Are U.S. schools up to the job of teaching all kids well? Parents may have their doubts—but the concerns can run deeper among minorities whose children attend schools that have fewer resources and lack well-trained teachers. When administrators tell such parents that their kids may need special education, the alarm bells ring even louder. That's because, ever since a federal law began requiring all schools to meet the learning needs of disabled students nearly 30 years ago, disproportionately large numbers of children in some racial and ethnic groups are identified as disabled and placed in special education programs. The labels used to describe these children—such as "learning disabled" and "emotionally disturbed"—are intended to identify those who need extra educational support. But labeling also may bring lowered expectations from teachers and others.

Rising numbers
In recent years, the number of schoolchildren receiving special education services has grown to more than one in every 10 students, more than half of whom have been placed into the rapidly expanding category of learning disabled. While the expansion has occurred among all groups, racial and ethnic disparities persist, especially in categories that carry the greatest stigmas. At the same time, disproportionately low numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians have been placed in K-12 classes for gifted students.

Some minority children are indeed at greater risk of school failure and more likely to be referred for special services because their families are economically or socially disadvantaged and unable to provide stimulating environments that promote healthy development and school readiness. Poor children, for example, are more likely to be born with low birth weight, have nutritional deficiencies, and suffer from substandard child care in the earliest years of life—problems that may compound school troubles later. These circumstances make a school's learning climate and the nature of classroom instruction all the more important.

Catch problems early
It's time for educators and policy-makers to work together to identify children at risk of school failure as early as possible, and intervene before problems become deeply entrenched. Too often, our current system allows students to languish before they get major assistance. It's also time for a new method for determining who truly would benefit from special ed. I recently chaired a committee of the National Research Council that examined demographic trends in both special education and gifted programs. We concluded that high-quality education and early screening are key to nurturing minority students with special needs or talents.

To make sure that minority students who are poorly prepared for school are not assigned to special education solely for that reason, teachers should be required to first provide them with effective instruction and social support in mainstream classrooms before considering special ed. Moreover, that support should be provided whenever students exhibit large differences from typical performance in at least one key area—academic achievement or social behavior, for example. IQ tests should not be required for determining need. This new approach, however, should not delay the delivery of special ed services to students whose needs are pronounced, or to those who already have been identified as disabled.

Many students who do receive special ed also would be better served if officials moved away from general classifications such as "learning disabled" and instead identified specific trouble spots, such as reading comprehension or math.

Universal screening
Because teaching children with atypical needs can be challenging, states should raise training requirements and offer more support to all teachers. Furthermore, states should screen all students early on to identify those with reading difficulties or behavior problems—two of the most common causes behind referrals for special ed placement—and intervene to help them. Federal authorities also should improve and expand early childhood education and health services for at-risk youth. An overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that well-designed screening and intervention programs certainly can make a difference.

Information is the fuel that propels successful intervention efforts. Unfortunately, detailed data on intervention strategies frequently are in short supply. Both federal and state government researchers should collect more comprehensive information about special education students to determine which approaches work best for various groups—and to explore possible links between particular teaching techniques, child and family characteristics, and results in the classroom. Likewise, more rigorous research on how to recognize students who have special gifts and talents is sorely needed. It's tough to make specific policy recommendations for gifted programs because of a severe information drought.

To be sure, overhauling the special education eligibility process, enhancing teacher training and data collection, and beefing up social services for needy children and their families is a tall order. It will require a concerted effort by all of us to give every child the education he or she deserves. Are we up to the job? The federal law governing special education, known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is scheduled for congressional reauthorization later this year. It's time to test our resolve.

This editorial is reprinted with permission from the National Academies.

Comments about this story? E-mail editor Susan Phillips.