From “Problems” to “Vulnerable Resources:” Reconceptualizing Black Boys With and Without Disability Labels in U.S. Urban Schools

Abstract

In this article, I propose a critical, alternative framing of Black boys, asserting that Black boys are vulnerable resources rather than problems. Black boys are susceptible to racist and ableist practices and discourses, and they deserve special protection and services in school that do not position them as “in need of repair.” Despite the multiple oppressions they face, Black boys are assets to themselves and their communities. I contrast this alternative framing against an existing framing of schooling for Black boys: the dominant, functionalist approach that advances a deficiency narrative. I situate this discussion within the context of urban education.

Reconceptualizing Education Grounded in the Multimodal Discourses of Girls of Color Labeled with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

“…In this way, interactions felt one-sided with the adult holding the power. Instead, girls of color labeled with significant cognitive disabilities must be positioned as epistemic agents (Taylor & McDonough, 2021) and vulnerable assets (Proffitt, 2020) rather than solely as knowledge consumers, and supported as such.…”

Evidence-Based and Culturally Sustaining Practices for Diverse Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…A mismatch between student needs and culturally biased tools and practices causes the student to be seen as the problem rather than the functionalist system that created the problem. As a result, the student (i.e., the problem) is placed in a segregated space or program within or outside their school (Erevelles, 2014;Proffitt, 2020). Consequently, research shows that students with EBD whose behavior is generally perceived as challenging and problematic are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and have the highest dropout rate of any other disability category (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2020).…”

“…The overrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and other students of color (i.e., non-White students) has received much attention from scholars who cite discriminatory identification practices as contributing factors (Skiba et al, 2013). But most recently, researchers have reemphasized the use of state standardized tests that are culturally weighted as another factor (Proffitt, 2020). Proffitt (2020) found tests that tend to be "culturally normed" are used as practices in schools to explain students' poor academic performance and place Black students in subjective disability categories (Domina et al, 2017), thus leading to another hypothesized contributing sentence fragment factor referred to as the cultural mismatch theory.…”

“…But most recently, researchers have reemphasized the use of state standardized tests that are culturally weighted as another factor (Proffitt, 2020). Proffitt (2020) found tests that tend to be "culturally normed" are used as practices in schools to explain students' poor academic performance and place Black students in subjective disability categories (Domina et al, 2017), thus leading to another hypothesized contributing sentence fragment factor referred to as the cultural mismatch theory. This theory posits teachers or service providers are more likely to inappropriately refer and identify students from diverse backgrounds for special education services because they do not understand or are dismissive of their cultures (Skiba et al, 2008).…”

“…The overrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and other students of color (i.e., non-White students) has received much attention from scholars who cite discriminatory identification practices as contributing factors (Skiba et al, 2013). But most recently, researchers have reemphasized the use of state standardized tests that are culturally weighted as another factor (Proffitt, 2020).…”