Deficit Model

The deficit model of special education defines educational difficulties solely within the child. However, it is no longer the default model for assigning children to special education services. This article describes the disproportionate assignment of minority children to special education services, and explains why the deficit model is being replaced by other paradigms, or ways of thinking about, children's learning abilities. It discusses some alternative perspectives and the benefits of using more holistic views of education.

Keywords At-risk Children; Chapter 1 Programs; Educable Mental Retardation; Cultural Differences; Disability; Disadvantages; Labeling; Learning Deficit; Least Restrictive Environment; Retention; Supplement but not Supplant; Tracking

Overview

The deficit model of special education defines educational difficulties solely within the child. For example, a child may enter school with a cultural, social, linguistic, physical, or cognitive disadvantage, but is considered, for one reason or another, less capable of learning than his or her peers. This is sometimes viewed as a "blame the victim" type of thinking, and is discouraged for that reason. In addition, some studies have shown that a deficit model of special education may have encouraged excessive labeling of minority children, and unnecessary placements into expensive, and possibly not helpful, special education programs.

Such labeling of children can be stigmatizing, without necessarily pinpointing the educational experiences that could most help the child progress in school. Since assessment for some conditions requiring special education, such as behavior issues and reading or learning disabilities, can be somewhat ambiguous, there are often errors in classification; yet it can be difficult for children to move away from the original labels. Since providing special education services can be expensive for schools and districts, administrators, educators, and researchers have begun to question the classification of so many children, especially poor and minority children, into special education programs.

Evaluations of such programs, and ongoing research, have raised questions about the efficacy and usefulness of the deficit model as a framework, and other paradigms or models of considering special education have been proposed. Recently, scientists have begun to study children within the greater context of their schools, lives, and families, and to consider how each of those factors might positively contribute to a child's education. Assessment and diagnosis of learning disorders and other special education issues now focus more on what the school and family can do to enhance a child's performance within the most mainstream of school settings, than on how pulling children out of mainstream classrooms can improve their outcomes.

What is a Deficit Model of Special Education?

Harry & Klingner (2007) explain that "the main criterion for eligibility for special education services in schools has been proof of intrinsic deficit" (p. 16). They explain that this is problematic for two reasons. The first is that defining and/or identifying disabilities can be a very subjective process, unless the disabilities can be clearly biologically defined. This means that the decision of the educator assigning a child to special services may vary from child to child and case by case, even within a district.

The second, derived from the first, is that "the focus on disability has become so intertwined with the historical devaluing of minorities in the United States" (Harry & Klingner, 2007, p. 16) that devaluing and subjective choices, which can be rooted in cultural and racial bias on the part of those making labeling decisions lead to problems in special education placement, so that children are sometimes labeled as disabled, when they are possibly merely culturally out of sync with mainstream students (or teachers) in the classroom, or are behind in learning classroom rules and practices.

Harry and Klingner (2007) call this the "disability deficit lens," explaining that many poor children enter school having learned motor and language skills, and the particular skills useful to their home or neighborhood — which may not be the same as skills they need for school. They are therefore labeled disabled, and placed in expensive and possibly redundant, remedial programs.

The end result, say Harry and Klingner (2007), "is a disproportionate placement of some minority groups in special education" (Introduction). They report on a three-year-long study they completed examining special education placement in a large urban school district. Based on conferences, interviews, examining forms, observing classrooms, and interviewing stakeholders, they found that policies could be quite inconsistently and arbitrarily applied across the district, and that students from the poorer districts may have received lower quality schooling, which may in turn have led to their special education labeling and placement. Thus a process designed to assist students in moving ahead, may have been contributing to even greater delays.

Harry and Klingner (2007) cite other evidence that minority groups are more likely to be placed in special education programs, especially when the criteria for placement are more subjective (related to behavior or learning disability, for example) rather than biological, such as deafness or impaired vision. They conclude that "students shouldn't need a false disability label to receive appropriate support. They also shouldn't acquire that label because they had inappropriate or inadequate opportunities to learn. And they shouldn't end up in programs that don't offer the truly specialized instruction they need" (p. 18).

Further, they suggest that following the deficit model, and assigning minority children disproportionately to special education services may have been a method of separating those children from mainstream classrooms and students. "Plagued by ambiguous definitions and subjectivity in clinical judgments," say Harry and Klingner (2007, p. 17), "these categories often have more to do with administrative, curricular, and instructional decisions than with students' inherent abilities."

Emerging from the preceding paragraphs is the understanding that the deficit model is not necessarily restricted to special education paradigms, but is common throughout theories of education (e.g., Kirk & Goon, 1975; Oughton, 2007; Norgaard et al., 2007). Special education labeling and programs have, however, often been based on the deficit model in the past-and served as a kind of mechanism for "fixing" the deficits. Since the disadvantages of this kind of understanding have begun to be understood, however, new models have been proposed, and discussed, and are beginning to be implemented.

Further Insights

Using the Deficit Model in Education

Letgers, McDill, and McPartland (1994) describe the deficit model clearly; noting that differences in culture and experience have been labeled deficits, as diverse groups of students with varied backgrounds and understanding, have tried to fit into an unyielding public education system that has not acknowledged strengths they may bring with them.

In the context of formal schooling, being different has too often meant being deficient, and being deficient has meant "being at risk of academic failure. The compensatory education movement was founded in the 1960s on the assumption that many students, because of their minority and poverty status and their low academic achievement, are disadvantaged and should be provided with extra help and programs to "compensate" for those disadvantages.

This deficit model has been criticized for rationalizing students' failure in terms of alleged deficiencies in their background — a version of blaming the victim, which often serves to uncritically legitimize the existing school system (para. 3).

Tracking

Letgers, McDill, and McPartland (1994) further explain that in the past, American schools have used several traditional systems to provide assistance to those found wanting. These include, for example, grouping, or tracking, which was intended to allow learners to progress at their own speed, with like-minded peers. It seems, however, that tracking may actually result in even lower achievement for children at risk, and may limit their potential even more than participating in mainstream classes. In addition, they report, Hispanic and African American students are likely to be overrepresented in less academically focused tracks, while white and middle-class students tend to be underrepresented.

Letgers, McDill, and McPartland (1994) cite other work analyzing the impact of tracking and report that "some forms of ability grouping do appear to be beneficial, especially when students are grouped for only one or two subjects while remaining in heterogeneous classes most of the day."

Retention

Retention in grade is another method for dealing with children perceived to be behind their peers, but studies have also found that retention may cause more harm (in terms of social and cognitive development delays, for example) than mainstream participation. Just as with tracking, report Letgers, McDill, and McPartland (1994), students who were retained for only part of the day, or only in certain classes, performed better than students who were held back an entire grade level, but overall, students who were promoted ended up doing better.

Special Education

Since 1975, when Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed to ensure that students with handicaps could receive services they need in public schools, schools have offered services part-time, full-time, in-class, and as pull-outs to different students. Special education services (and referral to those services) have represented another approach to ameliorating lags in achievement. Letgers, McDill, and McPartland (1994) also report:

“A substantial increase in the number of students with mild academic handicaps who are receiving special education services. While the percentage of students categorized as physically disabled and mentally retarded stayed at about the same level from 1976 to 1989, the number of students categorized as learning disabled increased by more than 250 percent during the same period … almost 90 percent of this increase represents the entry into the special education system of low achievers who would not have been served in special education in the 1970s” (para. 16).

They report that studies conclude that students with only mild academic delays benefit little compared to students remaining in mainstream classrooms, in spite of receiving the expensive special education services. Further, they concluded:

“Several evaluations of the Chapter 1 program conducted in the mid-1980s … concluded that Chapter 1 programs displayed modest positive effects on students' reading and math skills, but they were less effective for the most disadvantaged children. In any case, the gains overall did little to close the gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers. Moreover, students' progress was rarely sustained beyond 2 years after participation in the program” (Letgers, McDill, & McPartland, 1994).

Since treating gaps in achievement based on a deficit model appeared to be relatively unsuccessful, teachers and researchers began to consider other models for diagnosing issues and addressing them. This took the form of emphasizing pedagogical skills that could use the students' existing knowledge bases and cultural backgrounds, rather than assessing the children as lacking and attempting to make up 'deficits' which might more accurately only be 'differences.'

Viewpoints

What Other Models Might be Used to Identify and Serve Children with Disabilities?

Researchers in areas outside special education (Butler, 2007; Collier & Way, 2004) encourage a holistic view of situations, with regard to all aspects of context, in order to understand a specific phenomenon. This appears to be common to new perspectives of special education as well: parents, teachers in various classes, and special education personnel all become involved in assessing a student's progress and making program choices.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

Harry & Klingner (2007) report that there are new models to help schools focus on differences rather than on deficits. One example they give is the Response to Intervention Model, which encourages early intervention and a step-by-step education and evaluation process, along with more personalized, and frequent, reassessment of a child's needs. Another possibility is to involve parents more deeply in the identification and amelioration processes, recognizing the strengths that they can bring to the educational process.

Ecological Neuropsychology

Rik et al (2005) propose that analyzing a child's learning environment, along with other systems influencing a child's educational performance, may be more helpful than focusing solely on problem's identified as the child's. Ecological neuropsychology, they report, is a strength-based approach to assessing a child's capacity to learn, and prescribing appropriate interventions.

A greater emphasis on participation in mainstream classrooms, with individualized attention, is also proposed. Harry and Klingner (2007, Conclusion) suggest that "we need a new vision of special education — one that reserves the notion of disability for students with clear-cut diagnoses of biological or psychological limitations and uses the categorization only for the purpose of delivering intensive, specialized services in the least restrictive education environment possible."

Conclusion

The deficit model of special education involves identifying some students as disabled because of perceived deficits in their learning capacity. Services are then provided to address this perceived lack.

The deficit model has been reconsidered recently, as it may not adequately consider the role of non-physical differences among students, such as differences in cultural background and experiences, differences in language forms used in the home and at school and different strengths that the child may bring, which cannot be easily recognized using standard or school assessments.

In addition, children from minority groups appear to have been overrepresented in special education programs, suggesting that labeling served as a way to reduce their role or participation in mainstream classrooms, or that it indicated an incomplete understanding of their capacity to learn and/or behave appropriately in school.

Recommendations for ameliorating the model suggest that providing an educational experience within mainstream classrooms as much as possible is more beneficial than isolating children considered at risk of school failure. Strong communication with parents can also assist in aligning home and school goals and values for the child. Finally, ongoing reevaluation of any child receiving special education services can provide clearer understanding of the exact needs of the child, and the services necessary to most enhance his or her participation in public education, and maximize achievement.

Terms & Concepts

Chapter 1 Programs: Chapter 1 refers to the "largest compensatory education program that provides extra help to impoverished students… . Chapter 1 began as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and continues today as the primary source of funding for a wide range of programs for students at risk (Letgers, McDill, & McPartland, 1994).

Learning Disabled: A learning disability is a neurological disorder in which a person's language, reading, writing, organizational, or other skills may prevent them from learning in conventional ways.

Least Restrictive Environment: A least-restrictive environment implies an environment most like the mainstream classroom in any given context. Thus, to the extent possible, students should be encouraged to participate in regular classrooms and activities all other students participate in, while still receiving any services they may need.

Response to Intervention: This model of special education monitors the progress of all students so that teachers can provide extra support — within the general education context — to those students who are not making adequate progress (Harry & Klinger, 2007).

Retention: Retention is the practice of retaining students in a grade when they have not been considered capable of succeeding if promoted to the next grade level.

Tracking: Tracking or grouping is the process of assigning students to academic or less-academic courses based on their intended careers, academic performance, or other criteria.

Bibliography

Butler, A. (2007). A strengths approach to building futures: UK students and refugees together. Community Development Journal, 40, 147-157. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23786732&site=ehost-live

Chigeza, P. (2011). Cultural resources of minority and marginalised students should be included in the school science curriculum. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 401-412. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60411384

Collier, S. J., & Way, L. (2004). Beyond the deficit model: Social welfare in post-Soviet Georgia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 20, 258-284. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14719719&site=ehost-live

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2007). Discarding the Deficit Model. Educational Leadership, 64, 16-21. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier ‗HL0:AN:23996905::‗ http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23996905&site=ehost-live_hl_

Kirk, D. H., & Goon, S. (1975). Desegregation and the cultural deficit model: An examination of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 45, 599-611. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18887009&site=ehost-live

Lalvani, P. (2013). Privilege, compromise, or social justice: Teachers’ conceptualizations of inclusive education. Disability & Society, 28, 14-27. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84103346

Letgers, N., McDill, E., & McPartland, J. (1994). Compensatory education: Traditional responses and current tensions. In R. Rossi & A. Montgomery (Eds.), Educational reforms and students at risk: A review of the current state of the art. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved online November 29, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdReforms/chap7a.html

Norgaard, R., Arp, L., & Woodard, B. S. (2007). Writing information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43 , 124-130. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11970460&site=ehost-live

Oughton, H. (2007). Constructing the 'ideal learner': A critical discourse analysis of the adult numeracy core curriculum. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12, p. 259-275. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25916056&site=ehost-live

Rik, C. D., Franci, C., Leesa, V. H., & Geil, M. (2005). Ecological neuropsychology: An alternative to the deficit model for conceptualizing and serving students with learning disabilities. Neuropsychology Review, 15, 97-103. Retrieved online November 28, 2007, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/b40x8371m3v74337/?p=986e72d893e94cdfbadbe53b07b785cf&pi=2

Smit, R. (2012). Towards a clearer understanding of student disadvantage in higher education: Problematising deficit thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 369-380. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=75253626

Suggested Reading

Chu, S. (2011). Teacher perceptions of their efficacy for special education referral of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Education, 132, 3-14. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66538769

Collins, R., & Camblin, L. D. (1983). The politics and science of learning disability classification: Implications for black children. Contemporary Education, 54, 113-118.

Delpit, L. (2006). Foreword. In B. Harry & J. K. Klingner, Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reid, K., & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 466-481. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14832732&site=ehost-live

Rossi, R., & Montgomery, A. (Eds.). (2004.) Educational reforms and students at risk: A review of the current state of the art. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved online November 29, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdReforms/

Sleeter, C. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children, 53, 46-54.

Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277-307.

Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. London, England: Routledge Press.