Unpacking the Logic of Compliance in Special Education: Contextual Influences on Discipline Racial Disparities in Suburban Schools

2021 ◽  
pp. 003804072110133
Author(s):  
Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides ◽  
Alexandra Aylward ◽  
Adai Tefera ◽  
Alfredo J. Artiles ◽  
Sarah L. Alvarado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Problem Behaviors ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
School Level ◽  
Social Force ◽  
Idea 2004 ◽  
Race And Racialization ◽  
Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ([IDEA] 2004; IDEA Amendments 1997) is a civil rights–based law designed to protect the rights of students with disabilities in U.S. schools. However, decades after the initial passage of IDEA, racial inequity in special education classifications, placements, and suspensions are evident. In this article, we focus on understanding how racial discipline disparities in special education outcomes relate to IDEA remedies designed to address problem behaviors. We qualitatively examine how educators interpret and respond to citations for racial discipline disproportionality via IDEA at both the district and the school level in a suburban locale. We find that educators interpret the inequity in ways that neutralize the racialized implications of the citation, which in turn affects how they respond to the citation. These interpretations contribute to symbolic and race-evasive IDEA compliance responses. The resulting bureaucratic and organizational structures associated with IDEA implementation become a mechanism through which the visibility of race and racialization processes are erased and muted through acts of policy compliance. Thus, the logic of compliance surrounding IDEA administration serves as a reproductive social force that sustains practices that do not disrupt locally occurring racialized inequities.

Pursuing Equity: Disproportionality in Special Education and the Reframing of Technical Solutions to Address Systemic Inequities

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides ◽  
Edward Fergus ◽  
Kathleen A. King Thorius
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Technical Solutions ◽  
Nondominant Students

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.

scholarly journals Enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools: Contemporary national and state level findings

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Barnard-Brak ◽  
Marcelo Schmidt ◽  
M. Hassan Almekdash
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Charter Schools ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Hierarchical Linear Modeling ◽  
State Level ◽  
School Level ◽  
National Study ◽  
Linear Modeling ◽  
Education Act

There is no national study examining the rate of enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools. We examined whether students with disabilities were significantly less likely to enroll in charter schools as compared to non-charter public schools accounting for state level variation using data for the entire national population. We utilized data from the Civil Rights Data Collection under the U.S. Department of Education for the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 academic years. These nationwide and contemporary data provided school-level numbers of students with disabilities receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and charter school status. We performed hierarchical linear modeling to examine for differences in the percentages of students with disabilities under IDEA between charter and non-charter schools, which revealed significantly less students with disabilities enrolled in charter schools at the national and state level. Additionally, we identified and ranked states according to the degree of discrepancy in the percentages of students with disabilities under IDEA between charter and non-charter schools.

Legal Issues in Early Childhood Special Education

2021 ◽  
pp. 104420732110231
Author(s):  
Susan Larson Etscheidt ◽  
Stephanie L. Schmitz ◽  
Andi M. Edmister
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Transition Planning ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Early Childhood Special Education ◽  
Educational Planning ◽  
Professional Collaboration ◽  
Education Act

Family and professional collaboration is beneficial to students, families, and educators. The importance of such collaboration was recognized for families of students with disabilities, resulting in provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which ensure parental participation in educational planning. Despite the benefits of family and professional collaboration and IDEA mandate, many parents disagree with the educational planning decisions provided to their children and request due process hearings. Parents perceive a lack of opportunity to provide input and/or to disagree with schools’ perspectives. Parents of early childhood students report significant concerns about their child’s readiness for the transition to kindergarten and their limited role in transition planning as their children prepared to enter preschool programs. The purpose of this article was to examine the issues identified in parental complaints in early childhood special education (ECSE) through a qualitative content analysis of recent court cases. The results revealed six themes related to current issues in ECSE programs. We conclude with several recommendations for state policy makers to improve services in ECSE based on the DEC Recommended Practices.

Court Decisions and IDEA 1997 Compliance Issues that Affect Special Education Programs in Rural Schools

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
James O. Tate
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Rural Schools ◽  
School Administrators ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Idea 1997 ◽  
Special Education Programs ◽  
Education Act

This article reviews court decisions and compliance issues of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997, that impact rural public school special education programs. IDEA funding, alternative placement options, and qualitative standard requirements. Select elements of the IDEA 1997 Amendments are of particular importance to rural schools. Those elements are funding compliance requirements, changes in the identification and evaluation of eligible students with disabilities, and the qualitative standards required for providing special education and related services. Rural schools do not receive special compliance exemptions under the IDEA. The article presents court decisions in which litigation has produced guidelines for school administrators regarding use of resources, accommodations, modifications, and qualitative standards in rural special education programs.

Bullying and Harassment of Students With Disabilities in Schools

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Chad A. Rose ◽  
David E. Houchins
Keyword(s):  
School District ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Legal Risks ◽  
Peer Bullying ◽  
Education Act ◽  
State Educational

Bullying is a common occurrence in U.S.’s schools and is currently at the forefront of national attention. Unfortunately, students with disabilities are frequently the targets of peer-on-peer bullying. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal ramifications when students with disabilities are bullied in school settings. We address court cases, state educational agency decisions, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) guidance, and Office of Civil Rights (OCR) rulings that have held that bullying may violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. School personnel must address the bullying of students with disabilities in a quick and efficient manner. In fact, these decisions show that when bullying is not stopped, school district officials and personnel may be subjecting their school districts to legal risks. We end by proposing how school district officials can develop legally sound policies for identifying, investigating, and responding to incidences of bullying of students with disabilities.

Perspectives on the Future of IDEA

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Hardman ◽  
John McDonnell ◽  
Marshall Welch
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Since its original passage in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been the cornerstone of practice in special education. This federal law has enabled all eligible students with disabilities to access a free and appropriate public education. During the past 2 years, the 104th Congress has debated vigorously some of the law's basic tenets (e.g., definition of disability, content of the individualized education plan [IEP], parental rights to attorneys, fees, discipline, and placement). The basic requirements of the law remain intact and continue to shape the scope and content of special education. This article addresses whether or not the assumptions upon which IDEA is based remain valid as we approach the 21st century. We critique these assumptions within the context of four requirements of IDEA: (a) eligibility and labeling, (b) free and appropriate public education, (c) the individualized education program (IEP), and (d) the least restrictive environment. Recommendations for changes in existing law relative to each of the above requirements are presented.

scholarly journals The Texas special education cap: Exploration into the statewide delay and denial of support to students with disabilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. DeMatthews ◽  
David S. Knight
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Texas Education Agency ◽  
Texas Education ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

State accountability systems have been a primary school reform initiative in the U.S. for the past twenty years, but often produce unintended negative consequences. In 2004, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) implemented the Performance Based Monitoring and Analysis System (PBMAS) which included an accountability indicator focused on the percentage of students found eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the nation’s special education law. From 2004 through 2016, the percentage of students found eligible for special education in Texas declined significantly, while the national rate held constant. Eventually, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) investigated TEA and the statewide implementation of IDEA. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (a) to evaluate the potential impact of the the PBMAS indicator on manipulation of special education identification practices; and (b) to describe how the indicator may have influenced school and district personnel. We highlight several concerning trends in state and district data and, through an analysis of publicly available reports from the ED, show how district and school personnel knowingly and unknowingly acted in ways that delayed and denied special education to potentially eligible students. We conclude with recommendations for TEA and implications for future research and policy.

Is Special Education Improving? Case Evidence From New York City

2020 ◽  
pp. 104420732093481
Author(s):  
Leanna Stiefel ◽  
Michael Gottfried ◽  
Menbere Shiferaw ◽  
Amy Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
New York ◽  
Special Education ◽  
New York City ◽  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
York City ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Education Of Students ◽  
Disability Education

In this study, we assess changes in the education of students with disabilities (SWDs) in the nation’s largest school district, New York City (NYC), over the decade 2005–2015. Specifically, we examine progress toward the twin legislative goals of both the federal Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) and NYC district goals of (a) including SWDs in general education settings and (b) improving their academic performance. We find that the inclusion of SWDs with their general education peers (GENs) has increased in elementary and middle schools, but decreased in high school. Furthermore, although more SWDs are completing high school, their graduation rate remains considerably below that of GENs (50% vs. 80%). In assessing these patterns, we provide empirical evidence of the changing context of education in NYC before, during, and after policy changes that affected special education.

The Legal History of Special Education

1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
David Rogers ◽  
Elisabeth Lodge Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Educational Opportunity ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
History Of Special Education ◽  
History Of ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Appropriate Education

ABSTRACT Children and youth with disabilities have historically received unequal treatment in the public education system. In the early 20th century, the enactment of compulsory attendance laws in the states began to change the educational opportunities for these students. Opportunities for admittance to public schools were greater, but many students nevertheless did not receive an effective or appropriate education. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, parents and advocates for students with disabilities began to use the courts in an attempt to force states to provide an equal educational opportunity for these students. These efforts were very successful and eventually led to the passage of federal legislation to ensure these rights. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal history of special education. We will examine these early efforts to ensure a free appropriate education for students with disabilities up to and including the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.

States Decrease Their Required Secondary Transition Planning Age: Federal Policy Must Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-118
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Suk ◽  
James E. Martin ◽  
Amber E. McConnell ◽  
Tiffany L. Biles
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Transition Planning ◽  
Special Education Law ◽  
Education Law ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Federal Mandate ◽  
Transition Models ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 2004 mandates transition planning for students with disabilities begin by the age of 16 years. Currently, no study exists describing when states and territories require transition planning to begin; we conducted a methodical review to determine this age. We found over half (52%) the U.S. states and territories (29 of 56) require transition planning begin prior to the federal age 16 mandate. To argue the age 16 federal mandate is too old and needs to be lowered to at least age 14, we review special education law, provide a summary of influential position statements, cite relevant data-based studies, and provide an overview of research-based transition models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document