View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Representation for Exceptional Children: Student-Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students with Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Representation for Exceptional Children: Student-Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students with Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Anna J. Egalite (ORCID 0000-0003-1550-5311), Michael A. Gottfri, M. Daniela Barriga
Source: Exceptional Children. 2026 92(4):420-441.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Minority Group Students, Racial Factors, Ethnicity, Academic Achievement, Attendance, Suspension, Graduation Rate, Socioeconomic Status, Instructional Program Divisions, Institutional Characteristics, Racial Composition, Teacher Characteristics, Student Characteristics, Elementary School Students, Middle School Students
Geographic Terms: Massachusetts
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
DOI: 10.1177/00144029251386290
ISSN: 0014-4029
2163-5560
Abstract: Numerous prior studies have asked how students of color fare when matched with a teacher who shares their racial or ethnic background. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about how this plays out for students with disabilities (SWD). Using student-level longitudinal data for Massachusetts public school students in Grades 3-12 between 2011 and 2018, we examine math and ELA test scores, attendance, suspension, and graduation data for SWDs who experience an ethnoracial match. We estimate impacts for the overall SWD population in addition to breaking out subgroups defined by race/ethnicity, low-income status, grade level, and school demographic context. We find primarily null effects, with some exceptions that are small in magnitude. For example, Black and low-income SWDs score higher in math in years when they experience an ethnoracial teacher match (0.01 SD). We also observe minor improvements in school attendance (less than one additional day) for low-income SWDs, those with a Specific Learning Disability, SWDs in the elementary grades; and SWDs in small schools. SWDs' likelihood of receiving a suspension or graduating from high school is unaffected by an ethnoracial match. We discuss the implications of our findings and offer policy recommendations.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1508195
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFBQj7R-HzREWXjZGni4OM8AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOEzTisVrWrjHNvXWAIBEICBmxyqtm-VcljhGZ54oOyk1_Y5QMydMLPVWIQWKBk9RELUGvXE8VfW4QIC8Cb4MOEOGsKgUuWTU5aDX7kSMK4lAquGhvrp2SKBda1TrzjxeMqou9IxNyYVTPsgI61du5mz4mBKjRfpI7V-ab8IMMqtG5dWMmJv0thEF4lwlsXBItBIDZqAfQiFS18G4p3_v03_KRiVc7qmgmnROpfY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0194392923;exc01jul.26;2026Jun10.02:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0194392923-1">Representation for Exceptional Children: Student–Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students With Disabilities </title> <p>Numerous prior studies have asked how students of color fare when matched with a teacher who shares their racial or ethnic background. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about how this plays out for students with disabilities (SWD). Using student-level longitudinal data for Massachusetts public school students in Grades 3–12 between 2011 and 2018, we examine math and ELA test scores, attendance, suspension, and graduation data for SWDs who experience an ethnoracial match. We estimate impacts for the overall SWD population in addition to breaking out subgroups defined by race/ethnicity, low-income status, grade level, and school demographic context. We find primarily null effects, with some exceptions that are small in magnitude. For example, Black and low-income SWDs score higher in math in years when they experience an ethnoracial teacher match (0.01 SD). We also observe minor improvements in school attendance (less than one additional day) for low-income SWDs, those with a Specific Learning Disability, SWDs in the elementary grades; and SWDs in small schools. SWDs' likelihood of receiving a suspension or graduating from high school is unaffected by an ethnoracial match. We discuss the implications of our findings and offer policy recommendations.</p> <p>Keywords: education policy; same race/ethnicity teacher; students with disabilities</p> <p>Despite much discussion among policymakers of the growing need to improve representation in the educator workforce to match student demographics, the enduring disconnect between teacher and student diversity remains glaring. In the United States, the vast majority (79%) of teachers are White, whereas just 9% are Hispanic, 7% are Black, and 2% are Asian ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref1">43</reflink>]). The corresponding statistics for students do not match this skewed distribution, with 46% of students identifying as White, 28% Hispanic, 15% Black, and 5% Asian ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref2">44</reflink>]). This underscores large representation disparities in our education system and the need for greater attention to be placed on understanding how a more representative teacher workforce might impact the outcomes of a diverse student population.</p> <p>For students in the general population, researchers have examined how students of color fare on a variety of outcomes when matched with a teacher who shares their racial or ethnic background. These include test scores ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]), absenteeism ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref8">42</reflink>]), suspensions ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]), recommendations for gifted and talented programs ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]), enrollment in advanced courses ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), course grades ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]), and high school graduation and college enrollment ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]). Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about how ethnoracial matching affects students with disabilities (SWDs). This study investigates how such matching shapes SWDs' test performance, attendance, suspension rates, and graduation outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-2">Prior Literature Focused on Students in the General Population</hd> <p>Prior literature examining outcomes of students of color assigned to an ethnoracially-similar teachers demonstrates that students in the general population either experience null effects or improvements when assigned to a teacher who is an ethnoracial match ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref16">37</reflink>]). There have been three experimental studies that examine the impact of ethnoracial matching. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>] reports a 2 to 4 percentile point increase in math and reading scores. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>] attempted to learn more about what might be driving such effects by examining students' academic perceptions and attitudes when randomly assigned to a classroom teacher. They report positive match effects on survey measures of the classroom environment, including student reports of happiness in class and the sense of being cared for by their teacher. Finally, a recent random-assignment study of Black students in upper-elementary school reports positive match effects on two out of seven outcomes examined. Black students who were randomly assigned to a Black teacher in fourth or fifth grade experienced a positive effect of 0.66 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>) for classroom engagement and 0.56 <emph>SD</emph> for self-efficacy, compared to null effects experienced by non-Black students assigned to Black teachers ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). However, it is also notable that there were no differences between Black and non-Black students when it came to Black teachers' effects on students' self-regulation, math or ELA achievement, chronic absenteeism, or likelihood of suspension.</p> <p>Turning next to the quasi-experimental literature, there is evidence from North Carolina that elementary school students are 0.5 of a percentage point more likely to receive a school suspension if assigned to a classroom teacher that does not share their race/ethnicity, which represents a 15% increase in the baseline probability of suspension ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]). The authors also report a small effect on unexcused absences. Assignment to an other-race teacher is associated with an increase of 0.06 unexcused absences, which translates to a 2.3% increase. While the short-term effects might be small in magnitude, there is also evidence that Black students assigned to a Black teacher when they are in elementary school experience long-term benefits from the match, as they are 9 percentage points more likely to graduate from high school and 6 percentage points more likely to enroll in college ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some studies have reported "mixed" or null findings, such as [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]. They report mostly null effects and they observe −0.03 <emph>SD</emph> lower science achievement for matched students overall. However, they also report encouraging results for certain subgroups, such as fewer internalizing problem behaviors for Black students. To understand why some studies, such as this one, report "mixed" findings, it is helpful to note the following pattern: Studies that include White students in the sample when calculating the overall treatment effect of ethnoracial matching often report null findings. This is unsurprising, given the frequency with which a White student experiences a White teacher. The marginal effect of assignment to one additional White teacher is much less impactful than the marginal effect of assignment to a teacher of color for the 55% of Black and Hispanic students who have not experienced even one ethnoracially-matched teacher by the time they reach fifth grade ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]). As such, it is important to examine individual student subgroups defined by race/ethnicity to better understand the overall patterns in the data.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-3">Prior Literature Focused on SWDs</hd> <p>Teacher race and ethnicity may play an important role in shaping the supports that SWDs receive, yet almost no research has directly tested the impact of matching SWDs with same-race or same-ethnicity teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-4">Academics</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>] offer the only empirical study to date, finding no significant academic benefits for kindergarteners, but they propose a compelling mechanism: when teacher and student share a cultural background, teachers may hold higher academic expectations and communicate more effectively with families. In broader literatures, elevated expectations and home–school partnerships have been strongly linked to improved learning ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]). By fostering a classroom climate characterized by both rigor and open dialogue—through report cards, conferences, or informal check-ins—ethnoracially matched teachers could enhance instructional quality and parental engagement, particularly as SWDs progress beyond the early grades. This theoretical foundation motivates our exploration of whether shared identity yields measurable gains in achievement, as well as in attendance, disciplinary outcomes, and eventual graduation for older SWD cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-5">Attendance, suspension, and graduation</hd> <p>No research to date has explored how ethnoracial matching affects attendance, suspension, or graduation for SWDs, but findings from the general population offer a useful guide. Studies show that students of color demonstrate higher engagement—and lower disciplinary incidents—when paired with same-race teachers ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). It stands to reason that SWDs of color could experience similar benefits. By fostering trust and belonging, these educators may help SWDs attend more regularly, face fewer suspensions, and ultimately stay on track to graduate.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-6">The role of intersectionality</hd> <p>As evident thus far, the primary focus of our study is on the intersection of race/ethnicity and disability. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>] foundational work reminds us that outcomes for SWDs cannot be understood through a single lens; rather, the overlapping identities of race and disability interact to produce unique opportunities and barriers. Building on this insight, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>] blend Critical Race Theory and Disability Studies into a Dis/ability Critical Race Studies framework, which guides our analysis of how SWDs' academic and nonacademic trajectories differ when matched with a same-race or same-ethnicity teacher. Moreover, race, disability, and income are deeply intertwined: students of color are overrepresented among low-income households—a known risk factor for disability identification ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>])—and low-income SWDs often lack the out-of-school supports that more affluent families can provide ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]). In this context, ethnoracial matching may carry heightened importance, as matched teachers can serve as key in-school allies for students whose families cannot supplement learning with private resources. By examining the intersections of race/ethnicity, income level, disability type, and grade, we aim to capture these complex dynamics and illuminate whether shared identity can help mitigate systemic inequities for SWDs.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-7">The role of school ethnoracial context</hd> <p>School-level racial composition may also shape how ethnoracial matching affects students with disabilities. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>] finds that schools with higher proportions of teachers of color refer fewer students for special education, suggesting that a more diverse faculty can influence identification rates. Conversely, when a student's racial background stands out in a predominantly different-race environment, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>] shows they are more likely to be placed in special education—an effect that may stem from cultural mismatches between students and the dominant school culture ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]). In such contexts, teachers who share a student's racial or ethnic identity may be better positioned to recognize and support that student's emotional and behavioral needs, drawing on shared cultural understandings to help navigate school norms that often reflect majority-group expectations ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). These findings underscore that both classroom- and school-level ethnoracial makeup can amplify or attenuate inequities for SWDs, which is why our analysis tests school-level context as a moderator of the match effects we observe.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-8">Gaps in the Literature</hd> <p>What remains unclear is whether the benefits observed for students of color in the prior literature on student–teacher ethnoracial matching apply to SWDs, who are the focus of the current study. This is an oversight in the field, given the federal policy attention that has been paid to this large and growing group of students. Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) outlines the rights of the 7.3 million SWDs in the United States, who represent 14 % of total public school enrollment. IDEA mandates that these students are educated in the least restrictive environment, which has motivated their widespread inclusion in mainstream classrooms. This is reflected in the data: 95% of SWDs between the ages of 6 and 21 are educated in a traditional school and 65% of those students spend most of the school day—defined as more than 80%—in a general education classroom ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]). Federal law, as clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States, requires schools to provide SWDs with a uniquely tailored Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances," ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>], p.15). Nevertheless, large-scale analyses of standardized assessments reveal a performance gap between SWDs and their nondisabled classmates ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref40">39</reflink>]). Hence, understanding what factors support (or inhibit) school performance for SWDs would help to better guide both policy and practice.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-9">The Current Study</hd> <p>We address these gaps by leveraging Massachusetts' longitudinal, student-level data for Grades 3–12 (2011–2018) and employing fixed-effects models that control for time-invariant characteristics. We ask the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do SWDs have different academic outcomes (test scores, attendance, suspension, and graduation rates) when they experience a match with a teacher of the same race or ethnicity?</item> <p></p> <item> Do these relationships vary by student characteristics (i.e., race/ethnicity, low-income status, disability type, grade-level)?</item> <p></p> <item> Do these relationships vary by school demographic context (i.e., school size or the racial/ethnic make-up of the student body)?</item> </ulist> <p>The current study advances the existing literature in four distinct ways. First, teacher–student ethnoracial matching for SWDs has only been examined previously for a single grade level, but we extend the scope beyond kindergarten to the critical middle-grades years of identity development and high-stakes testing ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]), when ethnoracial alignment may be particularly salient.</p> <p>Second, we disaggregate outcomes by student subgroups—race/ethnicity, income level, disability type, and grade—to uncover heterogeneous effects that pooled analyses would otherwise obscure. Sample size restrictions compelled [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>] to examine outcomes for Black or Latinx students combined, but the true parameters may vary by student race or ethnicity. Prior research on student–teacher ethnoracial matching for students in the general population provides a reason to expect findings to vary by student race or ethnicity. For example, evidence from Florida, provided by [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>], reported negative findings for Hispanic students of −.011 <emph>SD</emph> in reading and −0.007 <emph>SD</emph> in math but positive findings for Black students of 0.004 <emph>SD</emph> in reading and 0.19 <emph>SD</emph> in math. Had race and ethnicity not been examined separately, these results would have been masked.</p> <p>Third, the work in [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>] only examined a single year of school: kindergarten. While it provided important descriptive evidence, it could not leverage the advantages of a fixed-effects methodology as the present study does. By examining multiple years and grade levels, this study offers a more rigorous test of the potential relationship between ethnoracial matching and SWD outcomes.</p> <p>Finally, no prior research has examined ethnoracial matching for SWDs on core indicators of school engagement: attendance, suspensions, and graduation. In the general student population, students of color demonstrate higher attendance when taught by a teacher who shares their racial or ethnic background ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]). It is reasonable to expect similar patterns for SWDs, given that teachers of color often act as "warm demanders," combining high academic expectations for all students with culturally responsive practices that affirm students' identities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>]). Such practices can create a more engaging and supportive learning environment, potentially increasing SWDs' connection to school and reducing disengagement. By directly examining these engagement outcomes, this study extends the literature beyond achievement measures to illuminate another critical dimension of the educational experience.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-10">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194392923-11">Data</hd> <p>We use a student-level panel data set for this project, which was provided by the Office of Planning and Research in the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). It covers students in Grades 3–12 between the years 2011 and 2018. These administrative datasets on students, schools, districts, and educators are available to researchers whose research questions align with the DESE's research priorities.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-12">Sample</hd> <p>Our sample of interest is students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms in Grades 3–8 who took the state test known as the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) as well as high school students, who are the focus of our graduation analysis. These sample restrictions result in 1,862,028 student-year observations for the achievement analysis, 2,686,550 for the attendance analyses, 2,699,058 for the suspension analysis, and 347,492 for the graduation analysis, as described in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Analysis Samples.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Mean</th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: Achievement Sample</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Student Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Free/Reduced-Price Lunch</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Limited English Proficiency</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Other Race</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Low</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Medium/High</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Disability</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Specific Learning Disability</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Communication Impairment</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Health Impairment</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Emotional Impairment</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Autism</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Neurological Impairment</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Teacher Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Other Race</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Experience</td><td>10.43</td><td>7.99</td><td>0.00</td><td>55.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>School Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> School Percent White Students</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Black Students</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Hispanic Students</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers Female</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers White</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers Black</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers Hispanic</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers Other Race</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> School Percent Teachers in First Year</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.51</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Key Variables of Interest</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: All</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: White</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Black</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Hispanic</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Math</td><td>−0.77</td><td>0.85</td><td>−2.92</td><td>3.17</td></tr><tr><td> ELA</td><td>−0.82</td><td>0.89</td><td>−3.41</td><td>3.00</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B: Attendance Sample</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Student Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Free/Reduced-Price Lunch</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Limited English Proficiency</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Other Race</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Low</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Medium/High</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Key Variables of Interest</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Attendance</td><td>166.08</td><td>22.32</td><td>10.00</td><td>200.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: All</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: White</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Black</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Hispanic</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Panel C: Suspension Sample</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Student Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Free/Reduced-Price Lunch</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Limited English Proficiency</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Other Race</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Low</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Level of Special Needs: Medium/High</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Key Variables of Interest</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Suspension</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> In-School Suspension</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.00</td><td>39.00</td></tr><tr><td> Out-of-School Suspension</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.00</td><td>34.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: All</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: White</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Black</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Hispanic</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Panel D: Graduation Sample</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Student Characteristics</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Free/Reduced-Price Lunch</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Limited English Proficiency</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Other Race</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Key Variables of Interest</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Graduation by Grade 12: All</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Graduation by Grade 12: Not Special Ed</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Graduation by Grade 12: Special Ed</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: All</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: White</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Black</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Ethnoracial Match: Hispanic</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Data for the achievement, attendance, and suspension analyses, shown in Panels A, B, and C, respectively, represent special education students spanning the time frame from 2011 to 2018. For the achievement analysis, <emph>n</emph> = 1,862,028. For the attendance analysis, <emph>n</emph> = 2,686,550. For the suspension analysis, <emph>n</emph> = 2,699,058. Data for the graduation analysis, shown in Panel C, includes both general and special education high school students between the years 2012 and 2018 (2011 is omitted so that we can control for lagged test scores), <emph>n</emph> = 347,492. Descriptive data on the six most common disability categories are shown here for descriptive purposes. All other disability categories (intellectual, deaf, blind, physical, deaf/blind, multiple disabilities, and development delay) have incidence rates of 2% or lower.</p> <p>The achievement, attendance, and suspension analyses rely on a student fixed effects approach, so we limit the sample to SWDs. This allows us to hold SWD status constant while student–teacher ethnoracial matching is permitted to vary over time, thus isolating the variation of interest. Mirroring national data, the largest category of disabilities in our sample is the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category at 39% (nationally, 33% of all students who receive special education services have an SLD). The next most common disability is a communication impairment at 20%, followed by "other health impairment" at 16%. All at 6% incidence each, the next three largest categories are emotional impairment, autism, and neurological impairment. All other disability categories (intellectual, deaf, blind, physical, deaf/blind, multiple disabilities, and development delay) have incidence rates of 2% or lower.</p> <p>In Table 1, we describe the samples for each of the four analyses: achievement, attendance, suspension, and graduation. Panel A describes the achievement sample, which consists of special education students in Grades 3–8 who took the state standardized assessment. This sample is 37% female, 46% free and reduced-price lunch, and 9% limited English proficiency. Most students are White (65%) or Hispanic (21%); just 9% are Black and 6% identify as some other race/ethnicity (this includes Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and mixed race students). Unfortunately, there are insufficient observations to estimate separate ethnoracial matching models for each of these individual other-race student subgroups so our estimates of ethnoracial matching are derived from the experiences of White, Black, and Hispanic students. Almost two-thirds (64%) of students experience an ethnoracial match over this period, although that statistic is skewed by White students, almost all of whom experience a race-match (97%) compared to just 8% of Black and 4% of Hispanic students. Teachers are overwhelmingly White (95%) and female (82%). On average, teachers in our sample have 10 years of experience.</p> <p>The attendance sample described in Panel B and the suspension sample described in Panel C cover special education students in Grades 3–12. This sample is 37% female, 45% free and reduced-price lunch, and 8% Limited English proficiency. Most students are White (65%) or Hispanic (21%); 9% are Black, and 6% identify as some other race/ethnicity.</p> <p>The graduation sample described in Panel D includes both special education and non-special education high school students between 2011 and 2018. This sample is 50% female, 34% free and reduced-price lunch, and 4% Limited English proficiency. Most students are White (66%) or Hispanic (16%); 9% are Black, and 9% identify as some other race/ethnicity.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-13">Measures</hd> <p>The key variable of interest is an indicator for ethnoracial match between a student and their assigned teacher. Students and teachers self-report their race and ethnicity to the school district and this information is stored in administrative datasets, which we merge based on common district, school, course, section, and term. We then create a binary variable that is coded as one in the presence of an ethnoracial match between a student and teacher and zero otherwise.</p> <p>The outcome variables we use to measure math and ELA achievement are MCAS scores, standardized within grade and year to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. We also assess impacts on attendance, which is operationalized as the count of days' attended in a given school year, and student suspensions. We consider effects on both in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions, which are measured as count variables. We also create an indicator variable that takes on a value of one if the student experienced either type of suspension that year and zero otherwise. Finally, graduation is a binary variable that takes on a value of one if the student graduated at the end of Grade 12 and zero otherwise.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-14">Analytic Approach</hd> <p>To assess whether SWDs have different test scores, attendance outcomes, and likelihood of suspension when assigned to an ethnoracially-matched teacher, we use a research design that features student, school, grade, and year fixed effects. This approach holds constant the variation in outcomes that can be attributed to observed or unobserved student characteristics and experiences by restricting all comparisons to occur within an individual student over time. Furthermore, the school and grade fixed effects account for features of the educational environment that may be influential for students, such as the leadership style of the principal and assistant principal, peer characteristics, and even time-invariant features of the neighborhood in which that school is situated. The test score analysis incorporates students in tested grades, Grades 3–8, whereas attendance and suspension analyses incorporate students through Grade 12.</p> <p>The model is specified by restricting the sample to students with disabilities (defined by the presence of an IEP) and estimating a linear probability model:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>Y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>E</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>c</mi><msub><mi>h</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>Z</mi><mi>t</mi></msub><msub><mtext>ß</mtext><mn>2</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>α</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>κ</mi><mi>g</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ι</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>γ</mi><mi>t</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mo>∈</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> where Y<subs>it</subs> is the standardized math or ELA test score, attendance, or suspension measure for student, <emph>i</emph>, at time, <emph>t</emph>. In the main analysis, we operationalize attendance as the count of days attended. In the online Supplementary Materials Appendix, however, we also operationalize the attendance outcome as a binary indicator for chronic absenteeism, defined as missing 10% or more of the school year. For suspensions, we show results for the count of in-school suspensions, the count of out-of-school suspensions, and a binary indicator showing receipt of either type of suspension.</p> <p> <emph>EthnoracialMatch</emph> is a binary variable indicating that the teacher and student share a common race or ethnicity. The coefficient associated with this indicator, β<subs>1</subs>, communicates the conditional increase or decrease in test scores associated with assignment to an ethnoracially-matched teacher for students with disabilities. The vector Z contains teacher-level control variables: sex, race/ethnicity, experience, and the squared term of experience to account for non-linear returns. We also include a series of fixed effects: α is a student fixed effect, κ is a grade-level fixed effect, ι is a school fixed effect, γ is a year fixed effect, and ɛ is a heteroskedastic error term, clustered by school.</p> <p>The benefit of the student fixed effect is that it holds constant the time-invariant characteristics of a student, including those characteristics that are unobserved in the dataset, such as motivation or drive. Similarly, the grade-level and school fixed effects account for characteristics of those groupings that are shared. Finally, the year fixed effect holds constant shocks that would affect all students in a given year.</p> <p>Test scores, attendance, and suspensions were collected annually, so the outcome of interest can be observed multiple times for each student in this panel dataset. In these analyses, the student fixed effect focuses on a student's own experience, comparing their outcomes in years when they were assigned to a teacher who was an ethnoracial match to their outcomes in years when they were assigned to a teacher who was not a match. Furthermore, the effect of the ethnoracial match, if there is one, is expected to show up in the outcome that is collected that same year. We opt to switch to an alternative model for the graduation analyses to account for the fact that graduation is a one-time event so we cannot observe within-student variation in the outcome. Instead, for this part of the analysis, we use a classroom fixed effects approach. To do this, we include both special education and non-special education students in the sample. Identification relies on classrooms in which more than one special education student is present, only some of whom experience an ethnoracial-match with the teacher for that class period.</p> <p>We could look for the effect of an ethnoracial match, if there is one, in the graduation data that is collected that same year the student experienced the teacher match (i.e., their senior year of high school) but this approach would be biased because students who make it to the beginning of their final year of high school are not a representative sample of all high school students. Many students drop out before the beginning of their senior year. An ethnoracial match might be one protective factor that reduces the likelihood of drop out over the course of high school. Thus, our sample is focused on the universe of ninth grade public school students, which we track for the next 4 years. Graduation outcomes are identified in 12th grade. We take the conservative approach of coding those who do not appear in the graduation files as zero, which will include those who dropped out, transferred to private school, or moved out of state.</p> <p>Equation 2 presents the graduation model, which includes student-level demographic control variables (sex, race/ethnicity, free and reduced-price lunch status, immigrant status, limited English proficiency status, special education status, and lagged attendance), teacher-level control variables (sex, race/ethnicity, experience, and the squared term of experience to account for non-linear returns), principal-level control variables (sex, race/ethnicity), school-level control variables (percent female, percent of each race/ethnicity, percent free and reduced-price lunch, average teacher experience, and enrollment size), and classroom (η<subs>c</subs>) and year (δ<subs>t</subs>) fixed effects. We also include lagged student test scores in math and ELA to account for the student characteristics (both observed and unobserved) that would have influenced prior test scores ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]). The teacher race-match variable is coded as one if at least one of the ninth-grade teachers shares an ethnoracial match with the student.</p> <p>The equation is as follows:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>G</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>d</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><msub><mi>n</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi><mo>+</mo><mn>4</mn></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>E</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mo>*</mo><mi>S</mi><mi>p</mi><mi>e</mi><msub><mi>d</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mi>E</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>c</mi><msub><mi>h</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><mi>P</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>s</mi><mi>t</mi><msub><mi>s</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>4</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mi>s</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>d</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>5</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>6</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mspace width=".1em" /><mi>p</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>p</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mn>7</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mi>s</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>l</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>η</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>δ</mi><mi>t</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>μ</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>The outcome variable is high school graduation within four years and the coefficient of interest, δ<subs>1</subs>, represents the interaction of experiencing an ethnoracial match with a ninth-grade teacher <emph>and</emph> having special education status. Standard errors are clustered by ninth grade classroom.</p> <p>This research received appropriate Institutional Review Board approval. All analysis was completed using the statistical software, Stata 15.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194392923-16">Academic Achievement</hd> <p>Table 2 presents our estimates of the relationship between student-teacher ethnoracial matching and math and ELA outcomes for SWDs. Column 1 presents the findings from the main model, which uses student, school, grade, and year fixed effects for identification and leverages 1.9 million observations. Just like Gottfried and colleagues' (2019) report, we find no statistically significant effect associated with having a teacher who is an ethnoracial match for either math or ELA scores.</p> <p>Table 2. Association Between Ethnoracial Matching for Special Education Students and Math and ELA Outcomes, by Student Characteristics.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="7">Panel A: By Student Subgroup</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">All Students</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Black</th><th align="left">Hispanic</th><th align="left">FRL</th><th align="left">Black FRL</th><th align="left">Hispanic FRL</th><th align="left">Elementary School</th><th align="left">Middle School</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th><th align="left">(5)</th><th align="left">(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Math</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>0.0044</td><td /><td>0.0142**</td><td>0.0017</td><td>0.0083**</td><td>0.0172</td><td>0.0035</td><td>0.0039</td><td>0.0007</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0034)</td><td /><td>(0.0060)</td><td>(0.0063)</td><td>(0.0038)</td><td>(0.0000)</td><td>(0.0063)</td><td>(0.0073)</td><td>(0.0032)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1,860,168</td><td /><td>158,986</td><td>385,633</td><td>858,369</td><td>117,633</td><td>315,217</td><td>865,350</td><td>994,818</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.8578</td><td /><td>0.8339</td><td>0.8202</td><td>0.8339</td><td>0.8370</td><td>0.8125</td><td>0.8864</td><td>0.9065</td></tr><tr><td><italic>ELA</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0012</td><td /><td>−0.0018</td><td>0.0040</td><td>0.0003</td><td>−0.0022</td><td>0.0036</td><td>−0.0004</td><td>−0.0003</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0032)</td><td /><td>(0.0068)</td><td>(0.0062)</td><td>(0.0041)</td><td>(0.0000)</td><td>(0.0066)</td><td>(0.0059)</td><td>(0.0034)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1,862,028</td><td /><td>159,344</td><td>384,787</td><td>858,814</td><td>117,917</td><td>314,456</td><td>864,914</td><td>997,114</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.8325</td><td /><td>0.8173</td><td>0.8108</td><td>0.8191</td><td>0.8243</td><td>0.8050</td><td>0.8715</td><td>0.8821</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"> </th><th rowspan="2"> </th><th /><th colspan="7">Panel B: By Disability Type</th></tr><tr><th /><th>SLD</th><th>Communication</th><th>Health</th><th>Emotional</th><th>Autism</th><th>Neurological</th></tr><tr><th /><th /><th /><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Math</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>0.0025</td><td>0.0098</td><td>−0.0002</td><td>−0.0056</td><td>0.0179</td><td>−0.0070</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.0043)</td><td>(0.0077)</td><td>(0.0075)</td><td>(0.0082)</td><td>(0.0147)</td><td>(0.0115)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>735,197</td><td>365,449</td><td>294,582</td><td>109,031</td><td>105,303</td><td>115,216</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.8395</td><td>0.8915</td><td>0.8672</td><td>0.9082</td><td>0.9021</td><td>0.8794</td></tr><tr><td><italic>ELA</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>−0.0042</td><td>0.0003</td><td>0.0019</td><td>0.0149</td><td>0.0133</td><td>0.0091</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.0048)</td><td>(0.0067)</td><td>(0.0075)</td><td>(0.0106)</td><td>(0.0143)</td><td>(0.0135)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>735,447</td><td>365,485</td><td>294,894</td><td>109,451</td><td>105,154</td><td>1,862,028</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.8185</td><td>0.8732</td><td>0.8451</td><td>0.8905</td><td>0.8726</td><td>0.8325</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Models include controls for teacher race, gender, and experience as well as student, grade, school, and year fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by school. FRL = free and reduced-price lunch. ELA = English Language Arts. SLD = specific learning disability. The time frame covered by this panel is 2011–2018.</item> <item>3 *** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ** <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>We are particularly interested in the experiences of SWDs of color and low-income students so in Columns 2 to 4, we show the academic achievement outcomes associated with ethnoracial matching for key student subgroups: Black, Hispanic, and those qualifying for subsidized lunch. In Columns 5 and 6, we separately examine outcomes for students in elementary and middle school. Two findings stand out from Panel A—Black SWDs who experience an ethnoracial match score approximately 1% of a standard deviation (0.0142 <emph>SD</emph>) higher in math achievement, relative to themselves in years during which they did not experience an ethnoracial match. Similarly, students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch score approximately 1% of a standard deviation (0.0083 <emph>SD</emph>) higher in math. ELA scores are unaffected by ethnoracial matching for any of these subgroups.</p> <p>The next set of analyses in Panel B of Table 2 break out findings for students with the following disabilities: Specific Learning Disability, Communication Impairment, Health Impairment, Emotional Impairment, Autism, and Neurological Impairment. We observe no changes in math or ELA scores for students in these categories, relative to years in which those same students did not experience an ethnoracial match.</p> <p>To address the third research question, we test for potential achievement differences by school context, as shown in Table 3. In addition to school size, we also examine schools with a majority White student body because of the literature on how a SWD who is racially distinctive within their school can experience differential outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]). Because we are particularly interested in the experiences of SWDs of color, we also examine Black students attending a majority White school and Hispanic students attending a majority White school. We find no evidence of differential math or ELA outcomes across these subgroups.</p> <p>Table 3. Association Between Ethnoracial Matching for Special Education Students and Math and ELA Outcomes, by School Context.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">All Students</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">School Size is Above Median</th><th align="left">School Size is Below Median</th><th align="left">Majority White School</th><th align="left">Black Student in a Majority White School</th><th align="left">Hispanic Student in a Majority White School</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th><th align="left">(5)</th><th align="left">(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Math</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>0.0044</td><td /><td>−0.0024</td><td>0.0061</td><td>−0.0016</td><td>−0.0156</td><td>0.0230</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0034)</td><td /><td>(0.0040)</td><td>(0.0060)</td><td>(0.0096)</td><td>(0.0281)</td><td>(0.0175)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1,860,168</td><td /><td>927,230</td><td>932,938</td><td>958,939</td><td>29,625</td><td>55,920</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.8578</td><td /><td>0.8950</td><td>0.8767</td><td>0.8594</td><td>0.8639</td><td>0.8661</td></tr><tr><td><italic>ELA</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0012</td><td /><td>−0.0011</td><td>0.0003</td><td>0.0003</td><td>0.0091</td><td>−0.0206</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0032)</td><td /><td>(0.0041)</td><td>(0.0100)</td><td>(0.0065)</td><td>(0.0371)</td><td>(0.0329)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1,862,028</td><td /><td>928,593</td><td>933,435</td><td>961,239</td><td>29,817</td><td>56,079</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.8325</td><td /><td>0.8709</td><td>0.8580</td><td>0.8264</td><td>0.8436</td><td>0.8345</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note.</emph> Models include controls for teacher race, gender, and experience as well as student, grade, school, and year fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by school. Time frame covered by this panel is 2011–2018. ELA = English Language Arts.</item> <item>5 *** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ** <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0194392923-17">Attendance</hd> <p>Thus far, we have examined whether academic achievement varies with assignment to a co-racial or co-ethnic teacher. We turn next to student attendance data (Table 4). We find no evidence that SWDs who share an ethnoracial match with their teacher experience a change in their school attendance, relative to themselves in years when they did not experience an ethnoracial match. In Columns 2 to 8 of Panel A, we test for attendance changes related to ethnoracial matching for key student subgroups. We observe modest improvements in school attendance for low-income students (0.2598 days, <emph>p</emph> <.05); low-income students who are Black (0.2786 days, <emph>p </emph><.05), and low-income students who are Hispanic (0.2777, <emph>p</emph> <.05). Students in the elementary grades attend school about one-half a day more (0.5672 days, <emph>p </emph><.01) in years in which they experience an ethnoracial match with their teacher.</p> <p>Table 4. Association Between Ethnoracial Matching for Special Education Students and Days of School Attendance.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"> </th><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="7">Panel A: By Student Subgroup</th></tr><tr><th align="left">All Students</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Black</th><th align="left">Hispanic</th><th align="left">FRL</th><th align="left">Black FRL</th><th>Hispanic FRL</th><th>Elementary School</th><th>Middle School</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th><th align="left">(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethnoracial atch</td><td>0.1637</td><td /><td>0.2666</td><td>0.0328</td><td>0.2598**</td><td>0.2786**</td><td>0.2777**</td><td>0.5672***</td><td>0.1232</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0876)</td><td /><td>(0.1365)</td><td>(0.1600)</td><td>(0.1245)</td><td>(0.1181)</td><td>(0.1259)</td><td>(0.1803)</td><td>(0.1053)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>2,686,550</td><td /><td>238,007</td><td>554,011</td><td>1,216,004</td><td>1,282,095</td><td>1,326,380</td><td>902,561</td><td>1,034,517</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.6615</td><td /><td>0.6925</td><td>0.6931</td><td>0.6798</td><td>0.6759</td><td>0.6756</td><td>0.7558</td><td>0.7677</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th /><th colspan="7">Panel B: By Disability Type</th></tr><tr><th /><th /><th /><th>SLD</th><th>Communication</th><th>Health</th><th>Emotional</th><th>Autism</th><th colspan="2">Neurological</th></tr><tr><th /><th /><th /><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>0.3784***</td><td>0.0871</td><td>0.2984</td><td>0.4607</td><td>−0.0423</td><td>0.5169</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.1245)</td><td>(0.1813)</td><td>(0.2167)</td><td>(0.3242)</td><td>(0.2274)</td><td>(0.2923)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>893,290</td><td>408,445</td><td>366,176</td><td>148,289</td><td>129,763</td><td>147,069</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.6873</td><td>0.7032</td><td>0.7228</td><td>0.8179</td><td>0.7040</td><td>0.7549</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th /><th colspan="7">Panel C: By School Context</th></tr><tr><th /><th /><th /><th>School Size is Above Median</th><th /><th>School Size is Below Median</th><th /><th>Black Student in a Majority White School</th><th /><th>Hispanic Student in a Majority White School</th><th /></tr><tr><th /><th /><th /><th>(1)</th><th /><th>(2)</th><th /><th>(3)</th><th /><th>(4)</th><th /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>0.1687</td><td /><td>0.2919**</td><td /><td>−0.6309</td><td /><td>0.3844</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.1011)</td><td /><td>(0.1446)</td><td /><td>(0.0000)</td><td /><td>(0.8154)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>1,629,357</td><td /><td>1,057,193</td><td /><td>44,238</td><td /><td>81,671</td><td /></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.7152</td><td /><td>0.7427</td><td /><td>0.7365</td><td /><td>0.7483</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note.</emph> Models include controls for teacher race, gender, and experience as well as student, grade, school, and year fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by school. FRL = free and reduced-price lunch. The time frame covered by this panel is 2011–2018.</item> <item>7 *** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ** <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>Panel B of Table 4 estimates if there are heterogeneous findings by disability type. We observe a positive and statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> <.01) increase in school attendance for students with a Specific Learning Disability of about one-third of a school day (0.3784 days).</p> <p>Finally, for the third research question, Panel C of Table 4 checks for heterogeneous findings by school context. We find a positive and statistically significant increase in school attendance for students in small schools (0.2919 days, <emph>p</emph> <.01).</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-18">Suspension</hd> <p>We turn next to a disciplinary measure. The third set of outcomes we examine is the count of in-school or out-of-school suspensions received by a SWD. We also test for effects using a binary indicator variable for having received either type of suspension. We find little evidence of a relationship between assignment to a co-racial or co-ethnic teacher and students' likelihood of receiving a suspension. Table 5 demonstrates largely null results. We do observe a statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> <.05) decrease in the count of in-school suspensions for low-income Hispanic students (Panel A, Column 6), for students with a neurological disability (Panel B, Column 6) and for Hispanic students in a majority White school (Panel C, Column 4) but the effects are too small to be practically meaningfully and we cannot rule out the possibility of spurious results given how many regressions we conducted in this part of the analysis.</p> <p>Table 5. Association Between Ethnoracial Matching for Special Education Students and Likelihood of Suspension.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="7">Panel A: By Student Subgroup</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">All Students</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Black</th><th align="left">Hispanic</th><th align="left">FRL</th><th align="left">Black FRL</th><th>Hispanic FRL</th><th>Elementary School</th><th>Middle School</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th><th align="left">(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>In-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0002</td><td /><td>−0.0037</td><td>−0.0034</td><td>0.0022</td><td>−0.0005</td><td>−0.0048**</td><td>−0.0005</td><td>−0.0005</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0011)</td><td /><td>(0.0038)</td><td>(0.0022)</td><td>(0.0017)</td><td>(0.0033)</td><td>(0.0021)</td><td>(0.0006)</td><td>(0.0017)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>2,699,058</td><td /><td>239,637</td><td>557,753</td><td>1,222,671</td><td>173,009</td><td>446,373</td><td>905,550</td><td>1,038,452</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.6428</td><td /><td>0.6782</td><td>0.6553</td><td>0.6658</td><td>0.6737</td><td>0.6648</td><td>0.8386</td><td>0.7754</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>Out-of-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0012</td><td /><td>−0.0041</td><td>0.0002</td><td>−0.0014</td><td>−0.0025</td><td>−0.0010</td><td>−0.0015</td><td>−0.0002</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0013)</td><td /><td>(0.0043)</td><td>(0.0026)</td><td>(0.0022)</td><td>(0.0050)</td><td>(0.0029)</td><td>(0.0011)</td><td>(0.0021)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>2,699,058</td><td /><td>239,637</td><td>557,753</td><td>1,222,671</td><td>173,009</td><td>446,373</td><td>905,550</td><td>1,038,452</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.7065</td><td /><td>0.7195</td><td>0.7276</td><td>0.7229</td><td>0.7216</td><td>0.7369</td><td>0.8160</td><td>0.8083</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>Any Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0005</td><td /><td>−0.0006</td><td>−0.0017</td><td>0.0002</td><td>0.0002</td><td>−0.0024</td><td>−0.0011</td><td>−0.0001</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(0.0006)</td><td /><td>(0.0016)</td><td>(0.0012)</td><td>(0.0009)</td><td>(0.0018)</td><td>(0.0013)</td><td>(0.0008)</td><td>(0.0009)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>2,699,058</td><td /><td>239,637</td><td>557,753</td><td>1,222,671</td><td>173,009</td><td>446,373</td><td>905,550</td><td>1,038,452</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td>0.6296</td><td /><td>0.6572</td><td>0.6558</td><td>0.6685</td><td>0.6865</td><td>0.6721</td><td>0.7586</td><td>0.7598</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th colspan="7">Panel B: By Disability Type</th></tr><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th>SLD</th><th>Communication</th><th>Health</th><th>Emotional</th><th>Autism</th><th>Neurological</th></tr><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>In-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>−0.0009</td><td>−0.0006</td><td>0.0026</td><td>0.0039</td><td>0.0001</td><td>−0.0042**</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.0017)</td><td>(0.0023)</td><td>(0.0028)</td><td>(0.0044)</td><td>(0.0025)</td><td>(0.0019)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>894,948</td><td>409,065</td><td>366,967</td><td>148,665</td><td>129,988</td><td>147,348</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.7932</td><td>0.7314</td><td>0.7560</td><td>0.7488</td><td>0.5476</td><td>0.6941</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Out-of-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>0.0001</td><td>−0.0002</td><td>0.0038</td><td>−0.0069</td><td>0.0015</td><td>−0.0048</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.0020)</td><td>(0.0021)</td><td>(0.0043)</td><td>(0.0062)</td><td>(0.0025)</td><td>(0.0045)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>894,948</td><td>409,065</td><td>366,967</td><td>148,665</td><td>129,988</td><td>147,348</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.8021</td><td>0.8048</td><td>0.7927</td><td>0.8369</td><td>0.7135</td><td>0.8280</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Any Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td>−0.0005</td><td>−0.0019</td><td>−0.0008</td><td>0.0003</td><td>0.0023</td><td>−0.0031</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>(0.0009)</td><td>(0.0012)</td><td>(0.0014)</td><td>(0.0025)</td><td>(0.0018)</td><td>(0.0022)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td>894,948</td><td>409,065</td><td>366,967</td><td>148,665</td><td>129,988</td><td>147,348</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td>0.7195</td><td>0.6988</td><td>0.7119</td><td>0.7981</td><td>0.6310</td><td>0.7084</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th colspan="8">Panel C: By School Context</th></tr><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th colspan="2">School Size is Above Median</th><th colspan="2">School Size is Below Median</th><th colspan="2">Black Student in a Majority White School</th><th colspan="2">Hispanic Student in a Majority White School</th></tr><tr><th /><th> </th><th /><th colspan="2">(1)</th><th colspan="2">(2)</th><th colspan="2">(3)</th><th colspan="2">(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>In-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">−0.0006</td><td colspan="2">−0.0006</td><td colspan="2">−0.0017</td><td colspan="2">−0.0271**</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td colspan="2">(0.0016)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0015)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0078)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0131)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">1,637,103</td><td colspan="2">1,061,955</td><td colspan="2">44,465</td><td colspan="2">82,082</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">0.6484</td><td colspan="2">0.7994</td><td colspan="2">0.8230</td><td colspan="2">0.7072</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>Out-of-School Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">−0.0010</td><td colspan="2">−0.0001</td><td colspan="2">−0.0008</td><td colspan="2">0.0031</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td colspan="2">(0.0016)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0025)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0121)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0092)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">1,637,103</td><td colspan="2">1,061,955</td><td colspan="2">44,465</td><td colspan="2">82,082</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">0.7346</td><td colspan="2">0.7722</td><td colspan="2">0.7978</td><td colspan="2">0.7570</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><italic>Any Suspension</italic></td><td /><td /><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">0.0004</td><td colspan="2">−0.0009</td><td colspan="2">0.0124</td><td colspan="2">−0.0041</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td colspan="2">(0.0008)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0009)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0087)</td><td colspan="2">(0.0079)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">1,637,103</td><td colspan="2">1,061,955</td><td colspan="2">44,465</td><td colspan="2">82,082</td></tr><tr><td>R-squared</td><td /><td /><td colspan="2">0.6636</td><td colspan="2">0.7194</td><td colspan="2">0.7169</td><td colspan="2">0.7092</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note.</emph> Models include controls for teacher race, gender, and experience as well as student, grade, school, and year fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by school. FRL = free and reduced-price lunch. SLD = specific learning disability. "In-school suspension" and "out-of-school suspension" are count variables, whereas "any suspension" is a binary indicator variable noting the presence of a least one type of suspension, either in-school or out-of-school. The time frame covered by this panel is 2011–2018.</item> <item>9 *** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ** <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0194392923-19">Graduation</hd> <p>The fourth outcome we examine is high school graduation. The sample used for this set of analyses differs in several ways. First, we no longer restrict the sample to SWDs but include general education students to facilitate a classroom fixed effects approach. This changes the counterfactual, as the empirical model now compares students to their classmates and not to themselves over time. Second, we match students and teachers based on where we observe them in ninth grade and then follow those students through 12th grade, at which point we can observe whether they graduated from a Massachusetts public high school. Finally, we add lagged test scores (eighth grade scores) to the model to account for prior achievement trajectories. This leaves us with 347,492 observations.</p> <p>Table 6 presents the three coefficients of interest in the analysis of graduation outcomes: an indicator for being a special education student, an indicator for experiencing an ethnoracial match with a ninth-grade teacher, and the interaction of those two variables. By including the interaction between SWD status and teacher ethnoracial match in the model, the coefficient on the ethnoracial match variable represents the expected change in graduation status for students who do <emph>not</emph> have a classified disability. None of these coefficients are statistically significant from zero, which implies that after conditioning on the other variables in the model, assignment to a matched teacher is not associated with variation in the graduation rates of general education students. The coefficient on the interaction term is the coefficient of interest. This coefficient is also not statistically significant. Overall, we observe that SWDs who experience an ethnoracial match at the start of high school are no more or less likely to graduate, relative to their classmates.</p> <p>Table 6. Association Between Ethnoracial Matching for Special Education Students and Their Likelihood of High School Graduation.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" rowspan="2">AllStudents</th><th align="left" colspan="7">Panel A: Student Subgroups</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Female</th><th align="left">Male</th><th align="left">Black</th><th align="left">Hispanic</th><th align="left">FRL</th><th align="left">Black FRL</th><th align="left">Hispanic FRL</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left">(4)</th><th align="left">(5)</th><th align="left">(6)</th><th align="left">(7)</th><th align="left">(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethnoracial match *Special ed. student</td><td>0.0037(0.0041)</td><td>0.0016(0.0071)</td><td>0.0056(0.0057)</td><td>0.0124(0.0197)</td><td>0.0010(0.0170)</td><td>0.0047(0.0071)</td><td>0.0191(0.0268)</td><td>0.0056(0.0202)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td>−0.0017(0.0040)</td><td>0.0004(0.0058)</td><td>−0.0038(0.0060)</td><td>0.0088(0.0115)</td><td>−0.0025(0.0096)</td><td>−0.0012(0.0055)</td><td>0.0129(0.0146)</td><td>−0.0042(0.0119)</td></tr><tr><td>Special ed. student</td><td>−0.0195***(0.0038)</td><td>−0.0233***(0.0064)</td><td>−0.0181***(0.0052)</td><td>−0.0081(0.0119)</td><td>−0.0151**(0.0071)</td><td>−0.0173***(0.0056)</td><td>−0.0138(0.0166)</td><td>−0.0190**(0.0088)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>347,492</td><td>173,423</td><td>174,069</td><td>30,812</td><td>55.722</td><td>118,823</td><td>21,314</td><td>41,214</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th colspan="7">Panel B: School Subgroups</th></tr><tr><th /><th /><th colspan="2">School Size Above Median</th><th colspan="2">School Size Below Median</th><th colspan="3">Majority White School</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethnoracial match *Special ed. student</td><td /><td colspan="2">0.0050(0.0044)</td><td colspan="2">−0.0039(0.0134)</td><td colspan="3">−0.0002(0.0078)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnoracial match</td><td /><td colspan="2">−0.0053(0.0043)</td><td colspan="2">0.0057(0.0108)</td><td colspan="3">−0.0191(0.0232)</td></tr><tr><td>Special ed. student</td><td /><td colspan="2">−0.0220**(0.0040)</td><td colspan="2">0.0030(0.0119)</td><td colspan="3">−0.0173**(0.0076)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td /><td colspan="2">313,422</td><td colspan="2">34,070</td><td colspan="3">176,451</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>Note.</emph> Models include classroom and year fixed effects, as well as controls for students' eighth grade math and reading standardized scores, student gender and race, low-income status, immigrant status, English learner (EL) status, eighth grade attendance; teacher gender and race, teacher experience and the square of experience to account for non-linear returns; principal gender and race; school percentages of student gender, race, low-income; average teaching experience at the school; school enrollment. Ethnoracial match and special education status are identified in Grade 9; graduation outcomes are examined in Grade 12. Standard errors are clustered by ninth grade classroom. The time frame covered is 2012–2018. RMSE = Root Mean Square Error. FRL = free and reduced-price lunch. Special ed. = special education.</item> <item>11 *** <emph>p</emph> <.01, ** <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0194392923-20">Discussion</hd> <p>This study provides the first large-scale examination of ethnoracial matching for elementary and secondary SWDs. Prior work by [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref50">21</reflink>] found no benefits of ethnoracial matching for SWDs in kindergarten. Extending the age range to Grades 3–8 helps align our study with broader student–teacher matching research for the general population (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>We uncover modest positive effects for key subgroups, but the magnitude of the effect sizes is smaller than what has been observed in the general population. For example, Black and low-income SWDs experience roughly a 0.01 <emph>SD</emph> increase in math but Dee's (2004) random assignment study of general education students in Tennessee reported an effect size equating to 0.13 <emph>SD</emph> in math and reading. Despite these significant findings for key subgroups, we observe no statistically significant evidence of an <emph>overall</emph> ethnoracial match on math and ELA outcomes for SWDs, collectively. This is to be expected, however, as we do not have a strong theoretical reason to observe test score impacts for White SWDs, in particular. Given that 97% of White SWDs are typically assigned to a White teacher in a given year, the marginal effect of assignment to yet another White teacher does not hold the same potential value as assignment to a Black (Hispanic) teacher might hold for a Black (Hispanic) student.</p> <p>To make sense of the statistically significant finding in math for low-income students, we posit that families of SWDs with lower socioeconomic resources may not find it possible to supplement their child's education with expensive out-of-school experiences and resources. This means the classroom teacher could play a more influential role as an in-school resource.</p> <p>We also extend the literature by examining attendance: low-income SWDs attend school about a quarter of a day more, students with specific learning disabilities attend school about a third of a day more, and elementary SWDs attend school about half a day more when matched with a same-race/ethnicity teacher. While these are modest increases, any gain in seat time can amplify learning opportunities and foster positive school associations. Qualitative follow-up is needed to unpack why the effect is concentrated in elementary grades. It may be that younger students—who often spend their entire school day with the same teacher—have more opportunity to form the deep, trusting relationships that encourage consistent attendance, whereas older students rotate among multiple instructors each day and thus have fewer sustained interactions with any single teacher. It is worth noting, however, that attendance rates for elementary students are likely influenced by their parent or guardian's decisions so the path from teacher-match to attendance outcomes might be indirect (e.g., a student more likely to request a sick day).</p> <p>Our finding of essentially no effect on suspensions for SWDs aligns with findings by [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>], who find small effects in general-education settings (e.g., 0.01 suspensions per year in the latter paper). Overall, both our study and the broader literature suggest that discipline outcomes are unlikely to shift dramatically from ethnoracial matching alone.</p> <p>We likewise see no impact on graduation rates for SWDs—contrasting with [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>], who report a 9-percentage-point boost for general-education students matched early in schooling. It may be that longer causal chains or a broader constellation of supports beyond teacher-student demographic alignment are required to move the needle on such distal outcomes for SWDs.</p> <p>These modest benefits suggest that ethnoracial matching, while valuable, represents only one component of a comprehensive support system. School leaders should recognize that matched teachers will only deliver their full promise if they are well supported and retained. Part of the policy response to this research may need to center around the teachers ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>] contribute important insights here, showing that targeted induction programs, peer mentoring networks, and supportive professional learning communities help attract and sustain teachers of color in special education roles. Their work underscores that momentum toward a more diverse workforce depends on proactive supports—such as structured mentorship, collaborative planning time, and recognition of the extra emotional and administrative demands often placed on special-education teachers of color.</p> <p>Future research should build on this foundation by teasing out the specific types of supports teachers could provide to maximize outcomes for SWDs and investigating what dimensions of the academic, social, and behavioral experience are engaged that lead to the modest, positive achievement and attendance outcomes observed here. Researchers might also focus on what role external actors can play, such as improved teacher–parent communication and possible collaborations and coordination with other school and community actors to maximize a student's likelihood of high school graduation.</p> <p>In summary, it appears that better representation in the teacher workforce is helpful but not sufficient to promote large-scale improvements in the achievement, attendance, suspension, and graduation outcomes of SWDs. In light of these findings, researchers should continue to search for other factors that policymakers and practitioners might leverage—such as changes to teacher preparation, credentialing, and recruitment—in tandem with encouraging greater diversity among educators, to support improved school performance for SWDs.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-21">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations of this research must be noted, some of which imply directions for future research. First, our sample for the achievement analyses relies on SWDs who take the MCAS, which is the state standardized assessment; those with more profound disabilities who take an alternate assessment are excluded, potentially biasing our estimates. Second, because SWDs can be supported by multiple other educators beyond the primary classroom teacher—including general and special educators, related-service providers, and paraeducators—it is challenging to isolate the impact of any single teacher on student outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]). Third, the quantitative nature of our data does not permit us to probe the mechanisms underlying the observed outcomes; qualitative work could offer deeper insight into how and why certain practices matter. Fourth, standard administrative datasets collapse race and ethnicity into broad categories (e.g., "Hispanic or Latino"), preventing fine-grained matching on shared identity markers such as primary language or cultural traditions; future studies should collect richer self-reported background information. Fifth, we lack detailed data on teacher preparation—such as coursework or formative experiences—that might predict effectiveness; linking to program transcripts or performance assessments would help address this gap. Sixth, our use of linear probability models is justified by residual diagnostics, but future research might explore alternative specifications (e.g., Poisson models for counts, logistic regression for binaries). Finally, the benefits of improving teacher–student matches may manifest in longer-term outcomes—college enrollment, degree completion, and adult earnings—and as longitudinal linkages between educational and employment records expand, researchers will be able to examine these critical downstream effects.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study investigates how SWDs are affected by assignment to a teacher who shares their race or ethnicity. Overall, we find no statistically significant effect in either math or ELA for SWDs assigned to an ethnoracially matched teacher. Subgroup analyses reveal small effects in math—approximately 1% of a standard deviation—for Black SWDs and low-income SWDs. ELA scores are unaffected by ethnoracial matching across all subgroups examined.</p> <p>In terms of attendance, we find no evidence of significant changes overall for SWDs assigned to ethnoracially matched teachers. There are, however, small improvements in attendance—about one-quarter of a school day—for low-income SWDs, including Black and Hispanic students within this group. We observe slightly larger attendance effects for students with a Specific Learning Disability, SWDs in elementary grades, and SWDs in small schools. We find no effects or practically zero effects of matching on student suspensions or their likelihood of graduating from high school.</p> <p>This study makes three key contributions to the literature on ethnoracial matching. First, we examine, for the first time, how ethnoracial matching is associated with outcomes for SWDs in elementary and middle school during a time when students are taking standardized state tests that have consequential outcomes for future placement and supports. Second, it offers a holistic perspective by examining multiple domains, including race/ethnicity, income status, and grade-level, while measuring SWDs' success across multiple outcomes: achievement, attendance, suspensions, and graduation. Third, it analyzes whether a school's size and racial or ethnic composition may interact with teacher-student ethnoracial matching. Our approach provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the ethnoracial matching phenomenon for SWDs.</p> <p>Despite the limited effects found, this study contributes to a growing knowledge base on SWDs and the mainstream classrooms in which they increasingly find themselves. These results suggest that while efforts to improve teacher diversity remain important, they should be complemented by other strategies that directly target SWDs' unique challenges and support their success.</p> <p>In light of these findings, we recommend education leaders and administrators continue to explore other potential levers to promote success for SWDs and foster strong teacher–student relationships, in addition to their efforts to improve racial and ethnic representation in the educator labor market. For researchers, we recommend using a broad set of outcomes when measuring intervention effects on SWDs, including long-term measures such as college and career outcomes, when possible. Finally, for practitioners, we recommend identifying and sharing effective practices, such as cultural connections, inclusive teaching strategies, and collaborations with families and communities, that contribute to the success of SWDs in diverse classroom settings.</p> <hd id="AN0194392923-23">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ecx-10.1177_00144029251386290 for Representation for Exceptional Children: Student–Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students With Disabilities by Anna J. Egalite, Michael A. Gottfried and M. Daniela Barriga in Exceptional Children</p> <ref id="AN0194392923-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Annamma S. A., Connor D., Ferri B. (2013). Dis/ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Blazar D. (2022). How and why do Black teachers benefit students?: An experimental analysis of causal mediation. EdWorkingPaper: 21-501. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/Blazar_How%20and%20Why%20Do%20Black%20Teachers%20Benefit%20Students_Working%20Paper_0822.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cherng H. S., Halpin P. F. (2016). The importance of minority teachers: Student perceptions of minority versus white teachers. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16671718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clotfelter C. T., Ladd H. F., Vigdor J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cormier C. J., Scott L. A., Cornelius K. E., Rosenberg M. S. (2023). Achieving a more diverse special education teacher workforce: Guiding questions for researchers and policymakers. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 19(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2022-0007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Crenshaw K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref48" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> DeCicca P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter? Evidence from the first two years of schooling. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dee T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Delhommer S. (2022). High school role models and minority college achievement. Economics of Education Review, 87, Article 102222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delpit L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egalite A. J. (2024). What we know about teacher race and student outcomes. Education Next, 24(2), 42–49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egalite A. J., Kisida B. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students' academic perceptions and attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717714056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egalite A. J., Kisida B., Winters M. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own- race/ethnicity teacher assignment on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elder T. E., Figlio D. N., Imberman S. A., Persico C. L. (2021). School segregation and racial gaps in special education identification. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(S1), S151–S197. https://doi.org/10.1086/711421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. (2017). https://<ulink href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827%5f0pm1.pdf">www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827%5f0pm1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fish R. E. (2019a). Teacher race and racial disparities in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518810434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fish R. E. (2019b). Standing out and sorting in: Exploring the role of racial composition in racial disparities in special education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2573–2608. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gershenson S., Hart C. M. D., Hyman J., Lindsay C. A., Papageorge N. W. (2022). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(4), 300–342. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190573</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried M. A., Fletcher T. L. (2023). Who has a same race or ethnicity teacher in kindergarten? Comparing disparities in access for students with and without disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 62, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried M. A., Kirksey J. J., Fletcher T. L. (2022). Do high school students with a same-race teacher attend class more often? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211032241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried M. A., Kirksey J. J., Wright A. (2019). Same-race student–teacher: Comparing outcomes for kindergartners with and without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518810870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin A., Tackie H. (2017). Through our eyes: Perspectives from Black teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(5), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717690363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom J. A., Redding C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harbatkin E. (2021). Does student-teacher race match affect course grades? Economics of Education Review, 81(C), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart C. M. D. (2020). An honors teacher like me: Effects of access to same-race teachers on Black students' advanced-track enrollment and performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719898470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt S. B., Gershenson S. (2017). The impact of demographic representation on absences and suspensions. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 1069–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irvine J. J. (1988). An analysis of the problem of disappearing Black educators. The Elementary School Journal, 88(5), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1086/461553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones N. D., Buzick H. M., Turkan S. (2013). Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12468211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi E., Doan S., Springer M. G. (2018). Student-teacher race congruence: New evidence and insight from Tennessee. AERA Open, 4(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418817528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz P. A., Kofkin J. A. (1997). Race, gender, and young children. In Luthar S. S., Burack J. A., Cicchetti D., Weisz J. R. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 51–74). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay C. A., Hart C. M. (2017). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary outcomes for Black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 485–510. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717693109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacFarlane K., Woolfson L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meeus W., Iedema J., Helsen M., Vollebergh W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19(4), 419–461. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan P. L., Hu E. H. (2023). Fixed effect estimates of student-teacher racial or ethnic matching in U.S. elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris J. E. (2008). Research, ideology, and the Brown decision: Counter-narratives to the historical and contemporary representation of Black schooling. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 713–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811000406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2015). Mental Disorders and Disabilities Among Low-Income Children. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21780</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redding C. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulte A. C., Elliott J. J., Tindal S. N., Nese G. (2016). Achievement gaps for students with disabilities: Stable, widening, or narrowing on a state-wide reading comprehension test? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulte A. C., Stevens J. J. (2015). Once, sometimes, or always in special education mathematics growth and achievement gaps. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563695</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott L. A., Cormier C., Boveda M. (2022). Critical issues for the preparation and workforce development of racialized special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 45(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211070571</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott T. M., Gage N., Hirn R., Han H. (2019). Teacher and student race as a predictor for negative feedback during instruction. School Psychology, 34(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tran L., Gershenson S. (2021). Experimental estimates of the student attendance production function. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720984463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Race and ethnicity of public school teachers and their students. NCES Data Point. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2022a). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge/racial-ethnic-enrollment</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2022b). Students with disabilities, inclusion of. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0194392923-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which provided the data for this project. We have no financial support or conflicts of interest to disclose.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anna J. Egalite https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1550-5311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available online.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anna J. Egalite; Michael A. Gottfried and M. Daniela Barriga</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1508195
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Representation for Exceptional Children: Student-Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students with Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+J%2E+Egalite%22">Anna J. Egalite</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1550-5311">0000-0003-1550-5311</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+A%2E+Gottfri%22">Michael A. Gottfri</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+Daniela+Barriga%22">M. Daniela Barriga</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Exceptional+Children%22"><i>Exceptional Children</i></searchLink>. 2026 92(4):420-441.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Factors%22">Racial Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attendance%22">Attendance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Suspension%22">Suspension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduation+Rate%22">Graduation Rate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Program+Divisions%22">Instructional Program Divisions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Composition%22">Racial Composition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Massachusetts%22">Massachusetts</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Massachusetts+Comprehensive+Assessment+System%22">Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00144029251386290
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0014-4029<br />2163-5560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Numerous prior studies have asked how students of color fare when matched with a teacher who shares their racial or ethnic background. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about how this plays out for students with disabilities (SWD). Using student-level longitudinal data for Massachusetts public school students in Grades 3-12 between 2011 and 2018, we examine math and ELA test scores, attendance, suspension, and graduation data for SWDs who experience an ethnoracial match. We estimate impacts for the overall SWD population in addition to breaking out subgroups defined by race/ethnicity, low-income status, grade level, and school demographic context. We find primarily null effects, with some exceptions that are small in magnitude. For example, Black and low-income SWDs score higher in math in years when they experience an ethnoracial teacher match (0.01 SD). We also observe minor improvements in school attendance (less than one additional day) for low-income SWDs, those with a Specific Learning Disability, SWDs in the elementary grades; and SWDs in small schools. SWDs' likelihood of receiving a suspension or graduating from high school is unaffected by an ethnoracial match. We discuss the implications of our findings and offer policy recommendations.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1508195
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1508195
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00144029251386290
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 420
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attendance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Suspension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduation Rate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Program Divisions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Composition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Massachusetts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Representation for Exceptional Children: Student-Teacher Ethnoracial Matching for Students with Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna J. Egalite
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael A. Gottfri
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Daniela Barriga
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0014-4029
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5560
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 92
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Exceptional Children
              Type: main
ResultId 1