Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Enabling dis/abled females
(USC Thesis Other)
Enabling dis/abled females
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 1
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES
By
Ashley Evins
___________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to those who have lived and continue to live under the weight of
invisible socializations. I hope this work helps bring light to these lived experiences and the
external factors that work to maintain them.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 3
Acknowledgements
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton: So, I read in someone else’s acknowledgment
page that she tells people she wants to be you when she grows up. I can’t believe she stole my
line #plagiarism? In all seriousness, you are a true inspiration to me. Thank you for seeing
something in me that I did not, and reigniting my passion for education. I can’t thank you enough
for your unwavering support and mentorship throughout this process. I could not have completed
this without you or your edits #noproofreadingthisJulie. Most importantly, thank you for always
challenging me to be a better educator.
Dr. Artineh Samkian: I’m not going to lie, I was terrified of taking inquiry. Then I took
your class, and you made inquiry fun (I never thought I would say that). Your classes helped me
see the world differently. Plus, now I always find myself coding my partner’s family’s text
messages. Thank you for all the support you have provided me along the way. Your feedback has
been instrumental.
Dr. Margo Pensavalle: I appreciate all the time and energy that you have put into my
dissertation. Your thoughtful feedback has helped me to think more about special education
programming and what it means to be dis/abled.
To my partner, Jonah: I can’t thank you enough for all the love and encouragement you
give me. I could not have gotten through this process without you. From tear-filled nights to
moments of empowerment, you have always believed in me. Thank you for the bachelor-night
dinners of mac and cheese and Soprano binge sessions. You have been the one who anchored
me. I love you.
To Jen Hurvitz: Thank you for always believing in me. I never knew that that moment in
the Westview copy room would lead to such a beautiful friendship. And to think you had to give
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 4
me your number twice. In all seriousness, thank you for keeping me grounded throughout this
process. I could not have gotten through this without you.
To David and Madeleine Rosenthal: David you can’t cry while reading this. Just kidding,
you can totally cry! Thank you for the many brunches at Maxwell’s, Trains game nights and
seltzer water trips during this process. I love you both as family.
The students of Westview School: I cannot thank you enough for cultivating my passion
for special education. You all helped me to see beyond dis/ability labels and into the lived
experiences of those who were defined by these labels. Even though this school does not
physically exist anymore, this transformative space lives on in each of us.
Michelle and Ivan: To my partners in institutional disruption, thank you for your support
and passion for justice. I’m so grateful to be fighting the good fight with you both. You’ve
helped me to see that a little disruption can lead to larger changes.
Daniel Weslow: Thank you for believing in me and our vision for Ed. Support. I always
say that you are the best boss that I have ever had, and I mean it. Thank you for your mentorship
and friendship. Thank you for standing by me through the hardest moment in my educational
career. And of course, thank you for the Canter’s trips and days off to write.
Carli Glubok, Matan Segal, Hila Machmali and Laquez Wilson: Thank you for sharing
your lived experiences with me. Your respective journeys inspired me to see that dis/ability is
not something that defines us. This dissertation was directly inspired by your individual stories.
Thank you for challenging me to be a better educator.
To Mark: Thank you for your vulnerability, authenticity and willingness to be part of this
study. I’m so grateful that you took a chance on a complete stranger. Thank you for opening up
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 5
your classroom space and teaching practice to me. I hope this study helps in achieving your goal
of building more and more opportunities for students who might not otherwise have them.
To Kyle MacDonald: Thank you for all the Sizzler runs, cat memes and jokes you
provided during this process. The levity you brought helped me so much. I am so grateful for our
friendship, oh and the Trader Joe’s cookies too!
To my cats: Jonah said that I might not pass my final defense if I included you both here,
but what I’ve learned from this experience is that disruption is important. So here we are. Thank
you for the cuddles and accidental edits when you walked on my keyboard. You both reminded
me that stillness is important.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 6
Abstract
Female students in context of dis/ability are an understudied population. The intention of
this study was to understand what practices and perceptions worked to empower this population,
in hopes of extrapolating these to better serve dis/abled females. This study asserted that teacher
beliefs regarding race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and ability informed how
students were perceived and their relative academic need. Teacher perceptions set expectations,
informed interactions and guided learning opportunities. This qualitative case study therefore
explored how a single teacher’s beliefs regarding female students in context of dis/ability were
expressed and revealed through his interactions. This participant, Mark, was selected using a
nomination sample that sought to find a teacher who was exemplary at working with female
students in order to identify efficacious practices and mindsets. Data was collected from
classroom observations and semi-structured and informal interviews. Raw data was coded using
in vivo codes, providing open codes. From this, axial codes and finally selective codes were
generated. These selective codes were then checked against my conceptual framework generated
from an in-depth literature review to determine credibility of these findings. The findings
revealed that Mark was a well-intentioned teacher whose lack of reflection caused him not to see
the unique learning needs of his students. His gender-neutral and color-blind mindset had
detrimental effects, causing him to engage in destructive interactions more frequently with
students who were not aligned with him. Despite his desire to build equality in the classroom, his
narrowed view limited his ability to see female student need.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 7
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 24
Purpose of the Study 24
Significance of the Study 25
Chapter Two: Literature Review 27
Dis/ability Theory 28
Myth of Normalcy 29
Whiteness 37
Smartness as Property 45
Understanding Ableism 48
Materialism 51
Intersectionality 54
Dis/ability 64
Cross Pollination 72
Justifiable Inequality 76
Critical Reflection 87
Teacher Beliefs and Expectations 96
Teacher Perceptions of Gender 112
Content Specific 113
Gender Roles 120
Visibility 127
Gender and Dis/ability 129
Teacher Perceptions of Race/Ethnicity 136
Stereotypical Perceptions 136
Apolitical Perceptions 144
Dis/ability and Race/Ethnicity 147
White Privilege 155
Teacher Perceptions of Socioeconomic Status (SES) 160
Low Expectations 161
Language Variations 166
Gender and SES 170
Interaction 172
Discourse 174
Discourse and interactions 189
Behavior 194
Subtle Sexism 195
Efficacy 199
Thirdspace 201
Conceptual Framework 208
Chapter Three: Methodology 217
Research Design 217
Sample and Sampling Strategy 218
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 224
Data Analysis Procedures 227
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 8
Limitations and Delimitations 230
Credibility and Trustworthiness 232
Ethics 233
Chapter Four: Findings 237
Research Question One: How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students
expressed through his/her perception of their academic need? 249
Limited Reflection 249
Superficial Beliefs 252
Normalcy 259
Difficulty Meaning-Making 265
Research Question Two: How does a teacher’s beliefs regarding dis/ability,
race/ethnicity, and gender shape how he interacts with his students to provide
support? 271
Frequency 272
Quality 285
Dis/ability and Variations in Quality 294
Jennifer’s Visibility 306
Chapter Five: Implications and Further Research 313
Summary of Findings 314
Implications 317
Practice 318
Policy 322
Research 324
References 326
Appendices
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Protocol 338
Appendix B: Classroom Observation Protocol 340
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Protocol (Space) 341
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. A model for the review of teacher beliefs and gender differences. 114
Figure 2. Autonomous learning behavior model. 117
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework: A model for teacher-student interactions. 209
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Field Time-Periods 2 and 3 225
Table 2. Field Time-Periods 3 226
Table 3. Mark’s Period Two Demographic Totals 277
Table 4. Mark’s Period 3 Demographic Totals 278
Table 5. Period 2 Gendered Participation Tallies 278
Table 6. Period 3 Gendered Participation Tallies 279
Table 7. Period 2 Gendered Participation Rates 279
Table 8. Period 3 Gendered Participation Rates 279
Table 9. Period 2 Participation Tallies Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity 280
Table 10. Period 3 Participation Tallies Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity 280
Table 11. Period 2 Participation Rates Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity 281
Table 12. Period 3 Participation Rates Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity 282
Table 13. Period 2 Participation Along Intersecting Lines of Gender and Race/Ethnicity 283
Table 14. Period 3 Participation Along Intersecting Lines of Gender and Race/Ethnicity 284
Table 15. Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Gender Lines 287
Table 16. Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Gender Lines 287
Table 17. Tallied Totals of Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Lines of 290
Race/Ethnicity
Table 18. Tallied Totals of Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Lines of 291
Race/Ethnicity
Table 19. Tallied Totals of Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Lines of
Gender and Race/Ethnicity 292
Table 20. Tallied Totals of Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Intersecting
Lines of Gender and Race/Ethnicity Across 10 Hours of Observations 292
Table 21. Jennifer’s Participation Tallies as They Compare to Latin@ Female Students In 306
Periods 2 And 3
Table 22. Mark’s Constructive and Destructive Interactions with Jennifer As They Compare to
Latin@ Female Students in Periods 2 And 3 308
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 11
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Education has historically been and continues to be perceived as a means to create equity
(Fuchs & Fuches, 1994; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Gay, 2010; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Skrtic,
1991). Despite this ideation, the public educational system in the United States has inadvertently
proliferated inequities, leaving many students without equitable educational opportunities
(Artiles et al., 2002). Educational disenfranchisement runs deep through the standardization of
“normal,” resulting in the further disenfranchisement of those who are considered to be
“abnormal” (Skrtic, 1991). This myth of normalcy measured students according to a rubric of
whiteness, ability and smartness (Hatt, 2011). Those who score outside of this idealized norm are
separated, collated and packaged for special education programming (Ferri & Connor, 2005),
leaving many students voiceless and invisible. The structure of the American public educational
system allows this to exist, perpetuating the very inequities it purports to act against (Harry &
Klingner, 2014). Educational inequities are a structural issue that seep into federal and district
policies, guiding the way teachers understand ability and dis/ability
1
. The purpose of this study
was to better understand how teachers made meaning of female students in context of their
gender, race/ethnicity, and dis/ability and how this informed their understanding of academic
need.
In the remainder of this chapter, I offer the background of the problem by exploring
educational legislation and its contribution to the institutionalization of special education. From
this, I establish that little is known about females in special education and therefore offer the
purpose of this study, to answer two research questions:
1
I use a slash to denote dis/ability as not an individual trait “but, rather, a product of cultural,
political, and economic practices” (Davis, 1995)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 12
1. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed through his/her
perception of their academic need?
2. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding dis/ability, race/ethnicity, and gender revealed
in how they interact with their students to provide support?
I then turn to the significance of the study and the organization of the remainder of the proposal.
Background of the Problem
Disparities in educational inequity initiatives can be traced back to the Brown v. Board of
Education decision to desegregate schools. This case exposed educational inequities by revealing
that the quality of education students received varied dramatically depending on a student’s race
and socioeconomic status. The ultimate decision to desegregate schools was grounded in the
tenants of equal protection
2
and afforded equal access to a “class” of people. As such, this
landmark case laid the judicial groundwork for educational equity of all students (Artiles, 2011;
Blanchett, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2011), and set off a chain of subsequent legislation to address
other inequities in context of inclusion (Yell, Rogers & Rogers, 1998). This case marks the
beginning pattern of well-intentioned educational legislation, rooted in inclusion, that
inadvertently created other inequities in its limited in scope.
Civil rights advocates recognized the opportunity Brown created to expand educational
initiatives for other classes of people and subsequent efforts ensued. Beginning with legislative
efforts to address socioeconomic inequities, President Johnson signed the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. Under his presidency, he declared a “War on
Poverty,” that focused legislative efforts towards building more equality for those who were
considered to be socioeconomically disadvantaged. His efforts focused on a variety of systems
2
As defined under the 14
th
Amendment to the United States Constitution
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 13
and structures including the educational system. In an attempt to equalize educational access,
ESEA established targeted services for students in low-income areas (Yell et al., 1998). ESEA
paved the way for the emergence of Title 1 (targeted educational programming for students who
are identified as below grade level), Title 2 (teacher training to help students who are below
grade level) and Title 3
3
services (services for English Language Learners). Holistically, these
services were designed with the intention to provide equal access to education regardless of
one’s socioeconomic status. ESEA identified academic performance as a significant problem and
pointed to a student’s economic status as the source of this problem. ESEA was well intentioned
but lacked the cultural responsiveness to meet the unique needs of historically marginalized
students
4
(Yell, et a., 1998). Additionally, this act did not acknowledge the need for specific
educational opportunities for special populations, such as dis/abled students (Yell, et a., 1998).
Rather than focusing on the intersection of variables working in concert with one another to
oppress students, ESEA exclusively homed in on economic factors. As a result, ESEA
legislatively lumped a complex problem into a singular causation rather than looking at the
complex interplay of intersecting variables. Reauthorizations occurred at three years cycles to
evaluate financial allocations resulting in the broadened scope of supplemental academic
programming.
In 1975, a decade after ESEA, dis/ability advocates championed legislative recognition
3
Title 3 services were not part of the initial ESEA legislation but was the result of the Lau v. Nichols
decision. The court ruled in this case that the lack of targeted language instruction for English Language
Learners was a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4
This term is defined using Khalifa’s (2016) definition, “ Here, we consider minoritized students
individuals from racially oppressed communities that have been marginalized—both legally and
discursively—because of their nondominant race, ethnicity, religion, language, or citizenship. Indeed, all
minoritized students also have rich histories of agency, appropriation, and resistance to oppression; yet,
this term recognizes the histories of oppression minoritized students have faced and the need for schools
to resist the continuing contexts of
oppression” (p. 1273).
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 14
for students with dis/abilities with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EAHCA), Public Law 94-142 (Skrtic, 1991; Yell et al., 1998). This legislation was written
with the intention of creating an equitable education for all handicapped
5
students by requiring
schools to provide supportive services to dis/abled children so they could receive a public
education (Public Law 94-142, p. 784, 1975). In order to do this, the law designated that the
following six components be incorporated into special education:
(1) The right of access to public education programs, (2) the individualization of services,
(3) the principle of “least restrictive environment,” (4) the scope of broadened services to
be provided by the schools and a set of procedures for determining them, (5) the general
guidelines for identification of disability; and (6) the principles of primary state and local
responsibilities. (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987, p. 369)
These components required that students with dis/abilities have equal access to education. In
order to provide this equal education, Public Law 94-142 required that students be identified as
dis/abled. A consequence of this requirement was the proliferation of dis/ability identification,
inadvertently paving the way for labeling practices. Baker (2002) explains that these practices
can be dangerous as they have origins in the Eugenics movement of the early 20
th
century. She
goes on to explain that the Eugenics movement actively used classification practices to create
“problem populations” (p. 672). These “problem populations” came to fruition in educational
systems as the requirement to identify dis/abilities was intended to better help students, but
unintentionally created identified “others.”
5
The term handicapped is used here because it is the language used within the document itself
and is reflexive of the perception of dis/ability. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA) required supports for students who were either mentally or physically handicapped.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 15
Unintentional consequences continued to affect dis/abled students as additional
legislations were proposed with an intention to help but lacked the reflective measures to ensure
these consequences did not create further inequity. For example, Public Law 94-142’s
establishment of a least restrictive environment (LRE) and the creation of an identification
process resulted in the systematic separation of dis/abled students from their “normal” peers.
LRE intended to situate support according to a student’s specific needs by providing an
environment that would be conducive to his/her learning. As a result, LRE legitimized the
placement of students outside the general education classroom. After the passage of Public Law
94-142, emergent patterns of overrepresentation
6
in the identification and placement of students
based on race, specifically black students, into special education programming was occurring at a
disproportional rate from their white peers (Artiles et al., 2002; Blanchett, 2006). Blanchett
(2006) points to disproportionality of black students in special education as not only a flaw in the
special education identification process but evidence of a systematic reinforcement of white
privilege.
The other component of Public Law 94-142 that had unintentional consequences for
dis/abled students was the creation of an identification process. This process was meant to
provide teachers with focused supports based on a student’s categorical dis/ability. However, the
ambiguity of the law’s language regarding dis/ability categories created flexibility for teachers to
designate students as dis/abled when they might just be different from the “norm.” This had
deeper consequences as Blanchett (2006) argued that eligibility criteria were written using
normative attributes. These normative–based criteria contributed to overrepresentation of non-
6
A debate is underway about whether historically marginalized and minoritized students are
overrepresented in special education (Arms, Bickett, & Graf, 2008)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 16
white students in high incidence categories, like learning dis/abled. Section 602 of Public Law
94-142 highlights this ambiguity in eligibility criteria as it states that “appropriate objective
criteria and evaluation procedures” (p.776) are required to determine eligibility. Words like
“appropriate” and “evaluation procedures” were vague, allowing schools to determine what they
meant according to their own cultural standards. In theory, this created a space for culturally
responsive pedagogy, yet in application, it resulted in the articulation of situational “normal” by
which students were measured against. Therefore, this choice not only nominated teachers as
bureaucratic extensions of both the state and the schooling agency, it inadvertently positioned
them away from the needs of students and towards the school’s best interest (Artiles et al., 2002).
With the responsibility for both education and identification, teachers were left with many
unanswered questions as they received minimal guidance about how to best support and educate
these students.
Without a federal accountability system and the legislative responsibility of identification
criteria left to individual states, there were no safeguards to ensure discriminatory practices were
not taking place during the referral process. At the time, legislators believed that naming states as
the agents of accountability situated eligibility requirements in the cultural context of each state.
States then named teachers as the responsible party for enacting the eligibility requirements
outlined by each state (Artiles et al., 2002: Yell et al., 1998). This posed a problem as teachers
were not informed or trained to support students with dis/abilities. Without these structural
supports, there was no oversight to ensure that legislative initiatives did not unintentionally
perpetuated inequities. For example, Public Law 94-142 was unable to create equitable access
because it lacked the scope necessary to operationalize its intention. This law established that all
students, despite dis/ability, could be educated alongside their non-dis/abled peers. This allowed
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 17
dis/abled students to enter general education classrooms at increased rates (Yell et al., 1998), but
did not provide development or supportive classroom strategies for teachers. This left teachers
with minimal resources to support the unique learning needs of dis/abled students.
Ultimately, the establishment of an eligibility criteria was intended to help identify
struggling students and offer them support, however it has become one of the most controversial
issues in special education (Artiles, 2002; Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001; Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
The spirit of this law was well intentioned, yet despite this intention, special education has
evolved into a system where students receive inequitable education (Yell et al., 1998). Eligibility
directly contributes to overrepresentation (Artiles, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Rousso &
Wehmeyer, 2001) underrepresentation (Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001; Sadker & Sadker, 1994) and
justifies low academic standards (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001) for
historically marginalized populations.
Despite calls for reform during the 1980s, this legislation remained relatively unchanged
until 1990 when several amendments were written to clarify and extend the requirements of
EAHCA (Yell et al., 1998). These amendments not only renamed EAHCA the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) but focused on the adjustment of legislative language from
handicapped to dis/abled, expanding special education programming to include students with less
visible disabilities. The term “handicapped” not only supported the medical model of dis/ability
construction, it also encouraged teachers to look at the material body for a visible dis/ability.
IDEA’s use of dis/ability intended to provide teachers the legislative flexibility to dig deeper and
refer students with less visible disabilities. Furthermore, these amendments intended to reorient
the law to support the person first by requiring transition plans for students with an Individual
Education Plan (IEP) who were 16 years or older as well as incorporating new eligibilities such
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 18
as Autism and Traumatic Brain Injuries (Yell et al., 1998). Despite these changes, no
adjustments were made to the eligibility process.
Seven years later another adjustment to IDEA was made when President Clinton signed
Public Law 105-17. This signature reauthorized IDEA and focused exclusively on special
education student achievement (Yell et al., 1998). Congress believed IDEA had been successful
at providing students with access to public education but did not address student performance
concerns (Arms, Bickett, & Graf, 2008; Yell et al., 1998). The new amendments focused on
academic outcomes rather than the origin of the problem (Yell et al., 1998). Furthermore, despite
conversations regarding overrepresentation of black students, there was no congressional
mention of identification concerns (Wehmeyer & Michelle Schwartz, 2001; Yell et al., 1998).
Not only did IDEA legislatively perpetuate academic outcome based schooling, it also
legitimized certain dis/abilities by deeming them as socially acceptable while omitting others.
This classification system stemmed back to PL 94-142, wherein the eligibility criteria included
11 different classifications of recognized “handicapping” conditions (Public Law 94-142, 1975).
Despite these 11 different categories, most eligibilities were based on social and psychological
criteria (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). Additionally, the criteria used to refer a student for special
education included school based measures of a student’s intelligence, academic achievement,
social behavior, adjustment, communication and language problems. Gartner and Lipsky (1987)
also found that teachers devised measuring criteria that lacked reliability and validity, making
them unreliable measures. At least in part with the passage of IDEA, teachers were still relying
on their perceptions to refer students for special education services. This was further
compounded by this law’s lack of procedural clarity around eligibility. If students’ outcomes did
not qualify them for services, teachers often used other measures to qualify students because they
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 19
believed they needed the support. Despite their intention to help, tests used to determine
eligibility became a means of corroborating referral decisions. Decades after Public Law 94-142,
IDEA expanded the categorical classification by including two additional disabilities--Traumatic
Brain Injuries (TBI) and Other Health Impairments (OHI). The law’s use of generalized
categories, such as “other health impairment,” created legislative ambiguity that allowed
generalized perceptions to qualify students for special education.
Since 1997, axillary legislations such as President George H. Bush’s reauthorization of
ESEA as NCLB in 2001 included limited changes to special education. However, in 2004
President Bush reauthorized IDEA and encouraged research-based methods for instruction and
determining eligibility (Harry & Klingner, 2006). As a result, many districts introduced
Response to Intervention (RTI) tiers of instruction. RTI attempted to create an institutionally
situated monitoring apparatus, yet variations in implementation have led to inequity within an
equitably-intentioned program (Harry & Klingner, 2006). Since RTI, the next adjustment to
special education legislation was in 2008 when the American with Disabilities Act Amendments
revised the definition of dis/ability to include broader impairments (Department of Education,
ADA, 2008).
Despite the legislative efforts of Public Law 94-142 and IDEA, dis/abled students do not
have equitable access to high-quality education. A student’s socialization, SES, race/ethnicity,
gender, and other identity markers mediate the learning experiences and opportunities he/she is
afforded (Artiles et al., 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2011). Even with ESEA’s attempts to
legislatively level educational equity through the redistribution of wealth, historically
marginalized students continued to receive drastically different learning opportunities than their
white counterparts. In an effort to build more equity, President Barack Obama signed the Every
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 20
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2010, reauthorizing ESEA for another four years. This act
included a special education component that created more flexibility in supporting dis/abled
students by creating more state accountability and limiting federal intervention. This approach
manifested in the development of standards, assessments, reporting of assessment results,
accountability and educator qualifications (PSEA, 2016). It is too soon to tell what implications
may occur as this well-intentioned act may inadvertently continue inequities, as its focus on
flexibility could create space for ambiguity, or it could situate supports more effectively through
flexibility. It is likely that consequences are not binary and could have both beneficial and
detrimental results for dis/abled students. What is clear, is the emphasis on teachers as the
primary support provider, identifying them as a population of study to better understand how
they make meaning of need.
Teachers operate within the educational system and are subject to normative practices
embedded within this system and the legislation that structures this system. Normalcy calls on
dominant culture to qualify a set of identity markers as the perceived “normal” (Davis, 1995).
The educational system has internalized normalcy practices resulting in the creation of inequities
even within equity-minded programming. Understanding how these practices are absorbed and
subsequently expressed could provide a deeper understanding of females’ educational
experiences in context of dis/ability. The normalization of white culture encourages schools to
design lessons and support the learning modalities expressed by the dominant culture (Leonardo,
2009). When students do not adhere to this idealized “normal,” even well-intentioned teachers
are left with special education referral as a supportive measure because there are limited
alternative options.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 21
This is problematic for females as the structural elements involved in special education
referral carry gendered biases. Sadker and Sadker (1994) identify institutional mechanisms that
work in favor of boys. They believe that the educational system fails to provide girls with an
equitable education. Oswaldet, Best, Coutinho, and Nagle (2003) explain that the goal is not for
girls to be treated equally as boys, but to have equal access to educational opportunities.
Therefore, when looking at who is considered to be special education, the goal is not for girls to
have equal numbers as boys, rather the goal is to ensure that the student being referred for special
education actually needs it. Oswaldet et al. (2003) found that girls are underrepresented in
special education because of their socialization. This study pointed directly at girls’ behaviors
and indirectly at the systematic failures that result in female invisibility.
Educational studies have well-documented the overrepresentation of males in special
education (Arms, Bickett, & Graf, 2008; McIntyre & Tong 1998), yet female
underrepresentation continues to be under-studied (Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010; Oswaldet et
al., 2003). Gender is an important indicator of special education placement. According to the
Department of Education, during the 2013-2014 school year, males were 16% percent more
likely than females to receive special education services under IDEA (Department of Education,
Office of Special Programs, 2015), suggesting that gender plays a role in the identification of
students for special education. Despite this data, little is known about females in the context of
dis/ability. Gender is often absorbed into other categories such as race/ethnicity, language
proficiency, or SES (Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001). As a result, a majority of educational studies
isolate dis/ability and ignore the intersectionality of race, gender, SES, and language. Dis/ability
is complex and informed by one’s individual socialization (McDermott & Varenne, 1995).
Educational legislation further compounds this, making it difficult to recognize the individual
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 22
socializations of students. For example, Individual Education Plan (IEP) eligibility limits the
scope of a student’s dis/ability by admonishing comorbidities (IDEA 2004, Part B). The IEP
team is encouraged to identify students by their “dominant” dis/ability rather than the
intersection of other dis/abilities (LAUSD, IEP Eligibility, 2007). This singularity and focus on a
dominant variable is passed down from a lineage of educational legislation.
Educational legislation provided the institutional language used to unintentionally
normalize exclusionary practices that are reinforced through special education programming.
Across all special education legislations, there exists a lack of clarity inherent in the language
that encourages teachers to use their perceptions to determine if students need academic support
(McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Legislation creates a bureaucratic proxy, by way of special
education programming, to legally re-segregate historically marginalized students by deeming
them as disabled and in need of educational support separate from their peers. IDEA laid the
groundwork for a system that makes it easier to refer a student for special education services than
to design curriculum that is situated to his/her special context and socialization (Harry &
Klingner, 2006). As a result, teachers’ perceptions play a significant role in the eligibility of
students for special education services (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). This positionality informs how
teachers view their students according to identity markers such as race/ethnicity, SES, or gender.
These views both consciously and subconsciously inform their expectations of each student.
These expectations hold a powerful influence over the educational opportunities afforded to
students as Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated that teachers’ expectations of students,
with respect to their performance, were based on their perceptions of students’ age, ability, and
minority group status.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 23
Teachers’ expectations not only play an influential role in the special education referral
process but a student’s access to quality education (McKnown & Weinstein, 2008). Furthermore,
a student’s race, language, behaviors, religion and mannerisms all inform teachers’ expectations
of students in their classrooms (Khalifa, 2016; L. Lightfoot, 1978; Terrill & Mark, 2000). These
identity markers, when intersected, can be increasingly dangerous for students as “the more
variance that there is between students’ cultural, racial, ethnic, and intellectual characteristics
and the normative standards of schools, the greater are the chances their school achievement will
be compromised by low or negative teacher expectations” (Gay, 2002, p. 614). These
expectations not only influence a student’s educational outcomes (Rosenthal & Fond, 1963) but
can be internalized by the student and rewire his/her own sense of efficacy (Rousso &
Wehmeyer, 2001). Students are even further pathologized through institutional reinforcement,
deepening their internalization of these feelings. Rousso and Wehmeyer (2001) explain that
schools are like families, in that they convey cultural and societal norms that can influence how
people live. Teachers’ perceptions of students therefore support in grounding students’
perceptions and social interactions. Therefore, the way in which a teacher interprets the social
construct of dis/ability is intersected with his/her biases of other identity markers and further
determine the quality of education students are able to access. These perceptions coupled with a
teacher’s own sense of self-efficacy (Podell & Soodak, 1993) inform how a teacher makes
meaning of need as it relates to the special education referral process.
Guarino, Buddin, Pham, and Cho (2009) found that the prevalence of dis/abilities in
school-age children varies widely by gender, race, and disability type. However, despite these
variances, there continues to be an over-representation of historically marginalized ethnic and
racial populations referred for special education (Artiles et al., 2002; Guarino et al., 2009;
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 24
Ladson-Billings, 2011). As a result, minority students are significantly more likely to be
identified with learning disabilities than their white peers (Mckown & Weinstein, 2008). Haig
and Oliver (2010) add that linguistic minority groups are also more likely to be referred for
special education. The more intersecting variables, the more likely they are to be referred for
special education. As suggested by Artiles, (2002), “The misplacement of students in special
education is problematic in that it is not only stigmatizing, but it can also deny individuals the
high quality and life enhancing education to which they are entitled” (p. 4). Despite this
documented inequality, females continue to be either left out of the conversation or added in as
an aside.
Statement of the Problem
Despite educational legislation that mandates students with dis/abilities have equal access
to education, there continues to be disparities in the education students with dis/abilities receive.
Ambiguous eligibility requirements in special education legislation allow educational institutions
the flexibility in determining what they will use for referral criteria. As a result, special education
referrals are inconsistent and often rely on teacher perceptions of student need. These perceptions
are mitigated by dominate culture’s ideation of normalcy, making those who are not part of this
culture appear to be abnormal (Blanchett, 2006; Davis, 1995). Research regarding eligibility
focuses on either disproportionality or teacher perceptions in relation to students with
dis/abilities but it does not tell us enough about females in context of special education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to learn more about females in the context of dis/ability. In
particular, this study examined how one teacher’s perceptions influenced his decision to refer
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 25
students for special education services. The following research questions allowed me to learn
more about girls in the context of dis/ability.
1. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed through his/her
perception of their academic need?
2. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding dis/ability, race/ethnicity, and gender revealed
in how they interact with their students to provide support?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it gives visibility to the internal and external factors that
contribute to teachers’ meaning making process regarding dis/abled female student academic
need. Despite the research investigating disproportionality in special education, little is known
about females in the context of dis/ability. As a special education coordinator, this study informs
the way I think about dis/ability. In my current setting, I design in-school professional learning
opportunities for 9
th
-12
th
-grade general and Judaic studies teachers, and this study will help me
situate my curriculum to the needs of female dis/abled students. Additionally, it will help me
train the teachers I work with to be more culturally responsive to female students.
Organization of Study
This chapter began by examining the history of special education legislation and the
structural elements that contribute to the perpetuation of educational inequities. I identify
eligibility as problematic to the educational access of dis/abled students and historically
marginalized groups because its ambiguous identification criteria allow for too much flexibility.
With minimal support or training, teachers are left with their own perceptions to determine the
level of support a student may need. These perceptions are influenced by a student’s
race/ethnicity, SES, dis/ability and language variation. Student-teacher interactions, space and
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 26
previous experiences further influence these perceptions and can determine if a student will be
referred for special education services. Both overrepresentation (Artiles, 2002; Ladon-Billings,
1998; Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001) and misidentification (Artiles, 2002) are well documented but
little is known about females in the context of dis/ability.
In chapter two, I offer and examine relevant literature that provided me with insight
needed to answer these research questions. In the absence of females and dis/ability literature, I
reviewed articles regarding dis/ability construction, teacher perceptions of race/ethnicity, gender,
dis/ability, and SES to identify emergent themes used to develop my conceptual framework and
help me answer my research questions. I first establish what dis/ability is by reviewing dis/ability
theory literature and its contribution to dis/ability construction. Next, I reviewed literature
regarding teacher perceptions of dis/ability, race/ethnicity, gender and SES in order to
understand how intersectionality informs teachers’ perceptions. Finally, I reviewed literature
regarding space and teacher-student interaction through behavior and discourse. I conclude that
chapter with my conceptual framework that I will use to inform my methodology outlined in
chapter three.
In chapter three, I outline the research design of this study. I explain what sampling
techniques I used as well as the criteria used to select a study site and participants. I also explain
what instrumentation I used to collect data and how it will be analyzed. In chapter four, I present
my findings by organizing them according to each research question. Finally, in chapter five, I
summarize my findings and outline the implications of the findings. I conclude this study with
recommendations for teacher practice, educational policy, and future research.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Female students in the context of dis/ability are an understudied population. Historically,
special education and demographic representations have focused primarily on the male
experience. This research regarding males and special education drew attention away from
females in the context of dis/ability (Arms et al., 2008; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Rousso &
Wehmeyer, 2001). This gap in the literature not only called into question the referral processes
across multiple intersections, but how teachers made sense of the term dis/ability and academic
need in context of their own positionality.
Despite empirical data that suggested gender was a predictor of student identification for
special education services, the gender imbalance remained under-studied (Arms et. al, 2008;
Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Wehmeyer, 2001). Only a few studies attempted to problematize
females in context of dis/ability (Ferri & Connor, 2010). When they did, these studies tended to
quantitatively analyze gender gaps. Little research had attempted to qualitatively understand
gender bias in classroom support.
This study aimed to understand how a teacher’s beliefs about dis/ability, gender,
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status informed his/her understanding of academic need. This
literature review provided a review of extant literature related to dis/ability theory, teacher
expectations grounded in perceptions, and their subsequent interactions with students in the
classroom in an attempt to understand how teacher beliefs inform student referrals in order to
provide context for the following research questions:
1. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed through his/her
perception of their academic need?
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 28
2. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding dis/ability, race/ethnicity, and gender revealed in
how they interact with their students to provide support?
Dis/ability Theory
The research questions in this study sought to understand how a teacher’s perceptions
informed his/her meaning making of female student academic need. In order to answer these
research questions, this first section explored how dis/ability was constructed and described
within the current landscape of dis/ability theory. Within this broad field of study, various
constructs of dis/ability emerged. Therefore, these articles explored current paradigms as well as
examined points of intersection and divergence as a way to better understand how dis/ability was
viewed. Understanding these various theoretical approaches was vital to answering the research
questions above as these theories laid the groundwork for teacher beliefs about dis/ability. The
literature in this section explored both the social and institutional influences that constructed
dis/ability. I therefore also extended the scope of this section beyond individual and theoretical
constructs in order to see the larger institutional influences that worked to inform dis/ability
construction.
To understand the construction of dis/ability, this section first looked at the social
creation and institutional perpetuation of normalcy. Since dis/ability is considered an
abnormality, abnormal could only be understood in context of normal. The next body of
literature turned the focus towards the physical body in order to better understand dis/ability and
role visibility played in its construction. Articles about materialism helped make sense
physicality’s influence on dis/ability construction. All of these individual elements coalesced into
the creation of “normal,” creating points of intersection. The next body of literature aimed to
understand the elements that contributed to the complexity of dis/ability. Therefore, literature
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 29
regarding intersectionality and dis/ability were explored as they position variables next to one
another in order to capture the complexity of dis/ability. Finally, the last two sections explored
how crosspollination can work to counteract justifiable inequalities embedded within the
institutional structures of dis/ability’s epistemological origins, historical context, dexterity, and
limitations. Furthermore, the pieces in this section provided insight into terms like: dis/ability,
ability and normalcy. Establishing a definition of these terms helped make meaning of dis/ability
in context of teacher beliefs within the classroom. Understanding both the theoretical
underpinnings and institutional influence of dis/ability construction helped me answer the
research questions as they aimed to unpack a teacher’s beliefs and how they inform his/her
decisions.
Myth of Normalcy
Lennard Davis’s (1995) book examined the historical perspectives of normalcy. The
thesis of his work was that the “problem” of dis/ability did not lie with the disabled but with the
construction of normalcy and its ability to situate dis/ability as a problem. By placing both
normalcy and dis/ability as part of the same system, Davis (1995) revealed how these
understandings shaped and regulated the body.
Davis (1995) argued that dis/ability is rooted in normative beliefs. Specifically, he
pointed to the systematic construction and social perpetuation of normal as the basis of
abnormality. Within this belief, he argued that society has created an ecology where people are
guided by a set of norms, resulting in the pursuit of averages. This constant striving for average
was based on the idea that normal is best. For example, he explained that people try to achieve
the average cholesterol level, average weight, sex drive, and so on. This desire for average can be
seen in institutions as well. Using schooling as an example, Davis explained that children are
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 30
measured and ranked in schools according to an average in order to determine where they fit in.
Rather than focusing the discourse on dis/ability itself, Davis (1995) repositioned the
conversation regarding its construction towards the analysis of normal. In doing so, his definition
de-objectified dis/ability by moving it away from the physical body and in turn positioning it as a
social process. Davis explained that dis/ability “is not an object—a woman with a cane—but a
social process that intimately involves everyone who has a body and lives in the world of the
senses” (p. 2). Social consciousness therefore constructs what it means to be abled and therefore
dis/abled. As a result, he placed dis/ability construction similarly with the social constructs of
race, class and gender and their ability to shape the lives of those who are not white, rich, or
male.
Davis (1995) outlined the properties of normalcy. In doing so, he argued that normal was
flexible and carried with it a set of socially situated assumptions. These assumptions regarding
normalcy are important to understand as they work to shape the social consciousness of normal.
A central assumption of normal is that it has always existed. Davis (1995) used lexicographical
information to demonstrate that normal has not always existed. The modern understanding of
“norm” did not come into social consciousness until the 1800s. He argued that the field of
statistics laid the lexicographical groundwork for the conceptualization of normal. In particular,
the French statistician, Adolphe Quetelet is credited with contributing to the wide spread idea of
normal through the extrapolation of Astronomical law. Specifically, the law of error used to
locate stars was generalized to locate an average among people by statistically analyzing the
distribution of human features such as height and weight. From this, he created the concept of
“I’homme moyen” or the average man, paving the way for a scientific justification of norm. This
notion worked its way deeper into the social consciousness through its application in social
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 31
theory. Davis (1995) explained that Karl Marx used Quetelet’s idea of the average man to iterate
who could be considered an average worker. The creation of “normal” was powerful as it
allowed the majority to be defined and later maintained under the bell curve. This curve uses
“normal distribution” to exact what Davis (1995) called the “tyranny of the norm” (p. 29), or
forced adherence to a particular standard.
The “tyranny of the norm” has situated iterations spanning generations. Davis (1995)
argued that socially sanctioned normal proliferated during World War II. Specifically, both
Germany and Britain used the ideology of the normal to measure their resources and in doing so,
tried to quantify what it meant to be an “average citizen.” During this time, the average citizen
was based on the context of war, meaning that whoever could fight and withstand the stresses of
war was the ideal. Both countries medicalized average through the use of charts, during this
statistics boom. This movement gave rise to the notion that an “average” citizen could be
measurable, paving the way for the Egenics movement as it evolved with each nations desire to
cultivate their own respective populations as superior to their rivals. This movement and the idea
of an average citizen created an antagonist relationship between those who were normal and
those who were abnormal.
Davis’s (1995) sociohistorical approach revealed how normal is a social construction not
inherent in the human condition. He used ancient Greece and preindustrial Europe as examples
of cultures that held different perceptions of dis/ability than what is seen today. From this, he
explained that the social process of dis/abling was ushered in during Industrialization. This time
period ushered in a set of practices and discourses linked to 18
th
and 19
th
century concepts of
nationality, race, gender, criminality, and sexual orientation. These concepts contributed to
generalized notions of normalcy that are felt today. With this in mind, Davis (1995) explained
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 32
that the problem with dis/ability is that it is considered to be an absolute category. Modern
dis/ability construction forces people to either be categorized as dis/abled or not disabled,
limiting the complexity of dis/ability. Davis (1995) called into question the absoluteness of
dis/ability for its “univalent stranglehold on meaning” and believed that such a definition must
“contain within it a dark side of power, control, and fear” (p. 1). Institutions work in harmony to
create a hegemony of normal that allows the state to reinforce and create compliant and
disciplined bodies. The use of normalcy therefore plays an important role in maintaining the
status quo by keeping the abled and disabled separate.
Baglieri, Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, and Valle’s (2011) analytical essay explored
institutionalized normalcy in schooling practices. The authors attempted to dismantle what they
referred to as “the myth of the normal child” in order to reclaim inclusive education. In doing so,
the authors revealed how educational practices actively contributed to the creation of “normal.”
Baglieri et al. (2011) began their exploration of normalcy through a historical
investigation of inclusive education. Their research unearthed a discursive history that
contributed to the limited view of what inclusion is considered to be. They found that
conversations about inclusion are historically situated on individuals, as this practice is seen as a
mainstreaming tool for students with identified dis/abilities. The authors argued that this helps to
distract the focus away from the institution and towards the individual. Baglieri et al. (2011)
proposed that transformative understandings of dis/ability are starting to emerge as a reaction
formation to the pathology of the individual, focusing on the institutional elements involved in
inclusive programming rather than proposing “cures” for the dis/abled. With this in mind, the
authors believed that it would be useful to institutionally shift renewal focus away from students
with dis/abilities and towards understanding the theoretical underpinnings working to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 33
disadvantage students. Specifically, the authors reasoned that understanding the mythical normal
child would unveil normative practices embedded within schooling practices. Arguing that once
unveiled, equity based renewal initiatives would be able to better serve dis/abled students
through capacity building rather than deficit thinking.
Baglieri et al. (2011) examined educational institutions through Foucault’s “devise of
normality.” The authors reasoned that normative practices are engrained within schooling
institutions themselves and therefore express a culture of averages through its policies and
procedures. The authors further believed that societies use institutions as mediums to
communicate normalcy both physically and ideologically. By overlaying this concept onto
schools, the authors examined how space (physical) and terminology (ideological) work in
harmony to stratify students according to ability. Their analysis revealed institutionalized
practices of exclusion. First, terminology is used to capture students who are different, pointing
to labeling procedures as one of the most powerful ways educators, acting as bureaucratic
extensions, are sanctioned to typify students. These labels end up demarcating the boundaries of
typicality. For example, the terminology of
English language learner emphasizes the normalcy that awaits an “ELL” just as soon as
he or she masters the dominant language. “At risk” children need be thankful for “at risk”
teachers assigned to change the course of their educational fates. This kind of labeling
implies the presence of a standard according to which “diverse” and “different” children
are gauged; however, it is within special education that cognitive and biological
ideologies of normalcy and abnormally are codified and exercised—even championed for
relentless methods of identifying pathology within schoolchildren in order to deliver
“appropriate services.” (p. 2129)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 34
Here, the authors contended that terminology not only defines the boundaries by which normal
exists, but is used to proliferate exclusion. Furthermore, language is also used to alleviate any
uncomfortable feelings teachers and/or administrators might have about using diagnostic labels
or specifying the raced and cultured experiences and identities of non-white children. For
example, terms such as “diverse” or “different” help to alleviate any stigma concerns labels have
as they are packaged as ways to “help” a student (p. 2130). Labeling practices such as those
mentioned are an example of what Baglieri et al. (2011) described as institutional dogma, where
labels became the expression of internalized normalcy. This coupled with a long-standing history
of exclusionary practices, demonstrates how powerful social and cultural influences are to
dis/ability labeling. These influences are seen specifically in the history and construction of
special education. The foundation and infrastructure of special education is built on the idea that
dis/ability is a biomedical impairment in need of fixing, curing, or remediation, setting the tone
that dis/abled students are in need of a restoration to normalcy.
Once captured, these students enter special education and are subsequently subject to
continuous examination by well-intentioned professionals. This system of classification allows
professionals to conceptualize, categorically speak about, and respond to the identified
individual. These agreed-on assumptions are presuppositions that become “statements” that are
then circulated as truths. These truths work to continually identify and classify students. Next,
the system uses space to separate identified students from their “normal” peers. Space further
helps to demarcate normal from the abnormal.
Baglieri et al. (2011) explained that schools further normative practices through the
special education identification process, beginning with the assumed premise of special
education as an institution designed to help all children become normal. This assumption is
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 35
based on the criteria used to identify students. The use of predetermined academic criteria set by
national, state, and local standards determined if a student was operating at a “normal” level. If a
student failed to meet these standards, he/she will be brought to the attention of teachers,
administrators, and psychologists. School personnel will then use classroom based student
performance levels to measure normalcy and verify abnormality. These scores became the
discourse that defines a student with the boundaries of difference. Once difference is defined,
testing becomes the primary justification for separating students into two categories: regular kids
and inclusion kids. The removal of students from “normal” settings and the prohibition to reenter
these classrooms subjugated students “to [a] diminished status, reduced cultural capital, and
feelings of powerlessness, although these issues are not acknowledged in traditional special
education research” (p. 2135). Children ended up leaving special education devalued and
culturally disadvantaged as they were afforded considerably fewer opportunities to engage in
rigorous academic discourse.
Baglieri et al. (2011) surmised that there was a normative center around which schools
gravitated—it was forceful yet invisible. School tracking systems in particular mirror class-based
systems.
These school-based hierarchies were akin to unacknowledged deep social class divisions.
Upper- class children likely attend prestigious private schools (preserving power,
influence, wealth); students labeled “gifted and talented” and “advanced” are placed in
top tracks (paralleling middle-class maintenance or aspirations of working class); average
or normal classes are attended by working-class students (paralleling working-class
maintenance or aspirations by poor); and lower track, remedial, and segregated special
education classes are attended by poor students (paralleling working-class slippage).
(p. 2136)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 36
These disparities also intersected with white privilege and racism to further the problematic
divide between abled and dis/abled students.
In order to disrupt normative practices, the authors explained that theories in which
dis/ability was framed as “a social, cultural, political, and historical phenomenon situated in a
specific time and place rather than a medical, scientific, or psychological ‘objective fact’” could
institute change by calling attention to the myth of the typical child (p. 2124). As a result,
Baglieri et al. (2011) advocated for an examination of the fundamental assumptions made about
human difference in order to better understand how normal is formulated.
How difference is talked about reveals an important assumption about human difference.
Those who are considered able-bodied are rarely talked about in a direct way. Baglieri et al.
(2011) believed this points to a fundamental principle of difference in relation to dis/ability.
Normalcy is often assumed to be omnipresent, therefore not needing explicit iteration. For
example, this can be seen in society’s perception of color. Whites often forget they are “colored”
because white is part of the dominant culture. Much like this example, able-bodied people also
forget they are different. The authors attempted to define this pattern through the pathological
archetype of the normal child. They reasoned that in order to better understand who disabled
children are, they need to know who they are not. By doing this, the authors find that “normal”
children were typically described as either: average, ordinary, typical, or standard. These
concepts help define how similar people are to each other. The authors explained that
From the moment of birth, when Apgar scores are taken and recorded, human beings are
continually subjected to pressuring practices, rules, regulations, and cultural beliefs in
order to fit the mold of normal—a concept that is always socially defined and context
specific, and therefore changeable. (p. 2130)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 37
Here, the authors contended that normalcy is changeable and ever-present. They explained that
people are defined by culminating scores taken throughout one’s life. Societies then use these
scores to sort normal from abnormal. This delineation is contextualized, internalized, and
ultimately expressed through social institutions and their ability to justify exclusion.
Whiteness. Gillborn’s (2005) document analysis sought to identify the role educational
policy played in the construction of racial inequity in England. Specifically, the author focused
on identifying normalized forms of white supremacy, arguing that particular identities and roles
revealed how deep-rooted and invisible whiteness was in educational legislation. He reasoned
that political rhetoric embedded in educational policies and practices distract from the structural
and ideological work used to legitimatize inequity. He further reasoned that educational policies
work to actively structure inequities. With this in mind, the author set out to answer the
following three research questions: 1. Who wins and who loses as a result of education policy
priorities? 2. Who or what is driving education policy? And 3. What are the effects of policy?
Gillborn’s (2005) methodology began with a historical analysis of educational policies.
His aim was to first gain a generalized context of British educational policies by analyzing
documents from the last 50 years. He was interested in knowing what these documents
established as a priority by looking at the language in these documents. The author did not
explain the criteria used to ascertain the specific educational policies. He did however explain
the general time periods that he used for the document analysis. The first group of educational
policies were taken from the “early post-war” period. Despite this general description, he did not
mention what war or the years this time period included. He did however explain that he
analyzed the educational policies for language he determined as addressing either race or racial
equality. There was no explanation of the specific process used to conduct the linguistic analysis
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 38
but he pointed to word frequency as a determinate of a document’s prioritization of its inherent
ideals. His initial analysis revealed two emergent themes: language that reflected either
ignorance or neglect. He then found that documents written after the war, transitioned from
neglectful language, to language that expressed either overt assimilationist or integrationist
policies. These policies encouraged people to assimilate to the dominant culture.
In his analysis of historical educational policies, he established a historical prioritization
of white supremacy. Next, he sought to determine if this priority is still present in current
policies. For the purpose of his analysis, priority meant frequency. He began with The
Department of Education’s “5-year strategy,” a 100-page document published in 2004 that
outlined the Labor party’s educational proposals for the next 5 years. His document analysis
revealed that “minority” or “ethnic” students were seldom mentioned. These terms only appeared
in a single 25-word paragraph titled “low achieving minority ethnic groups.” From this, he
argued that the document characterized minority and ethnic descriptors as “low achieving.” He
explained that the document maintained a narrow view of race/ethnicity as something that was a
problem to be addressed. There was no mention of capacity building language or positive word
associations throughout the document. Additionally, he found that the words “racism” or
“prejudice” did not appear anywhere in the document, however “business” appeared 36 times,
and “standards” appeared 65 times. Gillborn (2005) reasoned that the frequency of language used
in the document denoted “standards” as a higher priority over issues of race. He believed that
language used in these policies not only indicated the priority placed on racial equality but were
examples of normalized white supremacy.
Next, he analyzed the documents to see how they spoke about race, specifically racial
minorities. He found that across all the educational policies he reviewed, there were clear
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 39
measures intended to address ethnic diversity, yet race found itself within the margins of
education policy. He used historical contextualization to understand how social trends influenced
the way educational policies wrote about race. He found that these policies were written within
successive Conservative administrations in England at the time. Furthermore, he found that a
tone of color blindness permeated the educational policies and could be traced back to Margaret
Thatcher’s famous assertion that there is “no such thing as society” and as a result the only fair
approach was to be “colour-blind’” (p. 495). This perspective led to the systematic denial of
group-based analysis, as the priority at the time was to hide race in plain sight, benefiting whites
and justifiably ignoring people of color.
To answer the second research question, regarding who is driving educational policy,
Gillborn (2005) analyzed trends in educational policies involving standards. He found that since
1988, educational policy in England was driven by the assertion that standards were too low.
This assertion was based on student performance cumulative high-stakes tests proctored at the
end of their primary and secondary education. Policy makers prioritized certain academic
subjects that were used to measure standards-based performance. These policies triggered a
systematic increase in both the selection and separation of students who were considered to be
academic from those who were considered to be academically low. Subsequent educational
reforms were therefore based on students’ scores and subsequently changed the way schools
operated. Gillborn (2005) pointed out that a high performance on these exams was extremely
important for schools. As a result, “under-performance” scores would set into motion a series of
sanctions that could end in a school closure. New educational policies that included such
sanctions were credited with the increased performance the high-stakes examinations. Even
though these numbers had risen consistently since the late 1980s, students of color had not made
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 40
the same score increases (p. 494). The author found that out of all the reported ethnic groups,
only whites enjoyed consistent yearly improvement. More specifically, whites that earned scores
meeting the benchmark level rose from 30% in 1989 to 55% in 2004 (p. 494). Conversely,
Gillborn (2005) found that each of the other ethnic groups experienced periods where their rates
of success were constant. For example, between 2000 and 2002, Indian student scores reached a
place of consistency but their success rates ultimately fell back below the benchmark score. This
pattern continued, as standardized scores were consistent for: black students in 1992 and 1994,
and between 2000 and 2004; Pakistani students between 1992 and 1996, and between 2002 and
2004; and Bangladeshi students in 1998 and 2000 (p. 494). Gillborn (2005) believed that these
educational polices were therefore benefiting whites over other ethnic groups.
Gillborn’s (2005) last research question, regarding educational outcomes, was answered
by looking at the different ways schools responded to the policy-induced pressure to raise
standards. He began to answer this question with anecdotal evidence suggesting that schools
actively limited the number of minority students they admitted. He noted that this occurred
simultaneously with disproportionate black student expulsion numbers, explaining that these
practices were often omitted from official documentation. Even though black students continued
to be expelled from school at higher rates than their white peers, there was no mention about
disproportionality in any of the legislative measures. Additionally, black students were
frequently treated more harshly than white students accused of similar offences. He also found
that schools increased the use of demarcating settings according to ability levels and other forms
of internal selection to separate children into hierarchical groups. This stratification process has
been institutionalized and perpetuated by the government. For example, the Labour Party’s 1997
platform on education claimed to support the attachment of benefits to both high- and low-
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 41
achieving students (p. 495). In actuality, these policies only created advantaged pathways for
students who were considered to be “gifted and talented” (p.496), while increasing the number of
specialist schools that focused on those considered to be learning disabled.
Gillborn (2005) noted that one of the most consistent findings was the propensity of
white teachers disproportionately placing black students into academically low categories. These
decisions had a cumulative effect because of the way educational policies made meaning of
opportunity. Once the decision had been made to place a student into a lower class, success
became impossible as students were subjected to compounding educational inequities. For
example, educational policy mandated that students who were placed in academically low
classes be provided with a restricted curriculum, maintaining students at a slower curricular pace
than their academically “higher” peers. This compounded by their teachers’ low expectations, as
evidenced by failing grades as passing grades, made it increasingly difficult for students to ever
move out of lower academic groupings. Gillborn (2005) findings argued that both standardized
and unstandardized tests were some of the clearest examples of institutionalized racism. As such,
he recommended that future research examine if such discriminatory processes be allowed if test
takers were white.
Leonardo’s (2009) theoretical work examined the intersection of race, whiteness, and
education. He used Critical Social Theory (CST) as a medium to discuss the intersection of these
variables. CST is a multidisciplinary theory that seeks to emancipate through knowledge. He
explained that when applied to education, CST does not separate theory from practice. Instead, it
marries the two in order to help emancipate the historical oppression of students. Leonardo
(2009) sought to expand Critical Social Theory through the intersection of ideas from both
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 42
critical and race theories. In doing so, Leonardo took capitalist expansion and globalization into
consideration when discussing the conceptualization of whiteness.
His theoretical reconceptualization of race recognized that Marxism and race theories are
often at odds with each other, yet believes that both fields could benefit from an integration of
ideas. Within this reconceptualization, he identified each field’s respective blind spots. First, he
criticized the objectiveness embedded within Marxist theory, especially for its dismissal of race
as a false consciousness. Next, he criticized the subjectivity found within race theories as the
treatment of race is viewed as a fixed condition of identity, culture, and nature. From these
criticisms, he believed that race theories would benefit from situating race as a social-historical
construct within a political economy. He used the theory of ideology to help inform ways of
meaning making and how these meanings are embedded within the unconscious, arguing that
unconsciousness specifically helps to explain why racism is systemic. Therefore, he reasoned
that in order to understand racism, one must see the properties of race. To help identify racial
properties, Leonardo (2009) proposed that race should be considered a social category. In doing
so, he explained that the understanding of race would be expanded by evaluating its most
fundamental property—its evolutionary nature. Race’s dexterity has caused the racial landscape
to upset conventional racial reasoning. For example, Leonardo (2009) explained that intra-racial
conflict, such as the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis tribes, has made theorizing race more
difficult.
In his proposed expansion of racial conceptualization, Leonardo (2009) also addressed
the debates regarding the future of race. He examined this future through the articulation of two
contemporary view points on race: white abolitionists and reconstructionist. First, white
abolitionists insist that race, in particular whiteness, must be abolished. Next, reconstructionist-
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 43
theorists believe whiteness needs to be reformed, while color-blind theorists want to avoid the
issue of race completely. From these viewpoints, he concluded that race needs to be reimagined.
Leonardo (2009) saw whiteness as the very core of racism. Therefore, in order to reimagine race,
white privilege needs to be acknowledged and dismantled. White ideology requires privilege in
order to produce racial stratification, and the very creation of a normative and dominant race
allows for a marginal existence. He explained that any disruption will be difficult as whiteness is
not easily renounced due to its deep entrenchment within institutional practices and policies. For
example, he argued that whiteness is at the core of schooling institutions as it has permeated
school culture and curriculum. He went on to explain that schools use it as a normative measure
to signify what is right, making difference something that is categorically “wrong.”
Leonardo (2009) argued that institutional investment in whiteness is the strongest form of
racialization. This investment results in policies that privilege those considered to be white,
perpetuating a culture of whiteness. White privilege views racism as omnipresent, but suggests
that whites are not responsible for it, thus causing whites to fail at linking it to white domination.
As a result, white privilege can only be understood in the context of white supremacy. Unlike
overt historical iterations of white supremacy, such as the Klu Klux Klan, white supremacy hides
within the veins of educational policy and the structural bones of schooling institutions.
Leonardo (2009) outlined the properties of whiteness, arguing that it is malleable according to
social conditions and white hegemony. Even though the meaning of whiteness is always in flux,
the privilege it affords remains constant. Furthermore, the ability to bequeath it to a group of
people suggests that whiteness is a form of property.
He argued that privileging is integrated into institutional structures resulting in practices
that perpetuate racism. One way that he analyzed racist practices is by examining educational
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 44
policies that work to create color blind perspectives. Leonardo (2009) argued that No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) is exemplary of color-blindness as he considers it to be “an ‘act of whiteness’
and perpetuates the innocence of whiteness as a system of privilege” (p. 127). He measures the
level of color blindness embedded within NCLB using 10 tenets of color blindness. These tenets
include
1. Race and racism are declining in significance
2. Racism is largely isolated, an exception to the rule
3. Individualizes racism as irrational and pathological
4. Individualizes success and failure
5. Blames people of color for their limitations and behaviors
6. Mainly a study of attitude and attitudinal changes, rather than actual behavior
7. Downplays institutional relations or the racialized system
8. Plays up racial progress
9. Emphasizes class stratification as the explanation for racism
10. Downplays the legacy of slavery and genocide as long ago. (p. 134)
Using these tenets, he explained that NCLB is a symptom of the historical condition of color
blindness. Running on the platform of educational equity, NCLB won overwhelming support
from both Democrats and Republicans in 2001. The legislation aimed to “smoke out” those
schools with low performance scores and extend state sovereignty in order to equalize student
performance. The notion of “smoking out” echoes characteristics found within the language of
the Patriot Act, playing off the fear embedded within the national consciousness. Both pieces of
legislation were written at the same time. Prior to 2001, previous legislation offered
underperforming schools with resources for program improvement whereas NCLB threatened
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 45
schools with student exists or closures. The whiteness of NCLB is hidden within its ideology
regarding school failure and remediation. This legislation targets the improvement of four
identified groups: historically marginalized children, students with dis/abilities, poor children,
and English language learners. NCLB is guided by whiteness, as it requires the continuation of
race in order to both demonstrate progress as well as allow students of color to be declared as
failures.
Leonardo (2009) explained that on the surface, NCLB appears to be driven by racial
understanding as it acknowledges the symptoms of racism. What it does not address are the
origins of student achievement disparities. Furthermore, this legislation does not acknowledge
the structural problems that become obstacles for students and families of color. Hidden within
sanctions and “tough love” language, lie the perpetuation of both individualism and whiteness.
Leonardo (2009) explained that Critical Social Theory can be used to reveal both the racial and
class-based inequities built into the marrow of NCLB. NCLB is an example of structural racism
that pays homage to the economic discrimination of people of color.
Policies that intend to create equity, end up propagating inequities. Leonardo (2009)
believed that the very presence of multiculturalism in education not only confirms the presence
of white privileging, but is in and of itself a reaction to the white hegemony that exists in
schooling practices. However, multiculturalism has yet to build systematic equity in schooling.
He reasons that curriculums, initiatives, and policies aimed at building equity end up failing to
achieve equity for historically marginalized populations because institutional structures are
designed to privilege those who are considered to be white, disadvantaging those who are not.
Smartness as Property. Leonardo and Broderick’s (2011) theoretical article explored
“smartness” as an ideological system. In particular, the authors explored the ways in which
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 46
“smartness” intersected with the ideology of whiteness. The authors reasoned that smartness
worked as a form of property, with all the advantages that came with membership to a privileged
group.
When the authors examined the practice of ideological smartness within educational
institutions, they argued that privileged membership was important because schools used
normative practices to reinforce the value of these memberships. Leonardo and Broderick (2011)
believed that in order for these normative practices to be dismantled, the myth of the normal
child must be debunked. The authors described the normal child as an amalgamation of
privileged groups. These privileged groups were given capital and agency in schools. In order for
these privileged groups to exist, non-privileged groups needed to exist as well. Just as white
could not exist without its denigrated non-white other, ability required smartness in order to
disparage those who were considered to be uneducable and disposable. The authors defined
whiteness as, “…an ideology untied to certain bodies, but an articulation of disparate elements—
some racial, some not—in order to build a racial cosmology that benefits Whites in absolute
ways and minority groups relative only to one another” (p. 2209). The authors spent time
unpacking the logic of whiteness and how it was constructed through the recruitment of class,
gender, and sexual interests by whites. All of these groups suffered individually but were
comforted by the promise of their whiteness. When thought about as a social group, whiteness
did not have strict boundaries rather it was defined by its unique properties.
A unique property of whiteness was its flexibility, as membership to this privileged group
has changed over time. Whiteness was designed in such a way that allowed it to take away a
group’s membership at any time. The only stable quality of whiteness was its ideological power
and material advantage. Just like capitalism’s desire to maintain the haves from the have-nots,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 47
white ideology cared only about proliferating race relations to ensure the white race remained at
the top of the hierarchy. Leonardo and Broderick (2011) looked at the ways whiteness functioned
as a form of materialism. They pointed to incidents in American history, such as the
objectification of African slaves, they argued that this “propertizing” (p. 2210) of human life had
trickle down effects, beginning with white’s ability to define Africans. This then provided an
opportunity for whites to create hegemony, transforming whiteness into a common sense that
ultimately became law. Extending the propertization of people further, the authors found that
Marxism utilized cumulative historical materialism as a way to unpack the things that were of
value to society. Marxism claimed that social stratification and the commodification of people
created an opportunity for people to become propertied according to their material worth.
Leonardo and Broderick (2011) further analyzed the normative features of whiteness and
found that the main feature was its ability to separate people according to skin color. The authors
argued that whiteness existed for the sole purpose to stratify. The ideology of whiteness itself
created the space for white bodies to be considered “white” people. Given this, the authors
explained that, “whites are only real insofar as social institutions like education, and formidable
processes like common sense, recognize certain bodies as white” (p. 2213). Therefore, the
authors believed that whiteness’ function was to oppress and stratify people. The power held by
those who were considered to be white was perpetuated through institutions and added to the
commonly held belief that white bodies were white people.
When these principles were overlaid onto constructs of smartness, schools became the
sole proprietors of intellectual supremacy and inferiority. Schooling practices nominated some
students as “smart,” while deeming other students as “not-so-smart.” Leonardo and Broderick
(2011) argued that some students were taught that their intellectual supremacy was equitable to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 48
cultural capital. Simultaneously others were taught that their intellectual inferiority equated to a
lack of entitlement. The authors believed that smartness had the potential to be disrupted through
critical reflection. The ideology of smartness was embedded within the hidden curriculum of
classrooms. The privileging features of smartness were created through the ability of schools to
honor some forms of smartness over others. As a result, the authors questioned what was
smartness without those who are considered to be unintelligent? They found that smartness
required unintelligence just as whiteness required those who were not white as a way to afford
privilege. Furthermore, the authors explained that smartness functioned as a form of property
where its “owners” exercised this privilege.
When contextualized within the school setting, white privilege and racism operated in
harmony with the bureaucratic structures of special education to ensure students of color with
identified dis/abilities be placed into segregated classrooms, whereas their white peers with
identified dis/abilities were much more likely to have access to inclusion settings. Cultural
ideologies such as “smartness” might be analogous to other ideologies such as ableism that can
include: goodness, beauty and sanity may be constructed through the intersection of whiteness,
class privilege, heterosexist privilege, and patriarchy.
Understanding Ableism. Hehir’s (2002) theoretical article examined the landscape of
ability. He defined ableism as “a pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses
people who have mental, emotional and physical disabilities
7
” (p. 3). He believed that this
pervasive system of discrimination was built from deeply rooted expectations about beauty,
health, and productivity, resulting in a focusing of social attention on the individual.
7
Even though this dissertation notes dis/ability with a slash mark, there are two instances in
which it is not: 1. direct quotes, and 2. title of a legislative act.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 49
To better understand how discrimination played itself out, he problematized the term by
dissecting ablest assumptions entrenched within social structures. In particular, he examined
schools and how ablest assumptions affected the education of children with dis/abilities. He
rationalized this contextualization by explaining how ablest assumptions first became clear in
schooling practices. He explained that ableism was particularly detrimental in a schooling
context because it conveyed subtle and systematic messaging. Hehir (2002) further described this
messaging as
The devaluation of disability results in societal practices and attitudes that uncritically assert
that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than Braille, spell
independently than use spell-check, and hang out with non-disabled kids as opposed to other
disabled kids. (p. 3)
Here, he pointed out that teachers believed it was more beneficial for students with dis/abilities
to assimilate to non-disabled practices. Ablest practices such as these had negative effects on
children with dis/abilities as the focus existed solely on the dis/ability while excluding all other
potential variables of identity and/or experiences. By suggesting these assumptions were deeply
engrained in the education of children with dis/ability, Hehir (2002) warned that ablest practices
perpetuated prejudice.
In peeling back the layers of deep cultural prejudice against people with dis/abilities, Hehir
(2002) revealed two pervasive stereotypes: “Tiny-Tims” and “Supercrips” (p. 4). “Tiny Tims”
portrayed dis/ability as something that required dependency and childlike subordination. This
stereotype was often manifested in images of small children who seemed helpless. Hehir (2002)
explained that this particular stereotype suggested dis/ability could go away. The contrapositive
of this stereotype was the “supercrip.” A “supercrip” was a label that inferred dis/ability was
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 50
something that was inspirational yet required pity from non-disabled people. He went on to argue
that negative assumptions about dis/ability negatively influenced the education of students with
dis/abilities.
For the purpose of this study, I focused on Hehir’s (2002) exposure of negative
assumptions regarding students with learning dis/abilities (LD). Since LD was considered to be
less overt, these assumptions may have helped to inform how teachers constructed their
understanding of dis/ability. Hehir (2002) assumed that a higher prevalence of LD eligibilities
would equate to a reduction of ablest practices. What he found however was that students who
were considered to be LD experienced significant levels of inappropriate educational decisions
that resulted in lower educational outcomes.
Hehir (2002) believed that the lack of educational outcomes for students who were
considered dis/abled was a complex issue and attributed this occurrence to two variables: the
system (school) and the people who operated in these systems (the teacher). Even though this
study aimed to analyze teacher beliefs, it was important to note that in this instance it was
difficult to divorce the system (school) from the teacher. Since the current educational system
was not designed to support students with dis/abilities, an unforeseeable consequence of
inclusion was the minimization of specialization. General education teachers were not provided
with enough specialized training to support students with LD.
When a student was found to be struggling, the system conditioned teachers to be
reluctant to intervene. Hehir (2002) believed this reluctance began in teacher preparation
programs. General education teachers were asked to educate more students with dis/abilities in
their classroom but their training did not match what they were being asked to do. Hehir (2002)
reasoned that teachers believed they were avoiding potential stigmas by not drawing attention to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 51
a “deficit.” Ablest practices encouraged a focus on nuanced skills rather than on the education of
the whole student. This focused attention was important to this current study as it laid the
foundation for the construction of dis/ability. Hehir (2002) explained that ability was viewed
either as socially or medically constructed, but did not describe these specifically. A limitation of
ability literature was that it does not explore how these views developed into models of
understanding.
Materialism
The literature in this section explored dis/ability in the context of the material body. How
dis/ability or ability physically appeared influenced the way society constructed an
understanding of it. Transformative dis/ability theories looked to developments in the field of
feminist theory for new ideas about the physical body, resulting in the generation of emergent
theories. Garland-Thomson (2002) advanced dis/ability theory by advocating for a
Transformative Feminist Disability Theory approach. Her definition of Transformative Feminist
Disability theory predicated itself on the idea that it was
collaborative, [an] interdisciplinary inquiry and a self-conscious cultural critique that
interrogates how subjects are multiply interpolated: in other words, how the
representational systems of gender, race, ethnicity, ability, sexuality, and class mutually
construct, inflect, and contradict one another. These systems intersect to produce and
sustain ascribed, achieved, and acquired identities—both those that claim us and those
that we claim for ourselves. (p. 3)
She advocated this approach on the grounds that it “fosters complex understandings of the
cultural history of the body” (p. 4). She believed the material body played an important role in
the construction of dis/ability. Believing specifically that materialism provided insight into the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 52
power dynamics that existed in dis/ability construction. Harkening Foucault’s theory of power as
her theoretical framework, she explained how the intersection of power and the material body
dictated the dis/abled experience.
Expanding the idea of materialism further, Garland-Thomson (2002) described the
existence of a disability/ability system as one that viewed bodies as synonymous with the
categorization of a commodity. This commodification of the body occurred through materialism.
She explained that this view emerged from a mechanism that saw “disability as a pervasive
cultural system that stigmatizes certain kinds of bodily variations” (p. 5).
More specifically, she contributed to the discussion of dis/ability by advocating a four-
pronged understanding:
First it is a system for interpreting and disciplining bodily variations; second, it is a
relationship between bodies and their environments; third, it is a set of practices that
produce both the able-bodied and the disabled; fourth, it is a way of describing the
inherent instability of the embodied self. (p. 5)
This understanding simultaneously pushed beyond the confines of social constructivism and
towards the intersection of various experiences and identity markers. Building on this further,
she argued that dis/ability was not a gender-neutral experience and could not be seen in isolation
of gender.
Butler’s (1993) book explored heterogeneous hegemony and aimed to extend the
understanding of the material body’s role in the perpetuation of oppression. She advocated for a
return to the material examination of the body in order to understand the current field of Feminist
theory. Even though Butler did not explicitly refer to dis/ability in her work, her
conceptualization of materialism reimagined what variables constructed normalcy.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 53
Using Foucault’s schema of power, she asserted that power systems were constantly at
work to constrain certain bodies. Building from these assertions, she explained how “the body is
not an independent materiality that is invested by power relations external to it, but it is that for
which materialization and investiture are coextensive” (p. 9). Thus, she reasoned that the
imagined body was an integrative experience that consisted of internal and external constructs of
the materiality of the body. She argued that this materiality of the body directly equated to
power.
She proposed that there was such thing as a material body and this materialness affected
what she termed as the “performity” of the body. She explained that each body had different
levels of performity or elemental matter, however, the matter itself was not where meaning
making occurred. Rather, meaning was derived from how the body came to: materialize, mean
and ultimately matter. This process was what Butler (1993) described as social material
intelligibility. She believed this intelligibility was not inherent but constructed, believing that this
construction occurred at the point of performity. To both expand this idea and clarify its
meaning, she explained how this idea of performity was ultimately a discourse of power.
For discourse to materialize a set of effects, “discourse” itself must be understood as
complex and convergent chains in which “effects” are vectors of power. In this sense,
what is constituted in discourse is not fixed in or by discourse, but becomes the condition
and occasion for further action. This does not mean that any action is possible on the
basis of a discursive effect. On the contrary, certain reiterative chains of discursive
production are barely legible as reiterations, for the effects they have materialized are
those without which no bearing in discourse can be taken. (p. 187)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 54
She went on to explain that performity was neither willed into existence or arbitrarily formed.
Rather, she believed that history played an important role in the normalization of the material
body, explaining that normalization of material often required both exclusion and reiteration. The
cycle of exclusion and reiteration was often achieved historically, meaning bodies could be
oppressed through historical intelligibility. Therefore, bodies that did not fit into this accepted
normalcy would experience oppression.
When thinking about how to describe the body, Butler (1993) questioned whether the
body was purely discursive, and if terms used to describe the body were inherently limiting. She
explained how “the linguistic categories that are understood to ‘denote’ the materiality of the
body are themselves troubled by a referent that is never fully or permanently resolved or
contained by any given signifier” (p. 37). She believed that there were limitations in using a
singular term to describe a complex web of variables and experiences.
Intersectionality
Goodley’s (2014) theoretical article advocated for an interdisciplinary examination of
dis/ability. He justified the use of an interdisciplinary analysis by defining dis/ability as a form of
social oppression. This social oppression involved socially imposed restrictions on those
considered to be disabled, influencing their emotional wellbeing. This definition positioned
dis/ability as another form of oppression, creating an intersection point that allowed an analysis
of it across multiple disciplines.
Goodley (2014) asserted that Critical Disability would create an interdisciplinary space to
analyze the interplay of variables. He explained that “Critical disability studies start with
disability but never end with it: disability is the space from which to think through a host of
political, theoretical and practical issues that are relevant to all” (p. 632). Goodley (2014) used
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 55
materialism to theorize dis/ability. Materialism was the philosophical belief that the only thing
that exists was matter. Meaning was therefore constructed from this matter and could be altered
based on any physical modifications.
Goodley (2014) believed that the definition of dis/ability could be found within the
intersection of the past, present and future. In order to understand dis/ability today, one must
look at its origins and subsequent evolutions. He explained that the social model of dis/ability
was born from Marxism, suggesting that neo-Marxist thought in particular revealed how
factories systematically exposed dis/ability. Factories became the sorting system where
individuals were evaluated and those who were “unfit” to work, were unable to become part of
the workforce. This sorting practice ultimately led to systematic institutionalization of “unfit”
workers. As such, he reasoned that Capitalism and its inherent principles laid the groundwork for
materialism and materialism in turn provided a space for dis/ability to be recognized. Goodly
(2014) believed that materialism remains the dominant philosophical orientation engrained
within our society. As such, institutions, such as the educational institution, were rooted in
materialism principles. When examining special education in particular, the author argued that its
creation could be seen as a parallel to this Marxist institutionalization.
The author argued that materialism contributed to dis/ability construction. The
materialistic idea was deeply entrenched in American Capitalist culture and caused teachers to
look for “laborers” who were able, casting off those who were not. Furthermore, materialism
forced one to look externally, recognizing dis/ability only at the surface. Therefore, if one does
not display and/or exaggerate a dis/ability, one will not be recognized. This system facilitated a
sorting system where there are those who pass and those who do not. Goodly (2014) advocated
for a more in depth understanding of dis/ability, as he believed it was not binary but complex.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 56
Critical Dis/ability acknowledged identity as a complex web of understanding, incorporating the
past while recognizing the future.
Goodley’s (2014) work noted that within the field of dis/ability, there was an emerging
attempt to sever the body from dis/ability construction. This, he argued, set into motion a more
critical analysis of the body. He went on to explain that
As a direct riposte to medicalized and psychologized hegemonies of disability–that cited
disability as a personal tragedy, biological deficiency and psychical trauma–disability
studies relocated disability to social, cultural, economic and political registers. Having an
impaired body did not equate with disability. In contrast, disability was a problem of
society. (p. 634)
This, he explained, begged the question about impairment and its relationship with the physical
body. Understanding impairment was important because some definitions were “static, others
episodic, some degenerative and others terminal” (p. 634). As a result, a social model had
limitations as it could only explain so much. As a result, Goodley (2014) advocated for a “return
to the experiential realities of ‘impairment’ as object(s) independent of knowledge” (p. 634).
Therefore, understanding impairment helped understand how dis/ability was constructed. Goodly
(2014) believed that dis/ability
Exists on the peripheral of all other fields. Critical disability attempts to radically change
this as it characterized itself by an unwillingness to be ignored by potential theoretical
and political allies and a proactive drive to connect and influence these allies. This has
led to a number of intersectional engagements. (p. 636)
Here, he argued that intersectionality was at the heart of Critical Dis/ability as it “seeks to
explore convergence and divergence of multiple markers” (p. 636). So, to truly disrupt the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 57
current binary understanding of dis/ability, one needed to have “difficult conversations across
socio-cultural categories and forms of interpellation to ask how, for example, dis/ability, gender,
race, sexuality and class constitute or contradict one another” (p. 637). Therefore, to understand
dis/ability, one must look at the intersection of various identity markers.
Anastuscio, Kauffman, and Michail’s (2014) theoretical article explored the limitations of
categorizing dis/ability as another form of diversity. Specifically, this article argued that even
though “… disability is a natural part of human diversity, it is not just another difference and
must not be seen as an unwarranted social construction alone” (p. 6). This article deconstructed
the elements of social construction that worked to limit understanding of what dis/ability was and
in doing so, the authors identified four major problems: 1. Dis/ability as part of human diversity,
2. Heterogeneity across the dis/ability spectrum multicultural, 3. Dis/abilities versus cultural
differences, and 4. Dis/abilities as social construction (p. 7).
First, the authors argued that equating dis/ability to other forms of difference, such as
race and gender could be misleading. Anastucio et al. (2014) accentuated this point by using
Banks and McGees’s (2013) definition of dis/ability to demonstrate the limitations social
construction could have on one’s understanding of dis/ability. According to Banks and McGee
(2013) dis/ability referred “primarily to physical or mental characteristics of an individual that
prevent or limit that person from performing specific tasks,” this definition encourages a narrow
view of disability (p. 3). Since this definition focused solely on impairment, it did not capture the
socially constructed barriers to the self-determination of people with dis/abilities and to
appropriate services (e.g., education, medical care, counseling services) that showed respect for
the rights of every human (p. 3). Therefore, Anastucio et al. (2014) argued that it was critical to
recognize that dis/ability was not purely a social construct or impairment, but a complex
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 58
interplay of variables. The authors utilized Shakespeare’s (2013) understanding of disability to
identify what this complexity encompassed. Specifically, Shakespeare (2013) explained that it
was “a complex interaction of biological, psychological, cultural and sociopolitical factors which
cannot be extricated except with imprecision” (p. 4). This “interactional view” helped to develop
a fuller understanding of dis/ability.
The authors argued that unpacking the epistemological usage of social construction
limited dis/ability as the term itself was inherently vague. Anastucio et al. (2014) explained how,
“social construction is itself a fuzzy idea. A fuzzy concept is vague, lacks precise meaning, or
has multiple meanings, and its application varies considerably” (p. 4). This fuzziness blurred the
complex interplay of variables that constituted a critical understanding of dis/ability.
Problematizing dis/ability as only a social construction helped policy makers develop uniform
policies to support students who would fall under this category, but it did not address the varied
experiences and needs of these students. The authors went on to explain how “assimilating
dis/ability into cultural difference is not just another conceptual issue, but a serious social justice
issue that has sociopolitical and educational implications” (p. 6). A more pluralistic view would
help layer the discourse on how to best serve students with dis/ability. The authors pointed out
that
Most multicultural education theorists tend to point out three important, interrelated
issues: (a) the interaction between disability and ethnic difference, (b) the dangers of
labeling, and (c) the disproportionality issue in special education (i.e., the
disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
education placements. (p. 6)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 59
These interrelated issues could lead to inappropriate educational programming for students with
dis/abilities.
Gabel and Peter’s (2010) theoretical article questioned whether moving beyond the social
construction of disability would in fact be beneficial. They explored the utility of social
constructivist approaches and warned that sweeping statements admonishing social
constructionism may end up doing more damage. This article tracked pivot points in dis/ability
theory and provided insight into the ways dis/ability was constructed.
First, Gabel and Peters (2010) questioned the “feasibility and usefulness of a
‘comprehensive or inclusive social theory of disability’” (p. 586). Looking at dis/ability through
a pragmatic lens, the authors believed that a comprehensive view of dis/ability was not realistic.
Specifically, they suggested the implementation of a definition that encapsulated the complexity
of dis/ability would be difficult. In particular, they questioned the reality of creating a definition
that could be representative of everyone’s experience with dis/ability. The authors acknowledged
the need for a change, but the authors proposed what they called an “eclectic ‘model’ that
welcomed diverse paradigmatic representations” (p. 586).
Gabel and Peters (2010) first outlined four paradigms that emerged from historical
explorations of dis/ability. They identified the following four paradigms as: “post-modernism,
historical materialism, interpretivism, and functionalism” (p. 590). After sketching out these
paradigms, the authors believed that each paradigm attempted to address both micro- and/or
macro-level issues across both subjective and objective lines. Additionally, these paradigms
aimed to strike the balance between pragmatic concerns and varied forms of representation.
Next, Gabel and Peters (2010) visualized these paradigms both individually and
collectively, looking for points of intersection. They found that there were permeable lines,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 60
providing an opportunity to move beyond rigid social construction and toward intersectionality.
These blurred lines became what the authors suggested was a third space in dis/ability theory.
This third space sought to explore more complex understandings of dis/ability. Since my
research questions sought to understand teachers’ beliefs about students at various levels,
including: dis/ability, gender, race/ethnicity, and SES, this third space allowed me to explore
dis/ability through intersections of these values rather than just a binary system.
Gillborn’s (2015) theoretical article analyzed the role intersectionality played in the use
of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in education. Specifically, the author explored the intersecting
roles of race, class, and gender in the construction of dis/ability in education.
Gillborn (2015) began this discussion by outlining the key tenets of Critical Race Theory.
He explained that at the center of CRT is the perspective that “race” is socially constructed.
Society therefore created, reinforced, and perpetuated “racial difference” as a means of social
stratification. Another tenet of CRT was its ability to manifest itself differently across contexts,
making it a complex, subtle, and flexible theory. He believed that racism remained hidden
beneath constructs of normal, making only obvious forms of racism problematic. CRT’s
dexterity allowed for the unearthing of these hidden forms of racism. Additional tenets included
the idea that CRT both challenged ahistorical perspectives and viewed whiteness as a flexible
identity that had the ability to change membership qualifiers. He explained that “white-ness”
referred to “a set of assumptions, beliefs, and practices that place the interests and perspectives
of White people at the center of what is considered normal and everyday” (p. 278). Gillborn
(2015) noted that CRT was not an assault on white people but an assault on the social
construction and perpetuation of power of white identifications, norms, and interests. The
perpetuations of these ideas worked in concert to construct white supremacy. According to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 61
Gillborn (2015), white supremacy referred to the subtle and extensive forces that permeated the
everyday actions and policies that work in concert to shape the world in the intersection of white
bodies.
CRT explored the way raced inequities were shaped by social processes. Gillborn (2015)
noted that these processes were influenced by both identity and social structure. CRT theorists
used intersectionality as a way to excavate how identity and social structure worked in harmony
to continue raced inequities. “Intersectionality” was used to “address how multiple forms of
inequality and identity inter-related in different contexts and over time, for example, the inter-
connectedness of race, class, gender, disability, and so on” (p. 278). Gillborn (2015) used
intersectionalism to explain how complexity had both an empirical basis and origins in activism.
CRT therefore required an intersectional approach to better understand how social inequities
were created through processes.
Gillborn (2015) also explored the use of intersectionality by drawing on empirical data
from a previous study he conducted with Ball, Rollock and Vincent (2015). This qualitative
study was part of a 2-year investigation funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC). This study focused on the intersection of race and class in the lives of black middle-
class parents. The authors conducted two-phase interviews in order to learn more about the day-
to-day lives of black parents and their children as they negotiated the social construction of
dis/ability within education. In particular, the authors were interested in the labeling processes
used to determine “special educational needs” (SEN).
A total of 77 black parents were included in the study’s sample. The sample was limited
to parents who identified as being of black-Caribbean ethnic heritage and who were employed in
higher professional and managerial roles. This group was chosen because the black-Caribbean
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 62
community in the United Kingdom was one of the longest established historically marginalized
groups. Additionally, the authors selected this group because of their history with political
campaigning for social justice, yet their children continued to face educational inequalities in
both achievement and expulsion. All parents in the study had children between the ages of 8 and
18. This age range was selected because this age group was subject to key decision-making
points in the English educational system. Most of the respondents were mothers but the authors
wanted to ensure at least a fifth of the sample included black fathers in order to redress common
deficit assumptions about black men. All the parents were in either professional or managerial
jobs within the top two categories of the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-
SEC) and most lived in Greater London. Participants volunteered to take part in the study and the
authors recruited participants by placing advertisements in professional and online publications.
The authors conducted two rounds of interviews to explore parents’ experiences of the
education system, their aspirations for their children and how race/racism and social class shaped
these experiences. From the first round of interviews, the authors identified 15 people to
participate in the second round of interviews. In this article, Gillborn (2015) did not include the
specifics of the selection process for the second round of interviews. The intention of the second
round of interviews was to explore the emergent themes and questions generated from the first
round. In total, 77 interviews provided the original data for this project. The project team
included three white researchers and one black researcher. The authors asked respondents to note
in advance whether they preferred a black interviewer, a white interviewer, or had no preference.
These preferences were met. Following the interviews, around half (55%) felt that interviewer’s
ethnicity made a difference and almost all of these felt that rapport with a black researcher had
been an advantage. The team was split evenly between men and women, and two of the authors
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 63
declared having a dis/ability.
The intersection of race and dis/ability emerged as key element in the interviews with
black middle-class parents. A total of 15 interviewees mentioned dis/ability or related issues
during their interviews. Gillborn (2015) explained that the mention of both race and dis/ability
revealed several patterns and addressed them according in the following three questions
First, what processes lead to a special needs assessment being made? Second, what
happens after the assessment? Finally, whose interests are being served by the schools’
reactions to, and treatment of, Black middle-class parents and children in relation to the
question of dis/ability? (p. 280)
Despite the clear articulation of a school-based identification process, only one of the
respondents noted that this process was used in the identification of his/her child as having a
special education need. The remainder of the parents noted that this process was actually started
by them and not by the school. Respondents shared that they needed to draw on their economic,
cultural, and social capital to finance and actualize special services for their children. For
example, Rachel described her process of getting an assessment for her son
I took [my son] to get him educationally assessed and they said that he had dyslexia . . . I
took him up to Great Ormond Street [Hospital] to get his hearing tested and they said he
can’t hear half of what’s going on. So when the teachers are always saying “he’s distracted
and not paying attention,” he can’t hear . . . they were just very happily saying [he] doesn’t
pay attention, [he] doesn’t do this, [he] doesn’t do that, but, you know, he can’t hear . . .
(Rachel, Senior Solicitor, Private Sector). (p. 280)
The teacher, a bureaucratic extension of the school, believed that Rachel’s son was a behavioral
problem. His mother did not believe this was an accurate assessment of her son. Rather than the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 64
institution reevaluating the teacher’s assessment, it took the mother’s persistence to instigate
additional testing. In the end, her son was found to have had a hearing impairment. The authors
noted only two cases as an exception to this pattern. Following racist incidents of aggression
against black boys, two parents noted that their relative schools suggested an assessment and
shifted the focus onto the individual student who suffered the abuse and away from institutional
failings.
The second pattern that emerged from the data was the school’s negative reaction to
assessments that indicate a special education need. After parents had used their capital to access
formal SEN assessments, black middle-class parents in the study were forced to initiate and
continue the process for supports after the school refused to take action. The respondents
revealed that in a minority of cases, the school refused to act on the assessment but most cases
noted that the school would take informal steps but their actions were inconsistent at best and at
worst non-existent. For example, Nigel’s son was diagnosed with Autism and the assessment
report recommended he use a laptop in class. Nigel was prepared to buy the computer himself
but the school refused to allow his son to use it as it would “set a bad precedent” (p. 280).
The final pattern that emerged from the interviews was an inconsistent meeting of student
need based on the intersection of race, class, gender and dis/ability. In particular, black British
students from middle-class homes did not have their needs met. Rather, the needs of the
institution were being met as it continued to serve the racial stratification of students.
Dis/ability
Siebers (2008) described both the current landscape of dis/ability theory and advocated
for a more complex understanding of dis/ability. Despite significant differences within the
various models of dis/ability theory, he believed all models had three intertwining agendas. The
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 65
first agenda focused on the status of academic dis/ability research. The first agenda he articulated
does not address dis/ability research and therefore I am choosing to omit it from this section.
The second agenda addressed how dis/ability related to representation. Representation
provided insight into teachers’ understandings of dis/ability, and what variables were used to
construct dis/ability. Siebers (2008) explained that dis/ability representation was what society
constituted as dis/ability. Society used visible elements, such as the physical body, to delineate
ability and dis/ability. Siebers (2008) continues this description of dis/ability as something that
requires visibility. He explained from personal experience that in order to “pass” as dis/abled, he,
as a disabled person himself, needed to “adopted the habit of exaggerating [his] limp” (p. 96).
Societal norms required that a dis/ability be visible to be categorize someone as dis/abled.
Therefore “disability exposes with great force the constraints imposed on bodies by social codes
and norms” (p. 57). Here, he reasoned that dis/ability revealed more about society than it did
about an individual. This situated understandings of dis/ability in a society’s understanding of
what abled meant.
The third agenda sought to reconstruct dis/ability as something that was positive rather
than negative. Dis/ability had the potential to be empowering and did not need to be something
that others pitied. Siebers (2008) asserted that the dis/abled had the right to have rights. In doing
so, he posed a question to readers and ultimately the field of dis/ability studies, “why should we
help them, why should we include the fragile, vulnerable, and disabled in our communities?” (p.
184). The question of inclusion revealed society’s potential reluctance and led to feelings of
discomfort. When applied to the classroom setting, teachers could feel uncomfortable with
students who had dis/abilities. When compounded further with minimal training, teachers either
ignored the problem or referred students out to a specialist.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 66
Siebers (2008) also drew attention to the evolutionary nature of dis/ability Theory. His
work unpacked how this term changes across time by looking at assumptions embedded in the
construction of dis/ability. Historically, dis/ability theory emerged as a medical model. This
model defined “disability as an individual defect lodged in the person, a defect that must be
cured or eliminated if the person is to achieve full capacity as a human being” (p. 3). Here, he
argued that the medicalization of dis/ability reduced understandings of ability to the individual
by not taking into consideration external factors. This individual experience echoes Hehir’s
(2008) construct of ableism. Individualizing dis/ability provides a space to see it as an anomaly,
the one that if fixed, does not have to be acknowledged.
Movements to broaden understandings aimed to include more complexity. He explained
how initial movements away from the medical model of dis/ability utilized the lens of “social
constructionism” (p. 54). Social constructivism was a way to theorize the physical body yet
despite its more expansive definition, it too had its limitations. This theoretical lens explained
how society created its own understanding and representation of dis/ability, however it did not
allow the body to assert its own understanding. This forced dis/ability to be the primary identity,
it did not allow the individual to decide if this was shared or not. This primary identity was
socially imposed, making other identity markers like gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status
less visible from one’s identity.
Finally, despite several significant changes in dis/ability theory, what remained constant was
a binary understanding of dis/ability. This assertion was important because it only left room for a
narrow understanding of what dis/ability was. Siebers’s (2008) understanding, however, argued
that dis/ability was not binary, but rather a complex intersection of internal experiences and
external forces.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 67
Anastasiou and Kauffman’s (2011) theoretical article critically explored the social model
of dis/ability construction and questioned its approach to dis/ability. They argued that it was
important to scrutinize the social constructionist model and to examine the consequences its
assertions may have had for special education. Proponents of the social model of dis/ability
believed that the medical model did not capture what it meant to have a dis/ability as it narrowed
its understanding to the individual and away from institutional influences. Social constructivists
argued that the medical model was flawed because of the following reasons:
1. It implies that “within-individual” (physical and psychological) factors are the
primary or exclusive causes of disability.
2. It de-emphasizes the role of social factors in creating disabilities.
3. It creates a taxonomic system for categorizing disabilities, and an identification
process that results in labeling people with disabilities.
4. It connotes the treatment of people with disabilities by medical and paramedical
professions and creates powerful, vested interests in the medical industry for finding a
“cure for disability or preventing it.
5. It connotes a cruel professional attitude toward people with disabilities, a paternalistic
relationship between the professional and the clients with disabilities, and it invades
people’s privacy.
6. It implies the medical treatment of disability, which, in turn, is equated with stigma,
unnecessary hospitalization, and asylums. (p. 368)
Social constructivism was created as a push back against the medical model. This however did
not mean this approach was without its own flaws. The authors explained that the fear of a social
constructivist model was that it may have contributed to the eager aims of inclusion, but could
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 68
actually be more oppressive than emancipatory. Overall, the social constructivist movement
criticized the mainstream interpretation of dis/ability under the pretenses that it did not capture
the real experience of being dis/abled. In order to critically analyze the social model of
dis/ability, the authors sketched out the basic tenets of the social constructivist model. The
following were considered to be the five truths of the social model of dis/ability:
1. There is a sharp distinction between impairment and disability. Impairment refers to
physical/bodily dysfunction, and disability to social organization.
2. Disability is not a product of bodily pathology, but of specific social and economic
structures.
3. Social and economic structures disable impaired people, excluding them from full
participation in mainstream social activities.
4. The political goal of the disability rights movement should be the removal of barriers
imposed by social structures and attitudes.
5. Disability is not a personal tragedy. (p. 371)
These ideas were what make up the social model of dis/ability. Even though these rebuttals to the
medical model were designed to be emancipatory, the authors feared “these ideas—the
constructionist model, which has now become orthodoxy—will not be a liberating force. In fact,
the constructionist model of dis/ability may have contributed not only to a zealous pursuit of
inclusion at the expense of effective instruction but also to the demise of special education” (p.
368).
Anastasiou and Kauffman (2011) believed that a potential weakness of a social
constructivist model was the use of anecdotal storytelling. Even though storytelling could offer
influential data, there was a fear that it limited scientific research within the field of dis/ability.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 69
They explained how some activists with dis/abilities clearly stated that they constructed their
own truths, unique perceptions, and interpretations. These truths constructed a reality of what
dis/ability was because only those who had a dis/ability could represent the likes and interests of
people with dis/abilities. The authors however warned that personal belief could be mistaken for
public knowledge. This could be detrimental because it may have limited the generalizability of
dis/ability. As a result, the authors cautioned that a social constructivist approach allowed
personal truth to become public truth.
Anastaciou and Kauffman (2011) argued that it was important to understand where these
definitions of dis/ability originated since the positionality of an author dictated where his/her
research was situated, in turn dictating how dis/ability was understood. These definitions had the
propensity to become public truths. These truths, in turn, informed the theoretical design of
dis/ability, and influenced teachers’ meaning making process of this term. The model of
dis/ability became the theoretical underpinning of teacher preparation curriculum and could
subsequently influence teachers’ construction of dis/ability.
Moving beyond the limitations of social constructivism, Anastaciou and Kauffman
(2011) explained how ambiguity and generalizability had the potential to inappropriately serve
students with special needs. Pointing to epistemology, the authors believed the term itself was
problematic as it was “singular…refer[ring] to a huge range of more specific conditions” (p.
375). Asserting that, a singular term limited the ability to capture the complexity that was
dis/ability. Recognizing the difficulty that came with capturing a multifaceted experience, the
authors feared that any attempt to restructure the word may have led to oversimplifications.
Echoing this fear of singularity, the authors suggested social construction acknowledged only
one form of dis/ability and ignored biology.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 70
Anastaciou and Kauffman (2011) argued that one possible educational implication of
adhering to a social constructivist model of dis/ability would be the depiction of special
education as discriminatory as it forcibly segregated students. Social constructivism had the
potential to bring attention to the serious issues of equity embedded within the institution of
special education. The authors believed that special education should not be abolished but should
be critically analyzed in order to improve inequitable practices. Given this viewpoint, the authors
believed special education was at a crossroads, trying to help students without stigmatizing them.
McDermott and Varenne’s (1995) theoretical article described dis/ability as culture. By
using a cultural lens to look at dis/ability, the authors explained that dis/ability actually identified
weaknesses in a cultural system rather than weakness in people. As such, the authors believed
that dis/ability construction needed to recognize that dis/abilities were “cultural fabrication” (p.
332) and as such, learning dis/abilities served as examples of this “culture at work” (p. 327).
Under a dis/ability as culture paradigm, the authors found that physical ability was either enabled
or dis/abled according to the level of recognition a culture gave it. Dis/ability was therefore a
fabrication of what “normal” perceived as the dis/abled condition.
McDermott and Varenne (1995) used the dis/ability as culture paradigm to examine
minority student academic performance. This approach revealed a narrative that there must be
something wrong with those kids’ life. The authors believed that both teachers and schools used
internal and external modes of contextualization to understand why something was happening in
the school setting. The internal contextualization situated the problem as something that was
wrong inside the child. This typically emerged as something that had to do with an impairment
with his/her cognitive, linguistic, and/or social development. The external contextualization
focused on what was wrong with the child externally. The authors believed that when schools
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 71
looked primarily at external causes, they will use words like: “deprived, different, disadvantaged,
at-risk, disabled” (p. 331) to problematize what they believed was causing a student to perform
lower than others. McDermott and Varenne (1995) explained that external behaviors of these
“deprived” students were then used as documented evidence of their struggles, and began the
process for dis/abling.
McDermott and Varenne (1995) explained that culture wass generally considered to be a
positive term. People tended to live culturally, and in groups, creating their own set of unique
norms. These norms laid the groundwork for what was accepted or unaccepted. These groups
built structures based on what was needed for the majority of the group, this could either be
enabling or dis/abling.
Physical structures that leave people locked out of public places, through bad school
assessment systems that leave people from learning what is in some way needed, on to
metaphors and tropes that deliver so consistently a view of people as less than they are.
(p. 328)
When applied to schools, students who were “culturally” different could be shut out from
learning.
The authors argued that the culture of dis/ability paradigm required a reciprocal
relationship between perceptions and dis/ability. A culture’s perceptions of ability informed a
culture’s perception of dis/ability. Therefore, according to McDermott and Varenne (1995),
current definitions of dis/ability did not tell much about dis/abled people, rather these definitions
described an inequitable culture.
McDermott and Varenne (1995) offered three ways of thinking about dis/ability and
culture. First, the Deprivation approach, “takes up the possibility that people in various groups
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 72
develop differently enough that their members can be shown to be measurably distinct on various
developmental milestone” (p. 333). This approach assumed that people who were disabled were
unable to be fully active in a culture. The second approach, the Difference approach, “takes up
the possibility that the ways people in different groups develop are equivalently well tuned to the
demands of their cultures and, in their various ways, are equivalent paths to complete human
development” (p. 334). Even though this approach welcomed individual variation, those who
could not demonstrate that they were normal, were unable to be part of the dominant culture. The
authors believed that this approach in particular explained school failure as it “maintains that
children from a minority cultural background mixed with teachers from a more dominant cultural
background suffer enough miscommunication and alienation to give up on school, this despite
the fact that they are, at least potentially, fully capable” (p. 334). Finally, the Culture-as-
Disability approach, “takes up the possibility that every culture, as an historically evolved pattern
of institutions, teaches people what to aspire to and hope for and marks off those who are to be
noticed, handled, mistreated, and remediated as falling short” (p. 335). This approach believed
that cultures worked actively to dis/able those who were not normal.
Cross-Pollination
Waitoller and Thorius’s (2014) qualitative study advocated for Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy specifically through the inclusion of students with dis/abilities in addition to race,
ethnicity, language, and class in order to truly eliminate educational boundaries for all students.
The authors used a vignette to explore how one teacher, Ms. Torres, used cross-pollination
features of both Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) and Universal Design Learning (UDL) to
support students with utilizing cultural reflexivity and situating knowledge outside of whiteness
and privilege. The authors explained that CSP and UDL both had limitations in their ability to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 73
eliminate educational boundaries when used in isolation. However, a cross-pollination of ideas
inherent in each movement could dismantle educational boundaries and serve as emancipatory
for students with dis/abilities.
Waitoller and Thorious (2014) explained that dis/ability had been historically overlooked
and left out of social justice initiatives. This was evidenced by the systematic use of traditional
notions of dis/ability to situate deficits within the individual rather than institutions. When
applied to the school setting, educational failure was placed on the student rather than the school.
The authors explained that schooling was orientated towards cultures of smartness and whiteness
in order to perpetuate and reinforce oppression. Therefore, in order to dismantle traditional
notions of dis/ability, the authors used a slash to communicate how dis/ability was not an
individual trait but a product of cultural, political, and economic practices (p. 367). This meaning
did not deny biological or psychological differences, but emphasized how such differences could
gain meaning but with negative consequences. Dis/ability was also an identity marker that
demonstrated how ability was relied on and constructed with other identity markers such as
gender, race, or language.
The authors used a vignette of a high school teacher to demonstrate the power of cross
pollination and asset pedagogy. This vignette followed Ms. Torres, an 11
th
-Grade English
teacher, who utilized asset pedagogy to teach her students writing. Ms. Torres taught writing to
her 11
th
-grade English class. The school she worked at was located in an urban high school. A
majority of this 11
th
-grade class was comprised of Latina students who spoke Spanish. There
were six students identified as having either intellectual or physical dis/ability labels, ranging
from Autism to emotional disturbance.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 74
She based her lesson off of a recently published newspaper article that featured a debate
regarding the relationship between the school district’s high rates of discipline referrals,
incarceration, and unemployment. This debate highlighted the community’s perceptions that
student deficits were a result of their home environments. The article also suggested that the
school failing label, for the past 3 years, affected students’, families’, and teachers’ morale. Ms.
Torres wanted to help students’ make sense of this situation and formulate a response.
The lesson was broken down into four sections. First, she encouraged students to
brainstorm and create data sets. This helped to empower students to be experts of their own lived
experiences. Second, she highlighted the critical features of the article. Next, she asked students
to work in pairs to create individual research topics that they were interested in. Within this
section of the lesson, she allowed students to move freely throughout the classroom. Students
were able to access any resources and materials, and could use their first languages as a
legitimate tool for communication. Finally, she supported her students with leaving evidence of
their own experiences by selecting a medium of communication that helped them to best present
their findings.
The authors then unpacked Ms. Torres’ lesson to identify how cross-pollination
techniques supported the empowerment of her students. They began by first looking at the goals
of the lesson. Waitoller and Thorious (2014) believed that decontextualized academic goals
contributed to the assimilation of students into the dominant cultures of schools. Conversely,
curriculum goals of cross-pollination welcomed the strengths of two pedagogical frameworks. In
this vignette, the authors believed that Ms. Torres moved beyond teaching standards and towards
a reflexive stance. This stance helped to empower all the cultural repertoires of students who had
been a victim of historical marginalized. Traditional curriculum dis/abled students as it was
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 75
informed by dominant culture’s appreciation for whiteness and smartness. Ms. Torres provided
an opportunity for dis/abled students to recognize their own assets. For example, students were
allowed to explore different examples experiences of intersecting forms of oppression.
Next, Ms. Torres’s selection of materials demonstrated the power of cross-pollination.
The authors explained that materials were a key means of supporting students with curricular
engagement. This was because they privileged some students’ while marginalizing others. In
context of dis/ability, materials either enabled or dis/abled students further. Therefore, materials
needed to be flexible and situated in students’ cultural repertoires. Ms. Torres created materials
that were socially just and critically reflective of her students. Ms. Torres also demonstrated
cross-pollination techniques in her instructional methods. The authors noted that instructional
methods worked to privilege dominant cultural and language practices, knowledge, and abilities
and in turn, this limited the learning and participation of students who are not part of the
dominant culture. Ms. Torres’s lesson used inclusive methods to ensure all students had access to
meaningful participation.
Finally, Ms. Torres’s assessment design supported the ideals of cross-pollination as she
pulled from both culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design learning to ensure all her
students were empowered. This was critical to her lesson being equitable as Waitoller and
Thorious (2014) believed that assessments were pedagogical tools of exclusion. They had
historically worked to privilege the value of only a select group of knowledge systems. They
worked to demonstrate how non-dominant students’ knowledge did not fit into a narrow
definition of smartness.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 76
Justifiable Inequality
Reid and Knight’s (2006) theoretical article sought to understand how various dis/ability
constructs affected students. Their exploration began with a critical historical approach to
identify the theoretical underpinning of dis/ability. Reid and Knight (2006) believed the medical
model of dis/ability paved the way for Positivist ideologies to permeate the foundational
constructs of dis/ability. Reasoning that the “historical construction of difference makes
institutionalized racism, classism, and sexism seem natural in their conflation with dis/ability,
defined as oppression based on ableism” (p. 18). Reid and Knight (2006) believed history
perpetuated a cycle of oppression through the repetition of ablest practices that labeled students
as not normal. They went on to argue that ableism played a vital role in this cycle of oppression.
Building on Hehir’s (2002) definition of ableism, the authors proposed a conceptualization of
ableism to be an individual experience. Hehir (2002) explained that dis/ability was therefore
something that needed to be corrected. Reid and Knight (2006) furthered Hehir’s (2002) idea by
explaining how correction led to ideas about acceptance. Acceptance positioned ableism against
the backdrop of what was considered to be “normal.” By intertwining the ideology of normalcy
into ableism, this article unearthed a systematic oppression entrenched in the educational system.
This article pointed to disproportionality rates in special education programming as
evidence of discrimination. Reid and Knight (2006) believed discrimination was responsible for
disproportionality, and suggested that it was unlikely discrimination existed solely in social
structures. They came to this conclusion by pointing out that discrimination was reduced when
impairments were medically defined. For example, students who were diagnosed with mental
retardation tended to have lower disproportionality rates. Discrimination emerged as social
constructs of impairment were left to interpretation. This was most notably seen with high
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 77
incident diagnoses such as learning disabled (LD). These interpretations contributed to a cycle of
oppression and were based on social constructions of normalcy that were perpetuated in schools.
Beliefs about the limitations of dis/ability caused the cycle of oppression to occur, using social
structures as stages to play out systematic discriminations.
Reid and Knight (2006) explained how dis/ability’s negative connotation created a space
for discrimination. Specifically, dis/ability’s affiliation with abnormality made it “the
quintessential marker of hierarchical relations used to rationalize inequality, discrimination, and
exclusion” (p. 19). In order to better understand this phenomenon, the authors examined what
society considered normal
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 medicalization and
pathologized. (p. 19)
Constructions of normalcy continued to subjugate people with dis/abilities, using pathology to
justify labels of what was perceived to be defective. Dis/ability labels themselves were
detrimental as they allowed teachers to interpret qualifiers. For example, Reid and Knight (2006)
pointed out that eligibilities like “LD, MR, and ED
8
, 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” (p. 19). When applied to the school setting in
particular, Reid and Knight pointed out that schooling institutions provided the opportunity for
8
Learning Dis/abled (LD), Mental Retardation (MR) now Intellectually Dis/abled (ID),
Emotionally Disturbed (ED).
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 78
teachers to judge students as either normal or abnormal. How this was determined was based on
a set of standards that adhered to the historical white European ideal. Normal was
(a) Uphold[ing] Eurocentric and ablest conceptions of knowledge and decorum (b)
consider the dialects of American Blacks and Latinas/os inferior to Standard American
English 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. (p. 19)
These normal expectations allowed institutions to hold dis/abled students of non-European
descent to standards that were not situated to their experiences. The use of normative standards
also allowed individuals in positions of power, like teachers, to oppress students under the
illusion of care.
Reid and Knight (2006) pointed out that educational legislation was used to justify
inequity. For example, since educational legislation made it illegal for students to be segregated
on account of race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or SES, dis/ability
circumvented these restrictions as it allowed students to be separated from their white peers on
account of not being deemed “normal.” The authors suggested that a teachers’ understandings of
a student’s identity markers were what perpetuated the cycle of oppression. These beliefs about
identity markers strongly influenced the way in which teachers determined what was “normal” in
their classrooms.
In Artiles’s (2003) theoretical article, he advocated for a deeper understanding of
dis/ability through the exploration of hidden silences embedded within the discourse
communities of exclusion and overpopulation. He revealed the use of institutional practices for
the perpetual stratification of people to the peripheral. Beginning with special education’s origin,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 79
the author explained how this institution was born from civil rights discourse. However, with
societal and professional transformations, Artiles (2003) believed that the special education field
needed to answer the following questions
• How will special education’s identity change as this system serves more racially
diverse students with disabilities in general education contexts?
• How will understandings of culture be infused in special education’s identity?
• How will this field acknowledge race and language background in research practices
and how will researchers place these constructs in dynamic grids of cultural
influence?
• As understandings of inclusion shift from a spatial location (the general education
classroom) to the alignment of educational philosophies with visions of
organizational arrangements, how will the new identity of the field account for racial
differences, culture, and space? (p. 165)
These questions guided Artiles’s (2003) examination of the literature from both inclusion and
overpopulation literature. He situated this examination with the assertion that developments in
special education should be examined in the context of larger cultural and political processes.
Therefore, he placed these processes in both social and educational reform. Additionally, this
special education examination needed to include an analysis of the power differentials and
struggles that shaped the educational outcomes of racial minorities and students with
dis/abilities. Artiles (2003) presented the findings as follows
1) silence about racial diversity in the implementation of inclusive models, 2) lack of
vision for a culturally responsive educational system, 3) inadequate attention to socio-
historical context and the complexity of culture, 4) limited definitions of space, and 5)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 80
problematic views of difference. (p. 166)
For the purpose of this study, I excluded the “lack of vision for a culturally responsive
educational system” as it was beyond the scope of my research questions.
After the author examined literature regarding inclusion and overrepresentation
discourses, he found several paradoxes. First, he identified a silence that existed between
inclusion and overrepresentation discourses. This silence was paradoxical as the inclusive
education movement advocated for the empowerment of dis/ability rights and better educational
services, yet these voices had been silent about the plight of minority students. These silences
painted educators and students as devoid of sociohistorical identities, even though a majority of
the special education population came from nonmainstream racial, social-class, and linguistic
backgrounds. In particular, the silence on issues of race within inclusive education significantly
influenced minority students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Another paradox of
inclusion was its use of ability as an additional layer of difference. This new identity, legitimized
through the special education institution, allowed schools to legally monitor students. This
identity also had long standing effects as it perpetuated poor school outcomes of minorities and
was correlated with high dropout rates because labels such as MR, often lead to low school
completion rates, low special education exit rates, and poor employment outcomes.
Comparatively, literature regarding overrepresentation revealed a deficit view of racial minority
groups, which were traditionally silent groups.
Within his examination, he also found that discourses were often silent regarding the
oppressive weight of structural discrimination. As a result, he reasoned that bias was not
restricted to the actions and decisions of individuals, but could be found in the social structures
of educational settings, institutional regulations, and practices that shaped institutional
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 81
discrimination. In addition, he found that minority groups were voiceless as discussions about
their condition lacked recognition of cultural power, legitimacy, and competence. Artiles (2003)
believed that these silences were a form of cultural censorship and advocated for breaking these
silences. He believed that a critical examination of dis/ability could only occur if inclusion and
disproportionality discourses dialogued.
Next, Artiles (2003) examined these discourses as they related to space. He found that
both bodies of work did not address space extensively even though both directly related to it. He
looked at both the physical and perceptual construction of space as it related to inclusion. Given
the limited explicit discussion of space, Artiles (2003) argued for a unitary theory he referred to
as the “science of space.” This theory would bridge the separation between space as
physical/perceived space and space as conceived/mental space. In order to do this, moment-to-
moment accounts of schooling experiences would be needed to provide insight into the social
outcomes in those spaces. He acknowledged the existence of a dialectical tension between space
and agency as he found that space was created and structured by people’s actions. Much of the
research that Artiles (2003) looked at concentrated only on physical space and did not mention
the social or emotional construction of space. For example, the literature regarding placement
patterns analyzed any differences according to: “student race, poverty level, academic
achievement level, and school location (urban v. suburban)” (p. 189). Artiles (2003) believed
that if inclusion and overrepresentation discourses wanted to gain a deeper meaning of human
development, they each needed to adopt complex and dynamic conceptions of culture across
“multiple time scales: cultural, historical, ontogenetic, microgenetic” (p. 189).
Artiles (2003) also found that both bodies of literature revealed the institutional
perpetuation of traditional treatments of difference. These traditional treatments reaffirmed
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 82
difference and even offered options that signified deficits or disadvantages typically associated
with difference. These differences created what Artiles (2003) called a “transparent norm.”
Normative practices converted culture into a monotheistic ideal that revealed how racism was
still prevalent. Cultural difference called into question binary distinctions and moved
ambivalence into the foreground of cultural authority. This was highlighted in the historical
evolution of special education’s struggle with affirmation or ignorance of difference. Equal
instructional treatment was considered to be unfair as it institutionalized an individualized
educational system while inclusion argued that equal access to general education spaces,
curriculum, and accountability standards are fair. Underlying assumptions embedded in both
discourses were ambivalent to the question of difference. Artiles (2003) argued that making
underlying assumptions of difference explicit allowed the creation of counter assumptions. As
more complex views of culture emerged, practitioners would be more likely to ask, “when does a
difference count, under what conditions, in what ways, and for what reasons?” (p. 193).
Overrepresentation and inclusion discourses revealed how educators and educational
systems dealt with “difference” in politically and culturally charged contexts. Artiles (2003)
advocated for the examination of these paradoxes beyond special education placement issues and
towards a more sophisticated view of both culture and space. In particular, the discourse
surrounding inclusion ignored the sociohistorical contexts of those identified as disabled.
Additionally, these discourses ignored the sociocultural origin of dis/ability constructions. Artiles
(2003) believed that situating the study of dis/ability in the planes of space and time would help
to encourage a deeper understanding of difference and how it was mitigated within society and
power.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 83
Conclusion
This section revealed that dis/ability was presented as something that was gender neutral,
subtly devaluing gender. Gender neutrality was a result of institutional structuring that valued
normalcy in the form of whiteness, smartness, and ability over equity, contributing to the
invisibility of dis/abled female students. The examination of dis/ability’s theoretical
underpinnings revealed its inherent properties—flexibility, visibility, and materialism (Artiles,
2003; Butler, 1993; Garland-Thomson, 2002; Goodley, 2014; Siebers, 2008) and the way these
properties worked to enable some while dis/abling others (McDermott & Varenne, 1995;
Waitoller & Thorious, 2014). Furthermore, dis/ability was a complex set of experiences
influenced by external factors-social and institutional structures (Artiles, 2003; Reid & Knight,
2006) that worked to preserve white dominant culture through hidden normative practices
(Artiles, 2003). This section helped me to answer my research questions by understanding the
role institutionalized oppression played in the meaning making process of ability. Teachers,
policy decisions, and curricular choices were all part of a systemic structuring that worked to
dis/able those who were not considered to be “normal.” Intersected experiences, in particular
gendered dis/abled experiences, were seldom visible because of dis/ability’s tendency to
overshadow a student’s classroom socializations (Artiles, 2003). Understanding how teachers
made meaning of identity markers such as gender and race/ethnicity needed to be examined in
order to provide further insight into their interpretation of academic need.
The existence of dis/ability required an understanding of normalcy. Literature in this
section revealed how ability (Hehir, 2002), whiteness (Gillborn, 2015; Leonardo, 2009) and
smartness (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011) worked in concert to create a socially constructed and
accepted iterations of normal. The creation of a normal allowed for the existence of an abnormal
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 84
(Baglieri et al., 2011; Davis, 1995). Normalcy was therefore pervasive and systemically enforced
through historical and current educational practices (Bagleiri, et al. 2011).
An important finding that emerged from this body of literature was the concept of normal
as something that was not a human condition but a product of social construction. Davis (1995)
revealed that the term “norm” did not come into existence until the Industrial Revolution.
Normal helped to demarcate who would be a good factory worker from those who would not be.
Marxist ideology extrapolated from this notion of average by regarding class and property,
worked in concert with racism in order to maintain and perpetuate whiteness as normative. It
also legitimized the act of subjugating a group of people based on a socially accepted sense of
normal (Leonardo, 2009). Normalcy was a reflection of dominant cultural standards and became
the expectation that all other human beings were measured against. Baglieri et al. (2011) and
Davis (1995) explained how the historical construction of “normal,” was intended to reinforce
and measure the qualities that made up a desired population. As a result, this normative standard
was and continued to be projected on individuals by dictating: how individuals walk, move, talk,
act, interact, think, dress, eat, learn, etc. Normalcy was also found to be inscribed into other
discourses including nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality (Baglieri et al., 2011;
Butler, 1993; Davis, 1995). These notions of normal worked themselves into social institutions
and even the way one’s physical body is made sense of. These institutions in turn work to
perpetuate these ideas of physical and cognitive normal. This section revealed that institutions
did not see intersecting senses of “abnormality” because they were believed to be individual
experiences and not structural ones. As a result, the conceptualization of normalcy encouraged
individual visibility rather an examination of institutional structuring that worked to perpetuate
normative practices.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 85
Critical Dis/ability Theory worked to disrupt normalcy by pushing against both social and
medical models of dis/ability. Siebers (2008) placed dis/ability and ability side-by-side to initiate
a dialogue between the two existences. Intersectionality also worked to debunk normal by
challenging traditional understandings of dis/ability. Rather than limiting dis/ability to something
that is binary, intersectionality helped reveal the multifaceted condition of being dis/abled. One
way intersecting points could be revealed was through Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT used
storytelling to unearth how dis/ability was a complex interplay of various identity markers.
Additionally, the literature in this section helped make meaning of the current landscape
of dis/ability. It was apparent that understanding the history of dis/ability was important to both
the construction and meaning making of this term. Therefore, ignoring the history of dis/ability
would be to ignore entrenched ideas haunted this term. The literature above was selected because
each piece contributed to the ways that dis/ability could be constructed. Furthermore, each author
unraveled the historical and sad irony of the term. Unable to emerge as its own legitimate field,
dis/ability was forced to adhere to other fields of study (Anastaciou, Kauffman, & Michail,
2014). Since theory informed practice, it is important to note how the literature describes the
dis/ability construct to educators (Anastaciou & Kauffman, 2011). To problematize this in
context of my research question, I thought about where these ideas of dis/ability originated.
The multicultural presentation of dis/ability was often neutral of additional identity
markers (Anastaciou & Kauffman, 2011). Teachers were then presented with the idea that
dis/ability is binary and devoid of other identity markers. The literature revealed how other fields
were began to accept dis/ability, such as queer and feminist theories. However, the way in which
dis/ability was talked about often sidelines it to the perceived “bigger” issue at hand.
Across the literature, it was evident that the beliefs about normalcy and ability informed the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 86
construction of dis/ability (Hehir, 2002; Siebers, 2008). Both medical and social models of
dis/ability utilized these terms as indicators of dis/ability construction (Anastaciou et al., 2014;
Anastaciou & Kauffman, 2011; Gabel & Peters, 2010; Goodley, 2014; Siebers, 2008). This was
important because these terms were pivot points of teacher beliefs regarding dis/ability (Reid &
Knight, 2006). In order to answer my research question, I needed to understand how teachers
constructed ideas of normalcy and ability as it informed how they make meaning of dis/ability.
Sieber’s (2008) notion of visibility was an important contributing factor to both dis/ability
construction and the legitimization of need.
Even though Butler’s (1993) work did not directly address dis/ability, her work provided
insight into both the framing of dis/ability and the materialism of the body. Butler’s (1993)
omission of dis/ability from Bodies That Matter, could be viewed as a statement about
dis/ability. Her omission could be used as a parallel to the struggles dis/ability has had and
continued to have with recognition. Butler’s (1993) conceptualization of materialism revealed
how qualifications about ability stemmed from the material body. The material or physical body
required a dis/ability to be more visible. Echoing Siebers’s (2008) ideas of visibility, dis/ability
needed to be recognized as something that others saw in order to be validated as “real.” The
degree of visibility therefore had implications for students with dis/abilities in K-12 classrooms,
as they might only receive help if their dis/ability was visible. Butler (1993) suggested how ideas
of normalcy constructed an understanding of what bodies were accepted. Both Garland-
Thomason (2002) and Butler’s (1993) articles framed dis/ability as something that was
experienced differently based on one’s gender. Therefore, one cannot think about dis/ability in
isolation of gender.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 87
Finally, an emergent theme in recent dis/ability research was the integration of emancipatory
principles. Much of the recent research advocated for the divorce of dis/ability from social
construction ideology (Gabel & Peters, 2010; Goodley, 2014; Reid & Knight, 2006). The
primary argument being that social construction limited the complex understanding of dis/ability
(Anastaciou et al., 2014; Goodley, 2014). Reasoning that the various identity markers, such as
gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, altered the experience of dis/ability (Anastaciou
& Kauffman, 2011; Goodley, 2014). Building an understanding of dis/ability required an
acknowledgment of intersection. Of these articles advocating for more radical understandings of
dis/ability, the acknowledgement of intersectionality was seen as the primary means to achieve
this. A limitation of the literature in this section was a lack of specificity regarding the
intersection of other variables and their influence on dis/ability construction. Therefore, in order
to answer my research question, I wanted to understand how teachers viewed the
intersectionality of various identity markers including: gender, dis/ability, race/ethnicity and SES
in order to answer how these informed the way he/she made meaning of female academic need.
Critical Reflection
The literature in this section examines what it means to critically reflect. These terms are
used frequently and have become synonymous with other terms from intersecting fields such as
mindfulness and reflection. This section disentangles these terms from their colloquial usage to
carve out a precise meaning in context of education. Rogers’s (2002) and Brookfield’s (2010)
work provides the lexicon of reflection for the purpose of this dissertation.
Rogers’s (2002) theoretical work drew theoretical influence from John Dewey and was
rooted in her professional development work with K-12 teachers. She found that building
awareness helped teachers see themselves, their students and their contexts more clearly.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 88
However, the “ability to ‘see’ the world, to be present to it all and all its complexities, did not
come naturally, but must be learned” (p. 230). Rogers (2002) set out to outline “habits of
attending” (p. 230) in order to teach teachers how to become aware.
Building off of Dewey’s concept of reflection, Rodgers designed a reflective cycle with
two goals: 1. develop capacity to skillfully observe and 2. take intelligent action based on these
observations. Within this process, she taught teachers to slow down and attend to student needs
rather than their own needs. In order to do this, she positioned teachers as learners. Through
learning activities, she provided opportunities for teachers to reflect about themselves and their
peers as learners. This serves “as a way to open up their awareness to the complex nature of
learning and also to build community” (p. 232). Teachers then built on this and began to observe
student learning, using the understanding they gained to inform their teaching.
Before describing the reflective cycle, Rogers (2002) outlined the five basic principles
underlying the cycle. First, a teacher’s experience needed to be central as transformative growth
came from reflection on experience. Second, reflection itself was a distinct thinking process as it
was a “rigorous and systematic” (p. 232) process, separate from other forms of thinking. Slowing
down allowed teachers to attend to rich detail that they may not have previously been aware of.
Third, the formation of a respectful community was necessary. Community offered diverse
perspectives to broaden the scope of discussion rather than narrow it, making it vital to the
reflection process. Forth, this cycle positioned student feedback as an important part of
understanding student learning. Taking the time to engage students in a conversation about their
learning could provide valuable insight into their meaning making processes. Finally, she argued
that student learning was the most important element that should guide teaching. Explaining that
“when learning is central, teaching becomes subordinate to it” (p. 233).
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 89
Reflection could occur in two places, within an experience or outside of an experience.
Drawing on Schön (1983), reflection-in-action was the act of thinking about and solving a
problem on the spot, while reflection-on-action, took place either before or after a situation.
Reflection-on-action, was a process that slowed down thinking from reactionary and in the
moment to intelligent action. Rogers (2002) believed that reflection needed to ultimately
improve student learning and this intention was carried into each of the four phases of her
reflective cycle.
The first phase, the ability to be present, focused on learning to see. Her definition of
presence was inclusive of four parts that came together to comprise the whole process of
reflection. These parts included “seeing learning, differentiating its parts, giving it meaning, and
responding intelligently—in the moment and from moment to moment” (p. 235). This
conceptualization of presence was rooted in Dewey’s notion of being alive to students by paying
attention to their bodily expression as insight into their mental condition and their words. In the
articulation of presence’s meaning, Rogers (2002) identified two qualities that were not
historically associated with awareness—love and passion. She clarified that love was to mean
“wide-open acceptance” free of judgement and passion was not reserved for one’s field, but to
the act of learning. These were not the only factors that constitute presence, but they were
important qualities of it. Practicing presence both within and outside a moment, could yield
understandings that had transformative influence on student learning.
The second phase, description, focused on the ability to describe and differentiate what
one sees. This was the storytelling phase of the reflective process, where differentiation allowed
for multiple perspectives to be generated from observed details. Since this phase asked teachers
to withhold interpretation, it could be the hardest stage as there was an inclination for teachers to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 90
jump to solutions. However, slowing down allowed teachers the space and time to explore the
multiple elements present in a situation. In order to engage in this phase effectively, teachers
needed to be able to tell the difference between interpretation and description. Rogers (2002)
explained that description was what one sees while interpretation was ascribing meaning to what
one sees. Within this phase, she spent time help teachers experience the difference and once
understood, spent several subsequent sessions practicing the description of “moments.” A
moment was a “one inch frame that describes as much detail as possible something specific that
happened” (p. 240). These moments could include one or intersecting classroom elements such
as teacher, students, or space. Teacher were asked to bring these moments to a training session
and present them to the community, where in community members would ask the presenting
teacher questions—extending the dialogue and scope of the moment. Another method that
helped teachers see beyond their own constructs was the incorporation of student feedback. Here
she described two forms of feedback, ongoing and structured. Ongoing was related to presence in
that it involved teachers attending to in the moment information while structured required that
teacher to step back by asking students to answer targeted questions. Rogers (2002) explained
that this can feel too risky, causing some teachers to feel reluctant to seek out student feedback.
The third phase, analysis, was where meaning making happened. This phase focused on
learning to think critically by generating various explanations about what was occurring. From
here, a teacher settled on one that he/she is willing to test out. It was often necessary to return
back to the descriptive phase in order to excavate as much data as possible to form hypotheses.
There are two critical points she made about analysis, first the evidence, when tested, needed to
be questioned and looked at from various perspectives and second there needed to be a common
language around teaching and learning so that when teachers are exploring details, there was
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 91
clarity within the discussion. Through the act of clarification, teachers were able to uncover
assumptions that “drive our actions as teachers, learners, teacher educators, and researchers” (p.
247). This was scary work as these assumptions were extensions of self.
The fourth phase, experimentation, focused on taking intelligent action. This phase was
not only the end of the cycle but doubled as the beginning of the next reflective cycle, creating
the spiraling effect. Within this phase, teachers were encouraged to reorganize and reconstruct
the experience that they were reflecting on, preparing them for subsequent experiments.
Rogers’s (2002) reflective cycle encouraged teachers to see beyond their own constructs
because when they saw in more nuanced ways, they focused on student learning. The continuous
motion of this process allowed teachers to build on their reflections.
Brookfield (2010) described critical reflection as an adult learning process. He argued
that reflection was important not only for one to make informed clinical decisions but to
understand the limit of one’s influence. When adults “understand themselves as practicing at the
intersection of systematic imperatives and personal commitments, then practitioners are less
likely to blame themselves when situations go awry, as is bound to happen” (p. 215). A central
component of adult learning was reflective learning on specific problems faced in the field. This
allowed practitioners to explore assumptions that could have framed their perception of a
situation, giving them further insight into themselves as well as the solutions generated.
Brookfield (2010) explained that reflection was often used interchangeably with critical
reflection, this was problematic as these are two distinct processes. Reflection “is useful and
necessary in the terms it sets itself; that is, to make a set of practices work more smoothly and
achieve the consequences intended for them” (p. 216). While critical reflection
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 92
called into questions the power relationships that allow, or promote, one set of practices
considered to be technically effective. It assumes that the minutia of practice have
embedded within them the struggles between unequal interests and groups that exist in
the wider world. (p. 216)
Therefore, for reflection to be critical, it needed to have an aim of uncovering the power
dynamics within one’s practice while also work to challenge hegemonic assumptions. Through
reflection, one can uncover assumptions, what Brookfield (2010) explained was the “conceptual
glue” that held one’s “perspectives, meaning schemes, and habits of the mind” (p. 216). As such,
critical reflection was an action that occurred outside the classroom or one’s discipline and into
one’s experiences. Unearthing assumptions was imperative because they are foundational to the
ideas and actions that were considered to be common senses. These conventional wisdoms were
typically accepted without question and were often the same ones that have been constructed by
a dominant group to maintain power (p. 217).
Reflection, as a learning process, included four interconnected parts: the identification of
assumptions, the assessment of an assumptions accuracy, the use of perspective taking to assess
an assumption, and informed action. Brookfield (2010) defined action as both cognitive and
behavioral. This reflective process was often set into motion by a “triggering” event, this was
something that typically pointed out a discrepancy between assumptions and perspectives (p.
217). This event helped an adult become aware of his/her unquestionable faith in an assumption,
catalyzing investigation into this unquestionable belief.
The movement from reflection to critical reflection required the disentanglement from
other ideological traditions that conflated what it meant to critically reflect. In order to do so, the
author separated critical reflection from ideological critique, psychoanalysis, analytic philosophy
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 93
and pragmatist construction. He argued that the way in which the term was used, reflected on the
ideology of the user. Brookfield (2010) grounded his understanding of critical reflection in
critical theory, which held three key assumptions, western democracies are highly unequal
societies, normalcy was used to create a sense of natural or inevitable, and understanding it could
work to change it. In this tradition, dominant ideology is a constellation of widely held beliefs
and practices that guide how meaning is constructed. When successful, it was able to maintain
“unequal, racist, sexist, and homophobic society” that is able to “reproduce itself with minimal
opposition” (p. 219). Critical reflection was a tool that worked to bring awareness to inherent
assumptions that appear normal.
A central tenant of critical reflection was ideology critique. This was rooted in the notion
that awareness of ideology was what moved reflection to critical reflection because it called into
question the power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions of dominant culture. He defined
ideology as “sets of values, beliefs, myths, explanations, and justifications that appear self-
evidently true and morally desirable” (p. 220) that manifested itself in “language, social habits,
and cultural forms” (p. 221). Ideology also expanded into interpersonal relationships, morality
and one’s way of knowing what is true. Critical reflection worked to investigate power
relationships as well as uncover hegemonic wisdom. Hegemonic power was subtle and
expansive, making it successful at maintaining power because when challenged, it adapts,
revealing its flexible nature.
The process of critical reflection was set into motion by a triggering event that revealed a
discrepancy between assumption and perspective. This event catalyzed a series of clustered
concepts that made up critical reflection. At the center of one cluster was, dialectic thinking, “a
form of general reasoning in adulthood in which universalistic and relativistic modes of thoughts
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 94
coexist” (p. 225), causing one to dialogue with what was previously held to be a truth. Another
cluster of concepts was the development of critical awareness through the development on
emancipatory learning—the process of adult learning where practitioners were able to identify
and ultimately free themselves of oppressive orders. Within the practice of emancipatory
learning, “people realize that ‘natural’ givens, ‘obvious’ truths and commonly accepted values
are part of a set of dominant cultural values, the purpose of which is to maintain oppressive
social structures” (p. 225). This paradigm was the most reflective of critical theory because of its
intention to identify oppressive systems. Another cluster of concepts was the development of
self-awareness within one’s own context. A central component of this cluster was the cultivation
of learning to learn. When practitioners are aware, they can begin to unpack what they know by
examining how they know it, calling into question certainty.
The experience of critical reflection took an emotional and social toll. Brookfield (2010)
outlined five experiences that were common among those who engaged in critical reflection.
First, impostorship, the belief expressed by a practitioner that they were not able to or had the
right to become critically reflective. The author noted that this feeling can dissipate over time but
rarely ever go away completely. He went on to say that this belief crossed lines of gender,
race/ethnicity and class. Additionally, this belief appeared to be rooted in expectation of what
those who are critical reflective look like compared against what the practitioner was actually
feeling, which was clumsy and clunky.
Next, cultural suicide, was the reaction of others in context of a critically reflective
practitioner. This was a perceived threat extended from peers as a result of asking critical
questions of commonly held assumptions. Brookfield (2010) noted that these feelings of hostility
were the expression of detachment from the “one of us” mentalities, resulting in the ostracizing
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 95
of the critically reflective. Another experience common to those who are critically reflective was
what Brookfield (2010) described as “roadrunning,” the idea of two steps forward and one
backward, marked by an overall movement forward. This caused feelings of frustration, leading
practitioners to believe that they would never “get it.” Furthermore, it can lead to feelings of
instability as
there comes a moment, terrifying in its impact, however, when these same adults feel
they have left behind many of the assumptions, meaning schemes, and perspectives that
were used to explain their world but that no other coherent ones have moved into the
vacuum.” (p. 229)
This can create a “limbo” where nothing seems solid or true. Practitioners also expressed an
overall tone of sadness when speaking about their experience critically reflecting. This created
what Brookfield (2010) described as lost innocence. After unpacking assumptions, an array of
perspectives was unveiled, causing adults to look back on their past thinking as the “golden era
of certainty” (p. 229). This can create feelings of loss, causing adults to mourn the past.
All of these thematic experiences carry with them a tone of sadness, however there is one
theme that Brookfield (2010) outlines that is positive—community. Since the process of critical
reflection can be emotionally taxing, the ability to tap into a community of peers was
instrumental. The author noted that through peer learning communities, learners could feel
vulnerable to share their feelings and subsequently unpack them in a safe space. Critical
reflection is hard as it exposes the oppressive systems that felt so normative. This can cause
adults to question their own meaning making process and ultimately what it means to be true.
This process, the unearthing of assumptions and perceptions, is a vital component of creating
transformative experiences in the classroom.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 96
Teacher Beliefs and Expectations
The previous section identified institutional structures as actively and passively
disadvantage those who were not considered to be “normal” (Artiles, 2003; Davis, 1995; Heir,
2002). What was not specifically discussed in the previous section was the role ideology played
in the maintenance of normalcy. Therefore, in order to answer my research questions, I needed to
have a clear understanding of “ideology” as it related to “teacher beliefs.” For the purpose of this
study, I called on Bartolomé’s (2007) definition of ideology as a “framework of thought
constructed and held by members of a society to justify or rationalize an existing social order”
(p. 263). In her theoretical article, she explained that teachers not only held unconscious beliefs
that reflected dominant ideologies but maintained that the current social order was “natural” (p.
266) and therefore “fair.” The implications of perceived fairness left historically marginalized
populations disadvantaged as it was believed that they had a “fair” shot at upward mobility.
Therefore, the perpetuation of dominant ideology moved away from equity and towards equality
as well as focused again on the individual rather than the institution. In this next section I
examined several articles that informed my conceptualization of “belief” and the implications
these beliefs had on students.
Rist’s (1970) qualitative study sought to understand the role schooling institutions played
in the reinforcement of social inequities through the examination of different educational
experiences. This study utilized a longitudinal research method because the researcher believed
previous studies lacked a long view of student schooling experiences. As such, Rist followed a
total of 33 black students from Kindergarten to second grade. The researcher collected
longitudinal data from four school sites across a 2.5 year period. These sites were identified
through nomination sampling from the district superintendent, who selected five schools for Rist
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 97
and his team to visit. Rist visited all sites but conducted formal observations at four of the sites.
The findings outlined in his study were collected from one of the five sites. This K-8
th
grade
school was located in an urban setting where 98% of its population identified as African-
American. This school had a total enrollment of 900 students, 500 of which received federal
funding
Observational data was collected by visiting the Kindergarten class twice a week for 60
to 90 minutes throughout the entire year and the first half of their second-grade year. During the
students’ first-grade year, data was collected from four informal observations during the school
year. The researcher also collected interview data from the kindergarten and second grade
teachers. Each year, there were enrollment changes. From kindergarten to first grade 5 students
dropped and by second grade another 23 dropped-leaving only 10 of the original 33.
Rist (1970) found that teachers used social and academic data to frame a student’s
academic potential. These educational decisions resulted in different classroom experiences. For
example, Rist (1970) found that the kindergarten teacher’s seating chart influenced a teacher’s
perception of these students. This decision took place just after 8 days of school and used only
observational and social data to determine these seating assignments. This teacher pulled social
data on students from the following four sources:
1. Pre-registration form completed by the student’s mother. This document included
demographic information.
2. Tentative federal funding list provided by the school social worker two days before
the beginning of the school year.
3. Initial parent meetings. These meetings were designed to collect information about a
student’s medical history.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 98
4. Ad Hoc data collected from other teachers and personal experiences with the
intention of identifying potential behavioral problems.
For example, the kindergarten teacher used this social data to determine a student’s attributes. In
that, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds were perceived as having more positive
attributes.
During his observations, Rist (1970) further found that students placed at table 1 were
aligned the most closely with the teacher while students at tables 2 and 3 were not. This
influenced a student’s educational experience as the teacher, over time, began to only attend to
table 1—causing tables 2 and 3 to be completed ignored by the end of the year. Informal
observation data confirmed this lack of attention pattern as the first-grade teacher not only
carried over the same table groupings but also ignored the same grouping of students.
Additionally, the researcher noticed emergent gaps in learning and reasoned that this was a result
of a lack of attention.
The pattern continued into second grade as this teacher created perpetuated a caste-like
system with reading groups assignments. Even though the teacher used a different labeling
system, students from the lower tables continued to never move from their early identified
tables. The researcher noted that no matter how good of a reader a student was in the lower
group, they were destined to remain in their pre-identified group. This was because readings
groups selected based on student performance data collected from the previous teacher. This data
however was a culminating result of the previous teacher’s educational decisions, arguing that
these differentiating decisions inspired by social and observational data alone resulted in
different educational opportunities for students. This was what Rist (1970) argued was a “self-
fulfilling prophecy” (p. 435). This study found that teacher perceptions of a student’s social data
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 99
informed their meaning making process of their academic capability. Rist (1970) found that
beliefs not only informed educational decisions but how teachers made meaning of their
students’ potential.
Milner’s (2010) work examined educational opportunity gaps as it is related to diversity.
His work centered on teacher mindsets and how these perceptions contributed to the perpetuation
of opportunity gaps for historically marginalized populations. He directly connected the
worldviews of teachers to the learning opportunities they designed for their students. In order to
examine teacher mindsets, he created an explanatory framework that contained five intersecting
areas that could help educators recognize where opportunity gaps come from and are
inadvertently perpetuated. Milner (2010) argued that the following are areas that emerged from
the literature on diversity as it was related to opportunity gaps
1. Color-blindness
2. Cultural conflicts
3. Myth of meritocracy
4. Low expectations and deficit mind-sets
5. Context-neutral mind-sets. (p. 14)
Across these five areas, Milner (2010) argued that neutral teacher mindsets regarding race
contributed negatively to the pedagogical approaches they took up. These approaches, even
though they were well intentioned, saw students in an incomplete way. Specifically, he explained
that color-blindness was a privileged position that neglected important lived experiences of
students. This worldview led to learning opportunities that were not designed to the specific
needs of students of color and as a result instructional practices default to white dominate
culture. There were three commonly held mind-sets expressed by teachers who were color-blind:
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 100
Mind-set 1: If I acknowledge the racial or ethnic background of my students or myself, I
may be considered a racist.
Mind-set 2: If I admit that people experience the world differently and that race is an
important part of people’s experiences, I may be seen as “politically incorrect.” I may
offend others in the teacher education classroom of my P-12 faculty meetings if I express
my beliefs and reservations about race.
Mindset-3: I should treat all my students that same regardless of who they are, what their
home situations are, or what their experiences happen to be. Race does not matter and
racism has ended; thus racial considerations have no place or relevance in the design of
classroom learning opportunities.
These mind-sets were rooted in misguided ideas about race and if not acknowledged manifested
themselves in destructive ways in the classroom. To close opportunity gaps, Milner’s (2010)
framework therefore challenged teachers to acknowledge “how our race-central experiences can
influence our ideologies, attitudes, and belief systems, and consequently our practices” (p. 14),
so that they could see that race does matter. Otherwise, if race was not seen, it made it difficult
for educators to see the broader institutional elements that worked to disadvantage those who
were not white.
Educators who did not recognize that race mattered often maintained meritocracy
mindsets that asserted student performance was based on the belief that everyone has the same
opportunity. When thinking about opportunity gaps Milner (2010) found, through his review of
the literature, that teachers were more likely to ascribe these gaps to socio-economic factors
because they felt uncomfortable discussing race. This resulted in the following commonly held
beliefs
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 101
Mind-set 1: All people are born with the same opportunities. If students just follow the
formula for success—work hard, put forth effort, and follow the law—then they will be
successful.
Mind-set 2: If students do not succeed, it is because they are not working hard enough,
not because of other factors that may be outside of their control.
Mind-set 3: Some students just do not have the aptitude, ability, skills for success; the
“system” has nothing to do with academic achievement. (p. 30)
These mindsets were all based in the idea that everyone had the same opportunities to achieve.
This worldview ignored the systematic structures that worked to disadvantage populations while
placing the blame on the individual. These two mindsets, color-blindness and the myth of
meritocracy, influenced the way teachers saw their students within the classroom, leading them
to see it and social contexts as neutral spaces. Milner (2010) argued that teachers needed to see
the complex contexts that influenced their students’ opportunities to learn. If not, they would be
ignoring a significant factor that influenced a child’s opportunity to learn. He identified the
following as destructive mindsets that contributed to opportunity gaps
Mind-set 1: Kids are just kids. If I learn my subject matter well, I can get all my students
interested in the subject; the type or location of the school and who is enrolled in the
school do not matter.
Mind-set 2: It is not necessary for me to rally the local community to help empower,
energize, and motivate students inside the school and classroom.
Mind-set 3: There are few differences between the various schools in the United States. It
is not necessary for me to develop skills to understand the historic and contemporary
realities of the school communities where I teach. (p. 40)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 102
A narrow view of contexts perpetuated the false sense that everyone was equal. Equality
mindsets influenced the creation of learning opportunities that were inherently not equitable as
they did not take into consideration the lived individual and social experiences of diverse
students.
The literature in this section acknowledged the influence teacher perceptions of identity
markers had on the learning opportunities afforded to students. These beliefs, as mitigated by
external social and institutional forces, informed the meaning making process of a student’s
academic capacity. However, it did not outline what these explicit and implicit beliefs were.
Since my research questions aimed to understand what informed a teacher’s meaning making
process regarding academic need, I examined articles in the following section helped me develop
a framework that explored teachers’ perceptions in more nuanced ways. The articles selected
below helped to excavate teachers’ beliefs about identity markers: dis/ability, gender,
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Dis/ability
The literature in this subsection researched teachers’ perceptions of dis/ability. Since the
research questions sought to understand how teachers’ beliefs informed his/her perception of
academic need, understanding how teachers constructed dis/ability helped me answer this
question. According to the literature, general education teachers were the primary referral agents
(Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Therefore, this subsection intentionally omits literature regarding
special education teachers’ beliefs about dis/ability. Extant literature yielded limited studies
explicitly regarding general education teachers’ belief about dis/ability. Thus, the literature
reviewed problematized dis/ability construction within the context of inclusion and by doing so,
gained insight into general education teachers’ beliefs about dis/ability.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 103
Carter and Hughes (2006) quantitative study examined secondary teacher perceptions of
inclusion. Specifically, this study sought to understand how teachers perceived students with
severe dis/abilities in their general education classrooms. This study identified a disparity in
teachers’ beliefs regarding the benefits of inclusion and their actions to support students with
dis/abilities. Noting an increase in the inclusion of students with dis/abilities into general
education classrooms, teacher perceptions of dis/ability were analyzed to understand why there
was a disparity between belief and action. The authors set out to answer these questions by
outlining the following research questions
1. What accounts for the apparent disconnect between recommended and actual
educational practices in the area of including students with severe disabilities in
general education classes?
2. What factors influence the seeming reluctance of schools to implement more
inclusive service delivery models? (p. 175).
These research questions sought to investigate the points of similar and divergent evaluations of
dis/ability.
The sample in this study consisted of 36 general education teachers, 29 special education
teachers, 16 administrators, and 19 paraprofessionals from 11 high schools. All subjects were
from 11 schools within one urban school district. The sample was selected using cluster
sampling as researchers identified all special education teachers within the 11 schools who had
students with severe dis/abilities on their caseload and who were also enrolled in general
education classes. Respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire on a 5-point Likert-type
scale. The questionnaire included items that addressed the following
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 104
(a) Participant demographics, (b) general education classroom instructional priorities, (c)
barriers to including students in general education classrooms, (d) risks associated with
including students in general education classrooms, (e) training and supports related to
including students in general education classrooms, and (f) benefits of including students
in general education classrooms, as follows. (p. 177)
In addition to items listed above, all subjects were provided with space to write-in and rate any
additional items.
Once data was collected, it was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Researchers also ran
ANOVAs to “identify significant differences between groups for items related to (a) classroom
instructional priorities, (b) barriers, (c) risks, and (d) benefits” (p. 179). Post hoc comparisons
were then made and paired-sampled t-tests were completed to compare the ratings across the
various stakeholder groups (i.e. general education teachers, special education teachers,
administrators, paraprofessionals). Finally, Chi-square tests were used to analyze the data related
to support and training.
Since the research question of this current study focused on teacher perceptions, results
from both administrators and paraprofessionals were omitted from my review. The results of
Carter and Hughes’s (2006) study indicated that general education teachers believed that there
were benefits a general education classroom setting could have for students with severe
dis/abilities. Yet, “older students with severe disabilities continue to have limited involvement in
general education classrooms in most public high schools” (p. 181). This study found that one
reason was because of the beliefs held by teachers. For example, when asked about the
effectiveness of inclusion both special education and general education teachers indicated that
the biggest risk to including students with dis/abilities in a general education classroom was that
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 105
“students with disabilities may disrupt class” (p. 181). Despite these expressed reservations, both
teachers and administrators believed that inclusion would be beneficial for both special and
general education students. Yet, students with severe dis/abilities continued to be left out of
general education classrooms. The authors found that this was due to teacher beliefs. Carter and
Hughes (2006) found that teachers did not take action to support students with dis/abilities and/or
advocate for inclusion for the following reasons
1. The acknowledgement of the benefits may not be enough to insight action.
2. Benefits do not outweigh the perceived barriers.
3. Limited time to collaborate.
4. Not enough resources and personal to support students who exhibit difficult
behavior. (p. 182)
There were several limitations with the study. First, generalizability as all subjects were sampled
from one urban school district. Second, reliability as only teachers who had experience with
students who have severe dis/abilities were sampled. Third, the researchers did not couple
subjects’ responses with actual outcomes.
Cook’s (2001) quantitative study examined teacher attitudes toward students with
dis/abilities. Specifically, this study compared general education teachers’ attitudes towards
students with mild versus severe dis/abilities. Cook believed teachers treated students differently
based on the visibility of the dis/ability. He defined visibility as “obvious” or something that
could be seen by the teacher and peers. According to this definition, obvious was limited to
physical dis/abilities. He then explained how this restricted teachers’ understanding of dis/ability,
as there were dis/abilities that were “hidden,” not visible. Hidden dis/abilities could include:
Learning Disabled (LD) and Emotionally Disturbed (ED). He believed that different academic
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 106
outcomes of students with dis/abilities were not due to teacher beliefs about inclusion but their
attitudes towards students with dis/abilities. These attitudes included: attachment, concern,
detachment, and rejection. The author believed that these attitudes directly influenced student
academic outcome. Cook (2001) developed two theory-based hypotheses that believed teacher-
student interaction might be changed based on teacher attitude. First, students with obvious
dis/abilities would fall into the indifference category and second, students with “hidden”
dis/abilities would fall into the rejection category as their behavior was considered to be atypical
from the norm. The author based these hypotheses using Tolerance Theory, a theory that
explained how teachers developed learning opportunities for a limited variety of learning
characteristics. If there were too many variations, the teacher would not be able to accommodate
all of the varieties. The model of differential expectations was examined in relation to teachers.
It was important to note that the data used for this study was analyzed from a larger study
conducted by Cook et al. (2001). The larger study provided four emergent attitudes: concern,
attachment, indifference, and rejection. Cook (2001) surveyed 41 teachers to measure how
teachers took action on these four attitudinal categories. Participants for this study were selected
using normative sampling as superintendents and special education supervisors nominated
teachers from six Ohio elementary school districts. Ten schools were nominated, and 9 of the 10
principals agreed to participate. One school was located in a rural setting, one in an urban setting,
and the remaining seven in suburban settings.
All data was collected during faculty meetings. A total of 70 teachers were present at
these faculty meetings. After omitting special education teachers, 41 teachers, who taught in
inclusive classrooms, remained. These 41 teachers were asked to complete a nomination form.
One graduate student and one university professor distributed and administered the nomination
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 107
forms. In order to maintain continuity, the directions were scripted. Each teacher was instructed
to complete this nomination form by selecting three students who would best fit into the
attitudinal categories. Teachers were asked to bring their class rosters and create a list of their
students and dis/abilities on a separate sheet of paper.
Data was evaluated using a Chi-square to evaluate if the theory-based analyses were
correct. Since teachers were allowed to nominate the same student in separate categories, a
separate Chi-square analysis was conducted for each attitudinal category. The results confirmed
the hypothesis that students with “hidden” dis/abilities were in the rejection category. Cook
(2001) believed this happened because students with “hidden” dis/abilities were expected to
adhere to normative behaviors since their dis/ability was not visible, making them appear to be
the same as other students without dis/abilities.
The results also revealed that the second hypothesis was correct as data indicated that
students with severe or “obvious” dis/abilities were overrepresented in the “indifference”
category. Cook (2001) explained that this occurs in part because teachers did not feel as though
they knew how to help these students and therefore relied on special education teachers to
support these students.
This study had several limitations. First, to determine attitudes teachers were asked to
nominate only three students rather than their entire class. Second, the classification of students
with dis/abilities as either “obvious” or “hidden,” did not represent the complexity of each
student. Finally, a more diverse sample of schools could yield more generalizable data. Despite
these limitations, Cook’s (2001) work highlighted how teachers developed different attitudes
towards students with dis/abilities based on the visibility.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 108
Both Cook (2001) and Carter and Hughes (2006) studies found that teachers’ attitudes
influenced their expectations of students with dis/abilities. Hornstra, Denessen, Bakker, Van den
Bergh and Voeten (2010) quantitative study explored teacher attitudes of students with
dis/abilities in a more nuanced way. Specifically, this study examined teachers’ implicit and
explicit attitudes towards students with Dyslexia. To gain further insight, the researchers sought
to answer the following three research questions
1. To what extent do teacher attitudes toward dyslexia predict teacher expectations for
individual students with dyslexia?
2. To what extent do teacher attitudes toward dyslexia predict the achievement of
students with dyslexia?
3. Does the association between teacher attitudes toward dyslexia and the achievement
of students with dyslexia appear to be significantly mediated by teacher expectations?
(p. 4)
Hornstra et al. (2010) posed these questions to also understand how perceptions could potentially
stigmatize students. For the purpose of this study, the authors defined stigmatization as a “means
that a negative attitude is adopted with regard to a group in general as opposed to basing
one’s judgments on the specific characteristics of individuals” (p. 2). The authors argued that this
term was more appropriate in qualifying a student’s experience with a teacher’s negative
attitudes because an attitude was the judgment of a group of people. Therefore, the authors
argued that a teacher’s negative attitudes influenced the way he/she interacted with individual
students.
The researchers chose to also measure implicit attitudes due to procedural concerns about
collecting accurate data for explicit attitudes. Since self-reporting was the primary measure to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 109
understand explicit attitudes, researchers were concerned that participants would answer
questions that would hide their implicit beliefs through strategic answering. Additionally, the
researchers noted that teachers would feel forced to answer questions positively, as negative
responses about students with dis/abilities could be looked down upon. As a result, teachers’
implicit attitudes were measured because it produced fewer validity problems.
The sample for this study included 30 elementary school general education teachers. Nine
were male and the remaining 21 were female. This sample was taken from 16 schools in the
south and middle regions of the Netherlands. Each teacher was asked to select at least 10
inclusion students. The study did not indicate how teachers were directed to select these students.
In the end, the sample included 307 students, 46 of which had Dyslexia and a reference group of
261 students. All teachers who did not have any students with Dyslexia in their selected groups
were omitted. It was important to note that those students who were suspected by the teachers as
having Dyslexic were considered the same as those with an official diagnosis.
Implicit attitudes were measured using a priming task that evaluated automatic responses
in teachers. To begin, each teacher was presented with either a neutral string of words or a
Dyslexia prime. These words were introduced to the teacher using a program uploaded onto a
laptop. Teachers were presented with a target word that had an evaluative meaning, such as
“pleasant” or “horrible.” Each teacher was then asked to indicate the word’s evaluative
connotation using keystrokes to demarcate it as either positive or negative. Each teacher was
given five blocks of 20 randomly ordered trials. Only the last four blocks were used to collect
data since the first one was a practice block. The priming combinations were as followed: (1)
dyslexia prime—positive word; (2) dyslexia prime—negative word; (3) neutral prime— positive
word; and (4) neutral prime—negative word. Trials 2 and 4 were used to calculate the implicit
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 110
negative attitude score in order to assess the extent to which “dyslexia” activated negative
teacher attitude.
Data was evaluated using a multilevel regression model technique. Results revealed that
implicit attitudes were more accurate measures of student performance than explicit attitudes.
Hornstra et al. (2010) found that teachers’ explicit scores were significantly higher in the positive
section than their implicit ratings. When teacher implicit attitudes were measured regarding
students with Dyslexia and their spelling achievement, the results found it to be statistically
significant (b = -.44, z = -2.53, p = .011). Students with Dyslexia scored not only lower on the
spelling achievement tests than students from the reference group but also showed even lower
scores when their teachers held more negative implicit attitudes toward Dyslexia. This was not
found to be the case for those students from the reference group (b = -.02, z = .18, p = .857). The
results revealed that teachers’ implicit attitudes were a more powerful predictor of Dyslexic
student achievement than teacher expectations. This was important because teacher attitudes
form what Hornstra et al. (2010) called a “pedagogical identity.” The researchers argued that the
following variables, underlying values, prior knowledge, and prior experience, school culture
and teacher education programs, contributed to a pedagogical identity formation.
The data also revealed that teachers’ beliefs varied and this variance influenced how they
approached students with dis/abilities. Hornstra et al. (2010) findings supported the claim that
teachers who believed learning dis/abilities to be a permanent characteristic interacted with
identified students less frequently and at a lower cognitive level compared to teachers with more
“flexible” beliefs regarding learning dis/abilities.
Hornstra et al. (2010) also found that a teacher’s belief dexterity influenced his/her
behavioral and curricular choices for a student. The authors explained that teacher beliefs
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 111
regarding dis/ability helped construct his/her expectations. The authors defined teacher
expectations as, “judgments about individual students regarding their academic potential” (p. 2).
The study found that expectations influenced teacher-student interactions and the educational
opportunities teachers provided to students with dis/abilities. This study also found that teachers’
expectations of students with dis/abilities had the potential to be validated. For example, when
students with Dyslexia took spelling tests, they scored lower. Even though expectations could be
accurate, they were dangerous because they contributed to teacher’s stereotypes of students who
were identified as having Dyslexia. Researchers also found that negative expectations could have
compounding effects when they were attributed to group stigmatization.
There were several limitations to this study. First, there were generalizability concerns as
the study only analyzed teachers’ attitudes about students with Dyslexia and not other learning
dis/abilities. Second, there may have been sample selection bias due to the methods that were
used to recruit participants for the study. Finally, both the implicit and explicit measurements
used were newly developed, calling into question concerns about validity.
Conclusion
This section helped form an understanding of teachers’ beliefs regarding dis/ability,
demonstrating how these beliefs informed a teachers’ decision to refer a student for special
education services. After reading these articles, several themes emerged.
First, teachers’ implicit and explicit beliefs regarding dis/ability differed (Carter &
Hughes, 2006; Hornstra et al. 2010). The studies found that teachers believed that there were
benefits for both general education and special education students when dis/abled students were
included in general education settings. However, implicit attitudes revealed that teachers had
lower expectations for students with dis/abilities (Hornstra et al., 2010) and teachers held beliefs
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 112
that caused them to not advocate for students with severe dis/abilities to be in their particular
general education class (Carter & Hughes, 2006). Additionally, the perceived severity of a
dis/ability had an effect on teacher perception of a student’s academic capabilities. The more
“obvious” a dis/ability was, the more likely teachers were to determine the student needs
additional support (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Cook, 2001). These findings paralleled Siebers’s
(2008) assertion that visibility directly contributed to how dis/ability was viewed.
Finally, the quality of teacher contact influenced how teachers viewed dis/ability. If
teachers had previous positive interactions with dis/abled students, they were more likely to
encourage empowerment, however if teachers had negative contact, they were more likely to
reject these students and refer them to special education programming to remove them from their
classrooms. Furthermore, the level of support teachers felt they had affected how teachers
perceived students with dis/abilities (Hornstra et al., 2010). Furthermore, the dexterity of a
teacher’s belief system influenced their ability to see students with dis/abilities as teachable.
Expanding on Tolerance Theory’s assertion that teachers can only teach up to a certain level of
different learning needs, Hornstra et al. (2010) found that teachers developed a pedagogical
identity that mediated their tolerance level for students with dis/abilities. The literature in this
section did not discuss how other variables such as gender conflated teacher’s perceptions of
dis/ability. Therefore, the next section explored the influence these perceptions.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender
The literature in this section sought to provide insight into teachers’ perceptions of
gender. Specifically, the literature investigated what teachers held to be true about gender.
Unpacking these perceptions informed an understanding of how gender stereotypes manifested
themselves in teacher-initiated interactions with students. Beliefs regarding gender were often
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 113
conflated by the intersection of race, ethnicity, dis/ability and socioeconomic status. Since the
research question sought to understand how a teacher’s beliefs influenced his/her decisions to
refer a student to special education, it was important to first unpack these beliefs individually in
order to better understand how teachers synthesized these beliefs into action.
There existed limited research on the influence gender had on a teacher’s meaning
making of academic need. As a result, this section explored how gender, in relation to teachers’
beliefs had been talked about in general. Themes emerged from this literature were extrapolated
on and informed how teachers’ stereotypes about gender influenced their perception of female
academic need. Three themes will be discussed in this section: content specific perceptions about
gender, how teachers viewed gender roles both within the classroom and in general as well as the
influence visibility played on teachers’ perceptions of gender.
Content Specific
The research in this section revealed a relationship between teacher beliefs about student
performance and content area. Li’s (1990) literature review explored articles related to gender
issues and teacher beliefs about mathematics education. At the time of this study, there were
limited studies that examined teacher beliefs about gender and mathematics, so the author first
reviewed articles that concerned teacher gender, including those aspects not directly related to
teacher beliefs. The author then explored some studies related to teachers’ beliefs, which
intersected gender as a variable. There was no explicit mention of the criteria used to select the
articles that the author reviewed.
Li (1990) developed a six-pronged heuristic device to help make sense of the literature
regarding teacher beliefs about gender. Since this dissertation focuses on a single teacher, the
study’s discussion regarding students was omitted. Li (1990) believed there to be three variables
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 114
of a teacher: “teacher gender, beliefs, and behaviors” (p. 64). All of these variables had the
potential to influence the other. Li’s (1990) six-pronged visual below showcased the relationship
between these variables.
Figure 1. A model for the review of teacher beliefs and gender differences. Adapted from
“Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review,” by Li, 1990, p. 65.
According to the diagram above, teacher behaviors were influenced by beliefs and vice versa.
The reciprocal relationship between variables demonstrated that actions could be informed by
belief and that belief could inform behavior. To contextualize this, she explained that a teacher’s
behavior could influence students in the following three ways: beliefs, behaviors, and
achievements. Li (1990) also argued that a teacher’s gender informed his/her belief construction.
Using this heuristic device to think about the literature, Li (1990) organized the review
according to two main categories, teacher gender/teacher beliefs and gender differences in
mathematics education. The first category was then explored through the following
subcategories: teacher gender influences student achievement, teacher gender affects student
beliefs and behaviors, and teacher gender influences teacher behaviors. The literature in these
subsections found an observed correlation between teacher gender and gender differences in
students’ beliefs and achievement in areas other than Western countries. She believed that
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 115
culture rather than teacher gender, was more likely to contribute to the observable gender
differences. With respect to the gender differences in teachers’ behaviors, she found that the
conclusions were consistent. First, male and female teachers tended to interact more often with
male students. Secondly, gender differences were found in teachers’ teaching paradigms. For
example, female teachers, compared to males, were more likely to promote more collaborative
learning environments.
The second section explored teacher beliefs and gender differences in mathematics
through the following two subsections: teacher beliefs about student gender difference and
gender differences reflected in teacher beliefs. The literature reviewed in this section found that
at the point of the review, there was no conclusive evidence that teachers had different beliefs
about male and female students. The studies reviewed did however find that teachers tended to
stereotype mathematics as a male domain, and that this was reflected in teachers’ tendency to
overrate male students’ mathematics capability, had higher expectations for male students and
more positive attitudes about male students. Secondly, this section found that there was no
substantial gender difference noticed in teachers’ beliefs. However, some nuances appeared,
leading the author to believe that there were small, subtle, interactive and cumulative links
between teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics education.
Li’s (1990) literature review also explored the influence teacher gender had on curricular
programming in mathematics. Since teachers played a vital role in the implementation of
curricular policy, their subsequent beliefs influenced the trajectory of students within
mathematics programming. Li (1990) explained that there was a difference between what
teachers wanted and what they did. Specifically, it seemed that teachers wanted equity in theory,
but their practice often reinforced traditional methodologies of inequity.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 116
Li (1990) found that teachers’ beliefs about student gender in context of mathematics
influenced the way they viewed them. When evaluating both Fennema’s (1990) and Reyes and
Stanic’s (1988) studies, Li (1990) found that teacher beliefs played an important role in the
development of gender differences in mathematics. Furthermore, both studies explained that
teacher attitudes regarding a student’s aptitude differed primarily on the basis of gender. Li
(1990) explained that this finding shaped the way teachers supported students within content
specific courses according to a student’s gender. Li’s (1990) work established a relationship
between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors. This work also suggested that beliefs were
dichotomized along gender lines. Finally, this literature review explained that a teachers’
perception of success within a specific content area was based on a student’s gender.
Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, and Lubinski’s (1990) qualitative work explored gender
differences within a teacher’s belief system. This study aimed to answer the following research
questions:
1. Who do teachers believe are their most and least successful students: girls or boys?
2. How accurate are teachers in selecting their most successful and least successful
mathematics students?
3. Do teachers attribute causation of success and failure experiences differently for girls
and boys?
4. Do teachers believe that there are differences in the characteristics of their best girl
and best boy mathematics students? (p. 58)
In order to answer the questions above, the authors developed an advanced organizer to
hypothesize the relationship between teacher beliefs and gender differences. Specifically, they
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 117
believed that internal belief systems were informed by external influences. As a result, both of
these directly influenced autonomous learning behaviors.
Figure 2. Autonomous learning behavior model. Adapted from “Teachers’ attributions and
beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics” by Fennema et al. (1990), p. 56.
Using this conceptual framework, Fennema et al. (1990) reasoned that teachers transmitted
influence through instructional decisions mediated by teachers’ beliefs.
A total of 38 female first-grade teachers from 24 schools participated in the study. During
each structured interview, the teacher was asked to identify the strongest male and female
student in their math class. Teachers were then presented with an index card that included a
series of attribution categories: “student’s ability, student’s effort, student’s intrinsic motivation,
good luck, easiness of the task, teacher helped and others helped” (p. 59). In addition to an
interview, teachers were asked to complete the Sex-Role Stereotype Questionnaire. Sixteen
items, that the researchers believed were related to math, were selected from the original
questionnaire. Each item was scaled on a 5-point Likert scale.
Participants’ responses indicated that 8% of the teachers chose no boys as the most
successful math students, while 45% of the teachers chose no girls. Out of the most successful
students, teachers identified boys 79% of the time. Then when choosing the least successful
students, 82% of teachers chose at least one boy while 61% of the teachers chose at least one
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 118
girl. These results also found that boys were chosen more frequently than girls both in high and
low achieving categories.
This study found that teachers perceived boys as their best students. According to the
results, the authors believed that teachers attributed effort and ability as reasons for successes
and failures differently. Additionally, teachers believed boys exhibited more autonomous
learning behaviors.
Tiedemann’s (2002) quantitative study sought to understand teacher beliefs about gender
stereotypes and how they informed a teacher’s evaluation of a student’s competence and effort in
math. A total of 48 German schools participated in the study and responded to questionnaires
concerning their perceptions. Teachers were instructed to select a total of six students from their
math class. The parameters for their selection were guided by gender and ability. The criterion
for their selection was that they needed to select exactly three boys and three girls. These
students also needed to represent who teachers considered to be: high achieving, medial, and low
performing.
The sample included randomly selected German town and country elementary schools.
The student sample consisted of 288 students, 144 of whom were male and 144 of whom were
female, from 48 elementary school classes. Two grades were represented, 126 were in third
grade and 162 were fourth grade students. A total of 96 students were nominated to be part of the
high achievement group (48 girls and 48 boys), 96 students were nominated as representative of
the medial performance level and 96 students were nominated to represent low performance in
math. A total of 48 elementary school teachers were included in the sample, three of whom were
men and the remaining 45 were women. Within this sample, teaching experienced ranged from 5
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 119
to 27 years. All the teachers in this sample had instructed their classes since the beginning of the
school year. Finally, the sample was limited to pre-dominantly white, middle-class participants.
Teachers were asked to complete two questionnaires for each student: Scale
Mathematical Abilities and Scale Effort Resources. Participants were also asked to complete a
questionnaire about their beliefs of gender stereotypes. Teachers were considered to have a
“traditional gender stereotype” if more than half of the items endorsed a culturally dominant
gender-role stereotype, while teachers who scored less than half of the items on the questionnaire
were considered to be “nontraditional” teacher group. The results of these questionnaires
indicated that gender turned out to be a significant variable that influenced teacher perceptions.
According to the teachers’ responses, boys were considered to have higher mathematical
abilities. “Traditional” teachers were found to have endorsed a culturally dominant gender role
stereotyping pattern through their attribution of male and female achievement, conversely,
“nontraditional” teachers did not endorse the cultural stereotype.
Tiedemann (2002) further analyzed if teachers’ selection of boys and girls by
performance level was indeed successful. He did so by running a 2 (gender) × 3 (performance
level: high, medial, low) analysis of variance. He used students’ grades in mathematics as the
dependent variable used to investigate the gender-associated effects of achievement. Since there
were repeated measurements on both factors, data was analyzed using MANOVA tools.
Tiedemann (2002) found that the performance level was significant (F(2,38) = >100; p< .001),
but the gender main effect (F (1,39) = 2.75;p>.05) and the Gender × Performance Level
interaction (F (2,38) = 1.53; p> .05) were not. Girls and boys who were part of the nominated
sample did not differ considerably in their performance in mathematics.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 120
Tiedemann (2002) evaluated the medial and low performance students by pooling the
data because some teachers, (n = 5) were unable to nominate low performing boys. Descriptive
statistics were then used to showcase the means and standard deviations of these performance
groups. The author used analysis of variance, with repeated measurements, to analyze the
dependent variable, mathematical abilities. This variance analysis used the following formula: 2
(gender) × 2 (teacher stereotype-level: traditional vs. nontraditional). Finally, the author tested
the significance level of post hoc comparisons by running Tukey’s Studentized Range Honestly
Significant Difference (HSD) tests.
The results indicated that the gender main effect was significant. Specifically, Tiedemann
(2002) found that boys were considered to have higher mathematical abilities than girls. Next,
this study found that even though teachers held different views of culturally dominant gender
roles, all teachers attributed the same level of mathematical abilities to their students. Another
finding of this study was that the gender and stereotype-level-interaction was significant.
Teachers who endorsed the dominant gender role stereotype attributed higher mathematical
abilities to their male students than to their girl students. No gender differences were found in
ability-attributions of teachers who did not endorse the dominant gender role stereotype. Finally,
it appeared that these perceptions were not just generalizations, but specific ideas about a
student’s academic achievement based on gender.
Gender Roles
Bank, Biddle, and Good’s (1980) literature review explored the difference in reading
achievement between boys and girls. This study sought to answer why boys learn to read more
slowly than girls. This review found evidence to support the influence of gender roles on student
reading levels.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 121
The authors explored six hypotheses that had been used or could be used to explain the
different reading performances across genders. These hypotheses included: physical maturation,
female teacher bias, discrimination, feminization of reading, differential response, and sex-
relevant teaching styles. These hypotheses differed in the level of importance placed on the
causes of different reading achievement levels. Additionally, these hypotheses differed in the
ways they were able to make sense of data regarding sex roles, classroom behaviors, and reading
achievement. Bank et al. (1980) described each hypothesis and weighed their respective
strengths and weaknesses. The authors did not however explain the specific process by which
these hypotheses were identified.
First, physical maturation emerged as a theme in several studies the authors evaluated as
a rational for the differential reading level achievement. Bank et al. (1980) found evidence that
supported the assertion that girls reached puberty earlier than boys. Some practitioners
interpreted this as a universal “fact” that was sufficient enough to account for differences in
reading skills. The authors contended that if girls matured more quickly than boys, why were
boys found to excel in other skill areas, such as math. Furthermore, the articles Bank et al. (1980)
reviewed revealed that this gender differential seemed to occur most predominantly in American
schools. The authors believed that this reflected specific social factors and instructional
procedures that worked to create this variability.
The next hypothesis believed that this performance difference was due to female teacher
bias. Since a majority of primary teachers in the United States were women, some articles
reasoned that this was why boys performed worse on reading tasks. Bank (1980) wondered why
studies believe that female teachers would have a deleterious effect on the achievement of boys.
It was believed that teachers were prejudiced against boys and enacted this discrimination
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 122
against them in the classroom. Some studies suggested that female teachers had more positive
interactions with boys, but this did not mean that therefore they discriminated against boys.
Next, the authors found that some studies put forth the hypothesis that discrimination
caused differential reading performance. Central to this hypothesis was the assertion that
teachers’ expectations led them to treat boys and girls differently. These expectations were based
on stereotypical beliefs about sexual identities. Studies revealed that American classrooms
reinforced good behaviors as being able to: “listen; watch; sit quietly; read, write, and recite on
command; spend little time talking with other pupils; be good group members; and be unlikely to
challenge teachers’ ideas” (p. 121). From this, Bank et al. (1980) then asked what evidence
existed that proved teachers translated their expectations into discriminatory actions? They found
that several studies revealed that teachers were more likely to praise, criticize, and to initiate
interactions with boys than with girls. The problem with these studies was that the authors were
unable to identify this as a constant.
Another hypothesis suggested that curriculum had been “feminized” leading boys to
perform worse than their girl counterparts. Unlike the discrimination hypothesis, this hypothesis
believed that student behaviors were influenced by their own expectations and the actions of
their teachers. These expectations were thought to vary across content areas based on their
relative sexes. Furthermore, this hypothesis believed that teachers and students saw each subject
as either feminine or masculine. From this, each acted accordingly and influenced achievement
levels based on the sex appropriateness of the task.
Bank et al. (1980) explained the differential response hypothesis found that teachers held
the following to be true about boys, believing that boys were
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 123
(a.) to be more sex-stereotyped in their behaviors and interests (b) to be more disruptive
and aggressive (c) to be more active and to have a shorter attention span (d) to be more
expressive (e) to show less emotional maturity (f) to be more peer oriented and less adult
oriented and (g) to be more independent and less likely to seek help or approval. (p. 124)
This study, however, did not mention what teachers believed to be true about girls. The
differential response theory did explain that differences among students could not be limited to
gender, but must acknowledge race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
The final hypothesis, sex-relevant teaching styles, pointed to the teacher as the primary
influence of gender different reading levels. Banks et al. (1980) explained that teachers held
different values and these values influenced one’s teaching style. The assertion within each of
these hypotheses was that school was orientated in favor of female students.
The purpose of Sadker, Sadker, and Klein’s (1991) document analysis was to understand
the role gender played in elementary and secondary schooling. The authors hypothesized that
school were designed in favor of boys. The authors found evidence that both school policies and
teacher-student interactions supported this assertion.
First, Sadker et al. (1991) explained the prevalence and perpetuation of specific gender
roles students were expected to ascribe to were encased in school policies. The authors pointed to
dress code policies and course selection patterns as clear examples how schools presupposed
specific roles for boys and girls. In terms of course selection, girls were often guided away from
math and science courses as compared to their male counterparts. The authors argued that this
action exposed a school’s inherent belief that some courses were in fact considered to be gender
specific.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 124
Even though each hypothesis was different, Bank et al. (1980) found that each one placed
some importance on the attitudes of teachers. For example, both the discrimination and
feminization of curriculum hypotheses stressed how teacher expectations could explain the
different achievement levels of boys versus girls. The authors believed that it was easier to make
the case that there were fewer girls than boys and this was why there was an achievement gap
between the genders.
Sadker et al.’s (1991) literature review explained how teachers’ attention was oriented
towards males and continued to be. The authors argued that history demonstrated a pattern of
teachers’ focused attention on males, especially in areas of behavior and reading achievement.
This pattern was cited as the primary evidence to prove that schools carried a feminine quality
and therefore disadvantaged males. Many previous studies attributed this to why males were
overrepresented as behavioral problems. Sadker et al. (1991) contradicted this assertion and
argued that females were the population actually at-risk because their problems were often
overlooked as a result of male focused attention, positioning them as victims of subtle bias from
both teachers and the educational system. Furthermore, the researchers explained that certain
males received more attention than others based on teachers’ interaction patterns. First, teachers
were more likely to interact with higher-achieving males than high-achieving girls. Second,
males who were confident in their math abilities received more attention than females with the
same level of confidence in math. Third, boys who exhibited behavior problems also received
more attention than girls. Finally, race and ethnicity acted as predictors of attention. Specifically,
minority males and females received less attention than white males. As a result, females
continued to remain invisible to teachers, and minority female received even less attention than
their white counterparts.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 125
Cahill and Adams’s (1997) quantitative study investigated gender socialization of
children in early childhood education settings. The authors measured this by analyzing teachers’
beliefs regarding student gender. Specifically, the authors examined if teacher perceptions about
gender roles ultimately became enacted through their interactions with students. The authors
believed that these interactions were especially influential when enacted on students at an early
age. Therefore, the study set out to understand the following:
(a) teacher gender role beliefs, (b) how teacher adult-gender-role beliefs related to teacher
conceptualization of young children’s gender role behaviors, (c) if teachers had differing
socialization beliefs for boys and girls, and (d) the relationship between teacher gender
role beliefs for adults and children, and their attitudes toward homosexuals. (p. 520)
The authors wanted to understand how early childhood teachers constructed gender roles,
understood socialization and formed attitudes about gender in their classrooms. Although the
authors were interested in homosexuality, this was exempted because it went beyond the scope
of this study.
The participants were selected by first identifying early childhood centers throughout
northern Ohio. As a result, a total of 225 principals and directors were mailed surveys. Surveys
were then administered to teachers by principals and directors who wanted to participate in the
study. A total of 103 usable surveys were returned. Approximately 96.1% of the respondents
were female.
The authors measured participants’ beliefs regarding adult and child gender roles by
using “Kalin and Tilby’s (1978) Sex-Role Ideology Scale and The Childrearing Sex Role
Attitude Scale (CRSRAS) (p. 522). A preliminary analysis was performed and three t-charts
were created in order to compare the teacher sample from this study with another sample of
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 126
females on the Sex Role Ideology Scale. The other sample was collected from what the
researchers explained was the most current normative data available on the Sex Role Ideology
Scale. The comparison sample consisted of 157 undergraduate female college students enrolled
in an Introductory Psychology course during the 1987-88 academic year. The average age of the
participants was 19 and the majority identified as European-Americans.
The first t-chart compared early childhood teacher beliefs regarding sex-role beliefs. The
results found that early childhood teachers held stronger adherence to feminist or non-traditional
sex role beliefs (N = 103, M = 129.87) than did the sample group (N = 157, M = 105.84). The
second t-chart compared the differences in subject responses to child rearing attitudes toward
males versus child rearing attitudes toward females. A dependent t-test was performed on the
CRSRAS-Girls scale and CRSRAS-Boys scale. A difference was found between the two
subscales with nontraditional attitudes toward females being significantly higher than
nontraditional attitudes toward males (t = 4.35, p < .001). Specifically, teachers accepted more
nonconventional or cross-gender role behaviors and aspirations from females (M = 39.20) than
from boys (M = 37.67). The final t-chart compared the relationships among all the attitudinal
variables as measured by the attitudinal scales and subscales. The correlations between the Sex-
Role Ideology Scale and the Child Rearing Sex Role Attitude Scale (CRSRAS) suggested that
teachers who expressed nontraditional attitudes towards adult gender role behavior on the sex
role inventory also espoused nontraditional gender role childrearing beliefs (r = .60, p < .001).
This same relationship was found for the two subscales with higher Sex Role Ideology scores
correlating with nontraditional childrearing gender role beliefs for females (r = .57, p < .001) and
for males (r = .57, p < .001).
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 127
Cahill and Adams (1997) found that early childhood teachers were more comfortable
exploring gender roles with females than with males. Teachers who held what the researchers
called “non-traditional” views of gender transferred these attitudes when thinking about student
gender roles. In particular, teachers often provided more flexibility in female exploration of
traditionally masculine careers. These views also trickled into their perception of student skill
sets in math and science along lines of gender. The researchers identified that one of the most
notable findings was that teachers’ personal beliefs influenced their attitudes and classroom
decisions.
Researchers noted two limitations to the study. The first limitation was a low return rate.
A smaller sample in a quantitative study could make it difficult to determine if the results were
representative of general ideals. Additionally, the instruments used only measured students’
responses and not necessarily their actions on these beliefs.
Visibility
Bennett, Gottesman, Rock, and Cerullo’s (1993) quantitative study evaluated the
hypothesis that a teacher’s judgments about behavior and gender affected teacher’s perceptions
of a student’s academic performance.
The sample for this study was collected from three Patriarchal schools in Cleveland, Ohio
and one public school in the Bronx. A total of 794 general education students participated in this
study. Of these students, 52% were male, 45% were white, and 55% were described as belonging
to a minority group. The Einstein Assessment of School-Related Skills was used to measure
academic skills. This instrument included five sub-tests and was scored on a pass/fail basis.
Passing scores were determined by a standardized sample from 1,781 students from urban and
suburban schools. Next, in order to measure behavior perceptions, the authors collected
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 128
behavioral grades within each student’s school file. Finally, academic perceptions of students
were also collected using two sources: report cards and structured ratings.
A hypothesized path model was created to determine the “casual” direction. This model
assumed a primary casual direction and inferred a unidirectional path. This hypothesized
association was that gender and tested academic skills influenced teacher behavior perceptions,
which then influenced academic judgments. The hypothesized path model believed that teachers’
judgments of a students’ academic skills were based on three things: gender, academic skills, and
behavior perceptions. The data further suggested that gender influenced a teacher’s judgments of
academic skills and behavior perceptions.
Once this path model was created, standardized partial regression weights were used to
perform least-square multiple regressions. These regressions allowed for variables to be
measured on their explanatory variables. In order to do this, the behavior perception indicator
was first charted and then moved in sequence to the teacher academic judgments. A missing
behavior data indicator was included as an independent variable in order to control for the effects
on academic judgments of non-randomness in the missing data. Each regression was run
separately for each grade within each district, permitting both the location and the grade to be
treated as replications. Additionally, dependent variables such as, mean academic rating and
mean academic grade, all had separate regressions in order to determine the ways in which the
more general nature of grades affected the posited relationships.
The results found that in first and second grade, teachers rated females significantly better
behaviorally than their male counterparts, with effect sizes ranging from .5 to .8 SD (in the units
of the male group) (p. 350). Most notably this study found that teacher perception of student
behavior was the primary influence on their academic judgments of students. Meaning, students
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 129
who were believed to be “bad” were judged to be lower academically despite student records
indicating otherwise. The limitations of this study include external-validity as the sample size
might not have been large enough to yield data to support the assertions in this study. A larger
sample that collected participants across the country could better support external validity.
Gender and Dis/ability
Ferri and Connor’s (2010) case study analyzed the schooling experiences of five women
of color through autobiographical portraits. All of these girls were identified as having
dis/abilities and received special education services. The authors focused on their perspectives
regarding their experiences both in and out of school. They also examined how each of these five
women understood and negotiated multiple positions while they actively worked to push back
against these constraints. Ferri and Connor (2010) selected this demographic for their study
because dis/abled females represented a small portion of the special education classroom
population whereas males constitute an average of two-thirds of the special education
population.
The data used in this study was collected from a larger study of urban black and/or
Latino(a) youth labeled as learning disabled who were from working-class backgrounds. The
five female participants in this study were all between the ages of 18 to 20 and selected using
purposeful sampling. All of these women were involved in a post-high school vocational
program located in New York City. Authors noted that all participants completed their secondary
education in the public-school system. The data was analyzed through targeted readings of each
participant’s narrative. Ferri and Connor (2010) documented each participant’s awareness of the
following items: hegemonic norms of gender, race, ability and social class, as well as tactics they
used to subvert these normative expectations. The authors also documented each narrative for the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 130
ways economic, political, educational and ideological forms of oppression worked in harmony to
oppress them. Finally, Ferri and Connor (2010) also examined the ways in which they resisted
these forces.
From these narratives, the authors found the following emergent themes: space as an
influential element regarding privacy and positionality, perception of self in relation to normative
standards, IEP as a gatekeeper, gendered experiences at work, influence of intersectionality, and
methods of resistance. All of these themes were influenced and/or mediated by institutional
practices. Additionally, the findings from the gendered experiences at work were incorporated
even though they are beyond the scope of this study in order to extrapolate on its findings to
better understand how these experiences might have translated into the school setting.
Beginning with the use of space, participants shared how sections of the school building
were associated with special education. This unofficial zoning of special education space within
schools demonstrated the level of segregation students experienced on a daily basis. Despite
institutional guarantees of privacy, schools regularly conveyed students’ dis/ability status
through implicit and explicit messaging. When asked about ways that schools pointed out their
dis/abilities, participants identified articles such as: schedule cards, report cards, and diplomas
that were used to reveal their dis/ability status. Participants then shared strategies for countering
intrusions into their privacy. For example, W.G. shared that friends would look at her schedule
card and ask about classes that were not on their schedules. Rather than saying that she was in
special education, she shared that she would “tell a lie.” Other participants also spoke about the
ways they avoided these questions by saying things like, “I don’t know. They screwed up my
schedule.” W.G. went on to explain that once her peers knew about a special education label,
“They treat[ed] them different than the way they treat their other friends’” (p.108). Participants
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 131
also shared that their teachers’ perceptions of them changed as well.
Ferri and Connor (2010) noted how each woman’s perception of self was mediated by
normative standards. When each participant was asked to describe their strengths, they defined
themselves in relation to others or according to very traditional gender roles. For example,
Chanell identified her strengths as “writing, drawing, and communication” (p. 114). She also
explained that she was good at “talking to people, like dealing with other people’s problems” (p.
114). Michelle said that she exceled at “cooking, cleaning, being on time, Math, [and] being
there for other people when they need it” (p. 114) Vanessa, included a few academic strengths in
reading, math, writing, and drawing, but focused the description of herself as “being positive, in
other words, keeping focused on school, work, family and friends” (p. 114). The authors used
this as evidence to support that claim that dis/abled women were perceived as asexual,
disqualifying them from cultural scripts of femininity. The researchers noted that although it was
easy to read into participant responses, such as those above, to be buying into oppressive gender
roles, it could also be said that they were refusing ablest assumptions. Unlike male participants in
the larger study who never mentioned parenting, the women openly worried about the impact LD
would have on their ability to parent. For example, Vanessa asked
will I be able to read things to my kids? Will they have the LD? What if my kids want
me to help with the homework, and I don’t want to do it? What kind of person, role
model would I be? (p. 110)
The narrative revealed that female participants prided themselves as being there for others, yet
did not expect others would be there for them. As a result, female participants did not reveal their
LD status even to close friends or partners. The authors explained that this illustrated how the
threat of ableism extended into interpersonal relationships. When interviewed about this,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 132
Michelle explained that, “I wouldn’t tell my boyfriend. It’s true.” Michelle feared that her
dis/ability status would define her, even in her most intimate relationships
I think he might think that I’m not able to do things, even though I that I know what I put
my mind to, reading things, writing things. If I would tell my boyfriend, he would look at
me in a different way. (p.110)
The theme of intersectionality emerged as participants held an acute sense of the ways they were
positioned along multiple lines of gender, race and class, and how these forces impacted their
opportunities. Both Chanell and Michelle felt that both SES and ethnicity influenced perceptions.
Specifically, Michelle explained that
being a Black person in the world means that you have to work even harder to get what
you want. Also, being a Black woman, people expect to see less in you. (Chanell)
Even though I’m sitting with somebody exactly like me, and she’s White and I’m
Hispanic, they’re gonna treat us different … Why? Coz she’s White and I’m Hispanic.
They’ll treat her better than they’ll treat me. (p. 114)
Chanell and Michelle had a sense that middle-class white kids were afforded different
educational experiences than their own. Another participant, Precious, described these
experiences as something that made whites appear to be “smarter at everything.” Rather than
accepting a biological basis of intelligence, she reformulated the definition of intelligence as
something that gave access to resources and privileges rather than innate ability.
During the interviews, the participants also spoke about how one form of privilege
mitigated another form of disadvantage. For example, Chanell explained that
[I]f you have money, you can like do practically anything … You can hire a tutor to go to
your house, you can hire somebody–shit! You can even pay somebody to do your tests
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 133
for you! So nobody really know if you have a learning disability or not because … you’re
always hiring somebody to do things for you. I’d love to have a lot of money, somebody
to do some things for me. I’d be lazy, f’real. (p. 115)
Participants identified how dis/ability was not a singular experience. For example, Chanell noted
how social class determined the way dis/ability was ultimately experienced. Since social class
determined access to services, Chanell described how dis/ability was part a function of social
class. Just as social class influenced how “smart” one was, social class determined how dis/abled
a student was.
The data revealed that dis/ability was a dynamic label where multiple lines of power and
resistance were always in play. Participants’ lived experiences complicated the institutional
knowledge of what it meant to be learning dis/abled. Each participants’ narrative offered more
nuanced understandings of dis/ability along lines of race, class, and social economic status. For
example, during an interview Chanell drew on popular culture to reframe dis/ability by
questioning ablest assumptions. She referenced the movie, “I am Sam” as a way to express this.
She described the main character as someone who learned differently. Chanell added that despite
this, he still had common sense as he knew right from wrong.
Finally, Ferri and Connor (2010) found that participants used various strategies as a way
to push back against acts of institutional oppression. For example, Chanell expressed feeling
cornered when her friends asked about her academic placement. This was amplified when she
was asked specifically about special education. When this happened, she claimed to have a
behavior problem rather than a learning dis/ability. Her label swapping allowed her to adjust her
positionality. However, even though Chanell was able to avoid the stereotypes that came with
being LD, she inadvertently swapped one set of stereotypes for another. The authors explained
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 134
that both sets came with problematic ideologies regarding race and gender. Chanell disrupted the
assumption of being learning disabled (LD), but inadvertently reinforced the problematic
assumptions that contributed to black and Latino students being disproportionately labeled as
either emotionally disturbed or behavior disordered. The authors found that social acceptance
among peers of being labeled as behavior disordered was preferable to the stigmatization of
being considered as learning disabled. Ferri and Connor (2010) noted that behaving badly was
considered a form of resistance to the practices and values of schooling and not a dis/ability.
Even though Vanessa did not tell her boyfriend that she was labeled as learning dis/abled, she
admonished him for making fun of special education. In doing this, she indirectly declared an
alliance with others who have been labeled as learning disables. Based on these experiences, the
authors found that special education services were used to negotiate opportunities for students.
Conclusion
This subsection helped me answer my research questions by understanding the role
gender played in the classroom. First, males received more attention in the classroom than
females (Bennett et al., 1993; Cahill & Adams, 1997; Sadker et al., 1991). This attention was
either positive or negative, as males received more positive feedback and admonishment for
disruptive behaviors than females. Behavior was found to have a significant influence on not
only teacher attention but his/her academic judgments about students as well. Bennett et al.’s
(1993) study found that student behavior was the primary indicator of academic judgments.
Teacher’s attention was focused more on males based on the belief that they required more
attention (Sadker et al., 1991).
Second, teachers’ beliefs about gender were influenced by the content they were teaching
(Fennema, 1990; Li, 1990; Tiedemann, 2002). For example, math teachers tended to view males
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 135
as significantly higher in math than females. Furthermore, these views often began at an early
age as Cahill and Adams (1997) evaluated early childhood teachers and found that even as early
as Kindergarten, teachers viewed content areas as gender specific. These views then evolved into
perpetuated gendered stereotypes (Tiedeman, 2002).
Tiedeman’s (2002) study found that teachers’ gender stereotypes had a well-defined
effect on students rather than a generalized one. This well-defined effect played itself out in two
ways, teachers’ perceptions of academic ability and student-teacher interactions. Sadker et al.
(1991) pointed out that these stereotypes were further conflated by other identity markers such as
race/ethnicity, dis/ability and SES, yet did not completely explore them. Since the research
question in this study sought to understand how the intersection of teacher perceptions informed
their decision to either help a student or not, a significant limitation of these studies included a
lack of investigation into the intersection of multiple variables. Therefore, the next two sections
explore race/ethnicity and SES in order to further understand why a teacher helped certain
students and not others.
Ferri and Connor (2010) provided insight into the lived experiences of five dis/abled
females. This study demonstrated how schooling institutions used space and terminology to
identify and segregate students from one another. These institutional practices positioned
dis/abled women in a place that forced them to possibly be admonished by their peers.
Additionally, this study revealed that dis/abled women have different lived experiences than
men, especially in terms of sexuality.
A limitation of this section was that it did not delve into the other identity markers that
contribute to a complex understanding of dis/ability. Ferri and Connor (2010) did interview
women of color but did not explicitly address other identity markers such as socioeconomic
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 136
status or language variation in these interviews. The next subsections explore the other variables
that contribute to the construction of dis/ability. This helped me further understand how these
variables worked with each other to either encourage or discourage teacher support.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Race/Ethnicity
Studies reviewed in the previous subsections of teacher perceptions explained how race
and ethnicity could not be divorced from teachers’ perceptions of students. Therefore, the studies
below helped inform that ways teachers constructed ideas about race.
Since this study explored how teachers used their understandings to determine what
academic need was, it was important to unpack teachers’ perceptions of race and ethnicity. First,
teachers’ stereotypical beliefs were explored to benchmark what their implicit and explicit
beliefs were about different racial groups. This section also explored to what degree this
influenced their interaction with students and viewpoints of success according to any differential
expectations they may have had. Second, this section explored the apolitical perceptions held by
educators that have challenged the traditional notions of race and ethnicity. Finally, this section
also reviewed the intersection of race and dis/ability and its subsequent influence on teacher
perceptions.
Stereotypical Perceptions
This subsection explored teachers’ stereotypical viewpoints about race and ethnicity of
their students. In order to understand how teachers decided what academic need looked like, it
was important to understand how they defined success in relation to their beliefs about race and
ethnicity.
Guttmann and Bar-Tal (1982) examined the influence teachers’ stereotypical perceptions
had on their evaluations of student work. The authors performed three smaller studies in order to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 137
ascertain the scope of teachers’ perceptions of students based on their race and ethnicity. The
first two studies were reviewed below but the third study explored a topic beyond the scope of
this study and was therefore excluded.
In the first study, teachers were presented with only information about a student’s
ethnicity. The intention was to determine teachers’ initial expectations of students based solely
on demographic information. The sample of the first study consisted of 101 female teachers from
the Israeli Ministry of Education. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 60 years old. The
first study investigated teachers’ initial expectations of students based on provided ethnic origins.
To measure this, the participants were assigned to four randomized groups. The experiment was
carried out with each group separately within 2 hours on the same day. Participants were given a
booklet and the study was introduced to participants as a comparison of impressions. Subjects
were asked to read the provided information about the hypothetical student and to express their
impressions on various scales.
Each group of teachers received a booklet with slightly different sex and ethnic origin
information about the hypothetical student. The authors changed the perceived sex of the
hypothetical student by using either feminine or masculine names. The origin of the student was
then manipulated through the inclusion of either a “typical” Asian-African or European-
American surname (p. 522). The booklet also included information about the hypothetical
student’s father. The father was described as being of either Moroccan or Polish decent. The rest
of the information given to each participant across all four groups was identical for all four
groups and consisted of general information about the student.
Each description included printed instructions asking the subjects to rate their
expectations on a 5-point scale, with 1 equaling a low rating and 5 equaling a high rating. Each
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 138
participant was asked to rate the student’s ability, diligence, interest in studying, learning
conditions at home, discipline, effort in studying, and social integration. Finally, the subjects
were asked to rate their expectations regarding the student’s achievement. To analyze
participants’ responses, the authors used multivariate analysis. The analysis yielded a significant
main effect only for Origin F (8,90) = 3.33 p < .001. Next, the authors used a univariate analysis.
The seven characteristics and the rating of expectations regarding achievement were treated as
eight dependent variables. The results of this analyses yielded main effects for Origin on ability,
F(l,97) = 14.5\9p < .001 (X = 4.11 vs. X = 3.62); interest, F(l,97) = 18.43 < .001 (X = 4.16 vs. X
= 3.55); and conditions at home, F(l,97) = 6.30, p < .001 (X = 4.21 vs. X = 3.62). The results
revealed that diligence was close to significant F(l,97) = 3.40 < .07. Subjects expected black
students to have lower ability, lower interest, and worse home conditions than white students.
Finally, the analysis of variance of the rating of expectations of student's future achievement
yielded a main effect only for Origin F(l,97) = 6.30, p < .001. Black students, (X = 4.02) were
expected to have lower academic achievement than white students (X = 3.71). The results of this
first study found that teacher evaluations and expectations varied according to the ethnic origin
of students. This study found that teachers did have stereotypical perceptions that influenced
both their expectations and evaluations of students. The results found that teachers responded in
a stereotypical way. For example, teachers believed students of either Asian or African origin
were lower academically and had less academic interest than European or American students.
Since these perceptions had academic implications for the way teachers evaluated students, the
second study analyzed how this influenced grading. All teachers in this study were given the
same essay to grade with the only variation being an ethnic profile of the student.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 139
The second study investigated teachers’ expectations after they were provided with a
sample of the student’s work. A total of 59 female students in a junior college for training
teachers served as subjects. All the subjects were freshmen and were between 18 and 26 years
old. Twenty-nine identified as Asian and 30 identified as white. Because no difference was found
between the two groups of subjects on the measurement of the dependent variables, their data
was combined. Teachers were provided writing samples and asked to grade the work as well as
predict their academic achievement. The only additional information they were provided was the
student’s race and sex. The results, suggested that white students received higher grades than
other ethnicities.
The results of this second study revealed that race had a significant influence on the
teachers’ grading. Across all the participants, teachers gave higher grades to white students than
black students. In addition to this finding, both studies suggested that teachers had differential
academic expectations of students based on their ethnicity. The study revealed that teachers
believed Asian and black students had lower academic potential than white students.
There were several limitations to this study including sample size and external reliability.
A larger sample size would yield more generalizable results. Replications of this study needed to
be conducted in order to determine the extent a teacher’s viewpoint had on students. The findings
of the first two studies suggested that teachers do have stereotypical perceptions of students and
these perceptions correlated to ideas of success and failures according to their ethnicity and sex.
Chang and Demyan (2007) examined teachers’ race-related stereotypes and their
subsequent influence on racial differences of educational outcomes. This study explored
contemporary stereotypes of black, white and Asian students held by teachers. Chang and
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 140
Demyan (2007) explained that racial stereotypes undermined minority students because such
stereotypes influenced how they were judged or treated by others, especially teachers.
A total of 188 teachers were recruited from three continuing education courses at the
University of California. Researchers gained permission from each instructor to present the study
at the end of the class. Interested students were invited to stay and learn more. Of the 201
students invited, 13 students declined to participate in the study. The average age of each teacher
was 33 years old and 73% self-identified as white. The remainder of the participants self-
identified as follows: 10% Latino, 3.7% as black, 2.7% as Asian-Pacific Islander, and 6.9% as
mixed race.
During the first phase of the data collection process, researchers collected data about each
participant’s gender, age, ethnicity, grades taught, number of years of teaching experience,
school where currently employed, highest educational degree and frequency of interaction with
individuals of the same and different cultural background information. Next, the researchers
analyzed each participant’s endorsement of popular cultural stereotypes. In order to evaluate this,
each subject was asked to rate the percentage of Asians, blacks, and whites who possessed each
of 15 stereotypic traits. These stereotype traits were drawn from Stangor, Sullivan, and Ford’s
(1991) study of social stereotypes. Both negative and positive stereotypes were evaluated in this
study. The following stereotypes were explored
Whites (Industrious, Intelligent, Friendly, Stubborn, Materialistic, Selfish); for Asians
(Intelligent, Industrious, Gentle, Selfish, Nationalistic, Passive); and for Blacks (Athletic,
Rhythmic, Sociable, Aggressive, Lazy, Unintelligent). The present study replaced the
original trait “inferior” (Stangor et al., 1991) with “unintelligent” as a negative stereo-
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 141
type of Blacks because pretesting suggested that individuals were resistant to applying
the former trait to any group. (p. 98)
After participants completed demographic questionnaires, they were also asked to complete a
questionnaire to assess “the severity, referability, and cause of three different classroom behavior
profiles” (p. 99). Teachers were provided with student profiles, which included a brief vignette
and a photo of an Asian, black, or white student. After reading through the profiles, each
participant answered a four-part questionnaire. This questionnaire asked to them to consider and
rate traits that they believed best described Asian, black, and white students.
The authors deductively coded the data for black, white and Asian stereotypes in three
phases. During the first stage, responses were compared to a list of 15 cultural stereotypes taken
from Roget’s II Thesaurus. If a participant listed a trait that did not correspond to an existing
category, a new category was created. This resulted in the creation of 30 additional trait
categories. After the first phase, there were a total of 44 trait categories. During the second stage
of coding, two raters calibrated the trait categories. In order to do this, both raters first were
independently assigned each of the 2,612 original responses to one of the 44 categories. Prior to
coding the data, Chang and Demyan (2007) reviewed the categories and agreed on 84.8% of the
category judgments. Once calibrated, the third stage of coding began. During this phase, all
disagreements were resolved through group discussion. If trait category was not resolved after
this discussion, the first author made the final decision whether to include it or not. Nine
responses (0.3%) were ultimately omitted due to lack of clarity. A total of 2603 responses were
kept for evaluation.
Once the responses were coded, an ANOVA was conducted in order to examine the
effects of student race on mean likeableness rating. Participants listed an average of 4.85
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 142
descriptive traits for Asians, 4.67 traits for blacks, and 4.37 traits for whites in the free response
section of the questionnaire. The five largest categories used to describe students were
Sociable (accounting for 14.4% of the total responses), Industrious/ Achievement-
Oriented (13.2%), Intelligent (8.1%), Compliant (5.6%), and Introverted (5.2%)…Four
trait categories comprised 57.4% of the total number of traits listed for Asians:
Industrious (25.1%), Introverted (12.1%), Intelligent (10.1%), and Compliant (10.1%).
With regard to Blacks, 50.9% of responses were captured by six trait categories:
Sociable/Friendly (18.9%), Athletic (8.1%), Disobedient (7.2%), Intelligent (6.3%),
Active (5.4%), and Aggressive (5.0%). For Whites, seven trait categories were needed to
account for 53.5% of the traits named for the group: Sociable/Friendly (18.7%),
Industrious (9.2%), Intelligent (7.8%), Compliant (4.7%), Materialistic (4.7%), Privileged
(4.4%), and Athletic (4.0%). (p. 103)
The researchers chose to use an open-ended format because it showcased variations in
participants’ racial beliefs. For example, open-ended format yielded more complex racial
representations from the participants.
Several patterns emerged from the data collected. First, Chang and Demyan (2007) found
that teachers in this study strongly endorsed the popular stereotype of Asians as a model
minority. Specifically, when asked to describe Asian students, descriptions included:
academically successful and well behaved in the classroom while less sociable, less athletic. In
contrast, teacher beliefs regarding blacks and whites included a wider range of what the authors
considered to be both positive and negative traits. Many teachers expressed negative views that
described blacks as disobedient, aggressive, and/or overly active. Teachers however also
expressed positive beliefs that blacks were sociable/friendly, intelligent, and/or athletic. The
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 143
authors found that when compared to Asians and whites, blacks were identified for their
athleticism and musical inclinations. This finding was indicative of the continued stereotype that
blacks were primarily physical and intuitive, rather intelligent.
Results from the free-response question revealed alternative participant opinions
regarding racial attitudes. In these responses, the authors found that participants acknowledged
popular racial stereotypes while simultaneously resisting them. These findings suggested that
racial representations were exceedingly complex, making their assessment especially sensitive to
method variation. Although the diagnostic ratio results indicated that the teachers in this study
distinguished between racial groups along stereotypic lines, the free-response task revealed less
consistency in their racial representations, even as their most common responses generally
conformed to popular cultural stereotypes.
There were several limitations in this study. First, the sample size did not allow the
researchers to determine black, white and Asian teachers’ beliefs of black, white, and Asian
students. Secondly, the present study did not analyze individual identity markers. This was
important as individual identity markers are linked to racial beliefs. Finally, a convenience
sample was used, limiting the generalizability of the results.
Apolitical Perceptions
Bartolomé’s (2004) research project investigated the critical teaching practices of four
exemplarily teachers. She hypothesized that a teacher’s critical practice was rooted in
subconscious ideological orientations that were apolitical from the dominant society’s ideology.
To problematize this, she explained that in order for a teacher to truly help minority students,
they must be able to recognize the larger ideological structure that was designed to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 144
systematically oppress minority students. This recognition allowed teachers to disrupt the system
by not accepting or perpetuating the hegemonic structure.
Bartolomé (2004) defined ideology as a network of thought used to rationalize the
existence of a social order. Members of a society used the ideologies of a dominant society to
justify a social order as “natural” (p. 100). Ideologies therefore were used to perpetuate a status
quo. In order to disrupt an existing order, one must be able to recognize how an ideology
influences the justification of a hierarchical structure.
Bartolomé’s (2004) single-site qualitative study examined the teaching practices of four
teachers. The participants were nominated by collogues and administrators as exemplarily and
ranged in experience from 8 to 25 years. The demographics included two white female teachers,
one Chicano teacher, one white male teacher and one white female principal. All participants
were in their mid to late 50s. These teachers were invited to discuss their experiences educating
Latino, low SES and linguistic minority students. The interview protocol included all open-ended
questions. In addition to the interview, Bartolomé’s (2004) research assistant collected from all
the participants: personal histories, teacher education experiences, and a statement about why
they got into teaching.
Initial and final reviews of the data found that there were four ideologies that influenced
these teachers’ ability to help minority students find academic success. First, all participants
attributed minority student success to the ability to create a “comfort zone” or safe space.
Second, all participants questioned ideas of meritocracy. Next, all were considered what
Bartolomé (2004) called “border crossers” or someone who had personally experienced
disadvantage. Finally, all saw themselves as advocates of disadvantaged students. Even though
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 145
participants had different degrees by which they ascribed to these ideologies, they all recognized
that teaching was not a neutral act. Rather, they understood their actions to be political.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) developed an analytic framework to understand the socialization
and schooling experiences of working-class racial minority students. His theoretical work
examined the social and institutional capitals available to minority students within a school
setting. Historically, studies made meaning of capital as a “significant other,” this was anyone
who was considered to have a significant influence on a student. Rather than focusing on this in
context of minority student success, Stanton-Salazar (1997) examined institutional forces that
worked to create access points for minority students that helped them access institutional and
social capitals.
Minority student success was demarcated into four quadrants, health, school success,
economic and social integration. Stanton-Salazar (1997) believed that success in these areas
depended upon
Regular and consistent opportunities to construct instrumental relationships with
institutional agents across key social spheres and institutional domains dispersed
throughout society. (p. 6)
Institutional agents were defined as those who have the capacity to directly provide resources
and opportunities within an institution. If the institution was education, teachers could be
considered to be institutional agents as they had the capacity to provide students with both
resources and opportunities. Since students were seldom raised in isolation of other variables of
influence, Stanton-Salazar (1997) explained that the most important social spheres to students
were “extended family, the school, community organizations (e.g., church) and the peer group”
(p. 6). The accumulation of membership to members within these various social spheres was
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 146
considered to be social capital. Stanton-Salazar (1997) made meaning of social capital as units
constructed from the interweaving of institutional agents and networks.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) outlined six key institutional supports that were helpful for
minority students to experience social and institutional success. These supports were key in the
development of social capital. These supports are outlined below
1. Provisions of various types of knowledge-This can be both implicit and explicit
2. Bridging-institutional agent that acts as a “gate-keeper” and/or access point for
students into the institution
3. Advocacy
4. Role Modeling
5. Provision of moral and emotional support. (p. 11)
In the context of this study, the most important support was the provision of various knowledge
sources as it included school-sanctioned discourse or accepted language usage. Language was
considered to be a form of identity and could either act as an access or exclusion point for
minority students. Therefore, each setting had its own set of acceptable accepted discourse. This
meant that success in school was not just about content knowledge but also about how to decode
the language of school. Students who did not speak the language, literally and metaphorically,
were positioned at a disadvantage.
Since teachers were considered to be institutional agents as they had power to determine
who has access to opportunities and resources. Stanton-Salazar (1997) outlined several qualifiers
that institutional agents access to determine who has access to educational opportunities and
resources. His theoretical framework reasoned that one of the more important qualifiers was
sanctioned discourse. Sanctioned discourse was the linguistic patterns considered to be
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 147
acceptable and unsanctioned discourse was considered to be either disrespectful or too
colloquial. In a school setting, teachers became the enforcers of sanctioned discourse and would
often admonish students for using unsanctioned discourse. This admonishment either caused
students to conform to the sanctioned discourse or be silent. The schooling institution determined
what was considered to be sanctioned discourse, basing acceptable linguistically patterns on the
larger social ideological framework. If a student was able to decode and participate in the
sanctioned discourse, they increased their opportunity to be recognized by teachers as someone
to invest in. This could be incredibly problematic for students who were ethnically and racial
diverse. If a student did not speak the language, they would be cut off from educational resources
and opportunities.
Dis/ability and Race/Ethnicity
The literature regarding dis/ability (Ferri &Connor, 2005; Siebers, 2008) and race
(Bartolomé, 2004; Chang & Demyan, 2007) both brought up questions about integration.
Discussions of integration reached a national consciousness with the Brown v. Board of
Education case. This landmark case forced many to question how to integrate previously
segregated populations (Blanchett, 2006; Ferri & Connor, 2005). Much like the emergence of the
Jim Crow south as a reaction formation to the emancipation of slavery, special education
provided an opportunity for those opposed to segregation a way to (re)segregate students. The
field of special education itself was built from the Brown decision with the intention to services
to students with dis/abilities (Blanchett, 2006). The literature in this section argued that the issues
of representation stemmed from the history of segregation (Blanchett, 2006; Ferri & Connor,
2005) coupled with the internalization of racial understandings that manifested in schooling
institutions (Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002).
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 148
Zhang and Katsiyannis’ (2002) study examined special education representation rates
across racial groups and poverty rates. They further examined these special education
representation rates across multiple states and regions of the United States. The authors looked at
all dis/abilities, including high-incidence dis/abilities such as learning dis/abilities, mental
retardation and emotional-behavioral disorders.
The data used in this study was collected from three different publications: the 22
nd
Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, National Center for Education Statistics: Statistics in Brief, and Poverty in the United
States. The Annual Report provided data regarding the number and percentage of students
identified with dis/abilities according to racial groups from the 1998-1999 school year. In order
to evaluate the special education representation rates, four types of data were extracted from this
annual report
Number of students in each racial group for all disability types, the number of students
with learning disabilities (LD) by racial group and state, the number of students with
mental retardation (MR) by racial group and state, and the number of students with
emotional behavioral disorders (EBD) by racial group and state. (p. 181)
This report included data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The racial groups
included within this report were “American Indian/Alaskan, Asian/Pacific Islander, African
American, Hispanic, and White” (p. 181). NCES Statistics provided data on school membership
according to racial group and poverty data was collected from the Poverty Data report. The
authors performed two types of data transformations in order to compare the representation rates
across racial groups. First, the authors used the compute procedure to calculate the percentages
of students represented by each group in each dis/ability category. Next, the authors used another
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 149
compute procedure to calculate the percentage difference between minority representation and
White representation across all dis/abilities. Once these were established, three types of data
analysis were performed. First, racial representations were graphed and descriptive statistics
were calculated. Second, correlation analyses were done to examine the relationship between
racial representation and state poverty rates. Finally, ANOVAS were conducted to examine
regional variations in racial representation, using state poverty rate as a covariate.
The results revealed that across all minority groups, black representation ranked the
highest. Alaskan was the second highest, white ranked third and Asian students ranked the
lowest of all racial categories. Data collected on black and Alaskan students revealed that these
populations were overrepresented in all dis/ability categories whereas Asian and Latino students
were underrepresented. The authors found significant regional variations in the identification of
Latino and black students. Specifically, there were higher percentages of Latino students were
identified in the North-East region than in the South region.
The most significant finding was the large regional variations in representation rates of
emotional behavioral disorders (EBD). Latino students, identified as EBD, varied significantly
between the North Eastern, Southern, and Western regions of the United States. A higher
percentage of Latino students were identified as EBD in the North-Eastern region. African
American representation also varied significantly across regions. More students were identified
in the West North Central region of the United States.
With these findings, the authors identified several potential factors that could have
influenced the variations found: State expenditure rates, state-level regulations of the
identification process, and attitudes towards education, racial bias and unemployment. These
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 150
factors needed to be examined further as they were beyond the scope of Zhang and Katsitanni’s
(2002) study.
Guarino, Buddin, Pham, and Cho’s (2009) study examined the factors that contributed to
the early identification of students with dis/abilities. The purpose of this study was to discover
which children were less likely to be diagnosed with special needs.
To answer the research question, the authors sought to find a data set that could provide
all the demographic information and dis/ability identifiers of all children in California. At the
time of the study, no data set existed that had all the information therefore, the authors used a set
that included as much demographic information as possible. The California Special Education
Management Information System (CASEMIS) collected by the Special Education Division of
the CDE consisted of student-level records for all California students identified with special
needs who were receiving special services through the California Department of Education
(CDE). The Department of Education was responsible for providing special education services to
identified students ages 3 to 22. In accordance with section C of IDEA, the Department of
Developmental Services (DDS) provided services to special education children younger than 3
years old. DDS used a separate set of identification procedures than the CDE because of DDS’s
adherence to the medical model of dis/ability. Due to the lack of consistent identifiers for special
education, the authors explained that it was difficult to compare CASEMIS and DDS were not
comparable. DDS however did coordinate with CDE when students transitioned to CDE
jurisdiction. The authors pointed to this transition as one indicator of early identification of
students with dis/abilities. For the purpose of this study, data was collected from the June set.
This set was selected because it was the most complete. The authors analyzed data from 6
consecutive years, spanning from 2001 through 2006. The data “contained records for 798,946
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 151
special needs students in 2001, 828,386 in 2002, 834,455 in 2003, 839,349 in 2004, 845,294 in
2005, and 848,223 in 2006” (p. 164). The authors looked at all 14 dis/ability categories included
in the CASEMIS
Mental retardation (MR), hard of hearing (HH), deafness (DEAF), speech or language
impairment (SLI), visual impairment (VI), emotional disturbance (ED), orthopedic
impairment (OI), other health impairment (OHI), established medical disability (EMD),
specific learning disability (SLD), deaf-blindness (DB), multiple disability (MD), autism
(AUT), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). (p. 164)
In addition to dis/ability categories, the data also included student characteristics: “age, gender,
race/ethnicity, English learner status, home language, residency status (e.g., parent or guardian,
foster home), and current grade in school” (p. 164) and each student’s date of entry into special
education. Data included in the CASEMIS was collected twice annually. This data was collected
from Local Education Agencies (LEA) and these agencies collected data from students’ IEPs.
This study used descriptive analyze and multivariate regression technique to create
evaluate the relationship between “early identification and the demographic characteristics of
children, the types of disabilities they exhibited, and the district or geographical location in
which they resided” (p. 164). The authors used a multivariate regression analysis to investigate
sources of variation in greater detail. This allowed the authors to analyze differences in early
special education identification across demographic groups.
Guarino et al. (2009) found that demographics played a vital role in the identification
rates of students for special education services. First, the data suggested that girls were 50% less
likely to be identified as needing special services prior to kindergarten entry than boys. The
results regarding early identification rates also suggested that dis/abilities before Kindergarten
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 152
had higher medical identifiers than other dis/abilities. Based on this finding, the authors argued
that the more overt the symptoms were of the dis/ability, the more frequently that dis/ability was
identified. In addition to these findings, the authors also discovered that black students were the
least likely to be identified early for special education services. Furthermore, English learners
were less likely than non-English learners to be identified early for special education services.
Ferri and Connor’s (2005) document analysis explored if variations in special education
were due to larger institutionalized forms of racism. The authors examined the interplay of
racism in relation to ableism and the power struggles both these histories have experienced.
In order to unearth ideas of ability in juxtaposition to race, the authors studied how
newspapers covered debates and discussions of school desegregation and inclusion. The authors
examined newspapers from two eras: 1954-1956 and 1987-2002. These eras were selected
because they represented the years directly related to both the Brown decision and peak years of
the debate over greater ‘‘inclusion’’ of special education students in regular classrooms. Next,
they collected editorials written by newspaper editors, specifically focused on ‘‘op-ed’’ pieces
written by columnists, contributing writers, and/or letters to the editor written by readers from a
range of presses. The authors chose to analyze editorials in newspapers because they were more
discursive than scholarly works and were believed to be more representative of the opinions of
the general public. Additionally, they reasoned that an examination of editorials highlighted the
general population’s perceptions of integration. They believed that these perceptions not only
functioned as a way to segregate students with dis/abilities but also functioned as a way to
uphold white racial supremacy.
The authors collected editorials from both “black” and “white” publications in an attempt
to gain diverse opinions about the topics of school inclusion. Editorials were collected from the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 153
following newspapers: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, The Richmond Afro-American and The Atlanta Daily World. In addition, the
authors believed that these publications represented regional differences as they incorporated
both northern and southern newspapers. These publications also represented both ‘‘mainstream’’
and ‘‘independent’’ papers. In addition to these sources, the authors also analyzed the ‘‘What
They Say’’ column (also ranging from 1954-1956) in Southern School News. This publication
came out monthly and synthesized information focusing on the topic of desegregation in
newspapers from around the country, providing access to a broad array of opinions across many
states. This publication no longer existed by the late 1980s and thus was not included in the data
on the inclusion debate from the later period. The data collected from the 1954-1956 period
included five papers with approximately 450 pages of text. During the era, approximately 165
pages of text regarding inclusion were located from the mainstream press, and 35 from the black
press.
First, the authors established a connection between IDEA and the Brown v. Board of
Education case. A comparison of these revealed how the history of school desegregation and
special education were intertwined. Through their examination, the authors explained that special
education legislation owed its legal precedence to the Brown decision, intertwining their
histories and subsequent legacies. Furthermore, Ferri and Connor (2005) explained how vague
terminology, embedded in both the course case and legislation, perpetuated the segregation of
students. One example the authors point to as evidence of vague language used to perpetuate
power was the Brown decision’s call to end desegregation with “all deliberate speed” (p. 455).
This language incited significant delays in legislation and desegregation as the ambiguity of
language allowed for speed to be interpreted rather than explained. The editorial pages analyzed
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 154
during this era revealed that rather than planning for compliance, state and local officials
strategized what ‘‘legal’’ meant they could use to put off court desegregation orders. Specially,
the editorials reviewed for this study discussed how to avoid desegregation rather than how to
implement inclusion. For example, one editorial written by a Texas school board member in The
Southern School News that
They [members of the White community] are not satisfied with desegregation and are not
ready to enter into it right at the present time...I believe if we were given sufficient time
we could work the problem out but at the present time we have no plan. (p. 464)
Editorials that were written after the Brown decision sought to find ways to stifle desegregation
in schools.
Similarly, after the passing of IDEA, many state and local officials looked for ways to
ensure students were placed in separate settings. In particular, the authors noted how the
requirement that students who were identified as special education were to be placed in the “least
restrictive environment” led to re-segregation of students. The authors suggested that this
ambiguity, much like that used in the Brown decision, also paved the way for unclear definitions
of dis/ability. These unclear definitions provided an opportunity for schools to re-segregate
students as they saw fit.
Ferri and Connor (2005) explained that schools were institutions where dominant beliefs
were upheld and reinforced. As a result, schools became places where racism and ablism were
actively practiced. Both race and dis/ability had long histories of social constructivism yet these
socially constructed concepts asserted power over specific groups of people and were
institutionalized in schooling practices. Ferri and Connor (2005) explained that the intersection
of race and dis/ability served to re-segregate specific populations from whites.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 155
White Privilege
Ladson-Billings’s (1998) theoretical article explored the usefulness of viewing
educational inequities through a Critical Race Theory (CRT) lens. Race played a vital role in the
educational opportunities for students. With this in mind, she explained that race still mattered
and needed to be part of the equity dialogue. CRT actively worked to reveal how the regime of
white supremacy worked to subordinate people of color. CRT hoped that this revelation would
change the bond that exists between law and racial power.
Ladson-Billings (1998) described race as a powerful social construct that continued to
influence how society viewed individuals. Whiteness was positioned as normal through the
creation of racial categories. In a racialized society where everyone was ranked and categorized,
it created points of opposition. Contemporary understandings demonstrated how race had
evolved from a biogenetic view to complex socially constructed understandings.
Ladson-Billings (1998) explained how Critical Race Theory began with the
understanding that racism was pervasive and embedded within the conceptualization of normal.
CRT believed that racism was embedded within the fabric of American society and its
institutions. To excavate these deeply ingrained understandings of race, CRT often used
storytelling as a vehicle to explore the ways in which race was constructed and perpetuated.
Stories, in particular, provided a context for understanding, feeling, and interpreting data
especially since the voices of dispossessed and marginalized people were often muted.
Therefore, stories not only helped to contextualize experiences that seem objective but were
necessary in doing so. To think about ways to transform racial hegemony, CRT not only drew
from individual experiences, but a shared history as an “other.” Thus, the experience of
oppressions such as racism or sexism had important aspects for developing a CRT analytical
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 156
standpoint. Shared oppressions such as racism or sexism helped to develop a CRT analytical
standpoint.
Ladson-Billings (1998) juxtaposed CRT and citizenship to see how these related to the
conceptualization of race. She believed that a central connection between CRT and citizenship
was the notion of property. CRT scholars argued that America was conceived and built on
property rights, situating property an integral part in the formation of race. In early America,
only white property-owning males were considered citizens. This coupled with a capitalist
structure bound both citizenship and property to one another. Capitalization laid the foundation
of property rights and ultimately made civil rights legislation slow and ineffective. Civil rights
were mitigated by this construction as they determined the rights of the individual. In American
society, blacks represented a particular conundrum because not only were they not afforded
individual civil rights because they were not white and owned no property, but they were also
considered to be property. Whites, on the other hand, possessed a metaphorical property that
people of color did not possess—being “white.” Blacks therefore represented a unique form of
citizen, human property transformed into citizen.
Ladson-Billings (1998) looked at the way CRT approached to education. Her evaluation
began with understanding the structural components of schooling institutions. She found that
since there was nothing explicitly outlined in the American constitution, states individually
generated and enacted educational legislation. As a result, each state was afforded the freedom to
interpret what they deem to be equal opportunity. Furthermore, it was revealed that legislation
was aimed at equality and was therefore associated with the idea that students of color should
have access to the same school opportunities (i.e., curriculum, instruction, funding, facilities as
white students). Legislation’s emphasis on sameness helped to increase the arguments for equal
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 157
treatment under the law. This notion supported the advancement of blacks from their second-
class status. However, state legislations did not identify what was necessary to help blacks catch
up with their white counterparts. CRT recognized that true equality is beyond equal treatment
and needed to redress pass inequities.
At the end of the article, Ladson-Billings (1998) cautioned readers to consider that if
people were serious about solving these problems in schools and classrooms, people had to be
serious about rethinking the role race played in education. She advocated for the adoption of
CRT framework in an attempt to gain educational equity. This approach would expose racist
practices in education while proposing radical solutions for addressing it.
Solomon, Portelli, Daniel, and Campbell’s (2005) qualitative study explored how white
teachers constructed understandings of race. Specially, researchers sought to understand how
white privileged influence their ability to recognize the visibility of a white dominant culture.
Furthermore, this study also aimed to understand how white teachers viewed minorities under the
influence of both hegemony and meritocracy. This qualitative study used a representative
sample of 200 teacher candidates. One hundred and forty of whom self-identified as white, while
the other 60 identified as “students of colour” (p. 150). The researchers explained that they
defined “colour” as “African-heritage, Latino, South-Asian, Southeast-Asian and First-Nations”
(p. 150). All of the subjects were enrolled in one of two urban post-baccalaureate teacher
education programs in Canada.
As part of a larger in class project, all participants were provided with Peggy McIntosh’s
article, “White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack.” All students were asked to read and
generate a one-page response to the article above. In addition to this reading, participants listened
to an introductory lecture, participated in small group discussion, and engaged in an online
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 158
discussion group. Researchers used discourse analysis to uncover emergent themes in their
written responses.
After reviewing the data, three primary responses emerged: “ideological incongruence;
liberalist notions of individualism and meritocracy; and negating white capital” (p. 153). First,
the responses suggested that teachers held ideological congruent ideas. Even though many
teachers believed that minority students should be treated with equity, many were unwilling to
take the action necessary to disrupt the system. Second, the findings suggested that pre-service
teachers held liberalist notions of individualism and meritocracy. Specifically, teachers believed
that if a student worked hard enough, he/she would be able to overcome any obstacle in his/her
way. In addition to this, there was limited dialogue regarding the historical perpetuation of social
subjugation of minority students. Therefore, teachers believed that all students had equal
opportunities. Finally, the last theme that emerged from the data was that many teacher
candidates denied the existence of white privilege. The responses revealed that teachers often
rationalized white privilege. Additionally, teachers were unable to emotionally move beyond the
dominant ideological viewpoints about race as they felt feelings of anger and guilt in relation to
minorities. Many teachers explained that they were unable to understand race as an issue because
of the communities they were raised in. This was a series problem as race was a variable that
influenced the social and academic experiences of minority students.
The results suggested that teacher education programs could and should facilitate
discussions with pre-service teachers about their personal identity formation in relation to how
they saw their students. Solomon et al. (2005) explained that one’s identity became the lens by
which they saw the world. Therefore, understanding one’s ideology could provide a framework
for their approach to minority students, power, hegemony, and meritocracy.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 159
This study provided insight into teachers’ understanding of the larger social ideology.
Since a majority of the teaching force is made up of heterosexual white females, this study
provided insight into how a majority of the workforce formed their understanding of race and
ethnicity.
Conclusion
The studies in this subsection revealed how understandings of race were formed through
a series of concentric lenses. First, the dominant culture within a social structure set an
understanding of what was considered to be normal. This normalization of social order was the
ideological commodity by which all members of a society made meaning and rationalized power
dynamics among group members. Second, members then formed personal identities by
understanding how they were positioned within the social structure. Finally, members continued
to make meaning by looking at themselves in context of others. All of these lenses compounded
upon each other and created the medium by which members made meaning of race.
Teachers were members of both a larger society that had its own ideological framework
and a smaller ecosystem where this ideology was acted out. Ideas about race were constructed
from the thread of the larger ideological tapestry. What teachers created with this thread was
inspired by, both the local ecosystem they existed in as well as their own personal understanding
of this ecosystem. Therefore, Bartolomé (2004) suggested that a teacher viewed race through the
lens of the larger ideological framework as well as the specific context within which they live. In
order to disrupt both hegemonic ideas about race and meritocracy, it required a teacher to
recognize the existence of the larger social narrative about race. It also required him/her to
unpack how he/she was positioned in relation to this idea. Disrupting the stereotypical views of
race held either explicitly or implicitly by teachers was important as these views influenced the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 160
way they graded and viewed minority students in their classrooms (Chang & Demyan, 2007;
Guttmann & Bar-Tal, 1982; Solomon et al., 2005)
Stanton-Salazar (1997) explained that minority student success was often understood as
the byproduct of outside agents. This traditional framework perpetuated the hegemonic notion
that minorities were lower than their white counterparts, and needed a savior-like figure to rescue
them. He proposed a new framework for understanding success as a combination of both social
and institutional capital. Rather than attributing student success to others, this framework
explored how a combination of internal and external influences supported minority-student
success.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Socioeconomic Status (SES)
This section explored teacher assumptions regarding students’ socioeconomic status.
Literature in the previous sections suggested that there were variations in teacher perceptions
based on the SES context they taught in. Sadker and Sadker (1994) suggested that there were a
higher number of students with low SES backgrounds in special education programming, making
it is important to understand how teachers informed their beliefs about who needed additional
support and who did not.
The literature in this subsection first explored the expectations teachers had of students
from different SES backgrounds. Next, these studies investigated the influence language
variation had on teachers’ views of students. Finally, the intersection of gender and SES was
investigated since the research question aimed to understand the intersection of gender and other
variables’ influence on special education referral rates.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 161
Low Expectations
This subsection explored the expectations teachers had regarding students who attended
high poverty schools.
Solomon, Battistich, and Hom’s (1996) quantitative study examined if teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs about a student’s socioeconomic status influenced their practice. The authors used
both a questionnaire and classroom observation data to ascertain baseline data as part of a larger
study that evaluated an intervention program in 12 schools, with another 12 serving as a
comparison group. The baseline data used in Solomon et al.’s (1996) study was collected during
the school year before the start of the intervention program.
A total of 476 teachers participated in the study. Out of this sample, 90% of the
participants were female and ranged in age from 21 to 65. Their work experience ranged from
one year to 44 years as a teacher. These teachers were from 24 schools across the United States.
These schools were selected from six school districts. Schools were selected to participate in the
intervention program based on administrator interest and the school’s ability to facilitate the
intervention program. Researchers also selected the schools based on the communities they
served. They used purposeful sampling since they wanted a broad representation of
socioeconomic levels.
To determine the poverty level of each school, researchers calculated the percentage of
students who qualified for free or reduced lunch program. Based on this data point, schools were
then categorized into low, medium and high poverty groups. Schools were considered to be low
poverty if they fell between 0% and 19%. Next, schools were considered to be in the medium
poverty category if they fell between 20% and 74%. Finally, schools placed in the high poverty
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 162
category fell between 75% to 100%. Solomon et al. (1996) explained that the ethnic background
of students varied among the three categories of schools.
The average percentages of Caucasian (non-Hispanic) students in the low, medium, and
high-poverty schools were 59%, 42%, and 31%, respectively. Parallel percentages for
African American students in the three groups were 6%, 22%, and 68%; for Hispanic
students, 19%, 27%, and 2%; for Asian and Pacific Islander students, 15%, 6%, and 0%;
and for other non-White students, 3%, 3%, and 0%. (p. 329)
Data was collected during a single school year. Solomon et al. (1996) administered
questionnaires to measure teacher beliefs. These questionnaires were based on ones constructed
by Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1988) and the Center for Research on the Context of
Secondary School Teaching (1990). A total of 89% of the questionnaires sent out were returned.
Once collected, the researchers created scales from the responses they received. Using factor
analysis, researchers grouped responses into three sets. The first set reflected teachers’
educational attitudes and beliefs as it measured the importance teachers placed on the following:
teacher authority and student compliance, control ideology, skepticism regarding students’
learning potential, belief in the important that students are self-directed learners, and trust in
students. The second set reflected teachers’ feelings about teaching, including their feelings of
efficacy. Finally, the third set reflected teachers’ perceptions of their school’s climate. This
included their views of the learning environment, school openness to experimentation,
perception of shared educational goals, principal support, and faculty congeniality.
After questionnaires were collected and collated into sets, the researchers conducted one
90-minute visit to each classroom. Four trained observers conducted these observations. Each
observer divided the observation into 4-min segments. Observations were recorded with a series
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 163
of 3-point rating: “(0 = not observed, 1 = minimal frequency or intensity, 2 = more than minimal
frequency or intensity” (p. 331). Finally, researchers also collected data on each teacher’s: grade
taught, ethnicity, education level, and length of teaching experience. Each observation item was
aggregated across all visits for the year. Based on data collected in these observations, Solomon
et al. (1996) created scales and items that represented the following: teacher practices, classroom
activities, and student behavior after initial examinations of inter-item relationships. The authors
used factor analysis to measure the following
(a) teacher warmth, supportiveness, and personal relations with students (10 items, a =
.85; e.g., Teacher gives support, encouragement); (b) teacher irritability, negative
behavior (3 items, a = .55; e.g., Teacher uses sarcasm; shames or humiliates student); (c)
teacher emphasis on intrinsic motivation (5 items, a = .69; e.g., Teacher talks about the
inherent interest of academic activities); (d) teacher use of extrinsic controls (8 items, a =
.72; e.g., Teacher use of rewards, grades, points); (e) provision for student autonomy (5
items, a = .78; e.g., Teacher gives students choice of activities); (f) student participation
in planning (1 item); (g) use of class meetings (1 item); (h) frequency of use of
cooperative activities (1 item); (i) teacher encouragement of cooperation (3 items, a =
.55; e.g., Teacher encourages helping/cooperation); (j) active student discussion and
emphasis on student thinking (7 items, a = .76; e.g., Teacher asks for
inferences/hypotheses); (k) displays on walls showing student-made work (3 items, a =
.53; e.g., Student-made class decorations); (1) displays on walls showing graded work or
academic comparisons (2 items, r = .16; e.g., Exemplary/graded work displayed); and (m)
active student engagement (6 items, a = .83; e.g., Active student participation in
learning). (p. 331)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 164
The results demonstrated that three of the demographic background factors were related to the
poverty level of the school. The correlation between these background factors and achievement
scores were found to be substantial (-.70 for reading and -.62 for math, both significant at/? <
.001). Next, the correlations between poverty and the other background factors were -.02 for the
following: teachers’ level of education, .08 for teacher ethnicity, and .14 (p < .01) length of
teaching experience. Solomon et al. (1996) explained that grade level was not included in these
calculations because poverty was a school-level variable, causing all teachers to be assigned the
same poverty score.
Next, the authors examined the relationships between the background factors and the
various scales gained from the teacher questionnaire and the classroom observations. Both
achievement measures were found to be significantly correlated with most of the teacher
questionnaire scales as the highest correlation being .47 (p < .001) between mean reading
achievement and perceived parent supportiveness. The achievement measures also showed
significant correlations with a number of the observation-based measures. The strongest
correlations being the use of extrinsic control (rs = -.37, -.35, ps < .001), provision for student
autonomy (rs = .26, .25, ps < .001), and encouragement of active discussion and student thinking
(rs = .28, .27, ps < .001). The remainder of the background factors demonstrated varied response
rates but showed at least one or two significant correlations.
Since the correlations with achievement were higher than those with the other
background factors and because the sample size was much smaller when achievement was
included, the authors conducted two sets of analyses. The first set included grade taught, degree,
ethnicity, and length of teaching experience as covariates. The second set included two
achievement measures as additional covariates.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 165
The data revealed that students in poor communities received different learning
opportunities than their low poverty counterparts. In particular, students from high poverty
communities were afforded less engaging learning opportunities. The researchers also found that
teacher beliefs were influenced by the socio-economic status of the communities they served.
Questionnaire responses revealed that teachers in high poverty schools viewed the school climate
as less positive, and that these perceptions were not related to teacher demeanor but to the
amount of student activity, interaction, and self-direction allowed and promoted on campus. One
of the strongest differences in teacher beliefs across all three levels of poverty was the
importance of authority and control plays on their assumptions about the learning process and
student capabilities. In general, teachers in high poverty schools maintained higher levels of
control over students, reducing their autonomy as learners.
When Solomon et al. (1996) controlled for student achievement, the largest differences
were between the high-poverty group and the other two groups. The effect sizes between the
high and low groups ranged from .25 to .69. Across these groups, teachers saw students in high-
poverty schools as less capable, even when performance was equal. Additionally, teachers in the
high-poverty schools were found to be more skeptical about students’ learning potential and put
less stock in constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Next, differences in teachers’
control ideology became non-significant when achievement controls were added. In this
measurement, high scores reflected a willingness to allow students greater autonomy in solving
their problem. This finding demonstrated that teacher expectations had powerful influence on
attitudes towards students.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 166
Language Variations
One of the themes that emerged in the research regarding teachers’ perceptions of SES
was the influence language variation had on these perceptions. Language variations, such as
accents and colloquialisms, influenced teachers’ perceptions of a students’ academic ability.
Furthermore, some of these assumptions served as the foundation for teachers’ moral judgments
about students.
Haig and Oliver’s (2010) qualitative study explored teachers’ perceptions of student
speech based on SES variations. Specifically, the authors focused on the relative influence non-
standard speech patterns had on teacher’s perceptions of students.
Haig and Oliver (2010) conducted their research at four school sites in Australia. These
school sites were selected based on the socio-economic status (SES) of their respective student
populations. The authors used a site-specific selection criterion to select their sample. This status
was identified using what the authors called the “H Index,” which weighted the following
variables: “income, parental occupation, parental education, family structure, accommodation
tenancy and crowding to determine the degree of disadvantage” (p. 267). This index was also
used by the Australian Department of Education to allocate equity funding. Schools in the
metropolitan area had an H-Index range of 86.53 to 118.52. Two of the schools that participated
in this study had an H-Index of 95 or less and were referred to as socioeconomically low, while
the remainder of schools had a H-Index rating of 100 or higher and were referred to as
socioeconomically high. A total of 36 teachers participated in the study. The authors indicated
that they made sure to include English teachers in the sample because of their “traditional”
viewpoints regarding language use.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 167
Haig and Oliver (2010) based their findings on data collected from three separate studies.
All of the studies had the same purpose but collected data differently. The first study asked
teachers to keep observational notes on speech problems they believed their students were
having. The second study used a focus group to determine teachers’ perceptions of speech
concerns. Finally, the third study included school-based groups that asked teachers to rank two
sets of tape-recorded samples of student speech.
The data used in this study was collected from the three related studies. Each study
included four schools, with an equal number of high and low SES elementary and secondary
schools. The first study asked teachers to keep observational notes for a week regarding
problematic speech patterns of their students. In the second study, teachers were asked to
participate in school-based focus groups talk about the problems of their students’ speech
patterns. The authors audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed this discussion. Finally, in the
third study, teachers were asked to rank two sets of tape recorded speech samples from students
who were not in their classes. The authors did not explain how this groups were chosen and/or
who comprised them. They did however explain that primary teachers ranked samples from
fourth and seventh grade students while secondary teachers ranked samples from seventh and
ninth grade students. These recordings included student responses of a complete a sentence
repetition task as well as a description task. These student speech samples were calibrated for
age, gender and SES status. Haig and Oliver (2010) did not specify how they balanced these
variables. Data from all three studies were analyzed to identify the major issues related to the
teachers’ perceptions of the students’ speech.
First, when identifying problematic speech, teachers from low SES schools believed that
their students’ vocabulary, were more “restricted” than their high SES counterparts. Teachers
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 168
from high SES schools did not describe speech problems of their students as restrictive but rather
a symptom of what they called the disintegration of social values. Meaning that teachers from
high SES schools believed that language variation was just kids reflecting pop culture and
therefore attributed less formal language use to a larger social issue. Whereas, teachers from low
SES schools attributed “restricted” language to a “common language” (p. 270) that was a result
of poor language modeling at home. This view placed the “blame” on the home rather than on
society.
The second finding that emerged from the data was the labeling of alternative language as
either developmental or incorrect. Teachers from high SES schools attributed alternative
language as developmental whereas teachers from low SES schools believed alternative
language was the result of incorrect language. Thirdly, teachers believed problematic language
was due to a deficit. Teachers from higher SES schools described language variations as just
differences and then shifted the blame from the student to the society at large. The fourth finding
revealed that articulation proved to be an influential variable that determined teachers’ beliefs
about students’ speech abilities. Teachers from low SES schools stated that teachers have either
“slurred” or “incorrect” articulation.” These teachers then went on to assert moral judgments and
would describe low SES student articulation as lazy or “careless” (p. 273). Finally, teachers
made cultural values about a student’s speech as many explained that students’ casual speech
was disrespectful.
The fifth finding suggested that a student’s speech informed teachers’ perceptions of the
social appropriateness that a student ascribed to. When discussing student speech, teachers
anchored their conversations on the idea of “appropriateness” (p. 274). Teachers would compare
a student’s language pattern to their own personal pattern. In doing this, there was no
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 169
acknowledgement by teachers that ideas of appropriateness would be culturally informed.
Teachers expected that a student’s speech and behavior should ascribe to their own. Many
teachers felt responsible for changing their students’ language patterns. For example, in focus
group meetings, teachers from low SES schools spoke at length about how they felt responsible
for preparing their students for the language demands of the outside world.
The sixth finding revealed that teachers attributed behavior expectations to language
patterns. Teachers from low SES schools believed that students would display poor behavior if
they spoke incorrectly. The researchers believed that this set the stage for self-fulfilling
prophecies as teachers would seek to find sources to support their claim.
The seventh finding was that teachers equated students’ academic success to their
language patterns. Teachers from high SES schools believed that language variations were due to
media or other external forces that did not dictate their educational potential. Teachers from low
SES schools believed that alternative language patterns of their students would limit their
opportunities and educational success.
Finally, the last finding that emerged from these three studies was the expectation for
students to be well versed in “performance speech” (p. 276). Researchers defined performance
language as formal language or proper English. The data showed that students from low SES
schools re-victimized by linguistic discrimination. Teachers believed that if students did not
know or utilize formal language, they lacked the ability to effectively communicate. This deficit-
mindset positioned students from low SES backgrounds in a very different place than their high
SES counterparts.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 170
Gender and SES
Another theme that emerged from the literature in this section was the intersection of
gender and SES. Teachers’ assumptions about SES changed based on a student’s gender. Since
the research questions sought to understand how other variables intersected with gender to
inform teachers’ assumption, this intersection was explored.
Auwarter and Aruguete’s (2010) quantitative study examined teacher perceptions
regarding students’ SES and gender. Researchers hypothesized that teachers would note the
following characteristics about males from low SES families: lower positive associations, require
more academic support and have less promising futures. In order to test this hypothesis,
researchers asked teachers to evaluate a fictional student through a provided scenario.
The authors selected the sample for this study by recruiting 106 teachers from five
schools within a rural public-school district in central Missouri. A total of 91 participants were
women, 13 were men and two did not note their gender. The demographics of the sample were as
follows: 97 participants identified as white, four identified as black, two identified as Latino and
three teachers declined to state their ethnicity. The average age was 41 and the average teaching
experience was 15 years. Finally, 44 teachers were elementary teachers, 19 were middle school
teachers, and 43 were high school teachers.
The teachers were asked to read a paragraph about a hypothetical student. This scenario
included both academic and behavioral difficulties. The framework of the paragraph remained
the same but the following variables were manipulated to gauge teachers’ judgments about the
students’ SES and gender: (a) low-SES girl, (b) high-SES girl, (c) low-SES boy, and (d) high-
SES boy (p. 244). Auwarter and Aruguete (2010) varied the hypothetical gender in the vignette
by using pronouns and names to indicate if the student was a boy or girl. Additionally, the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 171
authors varied the SES by noting different parental professions. Each participant was randomly
given one of the four experimental conditions.
The data collected from this study found that teachers rated students from portrayed
lower SES as having vastly different futures than their higher SES counterparts. When evaluating
the influence gender had on the proposed hypothesis, it appeared that gender only affected
teacher evaluations when asked about interactions. Specifically, teachers rated the low-SES
female student more favorably than the high-SES female student; whereas, teachers rated the
high-SES male student more favorably than the low-SES male student.
Conclusion
The literature in this subsection provides further insight into the variables that may
influence teachers’ ideological construction of students. Rist (1970) suggested that teachers used
their perceptions of SES to rank different levels of academic success. The three themes that
emerged from the literature revealed that teachers had lower academic expectations for students
of low SES backgrounds, used language variations to make assumptions and could change their
perceptions when gender was taken into consideration.
Several additional sub-themes emerged from the data collected in the studies. First, many
teachers were unaware that their viewpoints were part of a larger social narrative outlined by the
ideological framework of hegemonic thought (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2010). Second, teachers in
low SES schools had lower expectations of their students than their higher SES counterparts
(Rist, 1970; Solomon et al., 1996).
Finally, this section explored if a student’s dialectic variations influenced teachers’
perceptions. Haig and Oliver (2010) found that teachers perceived language patterns as
connected to their SES. This section also found that teachers had negative assumptions of low
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 172
income students compared to their higher income peers. Haig and Oliver’s (2010) study also
found that dialects that did not ascribe to the standard linguistic pattern were considered to be at
a disadvantage. Taking it a step further, teachers who taught in low SES schools believed
students with linguistic variations had limited verbal capabilities. Teachers were found to blame
these poor verbal skills on home environment and not the schooling system. Teachers in low SES
schools also made value judgments about their students, explaining that any problems with
speech were due to laziness or carelessness. Finally, teachers who believed that associations
made about SES were fixed, causing them to feel that they could not do anything and therefore
did not help.
The final theme that emerged from the data was the influence a student’s gender had on
teachers’ expectations of SES. Gender influenced perception primarily during teacher-student
interactions. Females from low SES backgrounds were seen more favorably than their male
counterparts.
Interaction
Foucault (1994) explained that power was pervasive and embedded in all social
interactions. As a result, he reasoned that every action was an act of power. These acts of power
were acted out in society’s institutions. Institutions were constructed from the ideological
building blocks of the dominant culture. Society’s dominant culture dictated the ideological
framework by which institutions aligned and perceptions were derived from. Perceptions
therefore had the potential to change the way teachers acted around students based on their views
regarding identity markers such as: dis/ability, gender, race/ethnicity, and SES. Negative or
stereotypical perceptions about these markers had detrimental effects when acted out.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 173
The research questions of this study problematized Foucault’s concept of power by
examining how teachers’ perceptions informed their decisions to refer a female student for
special education services. Since the literature established that teachers played a significant role
in the identification of student academic need (Sadker & Sadker, 1994), the literature in this
section focused on how teachers enacted beliefs within student teacher interactions. Schools
asserted academic need was based on objective data such as grades, testing and observational
data (Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2000). However, when Foucault’s (1994) understanding of power
was layered onto the special education referral process, I hypothesized that there was no
objective data. Since teachers used observational data and grades to inform their decision,
Foucault’s (1994) logic explained that no interaction was free of power, therefore grades were
subjective to how a teacher saw the student and interactions were differentiated based on identity
markers like dis/ability, gender, race/ethnicity, and SES.
Institutions and teachers therefore made decisions based on subjective data. Teachers
perceive that their decisions were free of subjectivity as the schooling institution suggested that
they were “doing the right thing.” In reality, teachers were following a script outlined by the
institution itself, since the institution perpetuated a cycle of inequity. The literature in the
previous section revealed that teachers based a lot of the decisions on their perceptions of
students’ race, gender, dis/ability, or socioeconomic status. Teachers therefore followed a script
when presented with a series of familiar variables.
The previous two sections explored the theories that framed dis/ability as well as the
assumptions teachers made based on perceptions. A limitation of both sections was a lack of
understanding regarding the way these theoretical frameworks and perceptions worked in concert
to come to fruition. To understand how teacher beliefs informed their perception of academic
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 174
need, this section examined how beliefs informed action. Since teachers were the primary
referral agents and their decisions to refer were based on what they perceived in the classroom,
understanding how perceptions were acted out helped determine who was considered to need
special education services. The literature in this section examined how intersections of various
identity markers compounded to form teachers’ perceptions about a student’s academic need.
Three bodies of literature were explored in this section to better understand interactions—
discourse, teacher-student interaction and third space.
Discourse
Gee’s (2008) theoretical work described that language was a form of identity as it varied
according to one’s individual or collective experiences. He described these variations as social
languages and went on to explain the context of these social languages as situated both in status
and solidarity. Language therefore created a sense of belonging or even served as a medium of
exclusion. Gee’s (2008) theoretical work examined social linguistics, multiple literacies as well
as defined linguistic terms to help make sense of social languages, discourse, and literacy. He
explained that language influenced the way people made sense of the world around them. When
applied to the classroom setting, language influenced the way a teacher saw a student based on
his/her social language. Since the research questions of this study aimed to understand how
perceptions informed a teacher’s meaning making process of need, it was important to
understand how the intersection of language and identity markers informed teachers’
perceptions.
Gee (2008) defined important terms needed to explore language usage. First, he
explained discourse as “stretches of language, which ‘hang together’ so as to make sense to some
community of people, such as a contribution to a conversation or a story” (p. 115). Discourse
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 175
was a social language formed by communities and institutions as a way to make sense of
experiences. Since communities and institutions experience things differently, these social
languages can vary significantly. The literature in this section explored the influence linguistic
variations had on teacher perceptions.
Since language usage was situated in both status and solidarity, language served as an
identity marker. He explained that everyone speaks a social language. This social language cued
the listener to what group the speaker ascribed to. With this in mind, the ability to speak different
discourses allowed for transferability across socially defined groups like dis/ability, gender,
race/ethnicity and SES. He noted that language was a way to capture various cultural models.
These cultural models were generalizations about what was similar to what. This was what Gee
(2008) explained as the context of social languages. These social languages varied according to
both individual and communal experiences. This was what linguists referred to as meaning
making.
Language use was a way to convey meaning. Gee (2008) argued that meaning was
constructed from three principles: exclusion, guessing, and context principle. The exclusion
principle explained that meaning could be constructed by what words one chose not to use and
what the used word excluded. For example, if one described a piece of furniture as a “coffee
table,” this helped the audience exclude other table options, like “dinner table,” in order to get a
better understanding what was being said. The guessing principle helped one to understand what
was being said by guessing what the speaker was saying. Meaning was constructed relative to
choices. People from the same social groups were better “guessers” than people from other social
groups. Finally, the context of what one said helped reveal the meaning of what was being said.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 176
These guesses and choices operated within cultural models. A cultural model was like a
“videotape” vignette in the mind (Gee 2004) that depicted what was “normal” based off of prior
experience. He reasoned that everyone had a stockpile of these “videotapes” stored away. These
were tapped into and offered as a framework to help us make choices and guesses about what
one was saying. When applied to the classroom setting, teachers created “videotapes” based on
their experiences both within and outside the classroom and called on these to inform their
decisions about students. For example, if a teacher had a student from a low SES background in
their class, they would call on their “videotape” to guide their guesses and choices about that
student. This influenced the way teachers interacted with different students within their
classroom.
As Gee (2008) explained above, language served as a tool to communicate meaning.
How one made sense of the world around him/her became how he/she made meaning.
Additionally, meaning making varied according to one’s personal experience. When analyzing
classroom discourse, teachers had different experiences with linguistic variations causing them to
develop different associations that led to different perceptions of students.
Sarangi’s (1998) qualitative study explored the possible existence of a reciprocal
discursive relationship in teacher-student discourse. Specifically, this study looked at the social
undercurrents of classroom communication. The author hypothesized that classroom
communication was a social activity where teacher and students engaged in a series of social
interactions.
Sarangi (1998) used Erikson’s (1982) classroom discourse categories to evaluate two
classroom-based case studies. Erikson (1982) believed that classroom discourse fit into one of
two forms of talk: Task Talk or Procedural Talk. Task talk was theorized to be when teachers
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 177
talk to students about concepts. This form of discourse was considered to be a higher level of
communication. Procedural Talk, on the other hand, was a superficial step-by-step form of
communication. Erikson (1982) argued that teachers decided when to use these two forms of
communication based on their own construction a student’s need. Using this theory, Sarangi
(1998) believed that these two categories of classroom discourse had the power to determine
what learning opportunities a student would be entitled to.
Sarangi (1998) examined this hypothesis by looking for patterns that emerged in teacher-
student discourses. First, the author used data from a previously concluded classroom project.
This previous project identified what teaching and learning processes contributed to minority
student achievement (Roberts et al., 1992). For this section of analysis, the author did not explain
how these excerpts were selected or the demographics of the sample used in this classroom
project.
The first interaction was organized under the “Procedural Talk” heading. The following
dialogue between a teacher (F) and two students (Z and G) was presented as follows
Example 1
F: [to whole class] Can I just ask you to go back to your folders at some point and go
through those lessons that you did with T on the structure of your letters
Example 2
Z: You know this assignment—is it going to be a timed assignment?
F: No it’s going to be an ordinary assignment with a few tasks
Example 3
G: Is neatness important?
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 178
F: Is neatness important—that’s OK—neatness is important but it’s not more
important than actually finishing. (p. 96)
From this exchange, the author noticed that in the first example, the teacher outlined for the
whole class a procedure and a task for writing a business letter. Sarangi (1998) explained that it
was procedural because of directive statements like “can I just ask you to go back to your folders
at some point.” The second example also demonstrated the use of procedural talk as the teacher
categorized the task as “timed.” Timed automatically made the assignment a procedural task.
Another reason that this example is procedural is highlighted by Z’s procedural question and F’s
confirmation response. Finally, the author believed that G’s question about neatness was another
clue that this was a procedural discourse. The author believed that the student’s question
regarding neatness explicitly revealed the procedural nature of the dialogue because G was
making sure no points would be marked off. The author noticed that the termination of
procedural was mediated by two factors: “(1) the nature of the question, and (2) the role-
relationship between the teacher and the student” (p. 97).
Sarangi (1998) wanted to understand how Procedural Talk morphed into Task Talk. The
author did not explain how these dialogue selections were picked; however, he included this
example under the heading titled “Task Talk.” Teacher (F) approached two students, W and M,
while they were working together on notes. Student W initiated the discourse when they asked F,
“You know when you write like note brief notes—I mean how do you write it.” (p. 98). At that
point, the teacher could have responded with either a minimal procedural answer or with a more
detailed task-related answer. Rather than answering right away, F initially responded with “well
ahm” (p. 98). This hesitation allowed student W to emphasis the how aspect of the task. F
responded with a procedural tone, “you could number your points” (p. 98). Here is where the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 179
conversation switched to Task Talk, despite student W offering the teacher a closure to the
conversation by saying “yeah,” the teacher chose to get into task talk by saying, “I mean it it’s a
question of what the sequence will be, what what questions you’ll ask, what the sequence of
questions will be—so the first thing would be to get through to the you get through to the
reception and what would you need to do then” (p. 98). After several exchanges, the teacher used
meta-comments such as “that’s the point” (p. 98) in an attempt to facilitate student learning. This
resulted in a silent moment, which demonstrated to the teacher that the students were having
interactional difficulties. The teacher then used a metacognitive technique by assuming the role
of the receptionist in the task to help contextualize the problem so that the students could better
understand, “So you’re getting through—you want to ring up this firm here and the receptionist
answers the phone—good afternoon, this is electronic eye—and what do you where do you go
from there” (p. 98). This interaction created the opportunity for the teacher (F) to either continue
using Procedural Talk or to switch to Task Talk. From this, Sarangi (1998) wanted to understand
what variables influenced a teacher to either switch or not. To answer this question, the author
used a case-study methodology to analyze classroom encounters between teacher, Frances, and
two students—Michael and Yong. In this analysis, the author looked for two things: the interplay
Task Talk and Procedural Talk and the use of labeling practices such as, teacher/student
expectations. During an initial interview, Frances categorized Michael as a “weak” student and
Yong as a “transitional” student. The author did not include what questions were asked and/or
the specifics of the interview.
The author believed that the teacher’s categorical labeling was an example of the
influence interactional classroom episodes had on their perceptions of students. Sarangi (1998)
wanted to see if in the case of the weaker student, if the teacher–student interactions would
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 180
become fixed. Conversely, the author wanted to see if the teacher’s perceptions of the
transitional student would shift between procedural and task talk. Sarangi (1998) also wanted to
know if these shifts would be influenced by moment-by-moment interactions. The author
explained that the analysis used longitudinal classroom data, data taken from the beginning and
the end of the academic year. Ethnographic interview data from the teacher and the two students
was also collected.
The first case study followed Michael. During the initial interview, when asked why he
was enrolled in this business class, he responded
I always liked something to do with business; I’m not that much a practical person; I
wanted to do some academic course which I can understand. My careers teacher said, if
you want a suit and tie, then a business job or office job is a useful job ¼ I am determined
to work hard, because I have never really studied finance, sales and other public relations
subjects. I shouldn’t be too pushy, too hesitant. In classroom, try to share my work with
others. (p. 100)
During an initial interview with his teacher, Francis labeled Michael as “below average.” Francis
used Michael’s asking of low-level questions and help as evidence of why he was “below
average.” Since Sarangi (1998) believed that there was a reciprocal discourse pattern in the
classroom, he reasoned that Michael’s opinion of Francis would reveal this. However, his
description of Francis was more positive.
I thought that she was a very kind person and by then I could talk to her—Frances is the
only teacher who gets to understand your weak points—she is probably the only person
who actually knows how good I’m in the subject, she’s always there for me to ask
something when needed. There are teachers who I would never ask for extra help ‘cos
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 181
they tend to be very impatient—they expect business—expect you to always be with the
class and they don’t expect you to fall back or something. (p. 101)
Through several interactions, it became clear that the teacher’s view of Michael was fixed.
Francis defined class interactions with Michael as longitudinal evidence that supported her initial
claim that he was academically low. Francis defined Michael’s questions as demonstrating that
he was lost and unable to handle the material. This in turn reinforced Francis’ beginning-of-
course remark that he wanted low-level help with all his work.
Next, Sarangi (1998) looked at Yong, another student in Francis’s business class. When
interviewed, Yong explained that
In order to do well, I should try and get all the information—if I’m behind at any time I
should try and catch up with work—Tessa [another teacher] generally expects more of
you while Frances—she sets you for a certain limit of your ability—but Tessa aims for
more high ability, I feel more comfortable with Frances. (p.103)
It helps if you like the teacher and she is able to help you to get the grades—but if the
teacher lets you do what you want you feel comfortable working on your own—I prefer
to work on my own—I don’t like teachers expecting a high grade from me. If I’m
expected to do something I’m not capable of, it’s not my fault—it’s my capability (p.
103)
Frances described Yong as
Yong is slightly above average—performance and grade oriented. Yong very much
works on his own and wants to be reassured all the time—he doesn’t take his
reassurances from the group—he gives the impression of being able to cope—the group
are not conscious he’s finding it difficult. (p. 104)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 182
Next, the author looked at two interactions between Francis and Yong. During their first
interaction, Francis dismissed Yong’s comment regarding brief notes. However, Francis
acknowledged his notes were “fine” when she looked at them. In another interaction, Francis
directed Task Talk to Yong. He was interrupted by another student and ended up eliciting a
meta-comment, “you have me confused there.” The author believed that he did this to signal to
the teacher that he needed her to go over the procedure of the task again. The excerpts revealed
that the teacher was willing to talk switch from Procedural to Task Talk with Yong. Sarangi
(1998) noticed that Yong’s initial labeling was not used to account for interactional difficulties
he had with the tasks.
The findings generated from the case studies suggested that relationships between
teachers and students were created through a series of day-to-day encounters. Sarangi (1998)
believed that these small encounters directly affected the educational opportunities students were
afforded. These co-constructed relationships were not stagnant as both the student and the
teacher were able to redefine the social and academic frame. In other words, activities were
considered to be multi-framed. This multidimensional approach suggested that both students and
teachers had the ability to redefine any relationship.
This study found that both Task and Procedural talks were functional to classroom role-
relationships. Sarangi (1998) believed that teachers dealt with students differently based on
social relationships. Most importantly, this study pointed out that teachers were not aware that
they treated students differently based on their linguistic patterns. The author noted that this
differential treatment was subtle. The excerpts also revealed that both Task and Procedural Talk
were not absolute categories, but were overlapping. Both modes of talk were found to be
functional to classroom role-relationships. For example, one could use Procedural Talk as a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 183
preface strategy in order to get access to Task Talk. Finally, it was found that Procedural Talk
was used for student who were perceived as falling behind. The author did caution that
Procedural Talk itself was not a signal that a student was in trouble, rather it was the way that the
talk was used.
Shepherd’s (2011) qualitative study analyzed teachers’ perceptions of students based on
evaluations teachers made regarding recorded student-discourse samples.
The sample for this study included a total of 57 experienced Los Angeles-area teachers.
Out of 57 teachers, 38 were recruited from a college in Los Angeles where they were enrolled in
a master’s in teaching program. These 38 teachers participated in the study at the college. The
other 19 were recruited using a snowball technique and were asked to participate online. The
demographics of the participants in this sample were as follows: “4 were Black (3 women and 1
man), 17 Hispanic (14 women and 3 men), 31 White (21 women and 10 men), and 5 Asian (3
women and 2 men), for a total of 41 women and 16 men” (p. 1016). The participants ranged in
age from 31 to 35. Since Shepherd (2011) wanted experienced teachers, he required that all
participants of taught for at least 1 year. The average teaching experience was 6 years. Twenty-
four of the participants taught elementary school, 14 taught middle school, 15 taught high school,
and 4 who either did not respond to this question or taught multiple levels. Over 50% of the
participants (n = 31) taught at schools where at least 50% of the students were either black or
Latino.
Shepherd (2011) first created stimulus recorded responses for teachers in the sample to
evaluate. The author chose the following three questions for students to answer, “1. Why do we
celebrate Thanksgiving? 2. What does the American flag stand for? 3. What is a police officer’s
job?” (p. 1016). The first question was taken word-for-word from a second-grade textbook.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 184
Shepherd explained that the second question was originally a two-part question, “What do the
flag and the Statue of Liberty stand for?” and the third question was based on the question,
“What does our President do?” The author then generated responses to these questions from 8
second and third grade students. None of these students produced any of the stimulus recordings,
however their responses to the posed questions were used. The responses were adjusted so that
none of them had fewer than 6 words or more than 10. He did not mention how and/or who
adjusted these responses. The author asked a total of 40 black, white, and Latino second-and
third-grade boys and girls from two Los Angeles-area elementary schools to reciting the
collected responses. Each reading was between 6 and 7 minutes and students were asked to
repeat each response between two and three times. Shepherd (2011) conducted an initial review
of these audio-recordings to ensure that they were read naturally and accurately. The author was
left with over 600 recordings. He then divided them into two sets for the next round of stimulus
selection. Shepherd (2011) asked a test group of 12 participants to provide feedback on these
recordings. These recordings were randomly ordered via headphones to the participants. During
the first recording, the listener was asked to identify the gender of the speaker. Recordings where
at least five of the six listeners agreed on the gender of the speaker (about 300) went on to the
next round of selection.
The next round presented these 300 recordings to another group of six white and minority
men and women. After they heard the recording, the listener was asked to speculate the ethnicity
of the speaker as either: black, white, Latino, or unclear. Recordings where at least five of the six
listeners agreed that the speaker was white or that the speaker was an ethnic minority (i.e., black
or Latino) went on to the final round of selection. In the final round of stimulus selection, there
were 200 recordings left. The listeners evaluated the accuracy, naturalness, and clarity.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 185
Once these stimulus recordings were established, teachers in the sample were asked to
listen then evaluate each response on an 8-point scale-evaluations existing on a range of “Not So
Well” to “Very Well.” The first 27 participants completed the experiment at the college where
they were enrolled. These teachers were asked to mark their evaluation of each response on a
letter-sized sheet with 18 evaluation scales on it. After evaluating all 18 responses, the
participants were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire that asked participants for their
gender, age, race/ethnicity, native language(s), age of arrival in the United States, number of
years teaching, grades usually taught, the type of school where they were employed (public,
private, or charter), the location of the school (urban, suburban, or rural), the approximate
racial/ethnic makeup of the school, and the average socioeconomic status of the students
(working class, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, or upper class). The other 30 participants
completed an online version of the experiment.
Teachers’ responses provided several important findings regarding judgments generated
from a student’s speech pattern. First, Shepherd (2011) measured the effects of student ethnicity
and gender on the response evaluation. He standardized the raw evaluations by factoring out the
effect of response content. He used the responses for the white girl recording to standardize the
raw scores. This provided a measure of each response’s distance from the white girl mean. The
results showed that those responses perceived as coming from minority boys were evaluated as
0.14 standard deviations less favorably than those from white boys and a 0.16 standard deviation
less favorably than minority girls.
He used a linear regression to confirm the difference between evaluations perceived as
coming from white girls from those perceived as coming from: minority boys, minority girls, and
white boys. The regression revealed a significant interaction with teacher ethnicity, such that
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 186
black and Latino teachers evaluated responses perceived as coming from minority boys, minority
girls, and white boys significantly less favorably than the responses believed as coming from
white girls, than did white and Asian teachers, β = .091, t (680) = 1.98, p < .05. (p. 1021). The
author found no effect when evaluating teacher gender. The author did however find that
teachers of all ethnic backgrounds evaluated responses by minority students significantly less
favorably. Second, teachers evaluated males less favorably than their female counterparts.
Cross, DeVaney, and Jones (2001) studied the perceptions teachers held regarding
different linguistic dialects. The purpose of this study was to understand teachers’ perceptions of
speech variations and if they ascribed to any main linguistic dialect. The researchers explored
teachers’ urges to fix a student’s dialect so that it can conform to the main linguistic dialect.
A total of 111 students from an Alabama university were asked to provide demographic
data and then respond to five readers representing a variety of dialects common to the region.
This study noted that teachers believed that if a student’s speech was not in standard English,
then it constituted an incorrect dialect. This study found that if teachers believed there was one
“correct” dialect, then they believed it was their duty to teach this dialect while eliminating all
other variations. Cross et al. (2001) found that as a result, many students believed their language
and culture was invalid.
This study found that many teachers inadvertently told their students that their language
did not matter as they referred to their speech as “street talk” (p. 123). This deficit categorization
assumed that the students’ language was subordinate to other language variations, as it was not
considered to be a legitimate form of speech. Teachers went on to assert that students were not
going to be academically successful with their home language. Their perceptions changed based
on a student’s race/ethnicity. The researchers did test for any differences in gender, academic
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 187
status or family income but found no statistical significance. It was important to note that the
effect sizes of these variables were moderate to large. This suggested that there was potential for
influence and it needed to be examined further.
After analyzing the data, it was clear that the listeners were able to discern the race of the
speakers. In addition to being able to discern different speech patterns, the data revealed that
teachers were willing to make judgments about each speaker’s characteristics. These judgments
were based only on a brief oral reading. Teachers held specific beliefs about each race. The data
suggested that teachers perceived black students as being less intelligent than their white
counterparts. They also expected black students to perform lower academically. Cross et al.
(2001) did note that even though teachers had a perception, they might not act on it. However,
the author found that these perceptions were acted out in subtle ways.
Lampert and Tucker’s (1968) seminal work discovered that people tended to have a
preference for something called a “network” language. The researchers defined network
language as the standard form English. Further defined as the form that is used by national
newscasters.
Six dialect groups were sampled: Network, Educated white Southern, Educated Negro
Southern, Mississippi Peer, Howard University, and New York Alumni (p. 463). Three groups of
college students were asked to listen to each of the dialects and evaluate characteristics based on
these recordings. The three groups included northern white, southern white, and southern black.
Two findings emerged from the data. First, both northern white and southern blacks rated
Network dialect speakers the highest. The next highest ranking went to “Educated Negro” and
“Southern speakers.” Second, participants highly favored the Network style of spoken English
over other dialects. Every group held similar negative perspectives of minority dialects.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 188
Hewett’s (1971) study also explored teachers’ subtle biases. Hewett’s work (1971) was
an extension of Tucker and Lambert’s study (1968) regarding the stereotypes generated by
dialect differences. The purpose of this experiment was to test if teachers held unfavorable
stereotypes regarding differing dialects of English. Researchers asked teachers to judge a speaker
according to Tucker and Lampert’s (1968) 10 characteristics: ambition, character, determination,
education, friendliness, honesty, intelligence, personality, speaking ability, and upbringing
(Lambert, 1968). This study demonstrated that teachers were willing to make judgments about
students based solely on their dialect. Additionally, the data suggested that white recordings were
ranked considerably higher than their black counterparts. This study demonstrated that educated
people were not aware of their unfavorable stereotyping. She discovered that teachers would
stereotype children only on the basis of their speech characteristics. A teacher who reacted
negatively to non-standard speakers’ speech was also reacting negatively toward the speakers
themselves.
A total of 24 white college seniors at the University of Michigan who planned to be
certified to teach English participated in this study. Participants were then asked to listen to 10
recordings of different speakers reading the same passage. The speakers identified as either black
or white. Hewett (1971) explained that since the purpose of this study was to gain each subjects’
reactions to the phonological variants, all the speakers had to be educated. There was no
specification regarding what constituted a person as educated. All the speakers were female
because Hewett (1971) believed that participants would have more positive interactions with
female recordings than male recordings.
All participants were asked to listen to these recordings then fill out a personality-rating
test. This test asked the participants to judge each speaker according to 10 characteristics:
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 189
“ambition, character, determination, education, friendliness, honesty, intelligence, personality,
speaking ability, and upbringing” (p. 6). Additionally, participants were asked to identify if the
speakers were either white or black. Subjects unanimously perceived standard speakers as white
and non-standard speakers as black. Additionally, Hewett (1971) found that white speakers of
the “standard dialect” were rated significantly higher than speakers of either the black or white
non-standard dialects.
All the studies above analyzed either dialect variation or race/ethnicity variations, or a
combination of both, but only one study looked at the potential influence gender had on
linguistic evaluation. Irvine’s (1985) study investigated teacher communication patterns as they
relate to a student's race and sex.
Irvine (1985) collected observational data from 67 classrooms across 10 schools in four
school districts. Data analysis revealed: two effects for race, five effects for sex, and three
significant race/sex interactions. Specifically, the researcher found that black students received
more negative behavioral feedback and more positive-negative feedback than white students.
Female students received significantly less communication. This included less praise, negative
behavior feedback, neutral procedure feedback, and nonacademic feedback. Additionally, the
race/sex interactions highlighted the trend that white female student tended to communicate less
frequently with teachers.
Discourse and Interaction
This section looks at the way discourse influenced interaction. Rogers (2003) examined
the linguistic patterns that emerged throughout the entire Special Education referral process. The
researcher followed one family, the Treaders, as they navigated the IEP process. The Treaders
were an African American family living in poverty in upstate New York. Using both
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 190
ethnographic and case study methodology, Rogers (2003) sought to identify what linguistic
patterns emerged as June Treader navigated the referral process for her son. The author decided
to examine the special education referral process because it was an institutional location that
allowed for the exploration of the intersection of power, discourse and subjectivities.
Since this study looked at the institutional forces that influenced the IEP process, Rogers
(2003) identified who was involved in the IEP process. From the beginning of the referral
process, the following were involved: (1) the classroom teacher, (2) the remedial reading teacher,
and (3) the parent, June Treader. At the beginning of the process, the author found that there was
a lot of ambiguity and confusion. When asked about the referral itself, June shared that the
teacher “…didn’t say anythin’ else, she didn’t say nothin’ about a special. She didn’t say nothin’
to me about a special (transcript, 3 March 1998)” (p. 139). Rogers (2003) found that the referral
process itself seemed to be constructed from a series of informal interactions. Each stakeholder
involved seemed to have different intentions. June expressed to Rodgers that she thought the
initial meeting was an exploratory process and not a process that guaranteed additional support
for her child. Despite this miscommunication, teachers and family expressed the following
communication similarities: First, the teacher and June spoke in terms of being participants of
the institution (school). Second, both teacher and parent believed that the tests used to determine
eligibility were seen as an authority. Finally, all three participants believed that the process of
testing was natural and spoke from a larger discourse of dis/ability.
Rogers (2003) used a social theory of language when analyzing interviews in order to
understand how interactions were structured at various levels. She found that students who came
from minority homes can insight something called the ‘disjuncture hypothesis.’
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 191
This hypothesis assumed the following
(a) There is no literacy or not enough literacy in the home; (b) there is the wrong kind of
literacy in the home; and/or (c) the parents are not involved and do not value the
education of their children. (p. 130)
These assumptions led the teacher and the institution to begin the special education referral
process as an act of saving.
Cherry’s (1978) qualitative study sought to understand the relationship between teachers’
expectations of students’ communicative competence and teacher-student interaction through
sociolinguistic analysis. In particular, this study sought to answer the following two questions
Do teachers provide high expectancy students (compared with low expectancy students)
with more opportunities to participate in elicitation interactions? How do teachers take
more appropriate actions to elicit responses with high expectancy students and provide
these students with more explicit positive evaluation of their responses compared with
low expectancy students? (p. 373)
In answering these questions, this study sought to understand how teacher expectations were
communicated to students through a sociolinguistic analysis of teacher-student interactions.
Cherry (1978) believed that teacher-student interactions were the key component of
communication in the classroom. She hypothesized that these interactions were unequal and
were mitigated based on a teachers’ expectation. These expectations were generated from student
identity markers, since they were believed to influence the way a teacher interacted with a
student. As a result, she wanted to understand which variables were able to change student-
teacher interactions. Cherry (1978) believed that students who were competent in classroom
discourse had better interactions with their teachers.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 192
To answer her research questions, researchers conducted a total of eight math and pre-
reading classroom observations. This study measured both teacher perceptions of students and
the degree communication influenced the way teachers interact in the classroom. In addition to
field notes, each lesson was audio and video recorded. A total of 31 kindergarten students
participated in this study. The demographics of all participants were as follows: white, both
middle- and upper-middle class, native speakers of American English, and present at the site
school for the full academic year.
Cherry (1978) explored students’ communication competence because teachers expressed
interest and concern with their students’ language use. Categorical rankings and classroom
observations were used to measure students’ communication competence. Prior to the classroom
observations, both teachers were asked at the beginning of the year to rank students according to
how well they used language to communicate classroom. Then researchers asked teachers to rank
these students again after the first 2 months of school. Teachers then moved their rank orders
into three performance groups: above average, average, below average.
Data was transcribed and looked over by another researcher. First, each transcript was
coded for the different types of teacher-exchanges: “Teacher-elicit exchange, teacher-list
exchange, teacher-reinitiate exchange” (p. 56). Next, teachers’ responses were examined using a
sociolinguistic approach to evaluate how teachers elicit responses. These responses were
evaluated according to the following three categories: explicit elicitation, inexplicit elicitation,
over-explicit elicitation. Based on the data collected, teachers’ expectations were dynamic as
they were influenced by past experiences and situational determinants. Furthermore, individual
teachers’ consistencies differed across situations.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 193
As a result, Cherry (1978) presented a strong and weak expectation model. A Strong
Expectation Model was one in which teachers differentiated their behavior without the influence
of a student’s interactional behavior. Whereas, in weak expectation models, a teacher’s behavior
toward a student was influenced by that student’s behavior during the interaction. The Weak
Expectation Model suggested that teachers played an important role in constructing the image of
the students and more importantly, these constructions were done during interactions.
Conclusion
The literature in this subsection revealed how teachers interacted with students differently
based on an intersection of variables. Female and male students experienced different classroom
experiences than each other (Irvine, 1985). These different experiences were further
compounded by race/ethnicity (Cross et al., 2001; Hewett, 1971; Tucker & Lampert, 1968).
This section also found that teachers’ perceptions influenced the way they talked to
students. Specifically, Sarangi (1998) found that teachers would code-switch between Task Talk
and Procedural Talk based on their perceptions of students. These perceptions were built from
sequential classroom interactions; however, a teacher’s initial belief dictated whether they would
see a student’s ability from a growth standpoint or a fixed one.
A limitation of this section was that there was no mention of the intersection of dis/ability
and dialect. The findings that emerged from the literature above therefore provided a baseline of
data that can extrapolated on in order to understand how this may inform teachers’ perceptions of
academic need. Teachers were okay with making evaluations regarding a student’s academic
potential based solely on their speech patterns and language. Another limitation was that there
was not a lot of information provided about the direct influence behavior has on teacher
perception. Sarangi (1998) did identify the role instructional interactions could have on teachers’
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 194
perceptions of students, but this study did go in depth regarding this influence. Furthermore, this
study did not identify specific behaviors and/or how they are correlated to teacher judgments of
student. Therefore, this next section sought to identify the student behaviors that influenced a
teachers’ perceptions. This understanding helped to answer this study’s research questions as it
highlighted variables that contributed to a teacher’s decision to provide additional supports to
students based on their identity markers.
Behavior
This section looked more specifically at the influence student behavior has on a teacher’s
perception of their academic need. Siebers (2008) pointed out that people needed to see a
dis/ability in order to acknowledge it as legitimate. He argued that the more visible a dis/ability
was, the more help was given. Extrapolating on this idea, one can infer that if a dis/ability was
not visible, the less attention a student with that dis/ability received. With a majority of special
education services being allocated to learning dis/ability eligibilities, it was important to explore
how these less visible disorders were identified (Ferri & Connor, 2010; Reid & Knight, 2016).
Sadker and Sadker (1994) explained that behavioral indicators and failing grades were two of the
primary reasons for referral to special education. Therefore, student behavior played a vital role
in the way that teachers perceived need.
Since teachers perceived female students as both well behaved and higher academic
achievers than their male counterparts, this section shed light on the influence perception of
student behavior has on a teacher’s decision to provide academic support (Sadker & Sadker,
1994; Tiedemann, 2002). Teachers’ perceptions of themselves coupled with a student’s identity
markers influenced their perception of academic need.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 195
Subtle Sexism. Literature in the previous sections, suggested that teachers’ implicit and
explicit values were often in conflict with one another (Hornstra et al., 2010). This subsection
explored the subtle sexism that occurred during student-teacher interactions. Sadker and Sadker’s
(1994) longitudinal study examined the different behaviors of males and females in the
classroom and the subsequent patterns that emerged. The authors found that males participated in
more interactions than females. They also noted an inequitable distribution of attention that
became greater as the year progressed.
Second, white students participated in more interactions than minority students. Third,
even though males participated in more “acceptance” interactions than females, there was less
bias in the distribution of acceptance, than in the distribution of praise, remediation or criticism.
As in the first finding, the distribution of acceptance interactions became more biased over time
noting that by the final observation one out of every four control classroom teachers favored
boys in the frequency of acceptance interaction. Finally, the last theme that emerged from the
data was that in all observations males received more remedial interactions than females.
Teachers’ gender and their interactions with student was beyond the scope of Sadker and
Sadker’s (1994) study. They did however note that this delimitation could offer significant
insight into the decisions to refer.
Duffy’s (2001) study investigated the potential effects gender had on student-teacher
interactions. The study looked specifically at the influence teachers’ gender, students’ gender and
class content had on student-teacher interactions.
A total of 597 high school students participated in the study. Two hundred and ninety-
four of whom were males and 303 female students. A total of 36 teachers, 28 males and 8
females, were observed. These observations took place in either mathematics or literature
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 196
classes. Since identity markers influenced interactions, it was important to note the demographics
of the participants. Both students and teachers were predominately white, and a majority of
students were from a lower- or middle-class backgrounds. Duffy (2001) found that female
teachers interacted more with male students than female students. Of these interactions, a
majority of them were categorized as “acceptance.” Teachers would acknowledge male student
responses with positive feedback, accepting their answers as something that contributed to the
larger conversation. In order of occurrence, researchers also noted other teacher-initiated
interactions with male students ranged from remediation, criticism, or praise. Female students
received far less of these categorical interactions than their male counterparts. The observations
also revealed that teachers tended to direct more interactions toward male students than female
students.
Smith’s (2012) qualitative study sought to describe verbal classroom interactions in
business education classrooms according to praise, acceptance, remediation and criticism across
genders. The author asked the following research questions
1. Is verbal classroom interaction by the business educators in this sample equally
distributed among male and female students?
2. Does teacher gender influence the student gender distribution of verbal classroom
interaction in business education classes?
3. Is distribution of verbal classroom interaction in the business education classrooms in
this sample characterized by interaction effect between teacher gender and student
gender? (p. 186)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 197
Smith (2012) explained that instrumentation to track classroom verbal interactions could
be difficult to find as there could be up to 1,000 verbal interactions in a given day (p. 186).
Therefore, in order to effectively collect this volume of data, Smith (2012) utilized Sadker,
Bauchner, Sadker, and Herbert’s (1981) observational tool, INTERSECT. This tool was able to
see how teachers interacted with students according to four general categories: praise,
acceptance, remediation, and criticism (p. 187). Due to rapid fire of verbal interactions, this
instrument was optimal when coding for four categories. Sadker et al. (1981) field tested this
instrument and checked it against video recordings to ensure that there was minimal margin of
error.
The sample in this study included 24 Kentucky public schools who offered secondary
business classes. The author attempted to get a representative sample of all school sizes and
regions in Kentucky. Smith (2012) identified four distinct regions of the state. From these
regions, two schools were selected according to three school size categories-small, medium or
large. Across the state, the population included 22 large schools, 135 medium schools, and 75
small schools. Once these 24 schools were selected, the author reached out to each school
director and asked for permission to conduct research. All 24 schools agreed to participate.
Smith (2012) used two criteria in selecting appropriate classrooms for this study. First,
since he used INTERSECT as the study’s instrument, he established a baseline for accuracy
using the creators recommended percentage. Its creators recommend that classrooms with
majority genders should not exceed 70%. Therefore, any classrooms whose majority gender
exceeded 70% was excluded from the study. Second, the author wanted to capture 30 minutes of
active classroom instruction. Sadker et al. (1981) found that this was the ideal amount of time to
collect data using their instrument. A total of 24 business classrooms were observed. To analyze
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 198
the data, the author utilized seven coders who were randomly assigned a school. Each school had
a total of three observations and was coded for praise, acceptance, remediation and criticism.
General findings noted that there was an average of 51.49 interactions per class and took
place at the average rate of 1.72 interactions per minute (p. 189). Approximately one-third of all
verbal classroom interactions were coded as remediation. Smith (2012) also found that Business
teachers gave slightly more criticism (4%) than praise (3%). A majority of interactions were
either acceptance (58%) or remediation (35%).
When intersected with gender, Smith (2012) found that student-teacher interactions
varied according to gender. Findings suggested that both male and female teachers interacted
more with male students than with female students. The author findings state that female student
interactions in high school business classes were informed by subtly biased messages. These
messages could be dangerous as they could negatively affect academic, self- esteem and/or
performance.
Riley (2006) explored differential treatment across genders. This study revealed five
significant findings: First, teachers tended to describe male students as more troublesome than
their female counterparts. They also believed that male students were less attentive. Second,
teachers attributed learning difficulties, faced by male students, to the educational institution
rather than to inherent academic difficulties. Third, teachers held beliefs that schools were
designed to better fit the needs of female students than males. As a result, teachers believed that
classrooms needed modification to support boys’ educational needs. Forth, teachers praised
female learners for the following attributes: maturity, behavior, and effort. As a result of
attributing characteristics to either controllable or uncontrollable, students could start to question
their academic capability. This questioning could undermine their confidence, which could in
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 199
turn incite behavioral disorders such as stress and anxiety. Finally, teachers who perceived
female learners as mature might be less inclined to offer support because they think they can take
care of themselves.
Efficacy. One theme that emerged from literature on teacher-student interaction was
teacher efficacy. Since the research question aimed to understand how beliefs inform the
decision to refer, this section looks at teachers’ beliefs about themselves.
Podell and Soodak’s (1993) qualitative study measured teachers’ own sense of efficacy
and potential biases in their decisions to refer students to special education.
The sample included 240 regular-education teachers who had taught at least 1 year. All
teachers were from the New York metropolitan. All participants were recruited from three
university graduate education courses. All teachers who were asked to participate in the study
agreed to do so. Of the 240 participants, 200 were women and the other 40 were men. The
demographics were as follows: 200 identified as white, 14 as black, 7 as Latino, 2 as Asian-
American, and 17 from “other” ethnicity.
Podell and Soodak (1993) asked all participants to first read a provided case study. The
author designed fictional case studies that were based on the characteristics students most
frequently placed in special education. As a result, the case studies described a third-grade male.
In every case study variation, the male student was always described as having good behavior
but poor concentration and academic skills. There were however subtle variations to the
students’ SES and origin of their academic struggles. Academic struggles were designated as
either: medical, environmental, or undesignated. If the child was described as having a medical
condition, the case study explained that there were complications during the child’s birth. If the
child was designated as experiencing an environmental condition, the case study explained that
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 200
there were conflicts in the boy’s family. Finally, if the child was designated as having an
unspecified condition, the case study explained that neither the boy’s medical background or his
family history were remarkable. The other variation a case study could have included the
student’s SES. In the low-SES condition, the case study stated that the boy’s father and mother
were a security guard and a waitress. Whereas, in the case studies that designated the child as
being from a high-SES condition, the boy’s father and mother were described as an executive in
a large financial institution and a sales representative, respectively.
Once the participants read their assigned case study, each participant was asked to
indicate his/her level of agreement to the following two statements: (a) The present class
placement is appropriate for [the student], (b) If I were [the student’s] teacher, I would refer him
to special education. Participants were asked to respond to this on a 6-point Likert-type scale.
Next, teachers’ self-efficacy was measured using Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy
Scale. Participants were asked to respond to a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1, strongly
disagree to 6, strongly agree. The authors performed a regression analysis to further explore the
significant relation found between the in dependent and dependent variables and, in particular, to
determine the interactions between the independent variables. That result indicated that, for low-
SES students, teachers with a greater sense of personal efficacy had a higher likelihood to
perceive regular-education placement as more appropriate for a student with academic
difficulties. Whereas, teachers with lower senses of personal efficacy perceived regular
education to be a less-appropriate placement for a low-SES student.
The data also found that teachers with a lower sense of efficacy were more likely to refer
students with academic problems. Data analysis found that teachers who did not believe that
external factors could be overcome by teaching were more likely to refer students with learning
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 201
problems to special education. Another finding revealed that teachers were more likely to refer
students whose problems had an unspecified etiology than other causes.
Ultimately, Podell and Soodak’s (1993) study revealed five significant findings. First,
this study found that a teacher’s decision to refer is not only based a students’ educational needs.
Next, teacher efficacy, related to referral decisions, mediated bias in their decision to refer. Next,
when a student appeared to have a mild learning problem and was from a low-SES family,
teachers who had low personal efficacy were less likely to consider regular education to be an
appropriate placement than teachers with higher personal efficacy. Next, students from low-SES
families were at greater risk for referral because of their teachers’ beliefs about themselves,
rather than the students’ learning needs. Finally, the tendency to refer students was further
differentiated by the potential dis/ability.
Third Space
This section explored the influence physical and socially constructed space has on
student-teacher interaction. Studied in the previous sections have mentioned the use of space as
an oppressive or emancipatory tool (Artiles, 2003; Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012;
Gabel & Peter, 2004). This section therefore explored the different levels of space and how the
creation of a Third Space worked to emancipate students who had been historically oppressed
(Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012; Gabel & Peter, 2004; Gee, 2008).
Soja (1996) theorized the physicality of space in conjunction with human constructions,
perceptions, and representations of spatiality. The physicality and perception of space work in
harmony to provide contexts for human interaction. Space was also a byproduct of human
interaction, contributing to what Soja referred to as “second space.” He advocated for the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 202
bridging of conception and analysis of space as both physical/perceived space and the conception
of space as conceived/mental space in a transformative third space.
Soja (1996) defined Firstspace as a commonsense understanding of space. This level was
made up of the physical and visually perceived space. This Firstspace also included the processes
and forms of social “spatiality.” Social spatiality was dually constructed from the use of and
outcome of “human activity, behavior, and experience” (p. 66). This level therefore described
how space created and was structured by people’s actions. The meaning generated from this
level was a result of the dialectical tension between the physicality of space and people’s agency
to counter its absoluteness. The use of a Firstspace analysis concentrated on the accurate
description of surface appearances or the search for spatial meaning.
The next level of space was what Soja (1996) described as “Secondspace.” This level
asserted that space was the integration of physical, ideal, and social translation of a space.
Secondspace was conceptualized by people and acknowledged the presence of power and
ideology. This level included ideological content with the conceptual depictions of space in order
to products to perceptions. Soja (1996) explained that Secondspace recognized the complexity of
a space as something that was comprehensive and living. Since Secondspace was “entirely
ideational, made up of projections into the empirical world from conceived or imagined
geographies” (p. 79) innovative thinking was critical to the advancement of transformative space.
Finally, Soja (1996) explained that the interactions between Firstspace and Secondspace
created a Thirdspace. Even though this lived space included both first and second spaces, it was
distinct from them. Thirdspace was constantly shifting and changing and was the habitus of
social practices. According to Soja (1996), Thirdspace provided the opportunity to create counter
or resistance spaces. These resistance spaces can be filled with ideology and politics making it a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 203
powerful tool in questioning simplifications of space as “site” or “destination.” Furthermore, it
transcended dichotomies of representations such as insiders and outsiders. Thirdspace was a
dynamic construct that was a result of the dialectic of the physical and the mental. Soja (1996)
explained that attention to Thirdspaces in the classroom will inevitably compel a mindful
approach that thought about the ways social justice, issues of power, subordination, and
dominance play out in the classroom space.
Khan’s (1996) ethnographic study applied Soja’s (1996) conceptualization of third space
to understand Tahiti as a complex place. To ascertain the third space understanding of Tahiti, she
examined multiple beliefs and representations of this space. Additionally, she looked at the ways
in which these intersected and interacted to form a more comprehensive understanding of Tahiti.
In this study, she examined artifacts such as ancient chants, postcards, the imprisonment of
Pouvanaa a Oopa, videos of what tourists craved, colonial changes in a land tenure system, a
Hollywood film about the mutiny on the HMS Bounty, peaceful protests; 18th- and 19th-century
European imagery of the South Pacific, rioting, burning, and looting; media photos of President
Floss relaxing in Moruroa's lagoon, the lyrics of an anti-nuclear song, the Office of Tourism’s
marketing strategies, land claims in court, cruise ships, beliefs about placentas and umbilical
cords, Gauguin, potholes, and a nuclear testing program.
Khan (1996) selected Tahiti because of its perceived dualism. It was considered either a
tourist destination or ancestral land. During her study, the author lived in two different villages,
both in the Leeward group of the Society Islands. The first village, Fetuna, was on the island of
Raiatea. This island was located 25 kilometers from Uturoa, the island's main town and the local
French administrative center. Raiatea had a strong French bureaucratic presence because of its
administrative role. Khan explained that she chose Fetuna because it provided the closest
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 204
representation of ancestral land since it was as far away as one could get from the city center.
She noted that some residents did work in the city but most spent their days in the village. There,
Khan observed houses that were poorly maintained along an unkempt coastal road made of dirt.
The other village Khan lived in was Faie. This village was located on Huahine, an island
whose inhabitants were known for being proud and independent. She chose this location because
of its tourism. While living there, she noted that every Sunday vans full of tourists passed
through the village. The production and distribution of idealist images of Tahiti as paradise
served colonial interests by allowing those in power to convince those without power that the
status quo served Tahitian interests. While living in these locations, a thirdspace emerged from
her research. This space revealed that Tahiti was a complex and political space.
Drawing on Foucault, Khan emphasized the political understanding of Tahiti as a space.
Power inscribed itself both on a physical soil and social discourses of the land. Tahiti’s history
reveals the evolution of space as power. At the time of the study, Tahiti remained one of the few
colonies still in existence. Known also as French Polynesia, Tahiti was controlled through
France's Ministry of Overseas Departments and Territories. The Constitution of the Republic of
France remained the supreme law of the land. The French parliament legislated laws not the
Tahitian people. Furthermore, when the French government deemed political action necessary,
the French state assumed direct and near total control. Khan noted that this colonial control
presented itself within the day-to-day experiences of the Tahitian people. For example, Tahitian
children devoted the majority of their school day to learning French language, history, and
geography.
Khan examined a series of events that occurred on Tahiti during the1960s that
contributed to a physical and perceived shift in colonial control. The author explained how these
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 205
events not only deepened France's political entanglement but increased demand for exotic images
of this island. The first event was the creation of nuclear testing site in Tahiti. At the same time
that this occurred, Tahiti became a tourist destination. The simultaneous arrival of a nuclear
testing site and the establishment of this island as a tourist destination distracted residents from
the nuclear testing preparations. The military staged a silent coup and even quietly changed the
name of Moruroa, which in Tahitian means “big lies,” to Mururoa, a word with no special
meaning. The nuclear testing program completely transformed Tahiti economically and socially.
The increase in tourism changed the perception of Tahiti into a paradise. This image
became a big industry that altered the political, social, and economic structure of Tahiti as a
space. Khan (1996) explained how these images were destructive as they cut up the complexity
of this space into isolated fragments. The Office of Tourism emphasized scenic images of Tahiti
and encouraged pictures of sandy beaches, blue skies, colorful fish, fancy hotels rather than
people. The next event that altered the perception of Tahiti occurred on June 13, 1995. The
French President Jacques Chirac declared reemergence of nuclear testing. This set into motion a
series of other events that altered the perception of Tahiti as a space. Within days of his
announcement, large-scaled anti-nuclear protesting occurred. The president ignored these
protests and at 11:30am on September 5,1995 approved the first nuclear test in years. Khan
(1996) noted that the explosion was a bit smaller than Hiroshima but generated temperatures of
several 100 million degrees. When interviewed about the blast, the president said that there had
been no noise, just a minor shaking of the ground for 3 seconds, some slight agitation in the sea
with waves and geysers, and then everything was calm and “back to normal.” He rationalized the
test as a way to secure “stability of the world, [and] to insure security for everyone.” He went on
to say that the blast would have “no significant impact on the environment.” Finally, when asked
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 206
by reporters why he did not test the bomb in France, he responded with the standard phrase, “But
this is France!” He then deflected further inquiries by claiming. “One can’t even call this a bomb.
It’s nuclear physics.” Tourism shifted from a trip to paradise to a rallying cry and political lever.
Through the intersection of first and second spaces, Khan believed that the complexity of
Tahiti was revealed through the interpretation of historical events and physical space. The author
explored the tension between local understandings of place and dominant, mass-mediated
representations. This representation allowed for the emergence of a Thirdspace that was both real
and imagined. Khan (1996) believed that the Tahitian Thirdspace supported the idea that space
should no longer be seen as a fixed entity. She explained that Tahiti existed simultaneously as
an: Ancestral land, tourist postcard, and nuclear test site, Tahiti comprises overlapping and often
contradictory fields of experience, representation, and intervention. The use of a Thirdspace
revealed that Tahiti was in fact a complex and interwoven, dynamic and intertwined, historical
and spatial.
The literature in this section found that space is a complex place. Soja (1996) explained
that any area has both a first (physical) and second (emotional) space. When someone enters into
a space, both first and second spaces help that person make meaning of where he/she is at.
Change can occur when both these spaces were intersected to create a third transformative space
(Khan, 1996; Soja,1996).
Conclusion
Finally, the last body of literature looked at the way discourse, behavior and space-
influenced teachers’ actions in the classroom. First, Gee (2008) explains that language is a form
of identity, therefore discourse can be considered an identity marker that may influence the way
teachers interact with students. Therefore, student discourse was explored to understand how a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 207
teacher’s perceptions are mediated by linguistic variations like accents or language status
(Cherry, 1978; Haig & Oliver, 2003; Rogers, 2003). Studies revealed that teachers are willing to
make judgments about a student’s academic ability based solely on their speech patterns. These
judgments influenced their view of students (Rist, 1970; Sadker & Sadker, 1994), which then in
turn influenced their learning opportunities in class (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Wehmeyer &
Schwartz, 2001). Student-teacher interactions are influenced by how teachers perceive them
(Sanagi, 1998). Finally, both discourse and student-teacher interaction was examined in order to
unearth how these compounded perceptions are acted out in a classroom setting. Gender dictated
how much attention a student gets. For example, male students received significantly more
attention than their female counterparts. In addition to identity markers, teacher’s beliefs and
actions were mediated by their own feelings of efficacy (Podell & Soodak, 1993). Therefore,
teacher perceptions are influenced by both external and internal factors that intersect with one
another to inform their decisions to refer a student to special education services.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 208
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I described the conceptual framework that guided my study. Maxwell
(2013) defined a conceptual framework as “concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and
theories” (p. 39). My original conceptual framework was built exclusively from Bartolomé’s
(2004) critical practice hypothesis, Sieber’s (2008) dis/ability theory and Gee’s (2008)
Thirdspace discourse. I argued that a teacher’s ability to transformatively support dis/abled
students was rooted in his/her subconscious ideological orientations apolitical from the dominant
society’s ideology. I reasoned that there was a larger ideological structure that teachers, space
and students operate within. This larger context of normalcy was built from and perpetuated
through the intersection of ability (Heir, 2002), smartness (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011) and
whiteness (Gillborn, 2015; Leonardo, 2009). This larger context informed the local context
wherein chained interactions between teacher, space and student played out. The exchange
between teacher, space and student influenced a teacher’s perceptions (Rist, 1970). These
perceptions were then expressed differently as they were acted out in either constructive or
destructive ways. What was missing from this framework however, was critical reflection,
teacher awareness, and the role his/her mindset had on his/her ability to see students, space and
him/herself within a complex context. The redesign of my conceptual framework was informed
by Brookfield’s (2010) assertion that dominant culture maintained its dominance through
flexibility, his articulation of critical reflection combined with Rogers’ (2002) conceptualization
of critical reflection as well as Milner’s (2010) theoretical framework that outlined teacher
mindsets.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 209
Figure 3. A model for teacher-student interactions.
Brookfield (2010) argued that the way in which the term, critical reflection, was used
reflected on the ideology of the user. I used critical reflection here to mean the act of unearthing
assumptions that work to maintain hegemonic power structures. This definition was grounded in
critical theory, as outlined by Brookfield (2010), with the following three key assumptions,
western democracies are highly unequal societies, normalcy was used to create a sense of natural
or inevitable, and understanding it could work to change it. Dominant ideology was a
Degree of Internalization of
Dominant Ideology
Personal Efficacy
Mindset
Ability to See
Self-Student-Space
Presence
Normalcy
Teacher Response Continuum:
Enacted & Expressed in Teacher-Student
Interactions
Normative
(passive)
Transformative
(active)
Critical Reflection
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 210
constellation of widely held beliefs and practices that guide how meaning is constructed. When
successful, it is able to maintain “enqual, racist, sexist, and homophobic society” that is able to
“reproduce itself with minimal opposition” (p. 219). Critical reflection was therefore a tool that
worked to bring awareness to inherent assumptions that appear normal. A central tenant of
Brookfield’s (2010) critical reflection was ideology critique. This was rooted in the notion that
awareness of ideology was what moved reflection to critical reflection because it called into
question the power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions of dominant culture. Calling
assumptions into question allowed a teacher to explore his/her own ideology. Brookfield (2010)
defined ideology as “sets of values, beliefs, myths, explanations, and justifications that appear
self-evidently true and morally desirable” (p. 220) and can manifest itself in “language, social
habits, and cultural forms” (p. 221). Therefore, this conceptual framework uses critical reflection
to look at the actions, both cognitive and behavioral, to determine teacher interactions with
dis/abled female students as normative or transformative.
Building from Bartolomé’s (2004) critical practice hypothesis, I argued that a teacher’s
ability to transformatively support dis/abled female students was rooted in his/her subconscious
ideological orientations apolitical from the dominant society’s ideology. Implicit beliefs revealed
the subconscious ideology that informs one’s actions and could be difficult to unearth as they are
embedded within the words one chose, the choices they made, and the way one constructed
meaning. Therefore, a teacher must be able to recognize his/her own context and how it fits into
the larger ideological structure that was designed to systematically oppress historically
marginalized students (Milner, 2010). This awareness allowed a teacher to disrupt oppressive
systems by not accepting or perpetuating hegemonic structures. Rogers (2002) argued that
teachers could build this awareness through critical reflection, a spiraling process that involved a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 211
teacher moving through the following phases: presence in experience, description of experience,
experimentation, and analysis of experience (p. 235). This conceptual framework made a
distinction between reflection and critical reflection because Brookfield (2010) explained that
these terms were used interchangeably with each other, making it problematic since these were
two distinct processes. Reflection “is useful and necessary in the terms it sets itself; that is, to
make a set of practices work more smoothly and achieve the consequences intended for them (p.
216).” While critical reflection “called into questions the power relationships that allow, or
promote, one set of practices considered to be technically effective. It assumes that the minutia
of practice have embedded within them the struggles between unequal interests and groups that
exist in the wider world” (p. 216). Therefore, for reflection to be critical, it needed to have an
intention of uncovering the power dynamics within one’s practice while work to challenge
hegemonic assumptions. This conceptual framework sought to focus on unearthing these implicit
beliefs within teacher perceptions with the intention of creating more transformative interactions.
The larger wheel of figure 3 was informed by the properties present in Rogers’ (2002) reflective
cycle. The arrows around the larger circle highlight how critical reflection is a cycle yet is not
limited to just one rotation. It spirals (as this process builds from itself) and is represented by the
arrow that extends outwards. When teachers engaged in critical reflection, they evaluated the
items within the smaller circle. The bi-directional arrows in the figure represent how critical
reflection informed the elements floating within the smaller circle: presence, mindset, degree of
internalized dominant ideology, and ability to see the chained connected between teacher,
student and space. Critical reflection brought these elements to light while also informing how
one critically reflected (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002). The more critical reflection one
engaged in, the more these elements adjusted, causing them to float as they may expand, shrink
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 212
or remain, depending on one’s reflective practice. The floating qualities of these concepts were
informed by Brookdfield’s (2010) clustered concepts within critical reflection, allowing for
disproportionate growth in each cluster.
These elements within the circle are the properties that made up teacher perceptions.
These elements were informed by Brookfield’s (2010) articulation of dominant culture’s
properties, normalcy construction (Baglieri et al., 2011; Davis, 1995; Heir, 2002; Hornstra et al.,
2010; Li, 1990; Solomon et al., 1996), Milner’s (2010) mindsets, and Roger’s (2002) presence.
Brookfield (2010) argued that dominant culture could be difficult to spot because of its inherent
flexibility. This allowed for any combination of elements and/or degree of expression of these
elements to be potentially considered as dominant, ensuring its hegemonic status. I wanted to
ensure that this flexibility was represented in my new conceptual framework. As such, I adjusted
the representation of whiteness, smartness, and ability as components of normalcy that can be
attended to through critical reflection.
Critical reflection provided teachers with a process to unpack perceptions. Teacher
perceptions not only provided insight into a teacher’s meaning-making process but informed
their interactions (Rist, 1970) with students. Furthermore, perceptions coalesce into a mindset,
informing how one saw his/herself, space, and students along lines of race/ethnicity, gender,
ability, and socioeconomic status. Milner’s (2010) explanatory framework analyzed teacher
thinking, mindset, as it related to educational opportunity gaps. He identified the following five
mindsets that contributed to opportunity gaps: color blindness, cultural conflicts, myth of
meritocracy, low expectations and deficit, and context-neutral mindsets. In order to become
aware of these mindsets, I employed Rogers (2002) description of presence as a vehicle within
my framework to attend to the larger external factors that work to oppress historically
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 213
marginalized students as well as one’s own thinking and how it is informed by dominant culture,
especially when thinking about student learning. To her, student learning should be the primary
aim of teacher reflection. This conceptual framework was intended to maintain this aim through
the reflection of teacher-student interactions within space to create transformative/constructive
interactions. When perceptions were left unreflective, normative mindsets can became one’s
default, having potentially destructive effects on students.
Both internal and external beliefs can influence teacher-student interactions. A student’s
interaction is not only mitigated by teacher perception of student identity markers but also by
his/her own sense of personal efficacy. Podell and Soodak (1993) found that teachers with lower
self-efficacy had higher special education referral rates than their more efficacious counterparts.
Additionally, they found that teachers with fewer years of experience often had lower efficacy
rates and taught in higher need schools. As a result, teacher perceptions of their own efficacy
determined the quality of interaction students had within the classroom. These interactions were
important as they were often used to document a need for special education services.
Teachers and students interacted with each other within what Soja (1996) referred to as
either first, second or Thirdspace. First space included all physical elements, while second space
was the imagined space. Thirdspace was the intersection of both the physical and imagined uses
of space that created a new plain of existence—emotional space. This emotional space has the
potential to be transformative as it can cultivate feelings of comfort, become a catalyst of
disruption for good, and/or a new space that is separate from a larger context that is free of
expectation. In the context of my research questions, space was the classroom. The outer ring of
Figure 3, acknowledged that classrooms were institutionalized spaces informed by socially
constructed senses of normalcy. McIntoch (2001) pointed out that dominant culture hid privilege
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 214
in plain sight. Layering this concept onto the classroom, normalcy also hid itself in plain sight.
This was either embedded in discourse (Gee, 2008) or in teacher-student interaction (Hornstra et
al., 2010). These interactions fed into normative classroom practices that then informed teacher-
student interactions. I argued that female students who did not adhere to the normative measures
were then subjected to a different quality of interaction from their teacher. Additionally, students
with more intersecting identity markers that deviated from the norm endured higher incidences
of normative interactions that held destructive implications. These interactions either jumpstarted
the special education process or led to the beginning of behavioral records that ended in
expulsion. I argued that in order to break these normative practices, transformative interactions
needed to occur at the classroom level. I asserted that transformative interactions could only
occur within a Thirdspace. Using Soja’s (1996) and Gee’s (2008) construction of Thirdspace, I
reasoned that the fusion of both physical and emotional space had the potential to create a
transformative Thirdspace that allowed teacher-student interactions to move beyond
institutionalized hegemonic structures and towards a more equitable experience for female
students who hold intersecting identity markers.
I reason that understanding one’s assumptions can lead to more informed action in the
classroom (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002). For the purpose of this study, I am used
Brookfield’s (2010) definition of action to mean both cognitive and behavioral actions. Within
my conceptual framework, I argued that the quality these actions existed on a sliding scale and
was mitigated by a teacher’s belief system. This conceptual framework asserted that a teacher’s
belief system was influenced by socially constructed normalcy (Baglieri et al., 2011; Davis,
1995; Heir, 2002; Hornstra et al., 2010; Li, 1990; Solomon et al., 1996). Normalcy, when not
reflected on, was a vital component of teacher-student interaction as it can become the rubric by
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 215
which a teacher either explicitly or implicitly measures a student’s ability (Heir, 2002),
smartness (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011), and whiteness (Gillborn, 2015; Leonardo, 2009). If a
teacher does not engage in reflection and/or critical reflection, his/her interactions passively
default to normative interactions, inadvertently perpetuating historical inequities that could have
destructive implications for dis/abled female students. Conversely, transformative interactions
are active as they require one to reflect on internal belief systems in context of external contexts.
In order to create transformative interactions in the classroom, teachers must recognize their own
mindset (Milner, 2010) through presence (Rogers, 2002), critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010;
Rogers, 2002), and how these implicit beliefs inform their ideology (Bartolomé’s, 2004).
Furthermore, I argued that a teacher’s belief system was conflated by the interactions he /she
experienced in the classroom space (Hornstra et al., 2010). These interactions either confirmed or
disproved socially constructed senses of normalcy, creating a feedback loop. If a student was
determined to fit within the socially acceptable range of normal, he/she received more
constructive interactions whereas students who were determined to be abnormal would usually
endure destructive interactions that led to either special education placement or behavioral
admonishment.
The interactions experienced by female students with dis/abilities were subject to a
teacher’s perception of identity markers. If a teacher was not aware of a dis/abled female
student’s specific needs, then he/she would default to normative interactions that would be
expressed as destructive communication patterns. Whereas, if he/she was aware, a student’s
needs were more likely attended to, resulting in more transformative interactions expressed
through constructive communication patterns. I proposed that teacher presence (Rogers, 2002)
builds awareness and an ability to see student need along lines of race/ethnicity, gender, ability,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 216
and socio-economic status. If a teacher held a color-blind or neutral mindset (Milner, 2010), the
visibility of a student was incomplete, resulting in more normative interactions as a student’s
specific needs were not completely attended to. Additionally, if a teacher was not aware of the
oppressional histories of intersecting variables such as race/ethnicity (Leonardo, 2009), gender
(Sadker & Sadker, 1994) and socio-economic status, both within and outside the classroom,
students experienced different interactions in the classroom.
Teachers Expression of Beliefs Regarding Academic Need
The conceptual framework outlined above purports that there exists a context of
normalcy that informs teachers, students, and space, influencing the quality of teacher-student
interactions. The next section examines one teacher’s implicit and explicit beliefs as expressed in
interviews and observations to determine the role his beliefs inform academic need meaning-
making and how this influences the way he saw female students in context of dis/ability.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 217
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the qualitative approach, research design, instrumentation, sampling
strategy and data collection methods used in this study. The purpose of this study was to
understand how teachers’ perceptions influenced how they supported female students.
Specifically, I explored how one teacher’s perceptions of dis/ability, gender, race/ethnicity and
SES intersected with one another to inform his perceptions of females in the context of
dis/ability. I wanted to understand a phenomenon, and as such qualitative methods was the right
approach to seek understanding. I used a qualitative design to inductively explore the influence
teacher perceptions, space, and teacher-student interactions played in the meaning-making
process of female academic need. Qualitative research is an inductive approach that provides a
rich description of a particular phenomenon, including how participants make meaning of their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). Using this approach allowed me to better understand how one
teacher made meaning of his environment, interactions and perceptions.
Research Design
There is a “baffling” (Creswell, 2007, p. 6) array of qualitative forms to choose from. In
this section, I outline what specific qualitative design I used and explain why I chose it. I wanted
an applied understanding (Merriam, 2009) of my topic so that I could improve schooling
experiences for high school girls. To do this, I focused on understanding how one teacher viewed
girls within the complexity of their intersecting identity markers. I identify the interaction of
teacher perceptions within a classroom space as a bounded system. As such, Merriam (2009)
defined a case study as an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system. A bounded
system is the singular entity of study. In the context of my research topic, the bounded system I
investigated was a general education teacher’s perception of females in the context of dis/ability.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 218
Since there were endless types of teaching settings and combinations (e.g., special education,
general education, male teachers with female students, female teachers with female students) I
needed to define a type of teaching interaction to explore. I chose to study a general education
teacher who was selected on “the basis of typicality and success” (p. 41). To explore this
particular bounded system, this study utilized a descriptive case study approach to gain a better
understanding of how meaning was constructed within one teacher’s particular context
(Merriam, 2009; Patton, 1985).
Since this study sought to understand how one teachers’ perceptions influenced his
perception of female student need, a case study approach further allowed me to investigate the
research questions through the participant’s perspective (Merriam, 2009). The use of these
methods allowed me to answer the following research questions:
1. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed through his/her
perception of their academic need?
2. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding dis/ability, race/ethnicity, and gender revealed
in how they interact with their students to provide support?
These questions aimed to, as Merriam (2009) explained, understand how one teacher constructed
meaning.
Sample and Sampling Strategy
This case study took place at one urban public high school in Southern California. A
public high school was selected because this setting was mandated to reflect current special
education legislation and processes that include special education decisions such as LRE and the
use of eligibility criteria to determine qualification for services as specified in an IEP. Private
schools were omitted from the sampling pool because these settings could choose to support
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 219
students without psycho-educational reports, IEPs or dis/ability diagnosis, therefore a public
school allowed me to investigate how a singular teacher’s perceptions of race/ethnicity, gender,
socio-economic status and dis/ability informed his understanding of academic need. I chose to
study a high school because the research regarding dis/abled females suggested that at this grade
level, negative perceptions of female students influenced their immediate and future trajectories
(Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001). I used purposeful sampling with the criteria outlined below to
select one study site that allowed me to obtain the most relevant and useful information for this
study. In this section, I will outline the sampling strategy and the criteria used to establish the
sample for this study. I will also explain why these criteria were important in answering my
research questions.
When selecting a sampling strategy, I referred back to my research questions and
conceptual framework to identify what criteria would allow me to identify a case that I could
learn the most from (Patton, 2002). I used site specific purposeful sampling, as it allowed me to
learn the most possible about my topic (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). To identify potential sites,
I used network sampling in order to utilize my connections to put me in contact with those who
would be able to identify potential study sites (Merriam, 2009). I started by consulting my
dissertation chair about identifying a potential school site. She recommended that I begin by
completing the proposal process to conduct research in a local school district, as it would provide
me with access to various potential sites. Since a majority of my experience has been in either
special education settings or independent schools, I had limited contacts in public schools. She
also sent out an email to her charter school contacts, as they were not required to adhere to the
same proposal application process to conduct research. Interested contacts responded and I
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 220
followed up with each lead by outlining the purpose of my study. I explained that I was looking
for the criteria outlined below.
The school site had to serve a heterogeneous population of students, as my research
questions aimed to understand a teacher’s perceptions of multiple intersecting identity markers.
As such, any potential site needed to serve a variety of student populations, including those who
had been historically marginalized. I used Khalifa et al.’s (2016) definition of historically
marginalized to understand this term as “…individuals from racially oppressed communities that
have been marginalized—both legally and discursively—because of their non-dominant race,
ethnicity, religion, language, or citizenship” (p. 1275). It was imperative that my research
questions focused specifically on teacher perceptions of students’ race/ethnicity, gender, and
dis/ability identity markers that expanded beyond those held by dominant culture, as they would
provide further understanding of a participant’s perceptions. Additionally, since the literature
“further acknowledges that gender, sexuality, income, and other factors lead to even further
marginalization” (p. 1275) it was important that a school site serve students with these factors as
well. The school site also needed to have both an inclusive setting as well as a special education
pull out option so that I could understand why a teacher would choose to place students in this
program instead of serving them in his/her own classroom. School sites without a special day
school option would require stronger evidence for students to be referred for special education
services based on LRE requirements (Yell et al., 1998).
The research questions in this study were designed to learn more about the ways teachers
made meaning of female student need based on their relative identity markers because the
literature revealed that little is known about female students in context of dis/ability. The
conceptual framework proposed in Chapter 2 was designed with the hope of bringing more
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 221
attention to this population. Furthermore, I established that a school site needed to utilize positive
behavior supports when working with their students because it allowed me to better understand
how well-intentioned institutional elements contributed to a teacher’s meaning making process.
My conceptual framework identified larger external influences that contributed to a teacher’s
perceptions. This was grounded in the literature’s assertion that structural elements contributed
to the way that teachers saw their students (Artiles, 2003).
Once a potential site was nominated as meeting these qualifications, I verified that this
school site met my criteria by looking at its school district’s accountability scorecard (California
Department of Education, 2015). After reviewing their scorecard, I was able to determine the
demographic populations served delineated by race/ethnicity, SES, English Language Fluency,
and dis/ability. The school was comprised of at least 70% historically marginalized population,
12% Special Education (SPED) and 80% free and reduced lunch program. I then utilized both
the School Accountability Report Card well as the Academic Performance Index scores to
determine if the school’s demographic composition met the outlined criteria. From this, I
identified Carter Charter as a school site that met all the above criteria.
Carter Magnet High School is a secondary program for 9
th
through 12
th
grade located on a
larger campus, Carter Charter School. This school is part of a large school district located in a
suburban neighborhood in Southern California. According to the 2010 Census report, there are
approximately 74,363 residents and the medium income is reported as 53,842 a year. The
campus is situated in a suburban neighborhood, with houses on three sides and an aquatic wash
that runs along the backside. There is a single strip mall within walking distance that contains
fast-food walkups and beauty salon.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 222
At the time of the study, the magnet program had 887 students enrolled while the larger
school campus had 3,241 students enrolled (2014-2015, SARC). Of 3,241 students enrolled, 66%
qualify for reduced or free lunch and 12.6% are English Language Learners. Carter Charter’s
2016-2017 enrollment by ethnicity was 4% black, 13% Asian, 4.3% Filipino, 59% Latin@, .3%
Pacific Islander, 17% white and .3% Native American (California Department of Education,
School Profile, 2015). Comparatively, the Magnet program’s 2016-2017 enrollment was 23%
Asian, 5.8% Filipino, .1% Pacific Islander, 5.6% black, 24% Latin@, and 40% white (School
Profile Report, 2014).
I reached out to an administrator at the site to explain my study, and after discussing the
intention and materials needed to complete this study, the administrator agreed to participate.
From here, I needed to identify a high school general education teacher who was nominated by
an administrator for doing a good job of supporting difficult female students in the classroom.
Any potential participants needed to be fully credentialed general education teachers who were
not resource or special education teachers, because resource or special education teachers receive
specialized training that general education teachers do not (Sadker & Sadker, 1994) and are only
assigned to work with students once they have entered into the special education system. Since
these teachers were nominated for working well with students who were difficult, the teachers’
identity markers and work experience were not criteria for this study.
I then needed to identify a nominator within Carter Charter School. I used purposeful
sampling to identify nominators, paralleling Bartolomé’s (2004) nomination criteria. As such,
nominators needed to be situated in the site’s context and knowledgeable in high quality, equity-
based pedagogy. I screened nominators by asking them questions about their educational
background, experience working with difficult students, and teaching experience. They also
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 223
needed to be individuals who could identify which teachers in their school site implemented such
instruction. Therefore, I reasoned that these individuals should work directly with teachers at
their school site in an instructional capacity. Possible nominators included school site
administrators who evaluated teachers, peers, instructional and literacy coaches, mentor teachers
or special education support providers who were knowledgeable in equity pedagogy and its
manifestation into classroom practice. From this pool of potential nominators, I used network
sampling to identity an administrator who could be a potential nominator. After asking this
nominator the above questions, I confirmed that she fit my criteria.
I informed this nominator that the sample for this study required a general education high
school teacher who served both historically marginalized students and students whose identity
markers were considered to be part of the dominant culture. Additionally, this general education
teacher needed to be considered exemplary at supporting difficult female students. Since the
design of this study was a case study, I used purposeful sampling to identify a general education
teacher who was nominated (Patton, 2002) as doing well at addressing the needs of “difficult”
students. For the purpose of this study, I used the term “difficult” intentionally so that I could
unpack what implicit and explicit identity qualifiers teachers ascribed to this term. Additionally,
I wanted to ensure that the participant did not offer responses that he believed I wanted to hear.
The term “difficult” also lends itself for further exploration of females specifically, as they often
exhibit “hidden” or atypical symptoms of dis/abilities (Oswaldet et al., 2003). With these criteria
in mind, she identified three teachers who I sought out to be participants in this study. I emailed
all three potential participants and two responded. One was unable to participate in the study
given time constraints and the other, Mark
9
, expressed interest.
9
9
All names and locations are identified using a pseudonym.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 224
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
I collected data from one-on-one semi-structured teacher interviews, informal teacher
interviews, and direct classroom observations.
Interview. Interviews (Merriam, 2009) provided insight about Mark’s explicit
perceptions of students. I conducted two semi-structured one-on-one interviews in his classroom
that lasted 60 minutes each. I utilized this approach because it allowed me to ask structured
questions as well as pose emergent ones that came up during the interview process (Merriam,
2009). Since I wanted to explore teacher perceptions, and used a case study approach to do so,
this interview style allowed me more flexibility to explore his perceptions.
I audio-recorded each interview so that I could transcribe them. Since audio equipment
can fail at times, I also recorded data during the interview by hand. I chose to use a notebook
rather than a computer because a computer could create a sterility and physical barrier during the
one-on-one interviews. I used an interview protocol, (Appendix A), to ask participants questions
about his background, ideology and perceptions of space. The interview protocol was informed
by my conceptual framework, and I asked Mark about his approaches and ideology specifically
when it came to student support and how/when/why there were changes. I used an audio-
recording-device to record participant answers during each of the two interviews.
I also conducted informal interviews at the end of each observation. I conducted a total of
six informal interviews ranging from 17 minutes to 30 minutes in length. These interviews took
place in his classroom after his third period class because this was a time when students were not
present in his classroom. These informal interviews sought to ask clarifying and emergent
questions generated from direct classroom observations and/or gain his own meaning-making
process regarding classroom decisions.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 225
Observation. I gathered field notes by conducting 10 direct classroom. I engaged in
multiple classroom observations, totaling six days across two consecutive weeks, with each
observation varying in length based on the time it took to enter the field, classroom observation
lengths, transition period observation lengths, informal interview lengths, and how long it took to
exit the field. The first two days, I observed only his third period class because he identified this
period during the initial interview to be the class section that he had a difficult female student in.
After the second informal interview, Mark noted that there was another class that had a difficult
female student and I asked to observe this class period. After he approved this, observation days
three through six included back to back interviews of periods two and three. The tables below
outline the time spent in the field by day.
Table 1
Field Time-Periods 3
Day 1(132 minutes) Day 2 (130 minutes)
-Entering the field
(12 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 3 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview post-classroom observation
(30 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(10 minutes)
-Entering the field
(10 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 3 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview post-classroom observation
(20 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(10 minutes)
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 226
Table 2
Field Time-Periods 2 and 3
Day 3 (184 minutes) Day 4 (184 minutes) Day 5 (188 minutes) Day 6 (194 minutes)
-Entering the field
(8 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview post-
classroom observation
(17 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(9 minutes)
-Entering the field
(9 minutes)
-Period 2
Observation
(60 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 2
Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview
post-classroom
observation
(20 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(5 minutes)
-Entering the field
(9 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview post-
classroom observation
(21 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(8 minutes)
-Entering the field
(7 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Transition period
(30 minutes)
-Period 2 Observation
(60 minutes)
-Informal interview
post-classroom
observation
(30 minutes)
-Exiting the field
(7 minutes)
I observed a total of 16 hours and 51 minutes in the field. During each observation, I used a
protocol (Appendix B) for recording information while observing. I used shorthand notation of
what I saw and heard in order to increase what I could capture. Even though I intended to take
field notes by computer, after practicing field note transcription prior to entering the field, I
realized that I was faster and more accurate at recording notes by hand than by computer. As a
result, I utilized a notebook and a printed out observation protocol that included the following
information: demographic information (i.e., place, time, date of filed setting where the
observation took place), descriptive notes (i.e., reconstruction of dialogue, description of the
physical setting, accounts of particular events and/or activities), and researcher reflective notes
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 227
(i.e., my personal thoughts such as: speculative feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions
and prejudices I coded as “OC” for observer comments) (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). I used both a
narrow (individual) and wide focus (whole classroom) approach while observing (Merriam,
2009). I used my conceptual framework to help me observe discourse patterns (Sarangi, 1998),
the rate of female attention from teachers (Duffy, 2001), and the quality of these interactions
according to gender (Smith, 2012) as they were intersected with race/ethnicity and Mark’s
perception of ability.
Data Analysis Procedures
I approached data analysis using Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) process of generating and
verifying concepts through the acquisition of data. Within this qualitative study, I recognized that
data collection was a recursive process where ongoing analysis provided insight that informed
the next phases of a study in order to answer one’s research questions (Merriam, 2009). In this
next section I will outline the specific analytic process I used to ascertain the findings of this
study.
There were multiple sources of data collected from the moment I entered the field to the
moment I exited. The management of this data was therefore important, as the range of data was
large and varied (Merriam, 2009), presenting a challenge to the meaning making process. To
make the data more manageable, I brought all the information about the case together into a
singular digital password protected database (Merriam, 2009). This database delineated data
according to what Patton (2002) defined as the case record for the final case study. The case
record acted as the “primary source package” (p. 203) where all data was organized
topologically. This helped me to locate specific data throughout analysis. Once all the documents
were collected, I had a total of two audio-recordings and hand-written notes from two formal
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 228
interviews and six informal interviews as well as handwritten-notes from 10 classroom
observations. I transcribed all notes into separate Word documents which I titled using:
document type (i.e., interview, observation, informal observation, or reflection), date, time, and
duration. I also created two seating charts—one for each class period I observed. This served as a
key for me to double-check who was speaking during classroom observations.
After this database was created, I established the context of collected data in an effort to
reduce any misinterpretation of data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In order to do this, I reviewed my
conceptual framework and research questions to contextualize the data. Context not only
grounded concepts, but also reduced any researcher embellishment by locating the participant’s
actions and feelings. Once the context was established, I completed the first cycle of data
analysis, open coding, by reading and annotating all transcripts. I printed out all transcripts and
completed all annotations by hand. Notations were made in the margins of the documents. The
sectioned annotated ranged in size from single words, paragraphs, to full pages (Saldaña, 2003).
These notations became In Vivo codes, or participant specific wording (Saldaña, 2003).
At this point, I consulted with my dissertation chair and we discussed what in vivo codes
emerged during the first phase of data analysis. Codes took shape in word choice, for example he
would say, “dude,” “no,” “exactly,” or “great job” to students when they would participate in
class. My chair helped me reflect on these codes and annotations to ensure that they were within
the scope of what they could tell me, and that I was not seeking what I was trying to find. I
created an analytic memo to see how the coding was taking shape throughout the analytic
process. These memos gave me the space to utilize additional analytic tools such as asking
questions, looking for negative cases of any identified phenomenon, and the participant’s
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 229
language use throughout each analytic cycle (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to confirm emergent
themes and patterns.
During the next cycle of data analysis, I used descriptive coding to categorize these in
vivo codes. I used what Saldaña (2003) referred to as “initial impression coding” (p. 4). This
process gave me the flexibility to explore the scope of codes that emerged from the data analysis
process. This second cycle included a second full read of all transcripts. I used a color-coded
system to identify descriptive codes that emerged from the data as well as any priori codes
identified from my conceptual framework. These codes became my initial data set and were then
placed and catalogued into a digital codebook using an Excel spreadsheet. In this phase, I had
identified 112 codes total.
After I completed the first two cycles of data analysis, I then used analytical coding to
sort subsequent data into categories. These categories reflected “recurring patterns” (Merriam,
2009, p. 180) that were central to my study. These categories included classroom space codes,
student codes, and teacher codes. I then refined these even more by creating subcategories for
each category. For example, for the teacher category, I created the following: facilitates
academic task, classroom norms, fosters positive affect, supports. Throughout this process, I
continued to refine categories, until I reached what Merriam (2009) defined as a “saturation
point” (p. 183). Once this point was reached, I moved from an inductive to a deductive research
paradigm. Through this transition, I continued to consolidate recurring categories while seeking
any data that further supported emerged themes and/or patterns. These themes and patterns took
further shape through the use of my analytic memos. Once I could establish Mark’s implicit and
explicit ideology and lack of reflection, I then checked this against observation data. Specifically,
I looked for words he used during formal interviews that emerged in the classroom through his
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 230
discourse, communication patterns and actions. Since my conceptual framework purports that the
intersection of teacher, student and space informs the quality of interactions between teacher and
student, I looked at his discourse patterns. What emerged were two distinct categorical
interactions: constructive and destructive. Under constructive what occurred the most frequently
were the following sub-categories, praise, humor, affirms without praise, provides verbal
feedback. While under destructive the following occurred most frequently, interrupts, direct no,
ignores, and dismisses. I tallied the frequency of these communications across lines of
race/ethnicity, gender, and ability. From here, I continued to revise my analytic memos, meet
with my dissertation chair, and check findings against interview and observation data. I then
revisited my research questions and answered them using my analytic memos, resulting in my
findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
There were limitations, or factors I could not control, inherent in the data collection
methods of this study. Since I conducted interviews, I was unable to control the amount of time
the interviewee allotted for me. I also could not control any disruptions that occurred due to
special events in the setting, or the truthfulness of participants when the participant was
interviewed. Additionally, since I conducted one-on-one in person interviews, I collected indirect
information (Creswell, 2014) such as his gestures, facial movements, shifting weight in his chair
and pauses.
Delimitations
Not all factors of a student’s identity were included in this study. Specifically, I
recognized that a student’s sexual orientation was an important identity marker that could
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 231
contribute important information when thinking about a teacher’s perception of a student.
However, I chose not to include this as an identity marker because teachers might not be privy to
this identity marker given the demographic information that they have access to from a school
level. Additionally, this study did not address mixed race experiences. This was beyond the
scope of this study as the demographic information that a teacher has access to does not provide
intersecting racial identities, only a dominant one. Since a primary data collection method of this
study was based on observations, it was difficult to ascertain the complete identification of a
student’s race/ethnicity.
Another delimitation of this study was the student’s meaning making process of her
experiences with Mark. I did not include this since the scope of this study did not include this
stakeholder. However, this is an important perspective that needs to be studied in tandem with
teacher perspectives as it will provide further insight into the internalization of a teacher’s
actions on a student. Additionally, I did not include how students make meaning of their own
identity markers. This choice was intentional because I wanted to focus on how Mark made
meaning of a student’s identity markers.
Finally, since I was a novice interviewer, I did not always know when to ask the
appropriate emergent questions that might have come up during an interview. Therefore, I
utilized an interview protocol to help me ask the appropriate questions. Another limitation of this
study was my own sensitivity and integrity as a researcher. How I interpreted the data was rooted
in my positionality. Therefore, I engaged in constant critical reflection to ensure that I was not
just seeking what I was looking to prove. I also chose to triangulate my data in an effort to
conduct credibility checks across data points.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 232
Credibility and Trustworthiness
When thinking about credibility and trustworthiness, Merriam (2009) points to Ratcliffe’s
(1983) notion that data does not speak for itself; there is always an interpreter as a guiding
principle. In the case of qualitative research, the researcher is a primary instrument and
interpreter of data. As such, qualitative studies face a unique set of validity concerns (Maxwell,
2013). Every study faces potential credibility threats that are relative to its design. Maxwell
(2013) outlined two major threats to qualitative research: researcher bias and reactivity. Since
qualitative designs are seldom able to control for validity threats prior to data collection, it was
important for me to think about the ways my data could be jeopardized and take active and
recursive steps to rule out these threats at each step of data collection and analysis.
During the analytic cycles, I actively searched for evidence that challenged my
conclusions (Maxwell, 2013). I also triangulated my data to ensure that any conclusions I formed
were not based on one piece of evidence, but rather an array of different sources collected from
observations, formal and informal interviews.
Next, I wanted to ensure that my findings were representative of what was happening in
the setting so that I could paint the most accurate picture of who Mark was within the scope of
this study. In order to avoid an inauthentic representation, I triangulated data by using multiple
sources for data collection—observations and interviews (Merriam, 2009). During the data
analysis cycle, I worked to ensure that an accurate interpretation of the information was
collected, so as to not falsify, suppress or invent findings (Creswell, 2012). I also reviewed my
findings with my dissertation chair along each point of the analytical cycle to ensure that my
evaluation of the data was within the scope of the data point.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 233
Another concern I addressed was my limited experience as a researcher. I built interview
and observation protocols, with help from my dissertation chair, to ensure that I focused my
observations and interview questions. As a novice, I also recognized that my positionality is the
lens through which I make sense of the world, and could inform how I viewed that data. Since I
was the primary data collection tool, I addressed my positionality as a researcher by exploring
my biases and relationship to the study (Merriam, 2009). In order to do this, I articulated my
positionality as well as engaged in a written reflection after each observation and interview. I
asked myself questions about my feelings and what associations I was making after each
observation and interview. I would write these responses out, take a break from them, and then
revisit them before the next observation looking for my reactions. After meeting with my chair
throughout the data collection process, I was able to unpack any concerning reactions I had.
Specifically, what I noticed and she pointed out was my heavy tone in my responses and
annotations. After reflecting on my responses, I realized that my positionality informed my tone
as dis/ability is personal to me after going through several ear surgeries, it conjured up feelings
of advocacy and justice. To account for this, I would review over my analytic memos and
annotations looking for tone. Additionally, my chair would help me identify areas that included
heavy language that may not have been within the scope of the data. This process helped me to
recognize my biases and account for them throughout the collection and analysis process.
Ethics
I recognized that conducting interviews and observations of individuals could present
ethical issues for myself as a researcher (Merriam, 2009). As a result, I applied strategies to
ensure my study was conducted in an ethical manner, and have outlined them below.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 234
First, in order to protect potentially vulnerable populations, I referred to IRB policies
(Creswell, 2012) and developed an IRB information sheet with my dissertation chair. This
document included information about the study and contact information for myself and my chair
in case the participant had any questions and/or concerns. Prior to collecting data, I reviewed the
IRB information sheet with him 1-1 in person and informed the participant verbally and in
writing of his rights as a participant. I let him know that his participation was voluntary, that he
was able to stop participating in the study at any time, and that he could review his responses to
ensure they were representative of what he said. I let him know that I would be conducting two
formal interviews, six informal interviews and 10 classroom observations. Additionally, I let him
know that the questions that he would be asked could be sensitive as they involved his personal
beliefs. I then obtained his consent to participate and provided him a copy of the consent form.
I am a white female who identifies as having a hearing dis/ability. Firstly, it was
important to note that I was not born with this dis/ability but acquired it in 2012, after several ear
surgeries. Since it is not a visible dis/ability, my socialization with this dis/ability may be
different than others with visible dis/abilities, and since it is a newer experience, my socialization
has been shorter than those who were born with a dis/ability. Secondly, since my research
questions seek to investigate female experiences, my position as a female will affect how I
analyze the data and make meaning of my findings. Thirdly, my work experience is also
important, as it informs how I view general education and special education teachers.
I entered the field of education as a special education teacher who worked at a non-public
private school (NPS), where I worked with all special education teachers for four years. After the
NPS lost funding, I found a new job working as a founding teacher of a charter school in East
Los Angeles. I was the only special education teacher on site as well as the only teacher with a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 235
mild/moderate special education credential. This experience was difficult, as I often felt isolated
at work. As such, I realized that I had a sensitivity towards general education teachers as I often
felt voiceless or misunderstood. I looked out for these sensitivities when observing and
interviewing Mark. After a year there, I moved into an administrative role at a religious private
school in mid-city Los Angeles. In this position, I have participated in teacher evaluations and
conduct classroom observations. This new administrative role has influenced the way that I look
at the classroom and the teacher in context of it. This is compounded by not being in a traditional
classroom setting anymore, distancing me from that experience. I wanted to ensure that I was not
evaluating Mark, but rather maintaining an objective lens. As such, I worked with my chair to
help unpack my language use to ensure that the subtext of what I was saying was not evaluative.
During classroom observations and interviews, I focused on collecting what was actually said
rather than summations as it could have had the potential of leading me down a more evaluative
path.
Finally, my family dynamics also inform my positionality. My first interactions and
meaning making experiences with dis/ability were with my family. My mother is diagnosed with
a mental illness and my sister was sent to a residential treatment center for 3 years. I recognized
that these events may have acted as potential biases during data collection and analysis and
utilized the reflective process throughout the data collection and analysis process. I looked for
judgements that I held and/or were making about classroom approach to female students with
dis/abilities. I also was careful about my perceptions of any students who Mark identified as
dis/abled, making sure that data focused on objectivity. I did this by capturing what was actually
said rather than summations of interactions. This meant that I did not capture everything but only
the interactions that were word-for-word. I also met with my chair frequently throughout the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 236
collection and analysis process to address any reactions I was having to the data based on my
positionality.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 237
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine teacher beliefs regarding race/ethnicity,
dis/ability, and gender to better understand how they informed perceptions of female academic
need. The first two chapters of this dissertation discussed teacher perceptions and dis/ability.
Bodies of literature regarding dis/ability theory (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011; McDermott &
Varenne, 1995; Siebers, 2008), teacher perceptions (Rist, 1907) along lines of race/ethnicity
(Bartolomé, 2004; Chang & Demyan, 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997), gender (Bank et al., 1980;
Bennett et al., 1993; Cahill & Adams, 1997; Sadker et al., 1991), and dis/ability (Ferri & Connor,
2010) as well as physical (Khan, 1996) and transformative space (Gee, 2008; Soja, 1996), and
the reflective practices (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002) needed to see student identity markers,
spaces, and mindsets (Milner, 2010) laid the groundwork for the construction of a theoretical
framework. This framework was used to understand the case study below and answer the
research questions.
This dissertation was a qualitative study that used a case study method. Data was
collected using interviews and observations of one high school English teacher at a single site. A
total of two formal semi-structured interviews were conducted and 10 observations, totaling 16
hours and 51 minutes of observation. Classroom observations of teacher-student interactions
were conducted until the point of saturation. Data from both interviews and observations were
coded for themes and checked against the conceptual framework to determine the participant’s
perceptions and how these were enacted across observed teacher-student interactions. These
interactions were then coded as either normative/destructive, or transformative/constructive. It is
important to note that not all constructive interactions directly equate to transformation or
destructive interactions equate to normative, rather, they contribute to the progression towards a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 238
more normative or transformative direction. This qualification was adapted from Brookfield’s
(2010) “roadrunner” concept, where critical reflection can result in the sensation of two steps
forward and one back, with overall forward movement.
I will discuss the findings gleaned from the process above by first contextualizing the
data. The case study will begin with a description of the school site followed by the teacher and
the classrooms observed. This will help to better understand the teacher’s positionality as well as
how he was positioned within the context. The research questions are answered through the
examination of the following themes: ideology, how teacher and student roles were taken up,
unconscious versus conscious beliefs, lack of agency, and the presence of internal and external
forces. However, before I present the findings, I want to say that what I found is not an
indication that I could have done a better job supporting Mark’s students. I honor the passion he
brought into the classroom space and am grateful that he allowed a stranger to enter into his
classroom with the intention of evaluating his interactions. Evaluating his interactions not only
provided me with insight into his meaning making process but into my own. Thank you Mark for
your vulnerability.
Case Study: Mr. Lee.
Mark was a 25-year-old English teacher who identified as a male of Asian-decent. He
was born in California and attended a 4-year state college for his undergraduate studies and
received his teaching credential from that same institution immediately after graduation. During
the classroom observations and interviews, he dressed casually, often wearing joggers, short-
sleeve t-shirts and Vans lace-up shoes.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 239
Mr. Lee’s Academic and Professional Background.
Mark grew up in the same neighborhood where Carter High School is located. He
attended elementary and middle school in this neighborhood and was a student for all 4 years at
Cater High School. When asked to describe his educational experience as a student, he began by
saying that “it’s always the bad stuff” that comes to mind. He went on to recount a negative
experience he had in fourth-grade that was characterized by a teacher who he perceived as
"particularly bad.” Specifically, she was someone who “demanded a lot of silence [was] very
strict [and] wrote rules.” He explained that this experience was something that influenced his
relationship with learning until high school.
As he continued to describe this experience, he expressed an overall feeling of
misalignment with this teacher as he said, “she had a very different teaching style than the one
that I am comfortable with.” He felt as though the reason he had a bad experience with this
teacher was because of not being comfortable with her style. This coupled with his hesitancy to
refer to her as a bad teacher when he says, “I shouldn’t say she was a bad teacher,” suggested
that he does not believe that pedagogical decisions or intentionality were the cause of his bad
experience but the result of luck and misalignment.
As he described the educational experiences that stood out to him, he chased the negative
4th-grade experience with a positive experience from ninth grade. He explained that he
experienced education as something different from what he had carried with him for 4 years. He
explained that it was the first time that he viewed education as something different. “And that
was when I walk like, ‘Oh this is different.’” This experience is one in where he felt aligned with
the teacher. This alignment comes from what he perceives as his strength being aligned with the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 240
teacher's style. He said that she “asked a big question...then just let the students talk it out”
creating in his mind the alignment with his “like to talk.”
Mark is a second-year high school English teacher. He earned his secondary teaching
credential from a 4-year university in California and at the time of the study he was working on
his BTSA certification. He completed his first year of teaching at another school site and
described the Magnet program as drastically different from his first-year experience.
Mr. Lee’s Perspectives on the School and Community.
Mark believed that the Magnet program held a dualistic presence on Carter’s campus. He
described positive attributes but concluded that it ultimately created a splintered campus.
I think it actually fractures school culture in many different ways. Because what we’re
defining as a, I think all schools and all educators probably have the end goal of student
success in mind. But I think there are different ways that they plan to achieve those goals.
And school culture is built on those sorts of those different goals I think. And so, if
you’ve got different learning communities, if you’ve got the magnet, if you’ve got the
regular school all in one area, it’s very difficult to create sort of a cohesive school culture.
Embedded in his articulation of the school culture his belief that cohesiveness was at the core of
a positive school culture. He explained that having separate campuses with differing goals was
what caused there to be a fracture. Mark did not see the separate learning communities
themselves as something that was detrimental to the cohesiveness of the school culture. He saw
these communities as having “different goals” from one another and therefore were inherently
different. This difference was what created a fractured experience. Here he did not explicitly or
implicitly express critical reflection about the school environment, climate, or overall context. As
such, Mr. Lee has not engaged in critical reflection about the context within which he worked.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 241
This could result in a context neutral mindset, as outlined by Milner (2010). A context neutral
mindset would position him on the normative side of my conceptual framework, as he is unaware
of the historical oppressions present within the space.
He perceived there to be animosity between the main campus and the magnet program as
he went on to explain how teachers at the charter school believed that the Magnet program gets
only “good students.” Even if this were true, he explained that it
doesn’t make teaching easier, whatever the case may be. There’s also this idea that, and I
think it’s very true, that sometimes our students and our teachers give the air that “Oh
maybe we’re better than” or something like that. Maybe not meaning to do it, but just
kind of comes off that way.
Here, his response is consistent with a lack of critical reflection. His description of “better than”
positioned one group against another, inferring animosity. This subliminal qualification revealed
that he had engaged, on some level, in reflection but not critical reflection. Brookfield (2010)
described reflection as an action to make a “set of practices work more smoothly” (p. 216) and
since Mr. Lee qualified the separate climates as at odds, he is aware that the current practice is
not smooth. It is not clear to what degree Mr. Lee has reflected about school climate, but it
appears minimal due to his non-specific examples and justification grounded in a vibe, “it just
comes off that way.” Minimal reflection would position him on the conceptual framework as
likely to engage in more normative ways within the teacher-student interaction continuum.
Mr. Lee’s Perspectives of His Own Positionality.
When asked about his own identity markers, he espoused a belief that gender had an
influence on his schooling experience and how students reacted to him in his classroom.
Specifically, he believed that it influenced the classroom dynamic “heavily” going on to say that,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 242
“I know that I, just by being male, I demand a lot of respect in the room. Just by virtue of being
who I am.” His response is consistent with Bartolomé’s (2004) critical practice hypothesis,
which served as a theoretical basis for my conceptual framework. As such, Mark’s ability to
transformatively support dis/abled students was rooted in his subconscious ideological
orientations apolitical from the dominant society’s ideology. Here he demonstrated that he was
conscious of how he was positioned, by virtue of being male, in context of dominant society.
Yet, his statement also demonstrated how he struggled to identify where this manifested
specifically in his experience, as evidenced when thinking about how his gender influenced his
own schooling experience. Rogers (2002) described experience as central to the critical
reflection process, if he has not called upon his own experience, but rather speaks hypothetically,
like he did here, he has not reflected critically about gendered experiences. This lack of
connection to experience is evidenced further when he explained that he had not given it much
thought but believed that it must have played a role, as he said
Perhaps I think a lot of, thinking back on it. I don’t know. I wouldn’t say for certain, but I
assume it would have had some effect. Like me talking back to a teacher might be seen as
less confrontational maybe.
Here he revealed his belief that gendered differences were found primarily in communication
patterns. Rather than rooting his answer in a specific experience, he called on a stereotypical
assumption. This was a normative assumption he held about gender, and as such, this would fall
on the normative side of the teacher-student interaction continuum, leading him to most likely
engage in more normative gendered interactions. He explained that his communication pattern,
as a male, would be perceived as having a different intention because of his gender, “Like me
talking back to a teacher might be seen as less confrontational maybe.” Here he also revealed
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 243
that inequity existed in the way a teacher would interact based on a student’s gender. Mark knew
that he did not have a similar experience as females but was not able to “say for certain.” He
recognized that bias existed in gendered experiences.
During the initial interview, when asked about his race in context of his educational
experience, he expressed a belief that it did not play a role in the education he received. This
expressed belief is consistent with Milner’s (2010) assertion regarding colorblind mindsets. It did
not appear that Mark was able to recognize his own context and how it fit into the larger
ideological structure that was designed to systematically oppress historically marginalized
students. He did demonstrate selective awareness as he was conscious that his gender might have
played a role but explained that he had not given it much thought. He did not mention
race/ethnicity, SES, or ability as factors that influenced his schooling experience. This awareness
shows up in my conceptual framework as the lens by which a teacher views space and students.
The more aware a teacher is about the history of racial, gendered and dis/ability oppressions
(Brookfield, 2010), the more likely his/her interactions with a student will be constructive,
moving closer towards transformative interactions. This also includes his ability to see the
structural elements that can influence space, teacher and student. If he is able to recognize the
structural elements of whiteness, smartness, and whiteness in the educational system, the more
likely he will be able to form apolitical Bartolomé’s (2004) ideologies that would work to disrupt
historical oppressions.
How Mr. Lee Was Positioned
The context that Mr. Lee operated within limited him. When asked about supports he
received to support students with unique learning needs, he did not mention his current setting,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 244
rather he talked about a certification he was given at his credentialing school as well as his
previous setting.
They gave me certification for it at my credential school, but I would say maybe like a
year of formal training. Both in my credentialing program, as well as, I was at the school
I was at last year and so we had a lot of sort of PDs about servicing students with trauma.
Here he does not go into detail about the professional developments that he attended, rather he
spoke generally about them, “servicing students with trauma.” This ambiguity is the reason
Rogers (2002) makes experience central to her critical reflection cycle as it helped teachers make
meaning rather than just speak about theory that is perceived to be auxiliary to a teacher’s
experience. It is not clear from his response if these professional developments that he attended
used experience, community building or feedback, as tools to help teachers position themselves
as learners, as suggested by Rogers (2002), however it is clear that he did not find them to be
helpful given the way he passively talked about them. However, when asked a clarifying
question about these developments his response was a little more specific but still vague overall
Yeah sure. It was really just about how to our students’ needs, especially those who have
gone through sort of difficult experiences in life, how to sort of channel the behaviors in
the classroom into something that’s productive. Teaching habits of mind. Successful
habits of mind and kind of integrating them into lesson design. Things like perseverance
and just relating to other people. Approaching people with kindness, etc. Those are the
sorts of things that they trained us on, but specific stuff like “If you have a student that’s
behaving this way.” They didn’t really give us that kind of formal training. It was just
like a broad stroke of “If they’ve gone through trauma these are the behaviors they’ll
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 245
probably exhibit and then this is the way you want to sort of address that in the
classroom.”
The way he frames these ideas made them seem as common sense lessons. For example, when he
said “Things like perseverance and just relating to other people. Approaching people with
kindness, etc. Those are the sorts of things that they trained us on.” This is what Brookfield
(2010) described as normalcy, the feeling or sensation that something is common sense. As such,
for Mark, these professional developments did not provide him with critical thinking
opportunities.
I wouldn’t say, I think most of the learning experiences or the training experiences that
I’ve had with dealing with students or addressing students with trauma, it was nothing
new to me. So I don’t think I ever gained any new understanding. It was just more of like,
“Oh. Well, that’s obvious.” I know that obviously, home life is going to affect school life.
And so a lot of what was done in the trainings, I don’t know maybe I just like sort of,
maybe it was at my credentialing school, I don’t know. But I kind of had those tenets in
mind already about addressing students differently and not sort of teaching to just one
type of student. You know? And so, it really just gave me sort of a background with more
context to what sorts of situations can happen at home and how that might affect school
life. But I don’t, other than that I don’t think the direct instruction from the trainers or
whatever gave me any sort of tools to deal with the behaviors. It was just background
knowledge.
His common sense meaning making was further confirmed when asked to speak about a more
recent experience. He said, “I think most of the learning experiences or the training experiences
that I’ve had with dealing with students or addressing students with trauma, it was nothing new
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 246
to me.” Mark felt that he was already aware of the supports that were presented during these
developments. He went on to say specifically that “So I don’t think I ever gained any new
understanding. It was just more of like, ‘Oh. Well, that’s obvious.’” What Mark described as
obvious was normative. These professional developments did not position Mark in a way to
dialogue with himself, his practice or context, rather it was what he described as “just
background knowledge.” Rogers (2002) explained that teachers can feel disconnected from
professional developments if they are rooted in experience. Here Mark was positioned in a way
that did not provide him with the opportunity to learn how to critically reflect. Since he was not
taught how to take what Brookfield (2010) and Rogers (2002) described as intelligent action, he
called upon his own learning experience to make pedagogical decisions.
So I think I, like I was saying earlier, I took that idea of not teaching just to one student
out of my own schooling experience. And I understood that just based off how I
approached classrooms and teachers I knew that once, one way of teaching wasn’t going
to work with me. And so kind of the trainings that I did, my credentialing experience for
that particular area, just sort of I would say built on that. Just kind of built on that. Just
kind of gave me more knowledge to work with.
Here he explained how he teaches the way that he was taught when he said, “I took that idea of
not teaching just to one student out of my own schooling experience.” Since he was not provided
with the opportunities to make informed decisions from critical reflection, he defaulted to the
way that he made meaning of school. For example, he said, “And I understood that just based off
how I approached classrooms and teachers I knew that once, one way of teaching wasn’t going
to work with me.” This could have unforeseen consequences as it could result in pedagogical
decisions that are rooted in alignment rather than in intelligent action. When applied to my
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 247
conceptual framework, Mark, was positioned in a way where he had not spent time critically
reflecting, limiting his ability to see his assumptions about his role as a teacher, the space he
operated within and his students. This had unintended destructive consequences as he would be
left with normative options to support dis/abled female students.
Mr. Lee’s Classroom
Mr. Lee’s classroom was located on the northwest side of campus and was the first room
in a large rectangular enclosed bungalow. This bungalow was exclusively for the Magnet
program and did not hold any classes for the charter campus. The word “Core-chella” was
written in large letters above each of the doors leading in and out of the bungalow. There were
college pennant flags lining the upper portion of the hallway walls. A row of student lockers
started after Mr. Lee’s classroom.
Mark’s classroom was large and had two doors, one at the west end and one on the east
end. There were several large windows that line the north wall. Student artwork hung on a
bulletin board in the west side of the room. There were two large storage cabinets and a metal
file cabinet. Additionally, there was one desktop computer allocated for student use that was
nestled in the northwest corner of the classroom. His teacher’s desk was located in the
northeastern corner of the classroom. He utilized a projector to display any digital materials.
His classroom was not a shared space and was the same room that his mentor taught in.
He set up the classroom in a u-shape, with all desks at the bottom of the “u” oriented toward the
board at the east side of the classroom. There were two whiteboards in the classroom, one at the
front and one on the side opposite of a row of windows. There were large murals painted on the
upper parts of the wall that had an Alice in Wonderland aesthetic. He shared that they were
pained back in the 1970s and expressed a desire to get rid of them as they were “creepy.”
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 248
Mr. Lee’s Second Period English Class
This class period met 5 days a week for 1 hour. It occurred at the same time each day
from 9:30am to 10:30am. Before this class, there was a first period class and after, there was a
30-minute break for all students. The first 5 minutes of every class was set aside for whole
school announcements that were broadcast over the loud speakers.
Demographically, second period was comprised of 35 students. Based on observation, of
the 35 students, 21 were female and 15 were male. There was a total of 8 Asian, 2 black, 15
Latino, and 10 white students. During the interview, Mark did not identify any students in this
period who had a current IEP or 504-plan.
Mr. Lee’s Third Period English Class
This class period met 5 days a week for 1 hour. It occurred at the same time each day
from 11:00am to 12:00pm. Before this class, there was a 30-minute break for all students.
Demographically, 3rd period was comprised of 33 students. Based on observation, of the
33 students, 15 were female and 18 were male. There was a total of 9 Asian, 2 black, 9 Latino, 1
Pacific Islander, and 12 white students. During the interview, Mark identified one student in this
period who he believed was eligible for an IEP but did not have one. Jennifer, a Latin@ female,
was nominated by Mark as having a suspected learning dis/ability.
Below I will examine Mr. Lee in context of the research questions of this dissertation.
First, I will discuss Mr. Lee’s ideology and how his beliefs, although well intentioned, fell into
what Milner (2010) described as a color-blind mindset. I do this through the examination of his
implicit and explicit perceptions as they were expressed in his interviews and enacted across
teacher-student interactions.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 249
Research Question One: How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed
through his/her perception of their academic need?
Mark had a limited view of female students and their academic need. When asked to
articulate his understanding of the female student’s schooling experience, he reflected in-the-
moment to surmise what he believed. His lack of reflection informed how he made meaning of
academic need (Brookfield, 2010) and limited the visibility of female students (Baker, 2002) as a
population with specialized needs (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Siebers, 2008). However, his limited
field of vision was not specific to just females. He struggled to see how gendered experiences
and the influence of intersecting identity markers, such as race/ethnicity and ability, had on a
student’s schooling experience causing him to fall into a blind mindset (Milner, 2010).
The section below will examine Mark’s beliefs and how his superficial reflection
informed his ability to recognize female student need.
Limited Reflection
Throughout the interviews, Mark engaged in in-the-moment reflections. His responses
took shape in two parts, stream of consciousness and externalized reflection. First, through
stream of consciousness, he espoused his initial thoughts about a topic. Then, once these ideas
were externalized, he thought about what he said in the moment and grappled with whether he
believed it and/or was aligned with his initial statements or not. For example, when asked to
describe his behavioral management system he explained
That’s a big question. [laughter] That’s a big one. I’d say I’m not much of an
authoritarian figure. I don’t think at least. I feel like it’s, I have my class a lot more
student driven. And so, I understand that my role as classroom manager is not one where
I’m telling, or cause I do do that. I guess it’s always been not drawing attention to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 250
negative behavior. I don’t, I don’t know if I have a philosophy. I’m trying to think about
if I can craft one on the spot right now based on what I do. I think being consistent with
like rewards and punishments.
His response began with word association, using words like “authoritarian” and “student driven”
to think about behavior management. His initial thought was about his vision of himself in
context of a behavior management philosophy. Through stream of consciousness, he associated
behavior management with authoritarianism. Then he engaged in in-the-moment reflection and
decided that he did not perceive himself to be an authoritarian figure. During his interviews, he
externalized his thought process, which provided insight into how he made meaning. This
response pattern demonstrated honesty. For example, he explained “I don’t know if I have a
philosophy. I’m trying to think about if I can craft one on the spot.” He was transparent with
where he was at and his thought process about a topic. However, despite his honesty, this style of
reflection narrowed his field of vision as it caused him to focus primarily on the task at hand,
limiting his responses and strategies to the moment. His response was indicative of reflection
(Brookfield, 2010), rather than critical reflection, as he thought about his response devoid of
power or historical oppressions. Since he had not done much reflection about his own beliefs, it
would position him in a way to make it really difficult to see larger factors that were at play to
disadvantage students. This is consistent with Auwarter and Aruguete’s (2010) findings that
teachers were unaware that their viewpoints as part of a larger social narrative outlined by the
ideological framework. When evaluated using my conceptual framework, his limited reflection
would position his interactions on the normative side of the teacher-student interaction
continuum.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 251
Gut. Mark used his gut to guide his approach to support students and form his beliefs.
For example, “I think about, or at least when I’m thinking about lesson design I have my idea for
how it’s going to go. I do it in 1st period. It doesn't work. Then I have to sort of think of ways to
change it on the fly.” His lesson design process relied on in-the-moment reflections to adjust
lessons “on the fly.” Here he revealed that student supports were not designed based on critical
reflection but were provided in the moment. Here he revealed that he did not take what Rogers
(2002) and Brookfield (2010) define as intelligent action. As such, this made it difficult for him
to create transformative interactions as he was unaware of the specific needs of students beyond
a generalized understanding.
He used his gut to not only make classroom decisions, but it guided his belief system
about female students. For example, when asked about his approach to supporting female
students, he said, “I feel that I have to prod less.” He used “feel” as a barometer to make a
qualification. This assertion was not rooted in specific events but rather an overall feeling he had.
Later, he explained, “But with female students, I feel that they are more willing to share what
exactly the issue is. So, it’s actually easier to address if there is a problem.” He believed that it
was easier to address problems with female students because they were more “willing to share.”
This conclusion was based again on his feeling as he said, “I feel that they are more willing…”
As a result, Mark’s beliefs were grounded in feelings, maintaining his understanding of student
experiences, along intersecting lines of complexity, superficial. Therefore, his pedagogical
decisions were guided by surface level data points consisting of visible factors and assumptions
about students. Assumptions constitute what Davis (1995) outlined as the properties of normalcy,
which, as positioned in my conceptual framework, informed teacher beliefs and subsequent
interactions with students. His statement further confirmed that he had not engaged in critical
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 252
reflection (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002) and revealed that he held a blind mindset (Milner,
2010). When evaluated using my conceptual framework, a neutral mindset that has not been
critically reflected on, will position the teacher towards the normative end of the interaction
continuum.
Superficial Beliefs
Female Students. Mark believed that females were subjected to a different schooling
experience than their male counterparts, but he had only superficially reflected on what these
experiences were. He used speculation to articulate his understanding of the influence gender had
on a student’s experience. For example, when asked about gender’s influence on one’s schooling
experience, he assumed that “perhaps I think a lot of, thinking back on it. I don’t know. I
wouldn’t say for certain, but I assume it would have had some effect.” His use of discursive and
hesitant language demonstrated that Mark had only superficially reflected on this topic
previously. He grappled with the idea in the moment and after using in-the-moment reflection, he
arrived at an assumptive conclusion, by saying, “[I] assume it would have had some effect.”
Even though he had thought about it in the moment, he had not addressed the assumptions buried
within his belief that gender played some sort of role. This, as Brookfield (2010) revealed, is an
important part of critical reflection. Since he had not engaged in critical reflection, he would be
more likely to engage in normative interactions as he had not yet built awareness.
Next, when thinking about gendered schooling experiences, he pulled from his own
schooling experience to support his conclusion. For example, he said, “like me talking back to a
teacher might be seen as less confrontational maybe. I don’t know.” Here, he continued his
hesitant language, leaving room for him to possibly think more about this topic before arriving at
a firmer conclusion. His example also suggested that he saw gendered experiences along lines of
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 253
expectation. He said that “talking back may be seen as less confrontational.” Here he suggested
that there are certain expectations for females and their communication patterns in the classroom.
Along this line of thinking, if a female were to talk out of turn, this could be seen as something
negative and out of realm of their gender expectation. His example identified an invisible
expectation, acted out in his perception of gendered roles, that he saw visibly in communication
patterns. As demonstrated by his interview responses, this belief about gendered communication
patterns was rooted in an assumption he held about gender that he has not yet grappled with.
Specifically, within gendered communication patterns, he believed that female students
expressed problems directly. For example, he said, “they’re a little more willing to share what
the issue is and they’re actually pretty direct about the issue. They don’t give me other stories or
anything like that. They just tell me what’s wrong.” Here he chose an innocuous pronoun,
“they,” to articulate his belief. He concluded that female students, irrespective of identity
markers and their intersections, used a similar response pattern. He also believed that when
talking about a problem, female students articulated the problem more clearly than male students
as they would not make it convoluted with “other stories.” He therefore expected a particular
communication pattern from female students. However, from this response, it was not clear if he
believed they would come to him if there was a problem or if this level of clear articulation is
only reached if he initiated. His response that females had typified communication patterns
confirmed that he held both explicit and implicit beliefs. Even though he was consciousness in
his explicit beliefs that gender was something that positioned people differentially, he held an
implicit stereotypical belief that qualified a class of people as behaving in a similar way. This is
consistent with Sadker and Sadker’s (1994) findings of subtle sexism, as a result of stereotypical
beliefs, embedded within communication patterns. Both a teacher’s explicit and implicit beliefs,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 254
as outlined in my conceptual framework, inform the quality of interactions. If this implicit belief
was enacted in an interaction with a female student, he may infer that she would just tell him
when she had a problem and not feel the need to check-in. His interview responses indicated a
blind mindset (Milner, 2010).
Intersectionality. Mark’s superficial beliefs were not exclusive to female students. He
also held similar beliefs about the role race/ethnicity and ability played on a student’s schooling
experience. For example, when describing Jennifer, he said, “I don’t know necessarily if I’ve
seen how her race intersects with her gender. I know that yeah.” Here he explained that he has
not seen how these two markers can intersect and confirmed that by saying, “I know that yeah.”
This intersectionality was not visible to him and as a result he was unaware of any influence they
played in Jennifer’s experience in the classroom.
At times throughout the interviews, he avoided conversations about race and ethnicity.
For example, when asked about Jennifer’s race/ethnicity as it intersected with her ability, he said,
“I mean she has processing issues. I’m not sure if I know how her ability intersects with her
race.” He anchored his response on ability, speaking generally about “processing issues.” It was
clear that he had not reflected on race/ethnicity as a contributing factor to a student’s experience
when he said, “I’m not sure if I know how her ability intersects with her race.” Typically, he
used in-the-moment reflections to think about questions, but whenever race/ethnicity was
brought up, he did not engage in even superficial reflection. This was consistent with Milner’s
(2010) findings of racial blind spots in even the most well-intentioned teachers. Mark’s difficulty
speaking about race openly confirmed Artiles’s (2003) finding that silence about racial diversity
exists in the implementation of inclusive models. This silence was located in my conceptual
framework as a lack of awareness, since Mark’s interview responses revealed that he did not see
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 255
the historical implications of being female, his actions and subsequent communication patterns
defaulted to normative interactions. This was demonstrated through his interaction quality with
Jennifer. He engaged in more normative/destructive interactions with her, resulting in the
separation of her as an other in the classroom space.
Ability. Mark saw ability in context of a student’s approach to learning. A student’s
approach to learning was the measure of his/her ability. He believed that the primary attribute
that effected a student’s ability to learn was his/her home-life.
So she’s gone through a lot of different stuff this year. Things I won’t get into, but
needless to say she’s got a lot of issues that are not related to school that are more
important to her. And I think should be more important to her, to some degree. Or at least
of equal importance. And so she’s definitely one that’d I’d say would be an outlier from
the school culture, because she doesn’t approach learning with the same sort of fervor
that a lot of our other students do. Maybe doesn’t necessarily see the value in it.
Especially when other things are so taking precedence. And I think it’s a product of home
life. It’s a product of personal experience.
Here he believed that Jennifer was dis/abled by her home life as it distracted her and took
precedence over learning. His description of her struggle created a distance between the teacher
and the student. To him, home life was something that existed outside of the classroom space.
His only influence over this was his acceptance of it taking precedence over learning, “she’s got
a lot of issues that are not related to school that are more important to her. And I think should be
more important to her.” He viewed himself as a passive participant in this situation, unable to
change her home situation and therefore unable to change her approach to learning. These
outside factors were bigger than him, bigger than her, and bigger than the classroom space. This
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 256
belief was consistent with Haig and Oliver’s (2010) findings that poor performance was not the
result of systematic oppression but the home. He identified her home life as the factor that
negatively impacted her learning rather than larger external forces. His inability to see the larger
systematic structure of normalcy limited the scope of his interactions to normative, causing him
to inadvertently interact with her more destructively than constructively.
In the final interview, Mark shared that Jennifer had internalized her social situation so
much so that it influenced her self-esteem. For example, “I know her financial situation and her
home situation. And I think that might have more of an effect in terms of how she characterizes
herself and what she thinks her role is in society.” Adding that, “she doesn’t have a very strong
sense of self. And I think that stems from school too. She thinks she’s dumb. She said it on
multiple occasions.” He recognized that school contributed to her perception but believed that
her home life had “more of an effect.” Here he believed that these outside factors were again
larger than his influence. To him, her ability was based on large factors that could not be
addressed in the classroom. His sense of efficacy was tied to his feeling of being able to “do
something.” If he, like Podell and Soodak’s (1993) explained, does not feel efficacious, he will
have a difficult time supporting her himself and will most likely outsource to special education
programming as he would see it as the kind and supportive thing to do.
Academic Need. Mark’s beliefs defined how he made meaning of academic need and
how he took action on this perception. First, he understood motivation to be the “only” thing that
indicated a student might require academic support. For example, during the initial interview, he
explained that a student who exhibited academic need was someone who was, “Unmotivated.”
That’s pretty much the only, I think that’s where it starts, and then everything else follows.” Here
Mark indicated that a student’s ability to perform academically was based entirely on whether
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 257
that student was motivated. His statement that “the only” attribute worth attending to at the
outset was whether the student was “unmotivated” implied that other attributes such as gender or
race/ethnicity were irrelevant. For him, motivation appeared not to be exclusive to a particular
gender or race/ethnicity, rather it could be something that anyone experienced. This belief
subsequently pushed away all other factors that could contribute to need by saying that it was
“pretty much the only.” His response revealed that he only saw need through a singular source,
motivation. Mark did not speak about intersecting variables that can influence motivation, rather
he spoke about it in isolation of other influences. This resulted in a singular perception of a
student, confirming what Milner (2010) described as incomplete visibility. This visibility shows
up in my conceptual framework as awareness of space, student, and context, arguing that
constructive interactions are more likely to occur when there is more awareness of these factors.
Since Mark did not recognize that race or other external factors mattered, he unconsciously
maintained a meritocracy mindset. His implicit belief was that student performance was rooted in
the idea that everyone had the same opportunity (Milner, 2010). Furthermore, he did not
recognize the complexity of the context, as believed that the school did not matter, but rather a
student’s motivation, in isolation, was the sole influence of student performance. This mindset
came through in his interviews, and as will be demonstrated below, limited his ability to see the
completeness of students, the effects of space/context, and his role in taking intelligent action to
support student learning.
How Mark Saw Himself in Context of Support. Mark’s perception of his ability to
support students informed how he in turn supported them. He believed that he lacked knowledge
about their experience, making it difficult for him to truly know how to support them. He
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 258
believed that relatability was an important feature of supporting students. For example, he
described himself in context of supporting dis/abled students as,
Let’s say, I think it’s because I come from a place where I don’t understand them. And so
if that’s the case, it’s difficult for me to, if I don’t understand where they’re coming from
and why they’re acting the way that they do or why they don’t anything in the classroom.
It makes it difficult for me to adjust or to modify or to accommodate in any way. Because
I don’t know what’s wrong. So the issue with a lot of the students that I’ve had problems
with that don’t change their behavior, end up not changing as a result of our
conversations or whatever we do. Is because I don’t know how to approach them. It’s a
lack of knowledge. It’s a lack of, I wouldn’t say it’s a lack of empathy because I can
empathize with them. ‘Cause I know what it feels like to be an unmotivated student. But
then the reason for motivation are often very different. So, I don’t know where that,
where they are with why they don’t do anything.
Here he explained that he could empathize with them by calling on the experience of being
unmotivated himself at times throughout his own schooling experience. However, he felt as
though he could not help students who were unmotivated for “different reasons” than his own.
He believed that helping students in an authentic way was to be able to truly understand where
they were coming from. This reinforced his belief that alignment was an important feature in
supporting students. To him, support was not rooted in pedagogical strategies, it was grounded in
personal experiences and alignment.
Mark believed that he did not have the capacity to support Jennifer. He believed that
expert clinical knowledge was necessary to support students with dis/abilities. As such, he did
not perceive himself to have that clinical knowledge. For example,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 259
I honestly don’t know. I can’t prescribe anything or I can’t diagnose her, but I think
there’s several things happening. I think there’s a processing issue. Where she’s having
trouble seeing connections between ideas and how things relate to each other. She has
low vocabulary skills. It makes it difficult to understand concepts. She doesn’t know any
synonyms for the words we’re discussing. Just basic syntax and grammar, she has issue
with. Just low literacy issues overall. As well as some processing thing happening that
makes it difficult for her.
Mark believed that he was not an expert and therefore unable to support Jennifer in a way that
would help her. He felt that he was unqualified to “prescribe anything” to her. However, he was
able to point to specific areas that she was struggling with within the context of the subject that
he taught her in. With these insights about her, he could pedagogically prescribe her something,
but in his mind, this knowledge was dismissible. This expressed belief influenced his perception
of being able to help students with dis/abilities. Efficacy, as Podell and Soodak (1993) pointed
out, was directly tied to a teacher’s perception of being able to help a student. Since Mark did not
believe he could help dis/abled students, this as Rist (1970) explained, became a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Additionally, his language of “prescribe” held a medical subtext, suggesting that his
implicit belief system made meaning of dis/ability as a medical model. Dis/ability construction,
as described in my conceptual framework, came through in the way he made meaning of need
and subsequent interactions with students based on this meaning-making.
Normalcy
Mark’s responses during the interviews revealed that his beliefs about normalcy were
superficial. His superficial beliefs revealed that he operated under what Baglieri et al. (2011)
described as an omnipresent force of normalcy. The existence of this type of force or context
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 260
does not need explicit iteration as it just is. His articulation of what was normal confirmed the
existence of an omnipresent normal as he struggled to see discordant or apolitical features in
students. This revealed that he subconsciously held normative perceptions, indicating that he has
not engaged in critical reflection.
Institutional Normalcy. Mark took up the qualities of “normal” in two ways,
institutionally then personally. First, he espoused institutional beliefs. For example, “Someone
who’s, I mean, May comes to mind. She is pretty much all of the archetypes of someone we’d
call a ‘good student.’ Someone who’s focused on.” Here he spoke about a collective belief first
through the use of “we’d.” He believed that the institution would identify May to be someone
who had the qualities of a “good” student. Immediately after making that claim, he then thought
about whether he personally believed that she actually was a “good” student or not. For example,
he said
Well maybe not. Someone who’s focused on grades over legitimate learning. Or someone
who I don’t know. Basically, just sits when they’re told to sit and then talks when they’re
told to talk. But I guess one crucial element of a successful student for our program is
someone who’s willing to speak their mind and be heard. Cause that’s a very important
part of what we do.
Here he explained that the institution believed a good student was someone who did what they
are told. His tone here suggested that his beliefs were discordant from the institution’s beliefs,
but not enough to be what Brookfield described as a “triggering event,” that worked to catalyze
critical reflection. He explained that the institution saw her as a “good” student because she “just
sits when they’re told and then talks when they’re told to talk.” He believed that the institution
valued compliance while alternatively he valued engagement. This was an apolitical ideology, as
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 261
his tone revealed that he recognized the institution’s belief of “normal” as something that was
compliant using this term to highlight a focus on the wrong thing. This belief reinforced
Bartolomé’s (2004) critical practice hypothesis as he expressed recognition that the system
valued one thing but that he did not agree with that. This created an opportunity, as outlined in
my conceptual framework, for more constructive interactions. If he could see that the
institution’s belief was not the belief, he could construct transformative interactions and
experiences for students as he would be able to situate expectations and learning in the students
rather than the institution.
Normal is good. Mark used positive attributes such as “good” and “successful” to
describe “normal” students. For example, he described May as, “pretty much all of the
archetypes of someone we’d call a ‘good student.’ Someone who’s focused on. Well maybe not.”
He believed that “normal” was “good” through his interchange of these qualifiers. He also
believed that normal students were those who were successful. For example, he explained, “I
guess one crucial element of a successful student for our program is someone who’s willing to
speak their mind and be heard.” Here he expanded his belief of normal to include academic
success. He perceived that the institution saw academic success as the ability to speak one’s
mind. He further added that, “they’re comfortable discussing their ideas, but they’re also very
worried about grades.” Even though he perceived “normal” students to be performance oriented,
he did not go so far as to explicitly say that this was negative. He maintained a belief that
“normal” was something that was associated with success and something that was good. This
subconscious assumption revealed his lack of critical reflection about success. Within my
conceptual framework, a teacher’s belief system was both created and perpetuated within the
context of socially constructed normalcy (Baglieri et al., 2011; Davis, 1995; Heir, 2002; Hornstra
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 262
et al., 2010; Li, 1990; Solomon et al., 1996). His sense of normalcy as success was gleaned from
the context that he operated within.
Rooted in visibility. Mark pointed to student behaviors as the primary indicator of
student need. As a result, he conflated behavior with academic need. Since Mark was limited by
his context, in that he was not afforded the time or space to critically reflect, he looked for
actions that he believed were indicative of engagement. Since, Mark believed that motivation
was the number one attribute of student success, “normal” students were therefore those who
were engaged and motivated. Positive behaviors indicated that a student was engaged and
therefore motivated. For example, he described “normal” as
Someone who’s focused on grades over legitimate learning. Or someone who I don’t
know. Basically, just sits when they’re told to sit and then talks when they’re told to talk.
But I guess one crucial element of a successful student for our program is someone who’s
willing to speak their mind and be heard. Cause that’s a very important part of what we
do. If we do a lot of discussion based learning, students need to be able to discuss their
ideas. And so that’s one thing that we do encourage in a lot of our students. And the ones
that do well normally are the ones that engage in conversation. That they’re open to
discussing their ideas. They’re comfortable discussing their ideas, but they’re also very
worried about grades. The differences between our “normal students” would probably be
back on experience. Or cultural experiences the differences that they had growing up. We
do have students that are quiet that do well. It’s not like discussion is the only thing we
grade based on. But really it’s about if they’re engaged with the material. I think that
might be the kicker. Is if they’re engaged with the material and we can tell that in their
writing or in their discussion or in their projects or any other shape or form. They
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 263
normally tend to do pretty well. And the ones that are outliers are usually the ones that
aren’t engaged with the material.
Here he engaged in an in-the-moment reflection to identify the actions of a normal student, he
oscillated between focus, learning, and performance orientation as indicators of normalcy. After
he discursively thought about the qualities that made a “normal” student, he concluded that a
student’s behaviors were the measure of normalcy. Even though he had identified May as a
“normal student,” he grappled with whether he actually agreed or not. This grappling suggested
that be believed that the institution saw her as “normal” but was not sure if he agreed with that
assertion. In an attempt to measure this in the moment, he moved away from May specifically
and listed all the behaviors that summed up what he believed were the qualities that made any
student normal. He did this by shifting pronoun use from “we,” institutional, to “I,” individual.
He began with a student’s ability to “discuss their ideas.” This response not only reinforced his
belief that academic need was visible but was consistent with his belief that communication
patterns were an indicator of academic need. Without the opportunity or training on critical
reflection, he was left with doing whatever he could to help, limiting him to the surface by
staying grounded in the visible. This was consistent with Sieber’s (2008) and Heir’s (2002)
belief that dis/ability was centered on visibility. He did however believe that normal existed on a
range and did not have to look one particular way. In doing so, he identified that there were
expressional differences among “normal” students. He attributed these differences to cultural
experiences. He explained that some students were “quiet” but did well. This conditional
statement, revealed that he recognized some students articulated themselves differently and
believed that culture was the influential factor in their discourse patterns. He did not describe
what cultures in particular influenced a student being quiet. Here he expressed an awareness of
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 264
difference and exchanged race for culture. This mindset demonstrated that he was beginning to
see but still held an implicit blindness mindset as Milner (2010) described. He then pivoted his
thoughts to engagement, and concluded that it “might be the kicker.” He believed that
engagement with the material, irrespective of modality, was the indicator of student success.
Conversely, he believed that negative behaviors hinted at a lack of motivation. For
example, “the ones that are outliers are usually the ones that aren’t engaged with the material.”
He attributed engagement as the only measure of being an outlier. He saw engagement as
existing in a vacuum, believing that all students could be engaged and their level of engagement
was up to them, irrespective of other factors. Despite pointing to engagement as the indicator of
normalcy, he did not define what engagement looked like. This left engagement to be something
that was subjective or measured using his gut, rather than something that he could quantify
through critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002). His response reinforced the
relationship between belief system and the interactions experienced in the classroom space
(Hornstra et al., 2010). Mark was limited by his context, and he was unable to critically reflect
since he did not have the opportunity to do so or the training on how to do so. This resulted in
normative decisions that had unintended destructive consequences.
Majority rule. Mark used in-grouping as one way to measure normalcy. When he
described Jennifer’s behaviors, he qualified them to be different from her peers’. He validated
her behaviors as difficult by measuring them against what the in-group perceived to be normal.
For example, “The students know right off the bat that, ‘cause she’ll yell things out sometimes
without really prompting. She’ll just kind of say things without me having asked a question, etc.
And so, the students have a general understanding of ‘Oh well she’s different.’ Here, he
referenced Jennifer’s peers in an evaluative way by using their perception as validation that her
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 265
behavior was different and that it was such a visible indicator in the classroom culture that her
peers “know right off the bat” that she is different. This suggested a distinct grouping of students,
an in-group and an out-group. In this case, Jennifer’s classmates were the in-group, the
measurers of her behavior, labeling her as an outsider. Here he identified Jennifer’s behavior,
“yell things out sometimes”, as an indicator of her out-grouping, concluding that this is what
makes her different in the setting. This othering process identified Jennifer as a perceived other
within the classroom space because she was seen as different from the in-group.
Difficulty Meaning-Making
Mark made meaning of “difficult” as a student who exhibited “behavioral issues.” He
explained that he did not experience “behavior issues” and attributed this to student engagement.
Mark believed that all behaviors were a reaction to the level of engagement in the classroom and
that a lack of engagement was the root of difficult behaviors. For example, he said
I don’t really have students that are huge behavior issues. I think that’s one of the benefits
of having the majority of your students be engaged in learning. Because there’s a sort of
policing that takes place amongst themselves, rather than just from the teacher. There’s a
lot of that.
Here he believed difficult to mean behavior issues. In his mind, behavior issues were something
“huge” and connected to engagement. As such, he explained that he did not really experience
these huge behaviors within his setting because engagement was high. He believed that difficult
behaviors manifested when there was a lack of engagement. Additionally, he believed that
students were collectively committed to the maintenance of a learning space that they regulated
each other through “policing.” This collective regulation was a “benefit” of having a space
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 266
committed to learning. These “policing” behaviors were perceived to be okay so long as they
were intended to preserve learning in the classroom space.
In his description of students, he identified Jennifer as a student who could be difficult
but attributed this difficulty to her motivation. When asked more specifically about Jennifer, he
pointed to her behaviors as the primary indicator of her difficulties in the classroom even though
he believed her to not be a behavior problem. For example,
This particular student. The one that I’m thinking of, she’s not a behavior issue, but it’s
more of a motivation issue. It’s also a literacy issue. And then it’s I would say it’s those
two. And then there’s a couple of social issues there too, not understanding social cues
and things like that.
He identified several areas that Jennifer struggled with but ultimately perceived her to have
motivation issues. Jennifer’s behaviors were difficult because they disrupted learning.
Beliefs About Behavior Management. Mark’s orientation towards using behavior as a
measure of academic need necessitated an understanding of his perception of acceptable versus
concerning behaviors. His perception of these behaviors was embedded in his behavior
management approach and his understanding of it. During the final interview, he clearly
explained that he did not have a philosophy when it came to behavior management. Instead, he
ascribed to generalized set of ideas that his approach to behavior management was inspired by.
After an in-the-moment reflection, he concluded that a consistent approach to all behaviors
allowed students to feel comfortable in the space to elicit their ideas. For Mark, behavior
management was a way to ensure learning was not stifled. For example,
That’s a big question. [laughter] That’s a big one. I’d say I’m not much of an
authoritarian figure. I don’t think at least. I feel like it’s, I have my class a lot more
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 267
student driven. And so, I understand that my role as classroom manager is not one where
I’m telling, or ‘cause I do do that. I guess it’s always been not drawing attention to
negative behavior. I don’t, I don’t know if I have a philosophy. I’m trying to think about
if I can craft one on the spot right now based on what I do. I think being consistent with
like rewards and punishments. Thinking about like if one student does this I also have to
give that same consequence to other students and they know that I will. So, that’s
something that is across the board. I also, I think allowing them, giving them space to
speak their mind makes them respect my position a little bit more because they know that
they can, they’re not going to be shut down or judged for what they say. And that sort of
navigate the classroom a little bit better. I don’t know. That’s pretty much it.
Here he mentioned “negative” behavior but did not explain what this was. It was therefore not
clear what was considered good versus bed behaviors within his classroom. His description
suggested that there was a mutual understanding within the space of what was good and what
was bad. The ability for everyone to feel comfortable enough to participate was the primary
concern. However as demonstrated by the data, if a student did not know what this was, it would
have been difficult to determine, leaving students to either experiment behaviors and use teacher
feedback to get a better understanding of what was acceptable or not participate.
Within his description of his own behavioral management system, he expressed a desire
for students to be able to navigate the classroom well. Mark believed it was important for
students to be able to participate in the class without feeling judged. He identified himself as the
source of creating comfort in the space but spoke about his role generally. He did not identify
specific strategies he used to help students feel more comfortable.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 268
For example, when asked about specific strategies that he used, he said
I think being consistent with like rewards and punishments. Thinking about like if one
student does this I also have to give that same consequence to other students and they
know that I will. So, that’s something that is across the board.
Here his response indicated that he had not engaged in critical reflection about his behavior
management system. Mark’s response was surface level and did not include reasoning for his
actions. He maintained “same consequence(s)” for all students but did not explain why. This
sameness is indicative of Milner’s (2010) blind and meritocracy mindset.
Negative Behaviors. Mark perceived negative behaviors to be those that disrupted
learning. He only got involved when a student threatened the learning of others. For example, he
explained that negative behaviors were
Anything that disrupts the classroom environment. So, that can include anything from
speaking out of turn to you know laughing. Just depends on the context really. I just think
if it disrupts the classroom environment we’re talking about it being a space of learning
and if this helps with that, then I have to intervene. But that looks different in different
cases, I think.
Here he reinforced his belief that learning was the primary goal of a classroom space. He
perceived his role as a teacher was to help create and maintain the classroom as a learning
environment. According to this belief system, negative behaviors within this context were those
that disrupted learning. He revealed that context was what determined if a behavior was
disruptive or not. He explained that he did not have a uniform response to behaviors and would
react differently according to the context of what happened. His belief that consistency was an
important factor of a behavioral management system when intersected with this revealed that
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 269
consistency might not mean approach but that a disruptive behavior is addressed. As such, Mark
was first focused on maintaining the learning space for the whole group then the individual. He
had different approaches based first on the context of learning and not individual student need.
Students’ Role in Behavior Management. Mark believed that a behavior management
system should be built with the intention of increasing student voice within a classroom space. It
was important for him to create a space where students were able to tell their side of a story and
not just have their behaviors qualified in the moment. For example,
I want to give students that space to speak about what happened to them and then deal
with it accordingly. But it’s always students drive first. So, I give them the opportunity to
correct their behavior first, before going to their parents or going to administration.
Here he explained that he wanted students to be able to correct their behaviors instead of being
admonished immediately. This approach was rooted in Mark’s desire to create a learning
environment. The ability to correct a behavior was an opportunity to learn. Motivation to learn
was the primary concern again as he explained “it’s always student drive first.” This reinforced
his belief that motivation was the primary indicator of learning. He believed that if a student was
driven, they would learn, causing him to fall into meritocracy mindset (Milner, 2010) which
asserted that all people were born with the same opportunities, and it was up to the individual to
just work harder. This mindset, within my conceptual framework, would position Mark’s actions
on the normative side of the teacher-student interaction continuum.
Unspoken norms. Mark’s behavior management system included unspoken norms. His
articulation of his own behavior management system included embedded assumptions about
acceptable behaviors. For example, when describing some of Jennifer’s behaviors, he said that
“she’ll yell things out sometimes without really prompting. She’ll just kind of say things without
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 270
me having asked a question, etc.” Here he revealed that an expectation in the classroom was that
a student should not yell out, otherwise they are not acting in line with the rules of the room. He
neither explained this as an articulated expectation espoused at the beginning of the year or had a
set of classroom rules posted in the classroom. Without these being an explicit expectation, some
students may not realize that this is not an acceptable behavior. In his explanation above, he
described yelling out as an assumed behavioral expectation in the space. In that, it was
acceptable for a student to “yell out” so long as they were prompted. As such, Jennifer was not
socialized to not yell out unless a teacher had prompted her. He created a climate in his
classroom where there were hidden norms. If one was not aware of these norms, then he/she
would be ostracized. Mark inadvertently positioned Jennifer in a way that put her at a
disadvantage to her peers.
Mark espoused a set of explicit beliefs that held implicit meanings during the interviews.
He was a well-intentioned teacher who wanted to level the playing field for students and
believed that teaching was a vehicle through which he could achieve this goal. However, his lack
of reflection left him with superficial understandings of the complexities that hindered his ability
to operationalize his desire to level the playing field for all students. He was further limited by
the context he operated within as it did not afford him the time, space or training to develop a
critical reflection practice. As such, he often defaulted to the way that he was taught, causing him
to make pedagogical decisions that were rooted in alignment rather than intelligent action
(Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002). His limited awareness, as ascertained from his explicit and
implicit beliefs, likely placed him on the normative side of the teacher-interaction continuum. In
this next section, I will examine how his beliefs were acted out through teacher-student
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 271
interactions to determine if he did in fact exhibit more normative interactions with students,
leading to unintended destructive consequences.
Research Question Two: How Does a Teacher’s Beliefs Regarding Dis/ability,
Race/Ethnicity, and Gender Shape How He Interacts with His Students to Provide
Support?
Data collected from interviews and observations revealed an approach to teaching that
influenced the quality and selectivity of teacher-student interactions. In this section, I will
examine how his blind and meritocracy leaning mindset was further conflated by the interactions
he experienced in the classroom space (Hornstra et al., 2010) resulting in the inadvertent
perpetuation of inequitable interactions within his classroom. This was specifically seen in an
analysis of his communication patterns, as it revealed that visibility played a significant role in
the frequency and quality of teacher-student interactions. These interactions either confirmed or
disproved socially constructed senses of normalcy. If a student was determined to fit within the
socially acceptable range of normal, he/she received more constructive interactions whereas
students who were determined to be abnormal would usually unintentionally endure destructive
interactions that led to either special education placement or behavioral admonishment. The
interactions experienced by students with dis/abilities were subject to a teacher’s perception of
dis/ability. Siebers’s (2008) notion of visibility married with Butler’s construction of materialism
both pointed to the physicality of dis/ability as a determining factor of dis/ability legitimization. I
proposed that visibility also affected the quality of interaction a student received. If a teacher
held a color-blind or neutral mindset (Milner, 2010), the visibility of a student was incomplete.
Additionally, when intersected with other variables such as race (Leonardo, 2009), gender
(Sadker & Sadker, 1994) and socio-economic status, students experienced different interactions
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 272
in the classroom. The terms constructive and destructive carry a particular weight with them, that
is important to unpack. These two words can assume a malicious intention. The data I gathered
from my interviews and observations made it clear that Mark did not have mal intent. Rather, his
limited reflection and context restricted his ability to see the consequences his actions had on
students.
Frequency
In this section I will examine teacher-student interactions across 16 hours of observation.
Of the 16 hours of observation, 13 hours were during structured classroom periods and 3 hours
were during passing and nutrition periods in Mark’s classroom. During each hour of structured
class time, I counted the number of times Mark initiated participation from a student and the
amount of times a student initiated participation. Initiation was defined as verbal or non-verbal
behavior that incited a student response. I also tallied student participation rates and Mark’s
responses across lines of race/ethnicity. I defined participation as the elicitation of any form of
engagement, irrespective of quality. I found that students who participated more frequently
during class, regardless of their contribution to the discussion, interacted more with Mark than
students who did not.
In this section, I will outline the voices that were present in the classroom space across
lines of race/ethnicity and gender during both unstructured and structured time.
Unstructured time. Across all unstructured time observations, Mark initiated
conversations with female students more frequently than their male counterparts. Within the
context of these observations, unstructured times included nutrition periods and passing periods
before and after the bell rang for class.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 273
The following interaction was representative of his initiation during unstructured times,
T: [Laughs and slowly walks away and towards a group of female students at
the front of the classroom]
T: [Taps her desk and says in a nice tone] Morning.
May: Morning Mr. Lee [Immediately begins to take out her materials (i.e.,
notebook, paper, and book)]
T: [Smiles and walks towards another group of students directly across from
May]
Mark greeted female students using both verbal and non-verbal cueing. The regularity by which
he initiated interactions with female students acknowledged that he was aware of a lack of
collective female initiation, yet because he had not engaged in critical reflection, he had not
taken intelligent action on this realization. As a result, his check-ins were not transformative, but
unintentionally constructive.
During these unstructured times, male students initiated conversations with Mark. The
following interaction between Jim, an Asian Male student and Mark was representative of the
interactions initiated by male students during unstructured time
Jim: Mr. Lee, see what I made [Pointing to a project he brought in. Looks like a
basketball hoop].
T: [Smiles and gets up from his desk] Nice!
Jim: Watch. [Goes to shoot something into the hoop]
[Jim (Male student of Asian descent) goes to shoot a balled-up paper into
the recycle bin at the entrance of the classroom. He misses the shot.].
[Verbal interaction begins]
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 274
T: [Laughs and says in a joking tone] ooooh...missed. Take a lap
Jim: I got you [Jim goes back to reshoot and makes it into the recycle. Smiles
and looks over at T]
This interaction occurred during a 5-minute transition period before class started. Their
interaction was colloquial, both used humor and positive facial gestures such as smiling. This
interaction demonstrated the comfortable relationship shared between teacher and student as
exemplified by the use of humor. Here, Jim, initiated an interaction with Mark about a project he
completed. He wanted to share what he had created with Mark. The teacher’s initial response
was short and created an opportunity for Jim to abandon the interaction. However, rather than
leaving the interaction there, he initiated again by requesting the teacher to “watch.” This action
extended the interaction between the two and demonstrated that the student wanted more
interactions with the teacher. Mark had created a space for Jim to ask again, taking action on his
male currency in the classroom. He did not give Jim explicit feedback that he was not going to
interact with him because he was interacting with another student. Throughout the observations,
male students consistently sought out interactions with Mark during both structured and
unstructured times. Mark only engaged with male students when they initiated. He did not seek
out male students either verbally or non-verbally. Even though he did not seek out interactions
with males, they used their agency to take action and take interaction time from Mark.
Additionally, since Mark had not engaged in critical reflection, he was unaware that male
students were using their agency to take more of his time, inadvertently resulting in time away
from female students. As a result, he inadvertently perpetuated inequities within the classroom
space by making room for normative interactions. He attempted to engage females, but, as there
was no evidence he engaged in critical reflection on gendered engagement, he was unable to take
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 275
intelligent action (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002). His actions during unstructured time were
normative and unintentionally destructive.
Structured time: initiate to participate. During a class period, Mark engaged with
students only once they initiated. Throughout the course of the 13 hours of structured classroom
observations, Mark did not call on one student who did not raise their hand or blurt out. As a
result, students self-selected their own level of engagement in the classroom. The number of
students who participated in the class was therefore based on their willingness to volunteer a
response. The following interaction is representative of the teacher-student interactions that
occurred across the observations of structured class times
T: [To the whole class] How would you put that together in a sentence?
[Pause. T scans the room. Sees a female student raising their hand] May.
May: So basically as Little Green had to give up her individuality and humanity,
Anchee Min begins to question the acts of the Communist Party.
T: Good. You would actually be a little bit less specific in your message part
because you still have to add a literary device to that. But yeah, that’s a
good, that’s a good attempt. The idea that it’s the loss of humanity that
happens at Red Fire Farm or with Little Green whatever example you
want to use, that eventually leads to her gradual disillusionment with the
Communist Party. [T scans the room and sees female student raising her
hand] Sally.
Sally: I said that in her memoir Red Azalea, Anchee Min explains how the
stripping of humanity through work exemplifies what the Communist
Party.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 276
T: Does that answer the question? Read it one more time.
Sally: I didn’t write it down.
T: Oh you didn’t write it down. Cause you’re saying it exemplifies how,
what?
Sally: How it explored the Communist Party?
T: Does that answer the question?
Sally: Um, no.
T: Gradual disillusionment with the Communist Party. So you gotta make
sure that you’re addressing the prompt. And with yours, I also want to
mention that the message is not enough. The message is just one part of
the topic sentence. The other part is what? The literary device, the literary
element. You have to have that part there.
Sally: Like you mean a metaphor?
T: A metaphor or the symbol or tone or diction. Whatever literary element
you want to choose.
The above interaction was representative of Mark’s interaction style during structured class time.
He would pose a question to the class and scan the room for volunteers. If only 1 student raised
their hand, he often built in wait time and used humor to elicit more volunteers. He would only
call on a student who volunteered a response, this created a space for students to use their own
agency to participate in class. Here, Sally, a white female, and May, an Asian female, initiated
the teacher-student interaction. Their participation as females was not initiated by pedagogical
choices made in the classroom, rather it was the result of their own desire to participate. Mark
may have structured a comfortable environment for Sally and May to participate, but there was
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 277
no evidence that this was intentional or the result of intelligent action as a result of critical
reflection, rather it was the result of consequence and alignment. The structure of the class
further compounded the benefit of initiation. His classes were discussion-based and these
discussions were led by him. Students participated in these class discussions by either raising
their hand or blurting out a response. The free-form nature of the class structure, created a
conversational tone that included unspoken norms of when it was okay to blurt out a response or
not. These hidden norms made it difficult for students who were unaware of these norms to
participate effectively. As a result, female participation rates were not the result of
transformative experiences, but normative practices. Mark was unaware (Rogers, 2002) of the
discrepancies and normative classroom climate he had created, revealing a context neutral and
blind mindset (Milner, 2010).
Who. Across the 13 hours of structured classroom observations, I tallied the participating
voices in the space. I qualified any response as participation. I began by tallying the total number
of students in each period and then delineated these totals along lines of race/ethnicity and
gender. Period two’s demographics are represented in the Table 1 below.
Table 3
Mark’s Period Two Demographic Totals
Demographics Female Male Total
Asian 3 5 8
Black 1 1 2
Latin@ 4 11 15
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
White 6 4 10
Totals 14 21 35
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 278
Mark’s period three demographic totals are outlined in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Mark’s Period 3 Demographic Totals
Demographics Female Male Total
Asian 5 4 9
Black 0 2 2
Latin@ 4 5 9
Pacific Islander 1 0 1
White 5 7 12
Totals 15 18 33
These totals were based on my perception of race/ethnicity and gender and not the students’ own
connection to these identity markers. I began by tallying the total number of voices that were
present in the classroom space. This tallying occurred any time a student spoke in the space
irrespective of the quality of their participation. These tallies do not take into consideration
personality variations and how this may have influenced a student’s individual participation
frequency. Once, I tallied all the voices, I categorized these numbers along perceived gender
lines. The tables below outlined the voices I captured along lines of gender.
Table 5
Period 2 Gendered Participation Tallies For 4 Hours of Structured Classroom Observations
Student Demographic Female Male Total
Asian 1 51 52
Black 7 5 12
Latin@ 59 6 65
Pacific Islander NA NA NA
White 21 46 67
Totals 88 108 196
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 279
Table 6
Period 3 Gendered Participation Tallies For 6 Hours of Structured Classroom Observations
Student Demographic Female Male Total
Asian 17 66 83
Black NA 5 5
Latin@ 86 23 109
Pacific Islander 24 NA 24
White 53 56 109
Totals 180 150 330
Next, I determined the percentage of participation across lines of race/ethnicity and
gender and created two columns: percentage of participation and percentage of class population,
respectively. To create the first column, I divided the number of times each sub group
participated by the total number of students. This calculation assumed that each student had an
equal opportunity to participate in the class. To create the second column, I divided the total
number of students within a subgroup by the total number of students.
Table 7
Period 2 Gendered Participation Rates For 4 Hours of Structured Classroom Observations
Gender % Of Participation % of Class Population
Female 45% 40%
Male 55% 60%
In period 2, female students participated more than their representative sample in the class.
Whereas, male students participated less than their representative sample.
Table 8
Period 3 Gendered Participation Rates For 6 Hours of Structured Classroom Observations
Gender % Of Participation % of Class Population
Female 55% 45%
Male 45% 55%
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 280
Observation data revealed that this pattern of participation remained consistent in period 3.
Female students participated more than their representative sample, whereas male students
participated less than their representative sample.
Next, I disaggregated structured classroom participation rates along lines of race/ethnicity
to better understand frequency patterns.
Table 9
Period 2 Participation Tallies Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Participation Tallies
Asian 52
Black 12
Latin@ 65
Pacific Islander NA
White 67
Total 196
Within Mark’s second period class, white, followed by Latin@ students were the most frequently
participating voices in the space. Specifically, white voices accounted for 34% and Latin@
voices accounted for 33% of the participating voices across 4 hours of observation. Within this
span of time, a similar frequency pattern emerged in his Period 3 class despite demographic
differences and length of observation.
Table 10
Period 3 Participation Tallies Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Participation Tallies
Asian 83
Black 5
Latin@ 109
Pacific Islander 24
White 109
Total 330
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 281
These tallies from his third period class confirmed a pattern of white dominance across these
class periods within the hours observed. Since Mark did not have the opportunity or training on
how to engage in critical reflection, he inadvertently maintained hegemonic order (Brookfield,
2010) within his classroom. He was unaware of the patterns of participation, causing him to
create a normative climate. To better understand these tallies, I contextualized them by
comparing them to race/ethnicity demographic make-up of each of the two classes. The table
below evaluated participation rates to representation rates.
Table 11
Period 2 Participation Rates Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity % Of Participation % Of Class Population
Asian 27% 23%
Black 6% 6%
Latin@ 33% 43%
Pacific Islander NA NA
White 34% 26%
When the data was disaggregated along lines of race/ethnic, variations in participation rates
emerged. The most prevalent voice across 4 hours of observation in his second period class were
white students. They participated 8% more than their representative sample in the class. The
second most prevalent voice belonged to Latin@ students yet they participated less than their
representation in the class. They participated 10% less than their representative sample. Asian
students participated 4% more than their representative sample. These participation rates further
reveal the lack of reflection Mark engaged in as he had created a climate that was discordant
with his intention—creating opportunity for those who might not otherwise have it. This
discordance highlighted how Mark wanted to use education to create equality but was unable to
because he was unaware of where inequality existed in his classroom. His was implicitly
perpetuating the very thing that he wanted to disrupt (Bartolomé, 2004). This placed his
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 282
classroom climate and pedagogical choices on the normative end of the teacher-student
interaction continuum within my conceptual framework.
Table 12
Period 3 Participation Rates Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity % Of Participation % Of Class Population
Asian 26% 27%
Black 2% 6%
Latin@ 33% 27%
Pacific Islander 7% 3%
White 33% 39%
In Mark’s third period class, participation rates held some consistent patterns but also
revealed divergent patterns. Consistent across both periods, white and Latin@ voices were heard
the most. Whites were the most likely to talk of any subgroup represented in Mark’s second and
third period classes. However, representative participation rates varied within these groups.
Whites in his third period class participated less than their representation, whereas Latin@
students participated more than their representation. Black students in his second period class
participated at the same rate as their representation, whereas in his third period class, they
participated 4% less than their representation. Divergent patterns did not appear to be the result
of pedagogical action taken to intentionally disrupt hegemonic structures, rather they seemed to
be the result of consequence.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 283
Finally, to better understand the representation of voices heard in the space, I tallied
participation rates along intersecting lines of race and ethnicity.
Table 13
Period 2 Participation Along Intersecting Lines of Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Gender & Race/Ethnicity % Of Participation % Of Class Population
Asian Male 26% 14%
Asian Female .05% 9%
Black Male 3% 3%
Black Female 4% 3%
Latin@ Male 3% 31%
Latin@ Female 30% 11%
Pacific Islander Female NA NA
White Male 23% 11%
White Female 11% 17%
The data is separated into two columns, participation rates and classroom demographic
representation. These numbers were placed side-by-side to contextualize frequency totals with
representation. When participation rates were evaluated along intersecting lines of race/ethnicity
and gender, several disparities emerged from the data set. In order of frequency, Latin@ females
accounted for the highest percentage of participation. Even though Latin@ females represented
11% of the population of Mark’s second period class, they accounted for 30% of the voices
within the classroom space. Second to Latin@ females, were Asian Males. Even though they
represented 14% of the overall class population, they were second most present voice in the
classroom space at 26%. Third, were white males as they accounted for 23% of the voices in the
space. Diversity in female voices was less than within male voices. Latin@ females represented
the largest chunk of the overall female voice heard in the space. The voices that participated less
than their representation in period 2 were Asian females, Latin@ males, and white females. The
underrepresentation of Latin@ male voices paved the way for white voices to be heard overall
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 284
more frequently than Latin@ voices collectively. Both white males and Latin@ females
accounted for 4 students each.
Table 14
Period 3 Participation Along Intersecting Lines of Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Gender & Race/Ethnicity % Of Participation % Of Class Population
Asian Male 20% 12%
Asian Female 5% 15%
Black Male 1% 6%
Black Female NA NA
Latin@ Male 7% 15%
Latin@ Female 26% 12%
Pacific Islander Female 7% 3%
White Male 17% 21%
White Female 16% 15%
In Mark’s third period class, the frequency pattern held true despite slight variations in
demographic representation. Latin@ females participated the most followed by Asian males and
white males. Latin@ males and Asian females also participated significantly less than their
representation in the class. A single differential pattern emerged from Mark’s third period data
than what was present in his second period data. Black voices were present less than their
representative sample. In 6 hours of structured class time observations, black voices were present
only 1%.
Across both periods, gendered voice differentials within each group were male dominant
except in groups that there were no males or within Latin@ grouping. When Asian voices were
present, they were more likely to be male than female. This was also true for white student
voices. Across both periods, Latin@ females disrupted the normative pattern of male dominate
voices within the structured classroom space.
Across the evaluative measures, intersectionality revealed more disparities in
participation rates than race/ethnicity or gender alone. Mark’s limited reflection could cause him
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 285
to overlook intersecting markers and inadvertently perpetuate inequities. It was beyond the scope
of this data set to determine if these participation rates were attributed to Mark’s interactions, the
students themselves, or some intersection of both. Additionally, this data did not capture the
nature and/or quality of their interactions. These rates were merely an account of how many
voices were present in the classroom space irrespective of the conditions that inspired a student
to participate or the quality of these interactions. Therefore, in order to understand variations in
Mark’s interactions with students along lines of race/ethnicity and gender, I needed to compare
the quality of Mark’s interactions with frequency. In the next section, I will evaluate the quality
of these interactions by coding Mark’s responses.
Quality
The frequency and quality of Mark’s interactions with students along lines of gender and
race/ethnicity unearthed a set of implicit beliefs embedded within his communication patterns.
He privileged white and Asian students while ignoring Latina students. As a result, he
subconsciously maintained dominant white culture within the classroom space while also
privileging his own racial group.
While coding his interactions, two primary categories emerged: constructive and
destructive. Constructive interactions were defined as any interaction that would encourage a
student to participate again in class. Within this category, I identified four subcategories: praise,
humor, affirmation without praise, and verbal feedback. Conversely, destructive interactions
were defined as teacher interactions that could discourage a student from participating again in
class. Within this category, I identified four subcategories: interrupts, direct “no,” ignores, and
dismisses. These terms carry with them a particular weight of intention. Data collected from
Mark’s interviews and observations revealed that he did not have any mal intent, rather he really
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 286
wanted to help students but was limited by his context and awareness. It is also important to note
that a delimitation of this study was that student meaning-making was not included as I did not
interview students to see how a given interaction landed on them. As a result, all qualifications of
transformative/constructive and normative/destructive were based on my interpretation.
Comparatively, as indicated by the observational data, Mark interacted with students
more constructively than destructively. The frequency of these constructive interactions varied
across identity markers of gender, race/ethnicity, and intersectionality. I aggregated the data from
all 13 hours of structured classroom observations because when disaggregated, Mark’s patterns
of communication across student identity markers were consistent across both periods despite
demographic variations. All trends that emerged from my analysis of Mark’s interaction patterns
from period 2 and period 3 held true despite the quantity of observation hours respectively within
each of these periods. Therefore, in order to speak about the emergent themes from this data, I
chose to aggregate so that I could speak about these patterns in a thematic way.
In this section, I will examine the frequency of constructive and destructive interactions
first along gender lines, then race/ethnicity, and finally the intersection of gender and
race/ethnicity.
Gender. The data collected revealed that Mark used different forms of communication
with females than with males. This influenced the gendered socialization of students within the
classroom space.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 287
Table 15
Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Gender Lines Across 10 Hours of
Observation
Total Constructive Interactions Tallied from Periods 2 and 3 Female Male Totals
Praise 45 70 115
Humor 33 63 96
Affirms Response Without Praise 20 20 40
Provides Verbal Feedback 48 55 103
Total Constructive Interactions 146 208 354
Table 16
Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Gender Lines Across 10 Hours of
Observations
Total Destructive Interactions Tallied from Periods 2 and 3 Female Male Totals
Interrupts 23 29 52
Direct “no” 11 42 53
Ignores 66 41 107
Dismisses 84 12 96
Total Dismisses Interactions 184 124 308
Across 13 hours of structured class observations, Mark interacted more frequently with
male students than with female students. This was consistent with the data collected from the
unstructured and structured frequency tallies, further confirming his inadvertent perpetuation of
male dominance within his classroom. He was also most likely to interact constructively with
male students than with female students. When interacting with female students, Mark was the
most likely to engage in normative interactions through dismissal, creating the potential for
destructive implications. Whereas, with male students, he was most likely to constructively
interact through praise. These discrepancies revealed a pattern of communication that differed
according to a student’s gender. These different gendered experiences revealed how Mark
communicated with his students.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 288
Female students within Mark’s second and third period classes were socialized within the
classroom space to anticipate being dismissed or ignored. This was because a majority of his
interactions with female students were categorized as destructive since forty-five percent of his
interactions fell within two destructive subcategories. Female students were dismissed twenty-
five percent of the time and they were ignored twenty percent of the time. It is important to note
that the quality of student responses was not evaluated and fell outside the scope of this case
study. The data collected only examined Mark’s interactions with students irrespective of the
quality of student responses.
When Mark constructively interacted with female students, he was the most likely to
offer verbal feedback. This type of interaction took place during whole class discussions and
were provided only once a student had elicited a response. The following interaction was
representative of verbal feedback between Mark and female students
May: So basically as Little Green had to give up her individuality and humanity,
Anchee Min begins to question the acts of the Communist Party.
T: You would actually be a little bit less specific in your message part
because you still have to add a literary device to that. But yeah, that’s a
good, that’s a good attempt.
Here he used verbal feedback to support May while also qualifying that her attempt was “good.”
His response began with verbal feedback as he pointed out spaces May could expand her answer.
At the end of his response, he offered praise by explaining that it was a “good attempt.” Here he
reinforced her participation by noting that even though her answer may not have been completely
what he was looking for, it was good that she tried. He wanted to encourage her to participate
and offered praise as a form of encouragement. This form of communication was the most
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 289
prevalent in his interactions with female students. This pattern socialized female students to
anticipate correction when they volunteered a response.
Praise was the second most used form of constructive interaction when interacting with
female students. Praise was defined as a positively qualifying statement. The following response
to a student’s answer was representative of Mark’s form of praise, “Exactly. Excellent work.
Very good.” He patterned praise responses through string qualifiers and expressed it verbally in
front of the entire class. Of the interactions, this appeared to have the most positive influence on
students as they would often smile, take more risks, and be more likely to offer another response.
When compared to male student interactions, his use of praise with female students was
lower. Of all the male interactions, 33% involved praise and accounted for 28% of all female
interactions.
Mark was twice as likely to use humor with male students than with females. Humor
established comradery between teacher and student. Mark used this form of verbal interaction to
bring levity into interactions and provide feedback to students in a non-formal way.
Jessie: [Towards T] What are you doing for summer?
T: [Smiles and looks up] Grading your papers [leans back in his chair]
Jessie: [Laughs] Noooo, like for fun.
T: That is fun [Makes a funny face]
Here he used humor when Jessie asked him a question during a nutrition break between class
periods. Mark did not use humor with all students, rather he used it with students of a particular
personality type. He typically used humor with students who were aligned with his own
personality - dry sense of humor, sarcastic, and a masculine energy. Jessie, a Latin@ female
student in his second period class, was closely aligned to his own personality. It is interesting
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 290
that he used humor with her but not with a student like May, a quiet Asian female student in his
third period class. His selective use of humor suggested that he believed humor was something
that females responded to differently. Comparatively, his selective use with female students
suggested that he believed females and males communicated differently.
He was least likely to offer female students affirmation without praise. This form of
communication accounted for only 12% of constructive interactions. To affirm that an answer is
correct is to acknowledge a mutually agreed upon response, whereas praise is the qualification of
that mutually agreed upon response. Finally, affirmation intended to confirm a response whereas
praise was intended to qualify it. The data revealed that his overall interactions with females fell
into the normative/destructive category.
Race/ethnicity. Mark’s interactions with students varied along lines of race/ethnicity.
The data revealed a pattern of behavior that privileged white students more than any other
demographic group from his second and third period classes.
Table 17
Tallied Totals of Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Across 10 Hours of Observations
Total Constructive Interactions Asian Black Latin@ Pacific Islander White
Praise 20 6 18 11 60
Humor 29 1 20 6 40
Affirms responses without praise 8 4 21 1 6
Provides Verbal Feedback 32 3 13 7 48
Total Constructive Interactions 89 14 66 24 151
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 291
Table 18
Tallied Totals of Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Lines of Race/Ethnicity
Across 10 Hours of Observations
Total Constructive Interactions Asian Black Latin@ Pacific Islander White
Interrupts 10 2 28 4 8
Direct “no” 26 1 15 1 10
Ignores 26 10 48 4 19
Dismisses 10 18 47 8 13
Total Destructive Interactions 72 31 138 17 50
White students experienced the most constructive interactions while simultaneously
experiencing the second lowest rate of destructive interactions overall. This communication
pattern revealed a privileging that encouraged white students to participate more across both
class periods. This coupled with their rate of praise, socialized white students to be rewarded
more often for their participation than any other group. Conversely, Latin@ students experienced
the most destructive interactions than any other subgroup. They were either ignored or
dismissed, socializing Latin@ females to expect potentially destructive interactions more than
constructive ones. This data further confirmed his inadvertent perpetuation of normative
structures as his limited reflection was acted out within his interactions with students along lines
racial/ethnic lines in normative ways.
Intersectionality. To further understand how Mark’s explicit beliefs regarding gender and
race/ethnicity were acted out through his interactions with students, I further analyzed the data
according to the intersection of these two qualities.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 292
Table 19
Tallied Totals of Mark’s Constructive Interactions with Students Along Intersecting Lines of
Gender And Race/Ethnicity Across 10 Hours of Observations
Constructive
Interactions
Asian
Males
Asian
Females
Black
Males
Black
Females
Latin@
Females
Latin@
Males
Pacific
Islander
Female
White
Males
White
Females
Totals
Praise 14 6 4 2 12 6 11 35 25 115
Humor 27 2 1 0 8 12 6 31 9 96
Affirms
without
Praise
4 4 1 3 7 14 1 4 2 40
Provides
Verbal
Feedback
27 5 2 1 2 11 7 27 21 103
Table 20
Tallied Totals of Mark’s Destructive Interactions with Students Along Intersecting Lines of
Gender and Race/Ethnicity Across 10 Hours of Observations
Destructive
Interactions
Asian
Males
Asian
Females
Black
Males
Black
Females
Latin@
Females
Latin@
Males
Pacific
Islander
Female
White
Males
White
Females
Totals
Interrupts 8 2 0 2 19 9 4 6 6 52
Direct “no” 22 4 0 1 2 13 1 7 7 53
Ignores 23 3 4 6 27 21 4 12 12 107
Dismisses 10 0 8 10 30 17 8 3 3 96
Despite his leaning toward constructive interactions with students, disparities emerged in
Mark’s constructive interactions when gender and race/ethnicity were accounted for. Across
these intersecting lines, he constructively interacted with white males the most, followed by
Asian males then white females and Latinas. These interaction disparities, as evidenced in the
observational data, unearthed implicit inequities and the presence of white dominance within the
classroom space.
Latina students. The largest disparity was revealed in Mark’s interactions with Latina
students. Even though Latina students accounted for the largest demographic population in the
two classes observed, they were the fourth group most likely to have a constructive interaction
with Mark. They were second to white female students, reinforcing white dominant culture,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 293
especially within gendered experiences. Of these constructive interactions, they were most likely
to receive praise, followed by humor, affirmation without praise and verbal feedback.
White females. White females experienced the highest frequency of praise of any female
group. Across female interactions, they also experienced the second lowest rate of destructive
interactions. This socialized white females to expect praise when they elicited a response over
any categorically defined destructive interaction. Mark’s communication patterns with white
females reinforced his maintenance of white dominate culture within the classroom space.
White males. Since white males are representative of dominant culture, his interaction
frequency with this group suggested that white dominant culture was prevalent in his classroom.
He interacted with white males the most of any group. This frequency encouraged white males to
participate more as they received the most constructive attention from Mark. Within these
constructive interactions, he was also the most likely to praise white males. Based on the
constructive communication patterns collected above, white males were socialized within the
classroom space to be praised or provided with verbal feedback on their responses. Mark’s
colorblindness led him to inadvertently praise white males disproportionately as he was unable to
see the influence race had on learning opportunities. This is in line with Milner’s (2010) findings
as related to opportunity gaps. Since he was unintentionally selective with his constructive
interactions, he inadvertently created an opportunity gap between white and non-white students.
Asian males. The frequency of constructive interaction with this subgroup was
interesting as it was the group that Mark self-identified with. His interactions with this group
were patterned differently from the other groups. Mark used a significant amount of humor while
interacting with Asian Males. Mark used this humor in a way that established a sense of
comradery.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 294
Each transformative/constructive and normative/destructive interaction did not
necessarily hold equal influence on a student’s meaning making process. This could vary based
on a student’s personal history, connection to a particular racial/ethnic historical and/or gendered
struggle, other identity marker and its respective fluidity, and/or outside influence that was
brought into the classroom space. These interactions are complex and not hyperbolic.
Furthermore, these interactions varied in degree of possible influence on a student. For example,
praise could mean more than an affirmation or vice-versa. Since I did not interview students
after, it is unclear how these interactions landed on a student.
Dis/ability and Variations in Quality
Mark’s perception of ability further influenced how he interacted with students.
Specifically, he varied the quality of his interactions with Jennifer, a female student who he
identified as having a dis/ability. Throughout his interactions with Jennifer, Mark used
paralanguage to support her. For the purpose of this case-study, paralanguage was defined as the
use of non-verbal language. As evidence by the data, these interactions with Jennifer deviated
from his baseline interactions with students who he had not identified as requiring additional
support.
In this section, I will examine his gestures, tone, and cadence to unearth his implicit
beliefs regarding student identity markers.
Gestures. Mark utilized non-verbal communication techniques to redirect student
behavior. In the interaction below, Jennifer interrupted a student who offered a counter opinion
to another student’s response. Jennifer interpreted this counter opinion as antagonistic, as
evidenced by her use of, “fight” to capture her interpretation of the verbal interaction. This
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 295
interaction was representative of Mark’s use of non-verbal communication to redirect student
behavior
T: Is there a different interpretation than what Elizabeth has given? [Andula
raises her hand] Andula.
Andula: Since you can't get back into your mother's womb, it is actually saying...
Jennifer: Fight!
T: [Give Jennifer a disapproving look. She smiles and then stops]
During his interviews, Mark explained that he only managed a student’s behavior when it
disrupted the learning of others. In this instance, he interpreted Jennifer’s actions as interrupting
the learning of others, as evidenced by his use of non-verbal cueing to correct it. Here, Mark
used eye contact to redirect Jennifer’s behavior of blurting out. Mark’s use of a gesture, rather
than a verbal cue, was an example of how he did not want to stop the flow of learning in the
classroom. If he disrupted the current of the discussion, he would lose the flow of learning in the
space. As a result, he felt that he needed to extinguish her behavior but wanted to ensure
whatever action was taken preserved the learning.
Casual Tone. Mark maintained a casual tone throughout all of the observations.
His tone was evaluated through cadence, word choice, and intonation. He frequently used a fast
cadence, colloquial vernacular, and sarcastic tone while interacting with students. The following
interaction occurred during a whole group discussion and was representative of the tone he used
throughout his classes
T: How'’ that a metaphor?
Devon: She’s like says that she is buried alive by her work. Like she is feeling dead
sort of.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 296
T: [In a sarcastic tone. Smiling as he says] I think it is more imagery dude.
[Towards the whole class] ‘Cause you are right, there is a literary device
here. Remember that a metaphor is comparing two unlike things.
Here, Mark used colloquial language, “dude,” when he spoke to a male student. His use of casual
language to interact with students set a casual tone in his class. His use of “dude” was authentic
and did not come across as forced. The absence of laughter or pause by the student, suggested
that Mark used colloquialisms like this regularly and did not stand out as something that was out
of the norm. Additionally, within this interaction, he used the word “‘cause” instead of
“because,” another informal expression. As an English teacher, his use of casual language was
more apparent and intentional as it created a casual and conversational tone within the classroom
space. Mark frequently used informal language when interacting with students across class
activities, as this was his communication baseline. This casual tone was natural and held an
intention to create a comfortable environment to participate in. However, this intention was not
operationalized, as he was not aware that it created the space for informal behaviors that resulted
in unequal participation rates. Since Mark had not critically reflected on the influence of his tone
on participation rates, these rates defaulted to white dominance. He was neither present or
attending to the participation rates of those who were not active voices in the space, resulting in
potentially destructive implications for those who were not white. Mark really wanted to help,
but was not equipped to.
Support-changes in intonation and cadence. Mark varied his intonation and cadence
when he provided support to a student. Typically, his cadence was quick and intonation was low,
however when he supported a student, his voice pitched up and he slowed his cadence down
significantly. His baseline tone is represented in the interaction below
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 297
T: This has to be very specific you can either say one of the following: dog
was poisoned, the dog ate a steam bun that was poisoned, the villagers
killed the dog using poison or the villagers killed the dog. Ok. Any
answers between for any of these questions. Ok, here we go. Please listen
carefully to other people that ask, because they might be your own answer.
Yes.
Marie: 409.
T: Hmmm, no sorry. Peter?
Peter: um, 409 is poisoned by Yan.
T: No. [laughter] Sam?
Sam: What if they just mentioned the companion part?
T: That’s one point. Yeah, Jessie.
Jessie: He dies by villagers killing him because he was too loud at night.
T: Yeah, that’s fine. Yes.
Alex: He died by a poisonous disease planted by the town.
T: Ah, fine. [sounds annoyed] It’s not a poisonous disease. It’s poison, fine.
Jessie: What if they just mention the guard dog?
T: That it’s a guard dog? What’s the second part?
Jessie: About how he died.
Mark’s baseline interactions with students were short and quick. He cycled through interactions
quickly and would often use one word or one sentence responses. For example, when Peter
offered an answer, rather than unpacking what he meant by this, he simply gave a quick
evaluative “no.” His baseline tone is also represented here. He used sarcasm and an openly
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 298
annoyed tone when interacting with students who were not Jennifer. He reserved a particular
approach when he interacted with Jennifer, a student who he had identified as someone who
required support. The following interaction was representative of his interactions with students
when he switched from his typical tone to his supportive tone.
T: Right, you are mindless, you kinda work towards something else. Your
owner or your master is the communist party, right? So by viewing herself
as a dog in that sense, it’s actually a negative connotation. It’s not a
positive thing that they are dogs. Not man’s best friend dog, we are talking
about animals who don’t have a mind of their own that are just blindly
following along. By comparing herself to a dog here in a negative way,
you can tell that she does not see her position here as valuable right? And
so is further disillusioned with the party because the party is making them,
we are dogs and they are forcing us to fight for each meat, the Communist
Party made us this way. So what I mean when I say deconstruct, I’m
showing how the literary device is connecting to the theme. How is the
dog connecting to the theme? This is what literary analysis is supposed to
be, right. Deconstructing the author’s use of a device to show how she
develops theme or how the author develops theme. Okay. Jennifer.
Jennifer: On top of page 137.
T: 137?
Jennifer: Yeah, it says [reads the quote].
T: Okay what is going on here?
Jennifer: I think this is, a metaphor and its control v freedom.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 299
T: Okay, how so?
Jennifer: Um, wait, I lost the page.
T: 137 right?
Jennifer: Yeah, um it’s basically saying, I see the chicken as the people.
T: Yeah, well…
Jennifer: Then the Monkeys are the Communists, I see them as that.
T: They are both people. The chickens are people as well as the monkeys.
Jennifer: Yeah, they are putting people against each other.
T: Let's deconstruct this because you are right, there is a metaphor here. The
chicken are the people right, and the monkey are also people and all these
people are controlled by the Communist party.
Jennifer: Yeah, like basically the Communist party is like putting people against
each other, trying to like, like, I don’t know how you say it.
T: Well how ‘bout this, I'm going to try and walk us through this.
Jennifer: Uhm.
T: When you, it says that you kill the chicken to shock the monkey. Right, so
in both of these cases, she is talking about comparing chickens and
monkeys to people in the Communist party. Carlos, do you want to
explain this?
Here, Mark’s varied interaction patterns emerge when dis/ability was accounted for. In a single
interaction, Mark had significantly more cycles of communication with Jennifer than other
students. His baseline interaction cycle was 3-4, whereas with Jennifer, it was 9-10. Not only did
he spend more time with her, but intentionally extended the conversation by asking clarifying
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 300
questions and building in pauses to allow her to think about her answer. For example, when she
says, “I think this is, a metaphor and it’s control v freedom” his response is, “Okay, how so?” In
other interactions with students, his baseline responses did not include the extension of a
response, but the evaluation of it through praise, affirmation or a direct “no.” The extension of a
response only emerged when he interacted with Jennifer.
Mark’s word choice also changed when he interacted with her. He often mirrored her
language or used non-academic language in his interactions with her. For example
Jennifer: Yeah, um it's basically saying, I see the chicken as the people.
T: Yeah, well…
Jennifer: Then the Monkeys are the Communists, I see them as that…
T: They are both people. The chickens are people as well as the monkeys.
Here he both mirrored her language and used non-academic language to support her. He
mirrored her response when he said, “They are both people. The chickens are people as well as
the monkeys” in response to her comment that, “I see the chicken as the people.” Within this
same statement, he was alluding to her identification of a metaphor in the text they were
reviewing. Rather than use the word “metaphor” he extrapolated the comparison she was making
by using simplified language. After this, he folded in academic language when he said, “Let's
deconstruct this because you are right, there is a metaphor here.” This language also represented
a change in his responses as he was about to ask another student, Carlos, to clarify for the class.
Here he shifted the knowledge source away from Jennifer and to Carlos, a Latino student in the
class. This code-switching occurred regularly when Mark was transitioning between interacting
with her and her non-dis/abled peers.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 301
Mark’s intonation went up when working with Jennifer. He would pitch up his voice to
make it sound friendly. This appeared to be an attempt to encourage her to expand her responses.
Jennifer often used short sentences that were vague. For example, “Yeah, they are putting people
against each other.” This response lacked the detail necessary to understand her answer fully.
This left Mark with accepting her answer as is or asking clarifying questions to ascertain the
details of her statement. Her response stamina and her “low vocabulary” as he said in the initial
interview, caused her to respond with short sentences. In an attempt to expand her responses,
Mark attempted to create a friendly space and carve out time for her to process her answers fully,
however, he was not present in (Rodgers, 2002) the effects this had on Jennifer. His variations in
speech patterns visibly and notably other-ed her.
Othering. Dis/ability acted as her biggest identity marker to Mark. Although she
belonged to the group of female and Latina, his communication patterns deviated from what was
demonstrated of other students who fell into these intersecting categories. Dis/ability provided
Jennifer with a separate interaction pattern from her peers who shared identical identity markers.
It provided her with space, more attention, and time, which Mark felt she needed, but he did not
reflect on the social implications this had for her and/or adjust the classroom climate to create a
space where this type of support did not other her. As a result, he maintained more normative
interactions with her that had unforeseen destructive consequences.
If she elicited a response, he was more likely to address it, whether this was to correct her
behavior or to clarify what she was saying. Her dis/ability made herself visible to Mark and
served to “other” her from her peers. It was clear that she was different because his entire
approach changed—he pitched his voice up, he slowed down his pace and he used non-academic
language with her. This othering socialized her within the classroom space to see herself as
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 302
different, causing her to internalize her own sense of efficacy. During the initial interview Mark
shared that “She is seen and sees herself as different. I think this comes from what her peers
think is important.” Here he expressed detachment from the action of her peers. Mark seemed
unaware that he could redesign the climate in the classroom by setting expectations that would
reduce Jennifer’s position as an other. Mark did not express a belief that he could change this,
hinting at a lack of perceived agency. This confirmed Podell and Soodak (1993) finding that
teacher perceived efficacy played an important role in the way a teacher provided support. If
he/she did not feel efficacious in supporting a student, then he/she was more like to move the
student from the classroom. His perception that he could not change the climate in the classroom
positioned him on the normative side of the teacher-student interaction continuum, resulting in
unintended destructive consequences for Jennifer.
The interaction below took place during Mark’s third period class in a small group
discussion between Jennifer and three other students. This interaction was representative of her
being “other-ed” by her tablemates.
Shana: Did you find anything.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Shana: What did you find?
Jennifer: 137 [starts reading].
Shana: [Interrupts Jennifer] Wait what?
Jennifer: [Stops reading] On the top of page 137.
Shana: Okay. [listens to her read the quote.] Okay why is it significant?
Jennifer: I don’t know how to explain it.
Shana: It doesn’t really relate to any of the themes.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 303
Jennifer: Okay, never mind then. [Pauses and then looks at another group across
from hers and says] I want hot chocolate.
Shana: [Looks at the group and says] What is the locus of its meaning? [No one
says anything].
Andy: It means that the characters are becoming disillusioned.
[Whole group nods and then becomes silent. Jennifer does not write
anything down]
Andy: [Looks at Jennifer again] You got any quotes?
Jennifer: [Looks directly at him and says] I'm tired [she then puts her head on
Darryl’s arm].
Andy: You didn't get any quotes?
Jennifer: No.
Shana: Not any?
Jennifer: [Looks annoyed. She pauses and then says] Fine, it was page 197. It
connects to the theme of control. It basically is about them cleaning.
Shana: I guess you could say that because in the beginning it says [reads the first
part of the quote].
Jennifer: Yeah, that is what I was saying [pauses] I don't know what else to say. [T
walks by].
Within this small group, the demographic composition was as follows: Shana, a white female
student, Jennifer, a Latina student, Darryl, a black male student, and Andy, a white male student.
Based on the data collected regarding teacher interaction socializations, the two white students
were used to receiving more constructive interactions while the black and Latina students were
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 304
used to receiving higher rates of destructive interactions. These socializations mirrored the
interactions that took place between the group members.
Shana independently took lead of the small group discussion and asked Jennifer directly
if she had found anything to support the themes Mark had outlined on the board. Jennifer offered
a response but when asked by Shana to explain its significance on the spot, she tried to tell her
group members that she was unable to explain her answer, “I don’t know how to explain it.”
Shana qualified her contribution as unrelated to the task. This not only mirrored her destructive
interaction socialization but caused her to shut down. Jennifer began to engage in off topic
conversation when she declared, “Okay, never mind then. [Pauses and then looks at another
group across from hers and says] I want hot chocolate.” The two white students continue the
conversation without Jennifer as Shana posed the following question to the group, “What is the
locus of its meaning?” Darryl and Jennifer both do not respond. Andy then says, “It means that
the characters are becoming disillusioned.” Here, the whole group nods in agreement. This
mirrored the constructive affirmation anticipated by white students in Mark’s classroom.
Jennifer was asked again if she had any quotes but this time she was asked by Andy. Her
response indicated that she did not want to participate any longer in the group discussion, “I'm
tired [she then puts her head on Darryl’s arm].” This was not accepted by the two white students
and they both asked her again
Andy: You didn't get any quotes?
Jennifer: No
Shana: Not any?
Shana’s question, “not any?” was an evaluation of Jennifer’s work. The subtext of what she was
saying was a qualification. Jennifer, pushed to contribute, then said, “Fine, it was page 197.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 305
It connects to the theme of control. It basically is about them cleaning.” Jennifer responded to a
destructive interaction initiated by two white students. Darryl was not called out by Shana or
Andy during the group discussion, just Jennifer. This occurred twice within their small group
work. Her white peers directed the conversation but placed Jennifer in a student role through
their form of questioning. The interaction followed with Shana’s hesitant affirmation of Jennifer.
However, this only occurred once Mark was in proximity of the group.
Shana: I guess you could say that because in the beginning it says… [reads the
first part of the quote]
Jennifer: Yeah, that is what I was saying [pauses] I don’t know what else to say. [T
walks by].
Andy: [Asks Jennifer directly while the T is standing there] What do the
monkeys represent?
Jennifer: The monkeys represent the opposition the monkeys and the chickens are
the people.
Shana: Uh...
Andy: The chickens are being killed off. [points directly at Jennifer]
Jennifer: Monkeys! [Points back at Andy]
Andy: No!
Shana and Andy changed their response patterns once Mark walked by. They mirrored his
response pattern with Jennifer more closely. Shana used an affirmation and Andy asked Jennifer
a clarifying question to expand her response. However, at the end of the interaction, Andy
ultimately told Jennifer “no” when she tried to clarify that it was the monkeys and not the
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 306
chickens that she was talking about. Jennifer spent a majority of the small group discussion time
defending her response to Andy and Shana.
Jennifer’s Visibility.
During the initial interview, Mark identified Jennifer, a Latin@ female, as the only
student who had a dis/ability. He explained that he was not sure what her dis/ability was but
speculated that it was some kind of “processing disorder.” Since Jennifer was the only student
who was identified by Mark as dis/abled across his classes, the following section evaluated how
he saw her and how his interactions were informed by the intersection of her particular
dis/ability, gender, and race/ethnicity.
Climate. Mark saw Jennifer as contributing both positively and negatively to the learning
in the classroom environment. He believed that her non-normative behavior other-ed her yet also
made her an asset in the classroom. To better understand this duality, I evaluated participation
data by first tallying Jennifer’s participation frequency and compare it to other female Latin@
students in both periods 2 and 3. I compared her with Latin@ female students because this is the
group that he identified her as being a part of. I then looked at the way that Mark interacted with
Jennifer both constructive and destructively as it compared to Latin@ students who Mark had
not identified as dis/abled.
Table 21
Jennifer’s Participation Tallies as They Compare to Latin@ Female Students In Periods 2 And 3
Jennifer’s Participation Tally Latin@ Participation Tally P. 2
(4 Hours)
Latin@ Participation Tally P. 3
(6 Hours)
45 59 86
Jennifer accounted for 52% of the Latin@ female student participation in Mark’s third period
class. Her participation frequency may be related to her personality and/or to Mark’s classroom
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 307
environment. During the initial interview, he equated her participation to a behavioral concern
more than as a contribution to the classroom discourse. He viewed her participation frequency as
something that other-ed her within the classroom space. Mark shared that at the beginning of the
year, she sat in the front row of his class and then after students were being frustrated with her
behavior, he moved her to the back of the room. However, Mark expressed that he viewed her
participation as a benefit to the classroom community.
She asks questions that no one else will ask. So if she’s genuinely confused about a term
and students, most students will, most students will be like, “Whatever, I’ll write it down.
I’ll write what I think it is. I’ll figure it out later” and most of them don’t. They continue
to be confused and wallow in their confusion. Jennifer will just ask. She’ll just be like,
‘What does that mean?” Without any reservation. And I know it helps 8 or 10 of the
students. They’re like, “Oh, ok!” She does that and she’s very unafraid to ask questions.
Now that can backfire on her and it has several times. But it also allows for clarification
for other students.
Here, he explained that her non-normative behavior as a positive attribute, yet did not adjust the
overall climate in the classroom to reflect this perception that asking questions is good. As a
result, she remained an other, causing her peers to become irritated at her for participating so
much, yet relying on her to ask the “dumb” questions they were unable to ask. Mark recognized
that this was a strength of hers when he described her as “unafraid” to ask questions, however, he
did not take action on this by creating an environment where students were encouraged to ask
questions.
As evidenced by his interview responses, Mark was conflicted about Jennifer’s behavior.
He believed that it ostracized her from her peers yet modeled an important attribute to
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 308
foster-fearlessness. This confliction played itself out in his interactions with Jennifer. To better
understand how Mark interacted with Jennifer, the chart below outlined his constructive and
destructive interactions with her across 6 hours of observation. Her participation rates could be a
result of her personality, irrespective of Mark’s prevailing attitudes. During the initial interview,
he mentioned “‘cause she’ll yell things out sometimes without really prompting. She’ll just kind
of say things without me having asked a question, etc.” This suggested that Mark viewed her
interaction patterns as atypical from her peers. As a result, his interactions with her may be
divergent from her peers. The table below catalogued his interactions with her as they compared
to other Latin@ Females in his second and third period classes.
Table 22
Mark’s Constructive and Destructive Interactions with Jennifer As They Compare to Latin@
Female Students in Periods 2 And 3
Comparative Interactions Jennifer Latin@ Females (with Jennifer)
Praise 4
12
Humor 0
8
Affirms responses without praise 2
7
Provides Verbal Feedback 1
2
Interrupts 6
19
Direct “no” 0
2
Ignores 18
27
Dismisses 16
30
Mark’s interaction patterns with Jennifer deviated from his communication patterns with Latin@
females. Despite variations in each subcategory, she shared in the collective Latin@ experience
as she too also experienced more destructive than constructive interactions with Mark. Of the
interactions tallied, he was the most inclined to ignore her compared to the other interactions.
The following interaction was representative of instances where he ignored her
T: Your word today is futility. It is a noun, meaning [slows the pace of his
voice down and then says...] pointlessness or uselessness. Paling water out
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 309
of a sinking boat is an exercise in futility. Your homework has not
changed and it will be the same for tomorrow as well. You are reading
part 2b at home.
Jennifer: [Gasps] Uh.
T: [Looks at her but doesn’t say anything. Looks back at the whole class and
says] Don’t forget to continue reading.
Mark ignored Jennifer when she uttered a response that was reactionary to something he or
someone else said and/or if it disrupted the pace of the class. In this particular moment, he was
providing the class with instructions and her reaction, “uh,” was not considered to be a question
or something to be addressed, therefore he did not respond. In these moments, he would not
redirect her responses but would ignore them completely.
Mark would also verbally ignore portions of Jennifer’s responses. The following
interaction occurred during a whole class discussion on a book and was representative of
interactions that were coded as dismissive
Andula: Well he is accused of rape.
T: He is accused of rape. [Jennifer interrupts].
Jennifer: But it wasn’t that...
T: [Keeps talking as she says her statement] But it was consensual but he is
convicted of rape and he is shot and killed. Executed right? And so we see
Little Green as...How was she first characterized? You might want to go
back to your agenda sheets and sorta give me some characteristics. How is
Little Green characterized before the incident?
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 310
Here, Mark dismissed Jennifer’s question before she fully articulated it. His dismissal held an
intention of completing his clarifying point to Andula’s statement as exemplified by his use of
“but” as a transition word into his response. This suggested that he was dialoguing with Andula
by rebutting her point. Jennifer may have interjected to clarify this for Andula and push the class
dialogue forward, but his dismissal of her question left her out of the conversation. It also
suggested that he may have been nervous about her being a knowledge source and wanted to
ensure the conversation was steered in the right direction. His action of dismissing Jennifer,
came into direct conflict with the following belief expressed during the initial interview, “The
way I’ve tried to set up the classroom space it’s to help it be discussion based, what we’re
sharing in our learning. That we share knowledge. That everyone has something to contribute.”
What remained consistent throughout his interactions with students was the priority placed on
learning within the space.
During the initial interview, Mark articulated several times that he saw the classroom as a
place of learning. He worked to ensure that this was not disrupted. For example, “I want to retain
an academic atmosphere, but at the same time I know that an academic atmosphere is not
created, it’s not necessarily created by the physical space, it’s created by individuals wanting to
learn. And so, it’s more about like cultivating that motivation to learn.” If he did not see Jennifer
as contributing positively to the learning in the space, he may dismiss or ignore her to salvage the
learning for other students.
As evidenced by his responses in the interviews and observational data, Mark’s actions
were dictated by the priority he placed on learning. He really wanted students to feel comfortable
within the classroom space. This explained why he worked to establish a comfortable
environment. Since he did not reflect regularly, he drew on what was intrinsic to him, being
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 311
casual. Throughout his interactions with students across both structured and unstructured time,
he used humor as the primary vehicle to establish a comfortable environment. However, in his
interactions with Jennifer, Mark did not use humor. This not only left her out from the fun, but
suggested that he viewed her as someone that he could not and/or would not use humor with.
This limited her access to the collective culture within the classroom space, especially since the
overall tone of the class was casual and colloquial.
Of the constructive interactions he had with Jennifer, Mark used praise the most. The
tone of his praise was consistent with the tone he used with other students. However, across 6
hours of observation, this accounted for only four interactions with her. Within the context of
constructive and destructive actions, he spent a majority of his time subconsciously socializing
her to alter her participation patterns.
Jennifer’s dis/ability was a visible feature of her identity (Baker, 1994; Siebers, 2008) as
evidenced by Mark’s divergent communication patterns with her. He saw her as different and
spoke about her in that way as well. For example, during the initial interview he said, “She’ll just
kind of say things without me having asked a question, etc. And so, the students have a general
understanding of ‘Oh well she’s different.’” His believed her to be an “other” in this context, and
his actions reflected this belief. He described her as someone who just “says things without me
having asked a question.” Embedded within that statement is a behavioral expectation not
adhered by Jennifer. Within this same response, he explained how her peers other-ed her as well
by saying, “And so the students have a general understanding of ‘Oh well she’s different.’” This
belief seeped into his communication patterns with her and caused her to be recognized as an
“other” in the space. Even though his interview responses indicated that he recognized her non-
normative behavior as something positive, his actions during observations revealed how he
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 312
struggled to highlight that behavior in a space that prioritized his idealized sense of learning.
Mark’s inconsistent interactions with Jennifer were consistent with Cherry’s (1978) findings
regarding communication patterns as they related to teacher-student interactions. She
hypothesized that interactions were unequal and based on a teachers’ expectation. Since his
expectation of her was low, his interactions with her oscillated between constructive and
destructive, but where not designed to transformatively support her. This was consistent with
Rist’s (1970) findings regarding perceptions and outcomes. As such, his beliefs about her, space,
and himself, informed his interactions with her. He defaulted to normative interactions as he was
unaware that the environment he created was one that was not apolitical as Bartolome described,
but normative (Brookfield, 2010). Despite the good intentions he espoused during the interviews,
his context limited his ability to operationalize his goal by not affording him the opportunity,
space, time or skills necessary to critically reflect about his teaching practice as it related to
equality.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 313
CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This dissertation explored teacher held beliefs regarding race/ethnicity, gender, and
dis/ability and how the intersection of these identity markers informed the perception of female
student academic need. This study examined the way in which teacher beliefs of race/ethnicity,
gender, and dis/ability were enacted across teacher-student interactions. A qualitative single case
study approach was used to answer the following two research questions:
1. How are a teacher’s beliefs regarding female students expressed through his/her
perception of their academic need?
2. How are a teachers’ beliefs regarding dis/ability, race/ethnicity, and gender shape
how they interact with their students to provide support?
To answer these research questions, I collected interview and observation data from a single
teacher across two class periods. This teacher was nominated by an administrator as being highly
effective at servicing the unique needs of difficult students. I conducted two semi-structured
interviews with Mark, 10 hours of structured classroom observations, 6 hours in period three and
4 hours in period two, and three hours of unstructured observation hours. Data collection from
this study yielded insights into the implicit and explicit beliefs Mark held regarding students
along lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and dis/ability. Although I set out to examine a teacher who
was highly effective with difficult students, the data revealed that even a highly recommended
teacher who is well intentioned did not meet the actions and practices of a high effective teacher
as conceptualized in my conceptual framework. It is possible that no teacher would be able to
meet the criteria outlined in my conceptual framework, as it offers an ideal. The findings do
suggest that Mark engaged in communication patterns that were consistent with elements in my
conceptual framework and that demonstrated constructive interactions between teacher and
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 314
student. In the remainder of this chapter, I will briefly review the findings that emerged from the
data. Next, I will discuss the implications these findings offer teaching practice, educational
policy, and future educational research.
Summary of Findings
This study proposed that transformative experiences occur at the intersection of space and
the teacher-student interaction paradigm. Mark, a 9
th
-grade English teacher, espoused
transformative beliefs but his actions revealed implicit beliefs that limited his ability to
operationalize his expressed beliefs. This disparity led to different communication patterns along
lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and ability.
Mr. Lee was a well-intentioned teacher who held superficial beliefs about student identity
markers. During the initial interview, he espoused a desire to build equality for all students by
leveling the playing field for students who he believed might not otherwise have opportunities.
Despite this affirmation, Mark had not engaged in reflection regarding student experiences along
lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and ability. During his interviews, he engaged in in-the-moment
reflections, providing authentic responses while also revealing the limited reflective work he had
done. Mark’s limited reflection influenced his understanding of student identity markers as they
related to educational opportunities. Even though he expressed an understanding that there could
be different educational experiences for students along lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and
ability, he struggled with how this played out in his own classroom and institutional setting.
Specifically, he believed that female students were most likely subject to different schooling
experiences, but was unable to cite specific examples beyond what he felt could be true. This
lack of reflection, however, was not exclusive to gendered experiences. Mark was color blind
and held a limited understanding of intersectionality. As a result, he was not aware of the specific
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 315
needs of his students. Mark wanted to believe that there was no difference and transposed this
belief into his approach to learning.
Mr. Lee believed that education was the best vehicle by which to create equality. For
him, equality was achieved through learning. Despite it’s good intention, this belief narrowed his
field of vision as he believed that his classroom was a place where all students had an equal
opportunity to engage. He was unable to see the inequities inherent in the space. As a result, his
view of the classroom space was hyperbolic, devoid of any historical social or institutional
oppressions. He worked to isolate his classroom from oppressional histories because he believed
this was the best way to increase learning and build opportunities for students. As a result, his
will to believe in equality coupled with his limited reflection overruled the reality of the space.
Furthermore, he compartmentalized the role his behavior management system and pedagogical
choices played in the educational opportunities experienced by students along lines of
race/ethnicity, gender, and ability, viewing these as axillary components. Observation data
revealed a set of unspoken norms reinforced by Mr. Lee through his interactions with students.
He expected students to know what these behavior expectations were without explicit mention of
them, viewing these as self-explanatory. As a result, students who are tapped into these
subconscious expectations and/or able to adapt quickly, were able to navigate the space in more
constructive ways.
Despite his belief that learning was a way to build equality, interview and observation
data did not reveal an intentionality in his pedagogical approach to build this equality. Even
though his lessons at times were purposeful, they were not designed intentionally to support the
needs of specific populations within his class with the intention of creating equality. During his
interviews, he explained that he developed loose lessons and would change them in the moment
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 316
based on how he thought it was going. Rather than rooting curricular decisions in data, he used
his gut to determine what changes should be made. As a result, his lessons defaulted to the way
that he learned best as a student, supporting students who were aligned with him.
Mr. Lee’s understanding of student need was rooted in his beliefs about normalcy and
difficulty in context of visibility. Mr. Lee’s beliefs about normalcy were taken up in two ways,
institutionally then personally. He viewed normal first through the lens of the institution, citing
archetypes of what was considered normal by listing the qualities of an “ideal” student. He then
grappled in the moment with whether he personally believed this to be true or not. Mr. Lee used
positive adjectives to describe “normal,” unearthing his implicit belief that normal was good.
This implicitly held belief was taken up in his interactions with students. Mr. Lee believed a
difficult student to be someone who disrupted learning. He described disruption as either visible
behaviors or motivation struggles as a result of problems at home.
Observation data revealed a discrepancy between what he believed and how these beliefs
were enacted through teacher-student interactions. Mr. Lee prioritized learning and believed that
by doing so, he would create equality for all students. This color-blindness resulted in him
enabling historic patterns of inequity. Classroom participation rates mirrored the presence of
White dominate culture, with the exception of Latin@ female and Asian Male participation.
Latin@ females were the most likely to participate. Despite Latin@ female participation rates
disrupting white hegemony, they experienced the highest level of destructive interactions from
Mr. Lee. Second to white males, Asian males received the highest level of constructive
interactions from Mr. Lee. These minimal disruptions were unable to push back in a more
significant way against white dominance because Mr. Lee did not engage in reflection beyond
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 317
in-the-moment reflections. As a result, he inadvertently perpetuated inequities within his
interactions with historically marginalized populations.
During the initial interview, Mr. Lee identified only one student as difficult, Jennifer. He
described Jennifer as someone who disrupted the class a lot and was unmotivated to learn
because she was distracted by her home life. He went on to explain that he believed she most
likely had a processing dis/order but was reluctant to comment as he did not perceive himself to
be qualified to make an assessment. However, despite her difficulties, Mr. Lee recognized that
she played an important role in the classroom because she was willing to ask clarifying questions
when others were too embarrassed to because they believed it would taint their academic image
among their peers. Observation data revealed that dis/ability was the most visible identity marker
when working with Jennifer. His communication patterns changed as he used more colloquial
language, slowed the pace of his voice, pitched up his voice, and engaged in more cycles of
interactions with Jennifer. He supported Jennifer by sticking with her throughout her responses.
Since his class structure was heavily discussion-based, much of his support was witnessed by her
peers. He expressed an awareness that this could isolate her as her peers would see her as
different because she was treated differently, yet much of his support was overt. The only subtle
support he provided her was non-verbal cueing through corrective gestations. Observations
revealed that her peers did see her as different and that she internalized this perception by
expressing feelings of academic inadequacy.
Implications
This dissertation explored how a teacher’s implicit and explicit beliefs as they intersect
with physical and imagined space are enacted within teacher-student interactions. That is, this
study examined the constructive and destructive communication patterns this teacher engaged in
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 318
along lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and dis/ability. Findings from this study revealed that even
a well-intentioned teacher who was nominated as highly effective at working with female
students, was unaware of the specific needs of his students. He believed that he was nominated
not because of his work with female students but rather because of his desire to help female
students. Below I will discuss the implications that emerge as a result of these findings, as they
relate to teacher practice, public policy, and the research community.
Practice
Students from historically marginalized communities often carry with them internalized
destructive narratives that influence their academic performances and behaviors within the
classroom (Khalifa, 2010). In order to facilitate meaningful learning and disrupt historical
marginalization, teachers must be able to see his/her students and the narratives they carry with
them (Brookfield, 2010). This is a considerable task for urban educators as a majority of the
population they serve come from historically marginalized populations. I will first discuss the
steps school leadership can take to support urban high school teachers, then discuss in detail the
steps teachers can take to address classroom-based challenges.
First, teachers who serve historically marginalized populations must build a critical
reflective practice (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers, 2002) to understand the needs of their students. As
this study revealed, Mr. Lee was unaware of the specific needs of his students, resulting in the
different educational opportunities afforded to students, generalized curricular development, and
the invisibility of special populations. Next, teachers must root their pedagogical decisions in
data rather than feelings. Finally, in order to cultivate meaningful learning, teachers must
establish equitable norms that are purposeful and are applied to all students.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 319
Site-level administrators can take steps to provide structured reflection opportunities for
teachers to engage in self-reflection and self-examination. A focus on the development of a
community of practice through the creation of collaborative work groups would foster human
capital. The primary function of a collaborative or professional learning community would be to
resource individual and collective capacities.
The teacher from this study, and others positioned similarly, would most likely benefit
from what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2013) describe as a “knowledge-of-practice” teacher
learning approach (p. 250). This study revealed that Mr. Lee was unaware of the situated needs
of his students and had only a superficial understanding of the external and internal factors that
worked to perpetuate the marginalization of historically marginalized populations. This approach
would build awareness of these needs and factors through site-specific investigation by
establishing his classroom as a site of inquiry where he could build locally sourced knowledges
of practice. In order to do this, participation in an inquiry community to implement reflective
cycles to build educator capacity.
As such, teachers like Mr. Lee would most likely benefit from participation in either an
experienced professional learning community or collaborative working group that places
emphasis on: self-examination, meaningful reflection, shared inquiry, the opportunity to
implement peer consultation and reflection into one’s practice. This study revealed that Mr. Lee
was unaware of the specific needs of his students. Participation in a professional learning
community would help Mr. Lee and others like him see the specific needs of his students and
therefore reinterpret academic need through the engagement of what Mezirow (1991) defines as
transsituational learning, the ability to reinterpret situations. Mr. Lee interpreted academic need
through only his lens of understanding, rather than the historical inequities students bring with
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 320
them into the classroom, therefore the ability to reinterpret need would increase student
visibility. Additionally, engaging in collaborative and individual reflection would also provide
Mr. Lee and others who demonstrate similar approaches the supports needed to build equity for
historically marginalized populations. For example, Mr. Lee’s struggles with operationalizing his
ideas about equality into pedagogical choices and learning opportunities would benefit from
structured reflection.
An instrumental element to a teacher’s learning is the development of a critically
reflective practice. Rodgers (2002) provided one toolkit to engage in critical reflection, a two-
pronged approach, that focused on teaching teachers how to skillfully observe and how to take
intelligent action on these observations. To support the needs of dis/abled females, her process
must be combined with the critical aspects of Brookfield’s (2010) reflective model that overtly
take up race/ethnicity, SES, gender, dis/ability and lenses. The application of these elements
during the see, describe, analyze, and experiment phases (Rogers, 2002) would work to broaden
the scope of understanding in or to better support dis/abled females. To support the development
of Rodger’s (2002) and Brookfield’s (2010) reflective cycle in a school site, participation in an
effective professional learning community could offer the supports needed to develop this level
of reflection. A fundamental component of a professional learning community is a pre-
observation meeting that includes scaffolded reflection that works to build teacher curiosity and
self-examination (DuFour & Eaker, 2009). This cooperative reflection would enable Mr. Lee and
those similarly situated to think about the specific needs of all of his students and identify areas
of his practice that he would like to improve on in context of these specific needs. As this study
revealed, Mr. Lee had engaged in limited reflective work about his own positionality and how
this positionality exists in context of this classroom. The pre-observation portion of a
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 321
professional learning community would encourage Mr. Lee to critically reflect on his own
positionality (Brookfield, 2010; Rogers 2002) and how this informs his beliefs.
Highly effective professional learning communities also incorporate instructional rounds.
Instructional rounds build capacities through inquiry-driven analysis of a common problem of
instructional practice. For teachers like Mr. Lee, the cyclical nature of a PLC would enable him
to revisit his approach through the mindful application of adjustments to his practice based on
the analysis, discussion, and reflection of data. Having access to peer consultation would
increase his access to available human capital available in his setting by incorporating feedback
and emergent ideas into his practice. Meaning, access to opportunities for growth and structured
reflection would allow teachers, like Mr. Lee, to not only monitor their own growth but learn
purposeful strategies and approaches.
Leadership within professional learning communities extends beyond administrators to
include teachers (DuFour & Eaker, 2009). Therefore, if Administrators choose to utilize peer
observation and instructional rounds into their professional communities need to ensure that their
staff are fully trained in instructional round facilitation and observation protocols. Without
trainings in these areas, participating teachers will be far less likely to cultivate their growth and
the growth of others.
Additionally, teachers like Mark, would benefit from critically reflecting on the influence
classroom climate has on student success. Building awareness of imagined space (Soja, 1989)
could help teachers redesign the climate in their classroom to create a more transformative
experience within a Thirdspace (Gee, 2008; Soja, 1989) through informed action (Brookfield,
2010; Rogers, 2002) taken to limit normative practices. In addition to awareness, teachers similar
to Mark, need to build up a sense of agency. Since he did not perceive himself to be efficacious,
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 322
he did not take action within the classroom space to create a better climate for students like
Jennifer. Podell and Soodak (1993) found that teachers who perceived themselves as having
agency were more like to take agency within the classroom. For example, in Mark’s case, he
could set an expectation that asking questions is encouraged, creating an environment where
Jennifer’s question asking was highlighted rather than pointed to as a reason why she was
different. Adjustments to classroom climate would enable her peers to treat Jennifer differently.
Therefore, a reconstruction of classroom climate can help students like Jennifer not be perceived
as different, limiting her internalization of difference. Mark, and teachers like him, are positioned
poorly within a setting if they are not provided with the time, space, or tools to engage in critical
reflection. Gaining access to a critically reflective community (Brookfield, 2010) would provide
him, and teachers like him, with the emotional supports and skills to develop a critically
reflective practice that would evaluate assumptions as they related to dis/abled female need with
the aim of supporting their learning in a transformative way.
Policy
This dissertation does not assert definitive solutions for all the challenges faced by
secondary urban high school teachers or the communities they serve. Instead, this study revealed
systematic, institutional, and instructional elements that converge within the classroom
environment that work to continue to marginalize historically marginalized populations,
revealing that more effective educational policies may be needed. Any suggested policies aimed
to improve classrooms of historically marginalized populations should not attempt to craft only
symptom solutions but should work to provide systematic solutions (Elmore, 2004) address the
specific needs by situating solutions according to specific needs. Current policies are not
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 323
effective at building capacity in educators and as such, policy makers are asking the wrong
questions, Mehta (2013) purports that policy makers are asking the wrong questions
When reforms don’t grow as far or as fast as we hope, we ask, ‘What’s wrong with the
reform?’ when instead we should ask, ‘What’s wrong with the sector?’ The root problem
is that the educational sector as a whole is organized around a core system that functions
as a bureaucracy rather than as a profession; we are trying to solve a problem that
requires professional skill and expertise by using bureaucratic levers of requirements and
regulations. Many of the specific problems we see today—wide variability in levels of
teacher skill from classroom to classroom, failure to bring good practices to scale across
sites, the absence of an ‘educational infrastructure’ to support practice, the failure to
capitalize on the knowledge and skill leading teachers, and the distrustful and
unproductive relationships between policy makers and practitioners—are by-products of
the form in which the educational sector was cast.
School leaders and policymakers must recognize that failure exists at the system level rather than
at the site level. As such, the development of future policy policies need to support system
reform through whole school reform that emphasizes capacity building, collaboration, and
pedagogy. To ensure that teachers are provided with the structured supports needed to help
historically marginalized populations, policies should include the following elements:
• Time for professional growth to resource individual and collective capital.
• Incentives to establish and support professional learning communities that place
emphasis on instructional rounds and peer observation to answer inquiry-based
questions.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 324
• Incentives for teachers to earn dual-credentials in special education and general
education.
• Voice to those who work in schools through the “indigenous invention” paradigm
(Heckman & Montera, 2009). This paradigm builds on human capital and current
knowledge to develop renewal based policies.
• Site-based support in the development of a teacher’s critical reflective practice.
The effectiveness of these recommendation would most likely be enhanced through a shared
partnership with current educators who best understand the needs and challenges of their
students and colleagues. Historically, state and federal policies that omit the voices of classroom
educators often result in unintended consequences that handicap professional growth (Mehta,
2013).
Research
Even though this study revealed the role reflection plays in the visibility of students with
intersecting identity markers, it was limited by several factors. Time restrictions placed on data
collection limited the decisiveness of the findings purported within this study. Additionally, data
was collected by one novice field researcher, limiting the depth and breadth of data collected
during classroom observations and interviews. The presence of at least one more researcher
would help to capture the entire scope of classroom data available as it happened.
Future researchers who seek to understand the realities faced by female students in the
classroom should give consideration to the student’s meaning making processes. To better
understand the extent of identity socializations and their internalizations, hearing from female
students themselves would broaden the scope of understanding. Conducting student interviews
would yield a deeper understanding of how female students perceive make-meaning of their
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 325
classroom experiences and educational opportunities. Additionally, this study was limited by the
researcher’s perception of a student’s identity markers, expanding this study to include students’
articulation of their own identity markers would help to better identify the communication
patterns of teachers. This would also unearth other identity markers not outlined in this study,
creating a more accurate representation of identity. Additionally, this study assumed binary
identifiers, limiting the scope of understanding to stagnation, expanding identity markers to
include fluidity is imperative to better understand teacher’s perceptions. Finally, this study
focused on a singular classroom, extending research to include additional classrooms would help
to understand if trends present in this study are consistent in other classrooms.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 326
References
Arms, E., Bickett, J., & Graf, V. (2008). Gender bias and imbalance: girls in US special
education programmes. Gender & Education, 20(4), 349-359.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. (2011). A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability:
Implications for Special Education. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 367-384.
Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Michail, D. (2014). Disability in Multicultural Theory:
Conceptual and Social Justice Issues. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1-10.
Anderson, K. G. (1997). Gender Bias and Special Education Referrals. Annals of Dyslexia,
47(1), 151–162.
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2012). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit):
theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 3324,
1-31.
Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of
culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164-202.
Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an Interdisciplinary Understanding of Educational Equity and
Difference: The Case of the Racialization of Ability. Source: Educational Researcher,
40(9), 431–445.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-Language Learner Rep
resentation in Special Education in California Urban School Districts. In D. J. Losen &
G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2007). Beyond Convictions: Interrogating Culture, History, and
Power in Inlcusive Education. Language Arts, 84(4), 351-358.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 327
Auwarter, A., & S. Aruguete, M. (2010). Effects of Student Gender and Socioeconomic Status
on Teacher Perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 242–246.
Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re] claiming
“Inclusive Education” Toward Cohesion in Educational Reform: Disability Studies
Unravels the Myth of the Normal Child. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2122–2154.
Baker, B. (2002). The Hunt for Disability: The New Eugenics and the Normalization of School
Children. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 663–703.
Bank, B. J., Biddle, B. J., & Good, T. L. (1980). Sex roles, classroom instruction, and reading
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 119–132.
Bartolomé, L. (2007). CHAPTER 15: Critical Pedagogy and teacher education:
Radicalizing prospective teachers. Counterpoints, 299, 263–286.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality.
(2008). New York: P. Lang
Belkhir, J. A., Journal, C., Perspectives, R., Race, S., & Lightfoot, J. (2016). Race , Class ,
Gender , Intelligence , and Religion Perspectives, 17(1), 31–38.
Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. a., & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior
perceptions and gender on teachers’ judgments of students’ academic skill. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(2), 34Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. .
Berekashvili, N. (2012). The Role of Gender-Biased Perceptions in Teacher-Student Interaction.
Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(1), 39.
Biklen, D., & Kliewer, C. (2006). Constructing competence: autism, voice and the “disordered”
body. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2–3), 169–188.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 328
education: Acknowledging of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher,
35(6), 24–28.
Blanchett, W. J., Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2009). The Intersection of Race, Culture,
Language, and Disability: Implications for Urban Education. Urban Education, 44(4),
389–451.
Bogdan, R., Bogdan, R., Biklen, S. K., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research for
Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, Fifth Edition.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical Reflection as an Adult Learning Process. Handbook of Reflection
and Reflective Inquiry: Mapping a Way of Knowing for Professional Reflective Inquiry,
215–236.
Burch, S., & Patterson, L. (2013). Not Just Any Body: Disability, Gender, and History. Journal
of Women’s History, 25(4), 122–137.
Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies that Matter. Routledge, NY, New York.
Cahill, B., & Adams, E. (1997). An exploratory study of early childhood teachers’ attitudes
toward gender roles. Sex Roles, 36(7–8), 517–529.
Carter, E., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including High School Students With Severe Disabilities in
General Education Classes: Perspectives of General and Special Educators,
Paraprofessionals, and Administrators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 2(2), 174–188.
Chang, D. F., & Demyan, A. L. (2007). Teachers’ stereotypes of Asian, Black, and White
students. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 91–114.
Cherry, L. J. (1978). A sociolinguistic approach to the study of teacher expectations. Discourse
Processes, 1(4), 373–393.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 329
Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Issues That Divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237–244.
Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing
teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–27.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild
and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203–213.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques and
Procedurs for Developing Grounded Theory.
Cross, J. B., DeVaney, T., & Jones, G. (2001). Pre-Service Teacher Attitudes Toward Differing
Dialects. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 211–227.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Davis, L. (1995). Enforcing Normalcy: disability, deafness, and the body. Verso Publications.
London, England
Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of
responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational
habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.
Duffy, J., Warren, K., & Walsh, M. (2001). Classroom interactions: Gender of teacher, gender of
student, and classroom subject. Sex Roles, 45(9–10), 579–593.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R, Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Handbook for
Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq.
Education
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 330
Elisabeth Hess Rice, Esther Merves, & Amy Srsic. (2008). Perceptions of Gender Differences in
the Expression of Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities. Education and Treatment of
Children, 31(4), 549–565.
Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable Offenses: Untangling Race and Disability in
Discourses of Intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 4(2),
127–145.
Felice, L. G. (2013). Dropout Behavior : Black Student From School Disengagement and Racial
Rejection Discrimination, 50(4), 415–424.
Ferri, B. a., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re)segregated
education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453–474.
Ferri, B. a., & Connor, D. J. (2010). “I was the special ed. girl”: urban working-class young
women of colour. Gender and Education, 22(April), 105–121.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special
education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2004). Presage of a paradigm shift? Beyond the social model of disability
toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 20(2), 585–600.
Gang, F. (1975). Education for all handicapped children act of 1975. 20 USC § 1401 et Seq., 8(P.
L. 94-142), 79–82. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71799-9_152
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: toward a quality system for all
students. Harvard Education Review, 57(4), 367–395.
Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA
Journal, 14(3), 1–32. http://doi.org/10.2979/NWS.2002.14.3.1
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 331
students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
15(6), 613–629.
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 143-152.
Gee, J. (2008) Social Lingustics and Literacies. Routledge Press.
Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, and the Primacy of Racism: Race,
Class, Gender, and Disability in Education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 277–287.
Goodley, D. (2012). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–
Green, S. P., Shriberg, D., & Farber, S. L. (2008). What’s Gender Got To Do With It? Teachers’
Perceptions Of Situation Severity And Requests For Assistance. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 18(4), 346–373.
Guarino, C. M., Buddin, R., Pham, C., & Cho, M. (2009). Demographic factors associated with
the early Identification of Children With Special Needs. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 30(3), 162–175.
Guiberson, M. (2009). Hispanic Representation in Special Education: Patterns and Implications.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3), 167–
176.
Guttmann, J., & Bar-Tal, D. (1982). Stereotypic Perceptions of Teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 19(4), 519–528.
Haig, Y., & Oliver, R. (2003). Language Variation and Education: Teachers’ Perceptions.
Language and Education, 17(4), 266–280.
Harry, B. & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are there so many minority students in special education?
Teacher's College Press.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 332
Hatt, B. (2011). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(3), 438–460.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is Placed into Special Education? Sociol
Educ, 83(4), 312–332.
Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van den Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher
attitudes toward Dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement
of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515–529.
Irvine, J. J. (1985). Teacher Communication Patterns as Related to the Race and Sex of the
Student. Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 338–345.
Jordan, K.-A. (2005). Discourse Of Differences and the Overrepresentation of Black Students in
Special Education, 90(December), 128-149.
Kahn, M. (1996). Tahiti Intertwined : Ancestral Land , Tourist Postcard , and Nuclear Test Site.
American Anthropologist, 102(1), 7-26.
Khalifa, M. (2010). Validating Social and Cultural Capital of Hyperghettoized At-Risk Students.
Education and Urban Society, 42(5), 620-646.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 0034654316630383-.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998a). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998b). Teaching in Dangerous Times: Culturally Relevant Approaches to
Teacher Assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 255–267.
Ladson Billings, G. (2011). Boyz to men? Teaching to restore Black boys’ childhood. Race
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 333
Ethnicity and Education, 14(1), 7-15.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, Whiteness, and Education. Routledge Publications. NY, New York.
Leonardo, Z., & Broderick, A. a. (2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of
intersections between whiteness and disability studies. Teachers College Record,
113(10), 2206-2232.
Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: a review. Educational
Research, 41(1), 63-76.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
McIntyre, T., & Tong, V. (1998). Where the boys are: Do cross-gender misunderstandings of
language use and behavior patterns contribute to the overrepresentation of males in
programs for students with emotional and behavioral disorders? Education & Treatment
of Children, 21(3), 321–332.
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the
achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235-261.
Melorose, J., Perroy, R., & Careas, S. (2015). No Title No Title. Statewide Agricultural Land
Use Baseline 2015, 1(Idd). http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, G., & Patton, J. M. (2001). On the Nexus of Race, Disability, and Overrepresentation:
What Do We Know? Where Do We Go? On Point... Brief Discussions of Critical Issues
in Urban Education. Brief Discussions of Critical Issues in Urban Education, 3-22.
Milner R. (2010). A diversity and opportunity gaps explanatory framework. Start where
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 334
you are, but don’t stay there. (pp. 13-44). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Oswaldet, 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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paul, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Discourse, 142-145.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: how White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12, 197-215.
Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher Efficacy and Bias in Special Education
Referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 247-253.
Quarterly, L. I., & Bartolomé, B. L. I. (2004). Radicalizing Prospective Teachers Critical
Pedagogy and Teacher Education :, 97-122.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdes, G. (2011). Language demands and opportunities in relation to
Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to
know. Understanding Language, (1), 1-12.
Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Gender differences in reading impairment and in the
identification of impaired readers: results from a large-scale study of at-risk readers.
Journal of Learning Disabilitiesisabilities, 48(4), 433-445.
Rayman, P., Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools
Cheat Girls. Contemporary Sociology, 24, 87.
Reid, D. K., Knight, M. G., Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2016). Disability Studies Linked
references are available on JSTOR for this article : Disability Justifies Exclusion of
Minority Students : A Critical History Grounded in Disability Studies, 35(6), 18–23.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 335
Riley, T. A. (2014). Boys are like puppies, girls aim to please: How teachers’ gender stereotypes
may influence student placement decisions and classroom teaching. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 60(1), 1–21.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 411-451.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Rodgers - Seeing student learning.pdf. Harvard Educational Review.
Rogers, R. (2003). A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Special Education Referral Process: A
case study. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2), 139–158.
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: teacher expectation, and
pupils' intellectual development. Irvington Publishers, NY, New York.
Rousso, H. & Wehmeyer, M. (2001). Double Jeopardy: addressing gender equity in special
education. State of New York Press. Albany, New York.
Sadker, D. (2000). Gender Equity: Still Knocking at the Classroom Door. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 33(April 2015), 80–83.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (2016). Grade Schooul to Graduate School, 67(7), 512–515.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness. Simon & Schuste. NY, New York.
Saldaña, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publications.
Sarangi, S. (1998). ’ I Actually Turn My Back on [ Some ] Students ’: The Metacommunicative
Role of Talk in Classroom Discourse. Language Awareness, 7(2–3), 90–108.
Shepherd, M. A. (2011). Effects of Ethnicity and Gender on Teachers’ Evaluation of Students’
Spoken Responses. Urban Education , 46(5), 1011–1028.
Sideridis, G., Antoniou, F., & Padeliadu, S. (2013). Teacher Biases in the Identification of
Learning Disabilities: An Application of the Logistic Multilevel Model. Learning
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 336
Disability Quarterly, 31(4), 199–209.
Siebers, T. (2008) Disability Theory. Michigan Press.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Choong-
Geun Chung. (2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and
Current Challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as a way to excellence. Harvard
Educational Review, 61(2), 148–206.
Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a College Course that Adheres to the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) Framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
12(3), 31–61.
Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso
Publications. Brooklyn, New York.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: journeys to los angeles and other real-and-imagined places.
Blackwell Publishing.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1996). Beliefs and practices in schools serving
communities that differ in socioeconomic level. The Journal of Experimental Education,
64(4), 327–347.
Solomon, R. P., Portelli, J. P., Daniel, B., & Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial: how
white teacher candidates construct race, racism and “white privilege.” Race Ethnicity and
Education, 8(2), 147–169.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A Social Capital Framework for Understanding Racial Minority
Children and Youths.pdf. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
http://doi.org/Article
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 337
Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers ’ Gender Stereotypes As Determinants of. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 50, 49–62.
Tyler, I. (2015). Dis/ability studies: theorising disablism and ableism. Disability & Society,
7599(May), 1–3.
U.S Department of Education. (2007). in Educating Children With Disabilities Through Idea.
U.S. Department of Education.
Varenne, R. M., & H. (2016). Culture “as” Disability Author (s): Ray McDermott and Hervé
26(3), 324–348.
Vogel, S. A. (1982). Academic achievement in students with learning disabilities : A review of
the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 44–52.
Waitoller, F. R. (2014). Sustaining Pedagogy and Universal Inclusive Pedagogy That Accounts
for Dis /Ability, 86(3), 366-390.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Schwartz, M., (2016). Disproportionate Representation of Males in Special
Education Services : Biology , Behavior, or Bias, 28-45.
Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in special education: A persistent
challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 180-187.
Yell, M., Rogers, D., & Rodgers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education. Remedial
& Special Education, 19(4), 219-229.
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 338
APPENDIX A: Teacher Interview Protocol
School Name: ________________________________ Date:____________________
Interviewee Name: ___________________________________________________________
Position:____________________________________________________________________
Start Time: _______________ End Time: _______________ Total Time: _______________
Researcher:__________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Hello, my name is Ashley Evins and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a study on teacher perceptions.
During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far with difficult
students. Specifically, I’d like to speak to you about your thoughts about working with female
students. I’d also want to talk about the way the school culture and space influence your
perceptions.
The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. I will be audio recording our interview as
well as taking notes. At any point, you may stop the interview and request that your responses be
redacted. Anything you share with me today will be confidential and a pseudonym will be used
in lieu of your name. Do I have your consent to start the interview? Do you have any questions
before we begin?
Interview Questions
I. Background
1. How long have you been a teacher?
2. Why did you get into teaching?
3. What was school like for you?
a. Can you talk about any experiences that stand out to you?
4. If you were going to tell a first-year general education teacher what effective
teaching is, how would you describe it to them?
5. What training have you received on supporting children with unique learning
needs?
a. Can you talk about these experiences?
b. Did you find these experiences to be helpful?
II. Ideology
1. How do you define a difficult student? What makes a student difficult to work
with?
2. Do you currently have difficult students in your classes?
a. What resources do you use to determine that they are difficult?
b. What specifically makes these students difficult?
3. What do you use to determine if there is an academic need?
4. What helps you support them?
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 339
a. Can you talk about your experience working with this population of
students?
b. What were/are some successes?
c. What were/are some challenges?
5. Do you use the same approach for all difficult students?
a. If yes, what is that approach?
b. If no, what alters your approach?
6. When do you reach out to others for help?
7. At what point do you refer a student for special education?
8. What does it mean to be normal in context of the school setting?
a. Is this normal flexible?
i. If yes, what makes it flexible?
9. Is there an insider culture at your school?
a. What makes someone an insider?
b. What makes someone an outsider?
III. Space
1. What do you think of your current classroom space?
a. What are things you like about it?
b. What are things that pose as challenges for you?
2. What does an ideal classroom space look like to you?
3. What are things that are missing in your current classroom setting that you wish
you had?
4. How does space influence your interaction with students?
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 340
APPENDIX B: Classroom Observation Protocol
School Name: ________________________________ Date:____________________
Teacher: _____________________________________ Grade Level: _________________
Class:____________________________________________________________________
Start Time: _______________ End Time: _______________ Total Time: _______________
Researcher:__________________________________________________________________
Observation #: ________________________
Observer Comments Descriptive Data
ENABLING DIS/ABLED FEMALES 341
APPENDIX C: Classroom Observation Protocol (Space)
School Name: ________________________________ Date:____________________
Teacher: _____________________________________ Grade Level: _________________
Class:____________________________________________________________________
Start Time: _______________ End Time: _______________ Total Time: _______________
Researcher:__________________________________________________________________
Observation #: ________________________
Describe the classroom space. Note the Level 1 or physical elements (i.e. materials, furniture,
etc…), Level 2 or transactional space (i.e. where is the teacher? Where are the students?), and
Third Space or transformative (i.e. spaces that level 1 and 2 combine with the intention for
emancipation) (Soja, 1996). Also, note where I sit as the observer in the classroom space.
Observer Comments:
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Female students in context of dis/ability are an understudied population. The intention of this study was to understand what practices and perceptions worked to empower this population, in hopes of extrapolating these to better serve dis/abled females. This study asserted that teacher beliefs regarding race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and ability informed how students were perceived and their relative academic need. Teacher perceptions set expectations, informed interactions and guided learning opportunities. This qualitative case study, therefore, explored how a single teacher's beliefs regarding female students in context of dis/ability were expressed and revealed through his interactions. This participant, Mark, was selected using a nomination sample that sought to find a teacher who was exemplary at working with female students in order to identify efficacious practices and mindsets. Data was collected from classroom observations and semi-structured and informal interviews. Raw data was coded using in vivo codes, providing open codes. From this, axial codes and finally selective codes were generated. These selective codes were then checked against my conceptual framework generated from an in-depth literature review to determine credibility of these findings. The findings revealed that Mark was a well-intentioned teacher whose lack of reflection caused him not to see the unique learning needs of his students. His gender-neutral and color-blind mindset had detrimental effects, causing him to engage in destructive interactions more frequently with students who were not aligned with him. Despite his desire to build equality in the classroom, his narrowed view limited his ability to see female student need.
Linked assets