Overrepresentation of Low-Socioeconomic Minority Students in Special Education Programs in California

Historically, special education placement has been a controversial and emotional issue among educators and psychologists (Baca & Cervantes, 1978; Oakland, 1977). Some critics have alleged that special education has served only as a vehicle for transferring urban, poor minority pupils from regular classrooms into stigmatizing classes for learning disabled and/or behavior problem youngsters. A number of investigators have noted the disproportionate overplacement of minority children from low-socioeconomicstatus families in special education programs (Dunn, 1968; Patrick & Reschly, 1982; Tomlinson, Acker, Canter, & Lindborg, 1977). Ten years ago, the results of a longitudinal study conducted in Riverside, California, (Mercer, 1973) revealed that (a) the rate of placement of Hispanic students in classes for the mentally retarded was four times larger than would be expected based on their proportion of the general student population, while the rate for black youngsters was three times larger than expected; and (b) children from low-socioeconomic-status homes were twice as likely to be labeled mentally retarded as children from highsocioeconomic-status homes. Significant Special Education Litigation Since the late 1960s, many court decisions have affected special education services in the public schools (Theimer & Rupiper, 1975). The court cases fall into two general areas: (a) those establishing the right of all handicapped children to an education, e. g. , Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1971 (Note 1); and (b) those concerned with the procedures followed when placing a student in a special education program, e.g., Diana v. Board of Education, 1970 (Note 2) and Larry P. v. Riles, 1972 (Note 3). Cases of the first type were initiated by parents of handicapped children usually moderately or severely retarded against school districts that did not admit these youngsters. In the Pennsylvania case, a landmark decision was handed down by a Pennsylvania federal district court which upheld the contentions of the parents and ordered the state to provide free and appropriate educational services for handicapped children. The rights of handicapped children, gradually gained throught the courts, were incorporated into the historic Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) enacted in November, 1975. Based on the assumption that all handicapped children are capable of benefiting from education, PL 94-142 established these children's right to education and related services at public expense (Monroe, 1979). The second type of cases concerned overrepresentation of minority students in special education programs for the mentally retarded. The basic issues in Larry P., for example, included the same concerns as those addressed in Diana with certain crucial additions. In the latter, the plaintiffs requested revision and reform of assessment practices, whereas, in the Larry P. case the plaintiffs originally requested elimination of all standardized tests including individual intelligence tests. The plaintiffs cited data from 1974 indicating large overrepresentations of