ELLs in special education in urban schools

Vol. 71. No. 3 pp. 283-300.©2005 Council fir Exceptional Children.

Exceptional Children

Within-Group Diversity inMinority DisproportionateRepresentation: English LanguageLearners in Urban SchoolDistricts

ALFREDO J. ARTILESArizona State University

ROBERT RUEDAJESUS JOSt 5ALAZARIGNACIO HIGAREDAUniversity of Southem California

ABSTRACT:r: A weakness of research on minority placement in special education is the tendency to

overestimate the homogeneity of populations by failing to disaggregate factors such as language pro-

ficiency or to consider other relevant variables, for example, social class or program type. Similarly,

certain groups have been understudied, such as English language learners (ELLs). We addressed

these gaps by examining ELL placement patterns in California urban districts. Disproportionate

representation patterns were related to grade level, language proficiency status, disability category,

type of special education program, and type of language support program. Students proficient in

neither their native language nor in English (particularly in secondary grades) were most affected.

Implications for further research and practice are discussed.

The disproportionate representa- resentation in programs for students with gifts

tion of minority students has and talents; by far, the disproportionality scholar-

haunted the special education ship has focused on the overrepresentation prob-

field for more than 3 decades lem. Most scholars agree disproportionate

(Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004). representation is a problem as reflected in the ap-

This problem includes overrepresentation (typi- pointment of two National Research Council

cally in high incidence disabilities) and underrep- (NRC) panels to examine this problem in a rela-

Excepiional Children 283

tive short time period (Donovan & Cross, 2002;Heller, Holrzman, & Messick, 1982), recent fed-eral mandates to monitor this problem, and thecreation of a national technical assistance centerto support states in their efforts to address theproblem.

Answers to key questions about this prob-lem are not straightforward. For instance, the lat-est NRC report asked two crucial questions(Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 357-359): (a) [Arethere] "biological and social/contextual contribu-tors to early development that differ by race andthat leave students differentially prepared to meetthe cognitive and behavioral demands of school-ing?" and (b) does "the school experience itselfcontribute to racial disproportion in academicoutcomes and behavioral problems that lead toplacement in special and gifted education?" Thepanel's response to both questions was affirmative.To the fundamental question about differentialoutcomes—"Docs special education...provide abenefit to students, and is that benefit differentfor different racial/ethnic groups?"—the NRCpanel responded: "The data that would allow usto answer the question adequately do not exist."

Although the available evidence about keyissues is still inconclusive, an empirical knowledgebase is beginning to emerge. For instance, re-search suggests the magnitude of disproportional-ity changes depending on the level ofanalysis—-for example, national, state, district,school. Overrepresentation at the national levelonly applies to African Americans and NativeAmericans; the former in mental retardation(MR) and emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD)and the latter in learning disabilities (LD; Dono-van & Cross, 2002). Although Latinos are notoverrepresented nationally, evidence indicates thisgroup is affected in some states and districts(Finn, 1982). Other factors that can mediate themagnitude of overrepresentation include the sizeofthe district, the proportion of an ethnic groupin the district population, the indicators used tomeasure the problem, and the availability of alter-native programs such as bilingual education orTitle I (Heller etal., 1982).

Efforts have been undertaken to understandand address disproportionality, particularly in thelast decade. Examples include federally fundedtechtiical assistance centers (The Center of Mi-

nority Research in Special Education [COM-RISE], the Linking Academic Scholars to Educa-tional Resources [LASER] Project, the NationalCenter for Culturally Responsive EducationalSystems [NCCRESt], and the National Institutefor Urban School Improvement [NIUSU]), re-search projects (Harry, Klingner, Sturges, &Moore, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh,1999), amendments to federal legislation (e.g.,data reporting by race), the National Academy ofSciences panels, and professional associations' ef-forts. Despite this progress, a programmatic re-search effort is needed and key theoretical issuesremain unaddressed. Eor instance, the notion ofminority group has been treated as a monolithicpopulation, and thus, there is a scarcity of re-search on within-group diversity. This is problem-atic as contemporary culture theory and identityscholarship offer more complex understandings ofculture and minorities' experiences (Artiles,2003). Similarly, we have a limited understanding

Efforts have been undertaken to under-stand and address disproportionality, par-ticularly in the last decade.

about the potential impact of various diversitymarkers on disproportionality—for example, lan-guage proficiency and social class. The existing re-search is almost exclusively concerned with race.

This study addresses these research gapsand aims to assess the magnitude of dispropor-tionate representation for English LanguageLearners (ELI,̂ ) in several California urban dis-tricts. In the state of California, "English learner"or "pupil of limited English proficiency" means apupil who was not born in the United States orwhose native language is a language other thanEnglish or who comes from an environmentwhere a language other than English is dominant;and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writ-ing, or understanding the English language maybe sufficient to deny the individual the abiUty tomeet the state's proficient level of achievement onstate assessments, the ability to successfullyachieve in classrooms where the language of in-struction is English, or the opportunity to partici-

Spring2005

pate fully in society (California Department ofEducation, n.d.). These districts have a sizableproportion of ELLs, a group of students that hasbeen neglected in this literature. A focus on thispopulation enables us to examine within-groupdiversity as placement patterns are reported forsubgroups of ELLs. Next, we present backgroundinformation on minority representation in specialeducation and language policies and programs inCalifornia.

EELs seemingly mediated ovettepresentation pat-terns, particularly in large school districts. Finnreported that districts with the highest overrepre-sentation rates had smaller proportions of stu-dents in bilingual programs. He concluded "[i]t ispossible that Hispanic students with poor Englishproficiency are misclassiPied as EMR [educabilymentally retarded] when bihngual programs arenot available" (p. 372).

O V E R V I E W O F M I N O R I T Y R E P R E -

S E N T A T I O N I N S P E C I A L E D U C A -

T I O N I N C A L I F O R N I A

California has one ofthe largest concentrations ofEELs in the nation, most of whom are of Latinodescent (Mercado, 2001). For this reason, we re-view in this section tesearch on ELL and Latinoplacement. California has a long history of litiga-tion associated with the placement of AfricanAmericans and Latinos in special education(Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002). Infact, some of the cases tried in California courtshad a significant impact on federal law and analy-ses of disproportionality.

Eor instance, the Diana v. State Board ofEducation (1970) case was one in which the use oftests to place students was challenged. Diana, aSpanish-speaking student in Monterey County,California, had been placed in a class for studentswith MR because she had scored low on an IQtest given to her in English. The court ruled thatSpanish-speaking children should be retested intheir native language to avoid etrors in placementand also required the use of nonverbal tests andthe collection of extensive support data necessarvto justify special education placement.

Latino ovetrepresentation persistedthroughout the 1980s and 1990s, though it wasoften masked if the data were not disaggregated.This pattern was also observed at the nationallevel. For example, Finn (1982) reported that al-though the representation of Latinos in MR pro-grams was somewhat similar to Whites, "the smallHispanic-nonminority difference for the nation asa whole is an average of many sizable dispropor-tions in both directions" (p. 368). Moreover, theavailability of programs to address the needs of

P O L I C I E S A N D R E F O R M S F O R

L I N G U I S T I C M I N O R I T I E S I N

C A L I F O R N I A

California set an example to the nation in themid-1970s as it passed a comprehensive bilingualeducation act shortly after the landmark Lau v.Nichols Supreme Court decision. In 1976, Cali-fornia passed the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bi-cultural Education Act that required schools totake the necessary measures to give ELLs access tothe standard curriculum, In addition, the law re-quired school programs to develop these students'English proficiency as effectively as possible. Overtime, dissatisfaction with perceived problems withbilingual education programs eventually led to aballot initiative known as Proposition 227 thatwas included in the 1998 ballot and approved.Proposition 227 called for the drastic reduction ofbilingual education programs and primary lan-guage support for ELEs. The rationale for theProposition included bilingual programs' lack ofeffectiveness and the low-academic achievementof ELLs. Although Proposition 227 included alimited form of language support for this popula-tion, the transition to English-only classes is car-ried out after 1 year. At the time Proposition 227was apptoved, only one third of the ELL popula-tion was placed in bilingual education programsand about one third of the ELL population wastaught by certified bilingual teachers (Rumberger&C Gandara, 2000), Furthermore, there was widevariation in the quality of bilingual program im-plementation and quality of instruction (Ga-ndara et al., 2000). Proposition 227 allowed par-ents to request a waiver of this policy. The propo-sition further stipulated that teachers can be suedif chey refuse to implement the policy (see Parrish


et al., 2002 for analyses of the implemetitationand impact of Proposition 227).

It should be noted that at the time the datafor this study were collected, multiple reforms(accountability, reading instruction) were beingcarried out and Proposition 227 was beitig imple-mented for the first time in the target districts.We should also stress, however, this study doesnot examine the impact of these reforms; rather, ittepotts a descriptive profile of ELL placement inspecial education at a given point in time.

In summary, thtee key conclusions can bedrawn from this brief review of the Hteratute.First, the disproportionate representation of eth-nic/linguistic minorities has persisted over time inCalifornia, though we know significantly lessabout ELL representation. Second, there is ascarcity of research on within-group diversity.And third, it is important to study the aforemen-tioned issues at a time when multiple reforms arebeing implemented to strengthen the educationalservices for an increasingly diverse student popu-lation. For this putpose, we conducted this studyto (a) assess the representation of ELL subgroupsin various disability categories and grade levels,(b) examine whether ELL in various languageprograms and grade levels are more likely to beoverrepresented in distinct special education pro-grams, and (c) check whether ELL representationin various disability categories varied by socialclass and grade levels.

METHOD

THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, POPULATIONS,

AND PROGRAMS

The databases of 11 urban school districts for the1998-1999 academic year were used in this study.The databases were available to the researchersthrough an institutional agreement between twomajor universities in California and the target dis-tricts. (Definitions of student classifications, dis-ability categories, and programs can be found atthe California Department of Education Website, accessible at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ or Par-rish et al., 2002.) The districts are located in thesouthern portion of the state. California schoolsas a whole serve one of the most diverse student

populations in the nation, and the target districtsin the study are located in a county with one ofthe highest densities of ELLs in the state.

We aggregated the data to ensure the schooldistricts' anonymity. Each district served an aver-age of 64,000 students (range: 52,000-77,000).The majority ofthe student population in the tar-get districts was from minority backgrounds as re-flected in the following enrollment data(1998-1999): 69% Latino(a)/Chicano(a), 10.5%White, 13.6% African American, 4.3% Asian,1.9% Filipino, 0.4% Pacific Islander, and 0.3%American Indian/Alaska Native. During the sameacademic year, most students in elementary(85%) and secondary (71%) grades were fromlow-income households (as reflected in eligibilityfor free or reduced lunch programs).

ELL population. In the district, the ELLpopulation grew over 200% in a 16-year period(1981-1997). Almost half (42%) of the studentpopulation was classified as ELL in the 1998-99school year; the largest proportion was placed inelementary grades (53%) though about one third(27%) of students in secondary grades were desig-nated as EEL.

[T]here is a scarcity of researach onwithin-group diversity.

ELL classification is determined with theHome Language Survey, which identifies a homelanguage other than English, Students who comefrom a home where English is not the primarylanguage are assessed for English proficiencybased on oral language tests. Students who do nottest as orally English proficient are classified asELL and categorized into one of five proficiencylevels called English Language Development(ELD) levels as desctibed in the following:

• Level 1—When listening, speaking, reading,and writing, the student responds using ges-tures, simple words, and phrases to demon-strate understanding when working withfamiliar situations and text.

" Level 2—^When listenmg, speaking, reading,and writing, the student responds using ac-

2 8 6 Spring 2005

quired vocabulary in phrases and simple sen-tences to demonstrate understanding of story;details (basic sequence, main idea, character,setting) and basic situations with increasing in-dependence.

• Level 3—When listening, speaking, reading,and writing, the student tesponds using ex-panded vocabulary and descriptive words forsocial and academic purposes with increasedcomplexity and independence but with someinconsistencies.

' Level 4—When listening, speaking, reading,and writing, the student responds using com-plex vocabulary with greater accuracy demon-strates detailed understanding of social andacademic language and concepts with in-creased independence.

• Level 5—When listenmg, speaking, reading,and writing, the student responds using ex-tended vocabulary in social and academic dis-course to negotiate meaning and applyknowledge across the content areas.

Each succeeding ELD level represents a higherlevel of English language proficiency. English Pro-ficient is "a term applied to students whose pri-mary language is not English and who have metdistrict criteria for proficiency and literacy in En-glish either upon entry into the school system orthrough the district's redesignation process" (Par-rish et al., 2002, Glossary). ELLs are consideredto be English proficient when they reach ELDLevel 5 (i.e., tested between the 36th and 40thpercentile in reading and language on a standard-ized achievement test), which means they canfunction in classrooms with native-English speak-ers,

A small proportion of ELLs was tedesig-nated as Fluent English Proficient in these dis-tricts; data from the preceding 4 years(1993-1997) indicated an average of 6.5% ofELLs (range = 4-8) were redesignated as FluentEnglish Proficient. In the 1998-1999 year, byfifth grade only half (51.5%) of ELLs had beenreclassified as Fluent English Proficient. Thismeans that about half of the students who beganschool as ELLs matriculated into middle schoolwithout reclassification. None of these studentswere recent arrivals into the United States (arrivedin United States within last 3 years, as per the

U,S. Department of Education's definition). Insecondary grades, slightly more than half (52.4%)of ELLs had been reclassified. Ofthe 47.6% ELLswho had not been reclassified, 6,7% met the fed-eral definition of recently arrived immigrant stu-dent (3 years or less in the United States).Overall, of the remaining students in secondarygrades classified as ELL, 14.1% were recent ar-rivals in the United States.

The ELI, population was overwhelminglyof Latino heritage as they represented 94% of theelementary and 91% ofthe secondary grade pop-ulations. The percentages of other groups in theELL population, for elementary and secondarycombined, were: American Indian (0.1%), AsianAmerican (3.3%), Black (0.3%), White (2.5%),Filipino (0.7%), and Pacific Islander (0.1%).

The districts categorized ELLs in two sub-groups, namely, students with limited proficiencyin English and students with limited proficiencyin both their first language and English. We callthe former "ELL with Limited Ll" and the latter"ELL with Limited Ll and L2,"

Special Education Students and Programs.The special education systems serve students withdisabilities in a continuum of educational pro-grams. At the time of the study (1998-1999 year),7.2% of all students received special educationservices. The size ofthe special education popula-tion was smaller in elementary (K-5; 5.4%) thanin secondaty gtades (6-12; 9.34%). Consistentwith national trends, the proportion of studentswith LD represented the largest group of studentswith disabilities—2.2% of the elementary and7.5% ofthe secondary populations.

The proportion of ELLs receiving specialeducation services in the target districts was com-parable to the total student population (7.6%).However, the grade level difference in the ELLpopulation with special educational needs wasmore pronounced than in the districts' generalpopulation; specifically, 5.3% ofthe districts' ELLelementary and l4.1% of ELL secondary studentsreceived special education services. In the uppergrades (Grades 6-12), only 1.9% ofthe recent ar-rivals (immigrants) were placed in special educa-tion compared with 18.4% of students who wereclassified as ELLs when they first began school.

The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) in-cluded students who receive special education and


related services outside the general educationclassroom for at least 21%, but not more than60%, of the school day. This may include stu-dents placed in resource rooms with part-time in-struction in a general education class. The SpecialDay Class (SDC) option served students who re-ceive special education and telated services out-side the general education classroom for morethan 60% of the school day. Students may beplaced in a separate class with part-time instruc-tion in another placement or placed in separateclasses full-time on a regular school campus (Cali-fornia Department of Education, 2000).

Teaching Force. Available data (1999-2000)indicated the teaching force was mostly White(49%); Latino(a) teachers composed 25% andAfrican American teachers represented 15%. Overtwo thirds (68%) ofthe faculty were women. Ap-proximately one quarter of all teachers had emer-gency credentials or waivers.

Language Programs. Three language pro-grams were created for elementary schools in the1998-1999 year to implement Proposition 227(see definitions of language programs at the Cali-fornia Department of Education Web site). Thenew programs included (a) straight English im-mersion, (b) modified English immersion, and (c)primary language instruction (bilingual program).Straight English immersion programs required in-struction be conducted "primarily in EngUsh withprimary language support provided by the para-professional for clarification purposes" (emphasisadded; Salazar, p. 2). Instruction in the modifiedEnglish immersion program was carried out "pri-marily in English with primary language instruc-tional support provided by a bilingual authorizedteacher for concept development" (emphasis added;Salazar, 2000, p. 2). Parents must sign an excep-tion waiver to have their child placed in a bilin-gual education program. Bilingual programsprovided core instruction in the primary languagewith daily English Language Development in-struction. English Language Development is thestate-designated term fot instructional programsto develop listening, speaking, reading, and writ-ing skills in English.

Language programs in secondary grades in-clude English as a Second Language (ESL) andEnglish-only classes. ELLs are placed in three dif-ferent classes, depending on their English profi-

ciency levels. When a secondary ELL is not redes-ignated as fluent-English proficient (EEP), he orshe receives instruction in English-only classes;such students are in the Preparation for Redesig-nation Ptogram (PRP).

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

This study was based on the districts' databasesfor the academic yeat 1998-1999; data from the1999-2000 as well as some longitudinal data werecited where appropriate (special education service,disability category, grade level, social class).We fo-cused the analyses on disability categories typi-cally affected by ovetrepresentation-—that is, MR,language and speech impairments (LAS), and LD.Although Black students have been historicallyoverrepresented in the E/BD category, descriptiveanalyses suggested ELLs were not overrepresentedin this group; hence, we excluded the E/BD datafrom subsequent analyses. We also examinedplacement patterns in special education programswith disparate levels of restrictiveness (RSP,SDC), grade levels (elementary, secondary), andthree language programs (straight English immer-sion, modified English immersion, bilingual).

Disproportionate representation was de-fined as the "extent to which membetship in agiven group affects the probability of being placedin a specific special education disability category"[or special education service option-for example,RSP or SDCl (adapted from Oswald et al., 1999,p. 198). Consistent with the latest analytic guide'lines (Attiles & Rueda, 2002; Donovan & Cross,2002), we calculated multiple indicators of dis-proportionate representation and disaggregateddata by disability, grade level, language profi-ciency, social class, and language support and spe-cial education programs to obtain a morecomprehensive understanding of the problem.Eor this purpose, we calculated a compositionindex, a risk index, and an odds ratio.

The composition index is calculated by "di-viding the number of students ofa given racial orethnic group enrolled in a particular disabilitycategory by the total number of students [from ailethnic groups] enrolled in that same disabilitycategory" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). Inorder to determine whether overrepresentationexists, this figure must be compared with the rep-resentation of the target group in the general edu-

Spring 2005

cation population. We used Chinn and Hughes'(1987) rule to identify overtepresentat ion;namely, a group is overrepresented if its represen-tation in special education is equal or greater than10% of the percentage expected on the basis ofthe school-age population. For example, let us as-sume ELLs' school enrollment in general educa-tion is 20%. Based on Chinn and F^ughes' 10%rule, it would be expected that ELL entollment ina disability category should fall between 18% and22% (i.e., 20 plus or minus 2). Enrollment below18% would constitute underrepresentation andoverrepresentation would be observed if ELL en-rollment exceeded 22%.

We also examined the risk index, calculated"hy dividing the number of students in a givenracial or ethnic category served in a given disabil-ity category by the total enrollment fot that racialor ethnic group in the school population" (Dono-van & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). In addition to theaforementioned indices, we calculated odds ratios,described as:

The basic element in the index is the "odds" ofbeing assigned to a particular special educationcategory. For example, a measurement of theodds ofa minority student's being assigned to an[MR] class is the percentage of minority stu-dents who are classified as [MR] divided by thepercentage of minorities who are not in specialprograms.,..The odds ofa White student's beingdesignated [MR] [is the percentage of Whitestudents classified as MR divided by the per-centage of Whites who are not in special pro-grams].,..The disproportion index is the ratio ofthese two odds. (Finn, 1982, p, 328)

To illustrate, let us assume we are compar-ing Native American with White student place-ment in LD programs. An odds ratio of 1.0would mean that Native American and Whitestudents are equally likely to be assigned to an LDclass. An odds ratio of 1.36 would mean NativeAmericans are 36% more likely than White stu-dents to be assigned to a LD class. And if theodds ratio is less than 1 (e.g,, 0.80), then NativeAmericans would be less likely than their Whitepeers to be assigned to an LD class.

As part of the analysis, we calculated oddsratios for subgroups (ELEs with Limited L l ,ELLs with Limited LI and L2, English Proficient,and White students) in the target disability cate-

gories (MR, LD, LAS). Because the study's target

group is ELL, we used English proficient learners

as the comparison group. However, we also used

White students as a comparison group for several

compelling reasons, which include (a) White stu-

dents have been traditionally used as a compari-

son group in equity analyses because they are the

dominant group in society who have not had sys-

tematic ptoblems with access and opportunity is-

sues, (b) Whi te s tudents have been used

historically as a contrast group in this litetature

that facilitates trend analyses, and (c) White stu-

dents can be used as a stable contrast group be-

cause various cultural and linguistic groups are

compared to the same group. We also examined

these ratios across grade levels, special education

programs with varying levels of restrictiveness

(RSP, SDC), and language programs (straight En-

glish immersion, modified English immersion,

and bilingual).

R ES U LTS

Before we describe the findings for each of the

three study goals, we present an overview of spe-

cial education placement patterns for all the dis-

tricts using three indicators (composition and risk

indices and odds ratio). The purpose of this pre-

liminary analysis is to illustrate the value of un-

packing the data at multiple levels for subgroups

of students. Next, we report the aforementioned

indicators of placement patterns in high-inci-

dence disabilities (MR, LAS, LD) by language

proficiency (ELL subgroups), ethnicity (White),

and grade level (elementary, secondary). We then

describe the results for the second study goal; the

relation between ELL placement in various lan-

guage programs and placement in distinct special

education programs. The last section ofthe results

focuses on another aspect of within-group diver-

sity (other than language proficiency subgroups),

namely, social class. We report the association be-

tween social class and ELL placement in high-in-

cidence disabilities by grade levels.


OVERALL DESCRIPTIVE PROEILE: PLACE-

MENT PATTERNS AT THE DISTRICT AND

GRADE LEVELS BY LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

AND ETHNICITY

Table 1 presents special education placement datafot ELl^ at the district and grade levels; specifi-cally, we calculated composition indices to deter-mine the percentage points above ot below the10% disproportionate representation threshold(Chinn & Hughes, 1987), risk indices, and oddsratios. At che district level, the composition indexsuggested English Proficient students composed aslight majority of the special education popula-tion; however, neither one ofthe groups was over-represented (see composition index data in table).At the elementary level, neither group of studentswas overrepresented, whereas English Proficientlearners were underrepresented at the secondarylevel. ELLs, in turn, were overrepresented at thesecondary level (see composition index data inTable 1). The risk index data for the entire districtindicated a larger percentage of White studentswere placed in special education (11.2), followedby ELLs (7.6) and English Proficient learners(6.8) respectively. In the elementary grade level, asmaller proportion of ELLs was placed in specialeducation compared to White and English Profi-cient students (see risk indices Table 1). In con-trast, the risk index for the secondary grade levelwas highest for ELLs (14.7), followed by White(10), and English Proficient students (8.8).

The shifting patterns of representation alsoappeared in the odds ratio analysis: ELLs wereslightly underrepresented at the district level(0.89) compared to their English Proficient peersand underrepresented in relation to White stu-dents (0.61). Interestingly, compared to the othertwo contrast groups, ELLs were underrepresentedat the elementary grade level and overrepresentedat the secondary level (see Table 1).

Table 1 also presents disaggregated data byseparate grades from kindergarten through 12thgrade. Although the composition indices for ELLsin elementary grades (K-5) reflected a decliningtrend (i.e., from 58 to 43) the risk indices actuallyshowed the opposite trend; this means increasingproportions of ELLs were placed in special educa-tion across elementary grades. The odds ratioswere consistent with the risk index data: Com-

pared to White learners, ELLs were underrepre-sented in Grades K-5; however, they began to beoverrepresented in Grade 6. Compared to EnglishProficient students, ELL overrepresentationemerged in Grade 4 (see Table 1). In contrast, thecomposition and risk indices for English profi-cient and White students showed a positive asso-ciation and an incremental trend, although asmall fluctuation was observed for White studentcomposition data (see Table 1).

The secondary level special educationplacement data for ELLs reflected considerableoverrepresentation. The composition and risk in-dicators suggested a declining trend ftom Grades7 to 11 with an increase in Grade 12. The oddsratio data also showed overrepresentation pat-terns, although diminishing in magnitude inGrade 9, it resumed an incremental trend in theremaining grades (see Table 1). Odds ratios wereconsistently larger at all grades when ELLs werecompared to their English Proficient peers.

Different patterns were observed for theotber two comparison groups. The secondarygrade composition and risk indicators for EnglishProficient and White students were negatively as-sociated: Whereas composition indices tended toincrease across grades (with the exception of thecomposition index at Grade 12 for English Profi-cient learners), the risk indices progressively de-clined (see Table 1).

WITH/N-GROUP DIVERSITY: ELL SUB-

GROUP PLACEMENT PATTERNS BY DISABIL-

ITY AND GRADE LEVEL

We calculated composition and risk indices forELLs in the target high-incidence disabilities(MR, LAS, and LD) by English proficiency, eth-nicity, and educational level (however data werenot available for the category of MR at the ele-mentary level). Table 2 suggests that ELLs withLimited Ll and L2 were overrepresented in LD atboth rhe elementary and secondary levels, al-though the greatest overrepresentation was ob-served in the elementary grades. ELLs withLimited L2 were slightly overtepresented at thesecondary level in the LD category but propor-tionately represented in the elementary grades.English Proficient pupils were underrepresentedat both the elementary and secondary grade levelsin LD. White LD students, in turn, were slightly

29O Spring 2005

TABLE 1Composition and Risk Indices and Odds Ratios for Placement in Special Education by Language Proficiency

and Ethnicity at the District and Grade Leveh (1998-1999)

All lC-12

All K-5KinderGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5

All 6-12

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

ELLs

CI'

45

50585655494843

(^7,8)"

41(+11.3)

46(+26,2)

45(+26.3)

43(+26.5)

42(+18,9)

35(+19,6)

28(+19.2)

33(+24.2)

Rl"

7.6

5.02.02.84.56,08,011.2

14.1

16.2

16,0

14.9

11.9

11,2

12,3

14,0

English Proficient (EP)Learners

CI

55

50424445515257

59(-7.2)

54

55

57

58

65

72

67

RI

6.8

5.83.55,77,37,77.19.4

8,8

9,4

9.1

7.9

7,9

6,5

6.9

3.9

White Learners

CI

12

13121414141212

11

10

10

10

10

11

11

14

RI

11,2

11.95.58.211.814.214.416,1

10

13

12.4

10,5

10.2

8.4

7,7

6,3

Odds Ratio'ELL-

EP,89

,86.57.49.62.781.131.19

1.6

1.72

1.76

1,89

1.50

1.72

1.78

3.58

ELL-White

,61

.42

.36

.34

.38

.42

.55

.69

1,41

1.25

1.29

1.42

1,17

1.33

1.59

2.22

^ Ci: Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic grotipenrolled in a particular disability category by the total number of students [ftom all ethnic groups] enrolled in rhatsame disability category" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p, 43). This figure must be compared with cbe representationofthe target group in the general education population, ° RI: Risk index is calculated "by dividing the number of stu-dents in a given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability category by the total enrollment for that racialor ethnic group in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). '• OR: Odds ratio reflects the "odds ofbeing assigned to a pairicular special education category" (Finn, 1982, p. 328), It is calculated by dividing the risk in-dices for two different groups, " Numbers in parenthesis are rhe percentage points above (+) ot below (-) rhe 10% repre-sentation threshold.

above the representation threshold in the elemen-

tary grades but underrepresented in the secondary

grades.

In the secondary grades, ELLs with Limited

Ll and L2 were 23.8 percentage points above the

overrepresentation threshold in the MR category,

whereas all other groups were underrepresented in

this category (see Table 2).

In the elementary grades, ELLs with Lim-ited L2 and English Proficient students were un-detrepresented in the LAS category, whereas ELLswith Limited Ll & L2 were 24.3 percentagepoints above the overreptesentation threshold (seeTable 2). White elementary students were alsoslightly overrepresented in this category. In thesecondary grades, ELLs with Limited Ll and L2were overrepresented in LAS. Students in all other


TABLE 2

Composition and Risk Indices fbr Placement in Disability Categories by English Proficiency, Ethnicity,and Grade (1998-1999)

ElementaryGrades(K-5)

SecondaryGrades«^12)

ELLs with Limited L2

[28]'

ELLs wirh Limired Ll & L2[22]

English Proficient Learners[50J

White Learners[9]

ELLs wirh Limired L2[12]

ELLs with Limited Ll & L2[13]

English Proficient Learners[72]

White Learners[12]

MR"

crNA'

NA

NA

NA

8.1(-2.7)

38,2(>23,8)

53.6(-11-9)

14.1(-.3)

Rf

NA

NA

NA

NA

.03

1,4

.4

.4

LAS

CI

17(-8.4)'

48,3(+24,3)

35(-6.8)

14.4(+2.4)

9.6(-1.2)

25.5(411.1)

64,9(-.6)

11,2(-3.2)

RI

1.1

4.2

1.4

3.0

.8

1.9

.8

.9

LD

CI

28.9

47,9(423,9)

23(-18.8)

13.3(43.3)

17.3(44.1)

22,9(+8.6)

59,9(-6.6)

9,1(-5.3)

RJ

1,8

3.9

0.9

2.6

10,9

13.1

6.2

5.9

MR: Mental retardation; LAS: Language and speech impairments; LD: Learning disabilities,CI: Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled

in a particular disability category by the total number of students [from all ethnic groups] enrolled in that samedisability category" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). This figure must be compared with tbe represenration ofthetarget group in the genera! education population. Rl: Risk index is calculated "by dividing rbe number of sttidents ina given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability category by rhe total enrollment for that racial or ethnicgroup in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42—43), Numbers in bracket.'; are the percentage ofthe total student population NA: Data not available. Numbers in parenthesis are che percentage points above(+) or below (-) the 10% representation threshold.

groups were slightly underrepresented in LAS sec-ondary programs.

A considerable segment ofthe ELL popula-tion had been identified as ELLs with Limited Lland L2 in the last 7 years. By the 1999-2000 aca-demic year, about half (49.5%) of the districts'ELLs were designated as Limited In Ll and L2.Risk index data suggest that a higher percentageof ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 were placed ina[l disability categories, with the exception of MRin the elementary grades (MR data at the elemen-tary level were not available). White learners hadthe second largest risk index in the elementary

grades in all disability categories (see Table 2).The same pattern was observed In secondarygrades, with the exception of LD in which ELLswith Limited L2 had the second largest riskindex.

We calculated odds ratios by disability cate-gory, English proficiency status, ethnicity, and ed-ucational level (see Table 3), except for thecategory of MR at the elementary level, whichwas not available. At the elementary level, ELLswith Limited Ll and L2 were almost four times aslikely to be placed in LAS programs and morethan twice as likely to be placed in LD classes

2 9 2 Spring 2005

a

W J J

d:H

i-I

,70

q

1,50

4.33

,37

,78

3,00

3,82

Z

z

z

z

z

Seco

nda

Gra

des

(

!

2,22

2,11

1.20

00CO

q

2,37

2,37

q

,08

3.5

46,6

,E a

- E " •

,5 c

= -§>

e 6

than ELLs with Limited L2. ELLs with LimitedLl and L2 were also 40% and 50% more likelythan their White peers to be placed in LAS andLD programs respectively. Compared to EnglishProficient students, ELLs with Limited Ll andL2 were three times more likely to be labeled LASand over four times more likely to be designatedLD (see Table 3). In addition, note that ELLswith Limited L2 were less likely to be placed inhigh-incidence disability categories than were En-glish Proficient and White students, with the ex-ception of the LD category where they were twicemore likely to be placed than English Proficientstudents.

In the secondary grades, ELLs with Lim-ited Ll and L2 had greater odds than ELLs withLimited L2, White, and English Proficient stu-dents to be placed in all high-incidence cate-gories; it is important to note ELLs with LimitedLl and L2 were over 46 times more likely thantheir ELLs counterparts to he placed in MR sec-ondary programs (see Table 3). In contrast to thepatterns observed in the elementary grades, ELLswith Limited L2 were almost twice as likely thanWhite students to be designated as LD, althoughthey were less likely than White students to beplaced in the MR and LAS categories. ELLs withLimited L2 were 75% more liktly than their En-glish Proficient peers to be placed in the LD cate-gory (see Table 3).

ELL PLACEMENT BY LANGUAGE PROGRAM

AND TYPE OE SPECIAL EDUCATION PRO-

GRAM

Special education programs included RSP andSDC. Considering that language programs pro-vided distinct types oflanguage support for ELLs,we examined whether representation patterns inmore (SDC) or less (RSP) restrictive programsvaried by language program enrollment. We re-ported elementary grades only because these lan-guage programs were not available at thesecondary level.

Table 4 suggests ELLs placed in Englishimmersion programs were more than twice (2.26)as likely to be placed in less restrictive services(RSP) than ELLs placed in modified English im-mersion models and almost three times (2.95)more likely than ELLs in bilingual education pro-grams. ELLs in modified English immersion pro-


grams were 31% more likely to be placed in RSPclasses than their counterparts in bilingual educa-tion (see Table 4). In addition, ELLs in Englishimmersion programs were 32% more likely to beplaced in more segregated programs (SDC) thanthe peers receiving modified English immersionand 19% more likely than ELLs placed in bilin-gual education programs (see Tabie 4). It is inter-esting to note that ELLs placed in modifiedEnglish immersion were less likely to be placed inSDC than their counrerparts in bilingual educa-tion programs (see Table 4).

ELL PLACEMENT BY DISABILITY, SOCIAL

CLASS, AND GRADE LEVEL

The majority of ELLs placed in high-incidencedisabilities came from low-socioeconomic back-ground; this pattern was observed at both the ele-mentary and secondary grade levels and it wasreflected in the composition and risk indices (seeTable 5). The exception was ELLs with LAS atthe elementary level because more students frommiddle/high SES were placed in this category (seerisk index in Table 5). Odds ratio data supportedthis trend as well: Low-income ELLs were morelikely to be placed in high-incidence disabilities,particularly in MR in the secondary grades.Again, the exception was in LAS elementary pro-grams in which low-income ELLs were underrep-resented (see Table 5).

D I S C U S S I O N

A central message in the study findings was thatanalytic decisions are key in the examination ofdisproportionality; specifically, patterns vary de-pending on the indicators used and the level atwhich data are examined. Insights can be gainedfrom the analysis of population subgroups thatmay be lost when examining data at larger stateand national levels where such disaggregation isnot possible. We discuss this finding as well as therelationship of grade level, disability category, spe-cial education program, social class, and languagesupport program.

WITHIN'GROUP DIVERSITY

ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 showed the highestrates of identification in the special education cat-

egories examined. This group was consistentlyoverrepresented in elementary and secondarygrades in LD and LAS classes and had greaterchances to be placed in special education pro-grams than the other groups of students. ELLswith Limited Ll and L2 have been identified inthe literature as "semilingual learners," becausethey may have limited proficiency in both theirnative and English languages. Although there hasbeen a great deal of controversy in the literatureon the validity of this construct (MacSwan, Rol-stad, & Glass, 2002), more extensive treatment isbeyond the scope of this article. We should bemindful ofthe controversy surrounding this con-struct and the difficulties inherent in assessingcognitive and other abilities with language-depen-dent standardized tests for this group (MacSwanet aL; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001).

The important issue, given these findings,is to know more about the specific characteristicsand experiences of these students, including theprocesses that lead to their overrepresentation inspecial education. Is overrepresentation for thissubgroup the result of the inadequate screening,invalid assessment instruments, practitioners' be-lieft that language differences constitute a disabil-ity, school placement practices that are shaped byconstantly changing district reform mandates, ac-countability pressures, combinations of these fac-tors, or even different factors? (Artiles et al.,2004). What are the factors that lead to less over-representation for ELLs with Limited L2 and En-glish Proficient students? A key point is that cleartheoretical identification of subpopulations isneeded to gain a better understanding of the edu-cational needs and experiences of ELLs. Eor in-stance, Parrish and his colleagues (2002) foundthat achievement gaps between ELLs and Englishmonolingual students are larger when formerELLs (i.e., ELLs redesignated as Fluent EnglishProficient) are not included in the ELL group.

Before we can respond to these questions,additional research must shed light on the linguis-tic, cognitive, and socio-emotional profiles ofthese students, the environments in which theyare educated at school and home, as well as theactual assessment processes that lead to labeling.Moreover, because ofthe shortcomings of some ofthe most commonly used measures such as theLanguage Assessment Scales (LAS; MacSwan et

Spring 2005

TABLE 4

ELL Placement Odds (odds ratios) in Special Education by Level of Restrictiveness in Relation to Placement inLan^age Pro-am, Crades K-5 (1998-1999)

ELLs placed in ModifiedELLs placed in English Immersion English Immersion compared

compared to ELLs placed in: to ELLs placed in:

Modified English Bilingual BilingualImmersion

Least restrictivespecial education 2,26 2,95 1,31program

Most restrictivespecial education 1.32 1.19 0.9!programNote.Odds ratio reflects the "odds of being assigned to a particular special education category" {Finn, 1982, p. 328).It is calculated by dividing the risk indices For two different groups. The lea.st restrictive special education program isthe resource specialist program (RSP), which entails services provided outside ofthe general education classroombetween 21% and 60% ofthe school day. The most restrictive special education program is the special day classroom(SDC), which entails service.s provided outside ofthe general education classroom for over 61% ofthe school day.

TABLE 5

EI.L Composition and Risk lindices and Odds Ratios for Placement in Disability Categories hy SES, and Grade (1998-1999)

Elementary Grades (K-5)

Low SES '

Middle/

High SES'Secondary Grades (6—12)

Low SES

Middle/Hif-h SES

a

NA'

NA

89.5

10.5

MR'RI

NA

NA

.04

,01

OR

NA

3,56

CI

82,2

17,8

77.5

22.5

US'R!

1,91

2,36

1

,70

OR

,81

1.44

CI

86.3

13.7

76.5

23.5

!.D'RI

1.90

1.72

8.14

6.01

OR

1.1

1.39

CIi Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students ofa given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particulardisability category by the total number of 5cuden[s (from all ethnic groups] enrolled in that same disability category" (Donovan &Cross, 2002. p. 43). This figure must be compared with the representation of tbe target group in the general education population.RI: Risk index is calculated "by dividing the number of students in a given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability categoby the total enrollment for (hat racial or ethnic group in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42—43). OR: Oddsratio reflects the 'odds of being assigned to a particular special education category" (Finn, 1982. p. 328). It is calculated by dividingthe risk indices for rwo different groups. MR: Mental retardation; LAS; Language and speech impairments; LD: Learningdisabilities, law SES: Eligible for free or reduced lunch, NA: Data not available." MiddSe/High SES: Full pay or no lunchprogram,

al., 2002), multiple means to assess students' lin- REPRESENTATION ACROSS GRADES

euistic abilities should be used to obtain a more „ , , i i i. , , ™, r , . , . I he results sutreested that placement patterns atln-depth prorile or this population. , , , , . , - , i r

^ ^ the elementary level mdicated an absence or over-


representation in special education, although wedetected ovetrepresentation at the end of elemen-tary school that continued through the highschool years. The nature of the data used in thisstudy does not allow us to pinpoint the exact rea-sons for this pattern. It may be that secondary set-tings offer less support for EII^ than elementarysettings, or that the increasing demands beingplaced on all students affect these students to agreater degree. One potential mediating factor isthe lack of articulation of instructional programsbetween school levels within districts {Parrish etal., 2002). Alternatively, the amount and qualityof preimmigration schooling and preexisting liter-acy skills may be important factors especially forolder immigrant students (Mercado, 2001).Closer examination is needed of the quantity andquality of language and other academic supports(particularly in secondary grades) that could en-able ELLs to develop literacy skills in their narivelanguage and help them compensate for the inad-equacies of theit past educational experiences. Fu-ture research should examine the potentialinfluence of the interaction between these back-ground and structural variables (availability oflanguage programs) in the observed patterns ofELL overrepresentation. Future research shouldalso assess the potential effect ofa preexisting dis-ability label on ELLs high school careers.

REPRESENTATION IN DISABILITY

CATEGORIES

In these large urban districts, we found bothgroups of ELLs had considerable proportions(over 10%) placed in LD secondary programs andsmall representation in MR programs. Overrepre-sentation was also observed in LAS classes. Thesefindings differ from what was reported in theearly 1980s. Finn (1982) found disproportion inLD was higher in small districts (« = 1 to 999 stu-dents) in the West. Furthermore, Latino MRoverrepresentation was high in districts with ahigh Latino representation (over 70%) and "thecorrelation of SLD [Specific Language Disability]with EMR disproportion among Hispanic stu-dents is +.33 for ail districts combined, and closeto this value for districts in each ofthe four sizeintervals" (Finn, pp. .373-374). (Although we fo-cused on ELLs instead of only Latinos, it is inter-esting to contrast Finn's findings with the present

study because Latinos are the largest ELL groupin California.) Perhaps the MR label is avoided byschool personnel given the litigation history inCalifornia surrounding this category. It is intrigu-ing that proportionally more ELLs tend to beplaced in LD than LAS considering the primacyoflanguage factors in the latter disability category.Studies are needed to assess what considerationsmediate decisions to assign different disability la-bels (e.g., LD vs. LAS) and whether ELLs havedifferential opportunities to learn depending onthe assigned disability category (Harry et al.,2002).

LANGUAGE PROGRAM AND SPECIAL

EDUCATION PLACEMENT

We found that ELLs in English immersion pro-grams were more likely to be placed in special ed-ucation programs than ELLs placed in otherlanguage support programs. It is not possible toinfer causality from this finding, but it is intrigu-ing to note that English immersion programs bydesign offer the least native language support, andprimary language is used not as an instructionaltool but for clarification purposes only. Nativelanguage support is normally handled by theparaeducator, not the teacher, who typically is nota speaker ofthe students' native language(s). Thisis an important consideration in light of a recentnational synthesis panel's conclusion that the "de-gree of children's native-language proficiency is astrong predictor of their English-language devel-opment... [and] the use ofthe [preschool] child'snative language does not impede the acquisitionof English" (August & Hakuta, 1997, p. 28). Fu-ture studies should investigate this relationshipfurther, especially through the use of longitudinaldesigns and controls for students' prior programtype and language and literacy levels, factors thatwe were not able to address in this study.

The other two language support programsexamined (modified English immersion and bilin-gual education) differ significantly from the En-glish immersion option, where language supportis provided by certified bilingual education teach-ers and primary language can be used for conceptdevelopment purposes. In conjunction with theearlier finding that "districts with the highest dis-proportion levels have the smallest proportion ofstudents in bilingual programs" (Finn, 1982, p.

Spring 2005

372), an important research question to addressin future studies is whether placement in well-de-signed and faithfully implemented bilingual pro-grams helps prevent ELL overrepresentation.Future studies should consider a component as-sessing quality of instruction.

Level of resttictiveness in special educationplacement is an important consideration at a timewben the pressure for inclusive education modelsis increasing. The tradeoffs among inclusiveness,access to primary language support, opportunitiesto interact with nondisabled native speakers ofEnglish, and quality of educational experiencesneed to be considered when selecting the mostappropriate setting for individual students.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

PLACEMENT

The data suggest a larger proportion ot low-SESELLs populate LD programs at all grade levels aswell as LAS secondary classes. However, a greaterproportion of high-SES ELLs are placed in LASelementary programs. This is an intriguing pat-tern that should be scrutinized in future studies,particularly if we consider that SES seems to havelittle effect on immigrant students' proficiency inthe parental language, "but positive and signifi-cant effects on bilingualism" (Pottes & Hao,1998, p. 289).

THE GONTEXT AND LIMITATIONS OE THE

STUDY

This study was carried out in large urban districtsthat share many characteristics common to otherlarge urban schools such as a high proportion ofnon-White students, low SES students, studentswhose native language is not English, and ascarcity of resources. Opportunity to learn is asignificant issue in these districts. It is critical thatfuture research account for the significant struc-tural disadvantages ELLs face in terms of unequaleducational resources and outcomes in California(Gandara, Rumbetger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Calla-han, 2003). It will be critical to examine howthese inequities interact with the reform initia-tives that target not only ELLs but all students.These have included English-only instruction,structured and cotnmercially based reading curric-ula, class-size reduction, and accountability pres-sures among others. As noted earlier, we arc

witnessing "the layering of one reform on anotherwithout consideration of their compatibility, ei-ther theoretically or pedagogical ly, and their effi-cacy" (Gutierrez et a!., 2002, p. 333).

It is necessary that researchers investigatehow the confluence of reforms is affecting the ed-ucation of ELLs with and without disabilities. Forinstance, educators have voiced concerns in checontext ofthe initial implementation of Proposi-tion 227 "regarding the segregation and trackingof [ELLs] into less challenging programs as theyentered middle and high schools" (Parrish et al.,2002, p. ix). Similar concerns have been raisedabout the lack of progress in improving the redes-ignation rate of ELLs to Fluent English proficient(Parrish et al.). Future studies need to focus onhow these trends are interacting with other re-forms and how these interactions shape ELLs'chances to be placed in special education.

Of particular interest for future research arcthe repercussions of high-stakes testing and otheraccountability pressures on ELL placement inspecial education; it will be important to framesuch inquiries in the emerging body of empiricalwork that questions standardized tests' constructvalidity (Abedi, 2004). A related issue is the ex-amination of academic achievement trends. Forexample, a recent report on the second year of im-plementation of Proposition 227 found

a very modest reduction in the [performance gapbetween ELLs and English speaking students] ingrades 2 through 11 ot about .10 of a standarddeviation in the strongest case. A similar reduc-tion was found in language arts, and for math....Despite small reductions, the performancegap between [ELLs and English speaking stu-dents] persists for each subject. (Parrish et al.,2002, p. xi)

Given this context and the issues raised,there are limitations of the study that need to beconsidered. First, the databases used for this studywere not designed with the primary purpose ofconducting research, and they are still being re-fined. Thus, the present analyses necessitated thecombination of various databases. In addition, thedata have only been compiled for the past fewyears, thus prohibiting any longitudinal analyses.Moreover, although it would be ideal for districtadministrators to report detailed information

Exceptional Children 2 9 7

about the data collection and recording proce-dures used to create the databases so that re-searchers can gauge their limits and possibilities,budgetary and other administrative concernsoften preclude such steps.

Another limitation of this study is that isthat it offers one limited lens on an admittedlycomplex problem, and does so at only one pointin time. Any single type of methodology has in-herent strengths as well as limitations. Althoughlarge databases ofthe type used here are useful fordiscerning patterns, they ofi:en require categoriza-tion of students and programs in arbitrary ways,may obscure critical within-group or individualdifferences, and tell nothing about the processesthat produced the observed patterns. Moreover,studies such as the present one do not address theissue of instructional quality and ELL learningoutcomes, even though these are critical consider-ations in ELLs' academic careers.

I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R P R A C T I C E

LOOK EOR PATTERNS AND HOW THEY

CHANGE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

It is important to be aware of disproportionalityat both the national and local levels, and the factthat certain patterns have remained constant overthe last 3 decades—for example, African Ameri-cans and Native Americans are overrepresented atthe national level. However, placement patternsvary at the district and school levels by minoritygroup, disability, special education program, andgrade level depending on factors such as districtand special education program sizes and the rep-resentation of a group in the district. It is impor-tant for practitioners to understand tbe evolutionof the problem at the local level to determinewhich student populations, disability categories,and programs need to be tracked. Reliance onstate or national data may mask important localpatterns. This consideration is particularly criticalin large urban districts that are dynamic andwhere demographics, budgets, and other factorscan produce rapid changes in a very short time-frame.

USE MULTIPLE LNDICATORS

There is no widespread agreement about the su-periority ofthe various ways of defining and mea-suring disproportionality. However, any effort tomonitor it must start with a clear and measurabledefinition ofthe problem. Examples of such defi-nirions are used in this study and also reported inDonovan and Cross (2002) and Oswald et al,(1999). In addition, this study shows that agreater understanding of the problem can begained from the u.se of multiple indicators such ascomposition and risk indices and odds ratios. Theuse of multiple indicators would allow a school ordistrict to understand better the magnitude andnuances of placement patterns.

MONITOR KEY TARGET POPULATIONS AND

SUBGROUPS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS

Although researchers have traditionally examineddisproportionality as it affects ethnic minoritystudents, we know little about other groups suchas ELL subgroups or students from low-incomebackgrounds. Similarly, witbin-group variabilityhas been rarely addressed. We learned it is criticalto define the target groups for analysis accordingto the local context and conditions and examinewithin group variability. In the present study wewould not have learned about the pattern of over-representation of ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 ifwe had not targeted this specific subgroup in ouranalyses. Additional factors to disaggregate in fu-ture studies with ELLs include (a) immigrantand/or generational differences; (b) language pro-ficiency and dominance levels; (c) literacy level inthe native language; and (d) social class, gradelevel, and preexisting program placement. Simi-larly, it is critical to define clearly the target popu-lations-for example, it has been suggested ELLsreclassified as Fully English Proficient should beincluded in analysis of ELL achievement trends(Parrish et al., 2002); thus, it might be useful toconsider including such a group in future analysisof ELL placement patterns.

CONSIDER SCHOOL AND LNSTRUCTIONAL

EACTORS, NOT ONLY STUDENT FACTORS

Disproportionate representation is a complexissue. For some students, special education place-ment may be the most appropriate and least re-

Spring2005

Reliance on state or national data maymask important local local patterns.

strictive alternative. Where special educationplacement patterns are found to be problematic,however, student level factors should not be theonly consideration. In addition to the achieve-ment and potential of individual students, andthe cultural and social capital that they bring toschool, a basic premise of the solution-generationprocess is tbat disproportionality is situatedwithin a partictJar school and a wider educationalsystem with their own set of larger issues. Equallyimportant as student characteristics are teachers'and administrators' beliefs about diversity, cur-riculum, assessment, instruction, school culture,governance, and professional development andthe ways in which they are formulated in policyand enacted in practice. In this regard, work thatconsiders student background experiences, needs,and strengths as instructional resources can beparticularly helpful in thinking about existingschool culture and practices. In other words, in-stead of targeting vague issues (e.g., to reduce dis-ability placement rates), the presence ofdisproportionality should be taken as an opportu-nity for the examination of more complex issuesthat ultimately shape this problem. The natureand quality of the instructional program and aca-demic and social support services (opportunity tolearn) merit consideration as part of a complexwhole, particularly as they affect equal educa-tional outcomes.

REFERENCES

Abedi, j . (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act andEnglish language learners: Assessment and accountabil-ity i55ues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing iden-tity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture andspace. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-202.

Artiies, A. J., & Rueda, R. (2002, March-April). Gen-eral guidelines for monicoring minority overrepresenta-tion in special education. CASE Newsletter, 43i5), 5-6.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C , & Palmer, J. (2004). Cultur-ally diverse students in special education: Legacies andprospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Hand-book of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.; pp.716-735). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improvingschooling for language-minority children: A researchagenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

California Department of Education. (2000). Califor-nia special education programs: A composite of laws (22nded.). Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education, (n.d.). EducationCode, Section 435 (a). Retrieved May 21, 2004, fromfj t t p : / / w w w . I e g i n fo . ca.gov/cgi-b in/display code ?section = edc&group = 0000!-]

Chinn, P. C , & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation ofminority students in special education classes. Remedialand Special Education, 8, 41-46.

Diana v. State Board of Education, CA. 70 RET (N.D.Cal., Feb. 3, 1970, 1973).

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Minority stu-dents in special and gifted education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Finn, J. D. (1982). Patterns in special education place-ment as revealed by che OCR sur\'eys. In K. A. Heller,W. H. Holtzman, & S. Messick (Eds.), Placing childrenin special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 322-381).Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, j . ,Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T, & Gurry, J. (2000). The ini-tial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of En-glish learners. Santa Barbara, CA; Linguistic MinorityResearch Institute.

Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Calla-han, R. (2003). English learners in California schools:Unequal resources, unequal ouccomes. Education PolicyAnalysis Archives, ll{36). Retrieved on October 7,2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vnn36/

Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L. C ,Olson, K., Horng, E. L., Ruiz, R., Garcia, E., McCarty,T. L. (2002). "Sounding American": The consequencesof new reforms on English language learners. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 37, 328-343.

Harry, B., Klingner, J., Sturges, K. M., & Moore, R. P.(2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using qualitativemethods to investigate disproportionality. In D. Loscn& G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education(pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPress.

Exceptional Children 2 9 9

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.).(1982). Placing children in special education: A strategyfbr equity. Washington, DC; National Academy Press.

Lau V. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 566 (1974).

MacSwan, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G. V. (2002). Dosome school-age children have no language? Someproblems of construct validity in the Pre-LAS Espanol.Bilingual Research fournal, 26, 395-420.

Mercado, C. I. (2001). The learner: "Race," "ethnicity,"and linguistic difference. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teaching (4th ed.; pp. 668-694).Washington, DC: American Educational Research As-sociation.

Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh,N. N. (1999). Erhnic representation in special educa-tion: The influence of school-related economic and de-mographic variables. The Joumal of Special Education,32, 194-206.

Parrish, T. B., Llnquanti, R., Merickel, A., Quick, H.E., Laird, J., & Esra, R (2002). Effects ofthe implemen-tation of Proposition 227 on the education of Englishlearners, K-12. Year 2 Report. Washington, DG: Ameri-can Institutes for Research and WestHd.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E Pluribus Unum: Bilin-gualism and loss oflanguage in the second generation.Sociology of Education, 71, 269-294.

Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Saiazar, J., & Higareda, I.(2002). An analysis of special education as a responseto the diminished academic achievement ofGhicano/Latino students: An update. In R. R. Valencia(Ed,), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present.

and future (2nd ed.; pp. 310-332). London: Rout-ledge/Falmer.

Rumberger, R., & Gandara, P. (2000). The schoolingof English learners, In C. Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.),Conditions of education 2000. Berkeley, CA: UC PolicyAnalysis for California Education.

Saiazar, J. J. (2000). [District] master plan report for En-glish language learners, 1998-1999. Los Angeles, CA;Los Angeles Unified School District.

Valencia, R, R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligencetesting and minority students: Foundations, performancefactors, and assessment Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ABOUT THE A U T H O R S

ALFREDO J. ARTILES, Profcssor, Arizona StateUniversity, Icmpc. ROBERT RUEDA, Professor;JESUS j o s t SALAZAR, Doctorat Candidate;and IGNACIO HfGAREDA, Doctoral Candidate,University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Address correspondence to Alfredo J. Artiles, Ari-zona State University, P. O. Box 2011, FarmerEducation Bldg. ED 310E, Tempe, AZ 85287-2011 (e-tnail: [email protected])

Manuscript received July 2003; accepted June2004.

A Century of Care$50 video $60 DVD

$3 shipping and handling6% sales tax

Mary Sauer, PO Box 97Franklin, PA 16323PH. 814-432-2263

"A Century of Care" is an intriguing and educationalvideo depicting evolution of the treatment of theinstitutionalized developmentally disabled person.This unique 40 minute video presents an objectiveoverview of the social attitudes, legislation, medicaladvances, and economic factors that shaped theprogression of institutionalized care in the UnitedStates, Great for those who are engaged in humanservice and psychology studies. Included are numerousarchived photographs and interviews. College professorsand agency directors have commented how helpful thevideo is in giving background information and fosteringthoughtful discussion and insight.

spring 2005