State Variation in Gender Disproportionality in Special Education: Findings and Recommendations
Abstract
Gender disproportionality in special education has been apparent for many years, reflected in male-to-female ratios that range from about 1.5:1 to 3.5:1. The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent of disproportionate representation for the disability conditions of learning disability (LD), serious emotional disturbance (SED), and mental retardation (MR) at the state, regional, and national levels. Using data collected by the U.S. Office for Civil Rights, we examined the hypothesis that current variations across states in gender disproportionality should be small, and similar to rates for the nation as a whole. Substantial variations in state rates for students with LD and SED were observed. We also examined the hypothesis that states serving relatively fewer students for a given disability are likely to have greater male overrepresentation. This hypothesis was generally supported for students with LD but not for students with MR or SED. We examined factors related to state policies for students with MR and SED that might help to account for these findings. We conclude with recommendations for research to better understand the basis for gender disproportionality and with several practical implications for policy review and response related to gender disproportionality at the regional, state, and national levels.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Depending on the state, males are 1.7 to 2.7 times more likely than females to be identified with learning disabilities, and the gender gap is slightly larger in the South.
“males are from 1.7 to 2.7 times more likely to be identified than females depending on the state, and the gender gap is slightly greater in the South (Coutinho and Oswald 2005).”
From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Coutinho and Oswald 2005
Males are disproportionately identified with learning disabilities.
“While some conventional areas of disproportionality are confirmed (males and language minorities)”
From Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language (2011) · cites this paper as Coutinho and Oswald 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 109
- Authors
- Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P.
- Affiliations
- East Tennessee State University (US)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- ORCID
- Oswald, Donald P.
- Venue
- Remedial and Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-15
- ISSN
- 0741-9325 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4756
- OpenAlex
- W2099560313
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 20.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Remedial and Special Education (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- special education, state-level variation, learning disabilities, serious emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, state education policy
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