Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History Grounded in DisabilityStudiesAuthor(s): D. Kim Reid and Michelle G. KnightReviewed work(s):Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 6 (Aug. - Sep., 2006), pp. 18-23Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3876749 .Accessed: 04/06/2012 15:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org

Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History Grounded in Disability Studies by D. Kim Reid and Michelle G. Knight

From a disability studies (DS) perspective, the authors analyze how the historical conflation of disability with other identity factors and the ideology of normalcy contribute to the disproportionality prob- lem in K-12 special education. They argue that this conflation and

ideology make labeling and segregated education seem natural and

legitimate for students carrying the high-incidence, legally defined la- bels Learning Disabled (LD), Mentally Retarded (MR), and Emotion-

ally Disturbed (ED). The authors then apply their insights to the scant literature on college access for students labeled LD. Although it ap- pears that disabled students are succeeding at increasing rates, the overall picture obscures the continued effects of the historical legacy embedded in the intersections of race, class, gender, and disability for K-16 students.

ur purpose in this article is to demonstrate that a criti- cal history grounded in Disability Studies (DS) sheds productive light on the problem of overrepresentation

of minority students in high-incidence disability groups in K-12 special education and the underrepresentation of such students in college admissions. We define DS and suggest that the histor- ical construction of difference makes institutionalized racism, classism, and sexism seem natural in their conflation with dis- ability, defined as oppression based on ableism (Hehir, 2002). Ableism, intertwined with the ideology of normalcy, is the as- sumption, rooted in eugenics, that it is better to be as "normal" as possible rather than be disabled (Baker, 2002). To show how history penetrates current practice, we provide an example of how labeling minority students as Learning Disabled (LD) affects col- lege admissions. We chose LD because it is the highest-incidence disability category in public schools and postsecondary educa- tion. Finally, we make suggestions for addressing the dispropor- tionality problems in K-16 settings.

Critical History Grounded in Disability Studies

DS is an interdisciplinary field of scholarship that unites critical inquiry with political advocacy by using approaches from the arts and humanities and humanistic and post-humanistic social sci- ences to improve the lives of disabled people on the basis of their self-expressed needs and desires (Gabel, 2005). DS historical analysis takes the form of a critical history that examines the role of positivist science in legitimizing domination (Iggers, 1997)- science's emancipatory functions are not at issue-and provides

Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 18-23

I EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

a rationale for using other methods and perspectives for studying disability (Bentley, 1999). First, DS challenges the idea of nor-

malcy as a regime of truth (Davis, 1997) and exposes the destruc- tive consequences of "Othering"-framing disabled persons as outsiders (Goffman, 1963). Therefore, it eschews labeling. Never- theless, because federal legislation requires labeling for funding purposes, it is impossible to discuss disproportionality without re- course to labels. Second, DS questions who has the right to speak for whom about disability-related issues (e.g., about where dis- abled people should receive services), and it elevates the lived ex-

perience of disabled people over the knowledge of so-called experts (Longmore, 2003). Third, DS counters hegemony and promotes democratic participation through a critique of pathologizing be- liefs about disability and examination of the politics of exclusion (Ware, 2004).

The predominant approach to special education, the "medical model," spawned the problem of disproportionality. It is a deficit- oriented perspective that is grounded in positivist science and

undergirds (special) educational legislation (Bejoian & Reid, 2005) and practice (Gallagher, Heshusius, lano, & Skrtic, 2004). From this ableist perspective, disability is considered a personal condition to correct or cure. In contrast, DS scholars locate disability in the

oppression of a given culture and historical period rather than in

impairments per se (Stiker, 2002). We use the term disabled stu- dents to emphasize that disabled persons constitute a marginal- ized group "disabled" by physical and social barriers that result in

pathologizing, infantilism, exclusion, and poverty (Garland Thom- son, 1997). Shifting the focus of our gaze from the individual to

society and its institutions provides a different lens through which to examine the problem of disproportionality.

DS also seeks to expose the historical roots of educational la- bels and policies (Ballard, 2004; Barton, 2004). Adherents of the medical model have regarded disproportionate representation as a contemporary technical problem (Artiles, 2003). Overlooked

by technical framing is the conflict between the goal of realizing the principles of democratic social justice and the underlying, widespread belief systems related to ableism, racism, and classism (Garland Thomson, 1997).

The Historical Construction ofDifference and

Disproportionate Representation In this section, we discuss the ideology of normalcy and how this

legacy has made it seem natural to see students of color and those

living in poverty as "Other" by associating them with disability (Gallagher, 1999). By ideology, we mean systems of representa- tions-beliefs, images, and myths-that mediate our understand- ings of every aspect of life in profound but often unconscious ways (Althusser, 1971). Systemic discrimination provides an example of the power of ideologies: Although discrimination against all

groups is illegal, it nevertheless persists. Consequently, some DS scholars (e.g., Brantlinger, 2004; Ware, 2004) argue that it is unlikely that discrimination resides in societal structures alone. Because the problem of disproportionality is limited to the high- incidence, psychometrically defined categories of disability (Harry & Klingner, 2006) and is not apparent when impairments are medically defined (e.g., cerebral palsy; Ferguson, 2001), we see how the belief systems rooted in the ideology of normalcy detri- mentally position students with these attributed impairments.

Its strong association with abnormality and monstrosity made disability the quintessential marker of hierarchical relations used to rationalize inequality, discrimination, and exclusion. As Mitchell and Snyder (2003) explain, what our society considers the normal standard-Whiteness, middle-class or greater affluence, ability, and so forth-has no need of definition. What needs to be marked and narrated is what people think of as outside the norm, that is, the person of color, the disabled body or mind, the person living in poverty. Historically, non-Whites, women, the lower social classes, and homosexuals routinely have been marked through medical- ization and pathologized (Smith & Erevelles, 2004). As one ex- ample, now seemingly preposterous medical diagnoses such as "Drapetomania" (a disease that caused slaves to run away) were constructed to label Blacks as defective (Baynton, 2001). Today, disabled people continue to be considered defective and are more segregated educationally and socially than any other minority (Longmore, 2003).

Because many teachers and the public judge students as accept- able or unacceptable (i.e., normal or abnormal; Youdell, 2003) according to a set of standards that conform to the historical White European ideal, they (a) uphold Eurocentric and ableist concep- tions of knowledge and decorum (Ferguson, 2001); (b) consider the dialects of American Blacks and Latinas/os inferior to Standard American English (Delpit, 2003); and (c) believe that specialized instructional techniques are warranted for students who do not do well in school, often students of color, the poor, and those labeled disabled (Bartolome, 2003). These so-called normal expectations justify teachers' holding students to standards that may not be fa- miliar to those of non-European descent or even possible for stu- dents with impairments. Because most people in contemporary society perceive students with impairments as qualitatively distinct (i.e., empirically abnormal; Shapiro, 1999), "hunting for disabil- ity" in students-referral, diagnosis, labeling, sorting, and reme- diating-appears objective, fair, and benevolent (Baker, 2002). One result of perceiving "different" others through this technical- rational lens (i.e., as defective) is that it seems natural to many Americans that students of color, the poor, and immigrants lie outside the predominant norm and, therefore, belong in special education.

What serves to perpetuate oppression, then, are widespread con- ceptions and attitudes about race, class, gender, and disability and the attendant ideologies that shape these systems of (dis)advan- tage. One example of the impact of the ideology of normalcy is the fact that students of color and poverty receiving LD, Mentally Re- tarded (MR), and Emotionally Disturbed (ED) labels are segre- gated within schools at substantially higher rates than are their White counterparts (Losen & Orfield, 2002). This segregation continues to be condoned and defended by educators and the pub- lic alike, not on the basis of the students' race (which would be il- legal) but because they are labeled disabled(Ferri & Connor, 2006).

In essence, marking students of color as disabled allows their con- tinued segregation under a seemingly natural and justifiable label.

Because it makes segregation seem appropriate and even prefer- able, the enduring belief that impairment and disability are empir- ical facts is at the center of the disproportionality problem. These "facts" are, however, social constructions (Linton, 1998) whose de- finitions change through time (Longmore & Umansky, 2001) and across cultures (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). For example, the def- inition of MR changed in the 1970s when agencies adjusted the

legal requirement for eligibility from one to two standard devia- tions below the mean on a sanctioned intelligence test. Conse- quently, thousands of people changed status overnight by way of policy on new statistical requirements (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). Similarly, the meaning of disability in a developing nation may not mean the same as in the industrialized world (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). LD, MR, and ED, in particular, are very ambiguous: Because there is no single way to operationalize these "disabilities," a student may be considered to be impaired in one school setting but not in another (Collins, 2003; McDermott, 1993).

Furthermore, because most Americans read disability as a break with normalcy, they fail to conceptualize it as a minority status as DS asserts (Linton, 1998) and, therefore, overlook the societal factors embedded in ideologies that promote it. Relying on the technical analyses of positivist science, many educators frame overrepresentation as evidence of "misdiagnosis" related to

poverty and test characteristics (e.g., Losen & Orfield, 2002) and continue to ignore the historical, ideological roots (Artiles, 2003) that suggest systemic discrimination as a root cause (Brantlinger, 2004). Consequently, many think the solution to disproportion- ate representation is doing special education better. In framing overrepresentation in technical terms, however, the implementa- tion of well-intentioned practices often constitutes a form of widely sanctioned, systematic, and institutionalized oppression (Ferri & Connor, 2006) that is built into the policies (Beratan, 2006) and practices (Tomlinson, 2004) of (special) education.

In sum, the ideology of normalcy creates systems of disadvan-

tage for minority students. Special education often excludes mi- nority learners from the general education curriculum that profits Whites and defines standards. To illustrate, studies suggest that K-12 minority students in special education actually receivefewer and more technically oriented services in more segregated settings (Harry & Klingner, 2006). Proponents of the medical model argue that minorities need special education because of their cognitive, linguistic, or class-related "deficits." This logic assumes that spe- cial education will improve these students' school and post-school outcomes. Nevertheless, the evidence on the impact of special ed- ucation on school outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, school completion) is mixed. Ifa disability label can enhance educational opportunities for students, how do minority students fare in terms of access to postsecondary education? As we know, college access is a critically important factor in the creation of better op- portunities for adult occupational and social success. We review this evidence in the next section.

From High School to Postsecondary Education: Applying the DS Critical Historical Lens

One way that historical conflation with disability continues to affect students of color and the poor beyond K-12 schooling is revealed through college admissions data on students labeled LD.

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2006 19

Improving access to college for underserved populations (i.e., first generation, low-income, and disabled students and underrepre- sented minorities) has been designated as a top priority of K- 16 ed- ucational systems. Recent demographic shifts in college freshman populations highlight the growing numbers of disabled students entering college. In 2000, for example, 66,197 disabled freshmen, or 6% of full-time, first-time freshmen-including students with hearing, speech, orthopedic, and health-related problems, partial sight or blindness and those labeled LD-were enrolled in 4-year pubic and private institutions (Henderson, 2001).

These statistics represent an increase in postsecondary students reporting a disability. Yet they obscure two important aspects of the link between the placement of ethnic minority students in special education in high school and their transition to college. First, the statistics mask the inequity of ethnic minority students' overrepresentation in special education in high schools and their subsequent underrepresentation in college. Second, the statistics do not reveal how access to postsecondary education is based on the intersection of race, class, and disability and the inadequate services provided to labeled students in high school. Closer ex- amination of these statistics shows how the history of dispropor- tionate representation of minorities in special education pervades the intersections of race and class with access to college for stu- dents also labeled disabled.

Significantly, the number of students labeled LD who attend college has increased from 16% to 40% of the college students with disabilities in the past 12 years, and this group continues to grow (Henderson, 2001). Notably, however, this statistic represents a White, upper-middle-class increase in postsecondary attendance and attainment: In comparison to college freshmen without dis- abilities, students labeled LD were more often from White families whose annual income exceeded $100,000 (Henderson). Simulta- neously, the decrease in the percentage of other disability categories suggests that minority and poor students identified by disability categories other than LD are decreasing in postsecondary atten- dance and completion. Therefore, it is necessary to disaggregate the statistics demonstrating the apparent increase of disabled stu- dents in postsecondary education. They mask the way the inter- sections of race, class, and disability perpetuate inequitable access and attainment in postsecondary education and how the prevailing, ableist ideologies (e.g., those defining disability as personal defect) embedded in a technical-rational approach to the disproportion- ality problem serve to advantage White middle-class students while disadvantaging the minority and poor. This advantage lies pri- marily in the unquestioned notions of individual responsibility for learning related to the assumption that ability and disability reside in the student. DS shifts the focus from these assumptions about individual pathology and responsibility to an analysis of how institutions fail to meet their responsibility to assist minor- ity students in special education to enter college.

Setting Up Exclusion: K-12 Schooling In questioning how overrepresentation of disabled minority and poor students in K-12 public schools translates into invisibility in college access, we note that the number of disabled students who participated in K-12 federal programs increased by 30% from 1990 to 1999, rising from 4.3 million to 5.5 million students. Much of this increase can be attributed to a rise in the absolute

20 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

number of students being identified as disabled. The LD category continues to be the most prevalent classification in secondary schools: Of all students aged 6 to 21 who participate in federal programs for disabled students, 51% are identified as LD. Overall, the number of students labeled as LD increased from approximately 2.1 million to 2.8 million in the decade from 1989 to 1999.

However, critically examining policies and practices surround- ing who is identified as LD unearths evidence of inequities in ed- ucational opportunities for Blacks and Latinas/os with respect to both placement and assessment. Black students are dispropor- tionately represented in special education in general and, in ele- mentary and high school, in the LD category (Warner, Dede, Garvan, & Conway, 2002), regardless of their socioeconomic class. Conversely, White middle-class students are identified in the spec- trum of disabilities in ways directly connected to the race-class intersection. Middle- and upper-middle-class parents have the in- come to pay for expensive testing that allows their children to be labeled with socially acceptable labels that imply a medicalized, neurological substrate, such as dyslexic (Carrier, 1986). Conversely, less affluent Whites and minority students typically receive the less palatable label LD, the label conferred by schools that represents eligibility for special education. Nevertheless, if students who are identified as LD (including the so-called dyslexics) are increasing in

representation in high schools (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005) and not in postsecondary institutions (Henderson, 2001), then the issue of underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnic and linguistic minorities as disabled students substantiates insti- tutional exclusion at the postsecondary level. Similarly, there is emerging evidence that linguistic minority students are overrep- resented in secondary special education programs and are under- represented in advanced placement courses (Artiles, Fierros, & Rueda, 2004). Although the literature is scant on college prepa- ration for students labeled LD in high school, if labeled students are not expected to go to college, the intersections of race, class, and disability may play a substantial role in facilitating differen- tial and inequitable access to college preparation, in the sense that fewer or less effective services are provided. There is some evi- dence that this is the case.

Individuals and Institutions: Including Disability in Access to College Consequently, high schools concerned with improving college access for disabled students need to examine their college prepara- tory practices. Most disabled college students have been part of a special education teacher's caseload in elementary and/or secondary school (Feldmann & Messerli, 1995). However, because of the technical-rational assumption that some students fail to learn rather than that some institutions fail to teach, many (special) ed- ucational practices place the burden for college admission on the individual student instead of asking whether institutional prac- tices facilitated access to a rigorous college-preparatory education. Embedding notions of individualism and institutional structures within intersections of race, class, and disability promotes the per- petuation of inequitable access and the ideology of a meritocratic educational system (Hurn, 1993).

Most documents emphasizing disability and college prepara- tion are "how to" guides sponsored by government agencies or universities and written for high school guidance counselors and

disabled students and their families. These documents place the onus on the student: They are didactic in tone and emphasize the need for disabled students to determine which colleges provide which accommodations and to recognize the level of responsibil- ity they need to succeed in college. The documents focus on tech- nical aspects which include: (a) self advocacy skills, (b) initiative, and (c) time management associated with disability-related tran- sition issues such as self-reporting of disability, articulating ac- commodation needs, coordinating auxiliary assistance, and

making living arrangements (Feldmann & Messerli, 1995). Some see this emphasis on self-determination as a form of student em-

powerment and the key to student success in postsecondary edu- cation (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). However, these documents do not affirm students' cultural contexts or use their racial and ethnic cultures in the development of institutional supports. In short, they fail to provide services that address the intersections of race, class, and disability (Knight & Chae, 2004; Knight & Oesterreich, 2002).

The emphasis on individualism and self determination, which we noted is closely linked to racialized discourses of White Euro- centric notions of merit (Ladson-Billings, 2000), may unfairly affect ethnic minority and poor students' opportunities for col-

lege access while privileging White and affluent disabled students

(McDonough, 1997). For instance, this onus renders invisible the co-management of upper-class families to leverage institu- tional supports for college access, including going to Borders to

pick up the needed resources, writing the college essay, and paying for test preparation (Oakes, Rogers, Lipton, & Morrell, 2002). Thus the ideologies of individualism and self-determination sup- port upper-middle-class students, whose family resources are not

regarded as unfair advantages. However, some researchers note that a shift in emphasis for disabled students' college access is oc-

curring. Colleges and universities are legally required under both IDEA (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act) and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) to provide accommodations for students who are identified as disabled (Jones, 2002). Consequently, there is increasing recognition that high schools, instructors, and

colleges must take on greater responsibility. High schools and postsecondary institutions seeking to provide

more equitable access to postsecondary education for disabled

minority students must look beyond statistics demonstrating an increase in the population of disabled students attending college. Disaggregating the data to reveal the intersections of race, class, gender, and disability exposes the continued, systematic exclusion of ethnic minorities and the poor. Furthermore, schools have much to learn from a DS perspective. First, recognizing that disability lies in social and educational attitudes and practices, including what amounts to limiting instructional opportunities in much of K-12 special education (Harry & Klingner, 2006), nullifies the validity of many of the technical-rational gatekeeping measures that are currently used in college admissions decisions. Second, familiarity with the impact of ableist ideologies with respect to the conflation of racism, classism, sexism, and disability could predis- pose college administrators to refocus their admissions programs on ways to recruit and provide positive support for those students typically excluded because of K-12 disability labels. Finally, col- leges and universities might benefit from listening to the voices of minority students labeled as disabled. Indeed, those students

and their families are the experts who know the limitations of their K-12 educational opportunities and their current needs, and that information could enable colleges and universities to

provide the kinds and levels of multicultural support needed to ensure success in postsecondary placements.

Conclusions

The overrepresentation of minorities in special education in ele-

mentary and high school and their underrepresentation at the

postsecondary level demonstrate clearly how the historical lega- cies of racism, classism, sexism, and ableism continue to influence educational practice. Applying a critical history grounded in DS has provided insights into the ways that disability has served his-

torically as an instrument of institutionalized systems of disad-

vantage for ethnic minorities and the poor, largely because of definitional loopholes and assumptions associated with the tech- nical-rational understanding of disability. Moreover, because of the conflation of disability with race and class identity markers, DS scholars question the practice of labeling students at all and

argue against the need to deliver remedial instructional services in segregated settings. Many, instead, promote inclusive educa- tion based on constructivist, differentiated instruction and uni- versal design (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005; Reid &

Valle, 2004). The hope is that providing respectful, integrated, age-appropriate classrooms for students of all races, classes, gen- ders, and abilities will facilitate more equitable K-16 educational

opportunities and improve other life chances.

NOTE

The authors wish to thank the editors for the opportunity to contribute to this series and Gayle Allen and Kristin Wilson for their assistance with library research.

REFERENCES

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and the ideological state apparatus. In F. Jameson (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 1-29). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing identity. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-202.

Artiles, A. J., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globaliza- tion age: The promise of comparative cultural historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education (pp. 37-62). London: Routledge.

Artiles, A. J., Fierros, E., & Rueda, R. (2004, April). English language learner overrepresentation in special education: A 1 O-state analysis ofplace- ment patterns and opportunity to learn. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group

diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.

Baker, B. (2002). The hunt for disability: The new eugenics and the nor- malization of school children. Teachers College

Record, 104(4), 663-703.

Ballard, K. (2004). Ideology and the origins of exclusion: A case study. In L. Ware (Ed.), Ideology and thepolitics of(in)exclusion (pp. 89-107). New York: Peter Lang.

Bartolome, L. I. (2003). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a human-

izing pedagogy. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The criticalpedagogy reader (pp. 408-429). New York: Routledge/ Falmer.

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2006 2

Barton, L. (2004). The politics of special education: A necessary or ir- relevant approach? In L. Ware (Ed.), Ideology and the politics of(in)ex- clusion (pp. 63-75). New York: Peter Lang.

Baynton, D. (2001). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In P. Longmore & L. Umansky (Eds.), The new

disability history: American perspectives (pp. 33-57). New York: New York University Press.

Bejoian, L., & Reid, D. K. (2005). A disability studies perspective on the Bush educational agenda: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 220-231. Bentley, M. (1999). Modern historiography: An introduction. London:

Routledge. Beratan, G. D. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: Ableism, racism, and

IDEA 2004. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2). Available at www.

dsq-sds.org/2006_spring_toc.html Brantlinger, E. A. (2004). Ideologies discerned, values determined: Get-

ting past the hierarchies of special education. In L. Ware (Ed.), Ideol-

ogy and thepolitics of(in)exclusion (pp. 11-31). New York: Peter Lang. Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiat-

ing instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 44, 194-202.

Carrier, G. (1986). Learning disability: Social class and the construction of inequality in American education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Collins, K. M. (2003). Ability profiling and school failure: One child's struggle to be seen as competent. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davis, L. J. (1997). Constructing normalcy. In L. J. Davis, (Ed.), The

disability studies reader (pp. 9-28). New York: Routledge. Delpit, L. (2003). Language diversity and learning. In A. Darder,

M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader

(pp. 388-403). New York: Routledge/Falmer. Feldmann, E., & Messerli, C. (1995, March). Successful transitions: The

students' perspective. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Reaching to the future: Boldly facing challenges in rural communities (pp. 151-158). Confer- ence Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Educa- tion, March 15-18, Las Vegas, NV.

Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses ofex- clusion in desegregation and inclusion debates. New York: Peter Lang.

Field, S., Sarver, M., & Shaw, S. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabil- ities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 339-349.

Fleischer, D. Z., & Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to conftontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gabel, S. (2005). Introduction: Disability studies in education. In S. L. Gabel (Ed.), Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method (pp. 1-20). New York: Peter Lang.

Gallagher, D., Heshusius, L., Iano, R. P., & Skrtic, T. M. (2004). Chal-

lenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Gallagher, S. (1999). An exchange of gazes. In J. L. Kinchloe, S. R.

Steinberg, & L. E. Villaverde (Eds.), Rethinking intelligence (pp. 69-83). New York: Routledge.

Garland Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuringphysical dis- ability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management ofspoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in

special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educa- tional Review, 72, 1-25.

2211 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

Henderson, C. (2001). College feshmen with disabilities, 2001: A bi- ennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Hurn, C. (1993). The limits andpossibilities ofschooling: An introduction to the sociology of education (3rd ed., pp. 42-131). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Iggers, G. G. (1997). History in the twentieth century: From scientific ob-

jectivity to the postmodern challenge. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan Univer-

sity Press.

Jones, M. (2002). Providing a quality accommodated experience in prepa- ration for and during post-secondary school (Information Brief No. 1, Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Balti-

more, MD: Brookes.

Knight, M., & Chae, H. (2004, April). Using critical race theory (CRT) and critical Latino theory (LatCrit) to examine Black and Latino youth's negotiations of New York State high stakes Regents exams. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Diego. Knight, M., & Oesterreich, H. (2002). (In)(di)visible youth identities:

Insight from a feminist framework. In W. G. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college (pp. 123-144). New York: State Uni-

versity of New York Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic episte-

mologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqual- itative research (2nd ed., pp. 257-278). London: Sage.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability. New York: New York University Press.

Longmore, P. (2003). Why I burned my book and other essays on disabil-

ity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Longmore, P., & Umansky, L. (Eds.) (2001). The new disability history: American perspectives. New York: New York University Press.

Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disabil-

ity. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspec- tives on activity and context (pp. 269-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools

structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (2003). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies ofdiscourse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi-

gan Press.

Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Lipton, M., & Morrell, E. (2002). The social con-

struction of college access: Confronting the technical, cultural, and

political barriers to low-income students of color. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extendingpossi- bilitiesfor allstudents (pp. 105-121). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Reid, D. K., & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations.

Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 37, 466-481.

Shapiro, A. (1999). Everybody belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward classmates with disabilities. New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Smith, R. M., & Erevelles, N. (2004). Toward an enabling education: The difference that disability makes. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 31-36.

Stiker, H. (2002). A history of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press. Tomlinson, S. (2004). Race and special education. In L. Ware (Ed.), Ide-

ology and the politics of(in)exclusion (pp. 76-88). New York: Peter

Lang.

Ware, L. (2004). The politics of ideology: A pedagogy of critical hope. In L. Ware (Ed.), Ideology and the politics of(in)exclusion (pp. 183-204). New York: Peter Lang.

Warner, T., Dede, D., Garvan, C., and Conway, T. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across eth- nic groups. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35, 500-508.

Youdell, D. (2003). Identity traps or how Black students fail: The in- teractions between biographical, sub-cultural, and learner identities. British Journal ofSociology ofEducation, 24 (1), 3-20.

AUTHORS

D. KIM REID is a Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, Curriculum and Teaching, 302E Main, TC Box 031, New York, NY 10027; dkrlO@columbia.edu. Her scholarly interests embrace

the sociopolitical construction of disability, particularly with respect to humor, as well as special education's role as an unintentional tool of institutional racism.

MICHELLE G. KNIGHT is an Associate Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, Curriculum and Teaching, 302E Main, TC Box 031, New York, NY 10027; knight@exchange.tc.columbia. edu. Her scholarly interests include equity issues in urban education, teacher education, multicultural feminisms and feminist pedagogies, and African American teaching practices with diverse populations.

Manuscript received June 8, 2005 Revisions received March 12 and May 30, 2006

Accepted June 5, 2006

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2006 23