1. Vol. 71. No. 3 pp. 283-300.
©2005 CouncilfirExceptional Children.
Exceptional Children
Within-Group Diversity in
Minority Disproportionate
Representation: English Language
Learners in Urban School
Districts
ALFREDO J. ARTILES
Arizona State University
ROBERT RUEDA
JESUS JOSt 5ALAZAR
IGNACIO HIGAREDA
University of Southem California
ABSTRACT:r: A weakness of research on minority placement in special education is the tendency to
overestimate the homogeneity ofpopulations byfailing to disaggregatefactors such as language pro-
ficiency or to consider other relevant variables, for example, social class orprogram type. Similarly,
certain groups have been understudied, such as English language learners (ELLs). We addressed
these gaps by examining ELL placement patterns in California urban districts. Disproportionate
representation patterns were related to grade level, language proficiency status, disability category,
type of special education program, and type of language support program. Students proficient in
neither their native language nor in English (particularly in secondary grades) were most affected.
Implicationsfor further research and practice are discussed.
T
he disproportionate representa- resentation in programs for students with gifts
tion of minority students has and talents; by far, the disproportionality scholar-
haunted the special education ship has focused on the overrepresentation prob-
field for more than 3 decades lem. Most scholars agree disproportionate
(Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004). representation is a problem as reflected in the ap-
This problem includes overrepresentation (typi- pointment of two National Research Council
cally in high incidence disabilities) and underrep- (NRC) panels to examine this problem in a rela-
Excepiional Children 283

2. tive short time period (Donovan & Cross, 2002;
Heller, Holrzman, & Messick, 1982), recent fed-
eral mandates to monitor this problem, and the
creation of a national technical assistance center
to support states in their efforts to address the
problem.
Answers to key questions about this prob-
lem are not straightforward. For instance, the lat-
est NRC report asked two crucial questions
(Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 357-359): (a) [Are
there] "biological and social/contextual contribu-
tors to early development that differ by race and
that leave students differentially prepared to meet
the cognitive and behavioral demands of school-
ing?" and (b) does "the school experience itself
contribute to racial disproportion in academic
outcomes and behavioral problems that lead to
placement in special and gifted education?" The
panel's response to both questions was affirmative.
To the fundamental question about differential
outcomes—"Docs special education...provide a
benefit to students, and is that benefit different
for different racial/ethnic groups?"—the NRC
panel responded: "The data that would allow us
to answer the question adequately do not exist."
Although the available evidence about key
issues is still inconclusive, an empirical knowledge
base is beginning to emerge. For instance, re-
search suggests the magnitude of disproportional-
ity changes depending on the level of
analysis—-for example, national, state, district,
school. Overrepresentation at the national level
only applies to African Americans and Native
Americans; the former in mental retardation
(MR) and emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD)
and the latter in learning disabilities (LD; Dono-
van & Cross, 2002). Although Latinos are not
overrepresented nationally, evidence indicates this
group is affected in some states and districts
(Finn, 1982). Other factors that can mediate the
magnitude of overrepresentation include the size
ofthe district, the proportion of an ethnic group
in the district population, the indicators used to
measure the problem, and the availability of alter-
native programs such as bilingual education or
Title I (Heller etal., 1982).
Efforts have been undertaken to understand
and address disproportionality, particularly in the
last decade. Examples include federally funded
techtiical assistance centers (The Center of Mi-
nority Research in Special Education [COM-
RISE], the Linking Academic Scholars to Educa-
tional Resources [LASER] Project, the National
Center for Culturally Responsive Educational
Systems [NCCRESt], and the National Institute
for Urban School Improvement [NIUSU]), re-
search projects (Harry, Klingner, Sturges, &
Moore, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh,
1999), amendments to federal legislation (e.g.,
data reporting by race), the National Academy of
Sciences panels, and professional associations' ef-
forts. Despite this progress, a programmatic re-
search effort is needed and key theoretical issues
remain unaddressed. Eor instance, the notion of
minority group has been treated as a monolithic
population, and thus, there is a scarcity of re-
search on within-group diversity. This is problem-
atic as contemporary culture theory and identity
scholarship offer more complex understandings of
culture and minorities' experiences (Artiles,
2003). Similarly, we have a limited understanding
Efforts have been undertaken to under-
stand and address disproportionality, par-
ticularly in the last decade.
about the potential impact of various diversity
markers on disproportionality—for example, lan-
guage proficiency and social class. The existing re-
search is almost exclusively concerned with race.
This study addresses these research gaps
and aims to assess the magnitude of dispropor-
tionate representation for English Language
Learners (ELI,^) in several California urban dis-
tricts. In the state of California, "English learner"
or "pupil of limited English proficiency" means a
pupil who was not born in the United States or
whose native language is a language other than
English or who comes from an environment
where a language other than English is dominant;
and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writ-
ing, or understanding the English language may
be sufficient to deny the individual the abiUty to
meet the state's proficient level of achievement on
state assessments, the ability to successfully
achieve in classrooms where the language of in-
struction is English, or the opportunity to partici-
Spring2005

3. pate fully in society (California Department of
Education, n.d.). These districts have a sizable
proportion of ELLs, a group of students that has
been neglected in this literature. A focus on this
population enables us to examine within-group
diversity as placement patterns are reported for
subgroups of ELLs. Next, we present background
information on minority representation in special
education and language policies and programs in
California.
EELs seemingly mediated ovettepresentation pat-
terns, particularly in large school districts. Finn
reported that districts with the highest overrepre-
sentation rates had smaller proportions of stu-
dents in bilingual programs. He concluded "[i]t is
possible that Hispanic students with poor English
proficiency are misclassiPied as EMR [educabily
mentally retarded] when bihngual programs are
not available" (p. 372).
O V E R V I E W O F M I N O R I T Y R E P R E -
S E N T A T I O N I N S P E C I A L E D U C A -
T I O N I N C A L I F O R N I A
California has one ofthe largest concentrations of
EELs in the nation, most of whom are of Latino
descent (Mercado, 2001). For this reason, we re-
view in this section tesearch on ELL and Latino
placement. California has a long history of litiga-
tion associated with the placement of African
Americans and Latinos in special education
(Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002). In
fact, some of the cases tried in California courts
had a significant impact on federal law and analy-
ses of disproportionality.
Eor instance, the Diana v. State Board of
Education (1970) case was one in which the use of
tests to place students was challenged. Diana, a
Spanish-speaking student in Monterey County,
California, had been placed in a class for students
with MR because she had scored low on an IQ
test given to her in English. The court ruled that
Spanish-speaking children should be retested in
their native language to avoid etrors in placement
and also required the use of nonverbal tests and
the collection of extensive support data necessarv
to justify special education placement.
Latino ovetrepresentation persisted
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, though it was
often masked if the data were not disaggregated.
This pattern was also observed at the national
level. For example, Finn (1982) reported that al-
though the representation of Latinos in MR pro-
grams was somewhat similar to Whites, "the small
Hispanic-nonminority difference for the nation as
a whole is an average of many sizable dispropor-
tions in both directions" (p. 368). Moreover, the
availability of programs to address the needs of
P O L I C I E S A N D R E F O R M S F O R
L I N G U I S T I C M I N O R I T I E S I N
C A L I F O R N I A
California set an example to the nation in the
mid-1970s as it passed a comprehensive bilingual
education act shortly after the landmark Lau v.
Nichols Supreme Court decision. In 1976, Cali-
fornia passed the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bi-
cultural Education Act that required schools to
take the necessary measures to give ELLs access to
the standard curriculum, In addition, the law re-
quired school programs to develop these students'
English proficiency as effectively as possible. Over
time, dissatisfaction with perceived problems with
bilingual education programs eventually led to a
ballot initiative known as Proposition 227 that
was included in the 1998 ballot and approved.
Proposition 227 called for the drastic reduction of
bilingual education programs and primary lan-
guage support for ELEs. The rationale for the
Proposition included bilingual programs' lack of
effectiveness and the low-academic achievement
of ELLs. Although Proposition 227 included a
limited form of language support for this popula-
tion, the transition to English-only classes is car-
ried out after 1 year. At the time Proposition 227
was apptoved, only one third of the ELL popula-
tion was placed in bilingual education programs
and about one third of the ELL population was
taught by certified bilingual teachers (Rumberger
&C Gandara, 2000), Furthermore, there was wide
variation in the quality of bilingual program im-
plementation and quality of instruction (Ga-
ndara et al., 2000). Proposition 227 allowed par-
ents to request a waiver of this policy. The propo-
sition further stipulated that teachers can be sued
if chey refuse to implement the policy (see Parrish
Exceptional Children

4. et al., 2002 for analyses of the implemetitation
and impact of Proposition 227).
It should be noted that at the time the data
for this study were collected, multiple reforms
(accountability, reading instruction) were being
carried out and Proposition 227 was beitig imple-
mented for the first time in the target districts.
We should also stress, however, this study does
not examine the impact of these reforms; rather, it
tepotts a descriptive profile of ELL placement in
special education at a given point in time.
In summary, thtee key conclusions can be
drawn from this brief review of the Hteratute.
First, the disproportionate representation of eth-
nic/linguistic minorities has persisted over time in
California, though we know significantly less
about ELL representation. Second, there is a
scarcity of research on within-group diversity.
And third, it is important to study the aforemen-
tioned issues at a time when multiple reforms are
being implemented to strengthen the educational
services for an increasingly diverse student popu-
lation. For this putpose, we conducted this study
to (a) assess the representation of ELL subgroups
in various disability categories and grade levels,
(b) examine whether ELL in various language
programs and grade levels are more likely to be
overrepresented in distinct special education pro-
grams, and (c) check whether ELL representation
in various disability categories varied by social
class and grade levels.
METHOD
THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, POPULATIONS,
AND PROGRAMS
The databases of 11 urban school districts for the
1998-1999 academic year were used in this study.
The databases were available to the researchers
through an institutional agreement between two
major universities in California and the target dis-
tricts. (Definitions of student classifications, dis-
ability categories, and programs can be found at
the California Department of Education Web
site, accessible at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ or Par-
rish et al., 2002.) The districts are located in the
southern portion of the state. California schools
as a whole serve one of the most diverse student
populations in the nation, and the target districts
in the study are located in a county with one of
the highest densities of ELLs in the state.
We aggregated the data to ensure the school
districts' anonymity. Each district served an aver-
age of 64,000 students (range: 52,000-77,000).
The majority ofthe student population in the tar-
get districts was from minority backgrounds as re-
flected in the following enrollment data
(1998-1999): 69% Latino(a)/Chicano(a), 10.5%
White, 13.6% African American, 4.3% Asian,
1.9% Filipino, 0.4% Pacific Islander, and 0.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native. During the same
academic year, most students in elementary
(85%) and secondary (71%) grades were from
low-income households (as reflected in eligibility
for free or reduced lunch programs).
ELL population. In the district, the ELL
population grew over 200% in a 16-year period
(1981-1997). Almost half (42%) of the student
population was classified as ELL in the 1998-99
school year; the largest proportion was placed in
elementary grades (53%) though about one third
(27%) of students in secondary grades were desig-
nated as EEL.
[T]here is a scarcity of researach on
within-group diversity.
ELL classification is determined with the
Home Language Survey, which identifies a home
language other than English, Students who come
from a home where English is not the primary
language are assessed for English proficiency
based on oral language tests. Students who do not
test as orally English proficient are classified as
ELL and categorized into one of five proficiency
levels called English Language Development
(ELD) levels as desctibed in the following:
• Level 1—When listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, the student responds using ges-
tures, simple words, and phrases to demon-
strate understanding when working with
familiar situations and text.
" Level 2—^When listenmg, speaking, reading,
and writing, the student responds using ac-
2 8 6 Spring 2005

5. quired vocabulary in phrases and simple sen-
tences to demonstrate understanding of story;
details (basic sequence, main idea, character,
setting) and basic situations with increasing in-
dependence.
• Level 3—When listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, the student tesponds using ex-
panded vocabulary and descriptive words for
social and academic purposes with increased
complexity and independence but with some
inconsistencies.
' Level 4—When listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, the student responds using com-
plex vocabulary with greater accuracy demon-
strates detailed understanding of social and
academic language and concepts with in-
creased independence.
• Level 5—When listenmg, speaking, reading,
and writing, the student responds using ex-
tended vocabulary in social and academic dis-
course to negotiate meaning and apply
knowledge across the content areas.
Each succeeding ELD level represents a higher
level of English language proficiency. English Pro-
ficient is "a term applied to students whose pri-
mary language is not English and who have met
district criteria for proficiency and literacy in En-
glish either upon entry into the school system or
through the district's redesignation process" (Par-
rish et al., 2002, Glossary). ELLs are considered
to be English proficient when they reach ELD
Level 5 (i.e., tested between the 36th and 40th
percentile in reading and language on a standard-
ized achievement test), which means they can
function in classrooms with native-English speak-
ers,
A small proportion of ELLs was tedesig-
nated as Fluent English Proficient in these dis-
tricts; data from the preceding 4 years
(1993-1997) indicated an average of 6.5% of
ELLs (range = 4-8) were redesignated as Fluent
English Proficient. In the 1998-1999 year, by
fifth grade only half (51.5%) of ELLs had been
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient. This
means that about half of the students who began
school as ELLs matriculated into middle school
without reclassification. None of these students
were recent arrivals into the United States (arrived
in United States within last 3 years, as per the
U,S. Department of Education's definition). In
secondary grades, slightly more than half (52.4%)
of ELLs had been reclassified. Ofthe 47.6% ELLs
who had not been reclassified, 6,7% met the fed-
eral definition of recently arrived immigrant stu-
dent (3 years or less in the United States).
Overall, of the remaining students in secondary
grades classified as ELL, 14.1% were recent ar-
rivals in the United States.
The ELI, population was overwhelmingly
of Latino heritage as they represented 94% of the
elementary and 91% ofthe secondary grade pop-
ulations. The percentages of other groups in the
ELL population, for elementary and secondary
combined, were: American Indian (0.1%), Asian
American (3.3%), Black (0.3%), White (2.5%),
Filipino (0.7%), and Pacific Islander (0.1%).
The districts categorized ELLs in two sub-
groups, namely, students with limited proficiency
in English and students with limited proficiency
in both their first language and English. We call
the former "ELL with Limited Ll" and the latter
"ELL with Limited Ll and L2,"
Special Education Students and Programs.
The special education systems serve students with
disabilities in a continuum of educational pro-
grams. At the time of the study (1998-1999 year),
7.2% of all students received special education
services. The size ofthe special education popula-
tion was smaller in elementary (K-5; 5.4%) than
in secondaty gtades (6-12; 9.34%). Consistent
with national trends, the proportion of students
with LD represented the largest group of students
with disabilities—2.2% of the elementary and
7.5% ofthe secondary populations.
The proportion of ELLs receiving special
education services in the target districts was com-
parable to the total student population (7.6%).
However, the grade level difference in the ELL
population with special educational needs was
more pronounced than in the districts' general
population; specifically, 5.3% ofthe districts' ELL
elementary and l4.1% of ELL secondary students
received special education services. In the upper
grades (Grades 6-12), only 1.9% ofthe recent ar-
rivals (immigrants) were placed in special educa-
tion compared with 18.4% of students who were
classified as ELLs when they first began school.
The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) in-
cluded students who receive special education and
Exceptional Children

6. related services outside the general education
classroom for at least 21%, but not more than
60%, of the school day. This may include stu-
dents placed in resource rooms with part-time in-
struction in a general education class. The Special
Day Class (SDC) option served students who re-
ceive special education and telated services out-
side the general education classroom for more
than 60% of the school day. Students may be
placed in a separate class with part-time instruc-
tion in another placement or placed in separate
classes full-time on a regular school campus (Cali-
fornia Department of Education, 2000).
Teaching Force. Available data (1999-2000)
indicated the teaching force was mostly White
(49%); Latino(a) teachers composed 25% and
African American teachers represented 15%. Over
two thirds (68%) ofthe faculty were women. Ap-
proximately one quarter of all teachers had emer-
gency credentials or waivers.
Language Programs. Three language pro-
grams were created for elementary schools in the
1998-1999 year to implement Proposition 227
(see definitions of language programs at the Cali-
fornia Department of Education Web site). The
new programs included (a) straight English im-
mersion, (b) modified English immersion, and (c)
primary language instruction (bilingual program).
Straight English immersion programs required in-
struction be conducted "primarily in EngUsh with
primary language support provided by the para-
professional for clarification purposes" (emphasis
added; Salazar, p. 2). Instruction in the modified
English immersion program was carried out "pri-
marily in English with primary language instruc-
tional support provided by a bilingual authorized
teacherfor concept development" (emphasis added;
Salazar, 2000, p. 2). Parents must sign an excep-
tion waiver to have their child placed in a bilin-
gual education program. Bilingual programs
provided core instruction in the primary language
with daily English Language Development in-
struction. English Language Development is the
state-designated term fot instructional programs
to develop listening, speaking, reading, and writ-
ing skills in English.
Language programs in secondary grades in-
clude English as a Second Language (ESL) and
English-only classes. ELLs are placed in three dif-
ferent classes, depending on their English profi-
ciency levels. When a secondary ELL is not redes-
ignated as fluent-English proficient (EEP), he or
she receives instruction in English-only classes;
such students are in the Preparation for Redesig-
nation Ptogram (PRP).
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This study was based on the districts' databases
for the academic yeat 1998-1999; data from the
1999-2000 as well as some longitudinal data were
cited where appropriate (special education service,
disability category, grade level, social class).We fo-
cused the analyses on disability categories typi-
cally affected by ovetrepresentation-—that is, MR,
language and speech impairments (LAS), and LD.
Although Black students have been historically
overrepresented in the E/BD category, descriptive
analyses suggested ELLs were not overrepresented
in this group; hence, we excluded the E/BD data
from subsequent analyses. We also examined
placement patterns in special education programs
with disparate levels of restrictiveness (RSP,
SDC), grade levels (elementary, secondary), and
three language programs (straight English immer-
sion, modified English immersion, bilingual).
Disproportionate representation was de-
fined as the "extent to which membetship in a
given group affects the probability of being placed
in a specific special education disability category"
[or special education service option-for example,
RSP or SDCl (adapted from Oswald et al., 1999,
p. 198). Consistent with the latest analytic guide'
lines (Attiles & Rueda, 2002; Donovan & Cross,
2002), we calculated multiple indicators of dis-
proportionate representation and disaggregated
data by disability, grade level, language profi-
ciency, social class, and language support and spe-
cial education programs to obtain a more
comprehensive understanding of the problem.
Eor this purpose, we calculated a composition
index, a risk index, and an odds ratio.
The composition index is calculated by "di-
viding the number of students ofa given racial or
ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability
category by the total number of students [from ail
ethnic groups] enrolled in that same disability
category" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). In
order to determine whether overrepresentation
exists, this figure must be compared with the rep-
resentation of the target group in the general edu-
Spring2005

7. cation population. We used Chinn and Hughes'
(1987) rule to identify overtepresentation;
namely, a group is overrepresented if its represen-
tation in special education is equal or greater than
10% of the percentage expected on the basis of
the school-age population. For example, let us as-
sume ELLs' school enrollment in general educa-
tion is 20%. Based on Chinn and F^ughes' 10%
rule, it would be expected that ELL entollment in
a disability category should fall between 18% and
22% (i.e., 20 plus or minus 2). Enrollment below
18% would constitute underrepresentation and
overrepresentation would be observed if ELL en-
rollment exceeded 22%.
We also examined the risk index, calculated
"hy dividing the number of students in a given
racial or ethnic category served in a given disabil-
ity category by the total enrollment fot that racial
or ethnic group in the school population" (Dono-
van & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). In addition to the
aforementioned indices, we calculated odds ratios,
described as:
The basic element in the index is the "odds" of
being assigned to a particular special education
category. For example, a measurement of the
odds ofa minority student's being assigned to an
[MR] class is the percentage of minority stu-
dents who are classified as [MR] divided by the
percentage of minorities who are not in special
programs.,..The odds ofa White student's being
designated [MR] [is the percentage of White
students classified as MR divided by the per-
centage of Whites who are not in special pro-
grams].,..The disproportion index is the ratio of
these two odds. (Finn, 1982, p, 328)
To illustrate, let us assume we are compar-
ing Native American with White student place-
ment in LD programs. An odds ratio of 1.0
would mean that Native American and White
students are equally likely to be assigned to an LD
class. An odds ratio of 1.36 would mean Native
Americans are 36% more likely than White stu-
dents to be assigned to a LD class. And if the
odds ratio is less than 1 (e.g,, 0.80), then Native
Americans would be less likely than their White
peers to be assigned to an LD class.
As part of the analysis, we calculated odds
ratios for subgroups (ELEs with Limited Ll,
ELLs with Limited LI and L2, English Proficient,
and White students) in the target disability cate-
gories (MR, LD, LAS). Because the study's target
group is ELL, we used English proficient learners
as the comparison group. However, we also used
White students as a comparison group for several
compelling reasons, which include (a) White stu-
dents have been traditionally used as a compari-
son group in equity analyses because they are the
dominant group in society who have not had sys-
tematic ptoblems with access and opportunity is-
sues, (b) White students have been used
historically as a contrast group in this litetature
that facilitates trend analyses, and (c) White stu-
dents can be used as a stable contrast group be-
cause various cultural and linguistic groups are
compared to the same group. We also examined
these ratios across grade levels, special education
programs with varying levels of restrictiveness
(RSP, SDC), and language programs (straight En-
glish immersion, modified English immersion,
and bilingual).
R ES U LTS
Before we describe the findings for each of the
three study goals, we present an overview of spe-
cial education placement patterns for all the dis-
tricts using three indicators (composition and risk
indices and odds ratio). The purpose of this pre-
liminary analysis is to illustrate the value of un-
packing the data at multiple levels for subgroups
of students. Next, we report the aforementioned
indicators of placement patterns in high-inci-
dence disabilities (MR, LAS, LD) by language
proficiency (ELL subgroups), ethnicity (White),
and grade level (elementary, secondary). We then
describe the results for the second study goal; the
relation between ELL placement in various lan-
guage programs and placement in distinct special
education programs. The last section ofthe results
focuses on another aspect of within-group diver-
sity (other than language proficiency subgroups),
namely, social class. We report the association be-
tween social class and ELL placement in high-in-
cidence disabilities by grade levels.
Exceptional Children

8. OVERALL DESCRIPTIVE PROEILE: PLACE-
MENT PATTERNS AT THE DISTRICT AND
GRADE LEVELS BY LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
AND ETHNICITY
Table 1 presents special education placement data
fot ELl^ at the district and grade levels; specifi-
cally, we calculated composition indices to deter-
mine the percentage points above ot below the
10% disproportionate representation threshold
(Chinn & Hughes, 1987), risk indices, and odds
ratios. At che district level, the composition index
suggested English Proficient students composed a
slight majority of the special education popula-
tion; however, neither one ofthe groups was over-
represented (see composition index data in table).
At the elementary level, neither group of students
was overrepresented, whereas English Proficient
learners were underrepresented at the secondary
level. ELLs, in turn, were overrepresented at the
secondary level (see composition index data in
Table 1). The risk index data for the entire district
indicated a larger percentage of White students
were placed in special education (11.2), followed
by ELLs (7.6) and English Proficient learners
(6.8) respectively. In the elementary grade level, a
smaller proportion of ELLs was placed in special
education compared to White and English Profi-
cient students (see risk indices Table 1). In con-
trast, the risk index for the secondary grade level
was highest for ELLs (14.7), followed by White
(10), and English Proficient students (8.8).
The shifting patterns of representation also
appeared in the odds ratio analysis: ELLs were
slightly underrepresented at the district level
(0.89) compared to their English Proficient peers
and underrepresented in relation to White stu-
dents (0.61). Interestingly, compared to the other
two contrast groups, ELLs were underrepresented
at the elementary grade level and overrepresented
at the secondary level (see Table 1).
Table 1 also presents disaggregated data by
separate grades from kindergarten through 12th
grade. Although the composition indices for ELLs
in elementary grades (K-5) reflected a declining
trend (i.e., from 58 to 43) the risk indices actually
showed the opposite trend; this means increasing
proportions of ELLs were placed in special educa-
tion across elementary grades. The odds ratios
were consistent with the risk index data: Com-
pared to White learners, ELLs were underrepre-
sented in Grades K-5; however, they began to be
overrepresented in Grade 6. Compared to English
Proficient students, ELL overrepresentation
emerged in Grade 4 (see Table 1). In contrast, the
composition and risk indices for English profi-
cient and White students showed a positive asso-
ciation and an incremental trend, although a
small fluctuation was observed for White student
composition data (see Table 1).
The secondary level special education
placement data for ELLs reflected considerable
overrepresentation. The composition and risk in-
dicators suggested a declining trend ftom Grades
7 to 11 with an increase in Grade 12. The odds
ratio data also showed overrepresentation pat-
terns, although diminishing in magnitude in
Grade 9, it resumed an incremental trend in the
remaining grades (see Table 1). Odds ratios were
consistently larger at all grades when ELLs were
compared to their English Proficient peers.
Different patterns were observed for the
otber two comparison groups. The secondary
grade composition and risk indicators for English
Proficient and White students were negatively as-
sociated: Whereas composition indices tended to
increase across grades (with the exception of the
composition index at Grade 12 for English Profi-
cient learners), the risk indices progressively de-
clined (see Table 1).
WITH/N-GROUP DIVERSITY: ELL SUB-
GROUP PLACEMENT PATTERNS BY DISABIL-
ITY AND GRADE LEVEL
We calculated composition and risk indices for
ELLs in the target high-incidence disabilities
(MR, LAS, and LD) by English proficiency, eth-
nicity, and educational level (however data were
not available for the category of MR at the ele-
mentary level). Table 2 suggests that ELLs with
Limited Ll and L2 were overrepresented in LD at
both rhe elementary and secondary levels, al-
though the greatest overrepresentation was ob-
served in the elementary grades. ELLs with
Limited L2 were slightly overtepresented at the
secondary level in the LD category but propor-
tionately represented in the elementary grades.
English Proficient pupils were underrepresented
at both the elementary and secondary grade levels
in LD. White LD students, in turn, were slightly
29O Spring 2005

9. TABLE 1
Composition and Risk Indices and Odds Ratios for Placement in Special Education by Language Proficiency
and Ethnicity at the District and Grade Leveh (1998-1999)
All lC-12
All K-5
Kinder
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
All 6-12
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
ELLs
CI'
45
50
58
56
55
49
48
43
(^7,8)"
41
(+11.3)
46
(+26,2)
45
(+26.3)
43
(+26.5)
42
(+18,9)
35
(+19,6)
28
(+19.2)
33
(+24.2)
Rl"
7.6
5.0
2.0
2.8
4.5
6,0
8,0
11.2
14.1
16.2
16,0
14.9
11.9
11,2
12,3
14,0
English Proficient (EP)
Learners
CI
55
50
42
44
45
51
52
57
59
(-7.2)
54
55
57
58
65
72
67
RI
6.8
5.8
3.5
5,7
7,3
7,7
7.1
9.4
8,8
9,4
9.1
7.9
7,9
6,5
6.9
3.9
White Learners
CI
12
13
12
14
14
14
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
11
11
14
RI
11,2
11.9
5.5
8.2
11.8
14.2
14.4
16,1
10
13
12.4
10,5
10.2
8.4
7,7
6,3
Odds Ratio'
ELL-
EP
,89
,86
.57
.49
.62
.78
1.13
1.19
1.6
1.72
1.76
1,89
1.50
1.72
1.78
3.58
ELL-
White
,61
.42
.36
.34
.38
.42
.55
.69
1,41
1.25
1.29
1.42
1,17
1.33
1.59
2.22
^ Ci: Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic grotip
enrolled in a particular disability category by the total number of students [ftom all ethnic groups] enrolled in rhat
same disability category" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p, 43). This figure must be compared with cbe representation
ofthe target group in the general education population, ° RI: Risk index is calculated "by dividing the number of stu-
dents in a given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability category by the total enrollment for that racial
or ethnic group in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42-43). '• OR: Odds ratio reflects the "odds of
being assigned to a pairicular special education category" (Finn, 1982, p. 328), It is calculated by dividing the risk in-
dices for two different groups, " Numbers in parenthesis are rhe percentage points above (+) ot below (-) rhe 10% repre-
sentation threshold.
above the representation threshold in the elemen-
tary grades but underrepresented in the secondary
grades.
In the secondary grades, ELLs with Limited
Ll and L2 were 23.8 percentage points above the
overrepresentation threshold in the MR category,
whereas all other groups were underrepresented in
this category (see Table 2).
In the elementary grades, ELLs with Lim-
ited L2 and English Proficient students were un-
detrepresented in the LAS category, whereas ELLs
with Limited Ll & L2 were 24.3 percentage
points above the overreptesentation threshold (see
Table 2). White elementary students were also
slightly overrepresented in this category. In the
secondary grades, ELLs with Limited Ll and L2
were overrepresented in LAS. Students in all other
Exceptional Children

10. TABLE 2
Composition and Risk Indices fbr Placement in Disability Categories by English Proficiency, Ethnicity,
and Grade (1998-1999)
Elementary
Grades
(K-5)
Secondary
Grades
«^12)
ELLs with Limited L2
[28]'
ELLs wirh Limired Ll & L2
[22]
English Proficient Learners
[50J
White Learners
[9]
ELLs wirh Limired L2
[12]
ELLs with Limited Ll & L2
[13]
English Proficient Learners
[72]
White Learners
[12]
MR"
cr
NA'
NA
NA
NA
8.1
(-2.7)
38,2
(>23,8)
53.6
(-11-9)
14.1
(-.3)
Rf
NA
NA
NA
NA
.03
1,4
.4
.4
LAS
CI
17
(-8.4)'
48,3
(+24,3)
35
(-6.8)
14.4
(+2.4)
9.6
(-1.2)
25.5
(411.1)
64,9
(-.6)
11,2
(-3.2)
RI
1.1
4.2
1.4
3.0
.8
1.9
.8
.9
LD
CI
28.9
47,9
(423,9)
23
(-18.8)
13.3
(43.3)
17.3
(44.1)
22,9
(+8.6)
59,9
(-6.6)
9,1
(-5.3)
RJ
1,8
3.9
0.9
2.6
10,9
13.1
6.2
5.9
MR: Mental retardation; LAS: Language and speech impairments; LD: Learning disabilities,
CI: Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled
in a particular disability category by the total number of students [from all ethnic groups] enrolled in that same
disability category" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 43). This figure must be compared with tbe represenration ofthe
target group in the genera! education population. Rl: Risk index is calculated "by dividing rbe number of sttidents in
a given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability category by rhe total enrollment for that racial or ethnic
group in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42—43), Numbers in bracket.'; are the percentage of
the total student population NA: Data not available. Numbers in parenthesis are che percentage points above
(+) or below (-) the 10% representation threshold.
groups were slightly underrepresented in LAS sec-
ondary programs.
A considerable segment ofthe ELL popula-
tion had been identified as ELLs with Limited Ll
and L2 in the last 7 years. By the 1999-2000 aca-
demic year, about half (49.5%) of the districts'
ELLs were designated as Limited In Ll and L2.
Risk index data suggest that a higher percentage
of ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 were placed in
a[l disability categories, with the exception of MR
in the elementary grades (MR data at the elemen-
tary level were not available). White learners had
the second largest risk index in the elementary
grades in all disability categories (see Table 2).
The same pattern was observed In secondary
grades, with the exception of LD in which ELLs
with Limited L2 had the second largest risk
index.
We calculated odds ratios by disability cate-
gory, English proficiency status, ethnicity, and ed-
ucational level (see Table 3), except for the
category of MR at the elementary level, which
was not available. At the elementary level, ELLs
with Limited Ll and L2 were almost four times as
likely to be placed in LAS programs and more
than twice as likely to be placed in LD classes
2 9 2 Spring 2005

11. a
W J J
d:H
i-I
,70
q
1,504.33,37,783,003,82
Z
z
z
z
z
Seconda
Grades(
!
2,222,111.20
00
CO
q
2,372,37
q
,083.546,6
,E a
- E " •
,5 c
= -§>
e 6
than ELLs with Limited L2. ELLs with Limited
Ll and L2 were also 40% and 50% more likely
than their White peers to be placed in LAS and
LD programs respectively. Compared to English
Proficient students, ELLs with Limited Ll and
L2 were three times more likely to be labeled LAS
and over four times more likely to be designated
LD (see Table 3). In addition, note that ELLs
with Limited L2 were less likely to be placed in
high-incidence disability categories than were En-
glish Proficient and White students, with the ex-
ception of the LD category where they were twice
more likely to be placed than English Proficient
students.
In the secondary grades, ELLs with Lim-
ited Ll and L2 had greater odds than ELLs with
Limited L2, White, and English Proficient stu-
dents to be placed in all high-incidence cate-
gories; it is important to note ELLs with Limited
Ll and L2 were over 46 times more likely than
their ELLs counterparts to he placed in MR sec-
ondary programs (see Table 3). In contrast to the
patterns observed in the elementary grades, ELLs
with Limited L2 were almost twice as likely than
White students to be designated as LD, although
they were less likely than White students to be
placed in the MR and LAS categories. ELLs with
Limited L2 were 75% more liktly than their En-
glish Proficient peers to be placed in the LD cate-
gory (see Table 3).
ELL PLACEMENT BY LANGUAGE PROGRAM
AND TYPE OE SPECIAL EDUCATION PRO-
GRAM
Special education programs included RSP and
SDC. Considering that language programs pro-
vided distinct types oflanguage support for ELLs,
we examined whether representation patterns in
more (SDC) or less (RSP) restrictive programs
varied by language program enrollment. We re-
ported elementary grades only because these lan-
guage programs were not available at the
secondary level.
Table 4 suggests ELLs placed in English
immersion programs were more than twice (2.26)
as likely to be placed in less restrictive services
(RSP) than ELLs placed in modified English im-
mersion models and almost three times (2.95)
more likely than ELLs in bilingual education pro-
grams. ELLs in modified English immersion pro-
Exceptional Children

12. grams were 31% more likely to be placed in RSP
classes than their counterparts in bilingual educa-
tion (see Table 4). In addition, ELLs in English
immersion programs were 32% more likely to be
placed in more segregated programs (SDC) than
the peers receiving modified English immersion
and 19% more likely than ELLs placed in bilin-
gual education programs (see Tabie 4). It is inter-
esting to note that ELLs placed in modified
English immersion were less likely to be placed in
SDC than their counrerparts in bilingual educa-
tion programs (see Table 4).
ELL PLACEMENT BY DISABILITY, SOCIAL
CLASS, AND GRADE LEVEL
The majority of ELLs placed in high-incidence
disabilities came from low-socioeconomic back-
ground; this pattern was observed at both the ele-
mentary and secondary grade levels and it was
reflected in the composition and risk indices (see
Table 5). The exception was ELLs with LAS at
the elementary level because more students from
middle/high SES were placed in this category (see
risk index in Table 5). Odds ratio data supported
this trend as well: Low-income ELLs were more
likely to be placed in high-incidence disabilities,
particularly in MR in the secondary grades.
Again, the exception was in LAS elementary pro-
grams in which low-income ELLs were underrep-
resented (see Table 5).
D I S C U S S I O N
A central message in the study findings was that
analytic decisions are key in the examination of
disproportionality; specifically, patterns vary de-
pending on the indicators used and the level at
which data are examined. Insights can be gained
from the analysis of population subgroups that
may be lost when examining data at larger state
and national levels where such disaggregation is
not possible. We discuss this finding as well as the
relationship of grade level, disability category, spe-
cial education program, social class, and language
support program.
WITHIN'GROUP DIVERSITY
ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 showed the highest
rates of identification in the special education cat-
egories examined. This group was consistently
overrepresented in elementary and secondary
grades in LD and LAS classes and had greater
chances to be placed in special education pro-
grams than the other groups of students. ELLs
with Limited Ll and L2 have been identified in
the literature as "semilingual learners," because
they may have limited proficiency in both their
native and English languages. Although there has
been a great deal of controversy in the literature
on the validity of this construct (MacSwan, Rol-
stad, & Glass, 2002), more extensive treatment is
beyond the scope of this article. We should be
mindful ofthe controversy surrounding this con-
struct and the difficulties inherent in assessing
cognitive and other abilities with language-depen-
dent standardized tests for this group (MacSwan
et aL; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001).
The important issue, given these findings,
is to know more about the specific characteristics
and experiences of these students, including the
processes that lead to their overrepresentation in
special education. Is overrepresentation for this
subgroup the result of the inadequate screening,
invalid assessment instruments, practitioners' be-
lieft that language differences constitute a disabil-
ity, school placement practices that are shaped by
constantly changing district reform mandates, ac-
countability pressures, combinations of these fac-
tors, or even different factors? (Artiles et al.,
2004). What are the factors that lead to less over-
representation for ELLs with Limited L2 and En-
glish Proficient students? A key point is that clear
theoretical identification of subpopulations is
needed to gain a better understanding of the edu-
cational needs and experiences of ELLs. Eor in-
stance, Parrish and his colleagues (2002) found
that achievement gaps between ELLs and English
monolingual students are larger when former
ELLs (i.e., ELLs redesignated as Fluent English
Proficient) are not included in the ELL group.
Before we can respond to these questions,
additional research must shed light on the linguis-
tic, cognitive, and socio-emotional profiles of
these students, the environments in which they
are educated at school and home, as well as the
actual assessment processes that lead to labeling.
Moreover, because ofthe shortcomings of some of
the most commonly used measures such as the
Language Assessment Scales (LAS; MacSwan et
Spring2005

13. TABLE 4
ELL Placement Odds (odds ratios) in Special Education by Level of Restrictiveness in Relation to Placement in
Lan^age Pro-am, Crades K-5 (1998-1999)
ELLs placed in Modified
ELLs placed in English Immersion English Immersion compared
compared to ELLs placed in: to ELLs placed in:
Modified English Bilingual Bilingual
Immersion
Least restrictive
special education 2,26 2,95 1,31
program
Most restrictive
special education 1.32 1.19 0.9!
program
Note.Odds ratio reflects the "odds of being assigned to a particular special education category" {Finn, 1982, p. 328).
It is calculated by dividing the risk indices For two different groups. The lea.st restrictive special education program is
the resource specialist program (RSP), which entails services provided outside ofthe general education classroom
between 21% and 60% ofthe school day. The most restrictive special education program is the special day classroom
(SDC), which entails service.s provided outside ofthe general education classroom for over 61% ofthe school day.
TABLE 5
EI.L Composition and Risk lindices and Odds Ratios for Placement in Disability Categories hy SES, and Grade (1998-1999)
Elementary Grades (K-5)
Low SES'
Middle/
High SES'
Secondary Grades (6—12)
Low SES
Middle/
Hif-h SES
a
NA'
NA
89.5
10.5
MR'
RI
NA
NA
.04
,01
OR
NA
3,56
CI
82,2
17,8
77.5
22.5
US'
R!
1,91
2,36
1
,70
OR
,81
1.44
CI
86.3
13.7
76.5
23.5
!.D'
RI
1.90
1.72
8.14
6.01
OR
1.1
1.39
CIi Composition index is calculated by "dividing the number of students ofa given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular
disability category by the total number of 5cuden[s (from all ethnic groups] enrolled in that same disability category" (Donovan &
Cross, 2002. p. 43). This figure must be compared with the representation of tbe target group in the general education population.
RI: Risk index is calculated "by dividing the number of students in a given racial or ethnic category served in a given disability catego
by the total enrollment for (hat racial or ethnic group in the school population" (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 42—43). OR: Odds
ratio reflects the 'odds of being assigned to a particular special education category" (Finn, 1982. p. 328). It is calculated by dividing
the risk indices for rwo different groups. MR: Mental retardation; LAS; Language and speech impairments; LD: Learning
disabilities, law SES: Eligible for free or reduced lunch, NA: Data not available." MiddSe/High SES: Full pay or no lunch
program,
al., 2002), multiple means to assess students' lin- REPRESENTATION ACROSS GRADES
euistic abilities should be used to obtain a more „, , i i i
. , , ™, r , . , . I he results sutreested that placement patterns at
ln-depth prorile or this population. , , , , . , - , i r
^ ^ the elementary level mdicated an absence or over-
Exceptional Children

14. representation in special education, although we
detected ovetrepresentation at the end of elemen-
tary school that continued through the high
school years. The nature of the data used in this
study does not allow us to pinpoint the exact rea-
sons for this pattern. It may be that secondary set-
tings offer less support for EII^ than elementary
settings, or that the increasing demands being
placed on all students affect these students to a
greater degree. One potential mediating factor is
the lack of articulation of instructional programs
between school levels within districts {Parrish et
al., 2002). Alternatively, the amount and quality
of preimmigration schooling and preexisting liter-
acy skills may be important factors especially for
older immigrant students (Mercado, 2001).
Closer examination is needed of the quantity and
quality of language and other academic supports
(particularly in secondary grades) that could en-
able ELLs to develop literacy skills in their narive
language and help them compensate for the inad-
equacies of theit past educational experiences. Fu-
ture research should examine the potential
influence of the interaction between these back-
ground and structural variables (availability of
language programs) in the observed patterns of
ELL overrepresentation. Future research should
also assess the potential effect ofa preexisting dis-
ability label on ELLs high school careers.
REPRESENTATION IN DISABILITY
CATEGORIES
In these large urban districts, we found both
groups of ELLs had considerable proportions
(over 10%) placed in LD secondary programs and
small representation in MR programs. Overrepre-
sentation was also observed in LAS classes. These
findings differ from what was reported in the
early 1980s. Finn (1982) found disproportion in
LD was higher in small districts (« = 1 to 999 stu-
dents) in the West. Furthermore, Latino MR
overrepresentation was high in districts with a
high Latino representation (over 70%) and "the
correlation of SLD [Specific Language Disability]
with EMR disproportion among Hispanic stu-
dents is +.33 for ail districts combined, and close
to this value for districts in each ofthe four size
intervals" (Finn, pp. .373-374). (Although we fo-
cused on ELLs instead of only Latinos, it is inter-
esting to contrast Finn's findings with the present
study because Latinos are the largest ELL group
in California.) Perhaps the MR label is avoided by
school personnel given the litigation history in
California surrounding this category. It is intrigu-
ing that proportionally more ELLs tend to be
placed in LD than LAS considering the primacy
oflanguage factors in the latter disability category.
Studies are needed to assess what considerations
mediate decisions to assign different disability la-
bels (e.g., LD vs. LAS) and whether ELLs have
differential opportunities to learn depending on
the assigned disability category (Harry et al.,
2002).
LANGUAGE PROGRAM AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION PLACEMENT
We found that ELLs in English immersion pro-
grams were more likely to be placed in special ed-
ucation programs than ELLs placed in other
language support programs. It is not possible to
infer causality from this finding, but it is intrigu-
ing to note that English immersion programs by
design offer the least native language support, and
primary language is used not as an instructional
tool but for clarification purposes only. Native
language support is normally handled by the
paraeducator, not the teacher, who typically is not
a speaker ofthe students' native language(s). This
is an important consideration in light of a recent
national synthesis panel's conclusion that the "de-
gree of children's native-language proficiency is a
strong predictor of their English-language devel-
opment... [and] the use ofthe [preschool] child's
native language does not impede the acquisition
of English" (August & Hakuta, 1997, p. 28). Fu-
ture studies should investigate this relationship
further, especially through the use of longitudinal
designs and controls for students' prior program
type and language and literacy levels, factors that
we were not able to address in this study.
The other two language support programs
examined (modified English immersion and bilin-
gual education) differ significantly from the En-
glish immersion option, where language support
is provided by certified bilingual education teach-
ers and primary language can be used for concept
development purposes. In conjunction with the
earlier finding that "districts with the highest dis-
proportion levels have the smallest proportion of
students in bilingual programs" (Finn, 1982, p.
Spring 2005

15. 372), an important research question to address
in future studies is whether placement in well-de-
signed and faithfully implemented bilingual pro-
grams helps prevent ELL overrepresentation.
Future studies should consider a component as-
sessing quality of instruction.
Level of resttictiveness in special education
placement is an important consideration at a time
wben the pressure for inclusive education models
is increasing. The tradeoffs among inclusiveness,
access to primary language support, opportunities
to interact with nondisabled native speakers of
English, and quality of educational experiences
need to be considered when selecting the most
appropriate setting for individual students.
SOCIAL CLASS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
PLACEMENT
The data suggest a larger proportion ot low-SES
ELLs populate LD programs at all grade levels as
well as LAS secondary classes. However, a greater
proportion of high-SES ELLs are placed in LAS
elementary programs. This is an intriguing pat-
tern that should be scrutinized in future studies,
particularly if we consider that SES seems to have
little effect on immigrant students' proficiency in
the parental language, "but positive and signifi-
cant effects on bilingualism" (Pottes & Hao,
1998, p. 289).
THE GONTEXT AND LIMITATIONS OE THE
STUDY
This study was carried out in large urban districts
that share many characteristics common to other
large urban schools such as a high proportion of
non-White students, low SES students, students
whose native language is not English, and a
scarcity of resources. Opportunity to learn is a
significant issue in these districts. It is critical that
future research account for the significant struc-
tural disadvantages ELLs face in terms of unequal
educational resources and outcomes in California
(Gandara, Rumbetger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Calla-
han, 2003). It will be critical to examine how
these inequities interact with the reform initia-
tives that target not only ELLs but all students.
These have included English-only instruction,
structured and cotnmercially based reading curric-
ula, class-size reduction, and accountability pres-
sures among others. As noted earlier, we arc
witnessing "the layering of one reform on another
without consideration of their compatibility, ei-
ther theoretically or pedagogically, and their effi-
cacy" (Gutierrez et a!., 2002, p. 333).
It is necessary that researchers investigate
how the confluence of reforms is affecting the ed-
ucation of ELLs with and without disabilities. For
instance, educators have voiced concerns in che
context ofthe initial implementation of Proposi-
tion 227 "regarding the segregation and tracking
of [ELLs] into less challenging programs as they
entered middle and high schools" (Parrish et al.,
2002, p. ix). Similar concerns have been raised
about the lack of progress in improving the redes-
ignation rate of ELLs to Fluent English proficient
(Parrish et al.). Future studies need to focus on
how these trends are interacting with other re-
forms and how these interactions shape ELLs'
chances to be placed in special education.
Of particular interest for future research arc
the repercussions of high-stakes testing and other
accountability pressures on ELL placement in
special education; it will be important to frame
such inquiries in the emerging body of empirical
work that questions standardized tests' construct
validity (Abedi, 2004). A related issue is the ex-
amination of academic achievement trends. For
example, a recent report on the second year of im-
plementation of Proposition 227 found
a very modest reduction in the [performance gap
between ELLs and English speaking students] in
grades 2 through 11 ot about .10 of a standard
deviation in the strongest case. A similar reduc-
tion was found in language arts, and for math
....Despite small reductions, the performance
gap between [ELLs and English speaking stu-
dents] persists for each subject. (Parrish et al.,
2002, p. xi)
Given this context and the issues raised,
there are limitations of the study that need to be
considered. First, the databases used for this study
were not designed with the primary purpose of
conducting research, and they are still being re-
fined. Thus, the present analyses necessitated the
combination of various databases. In addition, the
data have only been compiled for the past few
years, thus prohibiting any longitudinal analyses.
Moreover, although it would be ideal for district
administrators to report detailed information
Exceptional Children 2 9 7

16. about the data collection and recording proce-
dures used to create the databases so that re-
searchers can gauge their limits and possibilities,
budgetary and other administrative concerns
often preclude such steps.
Another limitation of this study is that is
that it offers one limited lens on an admittedly
complex problem, and does so at only one point
in time. Any single type of methodology has in-
herent strengths as well as limitations. Although
large databases ofthe type used here are useful for
discerning patterns, they ofi:en require categoriza-
tion of students and programs in arbitrary ways,
may obscure critical within-group or individual
differences, and tell nothing about the processes
that produced the observed patterns. Moreover,
studies such as the present one do not address the
issue of instructional quality and ELL learning
outcomes, even though these are critical consider-
ations in ELLs' academic careers.
I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R P R A C T I C E
LOOK EOR PATTERNS AND HOW THEY
CHANGE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
It is important to be aware of disproportionality
at both the national and local levels, and the fact
that certain patterns have remained constant over
the last 3 decades—for example, African Ameri-
cans and Native Americans are overrepresented at
the national level. However, placement patterns
vary at the district and school levels by minority
group, disability, special education program, and
grade level depending on factors such as district
and special education program sizes and the rep-
resentation of a group in the district. It is impor-
tant for practitioners to understand tbe evolution
of the problem at the local level to determine
which student populations, disability categories,
and programs need to be tracked. Reliance on
state or national data may mask important local
patterns. This consideration is particularly critical
in large urban districts that are dynamic and
where demographics, budgets, and other factors
can produce rapid changes in a very short time-
frame.
USE MULTIPLE LNDICATORS
There is no widespread agreement about the su-
periority ofthe various ways of defining and mea-
suring disproportionality. However, any effort to
monitor it must start with a clear and measurable
definition ofthe problem. Examples of such defi-
nirions are used in this study and also reported in
Donovan and Cross (2002) and Oswald et al,
(1999). In addition, this study shows that a
greater understanding of the problem can be
gained from the u.se of multiple indicators such as
composition and risk indices and odds ratios. The
use of multiple indicators would allow a school or
district to understand better the magnitude and
nuances of placement patterns.
MONITOR KEY TARGET POPULATIONS AND
SUBGROUPS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS
Although researchers have traditionally examined
disproportionality as it affects ethnic minority
students, we know little about other groups such
as ELL subgroups or students from low-income
backgrounds. Similarly, witbin-group variability
has been rarely addressed. We learned it is critical
to define the target groups for analysis according
to the local context and conditions and examine
within group variability. In the present study we
would not have learned about the pattern of over-
representation of ELLs with Limited Ll and L2 if
we had not targeted this specific subgroup in our
analyses. Additional factors to disaggregate in fu-
ture studies with ELLs include (a) immigrant
and/or generational differences; (b) language pro-
ficiency and dominance levels; (c) literacy level in
the native language; and (d) social class, grade
level, and preexisting program placement. Simi-
larly, it is critical to define clearly the target popu-
lations-for example, it has been suggested ELLs
reclassified as Fully English Proficient should be
included in analysis of ELL achievement trends
(Parrish et al., 2002); thus, it might be useful to
consider including such a group in future analysis
of ELL placement patterns.
CONSIDER SCHOOL AND LNSTRUCTIONAL
EACTORS, NOT ONLY STUDENT FACTORS
Disproportionate representation is a complex
issue. For some students, special education place-
ment may be the most appropriate and least re-
Spring2005

17. Reliance on state or national data may
mask important local localpatterns.
strictive alternative. Where special education
placement patterns are found to be problematic,
however, student level factors should not be the
only consideration. In addition to the achieve-
ment and potential of individual students, and
the cultural and social capital that they bring to
school, a basic premise of the solution-generation
process is tbat disproportionality is situated
within a partictJar school and a wider educational
system with their own set of larger issues. Equally
important as student characteristics are teachers'
and administrators' beliefs about diversity, cur-
riculum, assessment, instruction, school culture,
governance, and professional development and
the ways in which they are formulated in policy
and enacted in practice. In this regard, work that
considers student background experiences, needs,
and strengths as instructional resources can be
particularly helpful in thinking about existing
school culture and practices. In other words, in-
stead of targeting vague issues (e.g., to reduce dis-
ability placement rates), the presence of
disproportionality should be taken as an opportu-
nity for the examination of more complex issues
that ultimately shape this problem. The nature
and quality of the instructional program and aca-
demic and social support services (opportunity to
learn) merit consideration as part of a complex
whole, particularly as they affect equal educa-
tional outcomes.
REFERENCES
Abedi, j . (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and
English language learners: Assessment and accountabil-
ity i55ues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing iden-
tity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and
space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-202.
Artiies, A. J., & Rueda, R. (2002, March-April). Gen-
eral guidelines for monicoring minority overrepresenta-
tion in special education. CASE Newsletter, 43i5), 5-6.
Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C , & Palmer, J. (2004). Cultur-
ally diverse students in special education: Legacies and
prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Hand-
book of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.; pp.
716-735). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving
schooling for language-minority children: A research
agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
California Department of Education. (2000). Califor-
nia special education programs: A composite of laws (22nd
ed.). Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education, (n.d.). Education
Code, Section 435 (a). Retrieved May 21, 2004, from
fj t t p : / / w w w . I e g i n fo . ca.gov/cgi-
bin/display code ?section = edc&group = 0000!-]
Chinn, P. C , & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of
minority students in special education classes. Remedial
and Special Education, 8, 41-46.
Diana v. State Board of Education, CA. 70 RET (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 3, 1970, 1973).
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Minority stu-
dents in special and gifted education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Finn, J. D. (1982). Patterns in special education place-
ment as revealed by che OCR sur'eys. In K. A. Heller,
W. H. Holtzman, & S. Messick (Eds.), Placing children
in special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 322-381).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, j . ,
Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T, & Gurry, J. (2000). The ini-
tial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of En-
glish learners. Santa Barbara, CA; Linguistic Minority
Research Institute.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Calla-
han, R. (2003). English learners in California schools:
Unequal resources, unequal ouccomes. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, ll{36). Retrieved on October 7,
2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vnn36/
Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L. C ,
Olson, K., Horng, E. L., Ruiz, R., Garcia, E., McCarty,
T. L. (2002). "Sounding American": The consequences
of new reforms on English language learners. Reading
Research Quarterly, 37, 328-343.
Harry, B., Klingner, J., Sturges, K. M., & Moore, R. P.
(2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using qualitative
methods to investigate disproportionality. In D. Loscn
& G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education
(pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Exceptional Children 2 9 9

18. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.).
(1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy
fbr equity. Washington, DC; National Academy Press.
Lau V. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 566 (1974).
MacSwan, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G. V. (2002). Do
some school-age children have no language? Some
problems of construct validity in the Pre-LAS Espanol.
Bilingual Researchfournal, 26, 395-420.
Mercado, C. I. (2001). The learner: "Race," "ethnicity,"
and linguistic difference. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on teaching (4th ed.; pp. 668-694).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research As-
sociation.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh,
N. N. (1999). Erhnic representation in special educa-
tion: The influence of school-related economic and de-
mographic variables. The Joumal of Special Education,
32, 194-206.
Parrish, T. B., Llnquanti, R., Merickel, A., Quick, H.
E., Laird, J., & Esra, R (2002). Effects ofthe implemen-
tation of Proposition 227 on the education ofEnglish
learners, K-12. Year 2 Report. Washington, DG: Ameri-
can Institutes for Research and WestHd.
Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E Pluribus Unum: Bilin-
gualism and loss oflanguage in the second generation.
Sociology ofEducation, 71, 269-294.
Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Saiazar, J., & Higareda, I.
(2002). An analysis of special education as a response
to the diminished academic achievement of
Ghicano/Latino students: An update. In R. R. Valencia
(Ed,), Chicano schoolfailure and success: Past, present.
and future (2nd ed.; pp. 310-332). London: Rout-
ledge/Falmer.
Rumberger, R., & Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling
of English learners, In C. Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.),
Conditions of education 2000. Berkeley, CA: UC Policy
Analysis for California Education.
Saiazar, J. J. (2000). [District] master plan reportfor En-
glish language learners, 1998-1999. Los Angeles, CA;
Los Angeles Unified School District.
Valencia, R, R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligence
testing and minority students: Foundations, performance
factors, and assessment Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S
ALFREDO J. ARTILES, Profcssor, Arizona State
University, Icmpc. ROBERT RUEDA, Professor;
JESUS j o s t SALAZAR, Doctorat Candidate;
and IGNACIO HfGAREDA, Doctoral Candidate,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Address correspondence to Alfredo J. Artiles, Ari-
zona State University, P. O. Box 2011, Farmer
Education Bldg. ED 310E, Tempe, AZ 85287-
2011 (e-tnail: alfredo.artiles@asu.edu)
Manuscript received July 2003; accepted June
2004.
A Century of Care
$50 video $60 DVD
$3 shipping and handling
6% sales tax
Mary Sauer, PO Box 97
Franklin, PA 16323
PH. 814-432-2263
"A Century of Care" is an intriguing and educational
video depicting evolution of the treatment of the
institutionalized developmentally disabled person.
This unique 40 minute video presents an objective
overview of the social attitudes, legislation, medical
advances, and economic factors that shaped the
progression of institutionalized care in the United
States, Great for those who are engaged in human
service and psychology studies. Included are numerous
archived photographs and interviews. College professors
and agency directors have commented how helpful the
video is in giving background information and fostering
thoughtful discussion and insight.
spring 2005