In this article, we critically review the work of Morgan et al. (2015) and offer Disability Studies in Education (DSE) as an alternative conceptualization to traditional research within special education. We first unpack many of Morgan et al.'s (2015) assumptions, which are grounded in deficit discourses about children, family structures, economic status, and home cultures. Next, we identify flaws in their research design and methodology. Finally, we elaborate on how, through naming and making visible the workings of ableism and racism, DSE offers a way to counter the deficit discourses and inaccurate abstractions of lived realities upon which Morgan et al.'s (2015) work rests.

This article reviews 15 qualitative studies examining factors contributing to the overrepresentation of minorities in special education. Eleven studies constituted numerical surveys of practitioner perspectives, with additional questions that were analyzed qualitatively. Four studies relied on face-to-face interviews or qualitative surveys, in-field observations, and review of students' documents. This review is organized into two main groups of studies—those that investigated stakeholders' explanations only and those that combined stakeholders' perspectives with direct investigation of actual practices. Findings reflected considerable overlap in explanations for disproportionality including poverty, family issues, intrinsic child deficit, and school-based issues such as professional bias regarding socioeconomic status (SES) and race. The article calls for increased use of qualitative studies to unearth the root causes of disproportionality.

Special education disproportionality for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students persists as a controversial and intractable problem in our educational systems. Response to intervention (RtI) and culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), both independently and collectively are considered to offer promise for mitigating conditions of overrepresentation in special education programs. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing research to examine the effects of RtI on minority students and the combined effects of RtI and CRP on minority students. The reviews of these works are discussed to assess whether the Morgan et al. (2015) recommendation for the U.S. Department of Education to recall its efforts to reduce minority disproportionality is justified.

The history of the denial of equal education opportunities to Black children is a long one, whether through racial segregation or overrepresentation in special education. No other group is as overreferred, overidentified, and overrepresented in special education as Black students, specifically Black males. The authors present an historical and legal overview of special education and critique in the 2015 report by Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Mattison, Maczuga, Li, and Cook. Based on their analysis of limited criteria rather than comprehensive criteria, Morgan and colleagues claim that Blacks were not overrepresented in special education and that more should have been identified. This study created a swelter of discussion and debates that are not new but that the authors find to be biased, polemic, and deficit-oriented assertions. The potential impact of Morgan et al.'s work (arguments, findings, and conclusions) must be interrogated rather than discounted.