Welcome to the inaugural episode of our podcast series! I’m Ayumi Furusawa, your host, and I’m thrilled to have you join us. In this season, we’ll explore the complex issue of identifying children with disabilities for special education, the implications of this problem, and why it matters. Our goal is to provide valuable insights into the challenges educators, school psychologists, medical professionals, and parents face in serving young students with disabilities, what contributes to these issues, and why it’s important. This season serves as a literature review, highlighting the systemic barriers to identifying children with disabilities for special education as identified by researchers. We’ll analyze these issues from a systems perspective using the DSRP systems thinking process provided outlined in Cabrera and Cabrera’s 2015 Systems Thinking book. The DSRP model, which stands for Distinctions , Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives, helps us identify and understand how different components of a system interact and influence each other. By focusing on how parts are defined (Distinctions), how they form a whole (Systems), how they connect (Relationships), and how different viewpoints shape understanding (Perspectives), we aim to gain a comprehensive understanding of these challenges . Applying this systems thinking process, we will delve into the interconnected systemic factors contributing to identification challenges in special education.

Identification Challenges in Special Education

Before we dive into today’s discussion, let me introduce myself. I’m deeply passionate about advocating for people with disabilities, a journey that has profoundly shaped my life. I’ve worn many hats—educator, peer facilitator, and, most importantly, a parent of neurodivergent children. My story began in Japan and took me across the globe, navigating diverse educational and social systems as a first-generation Japanese American parent advocate and early childhood special educator.

These experiences have instilled in me a deep appreciation for diversity and a heartfelt commitment to understanding learning differences. Learning differences, as defined by Barkley and Murphy (2021) and Sousa (2022), refer to variations in how individuals process, understand, and apply information, which may affect their learning experience but do not necessarily signify a disability. My approach to cultural humility, as described by Holmes (2020) and Mahadevan (2021), involves ongoing self-reflection and personal growth—being aware of my own biases while embracing a lifelong journey of learning and respect for cultural differences.

Understanding my positionality is also crucial. Positionality involves recognizing how my social, cultural, and political contexts—shaped by factors such as race, gender, and class—influence my perspective and research. As Milner stated in 2007, being aware of these factors helps me remain transparent and ethically grounded in my work, ensuring that my approach is both reflective and responsible.

Currently, as a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University, I am exploring neuro-education, which combines neuroscience and psychology to improve teaching and learning by understanding how the brain learns, as explained by Ansari (2022)  My long-term mission is to ensure that culturally relevant referral and assessment practices lead to equitable interventions that enhance developmental outcomes for young children with special needs. According to Ladson-Billings (2021), culturally relevant practices are those that respect and integrate students' cultural backgrounds, improving their learning outcomes and helping them thrive academically and socially.

In this podcast, I’m excited to share an analysis of the special education identification process from a systems thinking perspective. We’ll explore how these factors interconnect and impact the way we identify and support young students with learning differences from diverse backgrounds. By examining these connections, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of systemic barriers and work towards creating more inclusive and effective educational practices.

Main Identification Challenges

To set the stage for our discussion, let’s first address why tackling identification challenges is so crucial. Early and accurate identification for special education leads to timely intervention, which is essential for improving outcomes for children with developmental and other disabilities. As noted by Rispoli and colleagues (2022), early intervention is increasingly recognized as critical for achieving better outcomes for children. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles eligible children with disabilities to free appropriate public education from pre-K to 12th grade in public schools, ensuring special education and related aids and services. However, broad challenges influenced by many factors persist in identifying eligibility for special education, as highlighted by Connelly (2021). These broad challenges include disproportionate identification, delayed identification, misidentification, and lack of identification, all of which hinder access to special education and early intervention services.

Now, let's dive into the specific challenges associated with the identification process. First, we’ll discuss disproportionate identification. According to Annamma and colleagues (2018), disproportionate representation arises when students from ethnically and linguistically diverse backgrounds are either overrepresented or underrepresented in special education categories. For instance, students from marginalized or minority ethnic, racial, and language backgrounds are often placed in categories like Intellectual Disability, Learning Disability, and Emotional Disturbance or Behavior Disorders based on subjective judgments rather than clear, objective criteria. This can lead to inappropriate educational placements and inadequate support, affecting students' academic and social outcomes.

Next, let’s address delayed identification. Zuckerman and colleagues (2021) argued that this occurs when children do not receive timely developmental monitoring and screening, resulting in late access to special education services. For instance, although an autism diagnosis can be made as early as 2 years of age, the national average is over 4 years. Barriers, such as inadequate training among healthcare providers, lack of interprofessional collaboration, and socioeconomic challenges, contribute to delayed identification. Research shows that early intervention is necessary to significantly improve developmental outcomes, helping children develop essential skills during critical growth periods. Delays in identifying and intervening can result in missed opportunities for these crucial developmental supports.

The third identification challenge is misidentification. According to Zhang and colleagues (2023), misidentification affects culturally and linguistically diverse children, leading to delays in receiving necessary services. For instance, Kim and colleagues (2022) noted that autism screening and diagnostic tools developed in Western countries may not be culturally relevant for all populations, causing potential misidentification. Additionally, Black children are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD or conduct disorder instead of Autism reflecting implicit biases among clinicians, as highlighted by Jones and colleagues (2023). Implicit bias refers to unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect understanding, actions, and decisions, as defined by Greenwald and colleagues (2020). These biases can lead to misinterpretation of behaviors and symptoms, resulting in incorrect diagnoses and inappropriate support. Autistic females are often misdiagnosed with conditions such as ADHD or anxiety before receiving an autism diagnosis due to differences in how autism manifests in females and a lack of awareness among professionals, as discussed by Smith and colleagues (2023). Accurate identification is crucial for ensuring that children receive the right support and services tailored to their specific needs, improving their chances of success in educational settings.

Lastly, there is the lack of identification. This issue is particularly significant for students with social-emotional challenges. Despite IDEA's provisions, many children with social-emotional delays or disabilities are not adequately identified or supported. In 2023, Stein and Steed noted barriers such as differentiating typical behaviors from clinical concerns, varying behaviors across different settings, and the stigma associated with these challenges. Zeanah and Zeanah (2019) highlighted the difficulty in recognizing clinical concerns within what might seem like typical behavior. Additionally, Johnson and colleagues (2021) pointed out that behaviors can vary greatly across different contexts, making identification and support even more challenging.

Stigma, as defined by Corrigan and Watson (2022), refers to the negative attitudes and beliefs that lead to discrimination and social exclusion. This stigma often results in parents, teachers, and even the children themselves feeling shame or embarrassment about seeking help. As a result, social-emotional delays or disabilities may be underreported or ignored. This reluctance to acknowledge or address these issues can delay intervention, exacerbating the child’s difficulties and leading to long-term negative outcomes. As mentioned earlier, autistic girls and women often receive late or no diagnoses, leading to missed support and understanding. Compared to boys, they exhibit greater challenges in social communication, such as difficulty understanding social cues and engaging in typical conversations. These challenges show age-related differences in clinical and parental ratings, as noted by Ros-Demarize and colleagues (2019). Thus, gender bias is one of the factors in autism diagnoses, resulting in females being overlooked or diagnosed later. Freeman and Paradis (2023) argued that standardized tools often fail to identify autistic girls effectively, leading to misdiagnosis. Proper identification is essential for providing timely and appropriate interventions, ensuring that all children receive the support they need to thrive.

As seen in these four main types of identification challenges—disproportionate identification, delayed identification, misidentification, and lack of identification—the factors contributing to these broad challenges don’t necessarily fall neatly into just one category. There is overlap, such as in the case of autistic girls and women, which can lead to three of these challenges—the misidentification, delayed identification, and lack of identification. Examining these identification challenges is crucial for ensuring equitable access to support and fostering positive developmental outcomes for all children, especially young children with disabilities as highlighted by Connelly (2021).

Connecting the Dots: Systemic Factors

Now, let's connect the dots by examining how these broad challenges are interrelated. Systems thinking, as Cabrera and Cabrera (2022) asserted, offers a holistic approach to understanding complex issues by examining how different parts of a system are interconnected. It helps us identify how factors like policies and biases interact to create systemic challenges.

One effective way to break this down is through the DSRP model, a practical tool within systems thinking. DSRP helps us analyze complex problems by focusing on four key components. The first is Distinctions, which involves identifying and clarifying the different elements within the system. By distinguishing these elements, we can better understand the role each plays. Then, we move to Systems—understanding how these elements fit and interact within a larger structure. Next is Relationships, where we examine the connections between elements. Finally, Perspectives, which encourages us to explore how different viewpoints shape our understanding of the problem.

In using DSRP, we can highlight the interconnections and complexities involved in systemic issues. For example, disparities in identification are influenced by systemic factors such as access to healthcare, educational resources, and socio-cultural biases. Each contributing factor for the broad challenges—disproportionate representation, delayed identification, misidentification, and lack of identification —interacts with others, creating a complex web of barriers that impacts how children receive special education identification and the intervention they need. As Connelly (2021) and Zuckerman and colleagues (2021) stated, these identification challenges pose a significant problem because they impede young children with disabilities from accessing special education and being eligible for early intervention services. Delays in identifying and intervening can result in missed opportunities for crucial developmental support.

This systems thinking approach allows us to explore how systemic barriers—such as historical inequities, racism, ableism, cultural stigma, and implicit biases—intertwine and contribute to challenges, including disproportionate identification, misidentification, delayed identification, and lack of identification. Examining how they interconnect helps us understand the underlying systemic factors and how they lead to different types of identification problems, as Cabrera & Cabrera (2022) emphasized.

In our upcoming episodes, we will delve deeper into each of these systemic factors. But first, let’s explore the historical contexts. As mentioned a moment ago, understanding these contexts is key because systemic barriers—such as historical inequities, racism, ableism, cultural stigma, and implicit biases—intertwine and lead to challenges such as disproportionate identification, misidentification, delayed identification, and lack of identification. Historical inequities and systemic racism shape how disabilities are identified and addressed in special education. Martinez and Reed (2022) highlighted that these historical factors create entrenched biases and structural challenges, leading to both disproportionate and delayed identification. Their 2022 study found that Black and Hispanic students are 1.5 times more likely to be classified as having learning disabilities compared to their White peers. Moreover, they discovered that students in underfunded schools, which are often predominantly Black and Hispanic, experience a delay in receiving special education services by an average of six months compared to students in better-funded schools.

Historically, certain communities have faced systemic discrimination and marginalization, which has had lasting effects on how disabilities are perceived and managed within educational systems. For instance, during the segregation era, schools for Black children were underfunded and lacked resources, including those necessary for identifying and supporting students with disabilities. This legacy of unequal resource allocation continues to affect these communities today, leading to delayed identification and insufficient support for students with disabilities. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education found that schools predominantly serving Black and Hispanic students receive $23 billion less in funding compared to those serving mostly White students, resulting in both delayed and lack of identification.

The persistence of systemic discrimination directly contributes to ongoing systemic ableism in education. Systemic ableism fosters negative attitudes towards students with disabilities, resulting in misidentification and delayed identification. Brown and Robinson (2023) highlighted how such ableism undermines support for these students, exacerbating the barriers they face. For instance, a 2021 survey conducted by the National Center for Learning Disabilities found that 62% of educators admitted to having lower expectations for students with disabilities, which can lead to misidentification. Additionally, a 2018 study by the American Educational Research Association found that students with disabilities are twice as likely to be suspended, which further hampers accurate identification and support.

Moreover, the cultural biases that emerged from historical inequities continue to influence current practices. For example, certain behaviors or traits might be misinterpreted as indicative of a disability due to cultural misunderstandings. This can lead to misidentification, where students are incorrectly classified as having a disability when, in fact, their behaviors are culturally normative. Blanchett (2020) and Sullivan and Artiles (2017) explained how these cultural biases impact the identification process, contributing to misidentification and delayed identification.

Similarly, implicit biases and systemic ableism within the U.S. educational system lead to unequal treatment and misidentification of students with disabilities. In 2022, Adams and Clark noted that these biases distort the identification process, causing some students to be overlooked or misdiagnosed. Systemic biases and discriminatory practices affect disability identification, particularly among students of color. Additionally, Furlong and Bradley (2023) argued that these biases result in disproportionate identification, with certain groups being overrepresented or underrepresented. For example, a 2020 study by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA found that Black students are nearly twice as likely to be identified as having emotional disturbances compared to White students, whereas White students are more likely to be identified with autism.

Furthermore, implicit biases significantly impact disproportionality in special education identification. Lewis and Solis (2022) described how these biases affect decision-making, leading to disproportionate and misidentification of disabilities. Cultural stigma affects how disabilities are perceived and identified, especially among students of color. Williams and Johnson (2023) discussed how this stigma contributes to delayed identification and disproportionate representation in special education. In their 2023 study, they found that Latino students often receive special education services later than their peers due to cultural stigma and mistrust of the education system. For instance, a 2020 study by the Journal of Special Education found that Latino students are 40% less likely to be identified as having learning disabilities compared to White students, and when they are identified, it often occurs an average of one year later than their peers, illustrating the impact of cultural stigma

Additionally, the pathology model of disabilities, which emphasizes deficits and dysfunctions, contributes significantly to stigma in special education. Smith and Jones (2023), Brown and White (2022), and Garcia and Patel (2021) collectively demonstrated that this stigma leads to negative stereotypes and diagnostic labeling that discourage parents and educators from seeking necessary services. Consequently, these biases and fears create systemic barriers, impeding the accurate and timely identification and support of students who need special education services. The pathology model’s impact on perceptions and its associated stigma are critical factors in the challenges faced in special education identification.

Moreover, disability stigma is influenced by historical and cultural contexts globally. Lee and Kim (2023) discussed how these cultural factors impact the perception and identification of disabilities, affecting both disproportionate and delayed identification. For example, in some Asian cultures, disabilities may be seen as a source of family shame, leading parents to delay seeking help for their children, resulting in later identification compared to other cultural groups. A 2020 study by the World Health Organization found that in certain Southeast Asian countries, children with disabilities are identified 2-3 years later than the global average, indicating the significant impact of cultural stigma.

Turning to policy implications, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which ensures students with disabilities receive appropriate public education, often creates a gap between compliance and effective service delivery. Mueller (2019) and Voulgarides and Lee (2021) explained that this gap results in misidentification and delayed identification by failing to address root causes of disparities. For example, a 2019 audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that many schools comply with IDEA regulations but still fail to provide adequate support due to resource limitations and ineffective implementation strategies. This audit revealed that 70% of schools in low-income areas did not have sufficient staff to meet the needs of students with disabilities, leading to delays in identification and services.

In addition, disparities in funding and resources, especially for schools serving students of color, exacerbate educational disadvantages. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2020) and Voulgarides (2018), this inequitable allocation results in lack of identification due to insufficient resources. For example, schools in low-income areas often lack the necessary personnel, such as school psychologists and special education teachers, to properly identify and support students with disabilities. A 2021 report by the National Education Association found that schools with predominantly minority populations had 25% fewer special education teachers compared to schools serving mostly White students.

Furthermore, historical inequities have also led to a lack of trust between marginalized communities and educational institutions. This mistrust can result in parents being reluctant to seek help or advocate for their children's needs, leading to delayed identification. Voulgarides and Zuckerman (2022) described how these historical injustices have created a complex web of systemic barriers that continue to affect the identification and support of students with disabilities today. For instance, a 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of Black parents and 45% of Hispanic parents reported low levels of trust in public schools, compared to 30% of White parents.

Moreover, the absence of meaningful involvement from marginalized communities in decision-making prevents the development of effective policies. Voulgarides and Aylward (2019) highlighted how this lack of involvement leads to various identification challenges, including disproportionate, misidentification, delayed, and lack of identification. Their review found that schools with low levels of community involvement were 35% more likely to have disproportionate identification rates and 25% more likely to experience delays in identification compared to schools with higher levels of community engagement. For example, without input from these communities, policies may not adequately address cultural differences in disability perception and the specific needs of diverse student populations. This results in an education system that is less responsive to the unique challenges faced by marginalized students, further entrenching disparities in identification and support.

Closing

Thank you for joining us today! I hope this discussion has helped deepen your understanding of the key factors and complexities surrounding the identification of children for special education, particularly through a systems thinking lens. In our upcoming episodes, we’ll dive deeper into these systemic factors and explore the four main challenges in identifying children eligible for special education, including disproportionate identification, delayed identification, misidentification, and lack of identification, which we touched on today.

I’m Ayumi Furusawa, your host, and I look forward to continuing this journey with you in our next episode on Pathology Paradigm. In the meantime, please visit my website at shiftingparadigm.org—that’s spelled shifting paradigm, all one word, dot O-R-G—for show notes, references, and additional resources. Join us next time as we continue to explore these critical challenges in identifying children for special education. Thank you again for being part of this important conversation, and I’ll see you soon.

1. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):

A U.S. federal law that ensures services to children with disabilities, guaranteeing special education and related services to eligible children from infancy through age 21 (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).

2. Early Intervention:

Services provided to young children with developmental delays to enhance development and minimize potential delays (Rispoli et al., 2021).

3. Disproportionate Identification:

Overrepresentation or underrepresentation of specific demographic groups in special education relative to their presence in the overall student population (Skiba et al., 2023).

4. Delayed Identification:

Failure to recognize and diagnose disabilities promptly, leading to postponed access to necessary support (Zuckerman et al., 2021).

5. Misidentification:

Incorrectly classifying a student's needs, resulting in inappropriate or ineffective interventions (Paradis et al., 2021).

6. Lack of Identification:

Failure to recognize students who require special education services, often due to systemic barriers or biases (Stein & Kendall, 2021).

7. Learning Differences:

Variations in how individuals process, understand, and apply information, affecting their learning experiences but not necessarily indicating a disability (Barkley & Murphy, 2021; Sousa, 2022).

8. Cultural Humility:

An ongoing process of self-reflection to understand personal and systemic biases while respecting cultural differences (Holmes, 2020; Mahadevan, 2021).

9. Positionality:

Recognition of how one's social, cultural, and political contexts influence perspectives and research, emphasizing transparency and ethical responsibility (Milner, 2020).

10. Neuroeducation:

An interdisciplinary field combining neuroscience, psychology, and education to improve teaching and learning by understanding how the brain learns (Ansari, 2019).

11. Culturally Relevant Practices:

Educational methods that respect and integrate students' cultural backgrounds, improving learning outcomes and helping them thrive academically and socially (Ladson-Billings, 2021).

12. Systems Thinking:

An approach that examines interrelated components of a system to understand complex problems holistically (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2018).

13. DSRP Model:

A framework consisting of Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives to analyze complex systems (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2018).

14. Implicit Bias:

Unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect understanding, actions, and decisions (Greenwald & Lai, 2020).

15. Stigma:

Negative beliefs and attitudes toward a group, leading to discrimination and social exclusion (Corrigan & Fong, 2019).

16. Systemic Ableism:

Institutional practices and policies that result in discrimination against people with disabilities (Adams & Clark, 2020).

17. Systemic Racism:

Institutional structures and policies that perpetuate racial inequalities in society, including education (Martinez & Reed, 2022).

18. Pathology Model of Disabilities:

An approach that views disabilities primarily as deficits, often neglecting individuals' strengths and contributing to stigma (Oliver & Barnes, 2019).

19. Cultural Stigma:

Societal disapproval based on cultural norms, affecting perceptions and identification of disabilities (Williams & Moore, 2020).

20. Equitable Interventions:

Strategies designed to provide fair opportunities and resources to achieve equitable outcomes, especially for marginalized groups (Garcia & Ortiz, 2020).

Adams, L., & Clark, M. (2020). Systemic ableism in education: A critical look at special education policies. Educational Forum, 84(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1825497

Ansari, D. (2019). Annual research review: Educational neuroscience—Progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12973

Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2021). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Clinical Workbook (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2018). Systems thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems (2nd ed.). Odyssean Press.

Corrigan, P. W., & Fong, M. W. M. (2019). Competing perspectives on erasing the stigma of illness: What says the dodo bird? Social Science & Medicine, 222, 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.032

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2020). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral interventions. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919875701

Greenwald, A. G., & Lai, C. K. (2020). Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050837

Holmes, L. A. (2020). Practicing cultural humility to transform health care. Nursing, 50(9), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000697167.85052.d0

Hull, L., Mandy, W., & Petrides, K. V. (2020). Behavioural and cognitive sex/gender differences in autism spectrum condition and typically developing males and females. Autism, 24(6), 1542–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320916762

Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Asking a different question. Teachers College Press.

Mahadevan, J. (2021). Culturally reflexive leadership: Managing the paradoxes of diversity. Routledge.

Martinez, A., & Reed, W. (2022). Systemic racism and educational inequities. Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1955090

Milner, H. R. (2020). Understanding and assessing your own cultural competence. In Start where you are, but don’t stay there (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). Harvard Education Press.

Mueller, T. G. (2019). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 29(4), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207318788889

Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2019). The new politics of disablement (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press.

Paradis, J., Schneider, P., & Sorenson Duncan, T. (2021). Discriminating children with language impairment among English-language learners from diverse first-language backgrounds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00013

Rispoli, K. M., Zandt, F., & Brodhead, M. T. (2021). Early intervention for children with developmental disabilities: Evidence-based practices. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 33(6), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09763-1

Skiba, R. J., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., et al. (2023). Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al. (2022). Educational Researcher, 52(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221161671

Sousa, D. A. (2022). How the brain learns (6th ed.). Corwin Press.

Stein, M. L., & Kendall, J. (2021). Challenges in identifying social-emotional delays in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(5), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01156-9

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

Williams, R., & Moore, E. (2020). Cultural stigma and disability: An integrative review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(9), 1224–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1515554

Zuckerman, K. E., Chavez, A. E., Reeder, J. A., & Lindly, O. J. (2021). Disparities in autism diagnosis and services among minority children. Pediatrics, 147(3), e2020032205. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-032205

Host: Ayumi Furusawa

Episode Overview:

Welcome to the inaugural episode of our podcast series, "Identification Challenges in Special Education." In this episode, host Ayumi Furusawa delves into the complex issues surrounding the identification of children with disabilities for special education services. Drawing from her personal journey as an educator, parent advocate, and doctoral student, Ayumi explores systemic barriers that impede accurate and timely identification of young students with disabilities.

Key Topics Discussed:

• Personal Introduction:

  • • Ayumi's background as a first-generation Japanese American parent advocate and early childhood special educator.

    • Her commitment to understanding learning differences and promoting cultural humility.

    • The importance of positionality in research and practice.

• Importance of Early and Accurate Identification:

  • • The role of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in ensuring free appropriate public education (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).

    • Early intervention's critical impact on developmental outcomes (Rispoli et al., 2021).

• Main Identification Challenges:

  • • Disproportionate Identification:

      • • Overrepresentation or underrepresentation of ethnically and linguistically diverse students in special education (Skiba et al., 2023).

        • Impact of subjective judgments and cultural biases on student placement.

    • Delayed Identification:

      • • Late access to services due to barriers like inadequate training among healthcare providers, lack of interprofessional collaboration, and socioeconomic challenges (Zuckerman et al., 2021).

        • Consequences of delayed intervention on developmental outcomes.

    • Misidentification:

      • • Incorrect classification leading to inappropriate support (Paradis et al., 2021).

        • Role of implicit biases and lack of culturally relevant assessment tools.

        • Specific challenges faced by autistic girls and children from minority backgrounds.

    • Lack of Identification:

      • • Failure to recognize students with social-emotional challenges (Stein & Kendall, 2021).

        • Impact of stigma and cultural factors on seeking help.

        • Gender biases leading to underdiagnosis in girls with autism (Hull et al., 2020).

• Connecting the Dots: Systemic Factors:

  • • Introduction to systems thinking and the DSRP model (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) as a framework for analysis (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2018).

    • Examination of how systemic barriers such as historical inequities, systemic racism, ableism, cultural stigma, and implicit biases contribute to identification challenges (Martinez & Reed, 2022; Adams & Clark, 2020).

    • Discussion of policy implications and resource disparities affecting equitable service delivery (Mueller, 2019).

• Closing Thoughts:

  • • Emphasis on the interconnectedness of systemic barriers and their impact on children with disabilities.

    • Preview of upcoming episodes that will delve deeper into each systemic factor.

    • Invitation to listeners to visit the website for additional resources and to join the conversation.

Resources:

• Visit shiftingparadigm.org for show notes, references, and additional resources.