Special Education and Gender in the United States
Special Education and Gender in the United States
- Nickie CoomerNickie CoomerIndependent Scholar
- and Chelsea StinsonChelsea StinsonSyracuse University
Historically, Western hegemonic order has been established through cultivating and legitimating social categories of difference. Schools, among other institutions, reinforce difference through marking ability, race, and gender to signify which bodies are productive, deficient, or dangerous and therefore in need of control. This process of differentiation and control is evident in the social, political, and education contexts of disabled youth whose race, gender, and sexuality are read, controlled, and resisted through policy and pedagogy. Through the processes of hypervisiblity, pathologization, and underserving of Black girls in schools, and especially within special education, this animates the nexus of gender, race, and disability.
Parallels are drawn to paradigms of the female body and femininity, where difference is constructed as inferior to the normative male body. Similarly, special education policy, practice, and literature conceptualize disability as subtractive difference, wherein what is considered a “deficit” relies on a subtractive interpretation of a normative body or a normative way of being. In this regard, disability, gender—and, crucially, race—are often thought of as a negative departure from a normalized embodiment. In special education, such normalized, essentialist approaches to gender, race, and disability contribute to the disproportionate overidentification of some social identities and the underidentification of others, most often along raced and gendered lines. Importantly, disabling processes are institutionalized in education through the mechanism of special education, which not only serves as an instructional and academic response to a student’s disability but also acts as an institutional process that determines a student as disabled. The determination of a student having a disability is mediated through law, policy, and interpersonal interaction between school professionals and parents and caregivers. Disproportionate identification has been the focus of research, and studies show that overidentification occurs most often in disability categories that are considered “subjective”: for instance, specific learning disabilities and emotional disturbances. Such identification has an impact on students’ learning; opportunities to interact with their peers in general education settings; access to high quality, challenging curriculum; and opportunities to engage critical thinking in educational activities that go beyond direct instruction. Disabling processes in schools related to the intersection of disability, gender, and race, in particular, are mediated by the local, cultural interactions of school personnel and are evident in the ways in which Black girls, in particular, are disabled in school.
- Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
- Education, Gender, and Sexualities
Throughout Western history, hegemonic norms of ability, race, and gender have circulated interdependently to coconstruct social categories of difference, signifying which bodies are productive, deficient, or dangerous, and therefore in need of control (Boster, 2013; Dolmage, 2018). This interdependence among categories is evident in the social, political, and educational contexts of disabled youth whose race, gender, and sexuality are read, controlled, and resisted in schools (Erevelles, 2000). Institutionalized disabling processes are functions of broader, systemic oppressions. Much of the literature on disproportionality in special education is focused on race and/or gender broadly (e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002). However, a narrowed analytical scope focusing on Black girls who are either labeled as having a disability in school or otherwise “othered” along lines of race, gender, and disability can help illuminate how racialized and gendered special education discourses and structures work to essentialize students’ experiences so that they are either “experiencing failure or being perceived as failing” (Annamma et al., 2013, p. 6). Importantly, exploring the ways in which Black girls are disabled or othered in school demonstrates the process of hypervisibilizing of Black girls through criminalization and pathologization in the school–prison nexus (Annamma, 2018).1
Abnormal Bodyminds: Considering Gender and Disability
The concept of “bodyminds” refers to the relationship between physical embodiment and neurological experience (Carter, 2015; Price, 2014: Schalk, 2013). This concept, which underscores the relationship between the physical and neurological, provides a way to explore how identities are constructed, marked, managed, and lived. In order to better understand the relationship between ability, in particular, and social injustice, it is essential to establish a paradigmatic and epistemological approach that understands ability as it exists across and through other markers of social identity and its political implications: for the purpose of this article, it refers to the request for, provision of, and administering of special education services.
Disability as Subtractive Difference
Leading paradigms of disability theory focus on physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral deficits as they are isolated to an individual (Clare, 2001). What is considered a “deficit” relies on a subtractive interpretation of a normative body or a normative way of being. In this regard, disability is often thought of as a negative departure from a normalized embodied experience (Barnes, 2016). Embodiment, gender, and political and social power reflexively interact in a social matrix that is historically rooted in the “exploitation of Black bodies” (Warren, 2020, p. 369). This historical exploitation has produced persistent cultural norms and expectations of masculinity, and Black masculinity as it is positioned against, and a threat to, white masculinity (e.g., Ferber, 2007). As a result, norms for masculinity position Black boys as vulnerable to school professionals and school processes that are apt to mark them as objects of discipline, exclusion, pathologization, and criminalization (Gilliam, 2016; Wesley & Ellis, 2017). Consequently, Black boys in particular are subject to disabling processes that are rooted in cisheteropatriarchal sexism and not only pathologize Blackness in boyhood but also position Black boys as objects of the “crisis” of their future of growing into Black men (Dumas & Nelson, 2016).
The female body and femininity are also considered deficit, aberrant, and negative (Garland-Thomson, 1996). Garland-Thomson (1996) considered the way in which the female body became a “liability” in postindustrial consumerism, necessitating the intervention of products and processes. This interaction produced “an ideology of womanhood that required the white, middle-class female body to be idle, frail, and beautiful” (Garland-Thomson, 1996, p. 92). In this way, femininity itself depends on the products and processes of a patriarchal culture (Garland-Thomson, 1996, p. 27). The liability of the feminine, then, evokes the frailty of the condition of being, specifically, a white, middle-class woman and her occupation of the “degrading position of needing to be taken care of because she is outside meaningful production” (Garland-Thomson, 1996, p. 94). In their introduction to a special volume of the journal Girlhood Studies, Erevelles and Nguyen (2016) referred to the ways in which the intersection of girlhood and disability have been “constituted historically as vulnerable populations” (p. 4).
Black women have historically provided a foil against which white femininity is defined (Fordham, 1993). White femininity is not only positioned in contrast to white masculinity; it is also positioned against “Black male violence, hypermasculinity, and gang culture, on the one hand, and unregulated Black sexuality targeted at Black women on the other” (Ferri & Connor, 2010, p. 105). Black femininity, specifically, is positioned as a “subordinated gender identity” (Morris, 2016, p. 8) as it is constructed in relation to “White women . . . all men, sexual outlaws (prostitutes and lesbians), unmarried women, and girls” (Morris, 2016, p. 8). Sojourner Truth observed the disjuncture between racialized norms for women, poignantly asking, “Ain’t I a woman?” The complicated relationship of Black to white femininity—to prop it up—and to disability—as overly capable and also incapable (“good girls or ghetto girls”; Morris, 2016, p. 10) subjects Black women to compounding marginalizations.
Schalk (2013) further complicated these processes of marginalization, describing her relationship to disability as a “fat, Black, queer woman” and an identification “with, not as, crip” as a space of tension within the whiteness of disability studies. Schalk (2013) further noted the exclusion of disability in “intersectional analyses in race and ethnic studies, queer and sexuality studies, and women’s and gender studies” (n.p.). Schalk’s theorizing around crip identity is important to thinking about gender, race, and disability, and gender and special education more specifically, because it draws the ways in which multiple identities contribute to a nonnormative bodymind. Further, Schalk (2013) asserted that the ways in which this is read in and through different spaces and communities contributes to the pathologization processes across race and gender. Similarly, Pickens (2019) discussed the ways in which Blackness and Madness are constructed across cultural contexts, and how accounting for Madness in Black cultural contexts raises the visibility of mental disability within Black culture, and against white cisheteropatriarchy that overvalues an expression of mental soundness and rationality that relies on white civility (e.g., Voronka, 2016).
White femininity, though “liability” and “disability” (Garland-Thomson, 1996, p. 92), is afforded leverage against further marginalized bodies (e.g., Ferri & Connor, 2010). Nancy Ehrenreich (2002) described this is as “hybrid intersectionality” in her theory of subordination and symbiosis to delineate the ways in which oppressed groups maintain their privileges by oppressing others. Fordham (1993) conceptualized subordination to sexist norms rooted in masculinity as “gender-passing,” or the ways in which both white and Black women are compelled to impersonate maleness in order to be taken seriously. Conceptualizing the intersections of oppression in this way is significant to acknowledging the ways in which processes of disablement take form, particularly as it pertains to schooling. In consideration of schooling practices, the othering of students’ ways of being in the world is codified through special education, including eligibility determination (the point at which an educational disability is determined for a student), the development of an Individualized Education Plan, and the provision of that plan: including the determination of the Least Restrictive Environment or whether a student will be educated with their same-age peers or segregated from them (Blanchett & Shealey, 2005). Thus, Black girls in special education are excluded along three axes that depend on discursive productions and interpretations of their gender, race, and disability identification: the axis of race and femininity, the axis of race and disability, and the axis of femininity and disability.
Coconstructing Race, Gender, and Disability: The Paradox of Special Education
As Annamma et al. (2013) affirmed, the processes by which educators conceptualize student identities comprise “mutually constitutive processes [which] are enacted through normalizing practices” (p. 11). Historically, the construction of Black and brown bodies as abnormal from white (normalized) bodies functioned to justify segregation, slavery, and other forms of dehumanization through normalized systems and structures. Annamma et al. (2013) emphasized how this line of thinking has become normalized and reflected in education policy, practice, and discourse. Students of color and other nonnormative identities are frequently labeled “at-risk,” suggesting that educators consider them inherently deficient in body and mind because of their social identities (Annamma et al., 2013). Further, formal disability identification processes also reproduce this process, as Black students are more likely to be assigned disability labels related to intellectual and emotional disabilities compared to white peers (Bal et al., 2017; Parrish, 2002).
In a similar vein, educational structures contribute to raced and gendered expectations for disability identification and behavior. The autism narrative and scholarly canons since the 1940s, for instance, have maintained gender bias in the identification and cultural conceptualization of autistic identity as a white, male condition. Baron-Cohen (2002, 2005), for instance, posited that empathizing, the drive to read and adapt in social situations, and systematizing, the drive to read and adapt to systems, were respectively linked to the fundamental characteristics of the female and male brain. He argued that “people with autism simply match an extreme of the male profile, with a particularly intense drive to systematize and an unusually low drive to empathize” (2005). In other words, the systematizing tendencies of autistic brains demonstrate extreme nonautistic male characteristics, whereas the empathizing tendencies of nonautistic brains demonstrate normalized nonautistic female characteristics. Baron-Cohen grounded his argument in the work of Asperger, who suggested, “the autistic personality is an extreme variant of male intelligence. Even within the normal variation, we find typical sex differences in intelligence. . . . In the autistic individual, the male pattern is exaggerated to the extreme” (Asperger & Frith, 1991, pp. 84–85). However, as Krahn and Fenton (2012) pointed out, Baron-Cohen’s argument relies on “selective gendering” of brain characteristics, which reinforces “gender essentialism” while ignoring sociocultural factors that contribute to brain and social identity development (p. 97).
The prevailing construction of autism as a white, male condition circulates in diagnostic processes and service provision for autistic individuals who do not fit into the normalized white, male brain profile. Krahn and Fenton (2012) emphasized how viewing autism as a white, male diagnosis is detrimental to the diagnostic and service provision process for people who are not white men. They point to the underidentification of autism in nonmale children despite the relative high rate of diagnosis for male children (e.g., Beggiato et al., 2017). Further, the male-focused lens through which autism is primarily viewed obscures the ways autism is presented and experienced differently across genders, thereby erasing the diversity of autistic realities that exist outside of this perspective.
Disproportionality and the Subjectivity of Identification
Disproportionality is simply defined as the portion of students identified with a disability within a social category (e.g., race, gender) compared to the proportion of that social category in the total student population.2 Although education researchers and policymakers have increasingly paid attention to disproportionality in special education since the 1980s, the underlying causes and assumptions associated with disproportionality remain (e.g., Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Donovan and Cross (2002) explained the paradox of disproportionality in special education, saying, “special education placement brings additional resources and individual attention to a student’s needs that are potentially beneficial, at the same time that it potentially brings stigma, separation from peers, and other adverse effects” (pp. 20–21). Their point highlights how discourses of students’ educational rights related to specialized supports and services are in tension with the consequences of disability identification based in deficit-based thinking and pathologization (Erevelles, 2000).
Special education scholars have paid considerable attention to the disproportionate representation of racially minoritized students in special education (e.g., Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Parrish, 2002). Studies show that some racialized groups are disproportionately enrolled in special education programs and are more likely to receive disability-related services and placements outside general education settings than their white peers (e.g., Cosier et al., 2018). In contrast, other groups, such as Asian American students (Park, 2019) and girls (Manwaring, 2008), are underrepresented in disability categories and special education placements (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Similarly, essentialist approaches to gender and racial identity contribute to underidentification of some genders (i.e., assigned female at birth) and races (i.e., Black, Latinx, and Native American) in some disability categories, such as autism (e.g., Beggiato et al., 2017; Sullivan & Bal, 2013).
Despite the wealth of research regarding gender and racial inequality in education (e.g., Morgan et al., 2015; Waitoller et al., 2010), the field’s “understanding of the complexity of disproportionality remains incomplete and imprecise” (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011, p. 1527). As an example, Sullivan and Artiles (2011) pointed to the fact that roughly 40% of disproportionality studies focused solely on Black students in special education, while others focused solely on the learning disability category or on specific regions of the United States. They suggest that there are more “fine-grained” patterns of identification and classification, which might be ignored by existing research, and, further, that theoretical approaches to the issue of disproportionality must be strengthened (p. 1258). Using structural inequity theory, Sullivan and Artiles allowed for the consideration of institutional racism, which results in “disproportionate consequences” and collective reinforcement of (dis)advantage.
Beyond theoretical and methodological considerations, the subjective quality of identification further creates challenges for researchers. For example, the relative overrepresentation of male students in special education is well-established in education literature (e.g., Coutinho & Oswald, 2005), especially in disabilities related to behavior as well as in school discipline data (Neal et al., 2003). However, as Krahn and Fenton (2012) demonstrated, patterns of overrepresentation can inform prevailing gendered narratives of certain disability categories like autism, resulting in underidentification of other social groups and, therefore, delayed access to necessary supports and services. Likewise, in her work with disabled girls of color who have been incarcerated, Annamma (2018) highlighted how studies linking special education and incarceration focus mostly on boys of color. Girls of color with and without disability labels are largely ignored by this research despite their disproportionate rates of incarceration.3 Annamma (2018) used the term “pedagogy of pathologization,” a multidirectional experiential construct wherein girls of color are hypersurveilled, hyperlabeled as disabled or otherwise deficient, and hyperpunished in schools (p. 13).
Invisibility of Black Girls in Special Education Research
Assimilation—through sweat, blood and tears I have come to this place, this place where you have the audacity to erase me still, and society dictates that I thank you for my own erasure. (Ellis, 2017, p. 29)
The ways in which mechanisms of special education law are leveraged for the benefit or the detriment of students hinges on their and their family’s social capital (Cannon, 2019; Durhamn et al., 2015; McDermott et al., 2006; Sleeter, 1986; Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016). Social capital impacts how students of color are either denied access to special education or are overly pathologized and segregated through special education (Blanchett, 2006; Blanchett & Shealey, 2005; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Klingner et al., 2005). An intersectional analysis (Crenshaw, 1991) offers a lens through which to examine the ways in which girls and young women across racial identities may be denied the services of special education through a broadly accepted disablement of the feminine bodymind, especially with regard to the “triple combination of race, gender, and disability” (Erevelles, 2011, p. 4). Such intersectional complexities lead to a process of disablement compelling a “submissive visibility” (Erevelles, 2011, p. 65) and simultaneous erasure (Cannon, 2019; Erevelles, 2011; Hernández-Saca et al., 2018; Ferri & Connor, 2010).
Petersen (2006, 2009, 2020), Sosulski et al. (2010), and Cannon (2019) offered qualitative studies that focus on how Black women with disabilities narrate their own experiences with school and disability. Common themes across these studies are feelings of isolation and anxiety, as well as anger and resistance. Cannon (2019) suggested that Black women with disabilities engage “subverted truths,” explained as “(re)defined identities and radical love, (re)placed competence and knowledge, and (re)valued sisterhood and community” (p. 209). She contended that these subverted truths provide the pathway to individual and collective healing for the injuries they have experienced as a result of their position within oppressive, interlocking systems, including special education.
Pathologization and Criminalization of Black Girls in School
Institutionally, and in schools specifically, Black girls are subject to surveillance (Wun, 2016), discipline for “failing to meet cis-gendered expectations of femininity” (Wun, 2014, p. 242), and criminalization (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010; Morris, 2016; Wun, 2018). The intersection of disability, “incorrigibility” (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010), and criminality for Black girls does not result in the support offered by special education (Blanchett, 2006), and instead results in exclusion, discipline, and punishment (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010; Wun, 2014, 2016, 2018). In other words, how Black girls are perceived subjects them to disabling processes.
The disabling impacts of racism, sexism, and ableism in determining special education eligibility has exceptionally dangerous implications for students of color, especially as it impedes educational equity and pushes them toward the criminal justice system (Annamma, 2018; Annamma et al., 2014; Ferri & Connor, 2005, 2010). Where white children with disabilities are afforded the benefits of special education, and more often educated in less restrictive environments (Blanchett, 2006; Fierros & Conroy, 2002), girls and boys of color are subjected to exclusionary disciplinary policies for insubordination, disrespect, being uncooperative, and being uncontrollable (Morris, 2016). The discursive categorization of these named behaviors and descriptions link them most closely with the disability category of “emotional disability.” Considered to be a “subjective disability,” there are overrepresentations of females of color within this category (Oswald et al., 2003), and students with this disability “comprise almost 50% of incarcerated students with disabilities” (Annamma, 2014, p. 313; Osher et al., 2000). Students of color with disabilities are more likely to be subject to schooling practices focused on control, compliance, and constraint (Annamma, 2014; Blanchett, 2006; Blanchett & Shealey, 2005).
- Dávila, B. (2015). Critical race theory, disability microaggressions and Latina/o student experiences in special education. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 18(4), 443–468.
- Ferri, B., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re)segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453–474.
- Gabel, S. (2009). Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method. Peter Lang.
- Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press.
- Garland-Thomson, R. (2016, August 19). Opinion: Becoming disabled. New York Times.
- Hall, K. Q. (2015). Keywords for disability studies. New York University Press.
- Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.
- Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2013). How we might make special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders less stigmatizing. Behavioral Disorders, 39, 16–27.
- McRuer, R. (2004). Composing bodies; or, de-composition: Queer theory, disability studies, and alternative corporealities. JAC, 24, 47–79.
- McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press.
- Patsavas, A. (2014). Recovering a cripistemology of pain: Leaky bodies, connective tissue, and feeling discourse. Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), 203–218.
- Prahlad, A. (2017). The secret life of a Black Aspie. University of Alaska Press.
- Samuels, E. J. (2014). Fantasies of identification: Disability, gender, race. New York University Press.
- Schalk, S. (2018). Bodyminds reimagined: (Dis)ability, race, and gender in Black women’s speculative fiction. Duke University Press.
- Annamma, S. A. (2014). Disabling juvenile justice: Engaging the stories of incarcerated young women of color with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 313–324.
- Annamma, S. A. (2018). The pedagogy of pathologization: Dis/abled girls of color in the school-prison nexus. Routledge.
- 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.
- Annamma, S., Morrison, D., & Jackson, D. (2014). Disproportionality fills in the gaps: Connections between achievement, discipline and special education in the school-to-prison pipeline. Berkeley Review of Education, 5, 53–87.
- Artiles, A., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English language learners with special education needs. National Library of Education.
- Asperger, H. (1991). “Autistic psychopathy” in childhood. In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37–92). Cambridge University Press.
- Bal, A., Betters-Budon, J., & Fish, R. (2017). A multilevel analysis of statewide disproportionality in exclusionary discipline and the identification of emotional disturbance. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 1–22.
- Barnes, E. (2016). The minority body: A theory of disability. Oxford University Press.
- Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–254.
- Baron-Cohen, S. (2005, August 8). The male condition [Op-ed]. New York Times.
- Beggiato, A., Peyre, H., Maruani, A., Scheid, I., Rastam, M., Amsellem, F., Gillberg, C. I., Leboyer, M., Bourgeron, T., Gillberg, C., & Delorme, R. (2017). Gender differences in autism spectrum disorders: Divergence among specific core symptoms. Autism Research, 10(4), 680–689.
- Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28.
- Blanchett, W. J., & Shealey, M. W. (2005). The forgotten ones: African American students with disabilities in the wake of Brown. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact on public education, 1954–2004 (pp. 213–226). Word for Word.
- Boster, D. H. (2013). African American slavery and disability: Bodies, property, and power in the antebellum south, 1800–1860. Routledge.
- Cannon, M. (2019). Because I am human: Centering Black women with dis/abilities in transition planning from high school to college (Publication No. 13806569) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest.
- Carter, A. M. (2015). Teaching with trauma: Disability pedagogy, feminism, and the trigger warnings debate. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2).
- Chesney-Lind, M., & Jones, N. (2010). Fighting for girls: New perspectives on gender and violence. State University of New York Press.
- Clare, E. (2001). Stolen bodies, reclaimed bodies: Disability and queerness. Public Culture, 13(3), 359–365.
- Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
- Cosier, M., White, J. M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Examining the variability in general education placements for students with intellectual disability. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 14(2), 16–52.
- Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2005). State variation in gender disproportionality in special education: Findings and recommendations. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 7–15.
- Dolmage, J. (2018). Disabled upon arrival: Eugenics, immigration, and the construction of race and disability. Ohio State University Press.
- Donovan, S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Academies Press.
- Dumas, M. J., & Nelson, J. D. (2016). (Re)imagining black boyhood: Toward a critical framework for educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 86(1), 27–47.
- Durhamn, J., Harris, J., Jarrett, S., Moore, L., Nishida, A., Price, M., Robinson, B., & Schalk, S. (2015). Developing and reflecting on a Black disability studies pedagogy: Work from the National Black Disability Coalition. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2).
- Ehrenreich, N. (2002). Subordination and symbiosis: Mechanisms of mutual support between subordinating systems. University of Missouri–Kansas City Law Review, 71, 251–324.
- Ellis, P. E. (2017). Blood, sweat, and tears: On assimilation. In L. X. Z. Brown, E. Ashkenazy, & M. G. Onaiwu (Eds.), All the weight of our dreams: On living racialized autism (pp. 23–29). DragonBee Press.
- Erevelles, N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47.
- Erevelles, N. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Erevelles, N., & Nguyen, X. T. (2016). Disability, girlhood, and vulnerability in transnational contexts. Girlhood Studies, 9, 3–20.
- Ferber, A. L. (2007). The construction of Black masculinity: White supremacy now and then. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31(1), 11–24.
- Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow of brown: Special education and overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 93–100.
- Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2010). “I was the special ed. girl”: Urban working-class young women of colour. Gender and Education, 22(1), 105–121.
- Fierros, E. F., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39–70). Harvard Education Press.
- Fordham, S. (1993). “Those loud Black girls”: (Black) women, silence, and gender “passing” in the academy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3–32.
- Garland-Thomson, R. (1996). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. Columbia University Press.
- Gilliam, W. S. (2016). Early childhood expulsions and suspensions undermine our nation’s most promising agent of opportunity and social justice. Yale University Child Study Center.
- Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
- Hernández-Saca, D. I., Kahn, L. G., & Cannon, M. A. (2018). Intersectionality dis/ability research: How dis/ability research in education engages intersectionality to uncover the multidimensional construction of dis/abled experiences. Review of Research, 42, 286–311.
- Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Zamora Durán, G., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38), 1–39.
- Krahn, T. M., & Fenton, A. (2012). The extreme male brain theory of autism and the potential adverse effects for boys and girls with autism. Bioethical Inquiry, 9, 93–103.
- Manwaring, J. S. (2008). Wendy or Tinkerbell? How the underrepresentation of girls impacts gender roles in preschool special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 60–65.
- McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning disability. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12–17.
- Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., & Cook, M. (2015). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278–292.
- Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of Black girls in schools. New Press.
- Neal, L. V. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. T. (2003). The effects of African American movement styles on teachers’ perceptions and reactions. Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49–57.
- Osher, D., Woodruff, D., & Sims, A. (2000). Exploring relationships between inappropriate and ineffective special education services for African American and youth and their overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system [Paper presentation]. Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
- Oswald, D. P., Best, A. M., Coutinho, M. J., & Nagle, H. A. L. (2003). Trends in the special education identification rates of boys and girls: A call for research and change. Exceptionality, 11(4), 223–237.
- Park, S. (2019). Beyond underrepresentation: Constructing disability with young Asian American children to preserve the “model minority” stereotype. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 13(3), 73–95.
- Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 15–37). Harvard Education Press.
- Petersen, A. (2006). An African-American woman with disabilities: The intersection of gender, race, and disability. Disability and Society, 21(7), 721–734.
- Petersen, A. J. (2009). Ain’t nobody gonna get me down: An examination of the educational experiences of four African-American women labeled with dis/abilities. Equity and Excellence in Education, 42(4), 428–442.
- Petersen, J. (2020). Over referrals for Black boys for special education by preschool teachers (No. 28023790) [Doctoral dissertation, California School of Education]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
- Pickens, T. A. (2019). Black madness: Mad Blackness. Duke University Press.
- Price, M. (2014). The bodymind problem and the possibilities of pain. Hypatia, 30(1), 268–284.
- Schalk, S. (2013). Coming to claim crip: Disidentification with/in disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2).
- Sentencing Project. (2020, November 24). Incarcerated women and girls.
- Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 46–54.
- Sosulski, M. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Donnell, C. M. (2010). Life history and narrative analysis: Feminist methodologies contextualizing Black women’s experiences with severe mental illness. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(3), 29–57.
- Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526–1552.
- Sullivan, A. L., & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables for disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494.
- Voronka, J. (2016). The politics of ‘people with lived experience’: Experiential authority and the risks of strategic essentialism. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology, 23(3), 189–201.
- Waitoller, F. R., Artiles, A. J., & Cheney, D. A. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 29–49.
- Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389.
- Warren, C. (2020). Meeting myself: Race-gender oppression and a genre study of Black men teachers’ interactions with Black boys. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 23(3), 367–391.
- Wesley, L., & Ellis, A. L. (2017). Exclusionary discipline in preschool: Young Black boys’ lives matter. Journal of African American Males in Education, 8(2), 22–29.
- Wun, C. (2014). Unaccounted foundations: Black girls, anti-Black racism, and punishment in schools. Critical Sociology, 42(4–5), 1–14.
- Wun, C. (2016). Against captivity: Black girls and school discipline policies in the afterlife of slavery. Educational Policy, 30(1), 171–196.
- Wun, C. (2018). Angered: Black and non-Black girls of color at the intersections of violence and school discipline in the United States. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(4), 423–437.
1. Whereas “school-to-prison pipeline” illustrates how students are steered toward incarceration from their schooling experiences, the concept of school-prison nexus addresses the varied, nuanced, and interdependent practices and mechanisms mutually constructed, shared, and/or upheld by schools and prisons (Annamma, 2018).
2. The term disproportionality accounts for both the over- and underrepresentation of students in special education. Like overrepresentation, underrepresentation results from a school-based professionals’ assumptions or biases related to the social and political identities of students subjected to special education evaluation (Park, 2019). Disproportionate representation of any kind can have harmful and/or unintended consequences.
3. According to The Sentencing Project (2020), Black girls are incarcerated at more than three times the rate of White girls, and Native American girls are incarcerated at more than four times the rate of White girls.