Across the country, educators have reported a familiar post-closure challenge: more behavioral concerns, more academic skill loss, and more pressure to “do something” quickly. In many places, that urgency translated into higher rates of special education identification—particularly under disability categories like intellectual disability, emotional disability, and “other health impairment” (often ADHD). The concern, as Maryland State Superintendent of Schools Mohammed Choudhury noted in an April 25, 2023 briefing, is that misidentification can send students into more restrictive settings and away from the instruction and supports that actually match their needs.
That risk is not evenly distributed. Overidentification has been especially evident for African American students, English learners, male students, and economically disadvantaged students—groups that already face barriers and bias. When identification decisions are driven by inconsistent instructional capacity, limited intervention options, or unclear data practices, special education can become a default pathway rather than a carefully determined service.
One district that tackled this challenge head-on is Lexington Public Schools (Lexington, Massachusetts). Their experience—documented through internal reporting and later reviewed by Harvard researchers—offers practical, district-level lessons for leaders who want to improve equity while also increasing achievement for all students.
Why overidentification happens (and why it matters)
Overidentification is rarely the result of one bad decision. It’s more often a system outcome—what happens when schools lack reliable Tier 1 instruction, consistent interventions, and shared expectations for student success. When that occurs, students who struggle (academically, behaviorally, or both) may be referred to special education before general education has the tools to respond effectively.
The consequences are significant:
Students can be placed in more restrictive environments, reducing access to grade-level instruction and peer learning.
Instruction can become misaligned—students receive supports designed for a disability they may not have, rather than targeted help for skill gaps.
Bias can be reinforced when patterns of referral disproportionately impact certain student groups.
Achievement gaps can widen if the system responds to need with separation instead of stronger instruction and intervention.
Lexington’s story is compelling because it shows what can happen when a district treats overidentification as a signal to improve the whole system—not just adjust eligibility decisions.
Lexington’s starting point: strong reputation, hidden gaps
Lexington is an affluent Boston suburb with high overall performance indicators (including a graduation rate near 97%). But as the case study documents, that reputation masked serious subgroup disparities. In the mid-2000s, African American and Hispanic students were performing significantly below White and Asian peers across grades and subjects. Even more striking: in 2007, 49% of African American/Black high school students were in special education, and district leaders were told by the METCO Director that many METCO students likely did not have disabilities.
This is a critical point for any district: high averages do not guarantee equitable outcomes. When leaders only look at aggregate data, they can miss patterns that require urgent attention.
The pivot: using data to create urgency without blame
Lexington’s leadership began by examining first IEPs for METCO students to understand why and when students were being placed into special education. They also commissioned a comprehensive report (the LaMura report) that combined quantitative findings (achievement, course access, referral patterns) with qualitative insights (teacher, student, and parent perspectives).
Two takeaways stand out for other districts:
Data was used to clarify the problem, not to shame educators.
The district treated the issue as systemic—a capacity and practice challenge—rather than a student deficit.
What Lexington did differently: build Tier 1–3 capacity
Lexington’s improvement work wasn’t a single program. It was a coordinated set of actions designed to strengthen instruction, expand intervention options, and reduce reliance on special education as the primary support mechanism.
1) A long-term, cross-stakeholder task force
In 2008, Lexington created a K–12 Achievement Gap Task Force with teachers, administrators, and parents. The group met monthly for years, visited other districts with strong results, and created a detailed four-year action plan with measurable strategies.
This matters because sustained change requires sustained governance. A task force that meets once or twice can generate ideas. A task force that meets for years can build alignment, trust, and follow-through.
2) Professional learning designed for classroom impact
Lexington invested in professional learning as a lever for equity. They hired a K–12 Director of Professional Learning and redesigned professional development to be coherent, consistent, systemic, and sustained. Teacher collaboration time was built into schedules, and multi-day learning required practice and feedback.
They also grounded the work in research on “collective teacher efficacy,” which has been identified as one of the highest-impact influences on student achievement.
3) Stronger Tier 1 instruction and structured interventions
Beginning in year two, schools were required to create multi-year measurable goals to strengthen Tier 1 teaching, assessment, and intervention strategies. Examples included:
Expanded K–5 literacy and math instruction time
Intervention blocks across K–12
Common teacher planning time
Literacy and math coaching supports
The strategic logic is straightforward: when Tier 1 instruction improves and Tier 2/3 supports are available quickly, fewer students require special education placement to access help.
What changed: special education rates and achievement outcomes
Lexington’s Grade 10 special education identification rate declined meaningfully over time. For example, the percentage of Grade 10 students in special education was:
17.0% in 2007
11.2% in 2015 (three-year average around 12.1%)
Later years showed fluctuation (including increases after 2019), which is also an important reminder: systems must be continuously monitored, especially through periods of disruption.
Achievement improved as well. A notable indicator from the case study is the change in SAT scores from 2006–2014:
African American students: +294 points (on a 2400-point scale)
All students: +55 points
In 2015, Harvard researchers concluded: “We find that Lexington has raised achievement among African American students as well as in the district overall.”
Key lessons school leaders can apply now
Lexington’s experience translates into several actionable principles for districts working to reduce overidentification and narrow achievement gaps.
Build a “general education first” system that is actually resourced
It’s not enough to say “try interventions before referral.” Schools need time, staffing, and tools to deliver those interventions with fidelity. Intervention blocks, coaching, and data routines are not extras—they are infrastructure.
Make data a shared language, not a compliance exercise
Lexington emphasized frequent feedback loops, common planning, and collaboration “in all directions.” When data becomes part of everyday instructional conversation, it is more likely to prevent misidentification and more likely to drive earlier support.
Center equity without isolating it
Lexington began with a specific disproportionality problem, then broadened the work to strengthen outcomes for all students. That “raise all boats” approach can increase buy-in and reduce the perception that equity is a separate initiative.
Address cultural competence as an ongoing practice
Improving identification practices also requires attention to communication, expectations, and bias. Lexington invested in training, recruitment conversations, and parent engagement strategies to strengthen cultural competence over time.
Where TinyEYE fits: supporting districts with scalable, school-based services
As districts strengthen Tier 1–3 systems, student support needs often increase in the short term: more students are identified for targeted interventions, more collaboration is required, and more consistency is needed across schools. That’s where online therapy services can help districts sustain momentum.
TinyEYE provides online therapy services to schools, helping teams expand access to student-centered supports while maintaining continuity across buildings. When aligned with MTSS/RTI structures, related services delivered virtually can support:
Earlier intervention for communication and learning-related needs
Collaboration with school teams through consistent scheduling and documentation
Service access in hard-to-staff regions or during staffing shortages
Reduced disruption for students by delivering services within the school day
The broader lesson from Lexington is that equity and excellence are not competing goals. With the right systems, districts can reduce inappropriate identification while improving outcomes for students who need support the most—and raising achievement overall.
For more information, please follow this link.
