1. For early revelations of overrepresentation, see Dunn (1968); Kirp (1973); Mercer (1973); Milofsky (1974); Tomlinson (1982). For more recent, mainly sociological interpretations of overrepresentation, see Carrier (1984, 1986a); Mehan, Hertweck, and Meihls (1986); Reschly (1988); Skrtic (1991, 2003); Artiles and Trent (1994); Harry and Anderson (1994); Gillborn (1995: 117–125); Agbenyega and Jiggets (1999); Richardson (1999); Losen and Orfield (2002). For the politics of integration / inclusion, see Oliver (1984, 1985, 1986); Swann (1985); Tomlinson (1985); Barton (1986, 1989); Borsay (1986); Fulcher (1989, 1991); Dyson (1990); Skrtic (1992); Skrtic, Sailor, and Gee (1996). As Booth showed for England, the rhetoric of integration was preceded by significant trends toward resegregation of disabled children in special schools (Booth 1981, 1983). Also, Drake (2001: 412) demonstrates how the primarily clinical understanding of disability that underlies the growth of modern welfare states “has been either the conceptual or, indeed, the actual segregation of disabled people from society at large.” The evidence of overrepresentation in special education may thus be a microcosm of a broader paradox, for an increasing democratic participation and the legislation of a “rights discourse” exaggerates the internal organization of the very groups such efforts are designed to include, leading to new lines of segregation (see Mayhew 1968; see also Part 3 of this volume). Organizational interpretations of overrepresentation have played a crucial role in legitimizing the sociological study of special education. They demonstrated the explanatory power of translating the manifest intentions as well as unintended outcomes into more theoretically general processes.
2. In literature, the reading of a text is not a linear movement from beginning to end, but a dynamic process in which one encounters increased complexity that is reorganized