| | |
Reviewed by Chinwe Okpalaoka July 27, 2008 The major point that Connor captures in his “portraits in progress” is the reality of African-Americans and other students of color who face what he calls the “double jeopardy” of race and disability discrimination- attending poorly funded urban schools and learning in poorly supported special education classrooms. In her foreword to the text, Wanda Blanchett reveals that these ills are supported by the silences surrounding them- silences created by the reluctance of educators and researchers to frame these ills [racism, white privilege, classism, ableism, etc] within the larger socio-political climate that creates and maintains them (p. xii). The focus of Connor’s book is on the category of students with disabilities who are predominantly of color, attend urban schools that are in poor condition, and are excluded from inclusive education programs and general education curriculum. The portraits in the book are the stories of these students’ experiences, told in their own voices, as they try to make sense of the glaring disparities between them and their predominantly white counterparts in affluent suburban schools. The representation of students of color with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in the special education literature has not kept pace with their overrepresentation in urban schools that deprive them of inclusive education programs. This telling of their counternarratives in their own voices forms the basis of this text. Connor’s interest in the experiences of children who make up the largest group of students in urban public school special education programs began during his teaching career. He discovered that this population, mostly learning-disabled, Black or Latino(a) and working-class or poor, was not represented in professional literature. Using an interdisciplinary and critical approach, he sought to provide a space for these silenced voices to be heard through the participants’ narratives of disability and exclusion. Chapter one provides a background of the author’s work with students in New York who were labeled LD and the genesis of his interest in special education. He shares how he came to “take up the cause” of students marginalized along racial, class and ability lines. Connor does not paint a picture of himself as a welcome savior of his students. Instead he acknowledges the mistrust that accompanied his relationship with them as both he and they negotiated the silences that typically surround disability. Contrary to the desire of school teachers to make this “problem” go away by ignoring it, Connor encouraged discussions which allowed the students to share their knowledge of their reality. They welcomed the opportunity to share through personal narratives and original artwork their understanding of the power structures that have led to their being segregated within their own schools. Connor helps the reader see the connection between the field of special education that is predominantly non-disabled, White and middle class and the void in professional literature that does not reflect the experiences of the occupants of urban special education classes who are largely students of color. It is this inequality in public education that he seeks to correct by empowering the participants through giving them a forum for their voices to be heard. In Chapter two, the author frames his work within disability studies, critical race theory and Black feminist thought. He begins this chapter with a historical account of how these various frameworks emerged and explains why they were chosen- “their shared focus on ethics, social justice, and the desire to reclaim knowledge obscured by dominant social practices…” (p. 36). Connor explains his choice to work within critical, LatCrit and disability studies frameworks by acknowledging that LDs cannot be studied without regards to the “historical, social and cultural contexts experienced by individuals who have been labeled LD” (p.42). The interconnectedness or interwovenness of oppressions made it critical for the author to resist working within the disability studies framework alone. In Chapters 3-8 we meet eight individuals whose stories Connor refers to as “portraits in progress.” There is no tidiness to the stories told by the participants because the author has allowed portraits to emerge that tell their stories, thoughts, feelings and ideas on race, class and learning disabilities. According to Connor “the portraits do not follow tidy, synchronous timelines. Instead they construct a picture of the individual from a spectrum of asynchronous thoughts and memories” (p. 69). The author chose to retain most of the text from the participants’ writing, group discussions and speculations made during the interviews. He also left most of the grammar “as is.” Although Connor rightly calls the result of this approach a “dynamic fusion” (p. 69), the “deliberate fragmentation” (p. 69) sometimes made for tedious reading of the portraits. He attempts to remedy this by arranging each portrait in the same structure, but I could not help feeling that there was some discontinuity even within the same story. Each portrait begins with an original poem about learning disability, followed by the participants’ analyses of the poem. Likewise, each portrait ends with artwork that represents LD and is followed by the participants’ analyses of the drawing. In between this structure are what appear to be the participant’s monologues - thoughts, ideas and experiences on/with LD, race and class. Chapters 3-8 are aptly titled to reflect the experiences of living at the intersections of learning disability, race and social class. These revealing titles, which are actual statements taken from the participants’ stories, include “Why have I got to be like this;” “I get into so much trouble just by walking;” and “It’s the look they give you… everywhere you go.” In order to carry out the complex analysis of the ways in which power operates in the discourse surrounding disability, race and class, Connor utilizes Collins’ (2000) matrix of domination and Crenshaw’s (1993) three-part model on the structural, political and representational aspects of intersectionality. He breaks down Chapters 11-13 into four domains of power- structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal. In his discussion of the structural domain in Chapter 11, Connor reveals how institutions, including schools, “help maintain the subordination of individuals at the intersection of disability, race, and class” (p. 289). For example, the participants’ narratives show where they believe they are positioned within the hierarchy existing in the categories of disability, race and class. In the category of disability, they view themselves as being positioned lower than their able-bodied counterparts and their stories reveal the shame and pain of being perceived as abnormal. In the category of race, the participants show that they understand existing racial hierarchies that keep Whites at the top, followed by Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and African-Americans. Their stories reveal their perception of their position within this hierarchy. In the category of class, the participants’ show how class system reflects and reinforces racial hierarchies. Their perception of class hierarchy is grounded in their personal experiences with discriminatory practices in housing, schooling and the job market. Chapter 12 focuses on the disciplinary domain of power and how the participants come to understand their position within the well-oiled “machine bureaucracy of the school system” (p.333). Their stories acknowledge the roles that race and class play in the placement of disabled children in environments that are restrictive and confining. Connor uses the imagery of a concentric circle to describe the limited locus of control that LD individuals possess. He gives the example of neighborhoods that are segregated by race and class and neighborhood schools that are segregated by race, class and ability. Within this concentric circle are LD students whose race and class determine where they are placed in school. Connor argues that “within these concentric circles… those labeled disabled are segregated within segregation and therefore experience the most segregation of all” (p. 333). The hegemonic and interpersonal domains of power are discussed in Chapter 13. According to Connor, the hegemonic domain is distinct from the disciplinary in that while the latter organizes oppression, the former rationalizes it. The interpersonal domain, on the other hand, deals with oppression and the ways it manifests in everyday relations and interactions. This chapter explains the complexity of never knowing which aspect of one’s identity is the cause of discrimination at any given time. Connor acknowledges that it is impossible to “determine where oppression as a result of one marker of identity starts and oppression as a result of another ends” (p. 357). So, like the participants’ experiences reveal, oppressions can merge or overlap when they are not sure if they are being followed in the store because of race, class or age discrimination. Sadly, this fusion of oppressions (p. 357) causes the participants to disdain or want to change at least one aspect of their identity. On a positive note, their stories show a resilience that comes from learning to balance the tensions inherent in having these multiple identities. The author concludes with implications for theory, research, policy and practice. Theoretical implications include challenging scholars in the field of LD to incorporate issues of race and class in their work. Implications for research include the question of how researchers can collaborate with LD participants in choosing research questions, appropriate methodologies, methods of analysis and mode of representation. Implications for policy suggest that a social model of understanding disability, rather than the existing medical model, will shed new light on disability. Whereas the medical model provides a singular way of viewing diversity, a social model will reveal the systems that complicate the one dimensional approach. Finally, the implications for practice address the disparity between the “noble” intentions of special education professionals and the real experiences of LD students who regard the label, special education, as an insult. In-service teachers are encouraged to include disability in the curriculum, along with other “accepted” diversity like race and ethnicity (p. 376). Inclusion of disability in the curriculum will push the silence surrounding it and challenge schools to bring to the fore, and include disabled students in regular school practices. I believe that this will lead to what I think Connor is calling for- a humanizing of the experiences of LD students and an inclusion of their experiences and learning styles in the classroom community. Collins, P.H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Crenshaw, K.W. (1993). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 Live Crew. In M.J. Matsuda, C.R. Lawrence, R. Delgado, & K.W. Crenshaw (Eds.), Critical race theory, assaultative speech, and the first amendment (pp.111-132). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. About the Reviewer Reviewed by Chinwe Okpalaoka, a doctoral candidate in the School of Educational Policy and Leadership, College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University. Her areas of interest include immigrant education, ethnic identity development and curriculum reform. |