Advertisement

Inequality of Learning Disabilities: How Service Privatization Contributes to Educational Inequity

  • Bibinaz PirayeshEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The experiences of children with learning disabilities in America are vastly different. These differences are attributed to a number of different factors, including the nature of the disability itself. However, a major factor is the inequity in treatment. With the boom of research in neuroscience and brain-based interventions and the growth of such fields as educational therapy that aim to specifically aid students with learning challenges in the private sector, the remediation of disabilities seems more possible today than ever. However, these opportunities are often only a possibility for those with the means to afford remediation. The growing privatization of resources coupled with disparities in parental means therefore work to create the “achievement gap” in ways that are supported ironically, and institutionally, by our economic and legal systems. In this way, new scientific advances in the field are at risk of increasing, instead of decreasing, societal problems. This chapter discusses these issues.

Keywords

Special education Learning disabilities Educational inequity Socially just inclusion 

References

  1. Agbenyega, S., & Jiggetts, J. (1999). Minority children and their over-representation in special education. Education, 119(4), 619–632. Retrieved from https://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=googlescholar&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA55409979&sid=classroomWidget&asid=e1b9bb99Google Scholar
  2. Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Argulewicz, E. N. (1983). Effects of ethnic membership, socioeconomic status, and home language on LD, EMR, and EH placements. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 195–200.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1510797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrows, D. F., Cajete, G., & Lee, J. (2009). Critical neurophilosophy and indigenous wisdom. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-language learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In Racial inequity in special education (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education a continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410–437.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699402700404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Au, W. W. (2008). Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690802423312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, No. 80-1002 (US Supreme Court. June 28, 1982)Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, D. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). London, England: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  11. Brantlinger, E. A. (2006). Conclusion: Whose labels? Whose norms? Whose needs? Whose benefits? In E. A. Brantlinger (Ed.), Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people’s children (pp. 233–247). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, E. (2017, January 10). Supreme Court to decide: What level of education do public schools legally owe to students with disabilities? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/supreme-court-to-decide-what-level-of-education-do-public-schools-legally-owe-to-students-with-disabilities/2017/01/10/3e8e14ca-d690-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e952ab68cf0f
  13. Busso, D. S., & Pollack, C. (2015). No brain left behind: Consequences of neuroscience discourse for education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(2), 168–186.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.908908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carini, P. F. (2001). In S. L. Lytle & M. Cochran-Smith (Eds.), Starting strong: A different look at children, schools and standards. New York, NY: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  15. Carrier, J. G. (1986). Learning disability: Social class and the construction of inequality in American education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  16. Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (Eds.). (2011). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at learning disabilities. New York, NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  18. Connor, D. J., Gabel, S. L., Gallagher, D. J., & Morton, M. (2008). Disability studies and inclusive education – Implications for theory, research, and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(5–6), 441–457.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Corker, M., & Shakespeare, T. (Eds.). (2002). Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. D. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 703 F. 2nd 823 (5th Cir. April 25, 1983)Google Scholar
  21. Darder, A. (2012). Culture and power in the classroom: Educational foundations for the schooling of bicultural students. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Darder, A. (2018). Decolonizing interpretive research: Subaltern sensibilities and the politics of voice. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(2), 94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dudley-Marling, C., & Burns, M. B. (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in the United States. Global Education Review, 1(1), 14–31. Retrieved from http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/10Google Scholar
  25. El-Haj, T. R. A. (2006). Elusive justice: Wrestling with difference and educational equity in everyday practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  26. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, No. 15-827 (US 580. Mar. 22, 2017a).Google Scholar
  27. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, Supreme Court cause 15-827, Appellant’s original oral argument (2017b).Google Scholar
  28. Ficksman, M., & Adelizzi, J. U. (Eds.). (2010). The clinical practice of educational therapy: A teaching model. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, brain, and education: Building a scientific groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.01048.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Four Arrows, D., Cajete, G., & Lee, J. (2009). Critical neurophilosophy and indigenous wisdom. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Franklin, D. (2018). Helping your child with language-based learning disabilities: Strategies to succeed in school and life with dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, ADHD, and processing disorders. Oakland, CA: New Harbringer.Google Scholar
  32. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2004). Presage of a paradigm shift? Beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759042000252515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geake, J. G. (2009). The brain at school: Educational neuroscience in the classroom: Educational neuroscience in the classroom. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Giroux, H. A. (1981). Ideology, culture and the process of schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Gleeson, B. J. (1997). Disability studies: A historical materialist view. Disability & Society, 12(2), 179–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599727326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goswami, U. (2008). Principles of learning, implications for teaching: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4), 381–399.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00639.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  40. Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2009). A mandate for playful leaning in preschool. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)Google Scholar
  43. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Howe, A. (2017, March 23). Opinion analysis: Court’s decision rejection low bar for students with disabilities, under the spotlight. SCOTUSblog. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opinion-analysis-courts-decision-rejecting-low-bar-students-disabilities-spotlight/
  46. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1975).Google Scholar
  47. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1990).Google Scholar
  48. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).Google Scholar
  49. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).Google Scholar
  50. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2015).Google Scholar
  51. Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  52. Kode, K. E., & Howard, K. E. (2002). Elizabeth Farrell and the history of special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  53. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  54. Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5–6), 567–606.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000004951.04408.b0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Light, R. (2000). Disability theory: Social model or unsociable muddle? Disability Tribune, December 1999/January 2000, 10–13.Google Scholar
  56. Lindell, A. K., & Kidd, E. (2013). Consumers favor “right brain” training: The dangerous lure of neuromarketing. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 35–39.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liptak, A. (2017). Justices Face ‘Blizzard of Words’ in Special Education Case. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/supreme-court-special-education.html?_r=0
  59. MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education, 26(3), 324–348.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1995.26.3.05x0936zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mead, J. F., & Paige, M. A. (2008). Board of education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley: An examination of its precedential impact. Journal of Law and Education, 37(3), 329–345.Google Scholar
  63. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 71-1939. (1972).Google Scholar
  64. Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America’s schools. Dunmore, PA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  65. Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  66. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).Google Scholar
  67. Ong-Dean, C. (2009). Distinguishing disability: Parent, privilege, and special education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Organisation for Economic Co-operating and Develoment. (2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/31706603.pdf
  69. Osgood, R. L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Osgood, R. L. (2010). Laggards, morons, human clinkers, and other peculiar kids: Progressivism and student difference in shaping public education in the United States. Philosophical Studies in Education, 41, 1–10. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896301Google Scholar
  71. PARC v. Pennsylvania, No. 71-42 E.D. Pa. (1971)Google Scholar
  72. Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist? Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(2), 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pirayesh, B. (2018). A critical interrogation of the mind, brain, and education movement: Toward a social justice paradigm (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/etd/543
  74. Rotatori, A. F., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). History of special education. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  75. Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, 483 F. §528, 532 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2980).Google Scholar
  76. Sanders, R., Stovall, D., & White, T. (2018). Twenty-first century Jim Crow Schools: The impact of charters on public education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  77. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? In Exploring theories and expanding methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go (Vol. 2, pp. 9–28). Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S1479-3547%2801%2980018-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  79. Slee, R. (1998). The politics of theorizing special education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 126–136). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984)Google Scholar
  81. Smith, R. M., Gallagher, D., Owen, V., & Skrtic, T. M. (2009). Disability studies in education. In J. Andrzejewski, M. P. Baltodano, & L. Symcox (Eds.), Social justice, peace, and environmental education: Transformative standards (pp. 235–251). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Spring, J. (2018). Political agendas for education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Stein, Z. (2014). Tipping the scales: Social justice and educational measurement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/13383548
  84. Sylvan, L. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01077.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 473–490.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.652070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (Eds.). (2007). Deconstructing special education. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  87. Timothy W. v. Rochester School District, 875 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. May 31, 1989)Google Scholar
  88. Walsh, M. (2017, April 29). Unanimous Supreme Court expands scope of special education rights. Education Week. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2017/03/supreme_court_rules_for_studen.html
  89. Weber, M. C. (2012). Foreword: Board of Education v. Rowley after thirty years. Journal of Law & Education, 41(1), 1. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jle41&div=4&id=&page=Google Scholar
  90. Weisberg, D., Keil, F., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weisberg, D. S., Taylor, J., & Hopkins, E. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 429–441. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics_pubs/132Google Scholar
  92. Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Association of Educational TherapistsLos AngelesUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • John M. Heffron
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate SchoolSoka University of AmericaAliso ViejoUSA

Personalised recommendations