I am a speech-language pathologist and a special education researcher, and I support the changes proposed to the VDOE Guidance Document, which are themselves based on the thoroughly-researched JLARC report. I see comments which appear to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of proposed language encouraging IEP teams to consider students' cultural background, language, and the innate bias of many standardized assessments. This guidance does not act as a barrier preventing racial and ethnic minorities from accessing necessary special education services, but rather acts as a safeguard against racist eligibility decisions.
Skiba and colleagues (2008), in a peer-reviewed publication titled "Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges," note that "...the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education programs has its roots in a long history of educational segregation and discrimination." Readers will note that Black children are particularly overrepresented in special education, particularly in the more subjective eligibility categories. Based on their 2006 data drawn from the US Department of Education, Black children are more than 3x more likely to be found eligible under the category of Intellectual Disability, and 2.25x more likely to be found eligible under the category of Emotional Disturbance. Clearly, Black children are not actually more likely to have Intellectual Disabilities or Emotional Disturbance, so we can observe how special education can be a racist institution in the absence of culturally-responsive eligibility decisions. These children may be separated from their peers and provided with instruction far below their potential due to misidentification, both of which are violations of their right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Educators must consider culture, dialect, and assessment bias in order to protect students' FAPE. This has been regarded as best practice for longer than I've been certified, and our guidance documents must be updated to reflect this best practice.
I understand that non-practitioners may be wary of these changes. I will address some of the issues I've seen contested in previous comments:
Despite these examples of why the Guidance Document needs language encouraging culturally-responsive assessment practices, I still understand the concerns of those who fear that this will be used to keep students out of special education services. However, that hasn't been my experience, and research like that of Skiba and colleagues suggest that this is the opposite of what happens in reality. I am more concerned about students placed in special education who do not require it. Special education isn't an opportunity for lower-achieving students to receive extra help, it's an opportunity for students with disabilities to receive the services they need to access their educational potential. Putting students without disabilities into special education is not only a violation of FAPE, but it is a disservice to the student. There are plenty of other opportunities for lower-achieving students to receive the support that they need, but it does more harm than good to give them an unwarranted label, separate them from their typically-developing peers, and hobble them with a curriculum that prevents them from reaching their full potential.
I don't think there's a grand conspiracy to keep children out of special education - at least not in my experience in several schools and districts. If anything, educators have (in my experience) been quick to refer a child to special education, even when the child doesn't have a disability, in order to "pass the buck" to someone else. Instead, educators need to do their due diligence to provide appropriate instruction in the least restrictive environment (i.e., not special education). This proposed language isn't racist; it's anti-racist, because it encourages IEP teams to push past the entrenched racism of general American cultural norms and assessment tools, to make decisions that accurately determine a student's educational needs. Opponents of this guidance must remember that eligibility decisions are made by the IEP team, which includes parents. Indeed, my experience in Virginia is that parents often have the strongest voice on the IEP team. Parents will still have a voice in their child's placement, for better or for worse, but these changes will encourage educators to implement culturally-responsive assessment practices to help guide these placement decisions.