Why are African-American students disproportionately placed in "special education?" - take 1

[This paper represents my first formal attempt to synthesize my personal research on this question. I will post later modifications as well. The bibliography is at the end of the post. You may wish to skip to the thesis statement]

Across the United States, African-American students are disproportionately assigned to special education programs (Grenot-Scheyer, et al, 2001; Lipsky 1996). In some districts, as many as 70% of African-American students are placed in special education (Perry and Delpit, 1998, p. xi). Since special education in its current (largely segregated) form often fails to educate at all (Lipsky 1996), these placements contribute to other horrifying statistics like the drop-out rate of African-American high school students (MIPR 2002). These terrible realities should be, but rarely are, treated as an emergency and a crisis whose origins must be identified and whose solution must be found and implemented without delay.

In attempting to identify the reasons for the over-representation of African-American children in special education, I begin with the assumption that these students are over-represented not because they are inherently less intelligent or less capable than their counterparts, but because the school system is failing to meet their educational needs.(1) A brief review of some relevant literature reveals multiple ways in which school systems fail African-American children; in this context, special education placement may almost be seen as an attempt by the school to avoid responsibility by labeling the children as inherently deficient. This is not to say that there are no African-American children who have genuine disabilities, but rather to say that many children are mis-diagnosed as having disabilities, when in fact it is the school that has thwarted their ability and quashed their desire to learn.


[click any assertion in the following paragraph to go directly to the supporting paragraph; you may also wish to skip to my solutions/recommendations]

First, schools fail to help children who speak “Black English” acquire proficiency in “Standard English,” which negatively affects these children’s ability to learn to read. Second, schools fail to make learning accessible to children from non-dominant-cultural backgrounds. Third, school systems fail to combat racism in schools, particularly among teachers, where racism manifests as low expectations, negative assumptions or blindness, and denigrating demeanor. Fourth, when these school failures have hindered students’ learning, the tests meant to establish their need for special education often are biased. Last, teachers who have always been over-achievers may fail to understand and respond empathetically to children’s reactions to their own low achievement.

We begin with language, and a success story. In the 1990’s in the Oakland, California public schools, African-American students were failing in large numbers. There was only one exception: African-American students were succeeding at the one elementary school that had implemented a program that affirmed the validity and distinct nature of “Black English,” and taught “Standard English” as a second language (Perry and Delpit, 1998, p. xi). In discussing this school’s success, Lisa Delpit notes two important reasons why its “Standard English Proficiency” policies are so helpful. First, she explains that “the linguistic form a student brings to school is intimately connected with loved ones, community, and personal identity,” and thus it is profoundly confusing and alienating to students when their “native language” is denigrated and suppressed. Under these circumstances, accepting the acquisition of “Standard English” may feel like a betrayal of their loved ones and community (Delpit 1998, p. 19).

The second aspect of acknowledging “Standard English” as a second language is more concrete: research evidence suggests that students have a very difficult time learning to read when their teachers fail to recognize the difference between reading comprehension and language acquisition (Delpit, 1998, p. 25). Many teachers, with the best of intentions, continually interrupt beginning readers to correct their “Black English” pronunciation; in so doing, they fail to notice the fact that if a student has “translated” a word into her own language, she has already read it and comprehended it (Delpit, 1998, p. 23). The continual interruptions have three negative effects: denying the child the useful experience of continuous fluent reading, directing her focus toward pronunciation and away from meaning, and discouraging her from future attempts at reading (Delpit, 1998, p. 24).(2)

If the school system’s first major failure is linguistic, its second is cultural. Most school systems are constructed in ways that facilitate learning with a particular cultural and cognitive style, one that is most associated with European-American children from middle- and upper-class families. John Taylor Gatto has revealed that the U.S. school system was designed after a Prussian model, whose main goal was to produce obedient soldiers and workers, and a populace whose opinions were molded as the state saw fit (Gatto 2001, chapter 7 passim). The result of this model of obedience and compliance is a school system that requires young children to be able to sit still and be silent for long periods of time—a behavior may or may not be taught in their cultural context. For example, Janice Hale-Benson notes the difference between many African-American church services, which emphasize participation and movement, and many European-American church services, which emphasize precisely the kind of silent attentiveness that is required in school (Hale-Benson 1986, p. 80). Young children who arrive in kindergarten or first grade without much experience of prolonged silent sitting may start out at a disadvantage, being perceived as “disruptive” or “out of control.” This can result in a mis-diagnosis of ADD or any number of personality disorders.

There are also cultural differences in communication, which can damage student-teacher relationships and lead the teacher to mis-label the student. For example, Hale-Benson and others have pointed out that African-American children are often taught to show respect by lowering or averting their eyes, but that this may be interpreted by their European-American teachers as disrespect or inattentiveness (Hale-Benson 1986, p.16). She also reviews research indicating that playful banter between children and adults is more acceptable in some African-American communities—the kind of banter that a European-American teacher might interpret as “backtalk” or “impudence” (Hale-Benson 1986, p. 80). Misunderstandings along these lines may ultimately may result in a child being labeled as having “oppositional behavior disorder” or other behavior issues. It is worth noting that, with any behavior “problem,” removing the student from the classroom (via suspension or simply a trip to the principal’s office) will cause the student even farther behind his/her peers.

On another cultural communication note, L. Janelle Dance looks at “tough fronts,” or “postures forged by social marginalization.” She writes of how teachers may persistently fail to understand that students sometimes adopt a “tough” appearance as a measure of self-defense. Teachers tend to take these appearances for reality and to treat these students as delinquent and violent, when in fact they are not at all inclined toward criminal activities (Dance 2002, passim). Similarly, Angela Valenzuela writes that teachers “tend to overinterpret urban youths’ attire and off-putting behavior as evidence …that these students ‘don’t care’ about school.” She notes that teachers may respond to these assumptions by withdrawing from any effort to connect with such students or help them (Valenzuela 1999, p. 22). There are no doubt many other cultural miscues that cause teachers to withdraw support from students who still need and want their assistance and attention.

We have reviewed the first two major categories of school failure: failure to address the needs of students who are acquiring “Standard English” as a second language, and failure to create a learning environment appropriate for students from all cultural backgrounds. The third major school failure that results in African-American students being unfairly placed in special education is the failure to combat institutional racism in schools. Some of the issues discussed under the cultural heading also fall under this category as well: teachers who are unaware of cultural differences are likely to misinterpret student behavior. Teachers may also engage in more overtly racist behavior, often without being aware of it. Julie Kailin has studied the degree to which racism permeates even the most would-be “liberal” schools, manifesting in lower expectations for African-American students, or stereotypes about African-American students and their families (Kailin 2002, p. 13). Kailin notes that children of color “may experience...differential treatment repeatedly throughout their school years.” Low expectations result in lower student achievement, while subtle discrimination may result in lower self-esteem, truancy, and other issues that lead to special education placements. Furthermore, many teachers may be unaware of times when their own behavior is discriminatory or disrespectful; in such instances, a student’s justifiably angry reaction may lead the teacher to label him/her as a “behavior problem” (Kailin 2002, p. 104-6).

The fourth major category of school failure lies in the area of testing. Eventually, when one or more of the above-mentioned problems affects a student’s performance, the student may be referred for special education testing and evaluation. Hoover et al have catalogued the ways in which tests may be biased against students from non-dominant ethnic, racial, or even geographic backgrounds—largely because, in various ways, they test something other than what they claim to test (Hoover et al, 1991, p.55). Scales gives the example of reading comprehension tests that ask questions about a passage, but often include questions that cannot be answered solely from the information in the passage; in effect they are testing general knowledge (Scales 1991, pp. 69-70). Tests that are ostensibly measuring intelligence may actually be testing Standard English grammatical knowledge, or simply testing how closely the student’s worldview matches that of the test designer (for example, by asking about golf or ballet, or what “policemen do”) (Hoover et al, pp. 59-60). Biased testing is another reason that African-American children may end up disproportionately in special education.

To these researched and documented examples I would add a personal observation. Exacerbating these problems, teachers may be unfamiliar with the range of reactions engendered by failure and low self-esteem. Teachers who have always been high achievers themselves may be particularly likely to miss the connection between failure and “acting out.” Students who react dramatically to their own overwhelming emotions around their failures (by disrupting class, destroying school materials, refusing to work, etc.) are likely to be labeled and pushed even farther away from possible resources that could help them.

Thus we have established an array of ways in which schools fail African-American students and increase the likelihood that they will end up in special education programs. What remedies might be imagined that could address these problems? It seems to me that the needed remedy is twofold: antiracist and intercultural education for teachers, and inclusion for students.

Julie Kailin’s book Antiracist Education describes her implementation of anti-racist staff development training sessions at schools in Madison and Milwaukee, in which she provided teachers with information about the experience of students of color, and challenged them to examine their own perceptions. These sessions appear to have been fairly successful at awakening teachers to some of the obstacles faced by students of color, as well as helping teachers to discover and attack their own biases, assumptions, and low expectations. In addition to courses like this, teachers need to learn simple information about cultural difference, such as the differing meanings ascribed to lowering the eyes before an authority figure.

In addition to implementing antiracist education for teachers, schools need to undergo massive reforms and become truly inclusive. African-American students who have fallen behind must not continue to be segregated in special education classes except under very unusual and particular circumstances (as, indeed, is mandated by law). Back in the general education classroom, under-achieving students would be helped by such inclusive strategies as peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and whole-class engagement in projects and activities (Walther-Thomas et al 2000, p. 7). It is by no means unimportant that all these learning strategies create a classroom that is more culturally accessible to some African-American students (as discussed above) than is the class of silent, motionless rows. Furthermore, as part of the creation of a welcoming and inclusive environment for all, all districts should also implement a version of the Oakland, California school district’s “Standard English Proficiency” program, discussed above, to help African-American children learn to read and gain proficiency in two languages.

In summary, special education in its current format tends to be a dead-end road, and African-American students tend to be set upon that road in disproportionate numbers. This must not be allowed to continue. The learning process in the general education classroom can and should be redesigned to include all levels of learner and all styles of cognition, so that each student can work with peers on projects, “from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs.” Peer support, relational learning, and active engagement will help African-American students as much as, or perhaps even more than, others. In the final analysis, only inclusive education, combined with a determined attack on racism and a realistic and respectful approach to African-American students’ language, can hope to brighten the future of the thousands of children now doomed to failure in the current system.

-----
Notes:

1. Although many people assert that some African-American students fall behind because they arrive at school without enough academic preparation, there is no reason why inadequate academic preparation for school cannot be overcome. The question is why this initial disadvantage (when and if it exists) is allowed to persist. (return to text)

2. Evidence supporting Delpit’s arguments can also be found in Hoover, et al, 1991. (return to text)




-----
Works Cited

Dance, L. Janelle. (2002) Tough Fronts: The Impact of Street Culture on Schooling. Routledge: New York City

Delpit, Lisa. 1998, “What Should Teachers Do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive Instruction.” In Theresa Perry and Lisa Delpit, eds. (1998) The Real Ebonics Debate: Power, Language, and the Education of African-American Children. Beacon Press: Boston, MA

Gatto, John Taylor. (2000/2001) The Underground History of American Education. The Oxford Village Press.

Grenot-Scheyer, M., Fischer, M., and Staub, D. (2001) A framework for understanding inclusive education. In M. Grenot-Scheyer,, M. Fischer, and D. Staub. Lessons Learned in Inclusive Education: At the End of the Day. Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD.

Hale-Benson, Janice. (1986) Black Children: Their Roots, Culture, and Learning Styles. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD

Hoover, Mary R., Robert L., Politzer, and Orlando Taylor. (1991) “Bias in Reading Tests for Black Language Speakers: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. In Asa G. Hilliard, III., ed, Special Issue of the Negro Educational Review: Testing African-American Students. Third World Press: Chicago, IL.

Kailin, Julie. (2002) Antiracist Education: From Theory to Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland.

Lipsky, D. (1996). An Inclusion Talkback: Critics’ Concerns and Advocates’ Responses. National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 3(1). The Graduate School & University Center of the City of New York.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (2002). Report: High School Graduation Rates in the United States http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Perry, Theresa, and Lisa Delpit, eds. (1998) The Real Ebonics Debate: Power, Language, and the Education of African-American Children. Beacon Press: Boston, MA

Scales, Alice M. (1991) “Alternatives to Standardized Tests in Reading Education: Cognitive Styles and Informal Measures.” In Asa G. Hilliard, III., ed, Special Issue of the Negro Educational Review: Testing African-American Students. Third World Press: Chicago, IL.

Valenzuela, Angela. 1999. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. SUNY Press: Albany, NY

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V., and Toler Williams, B. (2000). “Inclusive Education: Building the Case.” In C. Walther-Thomas, L. Korinek, V. McLaughlin, and B. Toler Williams, Collaboration for Inclusive Education: Developing Successful Programs. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.