Deconstructing Intelligence-Based Special Education Exceptionalities

• In Event: 66.080 - Roundtable Session 26
  In Roundtable Session: 66.080-2 - Equity and Accountability in a Major Metropolis: An Exploration of the Toronto District School Board

Abstract

Special education continues to be a highly politicized area in public education. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) employs similar guidelines to assessment, identification and programming as seen in many States across America. As such, similar debates regarding “least restrictive environments”, the purpose of segregated programming, and the disproportionate representation of minority and marginalized populations in special education continue unabated. While often driven by psychometric standards, one of the major challenges facing special education is accountability in the accuracy and appropriateness of ‘who’ is identified with ‘what’ and which criteria is employed in determining an identification of exceptionality.

This paper deconstructs intelligence-based exceptionality labels and the appropriateness of such measures in the identification, labeling, and program determination for students perceived as gifted or with some form of learning or intellectual impairment. Dependence upon intelligence exists, in spite of the growing body of research that highlights issues with intelligence testing in education (e.g. Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Siegel, 1989; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stanovich, 2005).

Using data extracted from the TDSB, this paper highlights the consequences of embracing a sorting model for students who are identified as Gifted, Learning Disabled and Mildly Intellectually Disabled, diagnoses that have traditionally been linked to IQ. Students were followed from Grade 7 to Grade 12 (2004 to 2009, N = 13, 926) and were tracked for exceptionality, identification, programming, and achievement. Results often showed divergence from diagnosis and stratification of racial, gender and class identities. As an example, most of the students with a Gifted exceptionality were largely male, White and privileged. However, they did not score in the very highest range of combined test scores. The majority of the highest achievers were female and much more racially diverse. Similar analyses unpacking identifications of Learning Disability and Mild Intellectual Disability, particularly in terms of gender, race, economic privilege, and academic achievement, are discussed.

The study identified two important trends: 1) exceptionalities associated to intelligence are populated by stratified demographics based on experiences of historical privilege and marginalization; 2) the relationship between achievement and identification is far from absolute. These findings demand greater investigation into the social and economic influences that play a role in cognition-based identification of exceptionality and to investigate school-based strategies to eliminate systemic bias. Ways in which identifications influence teacher expectations and the postsecondary pathways and experiences of students identified with the aforementioned exceptionalities are discussed.

References:

Fletcher, J.M., Denton, C., & Francis, D.J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545-552.

Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(8), 469-478.

Stanovich, K.E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 103-106.

Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24-53.

Authors

• Isabel M. Killoran, York University

• Gillian Parekh, Toronto District School Board

• Robert S. Brown, Toronto District School Board