# data[].attributes.body
What is one aspect of the 4 features of communities who enact CSP that you have questions about? What barriers do you see to enacting these within your own community, or in communities you have been a part of in the past? The second part of my questions are: Do you consider yourself an activist? Why or why not? Is this a desirable identity to you?

# data[].attributes.body
As a teacher when covid started, but leaving soon after, these articles were very interesting as I consider what my role in K-12 education will be in the future. So much seems unknown as of yet on what the long term effects of COVID are (physically, emotionally, educationally, etc.) and what actions might be taken to fix them (Sahlberg, 2021). Although I felt that the Haderlein et al. (2021) article blamed schools and teachers (a little) for the quality of instruction and rate of interactions, it was interesting to read the results of a nationally representative sample of parents. Particularly interesting to me was the way in which elementary, rural, and Republican-controlled areas were more likely to have access to in-person opportunities. I know that no one knew what the best call was, but there was so much fighting along party lines with the fear and uncertainty. It seems, perhaps, that going back to school earlier was the "right" choice, in retrospect. Do you think that democrats and republicans can put aside all the disagreements and bad blood to help address the inequities that arose in the COVID pandemic? Or did they further the divide in this country?

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Ladson-Billings avowed that the Covid-19 pandemic did not cause the inequities in education, it simply amplified them (at AERA, 2022). Instead of trying to get things “back to normal”, the Covid-19 pandemic created an opportunity to shake things up and  implement necessary changes to make educational opportunities more equitable for all learners. In their study that collected data from April 2020 to May 2021 – the height of the pandemic educational crisis – Haderlein at al. (2021) examined the disparities in access to education that occurred in K-12 households such as unequal access to technology, instruction, and in-person opportunities. The reality is that these issues with access did not affect White, upper-class families, it affected multiply-minoritized students. Yet, the voices that were mainly complaining about struggling to teach children at home were the White, upper-class families. Could it be that the multiply-minoritized families are used to the lack of support, that they have just learned to accept it? If so, how can we change this mentality? -M.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shardé: "we must be willing to resist and refuse when institutional, governmental, or other policies and practices reinforce these false and damaging beliefs in superiority, in extraction, in dispossession" (Paris, 2021, p. 369)

# data[].attributes.subject
Shardé: "we must be willing to resist and refuse when institutional, governmental, or other policies and practices reinforce these false and damaging beliefs in superiority, in extraction, in dispossession" (Paris, 2021, p. 369)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the executive summary from Losen et al.'s (2021) report to be eye-opening. The executive summary described that schools are not adequately identifying and supporting 504-only students and White students are more likely to be identified as needing 504 services. As a special education teacher I was only required to have very limited involvement with the 504 process and of the 3 schools I worked in I found that no students were provided with supports outside of testing accommodations. The report also highlighted that the pandemic has increased the rates of childhood anxiety, depression, and trauma, which could lead to more students needing 504 supports, especially marginalized students. What I appreciated most about this report was the specific policy recommendations that were given, including an increase in federal funding, data reporting, and mental health services in schools. My research is focused on culturally responsive socioemotional supports, which was not highlighted in the report. My question is what new opportunities exist for the increase of culturally responsive behavioral supports in special education and what potential pushback will there be from policymakers?

# data[].attributes.body
This week’s readings exposed me to the harsh realities of the “deficit model”. I genuinely believe that special education programs allow students with disabilities to receive the services and support they need to learn and be successful. I didn’t realize all the ways a disability label was hindering their educational experience and opportunities. Growing up in Miami, I attended schools that were filled with a diverse population of students. When I became a teacher, I taught in the same urbans schools that I grew up in and the majority of my students were non-White. It didn’t occur to me that the standards that geared my teaching were meant to fit conformity standards that stemmed from White-centered, neurotypical expectations for learning and behavior (Cruz et al., 2021). My goal was not to “fix” my students, it was to help them access their full potential. This binary label of ability or disability that plagues American schools results in multiply-minoritized students being denied opportunities because they do not fit societies “norm” (Petit-McClure & Stinson, 2019). With the intention of improving experiences and services for SWD, the historical and epistemological problems of overrepresentation in special education need to be addressed through a plurality of methods (Cavendish et al., 2020). Many times, in my classes, I expressed to students the real-world connections of the concepts and objectives they were learning. I think there is a need for researchers to illuminate the real-world experiences of SWD by listening to their narratives, not by simply examining their test scores. -M.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Quantcrit and asset-based quantitative methods

# data[].attributes.subject
Quantcrit and asset-based quantitative methods

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think that Quantcrit could be used in an even more asset-based manner than demonstrated in the article (Cruz et al., 2021)? If so, in what ways? If you were to use this method what would you want to measure? What do you think would the limitations of this application be?

# data[].attributes.body
This week I reflected more deeply on the concept of what is knowledge and who decides. Sticking out to me especially were the Bhattacharya & Kim (2020), Brayboy et al. (2012), and Petit-McClure & Stinson (2019) articles. I loved the notions of indigenous communities reclaiming methodology versus it being "given" back to them (Brayboy et al., 2012), fluid and culturally relevant ways to produce knowledge (Bhattacharya & Kim, 2020) and ideas of damage-centered research (Brayboy et al., 2012; Petit-McClure & Stinson, 2019). These three readings, along with class activities, make me think about how I will make sure I focus on asset-based discussion in my own research/dissertation and how I will decolonize the context I am in to the best of my ability. As scholars, how will you all commit to similar things?

# data[].attributes.headline
Shardé: “knowledge is both relational and subjective” (Brayboy et al., 2012, p. 436)

# data[].attributes.subject
Shardé: “knowledge is both relational and subjective” (Brayboy et al., 2012, p. 436)

# data[].attributes.body
This week I enjoyed reading about critical methodologies that resist traditional Western notions within research. Brayboy et al.'s (2012) discussion about the importance of praxis and the usefulness of research in practice reminded me of the importance of critical research in that it aims to explore and address the needs of a community. Petit-McClure and Stinson (2019) also discussed the need for an expansion of "scientific research" to include mixed and multiple methods, such as emancipatory research. Reading about alternative methods of research inspires me, but it also causes me to wonder where I fall within these methodological perspectives. How do I identify the appropriate theoretical framework that fits my values? How do DSE and DisCrit differ in terms of their use in educational research?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The case to recognise Indigenous knowledge as science | Albert Wiggan | TEDxSydney

# data[].attributes.headline
Shardé:  "The disproportionate representation in special education by race and ethnicity is deeply complex, varying substantially across a number of dimensions." (Skiba et al., 2016, p. 223)

# data[].attributes.subject
Shardé:  "The disproportionate representation in special education by race and ethnicity is deeply complex, varying substantially across a number of dimensions." (Skiba et al., 2016, p. 223)

# data[].attributes.body
After my first read-through of Morgan et al. (2015), to be quite honest, I was disheartened by the data. The methodology seemed reliable to me and I was forced to question my own dependence on research that proves disproportionality impacts students of color. However, I was relieved by Skiba et al.'s (2016) response because I realized the faults in Morgan et al. (2015). As I reflected on both pieces, though, I realized how strongly influential and dangerous pieces like Morgan et al. are. If I was questioning my own knowledge and experience of witnessing disproportionality within schools then I can only imagine how politicians are using this type of research to disprove the longstanding data supporting the need for equity in special education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How America's public schools keep kids in poverty | Kandice Sumner

# data[].attributes.body
Hello friends :) Of course this week we were all instructed to grapple with the question of what makes for evidence. The article provided a variety of different ways of "discussing" this. From "debate" (e.g., Morgan et al., 2015 vs. Skiba et al., 2016), to completely ignoring the other side (e.g., Cook et al., 2018), and even the advocation for mixing different methodologies and ways of thinking (e.g., Riehl, 2006). My question is what role "mandatory" positionality statements or social validity measures could have on these debates of what is evidence? It seems that mixed methods could be an effective way to solve a lot of this discussions or reduce harm. What are the pros and cons to using social validity or positionality statements?

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts on more situated and  flexible use of quantitative measurements and the field of medicine

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts on more situated and  flexible use of quantitative measurements and the field of medicine

# data[].attributes.body
Something that I appreciated about both the Riehl (2006) and Bal & Trainor (2016) is both articles demonstrated a use of either quantitative or medically-rooted practices and showed them having less neat, precise, and clear lines; or, in the case of Bal & Trainor, actually situating these methods. I am really interested in how we can take the tools of medicine and of quantitative methods and adapt them for more situated use rooted in disability studies and culturally sustaining practices. After all, a rubric can be a helpful tool if composed thoughtfully and only used for reflexivity. Likewise, I am drawn to Riehl's point that the medical professions focus on practicioner as researcher. This seems inherently less-hegemonic. I wonder to what extent medicine and quantitative methodologies can benefit from being more informed by qualitative research. I know there is the field of narrative medicine, for instance. I wonder if anyone here sees value in trying to adapt their work to appeal to a more medically minded-audience, but how you will stay rooted in asset-based discourse? I apologize if this question is a little rambly, I just am interested in what methods others find to be harm-reductive and how we can recontextualize methods to make them less harmful and more beneficial.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is special education so afraid of disability studies?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is special education so afraid of disability studies?

# data[].attributes.body
Can the medical model of disability and the social model of disability coexist? I decided to do a double-take of the Connor (2019) article because the first time reading it, it brought up a lot of emotions. And a part of me wants to go read the six articles they critiqued but I think it would just infuriate me more. As a mother of two sons with disabilities (i.e. one with ADHD, one with ASD) I accept that disability is a normal human variation but I am not quite at the point where I would celebrate their disabilities or consider them as a gift, which Connor (2019) discussed in his critique of articles that harshly critique the social model of disability and that push for scientific knowledge as the basis for SPED. Connor (2019) cited a study that believed that disability is a limitation-the inability to do something. I internally struggle with this notion because I struggle with Multiple Sclerosis on a daily basis and at times it significantly impacts my mobility and does become essentially a limitation. The point is that there is room for medical knowledge and social construction of disabilities within research. There is a need for the field of special education to privilege the personal experiences and voices of people with disabilities, their family members, educators, etc. (Connor, 2019). Scientific knowledge, especially medical knowledge and investigations are crucial, however, they do not always examine all of the factors or paint the whole picture. Perhaps more disability studies should approach mixed-methodologies with mixed conceptual lenses of disabilities, to examine the current experiences of individuals living with disabilities. -M.S.

# data[].attributes.body
In response to the ideas presented in the Artiles article (2016): In thinking of special education as boundary work, this also implies that the acts of special educators are never neutral.
Is it possible to only use special education as an object of protection, only when absolutely necessary? Or, do you think there is some innate harm always present simply by the role’s existence as evolving from the triangle of expertise, etc.?

# data[].attributes.body
This week's readings provided some new frameworks for me to think about issues of race and disability. Learning first about the historical background of race and disability in the US from post-civil war times to present (Artiles et al., 2016) and then learning about Defectcraft (Tefera et al., 2022), provided an interesting way to understand special education in this country. As both of the aforementioned readings did require more than one read through, I wonder who they are predominantly written for. Further, for whom is it necessary to have an understanding of this? Higher ed faculty? Teachers? In what ways can understanding this help mitigate the current divide in special education?

# data[].attributes.body
Many of this week’s readings emphasized how race and disability are used to further segregate and disadvantage students in special education. Artiles’ (2019) powerful statement that disability identification is an object of protection and stratification grounded his argument about the disparities of disability classification. His statement was further supported by the argument that a disability diagnosis has equity ramifications (e.g., academic achievement gaps, higher school dropouts, closer association to the juvenile justice system). This point was echoed by Tefera et al.’s (2022) findings that showed disability policies can hinder educational opportunities through misidentification and segregation. On some subconscious level I have been aware of these realizations, yet I still hold the dream that special education positively impacts the lives of students. If it doesn’t, then what are we doing all of this for? Many educators, researchers, and practitioners operate using the deficit view of minority people discussed by Artiles (1998) and the same deficit view can be applied to people with disabilities. Minority people and people with disabilities are seen as “different” in our society. Whether we acknowledge the historical dimensions of our biases or not, they still exist. In their protocol for intersectional consciousness, Boveda & Weinberg (2020) outline the traditional normative markers in our society which are White, English speaking, and non-disabled. If a person falls outside of these dominant markers, they are automatically seen as different or less in some way. The work of Artiles and colleagues verify a need for researchers and educators to examine racial biases within systems, policies, educational practices, but most importantly within themselves. Change has to start with us.  -M.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shardé's Reflection:  "numbers have theories." (Artiles, 2019, p. 330)

# data[].attributes.subject
Shardé's Reflection:  "numbers have theories." (Artiles, 2019, p. 330)

# data[].attributes.body
Artiles (2019) piece on the "epistemological gatekeepers" made me reflect on what I've learned thus far about the history of research in academia and the power that researchers have to influence society's views of minorities who are both of color and dis/abled. An important epiphany I had from this article was the link between policy and research and how research is often used as a tool to defend policy decisions. Thus, our task as novice researchers is to confront the socio-political-historical influence of academia and examine the research that currently exists. What is current research saying about the students we once worked with? How does it impact our own views of education? This piece called into question educational researchers responsibility to conduct equitable work aimed at reforming these issues.