Research on disproportionate representation in special education has potential to influence policy in ways that rectify educational inequities. In this study, we investigated how disproportionality researchers have operationalized dis-ability, identified key themes and theories used in disproportionality research, and evaluated the coherence between this research and related policy. We found that studies using medical/rehabilitative frameworks to define disability tended to offer policy recommendations focused on preventing inappropriate identification and enhancing access to early interventions. In contrast, studies situated in social models of dis-ability tended to offer policy recommendations for holistic improvement of educational systems. Finally, disproportionality studies applying legal frameworks tended to advocate for explicit policies regarding race and racism without attending to ableism. Given that federal policy continues to operate from a deficit perspective regarding student variability, we contend that deficit-oriented recommendations for change are unlikely to improve students' experiences in schools and related outcomes. We discuss the need for disproportionality research to inform policy through frameshifting.