Abstract
This study explores the experiences and perspectives of 15 Black and Latinx students with disabilities as they journeyed through the process of taking and attempting to meet high-stakes testing policies in an urban high school in southern California. Utilizing critical policy sociology and student voice, findings reveal material and structural challenges related to lack of teacher quality, excessive use of substitute teachers, and lack of access to essential course curricula. In addition, contradictions between general and special education policy mandates demonstrate the failure of a one-size-fits-all policy approach that overlooks students’ multidimensional needs. Finally, despite the multiple structural and material challenges students faced, their family and peers played a pivotal role in their preparation both emotionally and academically for the exam. Given these findings, recommendations for policy and practice are offered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Latinx” is used to denote gender equality between Latinas and Latinos, as well as gender fluidity beyond binaries.
States with mandatory high school exit exams as of 2012: AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, MA, MD, MN, MS, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA.
In 2009, students with disabilities were no longer required to pass the CAHSEE in order to receive a high school diploma. This study was conducted during the 2008–2009 school year, when it was mandatory for all students to pass the CAHSEE in order to receive a diploma. It should also be noted that in October 2015, the current governor of California, Jerry Brown, signed a bill that allows students who met all high school graduation requirements but did not pass the CAHSEE to receive a high school diploma.
References
Ansell, S. C., & McCable, M. (2003). To close the gap, quality counts: Off target. Quality Counts-Education Week, 22(17).
Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445.
Artiles, A. J. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities: An intersectionality critique across disability models. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 329–347.
Tefera, A. A., & Voulgarides Kramarczuk, C. (2016). Is education policy alleviating or perpetuating the racialization of disabilities? An analysis of “Big-P” and “little-p” policies. Teachers College Record, NSSE Yearbook, 118(14), 21541.
Ball, S. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent educational policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274.
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boe, E. E. (2014). Teacher demand, supply, and shortage in special education: A national perspective. In P. Sindelar, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, T. (2012). The effects of educational policy and local context on special education students’ experiences of school removal and transition. Educational Policy, 26(6), 813–844.
California Department of Education. (2014). 2012–2013 California high school exit examination results. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel78atta.asp
Cavendish, W., Artiles, A. J., & Harry, B. (2015). Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize the racialization of disability? Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptionally Learners, 14(2), 1–11.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Heilig, J. V. (2008). Accountability Texas style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(75), 75–110.
Darling-Hammond, L., Soung, B., Harvey, C. C. M., Lam, L., Mercer, C., Podolsky, A., et al. (2016). Pathways to new accountability through the every student succeeds act. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.
Dixson, A. D., Royal, C., & Henry, K. L. (2014). School reform and school choice. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of Urban education (pp. 474–503). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dumas, M. J., Dixson, A. D., & Mayorga, E. (2016). Educational policy and the cultural politics of race: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Policy, 30(1), 3–12.
El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3), 435–463.
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2010). ‘I was the special ed. Girl’: Urban working-class young women of colour. Gender and Education, 22, 105–121.
Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39–70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gonzalez, T. E., Hernandez-Saca, D. I., & Artiles, J. A. (2016). In search of voice: Theory and methods in K-12 student voice research in the US, 1990–2010. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1231661
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Columbia University.
Hernandez-Saca, D. (2016). Re-framing the master narratives of dis/ability through an emotion lens: Voices of Latina/o students with learning disabilities. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Hernandez-Saca, D. I., Kahn, L. G., & Cannon, M. A. (2018). Intersectionality dis/ability research: How dis/ability research in education engages intersectionality to uncover the multidimensional construction of dis/abled experiences. Review of Research in Education, 42, 286–311.
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skirtic, T. (2010). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally diverse families participation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47(2), 119–136.
Katzman, L. (2004). Students with disabilities and high-stakes testing: What can the students tell us? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Losen, D., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Mathis, W. J., & Trujillo, T. M. (2016). Learning from the federal market-based reforms: Lessons for ESSA. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2003). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443872.pdf
Milner, R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132–141.
National Assessment for Education Progress. (2013). Results for 2013 NAEP mathematics and reading assessments are in. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/executive-summary
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Pazey, B. L., Heilig, J. V., Cole, H. A., & Sumbera, M. (2014). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Comparing special education students’ experiences of accountability reform across two decades. Urban Review, 47(3), 365–392.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2008). Conditions of education in California 2008. Retrieved from http://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/Conditions_2008.pdf
Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334–344.
Thurlow, M. L., & Kopriva, R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 331–369.
Varenne, H. (2014). Everyday constitutional assessments and their relevance to formal assessments. Teachers College Record, 116(11), 1–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tefera, A. Listening to and Learning from the Perspectives and Experiences of Black and Latinx Students with Disabilities: Examining the Challenges and Contradictions of High-Stakes Testing Policies. Urban Rev 51, 457–476 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00496-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00496-4