Is Dis-Ability a Foregone Conclusion? Research and Policy Solutions to Disproportionality

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Rebecca A. Cruz, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, A. R. Firestone, Logan McDermott, Zhihui Feng
{"title":"Is Dis-Ability a Foregone Conclusion? Research and Policy Solutions to Disproportionality","authors":"Rebecca A. Cruz, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, A. R. Firestone, Logan McDermott, Zhihui Feng","doi":"10.3102/00346543231212935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on disproportionate representation in special education has potential to influence policy in ways that rectify educational inequities. In this study, we investigated how disproportionality researchers have operationalized dis-ability, identified key themes and theories used in disproportionality research, and evaluated the coherence between this research and related policy. We found that studies using medical/rehabilitative frameworks to define disability tended to offer policy recommendations focused on preventing inappropriate identification and enhancing access to early interventions. In contrast, studies situated in social models of dis-ability tended to offer policy recommendations for holistic improvement of educational systems. Finally, disproportionality studies applying legal frameworks tended to advocate for explicit policies regarding race and racism without attending to ableism. Given that federal policy continues to operate from a deficit perspective regarding student variability, we contend that deficit-oriented recommendations for change are unlikely to improve students’ experiences in schools and related outcomes. We discuss the need for disproportionality research to inform policy through frameshifting.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":"54 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231212935","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on disproportionate representation in special education has potential to influence policy in ways that rectify educational inequities. In this study, we investigated how disproportionality researchers have operationalized dis-ability, identified key themes and theories used in disproportionality research, and evaluated the coherence between this research and related policy. We found that studies using medical/rehabilitative frameworks to define disability tended to offer policy recommendations focused on preventing inappropriate identification and enhancing access to early interventions. In contrast, studies situated in social models of dis-ability tended to offer policy recommendations for holistic improvement of educational systems. Finally, disproportionality studies applying legal frameworks tended to advocate for explicit policies regarding race and racism without attending to ableism. Given that federal policy continues to operate from a deficit perspective regarding student variability, we contend that deficit-oriented recommendations for change are unlikely to improve students’ experiences in schools and related outcomes. We discuss the need for disproportionality research to inform policy through frameshifting.
残疾是否已成定局?比例失调的研究与政策解决方案
对特殊教育中不成比例的代表性进行研究,有可能以纠正教育不平等的方式影响政策。在本研究中,我们调查了歧化研究人员如何操作残疾,确定了歧化研究中使用的关键主题和理论,并评估了该研究与相关政策之间的一致性。我们发现,使用医疗/康复框架来定义残疾的研究倾向于提供政策建议,重点是防止不适当的识别和增加获得早期干预的机会。相比之下,在残疾社会模型中进行的研究往往为全面改进教育制度提供政策建议。最后,应用法律框架的不成比例研究倾向于倡导关于种族和种族主义的明确政策,而不关注残疾歧视。鉴于联邦政策继续从赤字的角度来看待学生的可变性,我们认为,以赤字为导向的改革建议不太可能改善学生在学校的经历和相关结果。我们讨论了不平衡研究的必要性,以便通过框架转换为政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信