Rebecca A. Cruz, Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, A. R. Firestone, Logan McDermott, Zhihui Feng
{"title":"残疾是否已成定局?比例失调的研究与政策解决方案","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":"{\"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}","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}
Is Dis-Ability a Foregone Conclusion? Research and Policy Solutions to Disproportionality
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.
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.