Cited by 509Education Discipline and InequalityCritical Race Theory in EducationBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Justifying and Explaining Disproportionality, 1968–2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture

Open access
Artiles, Alfredo J., Kozleski, Elizabeth B., Trent, Stanley C., Osher, David, Ortiz, Alba·2010·Exceptional Children

Abstract

Special education has made considerable advances in research, policy, and practice in its short history. However, students from historically underserved groups continue to be disproportionately identified as requiring special education. Support for color-blind practices and policies can justify racial disproportionality in special education and signal a retrenchment to deficit views about students from historically underserved groups. We respond to these emerging concerns through an analysis of arguments that justify disproportionality. We also identify explanations of the problem and critique the views of culture that underlie these explanations. We conclude with a brief discussion of implications and future directions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/001440291007600303

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Critical barriers including institutionalized processes and interpersonal behaviors collectively heighten anxiety, negative thinking, and stress; place extra demands on working memory and cognitive resources; drain energy available to address tasks; and impact health and learning.

    “Critical barriers include both institutionalized processes (e.g., resource allocation, rituals, policies) and interpersonal behaviors (e.g., harassment, micro-aggressions, negative stereotyping, assumptions of prior knowledge) that collectively heighten anxiety, negative thinking, and stress; place extra demands on working memory and cognitive resources; drain energy available to address tasks (e.”

    From Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context<sup>1</sup> (2019) · cites this paper as Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • American Institutes for Research (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Artiles, Alfredo J.
Venue
Exceptional Children
Published
2010-04
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
279-299
ISSN
  • 0014-4029 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5560
OpenAlex
W2119571761
Cited by
509
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 28
FWCI
134.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Exceptional Children (publishedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
racial disproportionality, special education, color-blind policy, deficit views, culture, historically underserved students, student identification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review