TY - JOUR
T1 - Pursuing Equity
T2 - Disproportionality in Special Education and the Reframing of Technical Solutions to Address Systemic Inequities
AU - Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Catherine
AU - Fergus, Edward
AU - King Thorius, Kathleen A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, © 2017 AERA.
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - In the review, we examine what is known about disproportionality with the intention of informing the direction of policy and practice remedies. We outline the definition, contours, and characteristics of disproportionality and examine some of the prevailing explanations as to why the issue persists. We then pivot the review to consider how policy, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has sought to address disproportionality in special education and disciplining of students with disabilities. We question why a legally sound civil rights law like IDEA has been unable to abate disproportionality for nearly 40 years. We then turn our attention to review interventions embedded in IDEA that have been recommended to address disproportionality and question why they have not improved outcomes for “nondominant” students in special education. We conclude with some recommendations for disrupting disproportionality.
AB - In the review, we examine what is known about disproportionality with the intention of informing the direction of policy and practice remedies. We outline the definition, contours, and characteristics of disproportionality and examine some of the prevailing explanations as to why the issue persists. We then pivot the review to consider how policy, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has sought to address disproportionality in special education and disciplining of students with disabilities. We question why a legally sound civil rights law like IDEA has been unable to abate disproportionality for nearly 40 years. We then turn our attention to review interventions embedded in IDEA that have been recommended to address disproportionality and question why they have not improved outcomes for “nondominant” students in special education. We conclude with some recommendations for disrupting disproportionality.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021271864&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021271864&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3102/0091732X16686947
DO - 10.3102/0091732X16686947
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85021271864
SN - 0091-732X
VL - 41
SP - 61
EP - 87
JO - Review of Research in Education
JF - Review of Research in Education
IS - 1
ER -