Over - Identification

Overidentification is a persistent and growing phenomenon in special education programs in the U.S. public school system. As society becomes more global and diverse, identifying individuals with disabilities will become more complex due to differences in culture. This paper provides a general overview of the issue of overidentification. For the purposes of this paper, the terms over identification and disproportionate representation will be used synonymously.

Keywords Assessment; Civil Rights Act of 1964; Cultural Diversity; Disproportionate Representation; Education for All Handicapped Children Act Public Law (P.L. 94-142); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA 2004); Linguistically Diverse; Minority; Multicultural; Related Services; Special Education; Specific Learning Disability; Test Bias

Overview

Special education services have experienced tremendous growth since the initial passage of P. L. 94-142, the Educational of All Handicapped Children Act. With each subsequent reauthorization, special education and related services have expanded and been refined due to changing diversity issues, legislation, and policies of the educational system in the United States. To become eligible for special education and related services, an individual has to be identified as having a disability through the multidisciplinary process.

The process of multidisciplinary evaluation is not a perfect system in the appropriate identification of individuals with disabilities. The literature (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001; Paul, 2007; Taylor, 1986; Tomblin & Spriestersback, 2000; Westby, 2000) suggests that the process of multidisciplinary evaluation relies too heavily on standardized assessment instruments that may over or under identify individuals in need of special education and/or related services. Causes of disproportionate representation include:

• Shifts in demographics;

• Increases in cultural diversity; and,

• Socioeconomic issues.

The data suggests that certain groups within special education and related services are underidentified (i.e., gender or gifted) or overidentified (learning disabilities, mental retardation, behavior disorders) (Obi & Obiakor, 2001; Taylor, 1986).

Historical Perspectives

Inarguably, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instrumental in advancing special education services in public schools. This act stated that individuals cannot be discriminated against based on race, color, or national origin while participating in a program receiving federal assistance. As a result, the Education of All Handicapped Children (P. L. 94-142) led to the equal education rights for all children regardless of ability.

Court decisions have continued to influence policies and procedures for identifying individuals for special education and/or related services. Taylor (1986) reviewed some of the most often cited instrumental decisions in case law that have an impact on overidentification as:

• Lau v. Nichols, 1974;

• Dianna v. Board of Education, 1973;

• Larry P. v. Wilson Riles, 1977;

• ‗I‗and Mattie T. v. Holladay,‗i‗ 1977. Each case documents the precedents established by the judicial system in terms of special education services.

With these well established decisions, it is curious how individuals can still be overidentified in special education. For instance, if it is discriminatory to deny individual educational services based on linguistic differences as in the case Lau v. Nichols; then how can the same individual undergo assessment with a standardized assessment instrument that is not in the individual's native language? Furthermore, how can an assessment team determine that the individual has a disorder rather than a language difference if such a practice occurs?

Since the late 1960s, the literature has documented that individuals with cultural or linguistic differences or children of minority are overrepresented in special education or related services (Taylor, 1986). Bogatz, Hisama, Manni and Wurtz (1986) stated that certain cultural groups (e.g., African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and others) are overidentified as mildly handicapped due to assessment procedures being flawed (p. 67). Obi and Obiakor (2001) agree with over representation of African Americans in disabled special education settings; however, they raised the issue of underrepresentation of African Americans in gifted special education settings.

Defining Overidentification

The term overidentification is often used to define a group of individuals who may be unequally identified as needing special education and/or related services in relation to other cultural groups (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001; Paul, 2007; Taylor, 1986; Tomblin & Spriestersback, 2000; Westby, 2000). The literature uses the phrase "disproportionate representation" to identify either the over or under representation of specific cultural groups in special education (Taylor, 1986; Shepard, 1983). Over representation occurs more in high incidence special education settings; whereas under representation is more prevalent in gifted and talented programs (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001).

Special education is the fastest growing segment of education in the United States. The literature suggests that a large part the growth could be attributed to the overidentification of individuals based on gender, racial, and ethnic issues (Taylor, 1986; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), 2005; Shepard, 1983). The literature has documented a disproportionate number of children from minorities who are being identified as learning disabled, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and/or language impaired (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001; OSERS, 2005; Paul, 2007; Taylor, 1986; Tomblin & Spriestersback, 2000; VanTassel-Basks, Feng, Chandler, & Swanson, n.d ; Westby, 2000).

Due to the expanding research base on disproportionate representation, this essay will focus on the overidentification issues in special education and/or related services. For the purposes of this paper, the terms over identification and disproportionate representation will be used synonymously.

IDEA of 2004 & Overidentification

President G. W. Bush reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004. In regards to over identification or disproportionate representation, IDEA of 2004 charges states with meeting four broad based goals. The first goal for states is to develop polices and procedures to prevent the inappropriate overidentification and representation of individuals with disabilities based on race and ethnicity (OSERS, 2005).

The second goal focuses on gathering and interpreting data regarding disproportional representation. OSERS (2005) states that this goal is to monitor identification of children with disabilities; placement settings of children with disabilities; and the frequency, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, taken against children with disabilities.

If overidentification occurs, states are also charged with publicly revising policies and procedures. Additionally, the school district and state must develop early intervention services for children who are disproportionately identified as needing special education services (OSERS, 2005).

The final goal of IDEA of 2004 in terms of disproportionate representation allows for assistance and activities to improve services through technical assistance, demonstration projects, the dissemination of information, and implementation of scientifically based research. Funding can be used for activities such as personnel preparation, limited English proficient children, and multicultural awareness activities (OSERS, 2005).

Further Insights

Causes of Overidentification

The literature offers several causes for overidentification of certain cultural and/or linguistic groups as well as certain disabilities in special education and/or related services (Taylor, 1986; Shepard, 1983; VanTassel-Basks, Feng, Chandler, & Swanson, n.d.; Obi & Obiakor, 2001). This section will provide brief summary information on demographic shifts, socioeconomic conditions, and educational practices that may contribute to overidentification of individuals in special education and/or related services.

Demographics

As the demographics of the American society continue to shift, minority populations have increased faster than the white population (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, n.d.). As a result, the demographics of student populations in American public schools will continue to diversify over the next 20 years (NCES, n.d.). Of the total public school enrollment, 2005 enrollment data indicates that approximately 16 % of students enrolled are African American; 19% Hispanic; 6% other minorities; and 10% white (NCES, n.d.). In 2005, Hispanics were the fastest growing minority population representing 14% of the total population (NCES, n.d.). It is predicted that by the year 2020 minorities will represent 39% of the total U. S. population (NCES, n.d.)

Of the 50 million students enrolled in public schools in the United States, minorities represent over half of the student population. The increase in minority populations means that educational personnel must be educated in cultural diversity issues. If training is not provided to teachers, minorities will be continue to be over and/or underrepresented in special education and/or related services.

Socioeconomic Factors

In addition to changing demographics, socioeconomic gaps appear to be widening as well. NCES (n.d.) reports that over 20% of the racial/ethnic groups (Blacks, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics) live in poverty compared to whites and Asians. According to NCES (n.d.), children who grow up in poverty are negatively impacted, in terms of learning, due to mental, health, and behavioral development.

Educational Practices

As the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) continues to move states toward accountability measures, many experts believe that overidentification of students with disabilities will continue to increase as an attempt to curb poor test performance scores for local and state education agencies (Bogatz, Hisama, Manni, & Wurtz, 1986; Shepard, 1983; Van Keulen, Weddington, DeBose, 1998). Some states do not require students with special needs to take curriculum appropriate tests as one way to decrease reporting depressed scores for the school district. Some states require students with learning disabilities to take the curriculum tests; however, the scores are not reflected in state accountability data.

This type of practice can lead to overidentification as states can use special education as a mechanism to raise accountability scores. Thus, teachers who are frustrated with low performing students are more likely to refer students to special education and/or related services. Referrals based on learning differences versus learning disabilities are not a sound educational practice (Van Keulen, Weddington, & DeBose, 1998). As an alternative, prevention should be a viable option for these students.

Lack of Prevention Measures

Many state and local school agencies do not emphasize the prevention of learning disabilities. The primary remediation strategy used by general education for learning difficulties are outdated measures, such as grade retention. Teacher education training programs often provide inadequate training to beginning teachers in how to teach individuals with special needs or in the prevention of learning difficulties. Beginning teachers are encouraged to refer any individual who is having difficulty to special education instead of attempting intervention/prevention activities in the regular education classroom (Van Keulen, Weddington, & DeBose, 1998).

Prevention is important in decreasing overidentification. Students who are at risk are often not identified due to many states adopting criteria in which the student must fail in order to receive services. Another barrier is the placement of a moratorium on identifying students in the kindergarden through third grade. The implementation of prevention activities are sometimes hampered by parents' reluctance to allow students to participate in classes that offer different types of academic instruction.

Another a factor that can contribute to the disproportionate representation of cultural and linguistic diverse students in special education or related services is that many teachers feel overwhelmed and frustrated with the adaptation demands of individuals with differences. Additionally, many of the current regular education teachers may not be aware of the research related to intervention of individuals with special needs and feel that these individuals are going to fail the curriculum regardless of the help teacher provides (Paul, 2007).

Assessment Problems

Another factor to overidentification of individuals with special needs is the misunderstanding of the purpose of multidisciplinary assessment (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001; OSERS, 2005; Paul, 2007; Taylor, 1986; Tomblin & Spriestersback, 2000; VanTassel-Basks, Feng, Chandler, & Swanson, n.d ; Westby, 2000). Many believe that the goal of assessment is to qualify an individual for a service. The assessment process is not a static process (Paul, 2007; Westby, 2000). Anyone can be trained to administer a standardized test to obtain a score. The skill in assessment is in analyzing the data to determine where intervention should begin if found to be necessary (Paul, 2007; Westby, 2000). Unfortunately, some test examiners are trained to administer the test and to believe that the test score is an absolute in terms of abilities and performance.

Additionally, many test administrators tend to focus on overall test scores and fail to interpret the significance of subtest scores (Paul, 2007). If a test is administered without a plan or specific referral concern, then the concerns are not identified. This can lead to any poor performance leading to a diagnosis simply due to the low test score. The lack of synthesis of information demonstrates a lack of understanding the psychometric properties of the test and using these properties as interpretation guidelines across test scores (Shepard, 1983). The lack of understanding discrepancy scores can lead to a difference being incorrectly classified as a disorder (Shepard, 1983).

In other words, tests should not be given just to obtain a score that leads to a diagnosis. Assessment practices should be dynamic and view the child in multiple environments as well as identify the strengths and needs of the individual (Paul, 2007; Westby, 2000). Additionally, many test administrators are not aware of the psychometric properties and appropriateness of the test for the individual who is taking the test (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Paul, 2007; Shepard, 1983; Westby, 2000).

Test Bias

Test bias is often cited in the literature as the biggest cause of overidentification of special education (Haynes & Pindzola, 1998; Obi & Obiakor, 2001; OSERS, 2005; Paul, 2007; Taylor, 1986; Tomblin & Spriestersback, 2000; VanTassel-Basks, Feng, Chandler, & Swanson, n.d ; Westby, 2000). Test bias is related to using tests with cultural groups who are not adequately recognized in the standardization process of the test. Possible causes for continuing to use biased assessment instruments include budget constraints or convenience to the examiner instead of the referral source/question and/or individualized to the individual being tested.

By allowing test bias, assessment fails to identify at-risk students by targeting areas shown by research to be highly predictive of "real" learning disability (Paul, 2007). As such, there is a disconnect between research and what is practiced in terms of determining a disability. The issue of inappropriate assessment practices leads to inappropriate identification of individuals (Paul, 2007, Westby, 2000). This is important in that societal views are still reliant on the etiological-categorization model of assessment. In other words, teachers and parents have lost focus for the range of normal development. Thus, the assumption is that if a child cannot keep up in an advanced class then the cause (etiology) must be related to have a learning disability (categorization) (Paul, 2007).

The last contributor to overidentification is related to the misuse of data to determine an educational need. Often times, due to lack of training or time constraints, test examiners do not interpret test data to identify educational needs (Westby, 2000). Sometimes, the individual only requires modifications in the environment and not placement in special education. Not all children with learning differences require special education services. Placement in special education classes should be the option of last resort; not the first choice if differences are noted.

The variables discussed provide an overview of the variables related to overidentification. Societal trends will continue to influence, either positively or negatively, the issue of overidentifying or underidentifying individuals who have disabilities.

Eliminating Overidentification

One way to eliminate overidentification is for school personnel to address the issue of inappropriate test selection. Besides among cultural and/or linguistically diverse groups, overidentification can occur for any individual group. Many children are labeled as learning disabled. In contrast to the cultural and/or linguistically diverse issues, Shepard (1983) discussed issues that plague the identification of learning disabilities. The first is that many standardized tests used to identify learning disabilities are not psychometrically sound. Shepard further stated that many diagnosticians or clinicians are not aware of the technical inadequacies of the standardized tests. Another phenomenon reported by Shepard is that clinicians often select tests based on availability. Clinicians make decisions that are not congruent with the research literature on best practices due to the gap in published literature and practice.

Shepard (1983) cautions the clinician to not lose a basis of comparison to the normal range of child development. She stated that as assessment practices move to dynamic assessment, the examiner should not rely on symptomology found in many checklists that are not supported by evidence-based practice.

In an effort to curb overidentification, state and local education agencies often rely on criteria and policy to determine a disability. States are allowed by IDEA to develop criteria specific for the citizens of the state as long as the criteria does not discriminate against individuals.

Shepard (1983) stated four reasons that remain valid as reasons to not overidentify individuals with disabilities. The primary reason is that anytime an individual is labeled as having a disability it can affect a child's self-esteem. In other words, while the extra help can be beneficial in the short-term the long-term consequences are unknown.

There is some literature which suggests that the more often regular education teachers refer individuals due to learning differences, the more the teacher loses skills in dealing with differences within the education context (Shepard, 1983). This over referral of learning differences is causing a huge growth in special education services which dilutes the resources available for individuals with significant disabilities. Shepard's last consequence of overidentification is that the growth of special education services is so large and costly that the system is at risk of disintegrating.

Issues

Special Education Growth

It is of interest that of the individuals receiving special education over two-thirds are boys particularly in the areas of emotional disturbance and specific learning disability (Tschantz & Markowitz, 2003). There is no known explanation of the cause for this disparity. However, some researchers propose that biological and behavioral issues as well as bias in referral practices and assessment may contribute to this disparity (Tschantz & Markowitz, 2003). Furthermore, researchers are not certain if there is an overrepresentation of males or an underrepresentation of females.

Tschantz and Markowitz state that IDEA presently does not require states to report gender as a part of the data collection process. Interestingly, forty-one states do report and collect this data to respond to inquiries by stakeholders (i.e., legislators, funding sources, etc.) It is important that educators and researchers engage in research activities to investigate the causes of gender disparities in special education. Tschantz and Markowitz proposed that research should address the four most common issues: "identification for special education, disciplinary actions, specific disability categories, and educational placement" (p. 5).

State Education Response to Decrease Overidentification

Burdette (2007) stated that the IDEA 2004 allowed states and local education agencies to define disproportionality in terms of race and ethnicity. Burdette further reported that definitions must contain language that pertains to identification, placement, and disciplinary actions (p. 1).

Many states have opted to define identification, placement, and disciplinary actions by using risk ratio formulas based on specific racial and/or ethnic groups. Thus, individuals who receive special education and/or related services are computed based on racial and/or ethnic groups (Burdette, 2007, p. 2).

Presently, states do not have to provide information regarding the consequences if a state or local education agency is found to overidentify certain groups and/or disabilities. However, states have recognized this as the next step in decreasing the overidentification of individuals from racial and/or ethnic groups in special education or related services.

Conclusion

To decrease the practice of disproportionate identification of racial/ethnic groups collaboration there must be a concerted effort by all stakeholders to address the issues. Educational policy and legislative mandates will continue to affect the practices of educators, both special and regular. It is recommended that the reader investigate the available literature to understand the complexity of the issues identified.

Terms & Concepts

Cultural Diversity: Cultural diversity is how an individual's values, norms, beliefs, etc. differ from another cultural group.

Disproportionate Representation: Disproportionate representation, in this essay, refers to the over or under identification of individuals in special education.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act Public Law 94-142 (P.L. 94-142): In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act Public Law 94-142 (P.L. 94-142) was established to provide free appropriate public education to individuals with disabilities. P.L. 94-142 has undergone reauthorizations by Congress and is currently referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA 2004): IDEA 2004 is a federal law that continues to mandate special education and related services to individuals with disabilities age birth to 21 years.

Linguistically Diverse: An individual is considered to be linguistically diverse in the U.S. if his or her language does not conform to standard American English.

Multicultural: Multicultural is when an individual is strongly influenced by or exhibits distinctiveness of several cultural groups.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001: NCLB is a federal law that requires states to develop basic skills assessments for all children enrolled in certain grades. The grades and achievement levels are set by each state.

Related Services: Related services include but are not limited to transportation, counseling, school health services, speech-language pathology etc. that are necessary for the individual with a disability to benefit from special education services.

Specific Learning Disability: A specific learning disability is defined by IDEA 2004 as "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations."

Test Bias: Test bias occurs when a test shows differences based on group membership. In other words, culturally diverse individuals would always score low on a particular test.

Bibliography

Burdette, P. (2007). State definitions of significant disproportionality. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from inForum from Project FORUM the National Association of State Directors of Special Education http://www.projectforum.org

Bogatz, B., Hisama, T., Manni, J., & Wurtz, R. (1986). Cognitive assessment of nonwhite children. In O. Taylor (Ed.) Treatment of Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Haynes,W. & Pindozola, R. (1998). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology. MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Amendments 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Tables and figures. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from U. S. Department of Education http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables/

Obi, S.O. & Obiakor, F. (2001). Empowering African American exceptional learners: Vision for the new millennium. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25 , 93-101. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6658605&site=ehost-live

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2005). Disproportionality and overidentification. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from U. S. Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/tb-overident.pdf

Paul, R. (2007). (3rd ed.). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention. Mosby: St. Louis, Missouri.

Shepard, L. (1983). The role of measurement in educational policy: Lessons from the identification of learning disabilities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4-8.

Talbott, E., Fleming, J., Karabatsos, G., & Dobria, L. (2011). Making sense of minority student identification in special education: school context matters. International Journal of Special Education, 26, 13. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74240778&site=ehost-live

Taylor, O. (1986). Issues, historical perspectives and conceptual framework. In O. Taylor

Taylor, O. (1986). Issues, historical perspectives and conceptual framework. In O. Taylor (Ed.) Treatment of Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Tschantz, J. & Markowitz, J. (2003). Gender and special education: Current state data collection. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from Project FORUM the National Association of State Directors of Special Education http://www.nasdse.org/forum.htm

Tomblin, J., Morris, H. S, & Spriestersback, D. C. (2000). Diagnosis in speech-language pathology (2nd ed). San Diego, CA: Singular.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1972-2005. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section1/table.asp?tableID=667

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The Condition of Education 2007 (NCES 2007-064), Indicator 31. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

Van Keulen, J., Weddington, G., & DeBose, C. (1998). Speech, language, learning, and the African American child. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., Chandler, K., Quek, C., & Swanson, J. (n.d). Case studies of special needs gifted learners. Retrieved October 31, 2007 from http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=netscape-pp&q=cache:%5fe0CQgt7nj8J:cfge.wm.edu/documents/AERA2006-ProjectSTAR.doc+prevalence+of+exceptional+learners

Westby, C. (1998). Multicultural issues in speech and language assessment. In B. Tomblin, H. Morris, & D. Spriestersbach (Eds.), Diagnosis in speech-language pathology (2nd ed) (pp. 35-61). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.

Younger children in the classroom likely overdiagnosed with aDHD. (2012). Science & Children, 49, 16-17. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73953141&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Battle, D. (Ed.) (1993). Communication disorders in multicultural populations. Boston: Andover Medical Publishers.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 , p8-12 Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25204848&site=ehost-live

Brice, A. (2002). The Hispanic child. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from Website: www.cec.sped.org/.

Milner, H. R., & Ford, D. Y. (2007). Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29 , 166-173, Retrieved December 4, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24811167&sit e=ehost-live

Rousso, H. & Wehmeyer, M. (Eds). (2001). Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Scruggs, T. & Mastropierim M. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly, 25 , 155-168.

Share, D. & Silva, P. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post-discrepancy definitions of reading disability, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 , 4-15, Retrieved December 4, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8844443&site=ehost-live

U.S. Department of Education (1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Washington, DC: Author.