Are school psychologists' special education eligibility decisions reliable and unbiased?: A multi-study experimental investigation

Nearly 50 years of research show persistent racial disproportionality in the identification of special education disabilities, but the underlying mechanisms for these disparities remain largely unexplored. Because ambiguous regulations defining disabilities may allow subjectivity and unlawful differential treatment (i.e., racial bias or discrimination) in the special education eligibility process, an important target of study is disparate treatment of students by race in evaluations required to determine eligibility. School psychologists have long been recognized as highly influential in this process and in schools' resultant decisions. We used a 3 × 2 mixed factorial experimental design in three studies with simulated case report data to measure the influence of race and assessment data on school psychologists' perceptions of students' eligibility for special education in cases centering on emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, or autism, respectively. Participants included 302 practicing school psychologists in three states across the three experiments. There was little evidence of racial disparity, but participants tended to render decisions unsupported by, and even contrary to, evaluation data. Implications for research, practice, and professional development are discussed.

Addressing public stigma and disparities among persons with mental illness: the role of federal policy

Stigma against mental illness is a complex construct with affective, cognitive, and behavioral components. Beyond its symbolic value, federal law can only directly address one component of stigma: discrimination. This article reviews three landmark antidiscrimination laws that expanded protections over time for individuals with mental illness. Despite these legislative advances, protections are still not uniform for all subpopulations with mental illness. Furthermore, multiple components of stigma (e.g., prejudice) are beyond the reach of legislation, as demonstrated by the phenomenon of label avoidance; individuals may not seek protection from discrimination because of fear of the stigma that may ensue after disclosing their mental illness. To yield the greatest improvements, antidiscrimination laws must be coupled with antistigma programs that directly address other components of stigma.