gap, frequently finding that teachers often focus on students’
deficits. These deficits are either perceived or real. Ferguson’s premise is that perceptions
and behaviors held by educators’ increase referrals and the subsequent placement of
Black students in special education.
The majority of teachers are not a cultural, racial, or socio-economic reflection of
American’s changing student demographics. It is suggested that there are not enough
teachers who have been trained to deal with other people’s culture, class, or gender, as
well as their own. Additionally, many teachers have low expectations about the innate
ability of racial minorities and poor children (Delpit, 1995; Patton & Meyer, 2001).
It is critical that teachers examine and change their basic assumptions and beliefs
about students of color. Teachers must believe that all children can learn, regardless of
their ethnic group, gender, or social class (Banks, 1992; Collins, 2002). Howard (2007)
emphasizes the critical need for educators of all racial and cultural groups to develop new
competencies and pedagogies to successfully engage students in our ever-changing,
diverse student populations.
In addition, Edmonds and Frederiksen (1979) noted that high expectations for
students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, and effective family/community
involvement are the cornerstones of effective schools. He maintains that schools must
have a climate of high expectations reflected in staff and family beliefs, and must
demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of the essential content and school skills.
Teacher expectations can have detrimental effects on those students whom they
recognize as low achievers or as having behavioral problems. Students who feel that
their teachers have low expectations of them are “more likely to become passive
113
spectators rather than active participants in the educational process” (McCormick &
Noriega, 1986, pp. 224-234). This internalization of teacher expectations and reaction to
teacher behaviors leads “low achievers” to disengage from school.
Popular thinking suggests that teachers are equipped with the knowledge and
expertise to be unbiased and fair when dealing with their students. The literature,
however, suggests that teachers, though equipped with college educations, generally are
not exposed to collegiate training in topics on race, inequality, or multiculturalism
(Sleeter, 2001). In short, pre-service teachers (teachers in training) have little knowledge
of or experience with students of different races. As such, they tend to hold stereotypical
beliefs about urban students, have little awareness of societal racism and discrimination,
and are unsure of their ability to teach minority students.
Racism in Schools
Racism is defined as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits
and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular
race (“Racism,” n.d.). Mrs. Carter eloquently pointed out that, “as teachers, we teach who
we are and through our experiences or lack of experiences.” She passionately went on to
say that she loves teaching in her district because of the rich diversity of students and
families. The teachers in this study pointed out that a teacher’s knowledge and
experiences of the various cultures of his/her students are essential. They continued to
express that it also helps to build a positive relationship between teacher and student.
Teachers remarked further that it is important for students to feel that their cultures are
validated and honored. Miss Brown stated, “I feel that there is an over-representation of
Black students in special education because of a lack in understanding of their culture.”
114
Miss Ryan noted, “Racism is alive in schools, both consciously and unconsciously.” She
followed up with many other people thinking that schools and teachers are exempt from
racism. However, as Miss Ryan pointed out, they are not. Miss James contended that
students are not being challenged to take honors classes. She maintained that assumptions
and names determine the placement of students. Miss Ryan continued, “Special education
is a superficial means of addressing the real issue—race.” Mrs. Johnson further noted that
racism is the “elephant” in the room that needs to be put on the table for discussion.
Miss Green shared that Black students are sometimes referred to special education
because of their appearance. She continued by noting, “Not only their appearance but,
where the student lives and the language spoken.” There was evidence from teachers in
the study that there are deeply held assumptions regarding a student's ability to learn and
achieve based on their skin color and socio-economic status. Miss Cater stated, “The
student may conform to the classroom expectations or have lower academic skills.
Sometimes students may not fit a teacher’s teaching style.” She followed up by sharing
that everything is based on the “norm reference” of the teacher. Miss Ryan noted, “When
it comes to why or why not Black students are referred to special education, it depends on
the classroom teacher and the skill level of students.” Miss Carter commented that she
also believes that Black students are referred to special education because of racism. Miss
Ryan in a soft tone remarked, “Racism is alive in schools, both consciously and
unconsciously.”
Miss Green maintained that the prior knowledge and cultural understanding of a
teacher is critical. She shared, “I have taught in this district for the past 29 years. I grew
up in the town and I have watched the changes. I had to embrace the changes of
115
languages and diversity within our student body.” According to Giroux (1992), teachers
bring themselves—their life experiences, histories, and culture—into the classroom. They
bring their assumptions and beliefs about what a good teacher is and does, their
knowledge of education theory, research, and human development, and their love and
knowledge of content areas. They bring their personalities and teaching styles that are
shaped by social and cultural interactions. Some teachers are extroverted and come alive
when they are with others. Other teachers are energetic and lively around their students,
but need downtime to refuel and ground themselves. Some teachers love routine and
predictability, while other teachers become particularly excited when routines are
interrupted and they can act spontaneously. All of this is shaped and reshaped by daily
experiences in the classroom. The longer teachers teach, the more their beliefs and
knowledge are reorganized and sculpted by experience.
Experience, culture, and personality are just part of who teachers are, and they go
wherever teachers go—including their classrooms. For teachers from dominant cultural
backgrounds (White, middle-class teachers in the United States), their own culture may
not be something they are immediately aware of, because it fits so seamlessly with
prevailing opinions, beliefs, values, and expectations about behavior, education, and life
choices. Yet, many choices that teachers make are determined more from their cultural
background than from individual beliefs. The expectations that teachers hold for teaching
and learning are grounded in cultural beliefs that may be unfamiliar to students and
families from non-dominant cultures.
Teachers in this study continually discussed their culture and the danger of being
unaware of that expression. Coming to an understanding of the ways in which one’s
116
beliefs, experiences, values, and assumptions are linked to culture is an essential feature
of culturally responsive practice. As Giroux (1992) says, “Teachers need to find ways of
creating a space for mutual engagement of lived difference that does not require the
silencing of a multiplicity of voices by a single dominant discourse” (p. 201). Cultural
responsiveness requires teachers to acknowledge and understand their own cultural
values and how these values impact their own teaching practice.
Cultural disconnect can occur when individuals from different cultures interact.
Schools in which the cultural backgrounds of teachers differ significantly from their
students because of ethnic, racial, linguistic, social, religious, or economic reasons are
especially vulnerable to cultural disconnect.
In May 2000, on the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board—the landmark case that
ruled segregated schools unconstitutional—the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
lawsuit against the state of California that brought the essence of institutionalized racism
into sharp focus. Filed on behalf of 100 students in San Francisco, the case was named
after Eliezer Williams, then a seventh-grader at Luther Burbank Middle School in San
Francisco (Kuznia, 2009). At Williams’s school, the textbooks were so scarce students
could not take them home; they were so old they still did not recognize the collapse of the
Soviet Union. At certain times during the school day, there were no bathrooms; attorneys
said students had urinated or defecated on themselves for lack of a restroom. The school
was infested with vermin. The suit argued that the state was failing to provide thousands
of California students with the basic necessities for a decent education. Most of the
students in question were poor minorities. In 2004, the case was settled, with the state
117
setting aside $138 million for improving the textbooks and facilities of underserved
student populations across California.
Keleher and Johnson (2009) argued that the Williams case shows that
institutionalized racism is alive and well in the 21st century. The researchers noted that
institutional racism is frequently subtle, unintentional and invisible, but always potent.
Often, institutional racism involves complex and cumulative factors; one example of this
is when many students of color, year after year, do not have access to fully credentialed
teachers, high-quality curriculum materials, and advanced courses.
Since the Civil Rights Movement and its achievements in the 1960s, the United
States government implemented a number of laws to ensure racism no longer affects
society. However, it still remains in many segments of the population in crime, job
discrimination, and especially education. It is a belief that race is the primary determinant
of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce the inherent superiority
of a particular race.
Connecticut’s racial and economic isolation and its impact on
educa
tion were
highlighted in its landmark desegregation case, Sheff v. O’Neill, which commenced in
1989 and was ruled on in 1996. In Sheff, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that
students of color in Hartford’s schools were being denied
their constitutional rights to
equal educational opportunity due to racial and economic isolation. The CSDE and its
Regional School Choice Office (RSCO) have taken great efforts to remedy the
isolation/segregation of Hartford’s students of color through various “choice” programs
and magnet school options. However, much still needs to be done to fulfill the court’s
118
mandates. Overall, Connecticut’s children remain highly segregated by race and income
in its capital city, as well as across the state.
In Connecticut, children of color not only lack access to equitable educational
opportunities, as mentioned in the 2010 report by the Connecticut Commission on
Educational Achievement, but to many other opportunities as well. It is for these reasons
that policy makers and school leaders must consider
any educational issues—from
graduation rates to achievement test scores—in the context of race and culture.
Historically in Connecticut, African American students were up to four t
imes
more likely to be identified as ha
ving
mental retardation (i.e., an intellectual disability)
than their White peers.
This
significant disproportionality was addr
essed
in the P.J. v.
State of Connecticut (1992) Settlement Agreement goals, which required Connecticut
school districts to reduce the disparate identification of students with intellectual
disability
by
racial and ethnic
group. Similarly, as late as 2008, African American children
in Connecticut were 1.8 times more likely to be identified as emotionally disturbed. More
recently, students have not been disproportionately identified for special education at the
state level, according to recent annual performance reports (APRs). However, for certain
districts, disproportionality across special education categories continues to be a
persistent problem.
W. E. B. Du Bois wrote in 1903 that the problem of the 20th century is the problem
of the color line—the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and
Africa, in America, and the islands of the sea. Over 100 years later, we continue to see
that problem of the color line in our schools today: incredible disparities between the
educational outcomes of children of color and their White counterparts. According to
119
Noguera and Wing (2006), students of color are under-represented in most categories
associated with positive academic outcomes, and are over-represented in categories
associated with negative academic outcomes.
For centuries, we have avoided discussing race and institutionalized racism and its
detrimental effects on our students. Dr. Beverly Tatum's book, Can We Talk About Race?
And Other Conversations in an Era of School Segregation (2007), clearly indicates that if
educators do not fully engage in dialogue about what they can do differently, and bring
an understanding of the legacy of race and racism in our society into the conversation,
they will not be successful in addressing this and other national challenges. As we
consider the statistical facts, it is difficult not to think about racial inequality as a
predominant factor causing today’s achievement gaps. It is our responsibility, as
educators, to garner the courage to disaggregate and interpret the data through what
Jacqueline Jordan Irvine (2003) calls the “cultural eye.”
One of the basic premises of Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the notion of the
permanence of racism in society. Bell (1992) states, “Racism is a permanent component
of American life” (p. 13). According to Bell (1995), within a CRT framework, a “realist
view” requires acknowledging the dominant role that racism has played and continues to
play in American society. This can be both a conscious and an unconscious act
(Lawrence, 1995). This theory suggests that institutional racism is embedded in the
nation’s culture and is evident in the hierarchy of its governmental, financial, and
educational institutions. Furthermore, the notion of the permanence of racism implies that
racist hierarchical structures govern all political, economic, and social domains. Such
120
structures allocate the privileging of Whites and the subsequent “othering” of people of
color in all arenas, including education.
In summary, teachers find themselves in a dilemma in regard to getting extra help
for students in need of academic and behavioral support. These issues are not new. Others
have noted that through the years, little attention has been focused on the official
definition of special education (Tucker, 2002). Furthermore, Tucker noted that an official
definition of special education has been in existence dating back to the mid-70s, or
before. Tucker pointed out that the following federal definition has remained intact in the
Individuals With Education Disabilities Act since 1975. IDEA defines the term special
education as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet
the unique needs of a child with a disability.” He goes on to make the point that special
education as defined by the IDEA was never intended to imply a place, a program, or a
system of service delivery. In addition, Tucker shared that in both state and federal law,
special education is defined as “specially designed instruction.” Losen and Orfield (2002)
concur with Tucker (2002) that in its original and subsequent conceptualization, special
education was not a place or location but rather a service-delivery structure. This service-
delivery structure was supposed to provide individualized instruction to students who
were identified as having disabilities on the basis of an objective referral, assessment and
evaluation, eligibility determination, placement, and exit process (Blanchett & Shealey,
2005).
Teacher referral is a strong predictor of eligibility for special services. In fact,
studies show that 73 to 90% of the students referred by classroom teachers for special
education evaluations due to academic problems are found eligible for services (Harry &
121
Klingner, 2007). A child's race and ethnicity significantly influence the child's probability
of being mis-identified, mis-classified, and inappropriately placed in special education
programs (Losen & Orfield, 2002; National Research Council, 2002).
Research suggests that a teacher’s knowledge and skill in working with culturally
and linguistically diverse students may impact student success (Au & Raphael, 2000;
Cummins, 1996; Garcia, 1994; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994). When a teacher
understands a student’s background, culture, and language, and uses these characteristics
as strengths to build upon, the student is validated and more likely to succeed. Further,
teachers who understand their students’ cultures and backgrounds are better able to
design instruction that best meets their needs. This way of teaching is referred to in
the literature as “culturally relevant pedagogy” (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Culturally relevant pedagogy refers to instructional practices that build on the premise
that the way students learn differs across cultures. In order to maximize learning
opportunities for students, teachers must gain knowledge about the cultures
represented in the classrooms, and then translate this knowledge into instructional
practices (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Villegas, 1991).
According to Hilliard (1999), the knowledge and skills to educate all children
already exist. However, the will of society to teach all children is questionable. He further
concluded that because we have lived historically in an oppressive society, educational
issues tend to be framed as technical issues, which deny their political origin and
meaning.
122
I See Color Now
In the Fall of 2004, during an initial Courageous Conversations About Race
session with the SERC Staff, Glenn Singleton made the point that seeing an individual’s
color is critical. He further reiterated that when staff members look at him, they should
see that he is a Black man. Mr. Singleton followed up his statement by pointing out that
our experiences may have taught us not to see color; however, by acknowledging that we
do not see the color of a person, in fact what we are actually saying is that we do not see
the person. Mr. Singleton explained that in the case of educators, what we are really
saying is that we do not see our students. We are saying that the students are not relevant.
The next theme that emerged was I See Color Now with the following subheading,
Examples of Color Blindness in the Classroom.
Several teachers in this study reported that student data are being reviewed more
through the lenses of race. Miss James noted, “I am speaking more openly and talking
about race. I find myself sometimes shocking many of my colleagues by saying what
they are thinking—their assumptions and attitudes.” She followed up with, “I use phrases
like: ‘I think that you are feeling . . .’ ‘It sounds as if . . .’ ‘So, you are thinking that . . .’”
Miss Griffin pointed out, “I have noticed that it is easier to bring up issues about
race. I can actually go to my colleagues and have a conversation with them about
racial/cultural issues that I am struggling with.” She further stated that teachers are also
more careful how they speak about students of color and their families. Miss Griffin
asserted that the principal of the school seems more supportive and open to suggestions.
She declared that teachers want to learn more about diversity.
123
Teachers also mentioned that through the follow-up CC About Race activities
their own racial consciousness has been increased. The activities have taught teachers
that it is okay to see the color of their students and that if they did not see their color, then
they did not see their students. Furthermore, one teacher asked how can they teach
someone when they do not see their color? Teachers reported that they are speaking
openly about race and discovering that there are still many deeply held beliefs about race.
Miss Norwood reported that CC About Race has raised her conscious awareness
about race. Another change that she has noticed within herself is having more
conversations with her principal about race as it relates to test scores. Miss Norwood
admits that she does not know everything about race or has even shared similar
experiences as her students. Yet she is open to learning more about the cultures of
individual students. Conversely, Miss Hicks noted that CC About Race increased her
awareness of her own culture, her students, and the culture of other people in general. She
followed up with “There is always something new to learn. I am more open and willing
to expand my own cultural knowledge and experiences.”
In addition, teachers expressed that they have noticed that it is easier to initiate
issues about race. They reported that they feel comfortable going to their colleagues and
having a conversation with them regarding various racial/cultural issues. Teachers noted
that they are more careful and conscious as to how they speak about students of color and
their families. They commented that teachers want to learn more about diversity.
Miss Vitale reported that she is talking more openly about race. However, the
conversations have not reached the personal level yet. She further stated that the
conversations focus more on her students and families. Miss Vitale was pleased to share
124
that when student data are reviewed, she is hearing, “What color is this student?” “Most
of the students not making progress are from what subgroup?” Conversely, Miss Ellis
mentioned that she is having more open and honest conversations about race as it relates
to the students she teaches. She further reported that she is also reflecting and having
conversations about her own teaching with others. Miss Johnson contends, “I find myself
asking more questions about race. I am more aware of who I am as a person of color and
my own prejudices.”
Miss Carter shared that she no longer feels the need to filter her conversations
about race. She reported, “I am feeling more comfortable discussing race, and what and
how I teach.” Miss Green acknowledged that since CC About Race, she has noticed that
she is more culturally aware. She mentioned that she finds herself reviewing the
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) data by race (e.g., subgroups) and is open to various
perspectives. Miss Ryan noted, “I am more aware of race. My knowledge of race has
certainly been heightened. As a result of this awareness, I am now looking at
Connecticut’s Mastery Test data by race and gender.” In addition, teachers noted that
seeing color has also manifested itself in lesson design and instruction. The teachers
reported that the selection of curriculum materials is more intentional as a result of their
participation in CC About Race. Miss Vaughters added, “I make more of a conscious
effort to use both representations of pictures and prints to make my lessons more
culturally relevant.” She further commented that the follow-up activities have made her
more comfortable discussing the race of students (e.g., Black, Brown, and White) instead
of saying that she does not see their color. Teachers further mentioned that they are
reflecting more on their own teaching style to ensure that it is culturally relevant, and
125
they are speaking more openly about race. They noted that they are sharing information
about their own cultures with students and asking students questions about their cultures
as a way of building relationships and rapport with students.
Mr. Mathews noted that many of the stories read in class are about characters
from different countries. He further stated, “I am noticing that I am asking students to
validate the settings and characters.” In addition, Mr. Mathews shared that many of his
students are from Haiti and Mexico. He pointed out that he asks students such questions
as, “Does this look like the Mexico or the Haiti where you are from?” “How is it the
same or how is it different?” He followed up by saying that the majority of curriculum
materials being used by schools are written from the perspective of White middle-class
men and do not reflect the diversity of the students.
One of the guiding principles of CC About Race is the belief that racial equity
transformation begins with an individual at a personal level. Participants are asked to
keep the conversations at a personal, local, and immediate level by using “I” and/or “me”
instead of referring to students and families as “they and/or them.” Mrs. Cohen shared
that CC About Race has given her permission to seek clarity when conversations are
being had about students and families. “I find myself using my inter-personal skills to
paraphrase and to probe further.” Examples of her paraphrasing may sound something
like, “I think that you are asking if Black students . . .” or “I think that you are feeling that
Black students . . .” She noted that she wanted to get others to name the student or family,
instead of using “they” and “them.”
CC About Race begins with an inward journey within self—an internal reflection
of self and our own racial perspectives and experiences and how they may have
126
perpetuated a racial achievement gap. Miss Stewart noted that she is more self-reflective.
“I am asking myself more questions from the perspective of a Black woman.” Miss
Stewart concluded, “I am more aware of who I am as a person of color and my own
biases that I may bring to the classroom.”
The second condition of CC About Race encourages participants to isolate race
while acknowledging the broader scope of diversity and the variety of factors that
contribute to a racialized problem (Singleton & Linton, 2006a). This condition focuses on
the critical need to address race explicitly and intentionally. Moreover, educators are
asked to discuss the impact of race on students’ achievement by having courageous
conversations about race in order to examine school practices, curriculum, instruction,
and assessment through the lenses of race.
As a conductor orchestrates the melodious sounds of each instrument, so too must
educators facilitate the learning of all students. Facilitating learning means creating and
directing learning situations and environments where all ethnicities are accepted. When
teaching minority children, Ladson-Billings (1994) notes the importance of recognizing
the difference in color and culture, but not letting these characteristics interfere with
instructing these children. Being color-blind is not a feasible solution to educating
minority children of today, she says.
Ladson-Billings (1994) goes on to say, “If teachers pretend not to see students’
racial and ethnic differences, they really do not see the students at all and are limited in
their ability to meet their educational needs” (pp. 312-320). Embracing these attributes
and infusing them into the everyday curriculum are indicators of success and high
achievement, especially where minority children are represented.
127
Infusion of cultural aspects requires subject matter be taught through the diverse
perspectives of each child. Children can and will learn important concepts while
incorporating cultural diversity into daily lessons and the overall curriculum. In fact,
when educating minority children, the likelihood of higher achievement is greater.
Effective educators take these things into account and masterfully create lessons that
address ethnicities, differentiate instruction, and assess student learning in multiple ways.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) begins with the notion that race is a normal part of
society and in many facets of life it cannot and should not be avoided (Delgado, 1995).
Understanding the general aspects of the cultural group involved in a study, the
researcher must analyze how personal characteristics affect the fieldwork and the
relationships with the individual participants they encounter (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
“White students, in particular, often struggle with the strong feeling of guilt when they
become aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society” (Tatum, 2009, pp. 277-
278). Tatum discusses that understanding the development of one’s racial identity can
lead to conversations and opportunities to talk to others with similar experiences with
Three Models of Whiteness: the “actively racist White supremacist,” the “what
Whiteness,” and the “guilty White” (pp. 284-285). Using these models in the analysis of
the data and using race as an analytical tool, the construction of identity reveals
constraints and conflicts within the past and present experiences of individuals. Within
this exposure, biological, emotional, and personal realizations are revealed.
Critical Race Theory, initially created as a body of legal theory, is an organizing
framework useful in understanding human behavior and social processes relevant to
racial group categorizations and racial stratification. CRT examines the oppressive
128
dynamics of society in order to inform individuals and groups in order for social
transformation to occur. Rather than embracing a color-blind perspective, CRT places
race at the center of the analysis and provides a critical perspective on how racial
stratification continues to influence the lives of racial/ethnic minorities in the United
States. CRT focuses on the concept of race as a social construct, and on ways in which
the construct has been used to maintain the relative privilege and power of some groups,
with respect to other groups. It is an approach that seeks to transform the relationships
among race, racism, and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
According to Bonilla-Silva (2003a), color-blind refers to the belief that race does
not matter in a social context or that it is neutral in a social context. Color-blindness
keeps people from raising concerns and questioning the value of race and racial
inequalities in daily experiences. Similarly, those who hold a color-blind view are
essentially ignoring race and helping to perpetuate racism in society. Some people claim
that a person of color is playing the “race card” or using “identity politics” to push racial
matters into situations where they believe they simply do not apply.
There are “four frames” of color-blindness: abstract liberalism, naturalization,
cultural racism, and minimization of racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003b). Abstract liberalism is
when people apply abstract or de-contextualized ideas about people of color, such as
being supportive of equal opportunity, but in reality what happens is a rationalization for
racially unfair situations or opportunities. Naturalization uses the belief that things are the
way they are because it is “natural.” This explanation is used often when a White person
is explaining the existence of racially or ethnically distinct neighborhoods, the limited
contact between Whites and people of color, or why there are clear differences in
129
academic success between Whites and some other racial groups. Cultural racism is when
people believe that people are supposed to stick with their own culture in social situations
and is used to justify people’s positions of power in society. Minimization of racism
states that racism no longer exists because it is not in the legal system anymore and life is
fine now. Therefore, people believe that racism is really not the cause of social injustice
but the individuals or particular racial group’s own doing such as a “bad attitude,” or not
a very good work ethic. This attitude results in the belief that everyone is treated equally
(Bonilla-Silva, 2003b).
Examples of Color-Blindness in the Classroom
1. “I’m not prejudiced, I don’t notice any differences in these kids, I treat them
all the same” (Tatum, 1999).
The above quote is an excerpt from an interview conducted by Beverly Tatum and
is a classic example of how teachers are ignoring race in their classrooms. When teachers
say they “don’t notice any differences in these kids,” they are trying to convey their
unbiased ideology towards their students. When a teacher implements this in the
classroom however, he/she is causing more harm than good. By treating students the
same way, a teacher is actually ignoring the cultural and ethnic differences that exist
between the students. Teachers may impose their own culture and ethnic background on
their students without having an understanding of their students’ needs. This way of
teaching can hold some students back and may be the cause for why some students get
labeled with learning disabilities.
In Frank Fingarsen’s (2006) piece, “Why Do You Force Your Ways?,” he talks
about a seemingly troublesome student, Matthew, who just did not want to learn.
According to his teacher, Matthew’s “school work was dismal,” “his work was of poor
130
quality, his study habits were atrocious, and his attitude towards school was even worse”
(pp. 96-97). Fingarsen was determined to change his student’s ways, however, and when
he met with Matthew’s father, it was Matthew’s father who actually changed Fingarsen’s
ways.
Fingarsen (2006) believed that Matthew could not learn because whatever method
he used seemed to fail. Fingarsen had assumed that his student had a learning disability
and that his attitude meant he did not care about learning. He met with Matthew’s father
to discuss the situation and the meeting turned out to be pivotal for both teacher and
student. Matthew’s father pointed out that his son was not learning because Fingarsen
was not using Matthew’s experience to relate to the materials in class. Fingarsen realized
he had imposed his own values and ways of learning onto his student. If he wanted
Matthew to learn, he would have to relate the material in class to that of Matthew’s
background and not his own.
Matthew’s story is a great example of how teachers use color-blindness in the
classroom without realizing the harmful effects it can have on students. By ignoring his
student’s culture, Fingarsen (2006) was led to believe that his student was in need of
remedial help. Without becoming aware of his biases, Fingarsen may have continued to
treat Matthew as a remedial student, which could have had detrimental consequences,
such as Matthew losing interest in school or being placed in special education.
2. “I Treat Students as if They’re Like My Own Children” (Delpit, 1990).
It is not uncommon to hear teachers use this phrase when asked how they treat
their students. Teachers may feel comparing their students to their own children proves
they do not treat students with a certain bias. As well-intentioned as this statement may
131
be, it also implies that teachers expect their students to have the same knowledge and
background as their own children, and in theory, themselves. For many White teachers
working in pre-dominantly non-White school systems, the misconception that students
have the same knowledge as their own children can lead to many obstacles. When
teachers instruct their students based on what they believe, they should already know
some students may get left behind. In other words, “the child who did not come to school
already primed with what was to be presented would be labeled as needing ‘remedial’
instruction from day one; indeed, this determination would be made before he or she was
ever taught” (Delpit, 1990, p. 91). Students as early as kindergarten get held back due to
this type of approach.
By taking this approach, teachers are not recognizing differences in culture and
again may impose their own culture onto their students. For example, if a White student
threw a book on the floor and the White teacher asked the student whether or not the
book belonged on the floor, the White student would most likely pick up on the cue to
pick up the book or get in trouble. A student from a different culture may not
comprehend a subtle hint and may take the question at face value, leading them to not
pick up the book. Something so simple could lead to some students getting labeled as
troublemakers when in fact it could be something as simple as a more direct response
from the teacher such as “please pick up the book.” Because of the cultural difference
between a teacher and a student, a student may not pick up on these veiled commands
(Delpit, 1990, p. 93) and as a result could be labeled as having behavioral problems.
132
3. Just Another “Kid Put-down” (Lewis, 2001).
Amanda E. Lewis (2001) found clear examples of color-blind racism from the
ethnographic case study that she conducted at Foresthills Elementary. Lewis’s study
found that White students learn racist thoughts and behaviors from their parents and
schooling ideology. Color-blind racism was most apparent when racial conflicts occurred
between students as well as explaining the multicultural curriculum of the school. For
example, when the only biracial child in a fourth-grade class was called “N . . .” by a
White student and soon after “Blackie” by another White student, the teachers and
principal explained to Lewis that the child was “misunderstanding” the significance of
race in these situations. The teacher further explained that the child would often play the
“race card” in her reasons why she didn’t like school. The teachers were minimizing
racism by explaining that the child misunderstood the comments and by claiming that
race was not the reason for the child’s unhappiness. By not taking the opportunity to
educate the children on the harmful effect of the words used, the children were left with
no understanding of what racism or racist acts are. This example demonstrates the
teacher’s tolerance for the use of racial slurs as just being like another “kid put-down”
(Lewis, 2001). The biracial child was viewed by the teachers as the one who had the
problem and was making a big deal out of nothing. Acts such as this can lead a child to
lose interest in school, detach from others, and decrease his/her academic performance.
Color-blindness ideologies held by teachers are rooted in the claim that teachers
do not see color, but just children. A teacher from a different school claimed that she
“would not even be able to tell how many African-American, Latino or Asian students
she had in her class because she just did not ‘notice’ such things” (Lewis, 2001, p. 792).
133
Later in the same interview the teacher explained she felt that Blacks and Latinos did not
have the same sense of success or concept of what success is compared to White and
Asian students. As often occurs with color-blind ideology, the teacher who claimed not to
see race also held racial biases based on stereotypes. She claimed to support equal
treatment of all her students, but at the same time she separates the meaning of success by
racial groups.
The teacher’s lack of support for multi-cultural education was another example of
the color-blind ideology used at Foresthills Elementary. As part of Lewis’s (2001)
ethnographic study, she posed questions about the multicultural curriculum in the school.
The teachers’ and principal responded that their school was not diverse, therefore, race
was not an issue and multi-cultural activities were not important for their students. This
finding demonstrates the color-blind view that race is only an issue for people of color.
The teachers’ and principal’s color-blindness was being used as a reason for not
incorporating cultural, ethnic, or racial differences in their curriculum, thus limiting the
education of their students. Without a multi-cultural curriculum, students do not learn
how to view the world through different lenses, which can lead to the continuation of
institutional racism through the education system. A multi-cultural curriculum places
value on race, ethnicity, and cultural practices that allows students to appreciate
differences in our society. The standard curriculum can help perpetuate the belief that
White cultures and lessons are the only ones of value and are the “right” lessons to teach.
The color-blind ideologies of teachers are further supported within the curriculum and
classroom resources, including textbooks, toys, lesson plans, and large-group activities.
134
Color-blindness is also prevalent in most school curriculums as well as many
lesson plans and student activities. Teachers do not recognize the diversity in their
classroom and implement lessons that cater primarily to White middle-class students.
Many teachers in elementary and middle schools focus on a curriculum that is geared to
White students and, as a result, students of color develop tendencies of dissatisfaction
with school because they feel that the material presented is not relevant to them.
In the current curriculum, teachers focus on the basic subjects such as
mathematics, reading/language arts, science, and social studies. Teachers do not focus on
nor implement multiculturalism in their classrooms. Many feel they are being sensitive to
both students of color as well as White students by the textbooks they use in their
classrooms. Most textbooks have pictures portraying White students studying as well as
being the heroes throughout history. The problem with these textbooks is that they
solidify racial stereotypes in children and are an example of tokenism. In many
textbooks, the portrayal of students of color is not accurate, which can be seen as another
example of perpetuating stereotypes. For example, in many children’s books, students of
color are depicted as having really bad hair or exaggerated lips.
Even though research has demonstrated that the current curriculum taught in the
educational system can be detrimental to the development of children, it continues to be
used throughout the country. Changing the curriculum to add multiculturalism would be
like opening Pandora’s Box. Many teachers are not ready for that change, and others fear
the questions that may arise in their classrooms. Many find it easier to follow a
curriculum that has been implemented from previous years than having to integrate a new
one where one may not be prepared for the challenges. In addition, many teachers are not
135
equipped with the necessary knowledge to bring multiculturalism into their classroom
and others feel that it is not necessary due to their color-blind approach.
Due to the use of color-blind teaching in schools, students, particularly White
students, learn to “mask” or “disregard” race, while simultaneously absorbing the racially
based stereotypes as facts. The color-blind approach teaches children that racism is over
and therefore they are unable to recognize the institutional inequalities that people of
color face. Students do not learn the historical and present racism that allows for the
inequalities to exist. Instead, students learn to put the blame on the individual and adopt
the belief that we all have the same opportunity to succeed. For example, many White
students put the blame on people of color for the achievement gap in the educational
system.
Color-blindness can have psychologically damaging effects on children in the
classroom and beyond, specifically on those who are marginalized by their ethnicity. One
major psychological effect that color-blindness has on children is a loss of identity. When
people do not recognize who you are and your differences from other students it can
create a very stressful environment and cause students of color to question their identity
and try to fit in with mainstream White society. Most of us find our identity based on how
other people perceive us. People of color are constantly being left out of school textbooks
and popular media, which ultimately reinforces White society as the norm. When people
of color are portrayed through these outlets, it is usually in a negative way. Most color-
blind teachers do not realize that they represent some races and ethnicities in a negative
way or don’t recognize them at all, and this can leave students feeling left out. It is
136
important for teachers to understand the importance of identity development in their
students and how it differs for students due to their culture.
Bonilla-Silva (2003a) and Tatum (1997) remind us that our failure to engage in a
conversation about race and to suggest that we now reside in a color-blind society is
problematic and potentially destructive. Such shortcomings only further silence the
voices of those on the margins who continually seek inclusion in schools and society.
Teacher Mis-Match
Teachers in general have to realize that they are going to continue to come into
contact with students whose cultural, ethnic, linguistic, racial, and social class
backgrounds differ from their own. Furthermore, United States schools continue to
become learning spaces where an increasingly homogeneous teaching population (e.g.,
mostly White, female, and middle class) comes into contact with an increasingly
heterogeneous student population (e.g., primarily students of color from low-income
backgrounds).
The next theme that emerged for the analysis of the data was Teacher Mis-Match.
Cultural mis-match can be defined as a discrepancy between the conditions, needs, and
means of the people, based largely upon the culture one is brought up in and the inability
of another to relate to that particular upbringing (Latham, 1999). One such cultural mis-
match researched was that of teachers and students:
A cultural mis-match among African American school students and their teachers,
due to diverse values, norms, and expectations, often provokes inappropriate
teacher response to student conduct, thereby inciting disruptive student behavior.
The management of this diversity, when the environment is devoid of a teacher’s
sensitivity to the student’s life, can impact student’s behavior, and ultimately,
initiate alternative school referral. (Berger, 2006, p. 832)
137
Teachers in the study were asked to share their perspectives on ways they feel that
the cultural background and prior experience of a teacher influenced their decisions to
refer a Black student to special education. Teachers shaped the foundation for this theme
by noting that the majority of the teachers in Connecticut are White, female, and from
middle-class backgrounds. Moreover, teachers reported that there is a mis-match between
student and teacher. Specifically, they commented that teachers are mostly from middle-
class backgrounds, while the student population is Black or of color and from low-
income backgrounds. They further noted that the cultural background of a teacher is
important.
Teachers also felt that there are pre-conceived ideas and assumptions about
students and families. Mr. Trapper noted, “Teachers need to be culturally aware of their
students. If teachers do not have the understanding of various cultural backgrounds, there
is a strong possibility that assumptions and judgments will be made about students. There
is a disconnection between the student and teacher.” Teachers further shared that there is
a cultural mis-match between teachers and students. Mr. Mathews acknowledged that the
cultural awareness of a teacher is important. He further commented, “A teacher does not
necessarily need to be of color to teach students of color, but they need to have a clear
understanding of their own culture and understand the various cultures of their students.”
Miss Brown pointed out, “There is a mis-match between teacher and student
population and mis-perception about cultures.” Miss Griffin reported, “A teacher’s
background is critical to a Black student being referred to special education. As teachers,
we teach who we are and see things through our individual lenses and experiences. To
some degree, I feel that many teachers attempt to rid a student of their own individual
138
cultures.” She followed up with, “Some teachers want students of color to conform to
their ways of thinking and behaviors.” Mrs. Griffin felt that many teachers do not know
anything about the culture of their students. Teachers do not take the necessary time to
get to know students in order to build relationships and to learn about their cultures.”
In addition, teachers in this study confirmed that the background of a teacher is
critical. “Many teachers expressed that as teachers, we teach who we are—middle-class
White teachers.” Miss Vaughters mentioned, “I feel that some teachers may try to rid
students of their individual cultures—to assimilate to the dominant culture.” Teachers
noted that many of the teachers in their schools/districts are White and do not take the
time to get to know their students of color and their families. A majority of the teachers
interviewed see a teacher’s background as being critical to a Black student being referred
to special education. It was further noted that some teachers also feel that they are helping
Black students by referring them to special education. However, there can be a long-term
negative impact for those students. The label that we give students is forever. It was
further noted that there are teachers who have never had experiences with Black students
and families prior to teaching in this district.
Teachers in the study shared that there is an unwillingness of teachers to teach all
students. Miss Johnson maintained, “Schools are not designed for Black students.” She
continued, “Special education is a superficial means of addressing the real issue of race.”
Miss Johnson further noted that the racial “elephant” needs to be put on the table for
discussion. Teachers reported that racism is alive in schools. However, it has taken on
other forms of segregation from the mainstream such as tracking, grouping practices, and
139
special education—keeping students of color from receiving an equitable education in the
general education classroom environment.
Teachers were surprised that the over-representation of Black students in special
education has been a persistent concern for more than 40 years. Teachers shaped this
theme by noting that CC About Race has provided them with a different perspective of
the over-representation of Black students in special education. They reported that the
seminars have caused a greater understanding of the intersection between race and
education. Feelings that assumptions have been made about Black students’ ability to
learn and achieve were evident in my interviews with teachers.
Teachers in the study overall expressed that a teacher's cultural background
experience significantly contributes to Black students being referred to special education.
They felt that the understanding of cultural differences, norms, values, and behaviors by
the teacher helps to reduce the number of students of color being referred to special
education. Mr. Mathew maintained, “Many teachers have limited experience with other
cultures and come with their own biases and assumptions.”
Miss Ellis pointed out that she saw a teacher’s background as being critical to a
Black student being referred to special education. She mentioned that there are teachers
who have never had experiences with Black students and families prior to teaching in this
district. Miss Ellis shared that she regretted to admit that in many cases she was working
from what she thought she knew, based on college, professional development trainings,
experiences, and conversations with colleagues. She concluded, “I think that there is a
fear that comes over teachers that something has to be done.”
140
Teachers in the study continued to make the point that, as teachers, they teach
according to what they know about their own culture and norms. Conversely, Miss Sutton
noted, “Teachers need to know how to make instructional changes and believe in their
students and their families.” She followed up by stating that teachers have to take the
time to get know their students, both academically and on a social-emotional level. Miss
Sutton asserted that building relationships with students and families is important. She
concluded that teachers must be able to reflect on their method of instruction and specific
strategies. In addition, they need to learn about the culture of their students.
Miss Norwood pointed out, “The prior knowledge and cultural experience are
critical.” She explained that she has been teaching in the district for the past 20-plus
years. Miss Norwood grew up in the town where she teaches and has seen the changes.
She passionately shared that she had to embrace the changes in the diversity of the
school’s student body. Miss Norwood noted that she is a better teacher today because she
was open to the diverse cultures of students and families.
Ladson-Billings (1995) noted that the contrasting teacher-and-student
demographics often lead to a “cultural mis-match” in which an increasing number of
teachers lack familiarity with cultural values, norms, and belief systems of their students.
The cultural background and experience of a teacher are very important. Comparing
demographic data between teachers and students, significant differences appear in the
United States. Eighty-six percent of American pre-service teachers are from European
backgrounds. It is predicted that, by the year 2020, student populations will include
predominately non-White students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds (Gay &
Howard, 2000). The researchers further noted that if the trend of European background
141
teachers continues, the great teacher-student mismatch will persist. Such a mismatch
between student and teacher demographics poses challenges for teachers to meet the
needs of so many diverse learners (Milner, 2005). Researchers contended that many
White educators have not acquired the necessary experiential and educational background
that would prepare them for the growing diversity of their students (Ladson-Billings,
2002; Vavrus, 2002).
The mis-match between student and teacher backgrounds accounts for differential
expectations as teachers struggle to understand the many backgrounds and abilities of the
students in their classrooms (Saft & Pianta, 2001). As Saft and Pianta found, the greater
the difference in background between the student and teacher, the more likely students
were to be referred for counseling. Such findings suggest that a level of comfort develops
between those with similar backgrounds. When students and teachers have similar
backgrounds, they tend to be more willing to find strategies within the classroom to
facilitate teacher-student interactions.
Most educators envision 21st-century schools as learning communities upon which
student differences are appreciated and capitalized. Effective teacher educators must
respond by preparing prospective and practicing teachers with the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions aligned with maximizing the learning of all students. In fact, “the myth of the
average learner has been shattered and teachers are recognizing the need to individualize
and honor the unique profiles of all students” (Kluth, Straut, & Biklen, 2003, p. 19).
Teacher educators need to prepare pre-service university students to enter a
classroom with the knowledge and resources to work with all school-aged children.
142
Referring to children in preschool through high-school environments, Kugelmass (2001)
states:
In schools with diverse student populations, poor educational performance is
greater among children from low-income, non-European American families than
among more affluent and/or dominant culture students. Within these schools, poor
and minority children are also over-represented among those classified for special
education and placed in separate special education classes. (p. 180)
Thus, teachers struggle to conceptualize the needs of students of different cultural
backgrounds and/or socioeconomic status, which can result in detrimental practices. As
such, teacher educators need to enable prospective teachers to be able to enter the
classroom and maximize the learning of all children, not just those of similar
backgrounds. Recent scholarship on creating inclusive settings provides insight into how
teacher educators can establish environments and communities for all children. Once they
understand inclusive practices, pre-service teachers may not be as profoundly affected by
the mis-match between their students’ and their own backgrounds.
In a 1997 interview, Patton described teachers as “cultural agents” and their
responsibility to students in this role.
Teachers need to understand that they are cultural agents; they bring their own
culture to the classroom and it influences how they perceive their students and
how students perceive them. They also need to be aware that their students are
cultural agents. Unfortunately, many teachers may either deny the role culture
plays in their classrooms or they are unaware of its importance. Lack of cultural
awareness is problematic when teachers and students have different cultural
backgrounds. When lack of understanding and lack of respect exists, conflicts
emerge. (Brownell & Walter-Thomas, 1997, p. 119)
Teachers today are faced with an overwhelming task of teaching an ever-
increasing population of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
(Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). The greater the differences in background between the student
and teacher, the more likely students were referred. Such findings suggest that a level of
143
comfort develops between those with similar backgrounds. When students and teachers
have similar backgrounds, they tend to be more willing to find strategies within the
classroom to facilitate teacher-student interactions (Saft & Pianta, 2001).
Gay (1994) maintained that teachers think that their own values, beliefs, and
action are the norm, and that what they know and what they teach is governed by learned
principles rather than informed and sympathetic understanding. She argued that because
of this lack of understanding, teachers can engage, consciously or unconsciously, in mis-
education practices.
As the United States endures its largest influx of immigrants, along with the
increasing number of U.S.-born ethnic minorities, the nation must be prepared to make
the necessary adjustments to face the changing ethnic texture of its citizens (Banks,
2002). The shift in ethnic demographics has important implications for schools and, more
importantly, for the classroom teacher.
When dealing with students from any different racial group, it is important to
understand the cultural aspects of that particular group. African-American students are
often viewed as being hostile in the education sphere and non-compliant (Watkins &
Kurtz, 2001). Actually, many students who are viewed as being hostile are not hostile in
any way. There are social-context clues that many teachers and adults miss and mix.
According to Watkins and Kurtz, the issue of discrimination from White teachers toward
African American students exists and is a problem. Many times African American
students are misunderstood through their body language and comments. Some educators
believe that when an African American child is talkative or outspoken, he or she has a
behavior problem, which leads to issues of over-representation.
144
Fifty years after Brown vs. Board of Education desegregated schools in an
attempt to equalize the social inequities facing African American students, they continue
to be underprivileged compared to their White counterparts in what remained largely
segregated schools (Orfield, 2001). Presently, students of color, with the exception of
some Asian groups, are at a distinct disadvantage. African American and Latino
students are more likely to drop out of school, obtain poor grades, occupy non-
academic tracks, and score lower on standardized tests, when compared to White students
(U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
Largely homogeneous teaching forces serve a base of students with a variety of
ethnic, linguistic, cultural, racial, and socioeconomic differences. Research suggests that
many teachers are not prepared to deal with these growing groups of diverse students.
Questions are raised by researchers about the ability of the current teaching force to
adequately meet the needs of the growing number of students of color in the schools.
When examining race as a factor in differential treatment of students, there is
evidence that African American students are subject to this differential treatment. African
American students are treated less positively by teachers, are less likely to be labeled
“gifted,” and are subjected to more discrimination from teachers than are White students
(McCormick & Noriega, 1986). In the primary grades, teachers rate Black children as
having more behavior problems and fewer academic competencies in the first 2 years of
school (Sbarra & Pianta, 2001). Talbert-Johnson (2001) noted that general education
systems still operate from a Eurocentric perspective and that educators are not often
equipped to deal with different cultures, lifestyles, and values in their classrooms.
145
Grossman (1995) concluded that prejudice and discrimination against non-
European Americans and lower income students is rampant and that much of the
prejudice is unconscious. Additionally, Artiles (1998) remarked, “Ethnic minority
groups have been traditionally seen as ‘problem people’ and that discrimination,
prejudice and racism are subtly and openly enacted every day in our country” (p. 32).
During the study, only one participant remarked that the over-representation in her
school district could be caused by racism.
There is a substantial body of literature about the kinds of instruction/pedagogy
that best meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Gay, 2000;
Ladson-Billings, 2001; Sleeter, 2001; Villegas, 1991). Classroom teachers who utilize
culturally relevant pedagogy as a framework for their instruction build upon “ the
cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of
ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective
for them” (Ladson-Billings, 2001, pp. 73-74). Culturally relevant pedagogy builds on the
premise that the ways in which people learn differ across cultures. In order to maximize
learning opportunities for all students, teachers must gain knowledge about the cultures
represented in their classrooms. Then, they need to translate this knowledge into their
instructional practice (Villegas, 1991).
Tatum stated to Sparks (2004, p. 49) that academic success of students of color
was critically dependent on quality relationships with their teachers and the other adults
in school. Ladson-Billings (1994) concurs in Dreamkeepers. Teachers with the ability to
cultivate relationships and get to know their students beyond the boundaries of the
146
classroom were more effective. Other research studies (Gay, 2000) supported Ladson-
Billings (1994).
Ferguson (2003) noted that content, pedagogy, and relationships affect how well
ethnic and racial minority students learn. He contends that research has found that
students’ relationship with their teachers differs by their backgrounds and affects their
overall academic achievement. Sather and Henze (2001) concluded that understanding
the students who walk within the hallways of schools is as important as the level of skills
each teacher brings with him or her. Building positive relationships can be linked to
increased student achievement. Schools can improve racial relations between principals,
teachers, parents, students, and the community by building bridges across the great racial
gap, thus implying the importance of reaching and developing strong interpersonal
relationships before teaching (Sather & Henze, 2001). The concept of caring has long
played a key role in making connections and reaching Black students. It allows educators
time to gain insights into the background and lives of the students they serve. This form
of individual and cultural examination leads to stronger ties to improve human
relationships and increase student achievement.
Research has shown that when teachers have developed caring and supportive
interpersonal relationships with students, they have more positive academic attitudes, and
are more satisfied with school (Felner et al., 1997). In addition, students with caring and
supportive teachers are more engaged academically (Voelkl, 1995).
147
Affirming a Need for Ongoing Professional Development
The next theme that emerged from analysis of the rich data was Affirming a Need
for Ongoing Professional Development, with the following subheadings: (a) Professional
Development on Different Cultures; and (b) Professional Development on Special
Education. Professional development for teachers (i.e., staff development, in-service
education, continuing education, teacher training) is an experience shaped by the
willingness and readiness for change by educators, families, and other stakeholders.
There is no single "ideal" model that meets every school’s/district’s needs and
requirements. The diversity of cultures and the uniqueness of concerns are thus
acknowledged and valued. Effective professional development is an essential and
indispensable process, without which schools and programs cannot hope to achieve their
desired goals for student achievement. Never before in the history of education has there
been a greater recognition of the importance of professional development.
Teachers in this study shared that many schools and teachers are not prepared to
meet an ever-changing diverse population of students. They noted that CC About Race
affirmed a need for ongoing professional training about different cultures. They
commented that the seminars brought to the surface a need for training to assist teachers
with effective instructional strategies and an understanding of different cultures, norms,
and values. Teachers maintained that there is a significant need for professional
development in the areas of race, diversity, culturally relevant instruction, and racial
equity.
Mrs. Griffin noted that there is a need for teacher training—more targeted
professional development. Furthermore, Miss Cohen contended that additional teacher
148
training on Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRT) needed to be provided to teachers and
schools. Miss Vaughters commented, “Teacher training is essential. Training specifically
needed to be provided on different cultures.” Miss Ryan pointed out that “our classrooms
are more diverse and ever-changing. Teacher training is needed to meet the changing
demands.” Cohen expressed the need for additional resources for curriculum materials,
teacher training on CRT.
The demographic shifts in the student population along with accountability
legislation have led to changes in school curriculum and instruction. Schools are being
held accountable for the improved achievement of all students. However, meeting the
educational needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds is a
major challenge for most teachers.
Professional Development on Different Cultures
Several teachers maintained that schools need to discuss cultural differences,
linguistic, and racial biases in the referral and assessment processes in order to ensure
that students are being served appropriately. Teachers reported that ELL students are
automatically referred to special education based on language alone. Mrs. Vitale noted,
“Students are referred to special education because of language and low reading skills.”
Teachers reported that there is confusion as to whether or not a student has a language
issue or a disability. They noted that this was also an area of need for professional
development.
Miss Stewart stated, “Teachers need ongoing sustained professional
development.” She followed up by adding, “Assumptions and decisions are made every
day about students based on the ethnicity of students.” Teachers also maintained that the
149
student’s appearance, where the child lives, and language that is spoken at home can
justify a referral to special education. Miss Green followed up by adding, “I am a better
teacher today because I am open to the diverse cultures of my students and families.” She
further noted that there is a need for school districts to provide more professional
development on distinguishing disabilities from cultural differences and language.
Teachers in the study shaped this theme by sharing that many teachers and
schools as a whole have placed extremely low expectations upon Black students. Feelings
that assumptions have been made regarding a Black student's ability to learn and achieve,
based solely on their skin color, socioeconomic status, and behaviors were evident. Miss
James further maintained, “Low expectations, assumptions, and names determine the
placement of students.”
Teachers described their experience with CC About Race as affirming a need for
additional cultural awareness and diversity training for general and special education
teachers. They also discussed a need to look at recruitment efforts to attract more teacher
candidates from diverse backgrounds. Teachers also mentioned that there is a need for
additional training on various cultures. They asserted that there are many unconscious
practices in schools that are racist. Teachers reported that their colleges and universities
did not prepare them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to educate
diverse learners. They maintained a need for additional professional development on
different cultures. Several noted that teacher training is essential.
Miss Norwood noted that there is a need for additional training on various
cultures. She further remarked, “There are many practices in schools that are racist; some
I feel are conscious and others unconscious (e.g., tracking, grouping practices).” Teachers
150
need ongoing professional development in order to increase their cultural awareness.
Mrs. Carter commented that she would recommend that Connecticut provide additional
funding to schools in order for them to purchase curriculum materials that represent the
diversity all of our students. She further mentioned that the state should provide ongoing
training for teachers on different cultures. There needs to be a revision of the Connecticut
Mastery Test to reflect culturally responsive teaching and the diversity in our schools.
In today’s schools, teachers must be prepared to teach a diverse population of
students. Incorporating the student’s social, cultural, and language backgrounds, when
planning and implementing lessons, promotes an increase in academic achievement.
Therefore teachers need to have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create democratic
classrooms and to implement a culturally responsive and inclusive curriculum (Gay,
2000). Teacher education faculties have traditionally mirrored the cultural and
socioeconomic backgrounds of their students. Teacher educators are overwhelmingly
White (Grant & Gillette, 1987). Teacher education has begun to recognize that racial and
ethnic diversity among faculty is imperative when preparing teachers for diverse
classrooms (Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 2000).
Professional Development on Race and the
Special Education Process
Teachers in this study maintained that “there is a need for professional
development on race and the special education process.” They further shared that there is
still confusion about the special education process and its purpose. Several teachers
commented that there is a need to seriously take a look at the issues of racism in schools.
Teachers further noted, “As educators, we need to take a holistic view at students to
ensure that they are in fact in need of special education before they are actually labeled.”
151
They shared that the state should look at recruiting more teachers of color. In addition,
teachers should intervene earlier˗˗third grade is too late.
Miss Ellis mentioned that training is needed in the process for equity in special
education. It was further noted by Miss Brown that there is a need for additional training
on diversity and race issues for special and general education teachers. Mr. Tripper
declared that all schools needed to participate in CC About Race. He stated, “There is so
much that schools and teachers do not know.”
Large numbers of African American students are being persistently diagnosed as
disabled and placed in special education programs. For many, these students are
inappropriately placed. A large percentage of African American students fall into the
labeled categories of mild mental disability, learning disability, and serious emotional or
behavioral disability (J. Patton, 1998). In fact, Zhang and Katsiyannis (2002) reported
that African Americans continue to have the highest representation of all groups of
special education. The Office of Civil Rights argues that strong evidence shows the
continuance of one primary disability category for the overall excess of African
American children in high-incidence disability categories. This category is mental
retardation. Furthermore, J. Patton (1998) states that it has been well documented that
African American males are particularly over-represented both in disciplinary practices
and in certain special education categories and typically receive their special education
services in segregated classrooms or buildings. In addition, Patton states that the special
education label borne by these students often serves as a stigma, producing a negative
effect on the bearer of the label and others interacting with the stigmatized individual.
152
These students in special education programs miss essential general education academic
and social curricula.
Oswald et al. (1999) noted that the number of court and monitoring actions have
challenged and attempted to influence the evaluation and placement of students
representing diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, especially African
Americans. This over-representation of African American students in special education
programs can be found through “literature being filled with causal factors that range from
failure of the general education system to inequities associated with the special education
process” (J. Patton, 1998, pp. 25-30). IDEA (P.L.105-17) requires a school district to (a)
report annually the extent of minority representation by disability category, (b) determine
if significant disproportionality exists, and (c) if observed, review and revise policies,
practices, and procedures in identification or placement to ensure that minority children
are not inappropriately identified or served in more restrictive settings.
Recent investigations have suggested that minority representation in special
education is linked to low income, discrimination, or cultural bias in referral and
assessment, unique factors related directly to ethnicity, and/or school-based factors
(Oswald et al., 1999). Because of these contributing factors, an over- and under-
representation debate has developed that affects the referral, identification, and placement
process of special-needs students. The debate continuously points to issues that are
grounded in socio-culturally deprived children (Valles, 1998). These specific issues deal
with race, ethnicity, gender, religion, culture, socioeconomic class, and language/dialect
differences.
153
The intent of IDEA and other special education laws is and was to address the
special and individual needs of students who do not appear to benefit from general
education programs and services, including curriculum and instruction—to provide
specialized services to students who require additional supports and different services
beyond what is offered in the general education. In addition, IDEA was intended to both
regulate and be applied to all children, regardless of disability category and severity, and
regardless of demographic variables (i.e., race, gender, income, or socioeconomic status),
the provision of educational services that are specific to their needs.
Reducing over-representation of children of African American descent in
special education is a matter of a successful school environment and the ability to
distinguish disabilities from so-called cultural differences (Meyer & Patton, 2001). The
number of students with culturally diverse backgrounds, like African Americans,
continues to increase every day in the school systems. Diversity in general may cause and
present significant challenges for the educational world. Kea and Utley (1998) describe
the seriousness of the eruption of social consciousness about the savage inequalities faced
by minorities and poor children in many American urban schools. Schools that participate
in these actions judge African American students as having learning deficits and limited
potential and place these students disproportionately in low-track, remedial programs.
According to Banks (1992), multiculturalism education is a reform movement
designed to bring about educational equity for all students, including those from different
races, ethnic groups, social classes, exceptionality, and sexual orientation. How teachers
perceive, believe, say, and do can disable or empower multicultural students with
disabilities. All teachers must be knowledgeable about cultural diversity, even if they do
154
not teach in communities involving multiculturalism. As noted by Kea and Utley (1998),
the lack of teacher awareness of their own ethnocentric views and their limited cultural
competence regarding minority and diverse students inhibit their ability to effectively
engage students and families from different backgrounds.
Current trends in public school enrollment and teacher characteristics (National
Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2001) indicate the overwhelming
probability that Black children will experience mostly White teachers in their
education. At the same time, however, a review of the literature (Cooper, 2001)
suggests that relatively little is known about effective White public school
teachers of Black children. A notable exception are [sic] the three White teachers
described in Ladson-Billings’s (1994a) study of successful teachers of African
American children. There is, however, a substantive and growing body of
literature on effective Black teachers of Black children, which could be relied on to
support White teachers in their efforts to teach across racial lines. Nonetheless,
this research remains largely unaccounted for in the general literature on effective
praxis. (Cooper, 2003, p. 413)
Ray-Taylor, Baskerville, Bruder, Bennett, and Schulte (2006) noted that when
educators examine data about which students are not achieving, they may uncover
underlying issues of race, class, and gender. Furthermore, the researchers mentioned that
educators already have more data than they need. However, what is missing is the
ownership of their students’ data. The researchers concluded that professional
development must focus not only on pedagogy and curriculum, but also on educators’
relationships with and beliefs about students (Ferguson, 2002). Singleton and Linton
(2006a) stated that discussions must be expanded to include other variables, such as
socioeconomic class, language preference, and the relationship between race and student
achievement and its impact on classroom practices.
In conclusion, teacher education programs and professional development efforts
must prepare teachers to work with culturally diverse students, namely Black students.
These efforts must focus on teacher expectations in a myriad of forms (e.g., biases,
155
stereotypes, fears, etc.), so that deficit thinking and orientation are reduced and, ideally,
eliminated. Teachers must participate in ongoing substantive self-reflection, and examine
their biases toward and expectations of Black students. Ninety percent of U.S. public
school teachers are White; most grew up and attended school in middle-class, English-
speaking, predominantly White communities and received their teacher preparation in
predominantly White colleges and universities (Gay et al., 2003). Thus, many White
educators simply have not acquired the experiential and education background that would
prepare them for the growing diversity of their students (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Vavrus,
2002).
Summary
In this study, teachers discussed how and in what ways their processes, attitudes,
behaviors, and perceptions have changed as a result of their school’s/district’s
participation in SERC Program’s, CC About Race. They spoke about being more open
and comfortable discussing race and seeing the race of their students as oppose to saying,
“I do not see color.” Teachers expressed that CC About Race has also impacted their
instruction and interaction with students. They shared that instruction is now more
intentional and being planned more through the lenses of race.
The teachers spoke about the ever-changing demographics of our schools and that
teachers are not being adequately prepared to meet the challenges. They expressed a need
for ongoing professional development in the area of diversity and racial awareness.
Teachers noted that there is a cultural disconnect between teachers and students. They
discussed the impact of a teacher’s experience and cultural background. It was noted that
the majority of Connecticut’s teaching workforce is White and from a middle-class
156
background. They spoke about racism and racist practices that are ingrained in the fabric
of schools, and beliefs and assumptions about the abilities of Black students and their
families.
Teachers in the study spoke passionately about their intent to do what is in the
best interest of their students. They shared a desire to provide the extra support that
students needed to be successful in the classroom. Teachers noted that many Black
students are usually reading at a lower grade level and required additional support.
Several noted that many Black students needed and benefitted from small-group
instruction. They spoke of special education as a means of getting the extra support for
students. Teachers discussed the use of data to see the color of students—to give the data
a name and a face. They shared their own racial journey of self-discovery and the
sometimes difficult conversations about race and racism.
Teachers discussed the importance of their being culturally competent in order to
meet the demands of a changing diverse student population of students. Teachers
questioned the purpose of special education and wondered why a student needed to be
given a label in order to receive extra support. They discussed the dilemmas and
challenges they encounter as teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse
students. Several discussed the confusion that educators face in trying to distinguish a
learning disability from a language issue.
This study has the potential to assist educators in examining local policies,
practices, and philosophies regarding culturally responsive educational systems and to
inform pedagogical, curricular, and assessment practices. J. Patton (2001) contended that
the over-representation of Black students in special education is a matter of creating a
157
successful school environment for all students and accurately distinguishing disabilities
from so-called cultural differences, political influences, and social-economic factors. He
further stated that educators need to realize that the causes of low academic performance
and challenging behavior do not reside solely within the child or his/her family.
While this study showed promise for identifying factors contributing to the over-
representation of Black students in special education, engaging in courageous
conversations about race is clearly not an institutionalized practice in schools (Singleton
& Linton, 2006a). However, as we consider the statistical facts, it is difficult not to think
about racial inequality as a predominant factor causing today’s achievement gaps. It is
our responsibility as educators to garner the courage to disaggregate and interpret the data
through what Jacqueline Jordan Irvine (2003) calls the “cultural eye.” Only then can we
engage in Courageous Conversations About Race (Singleton & Linton, 2006a).
Teacher education programs and professional development efforts must prepare
teachers to work with culturally diverse students, namely Black students. These efforts
must focus on teacher expectations in a myriad of forms (e.g., biases, stereotypes, fears,
etc.) so that deficit thinking and orientation are reduced and, ideally, eliminated. Teachers
must participate in ongoing substantive self-reflection, and examine their bias relative to
expectations of Black students.
158
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The disproportionate representation of Black students in special education has
been among the most persistent unsolved issues in the field of education, defying a
simple explanation for its causes and remedies. The problem has been well documented
in empirical literature, since Dunn’s (1968) seminal article on the over-representation of
minorities in special education. Yet, to date, many of the same problematic issues
identified over four decades ago are still prevalent throughout all levels of education.
Research Questions
1. How do teachers describe the classroom challenges that lead them to refer
students to special education?
2. How do teachers describe the changes in their processes, attitudes, and
behaviors as a result of their district’s participation in Courageous Conversations About
Race?
Research Design
Qualitative research, a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena
as they appear in natural settings (J. Patton, 2001), is described as an umbrella concept
covering an array of interpretative techniques to come to terms with the meaning, not the
159
frequency, of natural phenomena in the social world. Qualitative research, broadly
defined, means “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of
statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 17)
and, instead, the kind of research that produces findings arrived at from real-world
settings where the phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally (J. Patton, 2001, p. 39).
Qualitative research is used to gain insight into people's attitudes, behaviors, value
systems, concerns, motivations, aspirations, culture, or lifestyles.
Purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2003) was used to select participants who were
informationally rich and able to provide useful information for addressing the research
questions (J. Patton, 2001). Sixteen teachers from three school districts located in District
Reference Group H were selected for this qualitative study and also participated in the
SERC’s program, Courageous Conversation About Race. Other criteria for their
eligibility were: teaching fourth grade 3 or more years; a balance of gender,
race/ethnicity; and a considerable numbers of referrals of Black students to special
education. Each teacher chosen for the study had more than 3 years’ teaching experience,
and some had as many as 15 to 30 years’ teaching experience. The names of each of the
teachers and research sites have been changed to protect their identities.
As previously noted, teachers selected to participate in the study were all from
three school districts located in District Reference Group (DRG) H. Data collection
consisted of interviews and a review of special education data submitted to the
Connecticut State Department of Education from schools in District Reference Group H,
specifically, School District A, School District B, and School District C (see Appendix E
for full DRGs description). District Reference Group (DRG) is a classification of districts
160
whose students' families are similar in education, income, occupation, and need, and that
have roughly similar enrollment. The Connecticut State Board of Education approved
DRG classification for purposes of reporting data other than student performance. DRGs
are based on the following seven variables: income, education, occupation, family
structure, poverty, home language, and district enrollment. They include nine groups
from Group A (e.g., very affluent, low-need suburban districts) to Group I (e.g., high-
need, low socioeconomic status urban districts).
The study included 16 semi-structured individual interviews with 16 fourth-grade
teachers at their schools (Merriam, 1998) who participated in SERC’s program,
Courageous Conversations About Race. Questions asked during the semi-structured
interviews with teachers were open-ended to allow for in-depth responses. Some
responses led to additional questions, which enabled the respondents to elaborate further
on their answers, thereby adding to the richness of the descriptions contained in this
analysis. A set protocol for all interviews was followed in an attempt to address the
research questions, while still allowing for dialogue and discussion to take place.
Merriam (1998) noted that as the researcher conducts interviews, the main purpose is to
obtain information of a special kind (p. 71). Conducting interviews requires the
researcher to listen to what people have to say about their activities, their feelings, and
their lives (Eisner, 1998, p. 183).
I followed the process outlined by both Creswell (2003) and J. Patton (2001) for
data analysis, which included identifying key words and phrases, organizing the
information thematically, interpreting the meanings of phrases, and analyzing the
meanings for what they revealed. The goal of this approach is to uncover the meaning
161
that an individual attributes to his or her understanding in a systematic way, using themes
or clusters of data.
Theoretical Framework
Critical Race Theory suggested that over-representation cannot be solved without
carefully considering how the racism experienced by Blacks drives the process (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Hilliard (1999) noted that the
knowledge and skills to educate all children already exist. However, the will of society to
teach all children is questionable. Hilliard further concluded that because we have lived
historically in an oppressive society, educational issues tend to be framed as technical
issues, which denies their political origin and meaning.
CRT is an approach that seeks to transform the relationship that exists among
race, racism, and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Given the often subtle way in
which race and racism operate, it is imperative that educational researchers explore the
role of race when examining the educational experiences of Black students. CRT is a
useful perspective from which to explore such phenomena.
This study discussed ways that the five prominent tenets of CRT, namely Counter
Storytelling, Permanence of Racism, Whiteness as Property, Interest Convergence, and
Critique of Liberalism, can be helpful in illuminating institutional policies, practices, and
structures that promote racism and racial inequity in schools, specifically as they relate to
the referral of Black students to special education.
The data revealed that four of the five prominent tenets of CRT were evident in
the results of interviews with teachers. The specific tenets included, Counter Storytelling,
Permanence of Racism, Interest Convergence, and Critique of Liberalism.
162
Counter Storytelling focuses on a narrative that shines the spotlight on racism to
counter accepted notions or myths held by members of the majority culture. Teachers in
this study spoke negatively about students and their families. They appeared to not feel
the need to filter their comments. Teachers shared that many families do not care about
their students or their education. Furthermore, the teachers in this study mentioned that
families are never available to attend parent/teacher conferences, or other school events.
In an attempt to counter comments made by teachers, I asked if they ever considered that
many Black families have to work two and three jobs in order to support their children
and to make ends meet? The comments from teachers seemed to be based on stereotypes
and their own personal beliefs, values, and norms.
Another one of the basic premises of CRT is the permanence of racism in society
or as Bell (1992) states, “Racism is a permanent component of American life” (p. 13).
Many of teachers’ comments in this study were embedded with the permanence of
racism. Teachers in this study had low expectations of Black students and seemed to
think that they could not achieve high academic standards. Teachers mentioned that many
Black students needed a different curriculum, other than the high-quality curriculum that
other students are receiving. They also made assumptions about Black students (e.g.,
Black students do not belong in gifted programs, Black students are referred to special
education in order to get the extra support and help they need). Teachers in this study
seemed to be unaware of their own racial consciousness, prejudices, and biases.
The next tenet of CRT is interest convergence or self-interest. Bell (1980)
contends that these very basic rights came only inasmuch as they converged with the self-
interests of Whites. Citing the limited and uncertain gains of the Brown decision, Bell
163
articulated that losses in terms of human capital by way of the dismissal of scores of
Black teachers and administrators, school closings in Black neighborhoods, and the
limited access to high-quality curricula in the form of tracking, inflated admissions
criteria, and other factors, have made the so-called “gains” from Brown questionable.
Many teachers in this study mentioned that Black students are usually referred to special
education to get the necessary help that they need. They discussed that Black students
work best in small-group settings and benefit from one-on-one instruction. In referring
Black students to special education, students will be essentially removed from the general
education classroom. Teachers in turn would have smaller classes and be able to focus
on those students who are reading on grade level, are well behaved, and are able to follow
the norms and expectations of the classroom.
The last tenet of CRT is the critique of liberalism (Williams, 1997), as in (a) the
notion of color-blindness; (b) neutrality of the law; and (c) incremental change. Equal
opportunity for all without favoritism is a desirable goal to pursue; however, given the
history of racism in the U.S., rights and opportunities were both awarded and withheld
based almost exclusively on race. The notion of color-blindness fails to take into
consideration the persistence and permanence of racism and the construction of people of
color as “Other.” There was evidence of the critique of liberalism in the interview
responses of teachers in regard to the notion of color-blindness. Teachers in this study
commented that they did not see the color of their students. All of the students were
viewed as the same. Living in a politically correct society, teachers appeared to have
thought that not seeing the color of their students was the most appropriate response to
164
make. However, they did not seem to realize that by saying that they did not see the
color of their students was admitting that they do not see their students.
Results
This study used a qualitative research study method to examine how teachers
described their working environment to provide services for students and how teachers
described the ways they provide services for students has changed as a result of their
school’s/district’s participation in Courageous Conversations About Race. Several broad
themes emerged from one-on-one semi-structured interviews with teachers. The four
predominant themes that emerged included: (a) A Teacher’s Dilemma; (b) I See Color
Now; (c) Teacher Mis-Match; and (d) Affirming a Need for Ongoing Professional
Development.
Research Question #1: How do teachers describe the classroom challenges that
lead them to refer students to special education? This question is answered primarily by
the theme “A Teacher’s Dilemma.”
A Teacher’s Dilemma
The teachers in this study described their work environment to provide services
for students as one filled with complex decisions that rely on many different kinds of
knowledge and judgment. On a daily basis you find them managing between three to four
reading groups, teaching below-grade-level students, large class sizes, dealing with
challenging student behaviors, school and district priorities, and federal mandates and
regulations. The teachers in this study expressed that they constantly are being challenged
with a range of dilemmas from designing differentiated lesson plans to meet the
individual needs of their students, to the organization and management of their
165
classrooms. They are repeatedly in a dilemma regarding the implementation of various
instructional strategies and methods to meet students’ needs. The teachers noted that
when students need extra support beyond what they can provide in the general education
classroom, or when students are not making academic progress, they are in a dilemma as
to what to do and which services would be most appropriate for the student.
The teachers in this study also reported that they are confronted every day with
the dilemma of getting extra support for students who are not making progress in the
general classroom setting. They further noted that special education was a means of
getting additional academic support for struggling students. The teachers shared that
many of their students required small-group or one-on-one instruction. Several teachers
mentioned that they referred students to special education to get the necessary support
they need. In addition, they contended that students of color are referred to special
education because that it is the only way they will get the extra help needed.
Given that the average class size consists of 20 to 25 students, this makes it
difficult to provide students with the attention that they need in the general education
classroom. The implications of large, crowded classrooms are all too clear—issues with
classroom management, time on task, and opportunities to provide students with
individualized attention are all compromised. Challenging classroom behavior is an
especially demanding issue for many of the teachers in this study. The teachers reported
that they are persistently confronted with behavioral issues and are in a dilemma as they
attempt to balance providing effective instruction and classroom management.
The teachers in this study pointed out that Black students are referred to special
education because of behavior and assumptions by the teachers. They further noted that
166
their decision as a teacher to refer a student to special education is not a decision that is
taken lightly. In addition, they reported that they do everything possible to meet the
individual needs of students prior to a referral for special education is considered.
The teachers in this study remarked that they are also often in a dilemma in
meeting the needs of students with language and reading concerns. They commented that
students are referred to special education because of language and low reading skills.
Teachers further pointed out that students with English as a Second Language (ESL) are
often automatically referred to special education based on language alone. They also
reported that many of their Black students are reading below grade level (e.g., reading on
the first- or second-grade level) and have issues with language and speech. The teachers
noted that they also face dilemmas when students are not performing as well as other
students in the classroom and students are often referred to special education because of
their inability to produce what is expected of them academically.
To further shape the theme of a Teacher’s Dilemma, the teachers in this study
reported that there are different beliefs about Black students and low expectations. They
commented that Black students are not expected to achieve because of low expectations
that are placed upon them by schools and a mostly White teaching staff. The teachers
shared that the majority of teachers are not a cultural, racial, or socioeconomic reflection
of American’s changing student demographics.
The teachers in this study further pointed out that a teacher’s knowledge and
experience of the various cultures of his/her students are essential. They expressed that
they help to build a positive relationship between teacher and student. Several teachers
remarked that it is important for students to feel that their cultures are validated and
167
honored. Many teachers in this study noted that they felt that there is an over-
representation of Black students in special education because of a lack in understanding
of their culture.
Some teachers in this study commented that racism was alive in schools,
consciously and unconsciously. Many teachers noted that special education was a
superficial means of addressing the real issue—race. They further noted that racism is the
“elephant” in the room that needs to be put on the table for discussion. Several teachers
shared that Black students are sometimes referred to special education because of their
appearance and where the student lives and the language spoken.
Research Question #2: How do teachers describe the changes in their processes,
attitudes, and behaviors as a result of their district’s participation in Courageous
Conversations About Race? This is answered in the themes: I See Color Now, Teacher
Mis-Match, and Affirming a Need for Ongoing Professional Development.
I See Color Now
The teachers in this study described changes in the ways they provide services for
students as a result of their school’s/district’s participation in Courageous Conversations
About Race. Several teachers in this study reported that student data are now being
reviewed more through the lenses of race. They reported that they are speaking more
openly and talking about race. In addition, the teachers noted that they feel comfortable
going to their colleagues and initiating a conversation with them about various
racial/cultural issues. The teachers shared that they were more careful and conscious as to
how they speak about students of color and their families. Several teachers commented
that they want to learn more about diversity.
168
The teachers in this study mentioned that through the follow-up CC About Race
activities their racial consciousness has been increased. They reported that the activities
have taught them that it is okay to see the color of their students and that if they did not
see their color, then they did not see their students. Teachers reported that they are
discovering many of the deeply held beliefs about race. The teachers also noted that CC
About Race has raised their conscious awareness about race. They admitted that they do
not know everything about race or even shared similar experiences as their students. Yet,
they were open to learning more about the cultures of individual students. In addition, the
teachers reported that CC About Race increased self-awareness of their own culture, their
students, and the culture of other people in general. The teachers expressed that there was
always something new to learn and they were more open and willing to expand their own
cultural knowledge and experiences.
The teachers reported that when student data are reviewed, they are hearing,
“What color is this student?” “Most of the students not making progress are from what
sub-group?” In addition, teachers mentioned that they are having more open and honest
conversations about race as it relates to their students. The teachers expressed that they
are reflecting and having conversations about their own teaching with others. Several
teachers in the study shared that they are more aware of who they are as persons of color
and their own prejudices/biases that they may bring to the classroom.
The teachers in this study shared that they no longer felt the need to filter their
conversations about race. They reported that they were more comfortable discussing race,
and what and how they teach. Since CC About Race, teachers noticed that they were
more culturally aware, they were more open to various perspectives, and their knowledge
