The Journal of Special Education

Concerns over recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted education programs have persisted for several decades, and, although many educators, policymakers, and researchers have deliberated about the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education, few articles, reports, or studies exist on this topic. This article seeks to fill this void, describing factors that inhibit the recruitment and retention of minority students in gifted education programs. These factors include screening and identification issues (e.g., definitions and instrumentation); educational issues (e.g., quality of students' education); and personnel issues (e.g., lack of teacher training in gifted and urban education, low teacher referral). Also discussed are retention issues, namely, factors that may affect the decision of minority students to remain in gifted education programs. Finally, recommendations for recruiting and retaining minority students are offered.

The topic of overrepresentation certainly commands attention in the literature on “judgmental categories” of disability (e.g., ‘learning disabilities, mild mental retardation), yet the evidence reported to date bearing on the issue are less than precise. Clearly, the issue is broader than simple overrepresentation, given that far more egregious examples of overrepresentation in Head Start and Chapter I have yet to be criticized, let alone taken to court. In this article the authors distinguish between the percentage of category or program by group and percentage of group in category or program which provide quite different perspectives. Futhermore, the authors caution drawing causal inferences from what are descriptive data relating “race/ethnicity” to “placement in disability category.” Caution is in order because the data reported by OCR represent aggregated data on race/ethnicity from sources that use different approaches to recording a child's race, fail to account for biracial children, and fail to consider the possibility that social class rather than race/ethnicity may be implicated. The second variable considered is placement in state-sactioned disability categories. The variability in rates across states reported in Annual Reports to Congress, coupled with research data demonstrating the lack of decision reliability, raises serious doubts concerning the validity of these designations. Cross-tabulating two categorical variables so fraught with measurement problems compromises any conclusions that might be drawn.

The overrepresentation of African American children and youth in special education programs for students with learning disabilities, severe emotional or behavioral disabilities, and mental disabilities has remained a persistent reality even after more than 20 years of recognition. After reviewing these recurring patterns, a critical-theory mode of inquiry is used to discuss how certain basic assumptions, world-views, beliefs, and epistemologies used by some special education knowledge producers serve to perpetuate the disproportionality drama. The author concludes by suggesting that the voices of qualitatively different knowledge producers, who are culturally and interculturally competent, are needed to bring resolution to this persistent challenge.

A critical aspect underlying the disproportionate representation debate is the dilemma of human difference. I briefly describe this dilemma and analyze three unstated assumptions about difference that permeate disproportionality discussions. I also make two critical recommendations. First, we must strengthen the theoretical sophistication of the debate in two ways, by bringing philosophical and ethical perspectives to the analyses and by increasing the breadth of the theoretical paradigms used in inquiry efforts. Second, I recommend that we bring context to our research endeavors by acknowledging that issues related to ethnicity, race, and language background are highly contentious in our society. We must also contextualize research by including the perspectives of investigators and of ethnic minority students. This will allow us to become aware of the culturally situated meanings that we bring to our research endeavors and to appreciate the complexity in the lives of the people who participate in our investigations.

The disproportionate representation of children of color in special and gifted education can be conceptualized through an a-b-c analysis: antecedent, behavior, and consequence. The focus for remedies should be shifted from antecedent conditions and the resulting behaviors to the consequences that perpetuate disproportionate representation. Educators and policymakers should examine who is present in the schools, reconsider how teachers are recruited for training, and use the article's recommendations for reconfiguring preservice and inservice training.

Inequities in education perpetuate disproportionality. Reform should stress the reexamination of policies and practices that produce these inequities. Variables affecting disproportionate minority representation in gifted and special education programs are addressed, including the definition of ethnicity, disability categories, and special education knowledge producers. Historical research synthesis providing an in-depth chronology of past reform efforts, current trends, proposed solutions, legislation and litigation, and statistical outcomes for various minority groups is stressed.

Many students do not succeed in school because their cultural, social, and/or linguistic characteristics are unrecognized, misunderstood, or devalued. The continuing problem of disproportionate representation of multicultural students in special education programs is controversial. We believe that for teacher educators and practitioners to reach and teach multicultural students with and without disabilities, they must first know them. We propose three solutions to address the problem of disproportionate representation: (a) training of culturally and linguistically diverse teachers in teacher preparation programs, (b) the inclusion of multicultural education perspectives in special education, and (c) the implementation of culturally responsive instruction in classroom settings. These three solutions are key components to increasing the cultural competence of practitioners in special education teacher preparation programs.

In 1968, Exceptional Children published Lloyd Dunn's historic article concerning the disproportionate number of minority students receiving special education services in the area of mental retardation. Thirty years later this discussion continues, with few of the author's recommendations having been implemented. In our response to the articles, in this special section, we question why these recommendations have not been implemented. We propose that experimentally validated interventions that have been found to be effective across cultures can begin to address the issue of disproportionate representation. These interventions include (a) early detection, primary interventions, and prereferral procedures and (b) academic as well as social competence, resiliency, and self-determination strategy teaching. We suggest a pragmatic approach to addressing the disproportionate number of minority students receiving special education services. We then focus on the need for well-trained quantitative researchers from diverse cultural backgrounds who can develop, implement, and experimentally evaluate interventions that can produce systemic change addressing this issue.

This article identifies specific content that teacher trainers in special and general education should consider incorporating into preservice training programs in an effort to address the over- and underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education programs. The development of multicultural education as a body of knowledge and the continuing work in bilingual education on issues related to effective teaching strategies for working with language-minority and second-language learners suggest a variety of approaches for all students. Contributions from these fields can be of benefit in developing effective practices and programs for diverse special needs learners. Examination of this work and its application in special education settings is suggested.

Respondents from 49 state education agencies completed a survey describing state-level implementation of transition services for youth with disabilities. All states used technical assistance and cross-disciplinary training as their primary systems change strategies, and the majority of these states viewed these strategies as effective. Relatively few states used additional state legislative mandates to promote transition services. This article discusses the role of the state education agency in implementing systems change in special education transition services.