15 Disability, Ableism, and You

Chapter Overview

This chapter defines disability and unpacks ableism as a system of oppression that reproduces inequities in computer science (CS) and CS education (CS Ed). Drawing on the theories presented in Chapter 5, the chapter illustrates how ableism intersects with other identities (e.g., linguistic, racial) and creates oppression across four layers of society (ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized). The chapter then examines how disability and ableism shape CS and CS Ed. It concludes with action steps you can take against ableism in your classroom.

Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, I can:

• Define disability and explain its role in CS Ed.
• Define ableism and understand how it operates across different layers of oppression.
• Identify ways that disability and ableism shape CS Ed.
• Reflect on personal experiences that have shaped my own perceptions of ableism and disability.

Key Terms:

ableism; access; accessibility; accommodations; assistive technologies; co-teaching; disability; disabled exceptionalism; dynamic disabilities; dysgraphia; Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage; identity-first language; imposter syndrome; Individualized Education Program (IEP); invisible disabilities; medical model of disability; microaggressions; modifications; neurodiversity; paternalism; person-first language; pull out model; push in model; segregated settings; self-contained classroom; social model of disability; technoableism

Your Story

Previous chapters have begun with stories from teachers about their experiences related to the chapter’s content. In this chapter, the stories will come from you! The activity below will help you start to connect your prior knowledge and personal experiences to the chapter’s content.

No matter what your experiences are, they are yours, and they inform your perspectives as you read this chapter. Becoming aware of our perspectives helps us know where we’re starting from so we can widen our perspectives and deepen our understanding. This reflection serves as a starting point that we’ll revisit throughout the chapter. As you read, we hope that you engage in active reflection and challenge assumptions about what we know about students with disabilities in CS Ed.

What Is Disability?

Disability is a term that is often used to describe how individual minds and bodies differ from what has been determined by society to be “normal” (Annamma et al., 2013). Traditional notions of disability set expectations for what individuals “should” be able to do to navigate daily life in society and establish a strict binary between ability and disability. We challenge this idea and take a broad understanding of disability. We consider disability as any variance (e.g., cognitive, developmental, neurological, physical, psychological, physical, sensory) that impacts, limits, or makes more difficult major life activities in society as it exists today.

When it comes to language use about disability, there are two common approaches: identity-first language (e.g., a disabled person) and person-first language (e.g., a person with a disability). Identity-first language is often used by disabled people who consider their disabilities as an important part of who they are (National Center on Disability and Journalism [NCDJ], 2021). Person-first language is often used to center people rather than their disabilities. Different people have different preferences on which type of language to use and why. Rather than making assumptions, it is best to ask individuals what their preference is, just as you might discuss correct name pronunciation or preferred pronouns. In this chapter, we use identity-first and person-first language to acknowledge both approaches.^[1]

We understand disability as a natural part of the human experience. We use the term to describe the spectrum of abilities that we all have, and we recognize that people’s abilities change over their life spans (Shew, 2020). While some disabilities are present at birth, others may happen through life experiences. Some disabilities are lifelong; others are temporary. Some disabilities may be developed over time through injustices. For example, research has found that people in lower-income neighborhoods who are regularly exposed to pollution due to environmental injustice are more likely to develop health issues (like asthma) that limit their daily activities (Rauh et al., 2008).

Not all disabilities are treated the same by society. Some disabled people can “pass” or be perceived by others as nondisabled and access related privileges. Some disabilities are marked socially as “more” or “less” normal. For example, wearing contact lenses to correct vision is not generally marked as a disability in U.S. culture. As we’ll consider later, the lines between what counts as “normal” vision, low vision, and blindness as a disability are socially designed and constructed (Annamma et al., 2013).

Invisible disabilities (also called non-visible or non-apparent disabilities) are disabilities that are not readily perceived by others. Invisible disabilities might include things like chronic illness or mental illness and other conditions that significantly impact daily living. Some may assume that invisible disabilities don’t “count” because they are less apparent. However, these disabilities are very real. People with invisible disabilities may have unique experiences because they are often perceived as nondisabled and are expected to move, think, or behave in normative ways. When these expectations are violated, others may become upset or make incorrect assumptions about the situation.

Similarly, people with dynamic disabilities may have fluctuations in their daily functioning. They may be able to walk without assistance one day, need a cane another day, and a wheelchair on another day. The nature of these disabilities can lead other people to interpret those with dynamic disabilities as merely “faking” their problems. This assumption often stems from understanding disability through a binary lens rather than recognizing it as a lived experience that exists along a continuum.

Different experiences with navigating disabilities in society provide us with essential perspectives into our society, and we must be careful not to understand disability as a monolith. We recognize that the lived experiences of people with disabilities vary and are individual. Thus, we hold a dialectical perspective on disability, making room for concepts like neurodiversity that people take up as a positive identity that they would not change or instances where non-hearing people consider themselves members of the deaf community but not disabled (Shew, 2020). Yet we also recognize that for other realities, such as chronic pain or terminal illness, some might wish to have their disability cured or treated.

We also adopt an intersectional perspective on disability, acknowledging that the multiple identities of individuals with disabilities influence how they experience both marginalization and privilege (Annamma et al., 2013). Two people with the same disability label may have distinct experiences related to disability depending on other identities based on class, culture, gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and so on. For instance, Kay Ulanday Barrett, a poet and disability activist, discussed their experience at the intersections of race, gender, and disability in a 2016 interview.^[2] Barrett described the ways that different spaces confirm or deny different aspects of their identity. Consider why it is important to take an intersectional perspective on disability.

Models of Disability

There are several ways to think about disability. The most prevalent way in the United States is the medical model of disability. The medical model involves a doctor or licensed professional diagnosing a disability and working to “repair” or treat it as fully as possible. Diagnosing disabilities is often highly subjective, requiring individual judgments that can introduce personal biases and reproduce inequity. The medical model frequently leads to an understanding of disability as negative, with disabled people needing to be “fixed” (Shew, 2020) and locates the problem within individuals rather than as a community and systemic challenge that often exists by design (Love et al., 2021).

By contrast, the disability rights community embraces a more comprehensive social model of disability. This model does not name differences as good or bad. It simply accepts them as different, acknowledging these differences in minds and bodies as diversity. Rather than understanding disability as an individual problem, the social model emphasizes how society upholds “able-bodied” norms of mind and body. Because of how society is built and organized, it disables some people by design. For example, when society constructed buildings and sidewalks that did not meet the needs of all bodies, we “disabled” some. Without a curb cut or ramp, a person using a wheelchair would be disabled from crossing the street or entering a building. Design features like curb cuts and ramps are less disabling and make a huge difference for access.

The medical and social models of disability can be understood as two ends of a continuum (Figure 1). Many people think about disability in ways that fall somewhere in between, and there are several other models as well.

Figure 1
Models of Disability

The models we choose to use are grounded in histories and ideologies that shape how we understand these issues. For example, the medical model of disability is intertwined with histories of practices (e.g., forced sterilization, institutionalization, incarceration, eugenics, phrenology) that sought to “prove” that people from different racial backgrounds were biologically different and that those racialized as non-white were inferior and even not fully human. These efforts were then used to rationalize violence and oppression against racially minoritized people and people with disabilities (Annamma et al., 2013). Forced sterilization was used to oppress Black and disabled women and was justified through pseudoscience. Genetic testing today has similar parallels in that it may result in “selective abortion of fetuses with markers for autism … encourag[ing] the idea that it’s better to not exist than to risk being disabled” (as cited in Shew, 2020). Similarly, the social model of disability highlights how, in the United States, disability is profoundly influenced by our post-industrial, capitalist society. Within this model, human value is tied to productivity and the ability to work, resulting in the devaluation of individuals with disabilities because their productivity may not align with capitalist norms, like an eight-hour workday or valuing quantity over quality (Shew, 2020).

One goal of this chapter is to make you aware of different ways to think about disability. Considering disability from a variety of perspectives can help us understand it differently. We hope that you will take time to consider different perspectives and be open to broadening your own perspective in ways that are more inclusive of all, regardless of the labels society assigns.

What Is Ableism?

Ableism is a loaded term and can describe a range of actions, attitudes, interactions, and statements. Defining it can be tricky. Thomas Hehir, a leading advocate for children with disabilities and a leader in special education policy, defines ableism as, “the devaluation of disability [that] results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids” (Hehir, 2002).

Take a moment to reflect on Hehir’s definition, using the prompt below.

Ableism describes the implicit or explicit social preference for nondisabled bodies and minds that creates prejudice toward disability and disabled people (Shew, 2020). Ableism encompasses beliefs about what “counts” as a “normal” mind and body as determined by society and perpetuates negative narratives about those with disabilities. It includes the explicit discrimination, harm, or oppression that disabled people face in society and the exclusion of disabled people from daily activities by design. Ableism suggests that disability is always negative (Shew, 2020).

However, ableism also manifests in more subtle ways, especially in classrooms and schools. A well-intentioned teacher might talk down to a student with a disability, oversimplifying things and making decisions on behalf of the student. This behavior is referred to as paternalism and is one form of ableism (Love et al., 2021). Similarly, school curricula, including CS curricula, often fail to teach disability history. When disability is mentioned, the stories may reinforce ideas of disabled exceptionalism where disabled people are centered as an “inspiration” because they were able to “overcome” their disability and accomplish great things (Shew, 2020). But such stories objectify people with disabilities to gratify nondisabled people. Both paternalism and perpetuating disabled exceptionalism dehumanize disabled people by limiting their agency and ability to make decisions and by denying them their dignity as human beings.

Ableism also reproduces privilege available to those who are socially perceived as “able-bodied” or who have the ability to live daily life in ways that are considered “normal” by society. Activity 2 lists some examples of privilege that come from ableism. As you complete the activity, consider which statements you have experienced and/or how a given privilege may not be available to you or those you know because of a disability.

These examples are meant to help you think about some of the invisible privilege that surrounds ableism (McIntosh, 1990). However, it is important to remember that you do not have to be disabled to experience ableism (Lewis, 2021, as cited in Love et al., 2021). Because of intersectional identities, a nondisabled person might say “no” to one or more of these statements for other reasons. For example, a woman wearing a hijab might enter a clothing store and feel judged by the personnel based on her religious practices. Students with racial and gender minoritized identities may not have had learning materials in school that showed people like them as role models. These overlapping experiences can be one way to build solidarity and to recognize how ableism affects everyone.

Ableism, Privilege, and Oppression

Ableism, like other oppressive systems of power, is often invisibilized for those who align with what society has classified as “normal.” CS teacher Kristi shared her perspective on this reality:

As Kristi described, ableism and exclusion are reproduced by design. For example, in cities like New York, not every subway station has an elevator and is accessible. People who use elevators to navigate may have to exit at a different stop from their original destination and find an alternative route. Like any of the “-isms” discussed in Chapter 5, ableism operates at multiple layers of society. Furthermore, ableism doesn’t occur in a vacuum; different types of ableist oppression intersect, leading to compounding effects. The sections below give some examples of how ableism manifests across the Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage we introduced in Chapter 5 (Chinook Fund, n.d.).

Ableism and Ideological Oppression

Ideological layers of ableism are embedded into subconscious ideas and attitudes about disabilities and disabled people within a culture or society. Some common ableist ideologies include assumptions that people with disabilities are less capable or valuable or even less human than people without disabilities. For instance, the media often celebrates people without disabilities who show kindness to a person with disabilities, praising the nondisabled person for doing something “remarkable” instead of something that should be a general courtesy. This news article headline is one example: Student Commended for Act of Kindness When Matched Against Wrestler with Physical Disability (ABC News, 2019).

While the intent of stories like this is generally to inspire people to be kind, they send strong implicit ableist messages about what is normal and acceptable in society. Some of these implicit ideas include the following:

• It is a privilege for people with disabilities to receive kindness from others instead of being automatically treated with the same courtesy afforded to nondisabled people.
• People with disabilities need a nondisabled person to “save” them from social rejection or tasks of daily living.
• It’s okay to use the image and/or story of a person with a disability without their consent.
• People with disabilities are less valued than the nondisabled person who was kind to them.

Similar news stories sometimes appear related to other marginalized identities, such as examples of kids being nice to a trans student or a recent immigrant at school. While kindness and courtesy are important traits, these stories reproduce ideological assumptions about marginalized groups. Intersectionality also plays a role in these situations, as a trans student or immigrant student with disabilities might have amplified consequences (e.g., safety and legal implications) to having their images made public because of their multiple identities.

Kristi, the CS teacher we met earlier, shared an example of how she recognized ableism operating at the ideological level in her own life:

Kristi pointed to many of the ableist ideologies described above, such as a need to pity people with disabilities as weaker and less valuable. Kristi also named how these ideologies are reproduced in our culture through how we are taught about disability in school and how disability is represented in entertainment. Kristi offered a counterexample as she described a book she read with her child where “one of the main (and coolest) superheroes was in a wheelchair and I remember thinking how cool they wrote the story to be inclusive like this.” Efforts that counter dominant beliefs about disability can work to disrupt the ableist ideologies embedded in our society.

Ableism and Institutional Oppression

Institutional ableism includes the ways that negative biases about people with disabilities are built into the law, social structures and policies, school systems, digital technologies, and so forth (Annamma et al., 2013). While a common narrative is that laws protect people, sometimes they also uphold negative biases and structures that allow ableism to continue. Beratan (2006) described institutional ableism as “discriminatory structures and practices … [and] uninterrogated beliefs about disability [that are] deeply ingrained within educational systems (n.p.).” Beratan named how institutional ableism involves structures and practices but also draws in ideological layers of oppression through the “uninterrogated beliefs about disability” that are embedded in education. He argued that because of institutional and ideological ableism, “even the most well-intentioned policies [maintain] the … oppression of existing hierarchies” (n.p.).

One way that institutional ableism manifests is through technoableism, or the belief that technology is a “solution” for disability and that disabled people can be “fixed” by technology (Shew, 2020). On the contrary, ableist biases embedded in technology disproportionately impact people with disabilities. For instance, automated virtual proctoring systems are tools used to monitor educational test taking and are intended to prevent cheating. These systems surveil test takers through cameras and microphones and monitor the user’s screen, keyboard, and mouse. Disabled test takers “are more likely to be flagged as potentially suspicious … simply because of the ways disabled people already exist and because of disability-specific access needs when test-taking” (Center for Democracy and Technology [CDT], 2022, p. 8). Needs like extended breaks or the use of screen readers are “more likely to be flagged or prohibited” by these systems, impacting test takers’ performance (CDT, 2022, p. 8).

In CS Ed contexts, institutional ableism can appear in many ways. For example, the tools and curricula developed for and adopted by schools and districts are not always accessible or easily usable for those with disabilities. As CS educator Karime noted, “Just because something is on a computer doesn’t intrinsically make it accessible.” Schools and districts often do not consider accessibility when making adoption and purchasing decisions, leading to technology tools that exclude many students with disabilities. Similarly, school structures and policies may keep students with disabilities out of CS Ed classes. Kristi shared an example from the high school where she works. Depending on where a student lives or the school district they attend, they may be separated into self-contained classes or schools, or they may be integrated with their peers. Kristi described her experience:

Kristi’s example highlights the layers that can exist within institutional ableism. Because biology is valued as a “core” subject for high school, it’s considered valuable to offer an inclusion option. However, students with disabilities are not provided the same opportunities to access CS educational opportunities; there is no CS inclusion option and CS courses are not offered in their special education setting.

Ableism and Interpersonal Oppression

Interpersonal ableism happens in social interactions between people. These interactions encompass language and actions. Any time that nondisabled people deny or discount the lived experiences of disabled people, this is a form of interpersonal oppression (Bennett & Rosner, 2019; Shaw, 2020). Authors Sari Solden and Michelle Frank (2019) offer examples of three types of messages that can be considered interpersonal ableism (Figure 2). These messages often perpetuate ableist language and paternalistic attitudes and can be understood as forms of ableist microaggressions.

Table 1
Interpersonal Ableism (Adapted from Solden & Frank, 2019)

Type	Explanation	Examples
You message	Messages stated directly to the disabled person that result from “misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or conflating” individuals’ character and their disability (Solden & Frank, p. 32)	“You’re so smart. You don’t need accommodations.”
They message	Indirect messages that people make about others with similar disabilities. These messages are not directed to a person with a disability. In fact, the speaker may not know that their comment was heard by someone with a disability. The hearer’s disability may stay “hidden.” However, the messages implicitly convey to the disabled person what is and is not socially acceptable.	Sam, an undiagnosed student with ADHD overhears a teacher remark, “Ugh. Jordan is so ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]. They need to be on medication” Sam wonders, “Do they think that about me? What would they think about me if they knew I had ADHD?”
Duh! message	Messages or “suggestions” offered as “solutions” to a disability. These messages trivialize the realities of disabilities and often assume that people with disabilities aren’t capable of finding solutions on their own or merely haven’t tried these seemingly “obvious” answers to a “simple” problem. These suggestions are likely all things that individuals have tried and/or use consistently, but they are inadequate to address the complexities of people’s lived realities.	“Have you thought about making a list?” “What about putting it in your calendar?” “Just use a timer.” “Try making the font larger.” “Have you tried getting more sleep?”

Often, interpersonal ableism appears in educational contexts as deficit language about disabled students and/or reduced expectations for those students that limit what they are capable of. Kristi described a situation that she experienced at her school while talking with a special education colleague: “The colleague kept remarking about how ‘my kids just can’t do that’ or identifying a specific student as ‘lazy’ or ‘difficult’ rather than acknowledging the needs that student may have that aren’t being met.” Similarly, Rebecca described how a teacher in her school refused to support a student identified as needing special education services in a CS activity “because he was struggling with logging into his computer. She said he couldn’t even log in, so she didn’t see how he could follow the CS activity.” These examples reflect interpersonal ableism because they reproduce the idea that students with disabilities are less capable of learning than their nondisabled peers.

Ableism and Internalized Oppression

Internalized ableism describes how disabled people absorb negative beliefs about disability that shape how they perceive themselves. These negative beliefs are often heard from multiple sources, including interpersonal experiences with others, laws, and messaging about disability in culture and society. Solden and Frank (2019) identify “absorbed messages” as one type of internalized ableism. These messages were likely internalized unconsciously but shape ideas about what is expected, valued, and not valued by society and how people with disabilities can(not) meet those expectations. Absorbed messages may sound like, “Other people do this. Why can’t I?” “Why can’t I be normal?” “Why is this so hard for me?” “What is wrong with me?”

People without disabilities can also have internalized ableism, manifested as ableist biases that disabilities are “bad” and that people with disabilities need to be “fixed.” Most, if not all of us, will experience some type of disability over the course of our lives. Ableist biases can be transformed inward to become internalized ableism. Similarly, people with disabilities can also hold ableist biases. Because disabilities are so varied, a person with one type of disability might accept their disability but think of another disability as something to be ashamed of.

In CS Ed, internalized ableism can limit what a student attempts or believes is possible for them to accomplish. Internalized ableism might appear as disabled individuals feeling shame about their disability and inferior to their nondisabled peers, not asking for accommodations, feeling like they don’t deserve accommodations, or placing unrealistic expectations on themselves. Internalized ableism can influence whether a student enrolls in a CS course, persists when presented with a coding challenge, or attempts to participate in a robotics competition. Imposter syndrome leads students to discount abilities that they have, and the internalized messages that get replayed (either consciously or unconsciously) can make students feel bad about themselves when they do not need to.

Kristi shared an example of internalized ableism that she recognized in her classes:

Internalized ableism can be resisted. Intrapersonal awareness, or an awareness of one’s internal dialogues and beliefs, and support to challenge negative internalized beliefs can empower a student to take risks. In contrast to what Kristi shared, many other CS teachers have shared examples of how CS has been a powerful way for students with disabilities to create and express themselves in new ways that have strengthened their self-efficacy and confidence.

Disability and Ableism in Public Education

Disability and ableism in U.S. education are intertwined with the special education system in public schools. Special education is built on a legal model of disability that is guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other laws and regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). There are currently approximately 7.2 million students, or about 15% of all students, who are identified as having a disability according to IDEA and who receive special services as part of their public education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). Section 1400 of IDEA frames disability in this way:

Drawing on medical models of disability, IDEA identifies thirteen categories of disabilities that are used to identify and provide services for students. Some of these categories include autism, intellectual disabilities, specific learning disabilities (e.g., dysgraphia, dyslexia), and speech, hearing, and visual impairments. While these categories are useful to support many students, they are also limiting. For example, according to IDEA, traumatic brain injury is identified as a disability category, but severe emotional trauma that may be transient is not. Neither is ADHD, despite being well established as a neurodevelopmental disorder within the medical model of disability. However, students with these disabilities may need services and resources to support their full participation in school. Additionally, research shows that a significant proportion of students, especially students of color and multilingual learners, with disabilities are likely not identified and do not receive any support services (Lai et al., 2024; Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2020). This reality means that we need to think broadly about our students and their needs, beyond the legal and medical models that shape disability policies in schools.

In working toward the goals of equal educational opportunity and full participation stated in IDEA, most students with disabilities are taught alongside their peers in general education classrooms. This effort is referred to as inclusion. Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has been shown to be at worst neutral — and more often beneficial — to both disabled and nondisabled students, academically and socially (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). While all students benefit from inclusion approaches, it is important to point out that including students with disabilities in general education settings is primarily for their own benefit and not the benefit of their nondisabled peers.

Students with disabilities may have an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a legal document that outlines services and support that the student will receive. Teachers in general education classrooms must provide support and accommodations that meet the requirements in the IEP. Services may also include co-teaching models, where a general education teacher and a special education teacher both teach in the same classroom, having a special education teacher push in and support students with disabilities in their general education classrooms or having students with disabilities be pulled out of general education classes to receive support from a special education teacher in smaller classes. Depending on students’ needs, students with disabilities may also be educated in self-contained classrooms separate from their general education peers.

Ideally, classrooms are designed in ways that ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, have access to learning opportunities that are accessible to them. Access refers to making sure that all students have the opportunity to participate in CS learning experiences. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has defined accessibility as ensuring that “a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use” (OCR, 2013).

Ensuring access through accessibility may take place through accommodations or modifications to the classroom environment or to curricular materials. Accommodations are changes that allow students to participate in a learning activity without changing the activity itself. Modifications are changes to what students are expected to learn. Accommodations might include things like the teacher using a microphone to support a student who is hard of hearing, arranging seating to facilitate movement, using fonts and color schemes that are easy to read for people with dyslexia or colorblindness, or providing resources like screen readers and other assistive technologies. Modifications might include things like shortening assignments, adjusting the grading scale (e.g., spelling and grammar don’t “count” toward the grade), or having students answer fewer multiple-choice questions on a test instead of producing an open-ended response. In U.S. public education, legal requirements for providing access through accommodations and modifications are part of the IEP process. Teachers should also consider needs that students might have that are not mandated by special education requirements.

Accessibility doesn’t automatically result in equity. Many use the analogy of accessibility as helping people with disabilities get onto any playing field, even an unequal one (see Annamma et al., 2013). Like the baseball analogy used in Chapter 4, accessibility doesn’t ensure that the playing field is even, nor does it ensure that everyone is able to enjoy full participation in the ways they want to participate. While access is an important first step, it often falls short of full, inclusive, and equitable participation.

In part, this is because the intersections of ableism with racism, classism, language injustice, and other forms of societal oppression manifest uniquely in special education. Black, Indigenous, and Latine students, as well as bi/multilingual learners, are overall underrepresented in special education and cannot access needed services. These same students are also overrepresented in some regions of the country and in certain disability categories. They are more likely to be placed in more restrictive or separate educational settings like self-contained classrooms (Webb, 2020). Racially and linguistically minoritized students face this double bind because of their intersectional identities (Cioè-Peña, 2020; Wilt et al., 2022). For example, a minoritized student who has trouble listening in class may be punished for their behavior instead of an educator thinking to check the child’s ability to hear. The simultaneous under- and overrepresentation of marginalized students is influenced by a myriad of factors, including test bias, poverty, insufficient or ineffective instruction, a lack of resources, and a lack of qualified professionals with the skills and knowledge to work with students of diverse backgrounds (Blanchette, 2009; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011).

In particular, racially and linguistically marginalized students tend to be overrepresented in disability categories that are highly stigmatized or highly interpretive, where identifying a disability involves subjective judgments by educators (Finch, 2012; Annamma et al., 2013). Overrepresentation in certain categories (e.g., emotional and behavioral disorders, specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities) involves personal biases introduced in the evaluation process in addition to institutional and systemic issues like those above that contribute to reproducing this inequity.

These realities are tied to the relationship between racism and ableism. Special education legislation requires students with disabilities to be placed in the least restrictive environment that meets their needs, beginning with the general education classroom setting. However, scholars have identified how racially marginalized students are overrepresented in self-contained special education classrooms, which can be understood as an informal way to continue racial segregation processes in schools after the Brown v. Board ruling (Harry & Klingner, 2022). Recognizing this reality, disability scholars often refer to self-contained classrooms as segregated settings to emphasize the intersections between race and disability.

Disability and Ableism in CS Ed

While CS Ed has been focused on increasing access to and participation in K-12 CS learning opportunities, learners with disabilities have not always been a part of those efforts. We know that if learners with disabilities have effective instruction and accessible tools and materials, they succeed in CS Ed (Israel et al., 2015). However, many disabled students enter CS classrooms that are inaccessible and are taught by teachers who may not believe in their ability and their right to learn CS alongside their peers.

The problem of providing access to CS Ed for all students is compounded because students with disabilities in self-contained classrooms are more likely to be excluded from CS courses. When students are provided with opportunities to engage in CS learning, their CS time is prioritized as less important than other subject areas. Kristi’s example earlier highlighted this reality, where biology courses as a “core subject” were available to all students, but CS courses were not. Similarly, students who require special services are often pulled out of their general education classes during CS time. In co-teaching settings, the special education teacher is often not present for the CS class. In CS classes when paraeducators are present, they may not feel comfortable with the CS content and may be less able to support students in CS classes. As a result, students are left with a curriculum that is either below their abilities, or they are not provided with adequate scaffolding to access the general curriculum. These realities specifically shaped CS educator Karime’s plans: “This is the reason why I entered a dual program in CS and special education. Most CS classes are taught in settings without a special education co-teacher, and I felt ill-equipped to support the special education students in my classes.”

The lack of inclusion of students with disabilities in CS Ed is a social justice issue. Inclusion of all students in general education CS classrooms benefits students and society as a whole. Students with disabilities bring unique perspectives to CS. Their experiences with technology can impact future directions and advances in computing and design that support technology users with a range of different disabilities (Shew, 2020). All students, regardless of social or medical labels, should be given the opportunity to learn CS. What some students learn may be modified or different, but they can all participate in meaningful ways. Perhaps computing helps them develop skills like self-regulation or allows them to create artifacts that bring joy or perhaps they will go on to create world-changing technologies or enact social policies that shape the way we interact with emerging technologies. An inclusive mindset does not discriminate and provides learning opportunities for all students.

Because of how disability is framed in society broadly and in schools and CS Ed specifically, teachers play an important role in actively working to change how disability is perceived. One teacher, Molly, told her experience as she studied about disability and listened to the stories disabled people shared. Molly recalled that learning more about disability and ableism changed her perspectives:

What can you do to resist ableism and support students with disabilities in your CS classroom? One important consideration is to find ways to include and incorporate voices of disabled people into your curriculum. In addition, Spence Ray and Maya Israel (n.d.), disability scholars who work in CS Ed, have provided a helpful overview of things you can do in their guide, Combatting Ableism in Education.^[3] These suggestions can help you think about how to recognize and combat ableism in your teaching broadly. In the next chapters, we’ll consider some specific approaches that can help you better meet all students’ needs.

Revisiting Your Story

Now that you have learned more about disability and ableism, let’s dig deeper into your story from the beginning of the chapter. Complete the reflection below to capture your deeper understandings of disability and ableism.

Reflection Questions:

1. This chapter focused primarily on your personal experiences with disability and ableism. What kinds of training and preparation have you received (or not) around disability and ableism in your role as an educator?
2. How is ableism present in your work contexts? What ideas do you have now to challenge ableism in these spaces?

Takeaways for Practice:

• Create a list of your top 5 takeaways from this chapter that you can apply in your classroom or with your students right away. This might include your personal framings of how you think about your students or concrete action steps. Share your list with a colleague.

Glossary

Term	Definition
ableism	Implicit or explicit social preference for nondisabled bodies and minds that creates prejudice and oppression of disability and disabled people (Shew, 2020).
access	Giving all students the opportunities and support they need to participate in CS.
accessibility	The process of making activities, environments, information, and interactions available to people with different needs.
accommodations	Changes to a learning environment or to the presentation of curricular content that are offered to help students access content and complete learning tasks that are a regular part of the curriculum. Examples include using a microphone, arranging seating to facilitate movement, or using assistive technologies.
assistive technologies	Technology that helps people with disabilities perform tasks more easily or safely so that they can live, move, participate, and contribute in society more fully. Assistive technologies may include devices (e.g., walkers, prosthetics), materials (e.g., curricular aids), services (e.g., technical assistance), or software (e.g., screen readers).
co-teaching	An instructional model where a general education teacher and a special education teacher teach together in the same classroom.
disability	Any physical, mental, or emotional variance that impacts, limits, or makes more difficult major life activities in society as it exists today.
disabled exceptionalism	Narratives that position disabled people as inspirational because they were able to “overcome” their disability and accomplish great things. Disabled exceptionalism objectifies those with disabilities and recenters ableist norms.
dynamic disabilities	Disabilities that have symptoms that fluctuate in severity, and daily functioning varies from day to day.
dysgraphia	A learning disability that may affect a person’s physical ability to write and/or impact their ability to express their thoughts through writing.
Four I’s of Oppression and Advantage	A theory that illustrates how systems of oppression and advantage (like ableism, classism, or racism) are produced across multiple layers of society. The four I’s are ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized. (See Bell, 2013; Chan & Coney, 2020; Chinook Fund, n.d.; Kuttner, 2016). See also Chapter 5.
identity-first language	A way to talk about disability that centers the disability (e.g., “a disabled person”). For some people with disabilities, identify-first language is an important way to reclaim their disabled identities so that disability is not perceived as negative. It is best to ask individuals whether they prefer identify-first or person-first language.
imposter syndrome	Feelings and beliefs of intellectual and professional inferiority or incompetence; “a perceived self-doubt in one’s abilities and accomplishments compared with others, despite evidence to the contrary” (Walker & Saklofske, 2023, n.p.).
Individualized Education Program (IEP)	A legal document mandated by federal law (IDEA) that outlines services and support that a student with disabilities will receive as part of their public education (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
invisible disabilities	Disabilities that are not readily perceived by society.
medical model of disability	A model that understands disability as an individual medical problem that should be fixed or cured.
microaggressions	Common, everyday slights (verbal or behavioral) toward socially marginalized groups or individuals; microaggressions may be intentional or unintentional, but they still significantly impact those receiving them.
modifications	Changes to what a student is expected to learn or produce. Examples include shortening an assignment or adjusting a grading scale so that spelling doesn’t count toward a grade.
neurodiversity	The recognition that there are a range of differences in how our brains work.
paternalism	Treating individuals with disabilities in condescending or patronizing ways that deny them their agency and dignity.
person-first language	A way to talk about disability that avoids defining people in terms of their disability (e.g., “a person with a disability”). It is best to ask individuals whether they prefer identify-first or person-first language.
pull out model	An instructional model where students with disabilities are pulled out of, or leave their general education classrooms, to receive specialized support from a special education teacher for a given amount of time.
push in model	An instructional model where a special education teacher pushes into, or enters a general education classroom, to support students with disabilities for a given amount of time.
segregated settings	A term used by disability scholars to describe how self-contained classrooms often reproduce racial segregation because of the overrepresentation of racially marginalized students in these settings.
self-contained classroom	An instructional model where students with disabilities are educated in a special education classroom rather than a general education classroom.
social model of disability	A model that understands disability as diversity within minds and bodies, where individuals are disabled because of how society is built and organized.
technoableism	The belief that technology is a “solution” for disability and that disabled people can be “fixed” by technology (Shew, 2020).

References

ABC News. (2019, January 6). Student commended for act of kindness when matched against wrestler with physical disability. ABC News. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/video/student-commended-act-kindness-matched-wrestler-physical-disability-60195112

Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Bell, J. (2013). The four “I’s” of oppression. Begin Within. https://beginwithin.info/articles-2/

Barrett, K. U. (2016, May 5). #RaceAnd: Kay Ulanday Barrett [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSHcKFn7zZw

Bennett, C. L., & Rosner, D. K. (2019, May 4-9). The promise of empathy: Design, disability, and knowing the “other.” CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings. Association for Computing Machinery, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300528

Beratan, G. D. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: Ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v26i2.682

Blanchett, W. J. (2009). A retrospective examination of urban education: From Brown to the resegregation of African Americans in special education — It is time to “go for broke.” Urban Education, 44(4), 370-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909338688

Center for Democracy and Technology [CDT]. (2022). Ableism and disability discrimination in new surveillance technologies: How new surveillance technologies in education, policing, health care, and the workplace disproportionately harm disabled people. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-23-CDT-Ableism-and-Disability-Discrimination-in-New-Surveillance-Technologies-report-final-redu.pdf

Chan, E. L., & Coney, L. (2020). Moving TESOL forward: Increasing educators’ critical consciousness through a racial lens. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.550

Chinook Fund. (n.d.) 4 I’s of oppression. https://chinookfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Supplemental-Information-for-Funding-Guidelines.pdf

Cioè-Peña, M. (2020). Raciolinguistics and the education of emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled. Urban Review, 53, 443-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00581-z

Eisenmenger, A. (2019, December 12). Ableism 101. Access living. https://www.accessliving.org/newsroom/blog/ableism-101/

Elainey, A. (2016, April 5). Casual ableist language. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1rrSXkFqGE

Finch, M. E. H. (2012). Special considerations with response to intervention and instruction for students with diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21597

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2022). Why are so many students of color in special education?: Understanding race and disability in schools (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105

Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K–12 students with disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer programming. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915594790

Lai, I., Lipscomb, S., & Johnson, A. (2024). Appropriate identification of children with disabilities for IDEA services: A report from Recent National Estimates. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED652735.pdf

Kuttner, P. J. (2016). Hip-hop citizens: Arts-based, culturally sustaining civic engagement pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 86(4), 527-555. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.4.527

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2020). Core principles: Disproportionality in identification for special education. https://ldaamerica.org/core-principle-disproportionality-in-identification-for-special-education/\#:\~:text=A number of researchers (Elder,et al., 2008)

Love, H. R., Nyegenye, S. N., Wilt, C. L., & Annamma, S. A. (2021). Black families’ resistance to deficit positioning: Addressing the paradox of black parent involvement. Race Ethnicity and Education, 24(5), 637-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1918403

McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Legislative Library of the Northwest Territories. https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.30714426

National Center on Disability and Journalism. (2021). Disability language style guide. https://ncdj.org/style-guide/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities

Office of Civil Rights, United States Department of Education. (2013). Resolution Agreement South Carolina Technical College System. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11116002-b.pdf

Ray, M., & Israel, M. (n.d.). Combatting ableism in education. Project Tactic. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6gP0yisJ1TpCgEPae8kni1Z9mnzmNID/view

Rauh, V. A., Landrigan, P. J., & Claudio, L. (2008). Housing and health: Intersection of poverty and environmental exposures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.032

Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

Shew, A. (2020). Ableism, technoableism, and future AI. IEEE Xplore, 39(1), 40-85. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2020.2967492

Solden, S., & Frank, M. (2019). A radical guide for women with ADHD: Embrace neurodiversity, live boldly, and break through barriers. New Harbinger Publications.

Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526-1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416014

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education act. Public Law 108-446. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

Walker, D. L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2023). Development, factor structure, and psychometric validation of the impostor phenomenon assessment: A novel assessment of imposter phenomenon. Assessment, 30(7), 2162-2183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221141870

Webb, P. E. (2020). Disproportionality in special education: The factors of overrepresentation, lack of inclusion and its impact on student success [Masterʼs thesis, Bethel University]. Spark Repository. https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/649

Wilt, C. L., Annamma, S. A., Wilmot, J. M., Nyegenye, S. N., Miller, A. L., & Jackson, E. E. (2022). Performing color-evasiveness: A DisCrit analysis of educators’ discourse in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103761

Resource 1: Challenging Ableist Language