Witnessing Brown

Pursuit of an Equity Agenda in American Education

ANNE SMITH AND ELIZABETH B. KOZLESKI

ABSTRACT

T he 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Many Americans view public school education as a great
decision provides a critical opportunity to reflect on Brown’s impor- equalizer. Through education, upward mobility and the pur-
tance, impact, and the lessons it provides on achieving racial
suit of the American dream were felt to be possible for Black
desegregation and its relationship to the progressive inclusion
of students with disabilities into public schools across the United Americans. The logic was that by desegregating the schools,
States. This article explores the parallels and intersections between the future generations of Americans who would attend inte-
the racial desegregation of America’s public schools and the grated schools would achieve equity and erase the color line.
inclusion of students with disabilities in these schools. The first step was to create proximity between Blacks and
Whites and to allow Black children access to the privileged
education formerly available only to Whites. Lawyers and
activists recruited plaintiffs, cultivated local school support,

P UBLIC SCHOOLS WERE AT THE CENTER OF THE

National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peo-
ple’s (NAACP) strategy to achieve racial equity economically
and laid the groundwork for the long legal challenge to the
racial segregation of schools (Sullivan, 2004). By exposing
the differential outlay of resources for children of color in
terms of teachers, materials, and even facilities, lawyers for
the plaintiffs revealed the lack of opportunity available to
and socially throughout the United States in the 1950s. Black children because of the systematic segregation of stu-
Despite the heroism of Black soldiers in World War II, the dents by race. In an elegantly constructed argument, the
integration of troops, and the opportunities to pursue educa- plaintiffs made the case that even children were well aware of
tion through the Veteran’s Act, Black Americans in the late the privilege and preferential treatment received by White
1940s and the 1950s faced Jim Crow laws in much of the children simply because of the color of their skin. In their dis-
South and de facto segregation throughout much of the North. position of the case, the Supreme Court found that “separate
Stymied by attempts at social and economic integration, the was not equal.” Although the rhetoric was powerful, many
NAACP decided to focus on desegregating the schools: White Americans were not prepared to live in integrated com-
munities. They were particularly concerned about the pros-
“Segregation,” “desegregation,” “integration” and pect of integrated schools. Thus, in the wake of desegregation
“assimilation” are key words that have served as orders, public schools in affected areas experienced White
lenses through which racial inequity and oppres- flight to residential areas that were predominantly White.
sion through schooling have been viewed and Whereas many families pulled their children out of public
understood. This language is not a compatible fit schools, preferring to pay for private, segregated schools,
with the real world of schools, teaching and learn- other families pressured public school systems to institute
ing, nor does it reflect an understanding of the full new forms of segregation. Tracking students, initiating gifted
dimensions of the problem. (Hilliard, 2004) and talented programs and magnet schools, and flight to the

270 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005, Pages 270–280

suburbs were all avenues used by Whites to resist and avoid largely involved and benefited children and families from the
school desegregation. White middle class. This terrain has become increasingly dis-
In spite of a range of approaches to maintain segrega- parate in benefits because in many places, students of color
tion, a half-century after Brown, there are successful exam- have a heightened risk for being identified as having disabil-
ples of racially mixed communities that also have racially ities, and once classified, they are more likely to be educated
integrated schools, where students from a variety of racial, in segregated special education classrooms (Oswald, Cou-
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds are educated side by side. tinho, & Best, 2002). There is danger in ignoring the poten-
Unfortunately, these schools appear to be the exception rather tial for marginalization (and denial of access to quality public
than the rule. Although proximity to each other in desegre- education) based on either race or disability or both.
gated schools may be the first step, it is not sufficient. In most
racially desegregated schools, many students continue to be
marginalized in subtle and not so subtle ways. The results of CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
this grand experiment suggest that proximity alone does not
eliminate the socially constructed boundaries that marginal- Racial segregation has a long history in the United States,
ize some students and privilege others. Scratch the surface beginning with slavery and continuing with legally enforced
and the data suggest that continued vigilance and action are segregation of public and private institutions after emancipa-
needed. For instance, students of color are more likely to tion. At the same time, activists have fought against racial
(a) be placed in special education, (b) fail to graduate; and injustices, leading up to the successful Brown v. Board of
(c) take vocational rather than college preparatory courses. Education (1954) lawsuit. It seems important to review the
When the Education Trust examined the number of students history prior to Brown to situate this landmark litigation in its
of color who were in college prep tracks in high school, they historical context.
found that only a small percentage of the students of color The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures
were represented. This is one of many ways that some stu- equal protection for U.S. citizens—that is, for the very inclu-
dents do not have access to the same high-quality curriculum sive “We the People.” Since its enactment into law by leg-
and, thus, may not achieve well on standardized achievement islative and executive branches of the federal government
measures like the American College Test (ACT) or the Scho- following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment has endured
lastic Achievement Test (SAT). The children of migrant work- multiple challenges to equal rights. Initially, the concept of
ers; children who are culturally, linguistically, and ethnically equal protection under the law was explored as communities
diverse; children with disabilities; and children who are home- began to apply the concept to newly freed slaves. Particularly
less are also attending schools alongside their White, middle- in the South, all freedoms were debated, including the right
class peers. to own property, the right to marry, the right to vote, the right
For the past 25 years, the National Assessment of Edu- to run a business, and the right to equal access to public insti-
cational Progress (NAEP) has published the Nation’s Report tutions. Regarding this last right, litigation ensued, and the
Card, which delineates how well we are educating our stu- judicial branch retrenched to uphold racial segregation across
dents in the basic content areas of reading, writing, social the nation in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court
studies, and other literacy areas (Lee, 2002). Reading report decision.
cards in the 1990s showed large racial and ethnic differences Segregation was given the Supreme Court’s stamp of
(Lee, 2002). At Grades 4 and 8, 22% of White students were approval in Plessy v. Ferguson under the “separate but equal”
performing below a basic reading level, but 57% of African doctrine, which held that Blacks could be kept apart from
American and 51% of Hispanic American students, respec- Whites as long as the facilities to which Blacks were confined
tively, were reading below this level (U.S. Department of were substantially equal to those for Whites. The court ruled
Education, 1989). Many children who read below grade-level that separate facilities met the equal protection clause of the
expectation are referred to special education. These disheart- 14th Amendment. Southern states passed laws that restricted
ening data, the goals of the desegregation litigation, and the Blacks’ access to schools, restaurants, hospitals, and public
increased student demographic diversity heighten the impor- places. “Whites Only” or “Colored” signs were posted at
tance of the U.S. Department of Education’s mission to en- entrances and exits, water fountains, waiting rooms, and rest-
sure equal access to education and to promote educational rooms. The judicial branch provided further support for seg-
excellence throughout the nation. regation in the Cumming v. Richmond County Board of
In this article, the parallels and intersections between ra- Education (1899) ruling that separate schools were legal even
cial segregation, special education, and the inclusive schools if comparable schools for Black Americans were not avail-
movement are explored. In many ways, the movement to in- able. Laws restricting all aspects of life varied from state to
clude students with disabilities in general education and the state. Subsequent litigation upheld the doctrine of “separate
continued struggle to racially integrate America’s schools share but equal” despite the glaring discrepancies in the quality of
similar paths. These paths diverge, however, because the pro- facilities and services for Whites and Blacks for more than a
gressive inclusion of students with disabilities has thus far half-century. Whereas segregation was firmly enforced, the

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
271
Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005
segregating states were lax about providing equal facilities to the highest levels of the state university system, including
(Carter, 2004). the graduate and professional schools. Their approach was to
Similarly, people with disabilities have been subjected litigate a series of test cases to challenge the constitutional
to prejudice, discrimination, and segregation in the United validity of racial discrimination in American society, which
States and throughout the world. Bogdan and Biklen (1976) they felt could no longer be ignored or denied. In 1952, sev-
defined handicapism as (a) a theory and set of practices that enteen states still had legally segregated schools. Segregation
promote unequal and unjust treatment of people because of encompassed far more than the “separate but equal” doctrine
apparent or assumed physical or mental disabilities; (b) a and petty apartheid reflected in “Whites Only” or “Colored
concept similar to racism and sexism. Handicapism is more Only” signs (Reed, 2004). Segregation was a system of state-
than just personal ignorance and prejudice; it is entrenched in sponsored and state-enforced racial domination about who
society at every level and in every institution (Bogdan & had the rights and protections of citizenship and who did not
Biklen, 1976). Smith (2001) noted that (a) disability labels (Reed, 2004). Segregation was not just the mandatory sepa-
are not benign; (b) some disability labels carry greater stigma ration of the “races” in schools, “but instead was a total struc-
than other labels; and (c) the degree or level of involvement ture of domination across major societal institutions . . . that
of disability is a cofactor in stigmatization and segregation. reflected the robustness of the White supremacist social
The lives of individuals with disabilities have a range of order, and its manifestation in the structure” (Hilliard, 2004).
opportunities that are limited less by their disabilities than by Segregation installed and maintained a pattern of social rela-
societal attitudes and by the way that people view others tions rooted in class, economic, and power dynamics
(Gartner & Lipsky, 1999). Barton (1999) defined disability as anchored by the ideology of White supremacy (Reed, 2004).
“a form of oppression,” noting that “the fundamental issue is The NAACP’s leadership decided to wage a strategic
not one of an individual’s inabilities or limitations, but rather battle against segregationist policies by focusing on schools.
a hostile and unadaptive society.” Consider the attitudes, val- In fact, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was composed of
ues, and beliefs about students with disabilities and school four cases from the states of Kansas, South Carolina,
inclusion expressed in a New York Times Magazine article: Virginia, and Delaware. By deciding to bring these cases
together to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs were able to
On children’s television, the kid in the wheelchair develop a powerful case that equal protection under the law,
has become a kind of mascot, beloved by all his the key phrase of the 14th Amendment, was not possible
gang. But imagine a real-life classroom where all when schools were segregated.
of the children are nondisabled except the one
who drools uncontrollably, who hears voices or
who can’t read a simple sentence when everyone Brown v. Board of Education
else can. Diversity is a noble ideal. But many dis- On May 17, 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated
abled children would be marginalized and ridi- state laws requiring or permitting racial segregation in public
culed in the mainstream. . . . Special education primary and secondary schools. Chief Justice Earl Warren
was never intended as a permanent place except read aloud the Brown v. Board of Education decision that
for the most profoundly handicapped students. . . . racial segregation violated the equal protection clause of the
But the central goal was always to educate chil- 14th Amendment, stating, “We conclude that in the field of
dren who had traditionally been viewed as inedu- public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no
cable. (Staples, 1999) place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Some have maintained that the 1954 Brown v. Board of Edu-
cation Supreme Court decision is the most important judicial
ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM ruling in the history of our democracy (Carter, 2004; Wu,
2004). The decision is the high-water mark of the civil rights
Advocates and activists have been instrumental in the quest movement that used a hard-edged litigation strategy paired
for equity in America’s schools. Their collective, organized with a 20-year-long organizing effort (Sullivan, 2004). Brown
efforts have produced both racial desegregation and the inclu- is a tangible sign that courts can right fundamental wrongs in
sion of students with disabilities in public schools. the struggle for racial justice. It provided the momentum for
the civil rights movement that led to the end of officially and
explicitly sanctioned racial segregation. Conversely, the Brown
The NAACP backlash also mobilized White segregationists to oppose
The NAACP was founded in 1909 by a multiracial group of Blacks’ efforts for equality with radically increased vigor as
activists, who answered the call to renew the struggle for civil Black southerners petitioned for school integration, boy-
and political rights (NAACP, 2004). The NAACP sought to cotted segregated municipal buses, and attempted to desegre-
eliminate segregation in public education from primary school gate all-White public universities.

272 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005

 The Brown court’s fundamental failure to articulate an lates deficits or disadvantages in classrooms where teachers
affirmative standard for public education’s postsegregationist display power through discipline, praise, attention, and use of
future was a momentous judicial mistake that opened the curricular materials that highlight the existence and the con-
door to a decade of evasion. This failure to consider or oper- tributions of Whites to the history of America. Although the
ationally define the standard for “some substantial degree of phenomenon of power and privilege corresponds with racism,
integration” had the effect of undermining the integration it is essential to recognize that racism functions not only
imperative (Wu, 2004). Hence, the status quo of segregation through overt prejudice and discrimination but also in the
was maintained. Subsequent Supreme Court judgments have unconscious attitudes and behaviors of our society that pre-
also eroded Brown’s effectiveness by upholding racial divi- sume but do not acknowledge the pervasiveness of White cul-
sions that coincide with urban and suburban boundaries, thus tural norms (Ewing, 2001). White people have privilege,
accepting racial divisions that emerge from housing avail- whether they are overtly racist themselves or not, and privi-
ability (Wu, 2004). Furthermore, some school districts have lege plays out differently depending on context and other
used several strategies to circumvent school desegregation, aspects of one’s identity (Jensen, 1998).
and some may have resegregated students by using special
education placements (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). NAACP
General Counsel Robert L. Carter (2004) lamented, The Arc of the United States
The National Association for Retarded Citizens (NARC) was
This majestic ruling, however, was compromised founded in 1950 as the National Association of Parents and
by the “all deliberate speed” or “over time” relief Friends of Mentally Retarded Children. The NARC was founded
formula the Court adopted in 1955, the first time due to several factors, including (a) widespread exclusion
it has ever deferred immediate vindication of a from school of children with IQs below 50, (b) lack of com-
successful litigant’s entitlement to a constitutional munity services, (c) waiting lists for admission to residential
right. The over-time provision corrupts Brown institutions, and (d) parental dissatisfaction with the condi-
with racist delimitations, scored with a White tions in many institutions (Segal, 1974). Families whose chil-
supremacist brush. dren were not allowed in public schools had to organize to
establish classrooms in church basements and community
The history of the United States might well be organized centers. The organization became the National Association
into the pre- and post-Brown eras. That the Brown strategy for Retarded Children from 1953 to 1973, then the National
was developed and led by Black activists may have even Association for Retarded Citizens from 1973 to 1981, the
greater significance. In the United States, from its founding Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States from
days, the greatest shapers of our culture have been agitators 1981 to 1992, and, since 1992, The Arc of the United States.
and resisters who have sought restitution and reform for the Just as the NAACP used a legal precedent to increase
marginalized and the exploited. The narrative for the right-to- equitable educational opportunities, the Pennsylvania Asso-
education litigation for individuals with disabilities follows ciation for Retarded Children (PARC) organized another
the path of Brown. historic right to education class action suit, PARC v. The
Although Brown has not achieved its primary purpose— Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 1971 PARC decree ex-
to guarantee equal educational opportunity for all American tended Brown by successfully arguing that the provisions of
children—its mandate is written into law and history and con- Pennsylvania state law allowing schools to exclude children
tinues to shape the struggle for racial and social justice (Sul- with mental retardation from schooling with their peers vio-
livan, 2004). Brown was a major challenge to the structure of lated the principles of Brown (Public Interest Law Center of
racial domination, but it did not have the capacity to address Philadelphia, 2004). The importance of PARC was heralded
the totality of the school problem—a problem maintained on the front page of The New York Times on October 9, 1971,
through economic and political power dynamics and White and again in an October 13, 1971, editorial. The PARC decree
supremacy (Hilliard, 2004). The absence of real understand- led to the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Chil-
ing about domination continues to perpetuate some of the dren Act of 1975, now the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
worst elements of school segregation, such as “tracking” cation Act (IDEA; Hehir & Gamm, 1997). This civil rights
(Hilliard, 2004). legislation was crafted to ensure that students with disabilities
had access to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in
the least restrictive environment (LRE). Its genesis lay in a
The Complexity of Segregation group of families who, through grassroots organization, led
Integrating the schools did not eliminate the ideology of White the successful battle to gain such access for students with dis-
supremacy from which segregation derived (Hilliard, 2004). abilities. The parallel between the NAACP and The Arc is
Ewing (2001) explained that both in and out of school, white- remarkable. Yet their struggles for equity and access have
ness accumulates privilege and status whereas color accumu- remained largely separate.

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
273
Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005
 LITIGATION, LEGISLATION, AND provisions with a red, white, and blue stars-and-stripes cover
with the “separate education is inherently unequal” language
IMPLEMENTATION from the Brown v. Board of Education decision prominently
In the decade following the passage of IDEA, data collected displayed on the cover (Taylor, Biklen, Lehr, & Searle, 1987).
by the U.S. Department of Education indicated (a) consistent Advocates established a conceptual foundation for LRE and
reliance on segregated facilities for the educational placement inclusion that was grounded in principles of social justice and
of students with disabilities and (b) great variability in place- equity. Hardman (1987) argued that the last bastion of sanc-
ment patterns across individual states (U.S. Department of tioned segregation in the United States is the segregation of
Education, 1989). These findings led the federal government people with disabilities in the educational system and noted
to question whether factors other than the type and severity of that integration is not a goal; it is a means to achieve the goal
disability contributed to school placement decisions. In other of social participation and acceptance. In fact, Hardman
words, why were some states much more successful than argued that we bus to segregate students with disabilities.
others in providing special education and related services in Principles of effective racial desegregation (see Appendix)
integrated school settings? While raising these difficult ques- were disseminated by the National LRE Network to serve as
tions, the report also suggested that “attributing meaning to a blueprint for systems change in the movement of students
the degree of variability across states may be more a matter with disabilities from segregated schools to integrated school
of values than empirical analysis” (U.S. Department of Edu- campuses (Hardman, 1987).
cation, 1989, p. 29).
Gilhool (1989) argued that the LRE provision of this law
constitutes an “integration imperative,” and that Congress THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUITY CONTINUES
recognized that effective schooling would not be found in the
segregation of students with disabilities because (a) all chil- The Brown decision addressed two main issues—the physical
dren learn from modeling the behavior of other children, segregation of schools and the financial inequities in school
(b) children must attend school together if students with dis- funding (Hilliard, 2004). The financial inequities continue to
abilities are to lead a decent life in the community as adults, this day. Consider that the U.S. Government Accounting
and (c) parental and community supervision of schools would Office reported that 80% of our nation’s urban schools are
ensure equitable resource distribution and greater protection funded at a lower rate than their suburban counterparts, in
for all students if children with disabilities were educated spite of the recent influx of state funds to shore up failing
with their typical peers (Smith, 1997). In spite of professional urban school systems. The lack of equitable funding over an
developments and the clear preference of Congress, courts extended period of time has led to increased class sizes, lack
are increasingly refining LRE doctrine (Brady, McDougall, & of sufficient books and materials, shortages of certified teach-
Dennis, 1989). ers, and the deterioration of school buildings (Kozol, 1991).
In 1986, the Office of Special Education and Rehabili- The magnitude of these problems should be of grave concern
tative Services (OSERS) proposed the Regular Education given that urban schools represent 4% of American school
Initiative (Will, 1986), encouraging special and general edu- districts but serve more than 44% of our nation’s students
cation to form a partnership to serve students with special (Federal Register, 1997). The very nature of our system for
needs in general education classrooms. The Office of Special funding schools has disadvantaged urban school systems
Education Programs (OSEP) recognized that building the since the Great Depression (Anyon, 2001). Sullivan (2004)
capacity of local schools to serve all students could be con- lamented the current status of educational opportunity for a
ceptualized either as an issue of the LRE provisions of the significant proportion of Black children because it mirrors the
law or as an issue of implementing best practice (Bellamy, pre-Brown era due to the lack of essential resources. Nowhere
1987). OSEP employs both focused-monitoring formula grants is the need for this broadening of cultural perspective more
and discretionary research-to-practice grants programs. The apparent than in the hallways and classrooms of our nations’
Regular Education Initiative (REI) launched several LRE ini- urban schools (Fine, 1994).
tiatives, including (a) the National LRE Network; (b) the Cal-
ifornia Research Institute on the Integration of Students with
Severe Disabilities; and (c) the Statewide Systems Change SEGREGATION BY RACE AND DISABILITY
Projects for Students with Severe Disabilities.
Whereas the movement to desegregate schools racially Racial Desegregation
and the movement to integrate students with disabilities have The Harvard Civil Rights Project has argued that 50 years
operated in parallel universes, activists for the desegregation after Brown, schools are as segregated as ever. Orfield and
of schools for students with disabilities have capitalized on Lee (2004) contended that in many districts where court-
the arguments and strategies used for racial desegregation. ordered desegregation ended over the past decade, schools
The National Federation for Families of Children with Spe- have experienced a major increase in segregation. In three of
cial Needs issued a parent training document concerning LRE four cases, a long-term trend reversing desegregation has

274 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005

been maintained. Interesting enough, rural and small-town Parrish (2002) reported that in at least 45 states, Black
school districts are for the most part more integrated for both children in special education are extensively overrepresented
African Americans and Hispanic Americans than central in some categories and that Black students experience the
cities in large metropolitan areas (Orfield & Lee, 2004). In highest risk for being identified with mental retardation. Ac-
these districts—and in the suburban rings of large metro- cording to NCCRESt (2004), Black students represent 16%
politan districts—school segregation is rife. Furthermore, the of elementary and secondary enrollments, but they constitute
National Center for Culturally Responsive Practices (NCCRESt; more than 21% of total enrollments in special education. In
2004) is finding that cities are deeply segregated by race. some states, Black students are more than two and a half
In schools where the White majority population is an times as likely as their White peers to be identified for special
actual numerical minority, the conditions of schooling are education services for mental retardation. Furthermore, the
unrelentingly impoverished. Facilities, curricular materials, latest data from OSEP, displayed on the NCCRESt Web site,
teachers, and transportation are all woefully inadequate. Stu- show that Hispanic Americans, American Indians, and Asian/
dents face safety and security issues on a daily basis. The Pacific Islanders are disproportionately represented in special
reverse is almost never true; students in majority White education and that children with emotional disturbance labels
schools often experience the high-quality curricular and are more likely to be male, Black, and economically disad-
instructional settings offered by the best public schools in the vantaged. These patterns have existed for the past 30 years
nation. Hispanic children confront very serious levels of seg- and have been resistant to attempts to ameliorate them (Don-
regation by race and poverty, and non–English-speaking stu- ovan & Cross, 2002).
dents tend to be segregated in schools with each other
(Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002). The data show
no substantial gains in segregated education for Hispanic Connecting the Dots
Americans even during the civil rights era. The increase in
Hispanic segregation is particularly notable in the western OSEP field-initiated research on the demographics of inclu-
states (Artiles et al., 2002). Also, the rate of identification of sive schooling produced a series of studies that systematically
Hispanic students for special education is increasing in the examined the effects of special education students’ demo-
same states (NCCRESt, 2004). graphic characteristics on placement, services, and outcomes
There has been a massive demographic transformation (LeRoy & Kulik, 2004). These studies investigated features
of the western states, which have become the nation’s first of disability, race, district rates of inclusion, family income,
predominantly minority region in terms of total public school and student placement in inclusive settings and, in summary,
enrollment. This has produced a sharp increase in Hispanic found that (a) students with mild disabilities are 2.4 times
segregation. Thus, the persistence of racial inequality—mea- more likely to be educated in inclusive classrooms than stu-
sured by access to education, income, joblessness and under- dents with more challenging disabilities; (b) Black students
employment, and rates of incarceration—is closely linked to and Hispanic students with disabilities were found to be 2.5
an educational system that barely functions for large numbers times and 1.8 times, respectively, more likely than their
of children of color and fails to address the needs of many White peers to be in segregated school settings; (c) even in
more (Sullivan, 2004). districts with high overall rates of inclusion, minority stu-
dents were two to three times less likely to be in inclusive
education settings; (d) when examining inclusion rates for
Disproportionate Representation lower income minority students, only 17% of these students
in Special Education were included in the general education classroom; (e) White
students received more services across all disability catego-
In urban schools, the overrepresentation of students of color ries when solely the effects of race were taken into account;
and English language learners in special education is visible (f) students from higher income families were included in
(Fusarelli, 1999). For instance, students of African descent general education classrooms at a rate nearly double that of
compose about 16.3% of the school-age population but rep- lower income families (62% and 38%, respectively); (g) among
resent more than 31% of the students classified as having higher income families, students were more likely to partici-
mild mental retardation and 23.7% of the students classified pate in high-stakes testing, to graduate, and to go on to post-
as having severe emotional disturbance, whereas Hispanic secondary education than students from lower income
students are overrepresented in the categories of learning dis- families; (h) wealthier parents were 3 times more likely to be
abilities and speech–language impairment (Heward & Cava- involved in their child’s secondary school education and In-
naugh, 2001). Researchers have suggested that patterns of dividualized Education Program (IEP) team meetings; and
overrepresentation are a result of the narrow cultural prefer- (i) interactive effects indicated that minority and low-income
ence for particular modes of communication, cognitive schemas, students with disabilities were least likely to be included in
affect, behavior and knowledge (Artiles, Trent, Hoffman- general education classrooms or to be provided with services
Kipp, & Lopez-Torres, 2000; Hilliard, 1992). and opportunities that could lead to successful adult outcomes.

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
275
Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005
 LeRoy and Kulik (2004) used qualitative methods in that require both a whole new resolve and the resources to
interviews and focus groups with minority and low-income provide truly equal opportunities to learn. Artiles (2000) ar-
families that corroborated the quantitative findings and re- gued that special education in the context of the larger cul-
vealed that (a) parents felt that schools were unwelcoming tural and political process of education reform needs to
institutions for their children with disabilities, and following examine underlying values, views of competence, and current
several disheartening years of conflict with the schools, they reform goals that may increase the likelihood that poor and
often disengaged from any further interactions as a form of minority students will be further disadvantaged. Special edu-
self-preservation; (b) parents were suspicious of school per- cation reforms have focused on access and equity, but they
sonnel and the school culture, and they believed that schools have not adequately addressed the complex issues of exclu-
intentionally withheld information about their services and sion and discrimination at individual or institutional levels,
programs; (c) parents were well aware of the deleterious nor have they addressed the disability rights movement (Rivzi
effects of the schooling process on their children, recognizing & Lingard, 1996). If these often disconnected conversations
that the justice system was often the most probable outcome can be joined, they have the potential to create a coherent
for their children with mild mental or emotional impairments; vision for transforming the current education system so that
and (d) parents indicated that they sought other avenues and the social and educational inequities that currently exist for
networks as support systems for their children. students of differing abilities, ethnicities, religions, experi-
Disproportionality is manifested not only in who is placed ences, and wealth are no longer present.
into special education, but, once in special education, in who
has access to general education environments and curricu-
Social Dynamics
lum. An important interpretation of these data was offered by
Delpit (1995, 1999). She suggested that at least some of the of Institutionalized Segregation
school difficulties experienced by children of color are prod- Brantlinger (2001) argued that social hierarchies establish
ucts of miscommunication, societal imbalances of power, and and maintain power by keeping subordinates in their desig-
the dynamics of inequality in our educational systems. These nated places, and that domination is achieved through other-
miscommunications lead teachers to misinterpretations of ing. Understanding the concept of othering helps to explain
academic and social performance and subsequent referrals to how the marginalization of students occurs when they are
special education. Brantlinger (2001) observed that “an as- sorted out and labeled. A persistent theme used to justify
sumption underpinning disability classification is that special placement in segregated educational settings involves the
education service has a positive influence on subsequent repetitive and onerous characteristics of students who pre-
school or post-school careers of students” (p. 4), despite effi- sent dangers to themselves or others. According to Grant and
cacy studies that do not substantiate this claim (e.g., Dunn, Ladson-Billings (1997), positionality is another feature that
1968; Reynolds & Wolfe, 1999). As teachers confront behav- permeates social groups and is a way of describing an indi-
ior that disturbs them or the order in their classrooms, they vidual’s social identity. “Positionality is both sturdy, or sta-
are likely to seek special education services. Furthermore, as ble, and fluid, subject to the social contexts through which an
Smith (2001) noted, issues of ethics, power, and privilege individual moves. Positionality is always reflective of societal
play an important role in the determination of “disability” as power arrangements” (Grant & Ladson-Billings, 1997, p. 216),
children are sorted and classified in our schools. That is, in with both societal structures and the varieties of specific con-
the act of referral, some kinds of academic or social skills are texts always in play. The dynamics of othering and position-
privileged or preferred over others, although neither may ality help to explain the complex dance that occurs as people
stem from a deficit. organize their rhythms and routines within systems. The na-
The effects of disability labels on special education eli- ture and construction of individual and group identities in-
gibility are of widespread concern. Patton (1998) asserted form our understanding of race, culture, class, language use,
that the sociocultural construction of categorical labels of gender, and disability and are inextricably linked to issues of
mild mental disability, learning disability, and serious emo- ethics, power, and privilege in determining what is “norma-
tional or behavioral disability has definitional and validity tive” and how we become sorted into “us,” “them,” and “the
problems with serious negative implications for African Amer- other” (Smith, 2001).
ican students. Educators must be mindful of the impact of their re-
sponses to these complex issues of ethics, power, and privi-
lege on the lives of students and their families, because
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES “whether or not we address these issues overtly, in ‘whispers’
or not at all, they remain as critical factors” (Patton &
Hilliard (2004) noted that whereas Brown was mainly about Townsend, 1999, p.1). Williams (2001) stated that “discov-
the Black and White divide in 1954, the rainbow of ethnic ering and addressing ethical issues of daily practice are per-
groups that are reflected in the changing demographics of the haps the most crucial tasks in which educational leaders
United States present conceptual and structural challenges engage” (p. 45). Patton and Townsend (2001) asserted that

276 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005

ethical issues that are heavily laden with power and privilege these children are considered less worthy of education and
implications have rarely been explored in the context of are accused of lowering school standards and squandering
African American students in special education. Segregation, precious resources.
overrepresentation, exclusion, and inclusion are highly com- Proponents of inclusive education have argued that the
plex phenomena, involving volatile issues of hierarchy, eth- basic tenets of special education that have led to separate pro-
ics, power, privilege, hegemony, and construction of “the other” grams and services promote and support the overrepresenta-
(Smith, 2001). These complex phenomena, paired with the tion of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
pain and sense of urgency to rectify these long-standing and education because they permit the exclusion of those students
deeply entrenched patterns and practices, may be contribut- from general education classrooms (Artiles & Trent, 1994;
ing factors in the lack of synergy and collaboration among the Ewing, 1995; Patton, 1998; Pugach & Seidl, 1995). Further-
overrepresentation and inclusion discourse and practice com- more, the inclusive education movement has focused on the
munities (Smith, 2001). poor outcomes that students in special education have achieved
The challenge of understanding the concepts of power as a result of their limited access to the general education cur-
and privilege is daunting, particularly in the context of dis- riculum (Berres, Ferguson, Knoblock, & Woods, 1996; Fergu-
cussions concerning race, gender, and social class aspects of son, 1995; National Association of State Boards of Education,
schools (Ewing, 2001). Ethics, power, and privilege are inter- 1990; Sailor & Skritic, 1995; Skritic, 1995; Tetler, 1995).
related and influence all aspects of the educational system,
but they are particularly insidious at the practice level in
teaching, curriculum and instruction teacher preparation, pol- Schools for Diversity
icy development, and decision making in local schools (Pat- All school renewal and reform must address differences in
ton & Townsend, 1999). These same elements influence con- culture, gender, language, ability, class, and ethnicity (Delpit,
structions of special education and disability. 1995). As Banks (2001) recommended, schools need a true
multicultural value system that encompasses simultaneously
a concept, a process, and a reform agenda. Multicultural edu-
Disability and Racial Dialogues cation is based on the notion that all students must have equal
Artiles (2000) asserted that the two most important develop- access, and it acknowledges that in our current school system,
ments in contemporary special education were the inclusive some students are privileged by their sociocultural and eco-
education movement and the overrepresentation of ethnic and nomic status, ethnicity, and gender (Nieto, 1996). In a true
linguistic minority students in special education. However, multicultural education system, the practices and climate of
“there is a troubling silence about minority issues in the schools that convey privilege associated with class, gender,
inclusion discourse, while overrepresentation scholarship lacks language, ability, ethnicity, and culture are no longer present
a vision of an ideal state of affairs; moreover, both discourse (Banks, 2001).
communities ignore the multi-layered historical character of Teachers must understand and value children’s differing
human development and the multifaceted nature of culture” experiences based on culture, race, ethnicity, disability, eco-
(Artiles, 2000). The inclusive education movement has emerged nomic background, and gender (Briscoe, 1991; Hollins, 1996;
as an empowered voice about disability rights and improving Lightfoot, 1983). In urban schools, such complex issues are
educational services for students with special education needs, negotiated daily in multiracial classrooms. Urban schools
but it has been “painfully silent about the plight of minority must draw on the strength of student diversity and use that
students” (Artiles, 2000). diversity as an asset to foster creativity and to leverage new
Often, the “rights of the individual” to pursue school interactions that support learning (Nieto, 1996). The voices of
inclusion are framed as “incompatible with the common diverse students, parents, and communities then become inte-
good” (Smith, 1998, p. 164). Such underlying assumptions gral to the educational process and may suggest changes in
about the inclusion of “the other” are repeatedly played out policy and practice that better support the education and
for both children of color and children with disabilities as a learning of all students.
rationale for exclusion and segregation. To expand this con-
versation beyond the special education community, practi-
tioners, families, and researchers must engage in a dialogue CONCLUSION
that includes multicultural perspectives on inclusion and dis-
proportionality (Artiles, 1998). Rioux (1999) stated that the The right to education litigation spanning 5 decades provides
backlash to inclusive education reveals societal attitudes and a sense of how intractable the issues of inclusion and exclu-
assumptions that (a) some children are more worthy of teach- sion are, given the Brown decision (1954) stating that “sepa-
ing than others; (b) the presence of children with disabilities rate education is inherently unequal” and the Oberti v. Board
is viewed as lowering school standards; and (c) the child with of Education (1992) Federal Court of Appeals decision stat-
a disability is educated at the expense of nondisabled stu- ing that “inclusion is a right, not a privilege for a select few.”
dents. This holds true for all children who are “the other,” as Exclusionary practices identify some students as “the other”

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
277
Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005
by differentiating “them” from “us” and by segregating “them” serves as project officer. Current research interests include the aligment of
from mainstream education, and children from diverse racial, policy and practice in school improvement initiatives, technical assistance
efficacy, and how schools support students with fetal alcohol spectrum dis-
cultural, and linguistic backgrounds and children with dis- orders. ELIZABETH KOZLESKI, EdD, is a professor and associate dean
abilities continue to be excluded and segregated in school at the University of Colorado at Denver. She has a joint appointment in the
(Smith, 2001). School of Education and the Department of Pediatrics at the University of
Leadership involves significant influence over people’s Colorado at Denver and the Health Sciences Center. Her research is in the
lives, and there is therefore a need to develop sensitivity to areas of systems change, inclusive education, and professional development
in urban education. Address: Anne Smith, OSEP, 550 12th St. SW, PCP
the ethical aspects of that influence, both in terms of the way 4086, Washington, DC 20202-2600.
the influence is exerted and in terms of what people are being
influenced to do. Educational leaders will need to address and
AUTHORS’ NOTE
overcome those issues related to power and privilege in edu-
cational settings (Williams, 2001, p. 45). We have learned a The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policy of
the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be
great deal since the passage of the EHA in 1975 about how
inferred.
rights, public policy, attitudes, values, pedagogy, research,
and innovative strategies are interrelated and must be aligned
using a systemic approach at federal, state, and local levels REFERENCES
(Smith, 1997) to build on lessons learned in previous educa- Anyon, J. (2001). Inner cities, affluent suburbs, and unequal educational
tion reform efforts, including Brown. opportunity. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural edu-
cation: Issues and perspectives (4th ed., pp. 85–102). New York: Wiley.
According to Reed (2004), the main lessons learned
Artiles, A. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the dispropor-
from Brown are that (a) actions by and pressure on govern- tionality discourse with theory and context. The Journal of Special Edu-
ment can help change fundamental social relations and the cation, 32, 32–36.
nature of the terrain for political action; (b) political move- Artiles A. J. (2000, July). The inclusive education movement and minority
ments ferment slowly and grow in relation to their efforts to representation in special education: Trends, paradoxes and dilemmas.
change actual policies; and (c) moments of sharp social Keynote paper presented at the International Special Education Confer-
ence 2000, Manchester, UK. Available from http://www.isec2000.org
change can condense abruptly, when least expected. The use .uk/
of legislation and litigation as a vehicle of special education Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-
systems change continues to perplex many educators, language learner representation in special education in California urban
because their viewpoint is grounded in the belief that real and school districts. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in
enduring systems change cannot occur via top-down, legis- special education (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
lative, and compliance-oriented mechanisms (Smith, 1997).
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students
However, rights, public policy, attitudes, values, pedagogy, in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Edu-
and the use of innovative strategies are interrelated and must cation, 27, 410–437.
be aligned (Smith, 1997). Therefore, implementing inclusive Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2000).
school practices to ensure equity and excellence in American Sociocultural perspectives in special education, Part 2: From individual
education requires a systemic approach at the federal, state, acquisition to cultural–historical practices in multicultural teacher edu-
cation. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 79–82.
and local levels. Banks, J. A. (2001). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In
In light of these issues, it seems appropriate to conclude J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues
with the words of NAACP General Counsel Robert L. Carter: and perspectives (4th ed., pp. 3–30). New York: Wiley.
Barton, L. (1999). Series editor preface for disability, human rights, and soci-
Moreover, taking stock of the current state of ety. In Disability, human rights, and education: Cross cultural perspec-
tives. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
public education, it is clear that Brown has not
Bellamy , G. T. (1987). The OSEP plan for LRE: Schools are for everybody!
achieved its primary purpose of guaranteeing In B.Wilcox & M. Irwin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1987 national lead-
equal educational opportunity for children of ership conference: Least restrictive environment: Commitment to imple-
color. Yet, in making equality for all people a fun- mentation (pp 1–10). Bloomington: Indiana University, Institute for the
damental tenet in our society, Brown provides the Study of Developmental Disabilities.
foundation for activists and scholars committed Berres, M., Ferguson, D. L., Knoblock, D., & Woods, C. (1996). Creating
tomorrow’s schools today: Stories of inclusion, change, and renewal.
to fulfilling its promise to pursue that goal. I am New York: Teachers College Press.
optimistic or fatuous enough to believe that at Bodgan, R., & Biklen, D. (1976). Handicapism. Syracuse, NY: Center on
some future point in time, America will give cre- Human Policy.
dence to that unfulfilled promise. (Carter, 2004)
Brady, M. P., McDougal, D., & Dennis, H. F. (1989). The schools, the courts,
and the integration of students with severe handicaps. The Journal of
Special Education, 23, 43–58.
ANNE SMITH, EdD, is an education research analyst at the U.S. Depart- Brantlinger, E. A. (2001). Poverty, class, and disability: A historical, social,
ment of Education Office of Special Education Programs. She is the agency and political perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(7), 1–19.
expert on school inclusion and has a portfolio of research, personnel prepa- Briscoe, D. B. (1991). Designing for diversity in school success: Capitaliz-
ration, model demonstration, and technical assistance projects for which she ing on culture. Preventing School Failure, 36, 13–18.

278 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity : The sociopolitical context of multicul-
Carter, R. L. (2004, May 3). The long road to equality. The Nation. Retrieved tural education (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
July 30, 2004, from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040503 Oberti v. Board of Education Clemonton, New Jersey, No. 91-2818 (D. N.J.
&s=carter Aug. 17, 1992).
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899). Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or Plessy’s
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the class- nightmare? Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project. Retrieved August 1,
room. New York: New Press. 2004, from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg04/
Delpit, L. (1999). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating brown50.pdf
other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., & Best, A. M. (2002). Community and
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it school predictors of overrepresentation of minority children in special
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 355(22), 5–22. education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special
Ewing, N. J. (2001). Teacher education: Ethics, power, and privilege. education (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(1), 13–24. Patton, J. M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Ameri-
Ferguson, D. L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a cans in special education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding
‘rabid inclusionist.’ Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 281–287. and solutions. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 25–31.
Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of Patton, J., & Townsend, B. L. (1999). Ethics, power, and privilege: Neglected
restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. L. Losen & G. Orfield considerations in the education of African American learners with spe-
(Eds), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39–70). Cambridge, cial needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 276–286.
MA: Harvard Education Press. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Fine, M. (1994). Framing a reform movement. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering Public Interest Law Center of Phialadelphia. (2004, Spring). Newsletter.
urban school reform: Reflections on public high schools in the midst of Philadelphia: Author.
change (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press. Pugach, M., & Seidl, B. (1995). From exclusion to inclusion in urban
Fusarelli, L. D. (1999). Reinventing urban education in Texas: Charter schools: A new case for teacher education reform. Teacher Education,
schools, smaller schools, and the new institutionalism. Education and 27, 379–395.
Urban Society, 31, 214–224.
Reed , A. (2004, April 15). Beyond black, white and Brown. The Nation.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. (1999). Disability, human rights, and education:
Retrieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=
The United States. In F. Armstrong & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability, hu-
20040503&c=1&s=forum
man rights, and education: Cross cultural perspectives. Philadelphia:
Reynolds, A. J., & Wolfe, B. (1999). Special education and school achieve-
Open Univeristy Press.
ment: An exploratory analysis with a central-city sample. Education
Gilhool, T. (1989). The right to an effective education: From Brown to P.L.
Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 21, 249–269.
94-142 and beyond. In D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond sepa-
Rioux, M. (1999). Inclusive education in Canada: A piece in the equality
rate education: Quality education for all (pp. 243–253). Baltimore:
puzzle. In F. Armstrong & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability, human rights,
Brookes.
and education: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 87–99). Philadelphia:
Grant, C. A., & Ladson-Billings, G. (Eds.). (1997). Dictionary of multicul-
Open University Press.
tural education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (1996). Disability, education, and the discourses of
Hardman, M. (1987). Blueprint for change. In M. Irvin & B. Wilcox (Eds.),
justice. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability, human rights,
Proceedings of the 1987 National Leadership Conference: Least restric-
and education: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 119–131). Philadelphia:
tive environment: Commitment to implementation. Bloomington: Indi-
Open University Press.
ana University, Institute for the Study of Developmental Disabilities.
Hehir, T., & Gamm, S. (1997) Special education: From legislation to collab- Sailor, W. T., & Skrtic, T. (1995). Modern and postmodern agendas in spe-
oration. In J. Heubert (Ed.), Law and school reform (pp. 205–227). New cial education: Implications for teacher education, research, and policy
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. development. In J. Paul, H. Roselli, & D. Evans (Eds.), Integrating
Heward, W. L., & Cavanaugh, R. A. (2001). Educational equality for stu- school restructuring and special education reform (pp. 418–433). New
dents with disabilities. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multi- York: Harcourt Brace.
cultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.; pp. 295–326). New Segal, R. (1974). The National Association for Retarded Citizens. Retrieved
York: Wiley. August 29, 2004, from www.thearc.org/history/segal.htm
Hillard, A. G., III. (1992). The pitfalls and promises of special education Skrtic, T. (1995). Exploring the theory/practice link in special education.
practice. Exceptional Children, 59, 168–172. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hilliard, A . (2004, April 15). Beyond black, white, and Brown: A forum. The Smith, A. C. (1997). Systemic education reform and school inclusion: A
Nation. Retrieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.thenation.com/doc view from a Washington office window. Education and Treatment of
.mhtml?i=20040503&c=4&s=forum Children, 20(1), 7–20.
Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep mean- Smith, A. (1998). Crossing borders: Learning from inclusion and restructur-
ing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ing research in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the United States. Inter-
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in schools. New York: Crown. national Journal of Educational Research, 29, 161–166.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the Smith, A. (2001). A faceless bureaucrat ponders special education, disability,
progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3–12. and White privilege. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
LeRoy, B., & Kulik, N. (2004). The demographics of inclusion: Final report Handicaps, 26, 180–188.
materials for U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Sullivan, P. (2004, April 15). Beyond black, white, and Brown : A forum. The
Programs Grant H324C00029. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University. Nation. Retrieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.thenation.com/doc
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school. New York: BasicBooks. .mhtml?i=20040503&c=6&s=forum
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2004). Re- Taylor, S. J., Biklen, D., Lehr, S., & Searle, S. J. (1987). Purposeful integra-
trieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacpti- tion . . . inherently equal. Boston: TAPP Project.
meline.shtml Tetler, S. (1995). The Danish efforts in integration. In C. O’Hanlon (Ed.),
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1990). Today’s children, Inclusive education in Europe. London: David Fulton.
tomorrow’s survival: A call to restructure schools. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Education. (1989). State variation in the placement of
Author. children with handicaps. In Eleventh annual report to Congress on the

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
279
Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005
 implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act (pp. 21–30). Wu, F. H. (2004, April 15). Beyond black, white, and Brown. The Nation.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared 20040503&c=4&s=forum
responsibility. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Williams, B. T. (2001). Ethical leadership in schools servicing African Amer- Received July 2004
ican children and youth. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, Initial acceptance December 2004
38–47. Final acceptance January 2005

APPENDIX
REGULAR EDUCATION INITIATIVE POLICY AND PRACTICE: GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE CHANGE THAT WILL SUCCESSFULLY PLACE STUDENTS
WITH SEVERE HANDICAPS INTO GENERAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTS

1. Develop an overall change strategy that focuses on making it be initiated as well as supported at the grassroots level through
happen, not whether it should happen—given the complexity of parental and teacher advocacy.
educational needs for these students, change must be handled in 6. Place students as close as possible to their own neighborhood
a comprehensive and well-conceived manner. school.
2. Clearly articulate the benefits to students with severe handicaps 7. Emphasize maintaining and improving the quality of services
and acknowledge the logistic issues without overstating the while being flexible about the ways in which they are provided.
problem. 8. Actively plan for integration, not just physical proximity.
3. Implement change based on a simultaneous, districtwide basis— 9. Build in feedback and evaluation mechanisms:
this minimizes resistance and facilitates comprehensive plan-
ning. • To what extent does interaction with nonhandicapped peers
4. Top-level support is essential to successful integration—any actually occur?
change in the status quo directly affects administrators, teachers, • Do you continually reassess staff development needs?
and parents, but can be minimized with a clear directive from • Is there a means for assessing consumer feedback on a fre-
central administration. quent basis to facilitate proactive problem-solving strategies?
5. Involve community leaders, parents, professionals, and advocacy
groups in designing the change strategy—effective change can

Note. Source: Hardman, 1987.

280 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 26, Number 5, September/October 2005