CCBD'S Position Summary on Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education

• Published in: Behavioral disorders 2013-02, Vol.38 (2), p.108-120
• Main Authors: Skiba, Russ, Albrecht, Susan, Losen, Dan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Advocacy; African American Students; Behavior Disorders; Behavioral disorders; Cultural diversity; Disabilities; Disabled children; Discrimination in education; Disproportionate Representation; Education; Educational Environment; Educational History; Ethnicity; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; FORUM; Identification; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Instructional Effectiveness; Learning disabilities; Minority & ethnic groups; Minority group students; Political activity; Political aspects; Politics of Education; Public Policy; Racial Differences; School Districts; School suspension; Special Education; Special needs students; Statistical Analysis; Statutory law; Students with disabilities; Study and teaching
• ISSN: 0198-7429; 2163-5307

This document provides policy recommendations of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) regarding disproportionality in special education and the need for federal policy driving state regulations to support efforts to eliminate this outcome in schools. CCBD is committed to advancing knowledge, effective instruction, and advocacy for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, a special education population particularly vulnerable to disproportionate practices. Monitoring requirements in the 1997 and 2004 amendments to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) acknowledged the extent of racial and ethnic disproportionality in special education, especially when Congress designated this concern the top three priority areas for monitoring and enforcement in IDEA 2004. However, federal interpretations of the 2004 requirements by the US Department of Education have created confusion at the State (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) levels. While quantitative indices of racial and ethnic disparities remain high, an increasing number of states are finding no LEAs with disproportionality when it must be shown that disproportionality was caused by inappropriate identification. Such data suggest that federal interpretations of IDEA 2004, subsequent regulatory guidelines, and the design of indicators for monitoring and enforcement have not been effective in addressing disproportionate representation in special education. This policy paper includes (a) a review of information on the extent, status, and causes of special education disproportionality; (b) a review of the history and issues involved in the enforcement of IDEA'S disciplinary provisions; (c) a recommendations for improving federal policy regarding disproportionality in special education.