Massachusetts Special Education Report Highlights Disparity of Diagnoses for Low-Income
Students
An April 2012 “Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” report,
commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
primarily examines disability categories that involve a great degree of subjectivity--Specific
Learning Disability, Communication, and other Health Impairment diagnoses--and the high
numbers of students identified with these disabilities. The report identifies the high costs
associated with special education, the demographic information of students receiving special
education services, the level of integration these students receive alongside their non-disabled
peers in school, the variation among districts serving these students, and the factors associated
with identification rates and student performance.
The study’s findings include:
- Following Rhode Island, Massachusetts has the second highest rate of special education
identification in the country.
- Controlling for income, race, and English proficiency, the degree to which students with
disabilities are placed in classrooms with their non-disabled peers is “substantially related” to the
performance of students on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS).
- For students in special education, a lack of integration in regular education classrooms may
contribute to these students’ lower performance on the MCAS.
- Low-income students, particularly low-income students who attend high-income districts, are
significantly more likely to be identified as eligible for special education services compared to
their more advantaged counterparts.
- Low-income, Latino, and African American students with disabilities are substantially less
likely to be included in regular education classes, relative to white and Asian special education
peers.
This report is based on statistical analyses of district, school, and student data and interview and
focus group data collected through meetings with administrators, special educators, and
advocates. Only traditional, multi-grade, “academically-focused” schools were studied.
Controlling for student and district characteristics, the study concludes that the odds for a lowincome elementary school student in a district with a large percentage of low-income students
(approximately 45% of students) will be diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disability are
almost twice the odds for a non-low-income student. Further, a low-income student in a district
that enrolls a small percentage of low-income students (approximately 4% of students) is about 2
and a half more times likely to be diagnosed than a non-low-income student.
Holding race, gender, district median family income, and inclusivity of the district constant, the
odds that a low-income student would be educated in a significantly separate classroom setting
(less than 40% of the day) are about two times the odds than those for a non-low-income student.
Considering that almost two out of three Massachusetts students with a disability are diagnosed
with disabilities subject to interpretation, this report found that local school districts have a high
degree of flexibility in interpreting disability categories. Therefore, children with the same
underlying issues are diagnosed with different disability labels depending on the school district
that they attend.
The authors argue that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education should more
actively intervene in schools districts that have high identification rates of low-income students
and use predominately separate educational settings for low-income students. Specifically, the
report argues that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education should promote a
more focused effort on early literacy development such as the Response to Intervention (RTI
model) in kindergarten through third grade to reduce inappropriate special education diagnoses.
In addition, the report suggests that the state should re-evaluate its Title I practices, encourage
more powerful general education practices so that low-income students can receive the necessary
supports for school success, and that special education practices are seriously examined in
districts serving high numbers of students in special education.