{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040628593330778076, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026446914526638558, 'mean_word_length': 5.624365482233503, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Culturally Responsive Practices in Schools

racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity (RCELD) in special education has been well documented for over 30 years (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002; Connor & Boskin, 2001; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Harry & Klinger, 2006; Patton, 1998). This phenomenon is known as disproportionality. Disproportionality is generally defined as “the representation of a particular group of students at a rate different than that found in the general population” (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006, p. 42). A complex interplay of economic and demographic variables—including poverty, culture, geography, and language, which is termed as “the new morbidity” by Turnbull (2005, p. 325)—was found to be associated with the disproportionate representation of minority students (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). Additionally, Losen and Orfield (2002) suggested possible race-linked contributing factors, such as unconscious racial bias, resource inequalities, and power relationships between school authorities and minority parents. When disproportionality of minority students in special education classes exists, it has a greater likelihood of being a self-fulfilling prophecy among the staff and the students themselves (Patton & Townsend, 1999). The most recent reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.) noted the continuing and growing problem of disproportionality in special education and made several new statutory provisions to address this issue. First, states and local education agencies (LEAs) are required to develop policies and procedures to prevent the overidentification of students with RCELD. In addition, school districts must gather and analyze data and identify disproportionality across disability categories, in special education placements, and in disciplinary actions. Second, a student cannot be determined to have a disability if the student’s primary academic deficit is a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics. Third, LEAs with high rates of students with RCELD in special education are required to implement early identification services and to reserve a maximum amount of federal funds (15% of IDEA Part B) for early intervention services. Finally, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, monitors state compliance with the IDEA through a process that reviews state data on 20 performance indicators. IDEA 2004 added two new performance indicators directly related to disproportionality: