The article critically engages with the assumptions embedded in RtI. It argues that while the policy may appear to be a comprehensive intervention system it does not directly engage with structural and contextual inequities in school districts. It is an important article for practitioners because it provides a critical lens to understand how policy alone cannot assure equitable outcomes.
Artiles, A. J., Bal, A., and King-Thorius, K. “Back to the Future: A Critique of Response to Intervention’s Social Justice Views.” Theory Into Practice, 49, 2010: 250–257.
As discipline continues to be a primary indicator of inequity in schools, NYU provides this assessment measure to help educators identify discipline outcomes in relationship to positive behavioral support systems.
NYU Steinhardt. nd. Behavioral Analysis Workbook. New York University: Metropolitan Center for Urban Education.
School districts aim to create equitable learning environments that reflect the diversity of their students, staff, and community, including those with disabilities. This research brief examines two processes that frequently lead to disproportionality—special education identification and disciplinary referrals for special education students. These processes have significant academic and behavioral impacts on students, and understanding them is crucial for school districts working to eliminate disproportionality.
To achieve more equitable outcomes, special education identification processes should avoid racially, culturally, or sexually discriminatory methods. If an analysis of classification data and risk ratios indicates disproportionality, districts should establish a stakeholder group to perform a root cause analysis, develop an improvement plan, and create a blueprint for implementation and evaluation. To address disciplinary disproportionality, the U.S. ED's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) advises districts to:
Establish clear priorities.
Confront explicit bias.
Eliminate practices leading to inequitable outcomes.
Implement evidence-based interventions.
Additionally, OSEP recommends that policies include seven key elements:
Specific Commitment to Equity
Family Partnerships in Policy Development
Focus on Implementing Positive, Proactive Behavior Support Practices
Clear Objective Discipline Procedures
Removal or Reduction of Exclusionary Practices
Graduated Discipline Systems with Instructional Alternatives to Exclusion
Procedures with Accountability for Equitable Student Outcomes
Citation: Hanover Research. 2018. “Best Practices in Addressing Disproportionality for Students with Disabilities.” https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bxs72tmqck7zkcw79iov4/Best-Practices-Georgia.pdf?rlkey=ciz1ja0u09x53u4wqyj6dx3lz&st=n0cp1wtj&dl=0 (accessed, June 14, 2024).
This resource from Culture Abilities Resilience Effort (C.A.R.E.) provides recommendations for incorporating research on racial and ethnic disparities in education to everyday practice.
National Education Association. 2003. C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gap. Washington, DC.
The paper by the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders critically questions the effectiveness of federal policy and disproportionality monitoring mechanisms. It is an important piece to read because it questions how the provisions in IDEA, and compliance to IDEA, can address disproportionate outcomes. It offers practitioners the chance to reflect on how they understand IDEAs relationship to abatement of disproportionate outcomes.
Skiba, R., S. Albrecht, and D. Losen. 2012. CCBD’s Position Summary on Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education. Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
This text provides educators with the necessary background information and framework to hold difficult conversations about race, privilege, and equity.
Singleton, Glen E. 2015. Courageous Conversations About Race: A Field Guide for Achieving Equity in Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
This three-part report demonstrates that a large subgroup of students with disabilities are not getting their needs met; describes the school experiences of these students in relation to exclusionary discipline, referral to law enforcement, and chronic absenteeism; and indicates how the pandemic is exacerbating pre-existing inequitable conditions. The report concludes with recommendations for federal policymakers.
Losen, D. J., Martinez, P., & Shin, G.H.R. 2021. Disabling Inequity: The Urgent Need for Race-Conscious Resource Remedies. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/special-education/disabling-inequity-the-urgent-need-for-race-conscious-resource-remedies
The book describes how court ordered desegregation efforts have subsided in strength. It exposes how school systems have slowly re-segregated since the landmark Brown V. Board of Education decision. It is useful for practitioners who are interested in understanding why school systems look like they do and how segregation is related to inequities in education.
Orfield, G., and Eaton, S. E. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press, 1996.
Disrupting Inequities: A Call for Interruption and Transformation was presented by Dr. Gregory Peters on March 15, 2017. This webinar is presented to you via the State Performance Plan Technical Assistance Project (SPPTAP) and the Napa County Office of Education with funding from the California Department of Education.
Peters, Gregory (2017). Disrupting Inequities: A Call for Interruption and Transformation. Napa, CA: State Performance Plan Technical Assistance Project.
Highlights some of the common policies, practices, and beliefs that place racial/ethnic minorities and low-income students at risk.
Edward Fergus (2010) NYU Steinhardt Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality.
