Running Header: DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Response to intervention and disproportionate representation of culturally and

linguistically diverse students in special education

Jacqueline Heller

George Mason University

DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

Introduction

Across the country America’s classrooms are increasingly being filled by culturally and

linguistically diverse (CLD) students. The ideas of difference and culture used to describe

marginalized segments of the population often times come with assumptions that these students

differ in their ability levels and learning (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2015). This is

evidenced by the disproportionate representation of CLD students in special education.

Historically educators have determined placement in special education by identifying a

discrepancy between intelligence, as measured by an IQ, and achievement, as measured by

academic testing. However, in 2004 the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act (IDEA) called for alternatives to the discrepancy model because it

led to an extensive period of failure for academically struggling students and tremendous

demand for special education services (Cartledge, Kea, Watson & Oif, 2016). A process called

Response to Intervention (RTI) is an alternative special education evaluation model which

includes a multi-tiered system of supports, research based instruction, early screening, ongoing

monitoring of student progress, and tiered interventions of increasing intensity (Turse, 2015). We

will examine what, if any, impact RTI has on the disproportionate representation of culturally

and linguistically diverse students in special education.

Elements of the Achievement Gap

Both culturally and linguistically diverse students as well as special education students

are subgroups that score lower than their peers on achievement tests so there are two elements of

the achievement gap to address. First, since more minority students live in poverty, the lack of

medical care, transportation, and nutrition affect school performance for these culturally and
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

linguistically diverse students. In addition, the “savage inequalities” of funding and teacher

quality in urban school districts (Artiles, 2002) further exacerbate the challenges faced by these

students when trying to perform academically at the level of their native English speaking,

middle class peers.

Second, there is an achievement gap between general education students and students

with learning disabilities even though 85% of students who receive special education services do

not have a cognitive disability, thus have the capacity to achieve grade level standards

(Quenemoen, 2008). Labels become destiny and teacher expectations are strongly correlated

with student achievement. A hearing by the U.S Civil rights Commission found minority students

are represented in higher proportions in some disability categories and are often placed in self-

contained special education classrooms where they are given instruction that isn’t as rigorous as

the curriculum offered to other students. Many minority students in special education never

graduate from high school (Samuels, 2007).

Disproportionate Representation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in

Special Education

Many articles refer to this issue as overrepresentation of minority students in special

education since that is generally the case. However, Harry (2007) explored the idea that there

may actually be underrepresentation in some areas of special education as well as

overrepresentation in others, thus the term disproportionate representation. Some claim there is a

paradox of underrepresentation in the Learning Disability category, also known as a pattern of

false negatives. This means that those students do not receive appropriate instruction or benefits

associated with the Learning Disability label such as accommodations on testing, which many
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

middle-class white families continue to take advantage of (Harry, 2007). Another study also

found underrepresentation of English language learners (ELLs) in early elementary years when

academic difficulties are difficult to identify due to limited English proficiency (O’Connor,

Bocian, Beach & Sanchez, 2013). This places these students at a great disadvantage since it is

more effective to remediate with early intervention and by not being identified until later they

miss out on that support..

The bulk of the research, however, addresses the overrepresentation of CDL students in

special education. Artiles’ study (2002) compares statistics of multiple subsets of the population

to their representation in special education. He cited disproportionate representation going back

as far as a 1968 study in California that showed white students made up 82% of the school

population, but comprised only 53% of students placed in the educably mentally retarded (EMR)

program, while African American students represented only 9% of the population yet 32% of

students in the EMR program.

Cultural variables, bias in assessment procedures and ineffective initial instruction have

been identified as the major causes leading to overrepresentation (Gravois, 2006). Poverty and

cultural discontinuity between teachers and students add to the over-identification of students of

color in special education (Artiles, 2002) and the fact that the majority of special education

students are poor, male, ethnic minorities and educators are primarily middle class, female and

white cannot be ignored. Since these educators are the decision makers, their judgment carries

great weight for student outcomes.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing questioned school officials’ judgment calls on

special education placements (Samuels, 2007). Minority students are more likely to be found
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

eligible in “judgmental” disability categories that allow for subjectivity on the part of a school-

based evaluation team, such as learning disabilities, mental retardation, and emotional

disturbance and many of these students do not graduate from high school (Samuels, 2007). The

U.S. Civil Rights Commission suggested the solution should be a comprehensive approach

including better teacher preparation, more federal monitoring, and parental empowerment in

order to combat the effect of subjective teacher judgment (Samuels, 2007).

According to the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (2009) there are

several questions to consider concerning overrepresentation of groups in special education.

These include what statistics should be used to determine overrepresentation, what changes in

policy are likely to reduce it, and should states and local districts apply sanctions if it is not

reduced. Many possible solutions to disproportionality have been attempted and failed over the

last 30 years including more stringent criteria, nonbiased assessment, and culturally sensitive

curricula (NCCTQ, 2009). Artiles et al. (2015) challenge us to use more complex notions of

culture and to acknowledge the cultural codes embedded in assessments and instructional

strategies as a solution. The NRC panel came to a different conclusion citing substantial

evidence that early identification and intervention is more effective so more attention needs to be

paid to what happens before students are identified for special education to resolve the problem

of overrepresentation (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2009).

Historical Policies of Special Education Identification

Before we consider the potential impact of Response to Intervention on the problem of

disproportionate representation we must first understand the policies that have affected special

education identification. Historically the main criterion for eligibility for special education
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

services has been proof of intrinsic deficit (Harry, 2007). There are two problems with this focus.

First, defining and identifying disabilities is subjective, so proof of intrinsic deficit is a

misnomer. Second, the focus on disability is intertwined with devaluing minorities in the United

States (Harry, 2007). These two deficit lenses greatly influence the special education placement

process. According to Harry (2007), the label of learning disability (LD) was originally reserved

for white and middle class students while educable mental retardation (EMR) was a way to

separate blacks and in some states Mexicans and Native Americans. This critically flawed

system continued for decades.

The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 2004 led to

replacing the old discrepancy model of special education identification that compared

intelligence and achievement because it allowed for an extensive period of academic failure.

Under this method students were not usually identified before 3rd grade when enough time had

gone by for the student to experience academic failure so that they could show the necessary

achievement discrepancy. By 3rd grade or later many students with reading deficits could not

recover after missing out on important early intervention and continued to read far below grade

level thorught their school years even with the support they received through special education

srvices in the later years (Turse, 2015). This led to student disenfranchisement, behavior issues,

growing numbers of older students in need of content area support and tremendous demand for

special education services (Cartledge, 2016) which led IDEA to call for alternative identification

measures.

The 2004 amendments of IDEA, which went into effect on July 1, 2005 explicitly

introduced RTI for the purpose of identification of students with specific learning disability

(SLD). The legislation stipulated that states may no longer require severe discrepancy of
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

underachievement relative to intellectual disability and must permit school districts to use a

process that “determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention” (Zerkel,

2012), such as RTI.

Response to Intervention is an alternative evaluation procedure with a multitiered system

of supports. It focuses on research based instruction, early screening for any student experiencing

academic difficulties, ongoing monitoring of student progress, and tiered interventions of support

that increase in intensity (Turse, 2015). RTI uses a public health logic with an emphasis on

prevention, early intervention and ongoing monitoring of struggling learners (Artiles et al.,

2015). The Response to Intervention model is often represented as a pyramid of interventions

with the wide base of the pyramid including all students and the narrow peak at the top of the

pyramid representing those students in need of special education. Generally there are three tiers

of interventions with tier one being differentiation in the core instruction for all students at the

broad bottom of the pyramid. The middle tier two shows interventions and remediation for some

but not all students. Finally tier three leads to an individualized education plan for the few

students who have not made expected progress and are suspected of needing special education

services.

The Potential Impact of RTI on Disproportionate Representation

Both VanDerHeyden (2007) and O’Connor et al. (2013) conducted longitudinal studies

which found implementation of an RTI model led to higher reading scores and reduced

disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education (O’Connor et al., 2013). Several

other studies summarized below have shown RTI provides effective early intervention and has

lowered the proportion of minority students identified as having learning disabilities, but it is
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

difficult to research the overall effectiveness of RTI because there is no standard model and great

variability in how it is implemented across the country (Turse, 2015).

Waiting to identify struggling readers until elementary school is too little too late

according to some studies in early childhood education so RTI can be put in place as early as

preschool where there are many resources supporting language and literacy development. Carta

et al. (2015) studied 659 preschool children who received screening in tier one and the

proportion of children requiring tier two or three services was higher for children in low income

preschool programs. This would lead one to believe that a larger proportion of those low income

students (likely CDL) will eventually end up in tier three with a special education label. Other

findings in this preschool study include a need for refining the screening process and continued

professional development on implementation of evidence based interventions. Most RTI studies

focus on what happens at tier two and three but Carta et al. studied all three tiers and their

evidence supports early literacy tier one instruction as a means of preventing reading failure in

the elementary years and beyond (Carta et al., 2015).

Typical RTI waits to assess students’ response to tier one instruction before moving them

into tier two or three but Al Otaiba et al. (2014) studied a version of Responseto Intervention

called dynamic RTI. This version provides tier two or three interventions immediately according

to students’ initial screening results. This randomized controlled experiment followed 522 first

grade students at 10 socioeconomically and culturally diverse schools using the same core

reading program. The study found that those students in dynamic RTI ended the study with

significantly higher reading performance than those students in typical RTI. Only three students

needed tier three intervention in the dynamic RTI schools while 16 students needed it in the

typical RTI schools. It is possible, therefore, to identify at the beginning of first grade which
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

students need the most intensive interventions and fast track students with the weakest initial

skills to the most intensive treatment in RTI (Al Otaiba et al., 2014) rather than waiting for an

extended period of failure as was required in the old discrepancy model of special education

identification.

O’Connor et al. (2013) studied schools who were just beginning the implementation of

RTI. They took data on the third graders the year before the implementation began then

compared that to the data four years later with students in the same school who had had the same

teachers yet had access to tiered interventions in kindergarten through second grade. The second

cohort of students had significantly higher reading achievement than the cohort who had not

been instructed in an RTI framework. Students in low socioeconomic status schools began

kindergarten with lower reading scores but their gains across the four year study were as strong

as those of their more affluent peers. This shows RTI can have a beneficial effect for minority

students in poverty. Results were consistent with VanDerHeyden (2007) that implementation of

an RTI model reduced disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education (O’Connor

et al., 2013).

Another option within the RTI framework is to create instructional consultation teams (IC

teams) which support and maintain student success within the general education setting rather

than waiting for students to be referred for special education. According to Gravois (2016), IC

teams are different than a standard teacher assistance team or child study (which was common

practice in schools that used the discrepancy model for special education identification) because

the classroom teacher meets regularly with one IC team case manager rather than attending one

or two group problem solving meetings. Thirteen schools with IC teams were compared with 9

other schools on three indices of disproportionality including risk index, odds ratio and
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

composition index. After two years of IC teams there was a significant decrease in minority

student referrals for special education (Gravois, 2006).

Policy Debate Around RTI

While these studies show RTI as a promising alternative to the discrepancy model of

determining special education needs, when it comes to adopting it as a policy, only 14 states had

done so as of 2012 (Nellis, 2012). After IDEA gave states the option to forego the discrepancy

model of special education identification in 2004, RTI models showed promise for preventing

academic failure by providing support for culturally and linguistically diverse students before

they underachieved (Klinger, 2006). School based implementation of RTI occurred quickly in

response to federal legislation but it has not necessarily been implemented with fidelity. Keller-

Margulis (2012) studied critical components of implementation fidelity in RTI models including

assessment integrity, instructional and intervention integrity, procedural integrity, and mutli-

method data collection. It has been found that common language and common understanding at

the school level is essential for the RTI framework to be successful. If all stakeholders involved

with RTI are not included in identifying the critical components for implementation and

monitoring, then it will not be implemented with fidelity (Keller-Margulis, 2012), thus losing its

effectiveness and potential to help CLD students.

Another issue with the fidelity of RTI is the vast variation in what happens in tier one

instruction before we even begin to look at students as needing higher tiers of support. After

collecting 22 empirical studies, Hill, King, Lemons and Partanen (2012) determined tier two

reading interventions are likely to have different effectiveness depending on the quality of tier

one instruction yet most RTI studies focus on the higher tiers alone rather than within the broader
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

school context. An intervention only happens for part of a student’s school day so it akes sense

that what is happening in core instruction for the majority of the day would be of greater impact

and could either greatly enhance or potentially negate the impact of the tier two or three

intervention. The multifaceted nature of RTI makes it difficult for researchers to control for

critical aspects, especially since tier one could include school wide core instruction which makes

gathering sufficient amounts of data problematic. Reporting fidelity of implementation has

improved over the last decade but it is still unclear which methods of reporting fidelity of

implementation are most associated with improved student outcomes (Hill et al., 2012).

Much of the debate around RTI is due to the fact that decisions about procedures,

practices and processes in RTI are made primarily by teacher teams. Nelis (2012) claims

collaboration is essential among teams as is a belief that all children can learn and an emphasis

on seeking solutions to problems. The Ellis framework for pre-referral intervention teams

includes (1) having sound theoretical basis (2) demonstrated effectiveness and (3)

implementation on a wide scale basis. Response to Intervention meets the first two criteria but it

is inconsistently applied nationally so is considered limited on the third criteria (Nelis, 2012).

Another criticism is that some teams favor the collaboration and early identification of RTI, but

found the process to be an exercise in documentation with overly complex procedures irrelevant

to student outcomes (Nelis, 2012).

Although RTI requires research based interventions we should find out what works with

whom, by whom, and in what contexts since many interventions are not normed on culturally

and linguistically diverse students. Moje and Hinchman stated “All practice needs to be

culturally responsive in order to be considered best practice.” Inappropriate instructional

strategies can leave students frustrated, which may result in behavioral problems as well as
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

academic failure (McAlenny & McCabe, 2012). When examining RTI in this light the authors of

one study (Klinger, 2006) draw upon Wiley’s (1996) framework of culturally responsive

instruction that includes accommodation, incorporation, and adaptation. When children have not

had sufficient opportunity to learn, the determination cannot be made that they have a learning

disability (Klinger, 2006). Cartledge et al. (2016) tried to look at culturally relevant pedagogy

(CRP) but not enough studies were even available to fit the criteria. One consideration this study

brought up is the cost of RTI in urban schools with limited resources and large minority, low

socioeconomic populations. In these locations there are many students of poverty needing tier

two and three support. Cartledge et al. concluded, as did all other authors cited, that RTI shows

promise but needs further study and professional development (Cartledge et al., 2016).

Conclusion

I found no evidence that Response to Intervention adversely affects minority students and

in fact the bulk of evidence concludes that RTI can have a positive impact on the

disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special

education. However, just because RTI shows promise does not mean it is primed to become the

next hot policy in education. The RTI framework is inconsistently applied nationally and

decisions are made primarily by teacher teams so it is impossible to package it and replicate the

process consistently from one school to another at this time. RTI provides a framework of

support for students but what, when and how support is actually delivered to students

experiencing academic difficulties in each of the three tiers of RTI can vary greatly. It is possible

for different schools to do completely different instruction and intervention with different levels

of fidelity while still meeting the RTI requirements of being research based instruction with early
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

screening, ongoing monitoring of student progress, and tiered interventions of increasing

intensity (Turse, 2015).

As Wiley (1996) stated, “When children have not had sufficient opportunity to learn, the

determination cannot be made that they have a learning disability.” Minority students with

learning needs and learning challenges do not necessarily have learning disabilities and should

not be disproportionately represented in special education. These students need support, not a

label. If that support is culturally responsive it is more likely to meet the needs of these culturally

and linguistically diverse students, yet that is not currently an element considered within the RTI

framework. RTI does improve upon the old discrepancy model because RTI focuses on

prevention and early reading intervention which is key since reading is stated as the primary or

secondary cause of 80% of special education placements (Samuels, 2007). However, many

interventions are not normed on culturally diverse students (Klinger, 2006) so in the end we still

need to focus on quality tier one instruction for CLD students in order to reduce the need for

minority students to require tier two and three intervention.

An obstacle which can not be ignored no matter how much data supports Response to

Intervention is the cost of RTI in urban schools which have limited resources and large minority

and low socioeconomic populations. Not only are these the very schools that are currently failing

so many of our urban minority students and that lack the resources to improve initial instruction,

but they are also the schools with so many children of poverty needing tier two and three support

that the cost of RTI would likely be prohibitive to it being adopted as a policy (Cartledge, 2016).

It takes many educators to provide the necessary interventions for all students requiring them in

tier two in order to reduce the number of students requiring special education services in tier

three but that focus on prevention comes at a cost. Until we are willing to address the “savage
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

inequalities” of funding and teacher quality in urban school districts (Artiles, 2002) the ideas of

difference and culture used to describe marginalized segments of the population may continue to

support assumptions that culturally and linguistically diverse students differ in their ability levels

and learning (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2015) and therefore make it acceptable that they

are disproportionately represented in special education.

DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

References

Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C., Folsom, J., Wanzek, J., Greulich, L., Schatschneider, C. (2014). To

wait in tier 1 or intervene immediately: A randomized experiment examining first-grade

response to intervention in reading. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 11-27.

Artiles, A. (2015). Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: future research on culture in

disability and implications for Response to Intervention. Educational Review, 67(1), 1-

22. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2014.934322.

Artiles, A., Harry, B., Reschly, D., Chinn, P. (2002). Over-identification of students of color in

special education: a critical overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(1), 3-10.

Carta, J., Greenwood, C., Atwater, J., McConnell, S., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, A. (2015).

Identifying preschool children for higher tiers of language and early literacy instruction

within a Response to Intervention framework. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 281-

291. doi: 10.1177/1053815115579937.

Cartledge, G., Kea, C., Watson, M., Oif, A. (2016). Special education disproportionality: A

review of Response to Intervention and culturally relevant pedagogy. Multiple Voices for

Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 281-291.

Gravois, T., Rosenfield, S. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the

disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education.

Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 42-52. doi: 10.1177/07419325060270010501.

Harry, B., Klinger, J. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 16-

21.

Hill, D., King, S., Lemons, C., Partanen, J. (2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional

alignment in Response to Intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research &

DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

Practice, 27(3), 116-124.

Hooper, S., Costa, L., McBee, M., Anderson, K. (2013). A written language intervention for at-

risk second grade students: a randomized controlled trial of the process assessment of the

learner lesson plans in a tier 2 response-to-intervention (RtI) model. Annals of Dyslexia,

63(1), 44-64. doi: 10.1007/s11881-011-0056-y.

Keller-Margulis, M. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response

to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 342-352.

doi: 10.1002/pits.21602.

Klinger, J., Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models.

Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108-117. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6.

McAlenny, A., McCabe, P. (2012). Introduction to the role of Curriculum-Based Measurement

in Response to Intervention. Reading Psychology, 33(1/2), 1-7.

doi: 10.1080/02702711.2012.630599.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). Overview Document: Prevention of

disproportionate special education representation using Response to Intervention.

Washington, D.C.

Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention

implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 245-256. doi: 10.1002/pits.21594.

O’Connor, R., Bocian, K., Beach, K., Sanchez, V. (2013). Special education in a 4-year

Response to Intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning

disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(3),

98-112. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12013.

Samuels, C. (2007). Minorities in special education studied by U.S. panel. Education Week,
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATON

27(15).

Turse, K., Albrecht, S. (2015). The ABCs of RTI: An introduction to the building blocks of

Response to Intervention. Preventing School Failure, 59(2), 83-89.

Walker, H., Marquez, B., Yeaton, P. (2015). Teacher judgment in assessing students' social

behavior within a Response-to-Intervention framework: Using what teachers know.

Education & Treatment of Children, 38(3), 363-382.