Fall 2018 UPDATE

UPDATEOn Research and Leadership
Cantarell: Dark Backgro

Horizontal Left
black &
white

UofI
blue
1-color

UofI
colors
4-color

Fall 2018 Vol. 29, No. 1

Topics Featured in this Issue:

Supporting Data-Driven Equity in Students with
Trans Decision- Career and Disabilities
Collegians Making in Technical
CTE Education 13
2
5 8

UPDATE, Fall 2018

The Office of Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) was established in 1989 at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. OCCRL is affiliated with the Department of Educational Policy, Organization, and Leadership in the
College of Education. Projects of this office are supported by the Illinois Community College Board and the Illinois State
Board of Education, along with other state, federal, private, and not-for-profit organizations. The contents of publications
do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of our sponsors or the University of Illinois. Comments or inquiries
about our publications are welcome and should be directed to [email protected]. The UPDATE is prepared pursuant to a
grant from the Illinois Community College Board (Federal Award Identification Number: Grant Number: D6008). ©2018
Board of Trustees, University of Illinois

Director’s Note

Fall marks new beginnings that many of us look forward to as another academic year
offers the opportunity for a fresh start. The fall season harkens taking stock of the prior
school year and prompts my revisiting of my purpose, values, and goals. I find this is
my favorite season as it offers valuable time for reflection and realignment personally
and professionally. Annually as we release the fall issue of Update on Research and
Leadership, it is also a time to see the alignment with OCCRL -- our mission, values,
vision and objectives. The fall provides continuity of perennial commitments and a
clean slate for stretching and endeavoring to be the best version of our individual
and collective selves. At OCCRL, we remain ever committed to making the case for
community colleges and the social justice imperative that they promise in broadening
access, participation, and completion for all. There has never been a more relevant
time to foster colleges succeeding in their efforts to bolster diversity and inclusion in
ways that will lead to more equitable institutions, with equitable student outcomes.

In this issue of Update, the opening feature entitled, “Supporting Trans Collegians” is a conversation with Dr. Z
Nicolazzo, Assistant Professor of Trans* Studies in Education at the Center for the Study of Higher Education and
member of the Trans* Studies Initiative at the University of Arizona. Dr. Nicolazzo shares insights on discourses of
gender, intersectional identities, and fostering equitable postsecondary contexts across for transgender students
navigating educational environments that were not being built with them in mind.

In “Data-driven Decision-Making in Career and Technical Education”, Assistant Director, Dr. Anjale’ Welton shares
how CTE provides gateways to equity and how the systematic use of data on a continuous basis aids in bringing
inequities to light. Dr. Welton discusses how various equity frameworks can be a tool for prompting equity-focused
institutional change that can improve student outcomes and create cultures of inquiry, action, and evidence-based
practice. In keeping with a focus on CTE, the article by Francena Turner, OCCRL graduate research associate,
highlights the concept of equity as applied to CTE. “Equity and Career and Technical Education” demonstrates how
nebulously defined equity is in the CTE literature as well as the dearth of research examining equity gaps and lived
experiences of diverse student group experiences in CTE programs.

OCCRL graduate research associate Devean Owens, provides additional considerations regarding equity-guided
practices in “Culturally Responsiveness in Community College CTE Programs.” Ms. Owens begins by providing the
background, definition, purpose, and implications of culturally responsive pedagogy and speaks to how the CTE as
a Gateway to Equity Study seeks to add to the knowledge base. Lastly, our issue closes with an article by Purdue
University Access Consultant Dr. Amanda A. Bell and myself entitled, “Identity, Intersections, and Students with
Disabilities in Community Colleges.” In this feature, we draw together the literature on students with disabilities,
how community colleges serve them, and intersectionality relative student identity and multiple group membership.
We share how overlooked LGBTQ collegians with disabilities are as many are accommodated for their disability but
simultaneously marginalized by sexual orientation.

We hope you find this issue of Update engaging and as always, pass it along to colleagues! Stay in touch and keep
connected with us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Table of Contents

02 Supporting Trans Collegians

05 Data-Driven Decision-Making in Career and
Technical Education

08 Equity in Career and Technical Education

11 Culturally Responsiveness in Community College
CTE Programs

13 Identity, Intersections, and Students with
Disabilities in Community Colleges

Editor-at-large Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher

Managing Editor Heather L. Fox

Copy Editor Sal Nudo

Our mission is to use research and evaluation methods to improve policies, programs,
and practices to enhance community college education and transition to college for
diverse learners at the state, national, and international levels.

The UPDATE on Research and Leadership is a bi-annual newsletter featuring articles on programs,

policies, and research highlighting transitions to, through, and out of postsecondary education. Was this newslet-
ter forwarded to you? Sign up for the OCCRL mailing list to receive news and updates our work.

Visit the

Follow Us:

Website

1

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Supporting Trans Collegians

by Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher, OCCRL Director

Dr. Z Nicolazzo is an Assistant Professor of Trans* Studies in Education at the Center for the Study of Higher Education
and a member of the Trans* Studies Initative at the University of Arizona. Dr. Nicolazzo’s research has centered on college
student development, post-secondary access, diversity, equity, and culture. In particular, Dr. Nicolazzo is an expert on
trans collegians, with particular emphasis on trans student resilience and kinship building. Dr. Nicolazzo has published in a
variety of scholarly and practitioner-focused journals and outlets, including the Journal of LGBTQ Youth, Journal of Diver-
sity in Higher Education, About Campus, The Journal for Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, as
well as TSQ, Transgender Studies Quarterly. The summary below are highlights of Dr. Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher interview
with Dr. Nicolazzom, the full interview is available via episode 19 of the Democracy’s College podcast series.

In the opening of your book, Trans in College, you provide us
with a very intimate, rich, honest, soul-stirring opening in which
you talk about and demonstrate your own resilience as well
as how you’ve navigated and been visible as a transgendered
individual. Can you share with us how your journey has shaped
your studying in terms of intersectionality and multiplicity of
identities?

Dr. Nicolazzo: Thanks for the kind comments about the book. I tell people that any
good part of the book really is all the participants’ doing. It’s really exciting for me to
be able to talk about this work that I did alongside these nine trans students who are
just . . . they continue to be a real bedrock for me in terms of who I am and how I live
my life. So it’s nice to be able to talk about it.

Dr. Z Nicolazzo The introduction, yeah, kind of talks a little bit about my journey and my path around
understanding my own trans identity and then how that leads into the study. I came
out in my late 20s. I was living and working in Tucson, Arizona. I was working with
fraternities and sororities, and so I was really in an environment both, I think, socially

and politically as well as in my work, that was highly restrictive around gender. So coming out as trans was a pretty scary
thing for me. I didn’t really know who to turn to. I didn’t know what this meant for me
in terms of my work and in terms of my life.

And I remember having this . . . and I write about this in the introduction . . . this one conversation with my good friend,
Chase, who’s a trans man, on the phone at a coffee shop, and kind of whispering into the phone, “I’m trans, but I don’t
really know what that means, and I don’t know what to do.” And he told me, he said, “I know that you learn a lot through
reading, so here are some books that you should read to get more of a sense of who you are and who you could become.”

So when I transitioned then to being a doc student at Miami of Ohio, I really wanted to know how it is that transgender
college students come to know themselves and come to understand who they are. I had the, really, the privilege to move to
a different place and almost to start over again, to be publicly trans after I moved. College students don’t always get that
choice. They sometimes are locked into particular areas, geographic areas, and thinking about where they can go to college,
and once they’re on campus maybe they feel pretty locked into that particular campus. So I wanted to think about how is
it that they navigate these spaces that we know are chilly at best for trans students without being able to maybe go across
the country.

And, especially, too, I didn’t have a trans college experience, so I was kind of curious what are some differences, what are
some connections that I have with these students as we think about both of our experiences, mine postundergraduate, and
theirs while they’re in college. And really to think about, as you were talking about, some of these multiple convergences of
identities. So how does race mediate the way that trans identities are experienced? How does class status change the way
that people think about gender? How does thinking about disability mediate the process of being trans? And I was excited
to see some of those come to fruition through the research process.

Supporting Trans Collegians 2

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Could you share your perspectives on what it means to have equity in education for diverse
trans students, as well as highlight some of the inequities in the middle and high schools,
as well as post-secondary environments that you see?

Dr. Nicolazzo: If we think about some of the inequities that currently exist, I talk about this in my book as being a part
of this broader discourse. I talk about this gender binary discourse that exists. And certainly my research focuses on post-
secondary environments, but we know that the same is true in primary and secondary schools, that it’s not even just about
spaces or facilities. We can think about changing rooms, locker rooms, restrooms, and gaining access to spaces that
work for our bodies and who we are as trans people, but we can also think about discourse broadly speaking in terms of
curriculum.

California is one of the first states, if not the first state, to actually have an LGBT curriculum

infused into particularly their history and social sciences curriculum. So that means that

in most states in this country, queer and trans youth at a primary and secondary school

level aren’t even really understanding who they have the possibility to be, and I think

I didn’t even know that that’s super important. Especially if I think about my own experience. I didn’t

that being trans was even know that being trans was an option until I was in college. I didn’t even have

an option until I was in the access to the language of trans to be able to then identify as trans.

college. I didn’t even have So we know that if we are unable to have a curriculum that talks about LGBTQ
the access to the language youth, trans youth, trans people through history, then we’re foreclosing
possibilities for how people could identify and live their life. And then when we
of trans to be able to move to college, we can think about how that shows up in the programming that
then identify as trans.

we do. So leadership programs were organized around gender. Mentoring programs

were organized around gender at City University. There were obviously student

activities, I mentioned fraternity and sorority life, organized around rigid notions of

gender and sexuality.

And we can also think about gender in classroom spaces, too. I Had a lot of participants, [one] in particular, who told
me that when she would go to business classes, and before classes would even start she would hear horrible comments
from some of her peers who didn’t know that she was trans, and that sometimes students would joke around, and faculty
members would laugh at those jokes. So even in the classroom students are experiencing intense trans oppression and
microaggressions that then foreclose opportunities for what majors they want to be in, what fields they can feel comfortable
in, and then what their future profession looks like.

And the other thing, too, that I’ll say is that a lot of this is mediated by various other identities. So when we think about
connections around, let’s say, race and gender, there’s a phenomenon that I’ve written about where particularly black
non-binary students that I worked alongside of didn’t feel like they could exist in the Black Cultural Center because that
wasn’t a space to talk about queerness or wasn’t a space to be openly queer and transgress gender binaries. But then they
also felt like they couldn’t really fully exist in the LGBT Center because we know, as research indicates, that these spaces
are heavily white spaces. Even at City University, where the director of the LGBT Center
was a black lesbian woman, they still felt like it was an overly white space, and they
still felt like because it was an overly white space they questioned whether their
black trans bodies could exist there.

So one participant talked about, he used the phrase, “It’s a hard line to walk, “It’s a hard line to walk,
to think about where I can exist and how I can show up and always feeling like to think about where I can
I’m giving up some sense of who I am,” which is where this idea of kinship exist and how I can show
networks really comes into play. How is it that trans participants were able up and always feeling like
to create the kinship networks and the pockets of community both on campus I’m giving up some sense
as well as off campus, as well as virtually, through online platforms, that they
needed to be able to persist. of who I am.”

Supporting Trans Collegians 3

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Share with the audience what are some of the other various ways that trans students
navigate campus life, and what policies and practices are really critical, what do we need
in the way of confronting gender inequality?

Dr. Nicolazzo: Participants did all sorts of things, both, I think, small scale as well as larger scale things. For example, we
talk about them in the book in terms of practices of resilience, this notion of practice that we can keep on trying different
strategies to navigate what we know are hostile climates. Some of them work, and then we repeat them. Some of them
don’t, so maybe we try something different, we practice something different.

And these are everyday experiences like putting on headphones and listening to music as you go across campus so you don’t
have to actually hear disparaging comments. It means checking in with friends and saying, “Hey, if I don’t text you when I
get to my car in 10 minutes, give me a call.” It means knowing where . . . participants talked about queer bubbles on campus.
Where could they go to be seen as they show up as well as to see other queer and trans people? The coffee shop on campus
was one of those places. The LGBT Center, for some folks, was one of those places.

And those places weren’t just physical places. One participant, Megan, talked about feeling overtly focused on across the
entirety of campus, and so what she would do to cope with that is she was a gamer, and she would go back to her
room, and she would play women video game characters so that she could see herself represented at least virtually. So we
talk about even virtual kinship being a platform for people to be able to navigate their space.

On an administrative level and on a faculty level, I really strongly think that what we need to be doing is not thinking about
best practices as a checklist. Like, “Oh, I’m gonna create some gender-inclusive housing in a section of our residential
community, and then I can just check that off my list, and I’m good, and I’m doing great, and the campus pride index will
list our institution as being better.”

What I think we need to be doing is revisiting our policies in an ongoing fashion. Think about the fact that, for example,
having trans-inclusive housing or genderinclusive housing is necessary, but it’s insufficient at changing the way that we
think about gender. It’s insufficient at recognizing the reality that the gender binary operates in every single other residential
space. So how can we as administrators think through our policies on an ongoing basis? How can we involve trans people
and make trans people central to the work that we do rather than an accommodation or an add-on? What are some places
that gender shows up that it doesn’t need to show up?

I mentioned this leadership and mentoring program that operated through the Black Cultural Center at City University,
and it functioned along gender binary lines. There was a mentoring program for men; there was a mentoring program for
women. Sylvia, one of the participants, just couldn’t participate in that. And we know that for first-year students, these
kinds of programs have huge impacts on graduation persistence rates. So where are some places where we can actually
just stop focusing on gender because it doesn’t mean anything? It shouldn’t be an identifying function for these programs.

And then for faculty, I think, how can we continue to center those voices most on the margins through our curriculum,
and how can we think almost from the bottom up? I think a lot about Dean Spades’ work, who talked about this notion of
trickle-up activism that I really harness in the book to think about how can we focus on those who are most marginalized
in our communities to then create environments and create knowledges that work for our entire student body.

Supporting Trans Collegians Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher may be reached at [email protected].
Z Nicolazzo may be reached at [email protected].

4

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Data-Driven Decision-Making in Career and Technical Education

by Dr. Anjalé Welton Associate Professor of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, and OCCRL
Assistant Director of Strategic Initiatives and Research Partnerships

Career and technical education (CTE) can be a gateway to achieving equity, but there are still gaps in opportunity that
hinder pursuing this goal nationally and statewide. To support colleges’ efforts to address these inequities the Office of
Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) is conducting an exploratory case study of CTE programs that are
making noticeable gains in supporting underrepresented and underserved students and what structures and practices are
implemented in order to achieve equity. One of the research questions asks: How was data used to identify inequities in
CTE program recruitment, retention, and completion, as well as student matriculation into employment? As such, this article
explores existing research literature on data-driven decision making in career and technical education.

What is Data-Driven Decision-Making?

Data-driven decision-making (DDDM) is the process of using evidence or data to problem-solve and inform any number
of institutional decisions (Hora, Bouwma-Gearhart, & Park, 2017). While data-driven decision-making is the term most
widely referenced in research literature, experts are now promoting the term data-informed since data alone does not
drive decisions. Rather, individuals use data for inquiry to inform how they will address a specific problem of practice
(Datnow & Park, 2014). Similarly, Jimerson (2016) defines data-informed practice as “an ongoing inquiry-based process
that incorporates multiple pieces of evidence” to ultimately “identify obstacles to student and/or organizational success”
and then use this information to develop strategies to improve (p. 62). Data is also evidence, and so other concepts used
synonymously with DDDM are evidence-use or evidence-based practice (Datnow & Park, 2014; Jimerson, 2016).

The general premise of DDDM is that if “armed with data, people will make better choices and organizations will function
more effectively” (Datnow & Park, 2014, p.1). However, carrying out this proposition is not that simple, as there is a
human element to DDDM. The process of collecting data and evidence becomes moot if data is warehoused and stored
to then never be used (Reese, 2009; Hendrie, 2005). People who actively make use of data thus need to be motivated,
trained, and supported to do so. Therefore, leadership is needed to cultivate a culture of evidence and effective use of data,
as well as build the capacity and encouragement of others to use data to support institutional change, especially changes
that promote equity (Datnow & Park, 2014). Educational leaders are essential to influencing “how and why data are, what
counts as data,” and the overall goals and objectives for using data (Datnow & Park, 2014, p. 2).

To be most effective, data should be used systemically and systematically. There is a continuous improvement process, or

cycle, that is foundational to DDDM in which data is used to continuously assess organizational processes, determine where

problems lie, and, in response, determine what actions should be taken to address and improve them

(Hora et al., 2017). Most importantly, DDDM can be a tool for equity-focused institutional

change by using data to unmask who community colleges or even specific CTE program areas

are underserving the most and how. Educational leaders should effectively use data as Educational
evidence of the inequities that exist so they can then work to redress them. However, one leaders should
caveat is that when using data to shed light on any inequities, those involved in DDDM effectively use data
should look to how the institution is responsible, not place burden on the students who as evidence of the
endure these inequities (Abrica, 2018; Welton & La Londe, 2013). inequities that exist so

Trends in Postsecondary Education they can then work
to redress them.

In K-12 education there is more research devoted to determining what conditions best

support educators’ use of data, especially how evidence is used to improve student learning

and achievement. The federal K-12 legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002 marked the

nationwide focus on using student achievement data to develop statewide accountability monitoring

systems. There is continued controversy over the policy’s promotion of using high-stakes tests to narrowly evaluate

student performance. Yet through NCLB, educators now have more sophisticated systems of data at their disposal than

ever before to use for inquiry and improvement purposes, which explains the available abundance of research in K-12 to

better understand this process (Hora et al., 2017).

Postsecondary education has given less consideration to the utility of DDDM, but colleges and universities are beginning
to take a que from how accountability measures have dominated K-12, anticipating that this same pressure to embrace a

Data-Driven Decision-Making 5

UPDATE, Fall 2018

“culture of evidence” will soon come to postsecondary education (Hora et al., 2017, p. 396). The few studies found on DDDM
in postsecondary education explore how STEM faculty members use data to inform their instruction (Hora et al., 2017), the
extent to which community college faculty, administration, and student-services staff use data to inform decisions, plan, and
the frequency of which they discuss achievement gaps affecting students of color, low-income students, and academically

underprepared students (Kerrigan & Jenkins,
2013); the role of social capital in the frequency
of data use at community colleges (Kerrigan,
2015); how Chicana institutional researchers
engage in data-driven advocacy for Latinx
community college students (Abrica & Rivas,
2017); and how the frameworks community
colleges commonly used to determine rates of
success for students of color often depict these
students as sources of failure (Abrica, 2018).

Administrators are the primary users of data
more so than faculty and student services
(Kerrigan & Jenkins, 2013) and they rely
heavily on offices of institutional research (IR)
to assist with carrying out DDDM. Institutional
researchers are not only the “custodian or
keeper of data,” but they also translate data
into information so that administrators can
then use the information to make the best, most
informed decisions (Johnston & Kristovich,
2000, p. 3).

Equity Frameworks

Postsecondary education research is noted for significant advancements in frameworks that assist practitioners with DDDM
that is more equity-conscious. For example, the Equity ScorecardTM developed by the University of Southern California
Center for Urban Education (CUE) is a data tool and process in which campus stakeholders engage in a cycle of action
inquiry of campus data, practices, and policies to determine what racial inequities exist and what they could do to “improve
the success of students from underrepresented racial groups” (par. 2). Likewise, the Pathways to Results (PTR) process at
OCCRL allows us to support community colleges through the use of methods, templates, and tools designed to continuously
improve pathways and programs of study that address inequities in student outcomes. An overall summation of PTR is that
institutional “adoption of equity-minded practices is key to raising performance” (par. 4). Ultimately, equity frameworks for
data use should be, as Abrica (2018) suggests, anti-deficit, viewing students of color as sources of resilience who persist
toward their educational goals “in light of racial marginalization” that they experience in postsecondary settings (p. 572).

CTE at Community Colleges: More Research on DDDM is Needed

The Carl D. Perkins Act requires that secondary and postsecondary institutions report CTE student data (see Imperatore,
2014). However, most research on data-driven decision-making in CTE focuses on high schools, with very limited research
specific to community colleges. Still, some research on DDDM for high school CTE programs is applicable to postsecondary
implementation such as what CTE assessment data is available that aligns with both academic and industry standards
(Daggett, 2007; Foster & Bloomfield, 2015) and how teachers use these assessments to inform their instruction (Pritz &
Kelley, 2009); what professional development best supports teachers with DDDM (NRCCTE, n.d.); recommendations for
sharing and publicizing CTE performance data (Graham & Klein, 2018); and urging policymakers to not relegate student
achievement to a single standardized test but rather a multitude of measures (e.g., project-based performance, certifications
and licenses awarded, transition to employment, and attendance) for student success (Lynch, 2000; Reese, 2009).

The available research on community college CTE and DDDM features exemplars of institutions working closely with
industry and community stakeholders to respond to local and regional needs by using both institutional data and industry
input to improve CTE curriculum and programmatic alignment (Imperatore, 2014). Still, research exemplars are needed to
demonstrate how community colleges use data to understand whether their CTE programs ensure every student has the
skills necessary to be successful in their careers.

Data-Driven Decision-Making 6

UPDATE, Fall 2018

References

Abrica, E.J. (2018). How to measure student success? Toward consideration of student resilience as a metric of success
in institutional accountability frameworks. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(7/8),
569 - 573.
Abrica, E.J. & Rivas, M. (2017). Chicas in IR: Data-driven advocacy for Latinx students from institutional research
contexts in the community college. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(2), 43-62.
Daggett, B. (2007). Exploring the need for data-driven decision making in CTE. Techniques: Connecting Education and
Careers, 82(6), 10-11.
Datnow, A. & Park, V. (2014). Data-driven leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Foster, J. & Bloomfield, A. (2015). Three things to consider about data. Techniques: Connecting Education and areers,
90(2), 60-61.
Graham, K. & Klein, S. (2018). Messaging matters: Designing communications tools to support career and technical
education data use. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 93(2), 24-29.
Hendrie, C. (2005). Improved access to rising tide of data is urged. Education Week, 25(15), 14.
Hora, M.T., Bouwna-Gearhart, J. & Park, H.J. (2017). Data driven decision-making in the era of accountability: Fostering
faculty data cultures for learning. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 391-426.
Imperatore, C. (2014). Data and industry drive decision-making: A tale of two schools. Techniques: Connecting Education
and Careers, 89(1), 26-31.
Jimerson, J. (2016). How are we approaching data-informed practice? Development of the Survey of Data Use and
Professional Learning. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28, 61-87.
Johnston, G. H. & Kristovich, S.A.R. (2000). Community college alchemists: turning data into information. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 109, 63-73.
Kerrigan, M. R. (2015). Social capital in data-driven community college reform. Community Journal of Research and
Practice, 39(7), 603-618.
Kerrigan, M. R. & Jenkins, D. (2013). A growing culture of evidence? Findings from a survey on data use at achieving the
dream colleges in Washington state. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Lynch, R. (2000). New directions in high school career and technical education in the 21st century, 384. Columbus, OH:
Eric Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, The Ohio State University.
NRCCTE, (n.d.). CTEDDI-Career and technical educators using data-driven improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.nrccte.org/professional-development/cteddi
Pritz, S. & Kelley, P. (2009). Survey delves into educators’ use of assessment data. Techniques: Connecting Education and
Careers, 84(8), 34-37.
Reese, S. (2009). Harnessing the power of data. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 84(2), 16-20.
Welton, A. D., & La Londe, P. G. (2013). Facing equity: Understanding P-20 equity conscious leadership for college and
career pathways. Champaign, IL: Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.

Anjalé Welton may be reached at [email protected].

Data-Driven Decision-Making 7

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Equity and Career and Technical Education

by Francena Turner, Research Assistant

Career and Technical Education (CTE) can be a gateway to achieving equity, but there are still gaps in opportunity that
hinder pursuing this goal nationally and statewide. To support colleges’ efforts to address these inequities the Office of
Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) is conducting an exploratory case study of CTE programs that are
making noticeable gains in supporting underrepresented and underserved students, as well as what structures and practices
are implemented in order to strive for equity. This research brief helps set the foundation for this work by explores existing
research literature to understand how equity in career and technical education is defined.

What is Equity in Career and Technical Education?

The concept of equity is discussed often but rarely clearly defined in research as it relates to CTE. Through the online
reference system EBSCO Information Services, I used the following search terms published in academic and practitioner
journals between 1983 and 2017: “equity,” “CTE,” “career and technical education,” “vocational education,” “race,” “gender,”
“career and technical education,” and “vocational education.” Of these results, only two (Chase, 2011; Welton & La Londe,
2013) explicitly operationalized the term “equity” even though the term was employed within the body of all but one article.
When equity was a search term in relation to CTE or vocational education, the term was explicitly defined in one article
as “a commitment to achieving parity in transfer and other educational outcomes across all ethnic groups” (Chase, 2011).
However, virtually all of the articles discussed equity in relation to disaggregating data and providing supports or resources
based on differences in the data.

The remaining articles most often showed some variation of addressing race or gender-based disparity in CTE or vocational
education completion or employment rates (Bathmaker, 2017; Bragg, 2017; Campbell, 1986; Carnoy, 1994; Giani, 2017;
Giani & Fox, 2016; Hamilton, Malin, & Hackmann, 2015; Lhamon & Uvin, 2016; Toglia, 2013). When I performed a
search using “race” and “gender,” in addition to CTE or vocational education, the term “equity” was used in five of the

Equity and Career and Technical Education 8

UPDATE, Fall 2018

articles but not explicitly defined in any of them. Here, however, equity could be extracted based on inferential definitions
of the terms “inequality” or “inequity” as underrepresentation or overrepresentation in CTE or vocational education courses
or fields. The term “equity” was used most often in addition to “access” or “equality.”

A third search, inspired by the prevalence of articles authored by scholars affiliated with OCCRL, produced three publications
from the organization’s website. Of the three pieces, a report citing Nieto & Boyd (2009), explicitly operationalized equity
as “the process involved in achieving the ultimate goal of equality. Equity in education provides students with the varied,
additional, or differentiated supports needed to achieve equality” (Welton & La Londe, 2013, p.6). They further defined
equity gaps as “[differences] in results between various [categories] of students” (p. 14). One brief did not explicitly
operationalize equity, but it could be inferred to mean “a reduction of bias” (Gioiosa, 2014), and a second brief focused on
equity-minded responses to data revealing inequalities but did not explicitly define equity (Malin, Hamilton, & Hackmann,
2014). In all, eight of the twenty-four publications reviewed were written by OCCRL graduate research assistants or past
or present faculty.

How are We Studying Equity in Career and Technical Education?

Of the twenty-four total sources, nine of them were quantitative studies using large secondary data sources that looked for
equity gaps in CTE education at the secondary or post-secondary level by race and/or gender (Campbell, 1986; Compton, et
al, 2010; Eardley, Ellen, & Manvell, 2006; Giani, 2017; Hamilton, Malin, & Hackmann, 2015; Malin, Hamilton, & Hackmann,
2014; Oakes, 1983). Two of the sources were literature reviews. Ware and Stuck (2010) conducted a literature review that
examined the ways in which research articles examining CTE education disaggregated data, and Rojewski (2013) explored
the ways in which scholars treated the social constructs of race and ethnicity in CTE scholarship. Seven sources were policy
briefs, arguments, or reports that provided overviews of inequalities in CTE with regard to race and/or gender and made the
case for disaggregation of data (Bragg, 2017; Chase, 2011; Toglia, 2013; Waid, 2004), and highlighted CTE institutions
that find and address equity gaps (Bragg, 2017; Gioiosa, 2014; Lhamon & Uvin, 2016; Welton, 2014).

Lastly, two studies were comparative analyses. The first was a historical comparative analysis of Black and predominately
white vocational education high schools in Chicago (Green, 1992), and the second observed equity happening in vocational
education training in several countries (Carnoy, 1994). Of these, only one mixed-methods study investigated student,
faculty, and staff CTE experiences via qualitative means (Giani & Fox, 2016).

CTE Equity and Community Colleges

While many studies identify equity gaps and disparities in CTE education quantitatively, there is a dearth of qualitative
research on the lived experiences of students matriculating into and through CTE at community colleges that have made
headway in effectively conceptualizing equity and shrinking equity gaps. Further, more research is needed in this area
as equity-minded faculty, administrators, and staff could provide much in the way of scalable interventions that other
community college professionals could in turn implement on their own campuses.

References

Bathmaker, A. M. (2017). Post-secondary education and training, new vocational and hybrid pathways and questions of
equity, inequality, and social mobility: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,
69(1), 1-9.doi: 10.1080/13636820.2017.1304680
Bragg, D. D. (2017). The case for evaluating student outcomes and equity gaps to improve pathways and programs of
study. New Directions for Community Colleges, 178, 55-66. doi: 10.1002/cc
Campbell, P. B. (1986). Vocational education: Access, equity, and consequence. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 10-12.
Carnoy, M. (1994). Efficiency and equity in vocational education and training policies. International Labour Review, 133(2),
222-240.
Chase, M. (2011). Benchmarking equity in transfer policies for career and technical associate’s degrees. Community College
Review, 39(4), 376-404. doi: 10.I177/00915S21 11423966
Compton, J., Laanan, F.S., & Starobin, S.S. (2010). Career and technical education as pathways: Factors influencing post-
college earning of selected career clusters. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(1-2), 93-113.
doi: 10.1080/10824661003635044
Eardley, E. & Manvell, J. (2006). Legal remedies for girls’ under representation in nontraditional career and technical
education. International Journal of Manpower, 27(4), 396-436. doi: 10.1108/01437720610679232

Equity and Career and Technical Education 9

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Giani, M. & Fox, H. (2016). Do stackable credentials reinforce stratification or promote upward mobility? An analysis of
health professions pathways reform in a community college consortium. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,
69(1), 100-122. doi: 10.1080/13636820.2016.1238837
Giani, M. S. (2017). Does vocational still imply tracking? Examining the evolution of career and technical education curricular
policy in Texas. Educational Policy, 69(1)1-45. doi: 10.1177/0895904817745375
Gioiosa, C. (2014). Gender equity in CTE and STEM education. Insights on Equity and Outcomes, 6, 1-4. Retrieved from
https://occrl.illinois.edu/docs/librariesprovider4/ptr/insights-on-equity-and-outcomes-6.pdf
Green, D. L. (1992). Vocational education and race in the Chicago public schools: Three historical case studies and
implications for current reform. The Urban Review, 24(1), 39-54.
Hamilton, A. F., Malin, J., & Hackmann, D. (2015). Racial/ethnic and gender equity patterns in Illinois high school career and
technical education coursework. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 30(1), 29-52.
Lhamon, C. & Uvin, J. (2016, June 15). Dear colleague letter on gender equity in career and technical education. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-
201606-title-ix-gender-equity-cte.pdf
Malin, J., Hamilton, A. F., & Hackmann, D. (2014). Gender equity in CTE and STEM education in Illinois public schools.
Champaign, IL: Pathways Resource Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/y7kj32ny
Oakes, J. (1983), Limiting Opportunity: Student race
and curricular differences in secondary
vocational education. American Journal of
Education, 91(3), 328-355.
Rojewski, J. W. & Xing, X. (2013). Treatment of race/
ethnicity in career-technical education
research. Career and Technical Education
Research, 38(3), 245-256.
doi: 10.5328/cter38.3.245
Toglia, T. (2013). Gender equity issues in CTE and
STEM Education: Economic and social
implications. Tech Directions, 72(7), 14-17.
Wald, T. (2004). Race issues in career and technical
education: A snapshot in Black and white.
Techniques, March, 40-43.
Ware, M. C. & Stuck, M. (2012). Diversity in
career and technical education on-line
classrooms: Considering issues of gender,
race, and age. In V. Wang (Ed), Vocational
education technologies and advances in adult
learning: New concepts (116-130).
Welton, A. D. & La Londe, P. G. (2013). Facing equity:
Understanding P-20 equity conscious
leadership for college and career pathways.
Champaign, IL: Pathways Resource Center,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Retrieved from
https://occrl.illinois.edu/docs/
librariesprovider4/prc/facing-equity.pdf

Equity and Career and Technical Education Francena Turner may be reached at [email protected].
10

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Culturally Responsiveness in Community College CTE
Programs

By Devean Owens, Research Associate

Career and technical education (CTE) can be a gateway to achieving equity, but there are still gaps in opportunity that
hinder pursuing this goal nationally and statewide. To support colleges’ efforts to address these inequities, the Office
of Community College Research and Leadership is conducting an exploratory case study of CTE programs that are
making noticeable gains in supporting underrepresented and underserved students and what structures and practices are
implemented in order to achieve equity. One of the research questions asks: How are CTE programmatic structures and
practices more culturally responsive to underrepresented and underserved students?

As colleges and universities continue to enroll diverse populations of students, they are obligated to ensure that these
students are walking into an environment that speaks to their life experiences. Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP)
emerged as a way in which educational leaders can create curriculum and experiences that speak to diverse students.
Community colleges in particular are known for enrolling considerable numbers of nontraditional, low-income, first-
generation students, as well as students of color, which means their curriculum, policies, procedures, and services should
reflect their student population. Although general research has been done on CRP in community colleges, there has been
very little conducted on CRP in the specific realm of CTE. It is therefore important to begin with a discussion of the origin
of CRP and a working definition of culturally responsive pedagogy.

Background and Definition

The conept of CRP emerged from Ladson-Billings’ (1994) There are research studies that employ CRP as a tool to
discussion of culturally relevant teaching in regard to Black improve marginalized students’ experiences and outcomes
children. She went on to develop the theory further in her in educational institutions. Ragoonaden and Mueller (2017)
1995 piece titled Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant assert that CRP “recognizes students’ differences, validates
Pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (1995) details three principles students’ cultures, and asserts that cultural congruence of
essential to CRP: 1) develop students academically; classroom practices increase students’ success in schools”
2) nurture and support cultural competence; and 3) (p. 25). Most colleges and universities were built to serve
development of sociopolitical awareness or consciousness. white, wealthy men (Thelin, 2011), which leaves overt
She found that teachers’ approaches to and execution of and subtle remnants of racism, discrimination, and white
CRP varied, which led her to develop three theoretical supremacy in the fabric of these institutions. Knowing this,
underpinnings: 1) their conceptions of self and others;
2) how they structure social relations; and 3) their
conceptions of knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Each
of these underpinnings has requirements that educators
must abide by to be culturally relevant.

The literature and practice around CRP has grown to include
postsecondary education and educational leadership,
prompting Ladson-Billings to revisit her theory in 2014
with the article “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0 a.k.a.
the Remix”. In this piece, she challenges educators to move
toward a theory of culturally sustaining pedagogy that
“allows for a fluid understanding of culture, and a teaching
practice that explicitly engages questions of equity and
justice” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 74). Similarly, Gay (2002)
posits that students’ cultural experiences and perspectives
serve as channels for teaching them more effectively. In an
earlier piece, he writes, “it is based on the assumption that
when academic knowledge and skills are situated within
the lived experiences and frames of reference of students,
they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest
appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly” (Gay,
2000, p. 106. This leads to the conclusion of students’
improved academic achievement (Gay, 2002).

Cultural Responsiveness in CTE 11

UPDATE, Fall 2018

educators are tasked with undoing their own personal biases, as well as the policies and procedures at their institutions that
continue to push certain students to the margins.

Purpose and Implications

There are several case-study examples (Baber et al., 2015; Ragoonaden & Mueller, 2017; Rendón, 1994, 2002; Valenzuela
et al., 2015) of programs serving various populations of students specifically in community colleges that employ a form of
culturally responsive pedagogy even if not explicitly stated. These institutions sought to improve their respective group of
students’ experiences by implementing programs that spoke to their specific cultural needs. In 2011, for example, Parkland
College implemented the Together We Achieve (TWA) program, with the goal of improving outcomes for Black men (Baber
et al., 2015). To achieve this objective, they connected students with a faculty mentor, an academic adviser, and a tutor.
Black men who participated in TWA successfully completed the developmental education curriculum at higher rates than
those who were not in the program (57% versus 21%; Baber et al., 2015). Ragoonaden and Mueller (2017) found that
through explicit use of CRP, the University of British Columbia indigenized an introductory course to improve the academic
development and success of Aboriginal Access Students. They write: “Using the framework of CRP, this course attempts
to redress the cultural discontinuities between contemporary education and the emergent diversity in school populations
at postsecondary institutions” (Ragoonaden & Mueller, 2017, p. 26). Their results showed that using CRP in their course
enhanced students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and academic growth.

While general research on CRP in community colleges exists, there is not nearly enough of it when it comes to looking at
CRP within CTE programs. Readers might infer that the success stories in other programs within community colleges might
be the same for CTE programs as well. Our research study at OCCRL titled CTE as a Gateway to Equity seeks to fill this gap.

References

Baber, L., Fletcher, R., & Graham, E. (2015). Black men attending community colleges: Examining an institutional approach
toward equity. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(172), 97-107.
Cochrane, S. V., Chhabra, M., Jones, M. A., & Spragg, D. (2017). Culturally responsive teaching and reflection in higher
education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fittz, M. W. (2015). Community college faculty members’ perceived multicultural teaching competence and attitudes
regarding cultural diversity (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
Flynn, J., James, R., Mathien, T., Mitchell, P., & Whalen, S. (2017). The overlooked context: Pedagogies for engagement
and empowerment at the community eollege. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 19(1/2), 29-87.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of teacher education, 53(2), 106-116.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teaching for African-American students. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal,
32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Ragoonaden, K., & Mueller, L. (2017). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Indigenizing curriculum. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 47(2), 22-46.
Rehm, M. (2008). Career and technical education teachers’ perceptions of culturally diverse classes: Rewards, difficulties,
and useful teaching strategies. Career and Technical Education Research, 33(1), 45-64.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development.
Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Rendón, L. I. (1995). Issues of class and culture in today’s community colleges. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 642-667.
Santamaría, A. P., & Santamaría, L. J. (2015). Introduction: The urgent call for culturally responsive leadership in higher
education. In Culturally Responsive Leadership in Higher Education (pp. 15-28). Routledge.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Valenzuela, J. I., Perez, W., Perez, I., Montiel, G. I., & Chaparro, G. (2015). Undocumented students at the community
college: Creating institutional capacity. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(172), 87-96.

Devean Owens may be reached at [email protected].

Cultural Responsiveness in CTE 12

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Identity, Intersections, and Students with Disabilities in
Community Colleges

by Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher, OCCRL Director
Amanda A. Bell, Access Consultant, Purdue University

Access and opportunity in U. S. society is often segmented based on group membership that influences social, political,
educational, and career mobility. As U. S. institutions traditionally did not seek diversity or endeavor to broaden participation,
stratification has been normative—particularly in educational contexts (Zamani-Gallaher, Green, Brown, & Stovall, 2009).
Historically, postsecondary education was not open to the masses; rather, it was reserved primarily for able-bodied, middle-
class, white males, whereby the massification of U. S. higher education took root with the invention of the U. S. community
college (Zamani-Gallaher, 2016). As the principle sector of higher education that has sought to broaden participation
and expand opportunities, community colleges have provided on-ramps to further education and gainful employment for
significant numbers of students. For example, in 1920, there were 52 community colleges and enrollment was concentrated
at four-year colleges as community colleges accounted for less than 10% of students. By 2018, there were over 1,100
community colleges educating nearly half of all undergraduates in the U.S. (American Association of Community Colleges,
2018; Synder, 1993; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960).

Community colleges are essential to the educational enterprise as key gateways to opportunity (Beach, 2012; Cohen,
Brawer, & Kisker, 2014) and purveyors of access for many students, particularly those from marginalized groups (e.g.,
first-generation, low-income, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority students, and collegians with disabilities. In fact,
the opportunities for postsecondary education for the majority of students with disabilities are at community colleges.
Of the 13 million students who attend community colleges, 12% are classified as a person with a disability (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2018). People with disabilities
attend community colleges in greater numbers than enrolling in four-
year institutions because of their affordability, open-door policies,
and support services (Bell & Zamani-Gallaher, 2017; Chang & Logan,
2002; Hoachlander, Sikora, Horn, & Carroll, 2003; Quick, Lehmann,
& Deniston, 2003). Approximately 44% of persons with disabilities
between the ages of 18 to 26 enroll in community college after they
graduate high school (Newman, et al., 2011). In 2015, 10% of persons
with disabilities completed some college, 8% completed an associate’s
degree, 4% completed a bachelor’s degree, and 3% of those who had
completed a master’s degree or a higher degree (U.S. Department of
Education, 2016). Over four-fifths of people with disabilities who
were employed held a postsecondary certificate or degree (Institute of
Education Sciences, 2011).

Transitioning to Postsecondary and Navigating the
Community College Context

Students with disabilities have less likelihood of attaining a high school
degree than their peers who do not have a disability and are significantly
underrepresented in the populations of community colleges due to
lack of academic preparation, lack of college transition planning, and
ineffective communication and support services (Garrison-Wade &
Lehmann, 2009; Oertle & Bragg, 2014). However, enrollment in Career
and Technical Education (CTE) programs has been shown to increase
the odds of high school completion for students with disabilities—nearly
70% are more likely to graduate from high school in four years than
similar peers who enrolled in traditional comprehensive high school
programs (Theobald, Goldhaber, Gratz, & Holden, 2017). High school
CTE programs improve college and career readiness for participating
students with disabilities, and those who are CTE concentrators have
better educational outcomes than students with disabilities without
a CTE concentration (Grindal, Dougherty, & Hehir, 2013; Theobald,
Goldhaber, Gratz, & Holden, 2017). Nationwide, nearly one-fifth of

Students with Disabilities 13

UPDATE, Fall 2018

students participating in Career and Technical Education (CTE) in traditional high schools have a disability. Hence, CTE
programs at the secondary and postsecondary level help students gain skills with labor- market value and expose them to
trades. In addition, such programs assist students with disabilities in transitioning toward further education and/or gainful
employment in the workplace.

For students with disabilities who enroll in a community college, a significant adjustment they face is the navigation of
disability services. During registration, students with disabilities are required to provide corroborating medical documentation
or assessments from professionals that describe the nature of their disability, how it impairs their learning, and why
accommodations are needed (Gill, 2007). Once students provide sufficient evidence that they have a disability protected
by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the disability specialist at the college is required to provide them with a letter
that outlines their eligible academic accommodations. Subsequently, in many instances, students are required to present
the letter to their instructors to receive accommodations. This is not a process required of other students and suggests that
students with disabilities must deal with a responsibility for their equitable treatment and self-advocate. Thus, the norm
in community colleges is that students with disabilities are being subjected to added requirements that create additional
burdens during their college studies.

Faculty-Student Interactions and Student Support Services

Research has found that three-fourths of faculty members have limited contact with students with disabilities, as well as a
vague understanding of the accommodation process and/or disability laws (Baggett, 1994; Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle,
1998; Murray, Lombardi, Wren, & Keys, 2009). Strong interpersonal connections help students and faculty have interactions
that are meaningful. Faculty members must be aware of how their reaction to accommodations affects students in their

classes. The perceived stigma or potential for negative interactions
is a disincentive for collegians with disabilities to seek support
services (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002), especially when an
individual has a hidden disability. Studies (Baggett, 1994; Gitlow,
2001; Hadley, Hsu, Addison, & Talbot, 2017) have noted that
faculty are more willing to provide accommodations to individuals
with visible conditions, such as mobility, physicality, hearing, and
visual impairments, than those with invisible conditions.

Students with disabilities experience many barriers within the
campus environment including ones that are both institutional
and attitudinal (Nichols & Quaye, 2009). Institutional barriers
associated with disability accommodations and attitudinal barriers
can make disclosing one’s disability extremely challenging,
especially for people with invisible disabilities. Individuals may
elect to hide their disabilities or fail to seek accommodations
because of the perceived stigma associated with having a disability
that is invisible (Barnard-Brak, Lan, & Sulak, 2010). The lack of
willingness to accommodate people with invisible disabilities
could be attributed to faculty members having limited contact and/
or understanding of their experience. The lack of willingness to
make accommodations along with what students with disabilities
contend is faculty and staff ignorance regarding reasonable
accommodations makes some individuals less forthcoming
in disclosing their disabilities, which adversely affects their
educational experience and having their needs met (Gasgreen,
2014).

Student Identities and Intersections of Self

The needs of collegians are as vast and diverse as the students
and institutional contexts they are surrounded by. More study
is needed in furthering the understanding of the experiences
of college students with disabilities across the spectrum of
difference (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, religion, class, sexuality,
nationality, etc.). Relative to access policies, even within the larger
policy context of disability as a social-justice imperative, disability

Students with Disabilities 14

UPDATE, Fall 2018

legislation (Rothstein, 2004) has moved at a much slower called passive awareness and occurs early in people with

pace than other civil rights initiatives (e.g., the Rehabilitation disabilities’ lives but can continue into adulthood. During

Act of 1973 (Section 504), Subpart E (Pub. L. No. 93-112, this stage, a professional treats an individual’s disability, but

34 C.F.R.), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of family and friends otherwise overlook it. Consequently, an

1990 (Pub. L. 101-336 [July 1990]; 42 U.S.C. 12101) and individual does not have a role model or source of support

the recent ADA Amendment of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-325 who understands disabilities. The second stage of this

[S 3406]). For instance, the ADA does not infuse racial, model is called realization. Typically, individuals at this

gender, class, or sexuality routinely into policy regulation stage are in their adolescence or early adulthood. While in

and compliance for hiring or college admissions decisions this phase, a person begins to acknowledge that he or she

(Zamani-Gallaher et al, 2009). Overall, disability rights in has a disability. This self-acknowledgement is preceded

the U.S. have been stagnant as policies and practices that by negative feelings about his or her identity. While in

ensure full inclusion and produce equitable educational this phase, a person has unrealistic personal expectations

and employment outcomes (Kim & Aquino, 2017; Shapiro, or goals and a hyper awareness of his or her appearance.

2011; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission The last stage is called acceptance. At this stage, a person

[EEOC], 2008). with a disability has begun to accept his or her disability

and no longer views differences from others as a negative

When considering issues of equity and inclusion, condition. As well during this phase, the individual with a

namely for students with disabilities, there are disability has developed meaningful relationships

intersections of identity and ways in which with other persons with disabilities and has

some identities are dominant and privileged potentially become a disability advocate

while others are considered less salient Critical disability and/or activist.
as they are not the “norm”’ by which all studies problematizes
others are compared; subsequently, the framing of disability as Little in the area of disability
constructing individuals as disabled a singular identity or condition identity research deeply explored
people subjects them to multiple that does not intersect with other the intersectional identities and
forms of oppression across the aspects of self that inform identity lived experiences of students
multiplicity of their identities and and experiences with oppression, with disability-navigating group
further normalizes exclusion (Oliver whereas identity is fluid and membership in multiple marginalized,
& Barnes, 2012). “We have a much minoritized groups, particularly with
clearer collective notion of what it multidimensional. regard to sexuality. In the past, research

means to be a woman, an African- focusing on LGBTQ and disabled

American, a gay person, or a transgender persons broadly focused on disability or

person than we do of what it means to queer status and failed to consider how

be disabled” (Garland-Thomson, 2016), p. belonging to both the LGBTQ and disabled

1). One way of furthering the understanding of population impacts students. Additionally, colleges

intersectional identities is through applying critical disability and universities have historically overlooked the reality

studies theory to situate and contextualize the significance that their students may belong to or identify with multiple

of race and gender (Tong, 1999). Critical disability studies minority populations, which influences both their access

problematizes the framing of disability as a singular identity to higher education as well as their collegiate experience.

or condition that does not intersect with other aspects of Intersectionality speaks to the challenges associated with

self that inform identity and experiences with oppression, belonging to multiple minority groups and how a person’s

whereas identity is fluid and multidimensional. status as a dual minority influences his or her position within

society (Crenshaw, 1989). Crenshaw (1989) contended that

Coretodisabilitiesstudiesisidentityworkthatdevelopedfrom theoretical, political, and social perspectives of marginalized

the disability rights movement and the application of critical groups do not consider the experiences of subgroups with

theory, which has diversified critical disabilities research in intersecting identities within society and suggested that

situating multiple-group membership, identity salience, and persons who identify with more than one subjugated group

intersectionality relative to minoritized-status persons with should not have their experiences generalized based upon

disabilities experience (Campbell, 2008; Garland-Thomson, the experiences of the privileged members (e.g., white men,

2016; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2016; Miller, Wynn, & white homosexual men, white women). Acknowledging

Webb, 2017). Critical disabilities studies has provided a the intersectionality of identities allows the recognition

space to acknowledge and discuss cultural identification in of the uniqueness of experiences with discrimination that

a broader fashion and beyond disability categorization and people identifying with multiple marginalized groups have.

marginalization of identities that are racialized, gendered, Her arguments regarding intersectionality apply to the

sexualized, and class-based. Gibson (2006) identified three experiences of LGBTQ persons with disabilities. Queer

stages of disability identity development: passive awareness, and disability theorists like Tobin Siebers (2008) argue

realization, and acceptance. The first stage of this model is that queer and disability theory can inform the theory of

Students with Disabilities 15

UPDATE, Fall 2018

intersectionality and vice versa because both disability and queer identities intersect with other identities. However, until
recently, this position had not translated to research.

Like other minority groups within the U.S., discussions about the experiences of persons with disabilities occur from a
broad perspective. For persons with disabilities who identify with a second minority group (e.g., African-American, Latino
American, and Native American), higher education is more elusive. For example, six out of 10 undergraduate students with
disabilities are members of a racial/ethnic minority group, and that figure rises to three out of four when including biracial
and multiracial college students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). While the postsecondary presence
of racially minoritized students with disabilities is limited, educational data do acknowledge their existence. Yet these
statistics overlook the postsecondary access of persons with disabilities belonging to the LGBTQ population. Therefore,
the educational participation of LGBTQ members identifying as disabled is statistically unknown. The intersectionality of
identities within certain groups is overlooked when it comes to extant research focused on the impact of disability status,
sexual orientation, and gender identity.


Conclusion

This article highlights some of the opportunities and the barriers facing students with disabilities. More specifically, the
role of the community colleges in serving students with disabilities as well as CTE as a means of fostering more equitable
outcomes for students with disabilities and underscoring the diversity within this student subgroup. There is incredible
diversity among students with disabilities as they hold multiple identities outside of their disability status that are just as
salient. Research has noted the harassment, discrimination, and other challenges that college students belonging to the
LGBTQ and disabled community experience, which are reflective of broader social attitudes surrounding disability and
LGBTQ status as undesirable (Harley, Nowak, Gassaway, & Savage, 2002). One buffer that aids in mitigating chilly campus
climates are student-faculty connections, particularly where there is perhaps a more poignant effect upon the student
experience in community colleges. There are examples and a valid argument for student, faculty, and staff interactions as
these connections inside and outside the classroom improve student engagement and foster student development (Levin
& Montero-Hernandez, 2009). Engagement of nontraditional students offers relational supports, and the interaction with
faculty members in community colleges enhances students’ academic growth and efficacy, especially as community colleges
frequently promote sustained and caring relationships with diverse student bodies (Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, & Hakun,
2017; Levin, 2012).

Critical disabilities work alongside identity formation models such as Gibson’s (2006) Disability Identity Development
Model may provide student-affairs practitioners, faculty, and staff with useful frameworks that can inform designing
comprehensive services, responsive programming, and practices that support students with disabilities across the spectrum
of difference. It is important for disability-services personnel at community colleges to evaluate their practices and to
delve into how the incorporation of theories and models such as universal design and student development can improve the
services, curriculum, and programming offered by their respective institutions. Student-services personnel and academic-
affairs professionals should explore potential collaborations with faculty and other university officials to work toward
broadening the scope of disability services. In short, more faculty and staff need to be involved in the implementation of
inclusive practices, policies, and programming throughout the community college context, and should consider intersectional
identities in meeting the needs of student with disabilities.

References

American Association of Community Colleges (2018). Fast facts. Retrieved from
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-Fast-Facts.pdf
Barnard-Brak, L., Lechtenberger, D., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Accommodation strategies of college students with disabilities.
The Qualitative Report, 15, 411-429.
Baggett, D. (1994). A study of faculty awareness of students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED369208.pdf
Beach, J. M. 2012. Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the United States. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Bell, A., & Zamani-Gallaher, E.M. (2017). Access, accommodation, and reasoned action among collegians with
disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in the Community Colleges, 24(1), 95-106.
Campbell, F. A. K. (2008). Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. Disability & Society, 23(2), 151-162.
Chang, K., & Logan, J. (2002). A comparison of accommodations and supports for students with disabilities in two-year
versus four-year postsecondary institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase3/08.pdf

Students with Disabilities 16

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college, 6th edition. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination
doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167.
Fleming, A. R., Oertle, K. M., Plotner, A. J., & Hakun, J. G. (2017). Influence of social factors on student satisfaction
among college students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 58(2), 215-228.
Garrison-Wade, D.F. & Lehmann, J.P. (2009). A conceptual framework for understanding students’ with disabilities
transition to community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(5), 415-443.
Gasgreen, A. (2014, April 2). Dropping the ball on disabilities. Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/02/students-disabilities-frustrated-ignorance-and-
lack-services
Gibson, B. E. (2006). Disability, connectivity and transgressing the autonomous body. Journal of Medical Humanities,
27(3), 187-196.
Gill, L.A. (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college: Preparing students with disabilities for a
successful postsecondary experience. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 12-15
Gitlow, L. (2001). Occupational therapy faculty attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in their
educational programs. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 21(2), 115-131.
Grindal, T., Dougherty, S., & Hehir, T. (2013, October 19). For students with disabilities, career and technical
education programs offer more than just a trade. Huffpost. Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-grindal/for-students-with-disabil_b_3767522.html
Hadley, W., Hsu, J., Addison, M. A., & Talbot, D. (2017). Marginality and mattering: The experiences of students with
learning disabilities on the college campus. In A. Shahriar & G. K. Syed (Eds.), Student Culture and Identity in
Higher Education (pp. 180-193). IGI Global.
Harley, D. A., Nowak, T., Gassaway, L. J., & Savage, T. A. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students with disabilities: A look at multiple cultural minorities. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 525-538.
Hartman-Hall, H. M., & Haaga, D. A. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help for their learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 263-274.
Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). Community college students: Goals, academic preparation,
and outcomes. Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED479827.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences (2011). The post high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 8 years after high
school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).
Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Kim, E., & Aquino, K. C. (Eds.). (2017). Disability as diversity in higher education: Policies and practices to enhance
student success. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Levin, J. S. (2012). Three faculty communities. Academe, 98(1), 40-43.
Levin, J., & Montero-Hernandez, V. (2009). Community colleges and their students: Co-construction and organizational
identity. New York: Springer.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with
disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of postsecondary education and disability,
13(3), 5-19.
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2016). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? The Disability Studies
Reader, 175, 47-75.
Miller, R. A., Wynn, R. D., & Webb, K. W. (2017). Queering disability in higher education: Views from the intersections.
In E. Kim, & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability as diversity in higher education: Policies and practices to enhance
student success (pp. 31-44). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Moriña, A. (2017). ‘We aren’t heroes, we’re survivors’: Higher education as an opportunity for students with disabilities to
reinvent an identity. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 215-226.
Murray, C., Lombardi, A., Wren, C. T., & Keys, C. (2009). Associations between prior disability-focused training and
disability-related attitudes and perceptions among university faculty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2),
87-100.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X., with Cameto, R., Contreras, E.,
Ferguson, K., Greene, S., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up
to 8 years after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf

Students with Disabilities 17

UPDATE, Fall 2018

Nichols, A. H., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Beyond accommodation: Removing barriers to academic and social engagement
for students with disabilities. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 39-60). New York: Routledge.
Oertle, K. M., & Bragg, D. D. (2014). Transitioning students with disabilities: Community college policies and practices.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(1), 59-67.
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement (2nd ed.). London, UK: Palgrave McMillan.
Quick, D., Lehmann, J., & Deniston, T. (2003). Opening doors for students with disabilities on community college
campuses: What have we learned? What do we still need to know? Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 27, 815-827.
Rothstein, L. (2004). Disability law and higher education: A road map for where we’ve been and where we may be
heading. Maryland Law Review, 63, 122-161.
Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Synder, T. D. (1993, January). 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
Theobald, R., Goldhaber, D., Gratz, T., & Holden, K. L. (2017, September). Career and Technical education, inclusion, and
postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities, CALDER Working Paper No. 177. National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from
https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20177.pdf
Tong, R. (1999). Dealing with difference justly: Perspectives on disability. Social Theory and Practice, 25, 519-530.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1960). 1920-40: Historical Statistics of the United States, Series H689-699. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education (1989). 382-93; 1950-88: (table 19.6, p. 217).
U.S. Department of Education (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016-014), Table 311.10. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60
U.S. Department of Education (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities.
Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/1998/20thar.pdf
Zamani-Gallaher, E. M., Green, D.O, Brown, M. C., & Stovall, D. O. (2009). The case for affirmative action on campus:
Concepts of equity, considerations for practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Students with Disabilities Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher may be reached at [email protected].
Amanda Bell may be reached at [email protected].

18

Office of Community College Research and Leadership

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Champaign Office: 51 Gerty Drive, Champaign, IL 61820
Chicago Office: 200 South Wacker Drive, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606

Website: http://occrl.illinois.edu
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 217-244-9390