1998The Journal of Special EducationRequires access

Overrepresentation of Minority Students

Donald L. MacMillan, Daniel J. Reschly

Open publisher page 215 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 215 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Ethnic group, Race (biology), Categorical variable, Psychology, Reliability (semiconductor), Developmental psychology, Social psychology, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Overrepresentation of Minority Students — Research Paper | ScholarLens