Disrupting Segregation, Stigmatization, and Discrimination in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Through an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework

• In Event: Racial Disproportionality and Special Education Policy

Abstract

Theoretical Framework: This conceptual paper considers the adaptation and application of an Intersectionality-based Policy Analysis Framework (Hankivsky, 2014) as a lens for examining the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IBPA framework includes themes and transformative questions that have the potential to disentangle the persistent inequalities resulting from educational policies. Here we argue that the use of IBPA as an analytic tool for reimagining the future of IDEA can bring about a conceptual shift and more importantly, a long overdue disruption to the persistence of IDEA as a tool for segregation, stigmatization, and discrimination.

Methods of Inquiry: Online searches yielded a database of 91 citations that were reviewed to categorize the use of intersectionality as a term (79) versus an analytic framework (12). Through a review of the extant literature by conducting searches using online databases, we employed a sociohistorical approach to: 1) define and distinguish between the use of intersectionality as a colloquial term and specific articulations and Intersectionality as a policy framework, 2) create a timeline that reviews the permutations and evolution of Intersectionality frameworks and their relevance to IDEA, 3) propose the utility of adapting IBPA as a framework to revisit and revise future reauthorizations of IDEA.

Data sources, evidence: The database of 12 citations using intersectionality as an analytic framework was further analyzed to draw conclusions and cross-reference common themes from multiple intersectionality frameworks. Many of these themes were captured in seven categories: social justice/equity, focus on intersecting categories, multi-level analysis, power dynamics, reflexivity, time and space, and diverse knowledges/theories.

Results/conclusions: Based on a review and careful analysis of the literature, we propose a set of policy recommendations for IDEA legislators to consider as they seek to address educational “problems” that include disability as it is inextricably linked to race, class, gender, language and other identities. As part of the process, we challenge legislators to reflect on both their own identities and those of their constituents, before making proclamations and mandates. Failure to acknowledge the divide and systemic power and privilege differentials, as well as potentially misaligned priorities and preferences, we argue are a contributing factors to the long standing inequities maintained through IDEA and other educational policies. We pose transformative humanizing questions to challenge existing stakeholders’ engagement in education policy development and implementation for “others”.

Scholarly significance: Despite approaching nearly a half century in existence, IDEA has not fully reached its promise of ending segregation, stigmatization, and discrimination. In this paper, we argue that it is a result of the failure to consider systemic power dynamics that privilege social identities of policymakers and oppress the social identities of constituents. Existing policies are not universally designed from the beginning, and typically focus on single identities (disability) without fully considering others (race, gender, class, language) until after the fact. Through engagement with social justice oriented frameworks such as IBPA, we aspire to raise the consciousness of educational policymakers as they re-envision and revise IDEA.

Authors

• Jennifer F. Samson, Hunter College - CUNY

• Wendy Cavendish, University of Miami