On June 24, 2015, a New York Times opinion by Paul L. Morgan and George Farks called “Is Special Education Racist?” claimed that “black children are underrepresented in special-education classes when compared with white children with similar levels of academic achievement, behavior and family economic resources.” The opinion was based on a research study the authors published in Educational Researcher wherein they analyzed secondary data of “students receiving special education services as a result of having one of five Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)–eligible disabilities.”
The study claims to examine whether Black and Hispanic students, which they refer to as “minority,” are over or underrepresented in special education classes and over or underidentified with disabilities. In the study, the authors curiously treat being in special education and receiving a diagnosis as interchangeable events. In fact, most children who receive a diagnosis for a specific disorder do not participate in special education because they do not need to. In a recent study published by the U.S. Office of Special Education Serves (OSEP), Ivory A. Toldson (lead author of this response) found that some children with disabilities (such as learning disabilities) are actually in honors classes. Therefore, contrary to the manner in which Morgan and Farks represent disability and special education, their study does not, in any way examine, “identification” of disability, which greatly undercut their conclusions. The authors’ argument that too few Black and Hispanic students are in special education, based on disability status, can contribute to the stigma of children with disabilities, especially children of color. Such a narrative will also fuel decades of miseducation and misplacement of academically capable students with disabilities.
Morgan and Farks acknowledged some shortcomings in their research in their original study. First, the five specific disorders they examined do not account for all children in special education, however their rationale for honing in on these five disorders, and excluding nine others, is unclear. Also, they acknowledged that their survey of grades K-8 fails to give a comprehensive view of potential racial inequities of special education placement in high schools. Further, the authors did not address gender. Males overall, and Black males in particular, are often the focus of research on overrepresentation in special education.
Equally problematic is the literature base from which the authors used their arguments and rationale; it is polemic and not comprehensive. In effect, the authors seemingly disaggregate special education data but do so in ways that ignore important and longstanding trends in studies and national databases, such as the Office for Civil Rights. The authors’ selectivity is a serious and ongoing problem that compromises the objectivity of their research and interpretations.
Not only is the literature review a concern, so is the homogenization of ‘minorities.’ The authors are inconsistent in their discussion of subgroups by race and ethnicity, and by language. The experiences (income, language, family status, school experiences, expectations held of them) of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians differ, but this is not addressed in the literature and thus ignored in the data and subsequent interpretations.
However, serious problems in the sample of the study are the primary basis for our concerns. The study uses a sample of 20,100 students, which would seem robust on the surface. The authors note that “The percentage of all children participating in the [study] with these IDEA-eligible identified disabilities ranged from a high of 6.4% (speech or language impairment) to a low of 0.7% (intellectual disability).” If we used these percentages against the total sample, we find actual numbers of 1,286 (6.4 percent) students in special education because of speech or language impairment and 141 (.7 percent) of students in the intellectual disability category. The authors also focused on “serious” emotional disturbance rather than this category as a whole; their rationale is unclear. No other categories they examined focus on extremes. Relatedly, few studies have addressed Tourette syndrome and autism along racial, income and educational lines. These should not have been included in the analyses.
Of children with speech or language difficulties, the largest group in the study’s special education population, previous research on this topic has rarely focused on this particular disorder in reference to racial inequities. In fact, previous studies (including Toldson’s 2014 study for OSEP) have confirmed their findings that disorders related to speech, vision and hearing difficulties are underidentified among Black students. The underidentification of speech, vision and hearing difficulties can lead to Black children receiving special education treatment for emotional and behavioral disturbances, rather than eyeglasses or hearing aids.
