Teacher Racial/Ethnic Diversity: Distribution of Special and General Educators of Color Across Schools

Abstract

Students benefit from a teacher workforce that represents the full racial/ethnic diversity of the United States. We examine racial/ethnic composition of general education teacher (GET) and special education teacher (SET) workforce using the Schools and Staffing Survey. We find that the teacher workforce continues to be primarily White. In 2011–2012, 18% of SETs and GETS were people of color; however, 47% of students with disabilities were students of color. Among teachers of color, the majority identify as Black or Hispanic, with a smaller proportion of Hispanic SETs than GETs. Early career SETs are racially/ethnically similar to experienced SETs, while early career GETs are somewhat more diverse. There were dramatic differences across regions, type of districts, and schools; higher percentages of teachers of color taught in high-poverty and urban schools as well as in schools with higher enrollments of students of color. Results have important implications for education policy and teacher preparation.

Keywords

diversity teacher(s)teacher diversity teachers of color

Students with disabilities in the United States are increasingly diverse, and more than half are now students of color (including Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaska Native, and multiracial students; National Center of Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). Students benefit from having teachers who share their racial/ethnic background (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015; Grissom, Kern, & Rodriguez, 2015; Rocha & Hawes, 2009; Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Yet, teachers, including special education teachers (SETs), have been mostly White (Ingersoll & May, 2011). No current research indicates what proportion of SETs are people of color¹ or where SETs of color are teaching.

Thus, we examine the current racial/ethnic diversity of teachers serving students with disabilities. We begin by articulating our conceptual and empirical foundation in research on bureaucratic representation. We then discuss the history of the demographic divide and how that divide has historically varied across schools and regions. Finally, we analyze the current status of the demographic divide between students with disabilities and their teachers.

Conceptual Framework: Bureaucratic Representation

Public policy scholars have long argued that a representative bureaucracy is important because “the composition of the unelected bureaucracy helps determine whose interests are reflected in the implementation of public policy” (Grissom et al., 2015, p. 185). Grissom and colleagues argue this concept applies to teachers, “street-level bureaucrats” who are the face of the public school system and the main educational service providers (p. 186). Cultivating a representative bureaucracy is often justified by the ethical argument that a racially/ethnically diverse workforce is important for demonstrating that power is, can, and should be distributed among all members of society. This ethical argument is buttressed by strong empirical evidence of the benefits of a more diverse bureaucracy, including the benefits of a diverse teacher workforce, for students of color (Grissom et al., 2015).

Benefits of a Diverse Teacher Workforce

Students benefit academically from having teachers who share their race/ethnicity; benefits are especially strong for students of color (e.g., Dee, 2004; Rocha & Hawes, 2009). For instance, Dee analyzed Tennessee’s Project STAR (Student–Teacher Achievement Ratio), in which nearly 6,000 students were randomly assigned to classes, thus permitting causal inferences. Results indicated that Black and White students randomly assigned a teacher who shared their race scored significantly better in reading and math; the effect was strongest for Black students living in poverty and attending predominantly Black schools (Dee, 2004). Subsequent studies have obtained similar results; for example, Egalite and colleagues (2015) found the positive effects of a same-race teacher were most pronounced for Black students with weaker prior achievement.

Scholars have examined several explanations for these effects. First, implicit biases play a role (Peterson, Rubie-Davies, Osborne, & Sibley, 2016; van den Bergh, Denessen, Hornstra, Voeten, & Holland, 2010). Implicit biases are unconscious stereotyped assumptions about people based on demographic characteristics; all people are susceptible to implicit bias (Staats, 2015). Peterson et al. (2016) examined the relationship between teachers’ biases and students’ math gains; students whose teachers held negative implicit biases made significantly smaller gains than students whose teachers held positive implicit biases about their race/ethnicity. Similarly, van den Bergh et al. (2010) found that students from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds had lower student achievement when teachers held negative implicit biases about their race/ethnicity but not when teachers did not have negative implicit biases. Teachers’ expectations for students’ achievement mediated this relationship (van den Bergh et al., 2010). Other studies have obtained similar results, finding teachers who hold implicit biases about a students’ race/ethnicity communicate lower expectations (Peterson et al., 2016), provide less rigorous instruction (Jacoby-Senghor, Sinclair, & Shelton, 2016), refer students less often to gifted education and more often to special education (Rocha & Hawes, 2009), and write more discipline referrals (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015). All people are susceptible to implicit bias, even about their own race/ethnicity, but teachers of color are less likely to hold negative implicit biases about people of color (Morin & Rohal, 2015).

Second, there is evidence that teachers competent in students’ cultural backgrounds may hold students to higher expectations and more effectively provide culturally sustaining instruction (Brown, 2009; Mahatmya, Lohman, Brown, & Conway-Turner, 2016). For instance, Mahatmya and colleagues (2016) analyzed survey data from more than 200 students and teachers in three Texas districts; teachers who were more culturally competent were more likely to hold high expectations for Black students than teachers who were less culturally competent. Race/ethnicity and culture are not synonymous, and many cultural differences exist within racial/ethnic groups; however, teachers of color are more likely to share their students’ cultural backgrounds.

Other explanations have also been proposed. These include (a) teachers of color may act as role models of academically successful people of color; (b) teachers of color may support students of color in navigating racist systems; and (c) having teachers of color may help students of color feel engaged in school (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). Qualitative studies have found that teachers of color sometimes do engage in these roles (e.g., Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011; Rueda, Monzó, & Higareda, 2004), but no studies have tested whether these roles explain relationships between teacher race/ethnicity and achievement among students of color (Villegas & Irvine, 2010).

Federal policy recognizes the benefits of a diverse teacher workforce. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015, S. 1177 – 120) authorizes states to use federal funds for “recruiting and retaining . . . effective teachers from underrepresented minority groups.” Thirty-one states have policies promoting recruitment of teachers of color (Villegas, Strom, & Lucas, 2012). Similarly, the Council for the Accreditation for Educator Preparation indicates that teacher education programs should recruit diverse candidates (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2015). Note that these policies do not promote segregation of students of color in classes taught only by teachers of color, instead, they are based on the premise that all students benefit from having some teachers representative of their own background and the diversity of the United States (Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010).

History of the Demographic Divide Between Students and Teachers

No recent research has examined the proportion of SETs who are people of color, but most SETs have, historically, been White (Kozleski, Artiles, McCray, & Lacy, 2014; Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, & Flippin, 2004). Among educators in general, teacher diversity has been stagnant; between 1987–1988 and 2007–2008, the proportion of minority students grew from 28% to 40.6%, yet the proportion of minority teachers increased from 12.4% to only 16.5% (Ingersoll & May, 2011). However, the proportion of racial/ethnic minority teachers has varied across schools, with more teachers of color serving in urban schools, high-poverty schools, and schools serving larger proportions of students of color (Ingersoll & May, 2011).

To understand the current status of the demographic divide and variability across different kinds of schools, it is helpful to briefly examine the history of teachers of color in U.S. schools. The demographic divide is rooted in a long history of racial/ethnic segregation and barriers to licensure for prospective teachers of color (Fultz, 2004; Hurstfield, 1975; Kuo, 1998). A full discussion of this history is beyond the scope of this article, but we briefly discuss histories of Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and Native American teachers, to illustrate how the demographic divide developed and has historically varied across schools and regions.

The demographic divide between Black students and their teachers did not always exist (Fultz, 2004). Black teachers once constituted a substantial proportion of the teacher workforce, teaching primarily in segregated Southern schools (Fultz, 2004). Brown versus Board of Education had the inadvertent effect of pushing thousands of Black teachers out of teaching (Fultz, 2004; Green, 2004; Siddle Walker, 2009). Integration primarily involved moving Black students into historically White schools; thus, schools that had previously served Black students were often closed, and Black teachers were seldom hired to work in newly integrated schools (Fultz, 2004; Green, 2004). Furthermore, states responded to Brown with policies targeting Black educators; for instance, eight states loosened tenure regulations so schools could more easily revoke Black teachers’ tenure (Fultz, 2004). Between 1954 and 1966, more than 31,000 Black teachers left teaching (Fultz, 2004). Northern cities often had parallel experiences, in which integration was followed by widespread loss of Black educators (Douglas, 2005).

The history of Hispanic/Latinx teachers varies across U.S. regions and countries of origin (e.g., Gándara & Aldana, 2012). In the Southwest, Mexican American students were primarily taught by White educators (Hurstfield, 1975). New Mexico was an exception; the Spanish American Normal School at El Rito trained bilingual teachers and the University of New Mexico prepared bilingual Mexican American teachers (Dilworth & Brown, 2008). Throughout the Southwest, parents often collaborated to develop escuelitas (small schools) teaching Spanish outside of public school hours (Nájera, 2015). Hispanic/Latinx teachers from other countries of origin have different histories. For instance, in the 1950s and 60s, Cuban American students often attended private schools, staffed by Cuban American teachers, under the assumption they would move back to Cuba once Castro was ousted; thus, many Cuban American educators were employed in private schools (Gándara & Aldana, 2012).

The history of Asian American educators also varies across states and countries of origin (Kuo, 1998; Williamson, Rhodes, & Dunson, 2007). Policies discriminating against Asian Americans were prevalent on the West Coast before Brown (Williamson et al., 2007). For instance, in 1882, California barred Asian Americans who were not citizens from becoming teachers, though some Chinese educators did teach at private Chinese schools (Kuo, 1998). Japanese Americans were exempted from Asian segregation policies, and Japanese American students did attend public schools, though we could locate no accounts of Japanese American teachers in public schools. Private Japanese language schools were staffed by Japanese American educators (Kuo, 1998; Williamson et al., 2007). Asian segregation laws on the West Coast applied to Filipino Americans (Pido, 1997; Posadas, 2013), but we could locate no accounts of Filipino American teachers. We also could locate no accounts of teachers of South Asian, Pacific Islander, Central Asian, Korean, or Mongolian descent, perhaps due to the small numbers of people from these countries living in the U.S. before the 1964 Immigration Act (Gordon, 2000).

Mission schools and federally run schools dominated formal education for Native American students from the 1800s through the 1930s (Adams, 1995). Most of these schools had explicitly stated assimilationist goals, focused on stripping students of Native American cultural identities, teaching them to adopt White Christian values and lifestyles, and/or teaching them to fulfill a subordinate role in society (Bennison, 2011; Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2016; Gere, 2005). Mission schools were primarily staffed by nuns and other missionaries (Bennison, 2011). The proportion of Native American teachers in federally run schools increased threefold between 1888 and 1898, when the superintendent of the Indian School Service adopted policies encouraging hiring of Native American educators; however, Native American educators still made up a small minority of the teaching staff (Gere, 2005). Native American communities actively countered barriers to teaching. Some tribes established tribal schools and teacher education programs (e.g., the Cherokee Nation’s Female Seminary), and historians have documented how Native American teachers in federally run boarding schools endeavored to sustain Native American cultural values and traditions through their teaching (Gere, 2005).

The histories of teachers of different races/ethnicities vary greatly but share a common thread: a history of serving students who share teachers’ backgrounds. Current research indicates that teachers of color often continue to hold a commitment to serving communities of color. Whereas many White educators became teachers because of positive experiences in schooling (Bullough & Hall-Kenyon, 2012), educators of color often become teachers to address structural inequities affecting students in their own community (Irizarry & Donaldson, 2012). Ingersoll and May’s (2011) finding, that minority teachers are more likely than White teachers to work in schools serving more minority students, appears to be consistent with this commitment. However, no current research examines whether this pattern occurs among SETs.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine the race/ethnicity of special and general educators across the United States, including the distribution of teachers of color across different kinds of schools and across U.S. regions. Because most students with disabilities are taught by both SETs and general education teachers (GETs), we consider the racial/ethnic diversity of both teacher groups. We used the 2011–2012 Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Questionnaire (SASS TQ) to answer the following questions:

Research Question 1: What is the extent of racial/ethnic diversity in the SET and GET workforce and how does SET and GET race/ethnicity compare to the race/ethnicity of students with disabilities?

Research Question 2: How are SETs and GETs of different races/ethnicities distributed across schools that vary in terms of the percentage of students living in poverty, the proportion of students of color, urbanicity, and region?

We hypothesized that the SET and GET workforce would continue to be mostly White. We also hypothesized that, consistent with historical trends, teachers of color would be concentrated in schools serving more students of color, including high-poverty schools, urban schools, and schools in Southern and Western regions of the United States.

Method

Instrumentation

SASS TQ is a component of the SASS, which National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) designed to collect information about characteristics, preparation, and work experience of U.S. teachers. SASS TQ is designed to produce national, regional, and state estimates for public elementary and secondary schools. It is considered an excellent resource for analysis and reporting on K-12 education (Tourkin et al., 2010).

We conducted secondary analyses of the 2011–2012 SASS TQ restricted-use data. We applied for data access; NCES authorized the research team with designated single-site user admittance. Authors submitted specific protocol and reporting information; NCES and the Institute for Educational Sciences (IES) authorized approval and release of findings.

We also used student data from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP; 2013) to determine racial/ethnic parity between students with disabilities and teachers. Student OSEP data were gathered in 2011, the same year as SASS TQ. To facilitate replication, Table 1 provides detailed information about variables used, including the question, code from SASS TQ, and variables developed by NCES and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) that are only available on the restricted-use data files.

Table 1.

Variables Used in Study.

Variable	SASS TQ Questionnaire Item or NCES/IES created variable^a
Public school	A public school is as an institution that is located in one or more buildings, receives public funds as primary support, and is operated by an education agency. Public charter schools, schools in juvenile detention centers, and schools located on domestic military bases, and operated by the Department of Defense are included.
Teacher assignment	SASS TQ item: This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at THIS school? Special education teachers (SASS TQ Code 110). General education (all other general education and subject-matter codes)
Early career teachers	NEWTCH^a is defined as teachers who have three or fewer years of teaching experience in public schools.
Race/ethnicity	RACETH_T^a is an unduplicated count by race and incorporates the Hispanic/Latino variable with the race codes. Teachers identifying with more than one race/ethnicity are defined in the category two or more. RACETH_T variables include White, non-Hispanic (referred to as “White”); White-Hispanic/Latino (referred to as “Hispanic”); Black, non-Hispanic (referred to as “Black”), Asian, non-Hispanic (referred to as “Asian”); American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic (referred to as “American Indian/Alaskan”), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic (referred to “Hawaiian/Pacific Islander”); two or more (includes two or more race/ethnicity)
Students of color	MINENR^a is the percentage of minority enrollment in school. This study defined low minority is 25% or less; medium minority is greater than 25% and less than 75%; high minority is 75% or greater
Age	AGE_T^a is the participants age in years
Gender	SASS TQ item: Are you a male or female?
Region	REGION^a is one of four regions in the United States: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.
Urbanicity	URBANS12^a is urbanicity: city, suburb, town, or rural.
Poverty	NSLAPP_S^a is the percent of students approved for the NSLP at school. This study defined 25% or less as low poverty, 75% or greater as high poverty, and 26% to 74% as mid poverty.

Note. SASS TQ = Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Questionnaire; NCES = National Center of Education Statistics; IES = Institute for Education Sciences; NSLP = National School Lunch Program.

NCES/IES variable.

Respondents

SETs and GETs

We selected respondents from the public school teacher sample and categorized all public school teachers (full-time and part-time) as SETs and GETs (see Table 1). Ninety-four percent were full-time teachers; 6% were part-time. Table 2 provides the percentage of all and early career SETs and GETs by race/ethnicity.

Table 2.

Race/Ethnicity of All and Early Career Teachers (%).

Race/ethnicity	SETs alln = 430,600	SETs earlyn = 54,110	GETs alln = 2,954,570	GETs earlyn = 327,250
American Indian/Alaskan	0.7	1.2	0.5	0.3
Asian	2.3	2.2	1.7	1.6
Black	8.5	5.3	6.6	8.0
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1
Hispanic	4.4	4.9	7.2	9.8
White	82.1	82.0	81.9	77.6
Two or more	1.8	4.2	2	2.6

Note. SET = special education teacher; GET = general education teacher.

Teachers’ race and ethnicity

To assess race/ethnicity, the SASS TQ includes two items: (a) What is your race? Mark (x) in one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be; and (b) Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? (see Table 1). For all analyses, we used the RACETH_T variable, which recodes the above into an unduplicated count as described in Table 1. The vast majority of respondents identified with one of six race/ethnicity categories.

Procedure

We analyzed data using SPSS 23.0. We weighted data using the Teacher Final Sampling Weight (TFNLWGT) variable, as suggested by IES for descriptive data analysis. NCES and IES require that n’s be rounded to the nearest 10 to assure participant anonymity. Thus, data in tables and narrative may not add to the total N reported because of rounding. In cases where estimates did not meet NCES or IES reporting standards, we suppressed data and did not report them in tables (Dinkes, Cataldi, & Lin-Kelly, 2007; Robers, Kemp, Rathbun, & Morgan, 2014). Descriptive analyses and comparisons were made between SETs and GETs, between students with disabilities and teachers, and across school type (i.e., urban, rural, town, suburban), school poverty level, the proportion of students of color served in a school, and geographic region.

We used the Teacher–Student Parity Index to determine representation of teachers of color (Villegas et al., 2012). To calculate the parity index, the percentage of SETs is divided by the percentage of students with disabilities. A score of 1 indicates parity. A score below 1 indicates that teachers are underrepresented relative to students of their race/ethnicity, and a score above 1 indicates that teachers are overrepresented relative to students of their race/ethnicity (Villegas et al., 2012). Parity scores are interpreted as a ratio of the number of SETs of a race/ethnicity relative to the number necessary to attain parity; for example, a score of 0.7 indicates there are seven SETs of color for every 10 necessary to attain parity.

Results

Research Question 1

To assess the overall racial/ethnic diversity of the SET and GET workforce, we cross-tabulated teacher type (SET or GET) by race and ethnicity (RACETH_T). We also cross-tabulated teacher type (SET or GET) by NEWTEACH (three or fewer years of experience) and RACETH_T, to determine the extent to which early career entrants differ from all SETs and GETs by race/ethnicity. We considered that the racial/ethnic diversity of early career entrants may vary from more experienced teachers, as the U.S. population continues to become more diverse.

Teachers of color comprised just 18% of teachers (rounded to the nearest percent), for both SETs and GETs; White teachers made up the vast majority (82%) of teachers, for both SETs and GETs. Of note, SETs and GETs are demographically remarkably similar, especially given that SETs comprise only 13% of the teacher workforce. Table 2 provides the percentage of teachers by race/ethnicity for all SETs and GETs and for early career teachers. Overall, Black teachers make up 8.5% of SETs and 6.6% of GETs, and Hispanic teachers comprise 4.4% of SETs and 7.2% of GETs. Only 2.3% of SETs and 1.7% of GETs identified as Asian. Less than 1% of all SETs and GETs identified as American Indian/Alaska Native. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander teachers comprise only 0.2% of SETs and 0.1% of GETs. Teachers identifying as two or more races comprised 1.8% and 2% of SETs and GETs, respectively.

Early career SETs are similar in race/ethnicity to the larger SET and GET teacher population (see Table 2). However, there is somewhat greater racial/ethnic diversity among early career GETs, with 22.4% identifying as teachers of color, compared with 18% of early career SETs and all GETs. The greater diversity among early career GETs is a due to a higher percentage of early career GETs identifying as Hispanic (9.8%) and Black (8.0%), compared with early career SETs identifying as Hispanic (4.9%) and Black (5.3%). There was a smaller percentage of early career Black SETs (5.3%) than among all Black SETs (8.5%) but more American Indian early career SETs (1.7%) than among all SETs (0.7%).

We compared race and ethnicity between teachers and students with disabilities (see Figure 1). Students of color comprised 47% of all students with disabilities, while teachers of color comprised only 18%. Specifically, Hispanic/Latinx students made up 22% of students with disabilities, while only 4.4% of SETs and 7.2% of GETs identify as the same. Black students make up 19% of the population of student with disabilities, but Black teachers made up only 8.5% of SETs and 6.6% of GETs. Students with disabilities who are Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander comprise 0.3% of the student population compared with 0.2% of SETs and 0.1% of GETs. Asian students with disabilities comprised 2.2% of students with disabilities, while 2.3% of SETs and 1.7% of GETs identified as Asian. American Indian/Alaska Native students with disabilities comprise 1.2% of students with disabilities and 0.7% of SETs and 0.5% of GETs.

Figure 1.

Comparison of students’ with disabilities and teachers’ race and ethnicity.

We next used the Teacher–Student Parity Index (Villegas et al., 2012) to conduct standardized comparisons between SETs and students with disabilities. SETs of color are underrepresented with a parity index of 0.38, which means that U.S. schools employed 38 SETs of color for every 100 that would be necessary to attain parity with the student population (see Table 3). The parity indices for Hispanic/Latinx and Black teachers were 0.20 and 0.45, respectively, indicating that U.S. schools employ 20 Black SETs for every 100 necessary to attain parity with the student population and 45 Hispanic/Latinx teachers for every 100 necessary to attain parity. There was parity among Asian teachers (1.0) and an overrepresentation of White teachers (1.5).

Table 3.

Teacher–Student Parity in Special Education.

Race/ethnicity	Teachers (%)	Students (%)	Parity index
American Indian/Alaskan	0.7	1.2	0.58
Asian	2.3	2.2	1.0
Black	8.5	19	0.45
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.2	0.3	0.67
Hispanic	4.4	22	0.20
White	82.1	53	1.5
Two or more	1.8	3.0	0.60
All of color	18	47	0.38

Research Question 2

Distribution of teachers by school poverty

To learn about the extent to which SETs and GETs with varied race/ethnicity teach in schools with varying levels of poverty, we cross-tabulated by teacher type (SET or GET), race/ethnicity (RACETH_T), and school poverty (NSLAPP_5). High-poverty schools were defined as having 75% or more of students participating in the National School Lunch Program (receiving free or reduced lunch); low poverty was defined as 25% or fewer students receiving free/reduced lunch program (see Table 1). A higher percentage of teachers of color taught in high-poverty schools compared with mid- and low-poverty schools (see Figure 2). A smaller percentage of White teachers taught in high-poverty schools compared with mid- and low-poverty schools. However, White teachers still comprised the majority of SETs (64.3%) and GETs (62.9%) in high-poverty schools.

Figure 2.

Distribution of SETs and GETs of color across high-, medium-, and low-poverty schools.

Distribution of teachers by the proportion of students of color in schools

To examine variation in teacher racial/ethnic diversity across schools that varied in terms of the proportion of students of color enrolled, we cross-tabulated teacher type (SET or GET), race/ethnicity (RACETH_T), and percentage of enrolled students who are of a racial/ethnic minority (MINENR). Schools defined as having a high percentage of students of color have 75% or more students of color, while schools defined as having a small percentage of students of color have 25% or fewer students of color (see Table 1). We found that when the percentage of students of color is higher, the percentage of White teachers is lower, while the percentage of Hispanic and Black teachers is higher (see Figure 3). This trend held for both SETs and GETs. In schools with low percentages of students of color, White teachers comprised 97.2% of SETs and 96.2% of GETs; in schools with high percentages of students of color, only 60% of SETs and GETs were White.

Figure 3.

Distribution of SETs and GETs of color across schools serving low, medium, and high proportions of students of color.

Distribution of teachers by urbanicity

To assess the extent of teacher diversity across city, suburban, town, and rural schools we cross-tabulated teacher type (SET or GET), teacher race/ethnicity (RACETH_T), and school location (URBAN-CENTRIC LOCALE). A higher percentage of teachers of color taught in city schools than in suburban, town, or rural schools, but White teachers were still the majority across all school types (see Table 4). Among SETs in city schools, 69.6% identify as White, 8.5% Hispanic, 15% Black, 3.7% Asian, and 2.4% “two or more.” There are more Hispanic GETs than SETs across all settings, but this was most noticeable in rural and town schools, with a ratio approaching 3:1. Across all school settings, there was a higher percentage of Black and American Indian/Alaska Native SETs than GETs.

Table 4.

Distribution of Special and General Education Teachers by Race/Ethnicity Across School Types (%).

Race/ethnicity	City		Suburban		Town		Rural
Race/ethnicity	SETsn = 126,160	GETsn = 83,260	SETsn = 138,500	GETsn =959,920	SETsn = 54,360	GETsn = 357,070	SETsn = 111,590	GETsn = 804,990
American Indian/Alaskan	0.3	0.1	0.7	0.2	0.6	0.6	1.1	0.8
Asian	3.7	3.1	1.1	1.6	3.5	1.3	1.7	0.6
Black	15.1	11.6	6.1	5.6	4.7	3.9	5.9	3.9
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.4	^a	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.1
Hispanic	8.5	10.7	4.1	7.1	1.8	5.4	1.5	4.4
White	69.6	71.3	86.4	83.2	87.6	87.7	88.2	88.8
Two or more	2.4	3.2	1.5	2.1	1.7	1.0	1.3	1.4

Note. SET = special education teacher; GET = general education teacher; IES = Institute for Educational Sciences.

Does not meet IES reporting requirements.

Distribution of teachers by region

Table 5 provides an overview of SETs and GETs by race and ethnicity across four U.S. regions. The percentage of teachers of color is highest in the South (24.7% SETs, 23.7% GETs) and West (23.3% SETs, 22.7 GETs). The South has the highest percentage of Black teachers (15.8% of SETs, 11.1% of GETs). More GETs in the South identify as Hispanic (9.2%) than SETs (4.4%). In the West, Hispanic and Asian teachers comprise the majority of teachers of color. In the West, Asian teachers comprise a higher proportion of SETs (8.5%) than GETs (4.4%), although the percentage of Hispanic teachers are similar between teacher groups (8.9% SETs; 10.5% GETs). Overall, the Northeast and Midwest regions have small percentages of teachers of color. Black teachers make up the largest group of teachers of color in the Midwest (SETs 4.4%; GETs 3.9%), while few identify as Hispanic (SETs, 1%; GETs 2.6%). Other races/ethnicities comprised 1% or less of the teachers in the Midwest. In the Northeast, Black teachers comprised the largest proportion of teachers of color among SETs (SETs, 5.9) followed by Hispanic teachers (SETs, 4.8). The pattern was slightly different among GETs in the Northeast (4.6% Black; 4.9% Hispanic).

Table 5.

Special and General Education Teachers by Race/Ethnicity and U.S. Region (%).

Race/ethnicity	SETs Northeastn = 110,110	GETs Northeastn = 585,140	SETs Midwestn = 96,600	GETs Midwestn = 642,400	SETs Southn = 158,500	GETs Southn = 1,168,700	SETs Westn = 65,390	GETs Westn = 558,330
American Indian/Alaskan	0.7	0.2	0.5	0.2	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6
Asian	0.4	1.9	0.8	0.6	2.0	1.1	8.5	4.4
Black	5.9	4.6	4.4	3.9	15.8	11.1	1.4	2.3
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	1.1	0.6
Hispanic	4.8	4.9	1.0	2.6	4.4	9.2	8.9	10.5
White	85.7	86.7	92.6	91.7	75.3	76.3	76.7	77.3
Two or more	2.5	1.6	0.7	1.0	1.5	1.6	2.8	4.3

Note. SET = special education teacher; GET = general education teacher.

Discussion

The underrepresentation of teachers of color in the face of rapidly changing student demographics is of concern. Close to half of students with disabilities were students of color in 2011 (47%), yet only 18% of GETs and SETs were teachers of color. The overall racial and ethnic composition of SETs is quite similar to GETs. Early career SETs were not more diverse than experienced SETs. However, there was more racial/ethnic diversity among early career GETs, especially Hispanic and Black early career GETs. Among SETs, underrepresentation was most pronounced among Hispanic/Latinx and Black teachers.

The distribution of teachers of color aligns with patterns we noted in the introduction, in which teachers of color have historically taught primarily in schools serving students who share their backgrounds. SETs and GETs of color taught mostly in schools enrolling high proportions of students of color, as well as urban and high-poverty schools (which disproportionately serve students of color). However, it is also noteworthy that, even in schools serving more than 75% students of color, more than half of the teachers were White.

The distribution of teachers across regions also aligns with historical patterns, with Black teachers representing a larger proportion of teachers in the South, and Hispanic/Latinx and Asian teachers representing a larger proportion of teachers in the West. The SET and GET workforce in both the Northeast and the Midwest was comprised overwhelmingly of White teachers.

Our findings indicate students of color may go through their whole school experience seeing no teachers or leaders who look like them, especially in suburban, town, and rural schools. Given the role teachers of color can play in promoting positive outcomes for students of color (Villegas & Irvine, 2010), this discrepancy has potential negative consequences for students with disabilities. These consequences may play out in rates of disproportionality in school discipline, gifted education, and special education; in student achievement; and in long-term outcomes (Rocha & Hawes, 2009). Furthermore, students who never see themselves reflected in school personnel may be less willing to consider a teaching career, potentially perpetuating the demographic divide in the long term (Irizarry & Donaldson, 2012).

This discrepancy is also a problem for White students; White students served by only White teachers are deprived of opportunities to interact with people of color in leadership roles. Children develop implicit biases about people of color in the absence of instruction about difference or regular interactions with positive role models of other races/ethnicities (e.g., Newheiser & Olson, 2012); biases erode with opportunities to interact with positive role models from of other races/ethnicities (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The shortage of teachers of color may unintentionally perpetuate implicit biases in the next generation.

Limitations

First, due to limitations in the SASS data set, we are unable to examine how parity between teachers and students might vary depending on disability category or service delivery model. Second, we are not able to link individual students to their teachers; thus, we cannot make any claims about what proportion of students with disabilities are served by at least one teacher who shares their race/ethnicity. Even in schools with a larger proportion of teachers of color, some students of color may not have a single teacher of color.

Third, there are many nuances in racial/ethnic identification, which have implications for students’ experiences, and which we are unable to examine due to limitations of the racial/ethnic categories reported by OSEP and SASS. For example, people of Middle Eastern/North African descent are often marginalized on the basis of race/ethnicity (Awad, 2010), yet we are not able to determine what proportion of teachers and students are of Middle Eastern/North African descent, because this racial/ethnic identification is not a response option in either the SASS or OSEP data. As another example, people from different Asian backgrounds have different histories in the United States, and a student who recently immigrated from Cambodia is likely to have substantially different experiences than a third-generation Chinese American student (e.g., Pang, Han, & Pang, 2011; Zhou & Xiong, 2005); yet the datasets do not permit fine-grained analysis of differences in parity across different Asian ethnic groups.

Implications

Despite limitations, results have implications for school leaders, policy makers, and teacher educators. Collaboration among these stakeholders is needed to (a) cultivate a diverse teacher workforce, (b) prepare all teachers to serve students of color, and (c) document trends over time and variability across schools, disabilities, states/regions, and races/ethnicities.

Cultivate a diverse teacher workforce

Systematic, sustained, large-scale strategies are needed to, first, recruit and, second, retain a diverse teacher workforce.

Recruitment

Thirty-one states have policies to recruit teachers of color, including (a) financial incentives to defray costs of preparation and credentialing (25 states); (b) mandates requiring educational agencies to support teacher diversity (17 states); (c) recruitment programs articulating agreements between 2 and 4 year colleges, or recruiting paraprofessionals (10 states); (d) recruitment centers (six states); and (e) alternative preparation (two states; Villegas et al., 2012). Several of these strategies are supported by some (albeit limited) research.

Some studies have found that financial incentives can effectively recruit prospective teachers into special education (e.g., Feng & Sass, 2015). No studies have specifically examined financial incentives’ effectiveness at recruiting teachers of color, but Villegas et al. (2012) hypothesized that financial incentives may attract teachers of color because teachers of color are more likely than White teachers to experience financial barriers to licensure. Further research should identify components of financial incentives that increase their appeal for prospective SETs of color.

Grow-your-own programs recruit individuals who already live in a community into teaching. Some programs teach high school students about education as a career (Quiñones, 2016), recruit students from community colleges (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016), or provide paraprofessionals with an opportunity to obtain licensure (Wall, Davis, Crowley, & White, 2005). Research investigating grow-your-own programs would help teacher educators, administrators, and policy makers design programs with potential for attracting prospective teachers of color into special education. Future studies should examine to what extent program components (a) attract strong teachers of color, (b) cultivate candidates’ knowledge and skill, (c) enhance retention, and (d) attract candidates to be SETs.

Alternative route (AR) programs have also had some success at recruiting teachers of color (e.g., Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007). However, we have little current data about AR programs in special education. In addition, further research is needed to identify elements of AR programs that most effectively recruit and retain strong prospective SETs.

Recruitment efforts should be designed to account for evidence that teachers of color often have different motivations for teaching than White teachers (Irizarry & Donaldson, 2012). White teachers often enter teaching because of their own positive experiences in education (Bullough & Hall-Kenyon, 2012); teachers of color are often motivated to serve their communities and rectify inequities (Irizarry & Donaldson, 2012). Research on recruitment strategies should account for possible differences in motivations to enter teaching.

OSEP can play an important role in recruiting SETs of color, using 84.325K personnel preparation grants. Because prospective SETs of color may experience more barriers to obtaining undergraduate degrees (e.g., Perna, Steele, Wona, & Hibbert, 2006), we recommend OSEP to consider how personnel preparation grants could be extended to prospective special educators of color at the undergraduate level. OSEP might also consider prioritizing awards for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions, which prepare large proportions of teachers of color (Gasman, Samayoa, & Ginsberg, 2017).

Retention

Recruiting a diverse candidate pool is unlikely to be effective if teachers of color leave at high rates. Thus, future research should investigate retention of teachers of color at preservice and in-service levels. Teachers of color report experiencing racial/ethnic discrimination in teacher preparation; changing these experiences is crucial for ensuring prospective teachers of color eventually enter teaching (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Most scholarship on this has been conducted in GET preparation, and it is not clear how these issues play out in SET preparation; future scholarship should examine how people of color experience preservice SET preparation, and how teacher educators could support them in remaining committed throughout preparation.

In-service retention is also essential, as Ingersoll and May (2011) found turnover among teachers of color was significantly higher than among White teachers. Research should explore why this is the case. One possible explanation is that teachers of color are more likely to work in high-poverty schools, which often have higher turnover due to more challenging working conditions (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012). Working conditions in high-poverty schools may help explain higher attrition of teachers of color. If this is the case, improving working conditions in high-poverty schools would be an important strategy for retaining teachers of color.

In addition, teachers of color experience challenges that may also contribute to higher attrition rates (e.g., Bristol, 2014). Teachers of color often report feeling disempowered in schools where their backgrounds are not valued (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011), and they report sometimes being assigned stressful additional roles as representatives of their race in school decision making and as disciplinarians for students of color (Bristol, 2014). In a systematic review, Bettini and Park (2017) found that studies of novice general educators often examined how teachers’ identities contributed to their experiences in high-poverty schools; yet no studies of novice SETs explored how their identities contributed to their experiences. SETs of color work at the intersection of multiple markers of difference, navigating race/ethnicity and (dis)ability related marginalization (Artiles, 2011). Research is needed to explore how SETs of color navigate this intersection.

Prepare all teachers to serve students of color

Teachers need knowledge, skills, and dispositions to provide culturally sustaining instruction to students from diverse backgrounds, and CAEP has mandated multicultural competencies for beginning teachers since 2003. Promising approaches include designing courses that incorporate preservice teachers’ field experiences in communities serving more students of color, helping preservice teachers’ examine their beliefs about students of color, supporting preservice teaching practices that are effective in teaching students from diverse backgrounds, and creating school-community partnerships that provide opportunities to learn in diverse schools and communities (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Although teacher education research has made a sustained effort to identify teacher education pedagogies with promise for helping preservice teachers develop these competencies, Cochran-Smith and colleagues (2016) found that this research has seldom linked preservice teachers’ learning experiences to their effectiveness or instructional quality. Finally, it is important to emphasize that all teachers, including those of color, need opportunities to learn about effectively addressing the needs of a diverse student body. As Cochran-Smith et al. stated,

Part of the rationale for increasing the diversity of the teaching force is that people of color bring to teaching cultural insights that position them well to help K-12 students of color build bridges to learning. However, unless teacher candidates of color are appropriately prepared to draw on this unique cultural knowledge to shape their teaching, the yield of those resources will be limited at best. (p. 507)

Most teacher preparation research for serving students from traditionally marginalized groups has been conducted outside of special education (Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008), and many SETs report feeling unprepared to serve students from diverse backgrounds (Fall & Billingsley, 2008). Many SET preparation programs address student diversity, yet it is not clear what content or methods should be used to support preservice SETs in learning to serve a diverse student body (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2003). More scholarship is needed to test teacher education pedagogies that support prospective SETs in providing culturally sustaining instruction (Trent et al., 2008); we recommend that the Teacher Education Division maintain its current focus on preparing all teachers to serve an increasingly diverse student body. In addition, although preservice preparation is important, it is likely insufficient to fully prepare all current teachers to effectively serve students of color (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). More research is also needed to develop and test professional development that supports teachers in developing skills to provide culturally sustaining instruction for all students.

Understanding trends

The U.S. population is becoming more diverse (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Scholars should continue monitoring trends in the student population and the extent to which the SET workforce changes over time. Research should also examine other sources of variability in the distribution of teachers of color across U.S. schools. For example, the proportion of students of color varies across different disabilities and service delivery models (Skiba et al., 2008), and the proportion of teachers of color has also varied by disability category (Billingsley, Fall, & Williams, 2006; Carlson, Brauen, Klein, Schroll, & Willig, 2002). Future studies should examine parity across disability categories and service delivery models.

Conclusion

Policy makers, researchers, and other stakeholders emphasize the importance of a diverse teacher workforce; yet there has been relatively little research about the extent to which teachers’ race/ethnicity compares with that of students. No recent studies compared teacher race/ethnicity with that of students with disabilities in the United States. Although we found that the overall proportion of SETs in the United States is quite similar to GETs, there are some differences. Early career GETs were somewhat more racially and ethnically diverse than early career SETs. Also, noteworthy is that the overall racial/ethnic diversity of U.S. teachers masks dramatic differences in how teachers of color are distributed across regions, type of districts, and schools with varying student demographics. Efforts to monitor the characteristics of the teacher workforce are needed, with an increased focus on understanding factors influencing the recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers of color.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Achinstein

Ogawa

(2011). Change(d) agents: School contexts and the cultural/professional roles of new teachers of Mexican descent. Teachers College Record, 113, 2503–2551.

Achinstein

Ogawa

R. T.

Sexton

Freitas

(2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80, 71–107.

Adams

D. W.

(1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Artiles

A. J.

(2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference the case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431–445.

Awad

G. H.

(2010). The impact of acculturation and religious identification on perceived discrimination for Arab/Middle Eastern Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 59–67.

Bennison

S. M.

(2011). Americanizing the West: Protestant and catholic missionary education on the Rosebud Reservation, 1870-1920. Teachers College Record, 113, 431–462.

Bettini

Park

(2017). Novice teachers’ experiences in high poverty schools: A systematic literature review. Urban Education. Advance online publication.

Billingsley

B. S.

Fall

A. M.

Williams

T. O.

(2006). Who is teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders? A profile and comparison to other special educators. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 252–264.

Bristol

(2014). Black men of the classroom: An exploration of how the organizational conditions, characteristics, and dynamics in schools affect Black male teachers’ pathways into the profession (Doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, NY.

10.

Brown

A. L.

(2009). “Brothers gonna work it out”: Understanding the pedagogic performance of African American male teachers working with African American male students. The Urban Review, 41, 416–435. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0116-8

11.

Brownell

M. T.

Ross

D. R.

Colon

E. P.

McCallum

C. L.

(2003). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with exemplary practices in general teacher education (COPSSE Document No. RS-4). Gainesville: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida.

12.

Bullough

R. V.

Hall-Kenyon

K. M.

(2012). On teacher hope, sense of calling, and commitment to teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 7–27.

13.

Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2016). Available from http://www.bia.gov

14.

Burkholder

(2012). “Education for citizenship in a bi-racial civilization”: Black teachers and the social construction of race, 1929–1954. Journal of Social History, 46, 335–363.

15.

Carlson

Brauen

Klein

Schroll

Willig

(2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key findings. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/B9780080448947011520

16.

Coates

T. N.

(2013, May). What we mean when we say “Race is a social construct.” The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/

17.

Cochran-Smith

Villegas

A. M.

Abrams

L. W.

Chávez-Moreno

L. C.

Mills

Stern

(2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In Gitomer

Bell

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 439–547). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

18.

Colby

S. L.

Ortman

J. M.

(2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060 (Report No. 25–1143). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

19.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015). CAEP standards. Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Dee

T. S.

(2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 195–210.

21.

Dilworth

M. E.

Brown

A. L.

(2008). Teachers of color: Quality and effective teachers one way or another. In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions for changing contexts (pp. 424–444). New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Dinkes

Cataldi

E. F.

Lin-Kelly

(2007). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

23.

Donato

Hanson

J. R.

(2012). Legally White, socially “Mexican”: The politics of De Jure and De Facto segregation in the American Southwest. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 202–225.

24.

Donato

Hanson

J. R.

(2017). “In these towns, Mexicans are classified as Negroes”: The politics of unofficial segregation in the Kansas Public Schools, 1915–1935. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 53S–74S.

25.

Douglas

D. M.

(2005). Jim Crow moves North: The battle over Northern school segregation, 1965-1954. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press

26.

Egalite

A. J.

Kisida

Winters

M. A.

(2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52.

27.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95.

28.

Fall

A. M.

Billingsley

(2008). Disparities in teacher quality among early career special educators in high and low poverty districts. In Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Personnel preparation (Vol. 21, pp. 181–206). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

29.

Feng

Sass

T. R.

(2015, September). The impact of incentives to recruit and retain teachers in “hard-to-staff” subjects: An analysis of the Florida critical teacher shortage program (Working Paper No. 141.9). Washington, DC: CALDER American Institutes for Research.

30.

Fultz

(2004). The displacement of Black educators post-Brown: An overview and analysis. History of Education Quarterly, 44, 11–45.

31.

Gándara

P. C.

Aldana

U. S.

(2014). Who’s segregated now? Latinos, language, and the future of integrated schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 735–748.

32.

Gasman

Samayoa

A. C.

Ginsberg

(2017). Minority serving institutions: Incubators for teachers of color. The Teacher Educator, 52, 84–98.

33.

Gere

A. R.

(2005). Indian heart/White man’s head: Native-American teachers in Indian schools, 1880–1930. History of Education Quarterly, 45, 38–65.

34.

Gordon

J. A.

(2000). Asian American resistance to selecting teaching as a career: The power of community and tradition. Teachers College Record, 102, 173–196.

35.

Green

(2004). The paradox of the promised unfulfilled: Brown v. Board of Education and the continued pursuit of excellence in education. Journal of Negro Education, 73, 268–284.

36.

Grissom

J. A.

Kern

E. C.

Rodriguez

L. A.

(2015). The “representative bureaucracy” in education: Educator workforce diversity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 185–192.

37.

Haney-López

I. F.

(1994). Social construction of race: Some observations on illusion, fabrication, and choice. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 29, 1–62.

38.

Hurstfield

(1975). The educational experiences of Mexican Americans: “Cultural pluralism” or “internal colonialism”? Oxford Review of Education, 1, 137–149.

39.

Ingersoll

R. M.

May

. (2011). Recruitment, retention and the minority teacher shortage (CPRE Research Report #RR-69). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

40.

Irizarry

Donaldson

M. L.

(2012). Teach for América the Latinization of U.S. schools and the critical shortage of Latina/o teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 155–194. doi:10.3102/0002831211434764

41.

Jacoby-Senghor

D. S.

Sinclair

Shelton

J. N.

(2016). A lesson in bias: The relationship between implicit racial bias and performance in pedagogical contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 50–55.

42.

Johnson

S. M.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39.

43.

Kozleski

E. B.

Artiles

A. J.

McCray

E. D.

Lacy

(2014). Equity challenges in the accountability age: Demographic representation and distribution in the teacher workforce. In Sindelar, McCray

P. T.

Brownell

E. D.

Lignugaris

M. T.

Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 113–126). New York, NY: Routledge.

44.

Kuo

(1998). Excluded, segregated and forgotten: A historical view of the discrimination of Chinese Americans in public schools. Asian American Law Journal, 5(7), 181–212.

45.

Ladson-Billings

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7–24.

46.

Mahatmya

Lohman

B. J.

Brown

E. L.

Conway-Turner

(2016). The role of race and teachers’ cultural awareness in predicting low-income, Black and Hispanic students’ perceptions of educational attainment. Social Psychology of Education, 19, 427–449.

47.

Morin

Rohal

(2015). Exploring racial bias among biracial and single-race adults: The IAT. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/08/19/exploring-racial-bias-among-biracial-and-single-race-adults-the-iat/

48.

Nájera

J. R.

(2015). The borderlands of race: Mexican segregation in a South Texas town. Austin: University of Texas Press.

49.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov

50.

Newheiser

A.-K.

Olson

K. R.

(2012). White and Black American children’s implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 264–270.

51.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2013). 35th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2013. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html?exp=3

52.

Okonofua

J. A.

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 26, 617–624. doi:10.1177/0956797615570365

53.

Pang

V. O.

Han

P. P.

Pang

J. M.

(2011). Asian American and Pacific Islander students: Equity and the achievement gap. Educational Researcher, 40, 378–389.

54.

Perna

L. W.

Steele

Woda

Hibbert

(2005). State public policies and the racial/ethnic stratification of college access and choice in the state of Maryland. Review of Higher Education, 28, 245–272.

55.

Peterson

Rubie-Davies

Osborne

Sibley

(2016). Teachers’ explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction, 42, 123–140.

56.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

57.

Pido

A. J. A.

(1997). Macro/micro dimensions of Pilipino immigration to the United States. In Root

M. R.

(Ed.), Filipino Americans: Transformation and identity (pp. 21–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

58.

Posadas

B. M.

(2013). Transnationalism and higher education: Four Filipino Chicago case studies. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32, 7–32.

59.

Quiñones

(2016). “I get to give back to the community that put me where I am”: Examining the experiences and perspectives of Puerto Rican teachers in Western New York. Urban Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0042085915623336

60.

Robers

Kemp

Rathbun

Morgan

R. E.

(2014). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013 (NCES 2014-042/NCJ 243299). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

61.

Rocha

R. R.

Hawes

D. P.

(2009). Racial diversity, representative bureaucracy, and equity in multiracial school districts. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 326–344.

62.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Boyer

M. L.

Sindelar

P. T.

Misra

S. K.

(2007). Alternative route programs for certification in special education: Program infrastructure, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241.

63.

Rueda

Monzó

Higareda

(2004). Appropriating the sociocultural resources of Latino paraeducators for effective instruction with Latino students. Urban Education, 39, 52–90.

64.

Siddle Walker

. (2009). Second-class integration: A historical perspective for a contemporary agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 269–284.

65.

Skiba

R. J.

Simmons

A. B.

Ritter

Gibb

Rausch

M. K.

Cuadrado

Cheung

C.-G.

(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.

66.

Staats

(2015). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. American Educator, 39, 29–33.

67.

Tourkin

Thomas

Swaim

Cox

Parmer

Jackson

. . . Zhang

(2010). Documentation for the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2010-332). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

68.

Trent

S. C.

Kea

C. D.

(2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350.

69.

Tyler

N. C.

Yzquierdo

Lopez-Reyna

Flippin

S. S.

(2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce a critical overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 22–38.

70.

van den Bergh

Denessen

Hornstra

Voeten

Holland

R. W

. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 497–527.

71.

Vidal-Ortiz

(2008). People of color. In Schaefer

R. T.

(Ed), Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society ( Vol. 1, pp. 1037–1039). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

72.

Villegas

A. M.

Irvine

J. J.

(2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. The Urban Review, 42, 175–192.

73.

Villegas

A. M.

Strom

Lucas

(2012). Closing the racial/ethnic gap between students of color and their teachers: An elusive goal. Equity and Excellent in Education, 45, 283–301.

74.

Wall

Davis

K. L.

Crowley

A. L. W.

White

L. L.

(2005). The urban paraeducator goes to college. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 183–190.

75.

Williamson

J. A.

Rhodes

Dunson

(2007). A selected history of social justice in education. Review of Research in Education, 31, 195–224.

76.

Yudell

Roberts

DeSalle

Tishkoff

(2016). Taking race out of human genetics: Engaging a century-long debate about the role of race in science. Science, 351, 564–565.

77.

Zhou

Xiong

Y. S.

(2005). The multifaceted American experiences of the children of Asian immigrants: Lessons for segmented assimilation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 1119–1152.