Looking in the Shadows: Literature on Undocumented Latinx Students with Disabilities

Journal of Latinos and Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjle20 Looking in the Shadows: Literature on Undocumented Latinx Students with Disabilities Carlos E. Lavín & Grace L. Francis To cite this article: Carlos E. Lavín & Grace L. Francis (2022): Looking in the Shadows: Literature on Undocumented Latinx Students with Disabilities, Journal of Latinos and Education, DOI: 10.1080/15348431.2022.2149529 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2149529 Published online: 28 Nov 2022. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjle20 JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2149529 Looking in the Shadows: Literature on Undocumented Latinx Students with Disabilities Carlos E. Lavín a and Grace L. Francis b a School of Education, Health and Human Performance, College of Charleston; bCollege of Education and Human Development, George Mason University ABSTRACT KEYWORDS FERPA (1974) privacy laws protect undocumented Latinx learners with disabilities (ULWD) from disclosing their immigration status. The right to maintain anonymity provided by FERPA, however, potentially results in challenges in identifying and supporting the unique needs ULWD in home and school environments. Due, in part, to a lack of information, school professionals may view ULWD from deficit perspective perpetuated by the dominant narrative. In an effort to uncover what does exist within the literature of ULWD and better understand their experiences in school systems, the purpose of this review was to bring to light the available peer-reviewed and dissertation research about ULWD published in the U.S. between 2002 and 2021. Three research questions guided this review: (1) What was the purpose of research studies concerning ULWD? (2) Who were the participants, what were the research methods, and theoretical frameworks used? and (3) What were the common themes across the studies? Findings indicate that there is little research addressing the needs of ULWD and their family caregivers, with existing literature consistently calling for further research on this population. Implications for future research are discussed. Undocumented; Latinx; disability; education; student; discrimination Often, immigrants and minorities in U.S. schools are seen through a deficit lens, using language, policies, and practices that blame student failure on the inherent characteristics of a student, their culture, or their home and community environments (Palmer & Witanapatirana, 2020). This deficit lens is perpetuated and reinforced by the U.S. dominant narrative. A dominant narrative is an explanation or story that is told in service of the dominant social group’s interests and ideologies, one that usually achieves dominance through repetition, not truth (Mignolo, 2009). Because dominant narratives are normalized through repetition, they have the illusion of being objective and neutral, when in reality their purpose is to maintain the status quo of one social group’s dominance over others (Mignolo, 2009). Since the beginning of immigration into the U.S., the dominant narrative focused on pre-conceived racial differences that established who was allowed into the country and who was not (Dolmage, 2011). In the case of Latinx1 immigrants (one of the fastest growing populations in the United States; Ortega et al., 2020), the dominant CONTACT Carlos E. Lavín lavince@cofc.edu School of Education, Health and Human Performance, College of Charleston, 86 Wentworth Street, Room 320, Charleston, SC 29424, USA 1 In this paper the term Latinx refers to anyone who identifies as Latino, Latina, Chicano, Chicana, and/or Hispanic. The authors chose this term based on the work of LatCrit scholar Francisco Valdes (1996) and Xicana feminist scholars Soto and colleagues (2009). Valdes (1996) explains the importance of focusing on “shared aspirations and common purposes as a way to join like-minded forces from groups or communities that may be otherwise grouped in along divisive characteristics in an effort to work on projects or ideas that benefit a Latino coalition (p. 28). Additionally, Soto and her colleagues (2009) provide a series of valid arguments for the use of Latinx to include, rather than exclude, people in the margins, or at identity intersections. Further, the “x” represents the possibility of reflection and ability of questioning current realities and definitions, allowing for change or modification, as needed (Soto et al., 2009). Therefore, the use of the term Latinx is meant to include and welcome as many people as possible, rather than to exclude people in the margins or at an intersection of identities. © 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS narrative continues to perpetuate that Latinx immigrants are only fit for field labor (Sanchez, 1993), Latinx students are at risk for learning disabilities (Baker et al., 2018), and that Latinx parents are uninvolved in the education of their students (Achola & Greene, 2016). Further, the dominant narrative on undocumented immigrants continues to portray them as dirty, uneducated, lazy, and criminal (Gonzalez, 2019). These baseless and damaging narratives continue to negatively impact Latinx families and Latinx students in public schools, especially those who are undocumented as they have historically been marginalized or segregated by the education system, the dominant culture, and even their Latinx peers who are documented (Valenzuela, 1999). Similarly, the dominant narrative about individuals with disabilities justifies their exclusion or segregation from society based on the idea that a disability makes an individual abnormal and, therefore, bad (Annamma et al., 2017). For students with disabilities this translates to teachers and administrators maintaining low academic expectations and providing substandard educational services (Timmons et al., 2011). As one may imagine, students with intersecting identities, such as immigration status, disability, or country of origin, are at a higher risk of marginalization by the dominant narrative and unjust social systems (Annamma et al., 2013; Artiles, 2013). For example, undocumented Latinx learners with disabilities (ULWD) and their family caregivers are continuously placed in “double jeopardy;” as they experience difficulty accessing disability services students require while also struggling to navigate legal battles over immigration status (Francis et al., 2019, p. 29). This “double jeopardy” further perpetuated by a general paucity of information and strategies on how to support ULWD (Lavín, 2020). However, what is known from the scant literature on emerging bilingual Latinx students including dismal test scores compared to any other sub-group across grade levels (Lavín et al., 2020; NCES, 2018) and a series of compounded barriers to learning due to language barriers, fear of deportation, posttraumatic stress disorder (American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration, 2012). Although it is mandatory for all children under the age of 18 to attend public school in most U.S. states, regardless of their immigration status in the U.S. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 1982), identifying ULWD in schools is akin to looking in the shadows: one knows ULWD are there, but they are not readily identifiable. This is, due, in part, to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA, 1974). FERPA precludes school administrators, teachers, staff, and other officials from inquiring about the immigration status of students or the parents of students enrolled in public schools (FERPA, 1974; Mallet et al., 2017). This privacy law is essential for the education, wellbeing, and protection of immigrant students (Mallet et al., 2017). Due to these regulations, however, information about undocumented immigrants is not consistently available (e.g., the number of undocumented students in schools, the needs of undocumented students and their families, perspectives of undocumented students regarding school; Padía & Traxler, 2021). While student privacy and safety are paramount, understanding the experiences, barriers, and successes of ULWD can provide critical information for educators to better serve this population and inform systems change in support of immigrant students. Further, learning from family caregivers of ULWD may offer unique, introspective perspectives related to their children’s experiences, as well as their own interactions with education professionals. A review of literature related to ULWD has the potential to provide future directions for research that will benefit ULWD across the U.S. In addition, it is important to recognize how ULWD are portrayed in the literature to determine if existing literature fuels the dominant narrative (thus hindering progress among ULWD) or challenges the dominant narrative. As a result, the purpose of this review was to bring to light the available research on ULWD in the U.S and how ULWD are portrayed in the literature. Research questions that guided this study include: (1) What was the purpose of research studies concerning ULWD? (2) Who were the participants, what were the research methods, and theoretical frameworks used? and (3) What were the common themes across the studies? JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 3 Theoretical framework The act of conducting research is often considered a neutral process. However, as Jensen (2006) explains, attempts to maintain neutrality denotes one’s choice of adhering to the status quo (or the dominant narrative). We used Critical Race Theory (CRT) to guide our analysis and thought process in an effort to resist harm caused by the dominant narrative. Solórzano and Yosso (2001), propose five themes that encompass how CRT can be applied in education: (1) the centrality of race and racism and their intersectionality with other forms of subordination, (2) the challenge to dominant ideologies, (3) the commitment to social justice, (4) the centrality of experiential knowledge, and (5) the transdisciplinary discipline- work to answer the questions of what CRT does, why it does it, and how it is done (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). We primarily focus on second theme: challenging the dominant ideology, as the dominant narrative in the U.S. positions whiteness as normative, resulting in individuals who do not hold “white” identities being pushed to the margins of society. In education, CRT challenges the notions of objectivity, meritocracy, color blindness, gender blindness, race and gender neutrality, and equal opportunity (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001), stating that any suggestion of these previous claims is a camouflage for the self-interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in the United States (e.g., students who fail are not measuring up to our standards; there must be something wrong with them). Methods Using CRT as a theoretical framework, the research questions guiding the literature review were: (1) What was the purpose of research studies concerning ULWD? (2) Who were the participants, what were the research methods, and theoretical frameworks used? and (3) What were the common themes across the studies? Inclusionary and exclusionary criteria The authors used three inclusionary criteria to identify relevant students for this review. First, the research team considered only peer-reviewed manuscripts and dissertations that focused on the needs and experiences of ULWD to ensure we captured empirical research-based information on this population and on the experiences and perspectives of family caregivers of ULWD, as these individuals have a profound influence on the lives of their children and are required members of their children’s Individualized Education Program at school. Second, we reviewed literature published in the U.S. to maintain consistency regarding the standard education system and expectations among study participants. Third, we selected literature published between 2002 to 2021 because after No Child Left Behind came into effect in 2001, state agencies were required to disaggregate the scores of their state assessment by special education services and English Language Services, thus, providing more clarity on the achievement of different populations within grade level, school level, and district level data (Lavín, 2020). Due to the scarcity of published work on undocumented immigrants with disabilities, the authors had few exclusionary criteria. The exclusionary criteria focused on country of origin discarding manuscripts about non-Latinx immigrants because (a) 77% of U.S. immigrants are from Latin American countries (Lopez et al., 2021) and (b) represent greatest number of undocumented status. Studies that occurred in U.S. and in other countries but did not parse out data by country or did not disaggregate by immigration status were also discarded. Search procedures The research team conducted searchers the following academic databases: Academic Search Complete, Anthropology Plus, Educational Administration abstracts, ERIC, Essay and General Literature Index 4 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS (H.W. Wilson), Family Studies Abstracts, Fuente Académica, Legal Collection, LGBT Life with Full Text, MedicLatina, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Teacher Reference Center, Women’s Studies International. The authors used following combination of search terms: (“undocumented students” OR “UIs” OR “illegal immigra*” or “Latinos” or “Hispanics” or “Chicanos” or “Latinas” or “Mexican” or “Latinx” AND “special education” or “special needs” or “disabilities” or “autism” or “learning disabilities”) due to the nature of the topic and differing terminology used to describe ULWD. This search yielded a total of 24 articles and four dissertations. In addition, the authors conducted a search using Psych Info with the terms suggested by the APA thesaurus: “Latino/Latinas” AND “disability” AND “immigration,” which yielded zero results. The authors amended the search term to “Latinos” from “Latino/Latina,” and the new search yielded 26 results. The authors discarded duplicate results across databases, resulting in a total of 54 documents to review. The authors then screened the titles and abstracts of all 54 articles using the inclusion criteria, resulting in 35 articles and four dissertations left for full text review. Next, the authors applied the inclusionary criteria of mentioning undocumented students with disabilities in the title or abstract, resulting in a total of 15 documents for review. Given the low number of articles that met criteria to be considered for full review, the authors determined to re-run the search with expanded dates (i.e., 1990–2021) and also conducted an ancestral search of the 15 articles that met inclusionary criteria in the first round of searching with the aim of gathering additional materials to review. This process yielded five additional articles and one organization report. After applying study criteria, 15 articles and four dissertations met inclusionary criteria. Finally, the authors conducted a full article review of the final 19 publications, reading the complete article or dissertation and excluding any that did not focus on undocumented students or children of undocumented parents receiving services for special education. This process resulted in four studies and two dissertations that met the inclusion criteria. The authors then conducted one last search in December 2021 before submitting this manuscript and found two recently published articles that met the inclusion criteria. In total, the search results included six peer-reviewed articles and two dissertations (see, Figure 1 for a flowchart explaining the inclusion and exclusion criteria). Findings This section presents results in alignment with study research questions to highlight the scarcity of literature available on ULWD and provide an opportunity to compare the different research approaches taken. Further, this approached also may allow for deeper insight into the theoretical frameworks that authors are currently using when addressing ULWD. Eight peer-reviewed articles or dissertations met the inclusion criteria for this literature review. Table 1 displays the articles that met all criteria. In this section, we present the results of the literature review by answering the questions: (1) What was the purpose of research studies concerning ULWD? (2) Who were the participants, what were the research methods, and theoretical frameworks used? and (3) What were the common themes among study findings? Purpose of research Padía and Traxler (2021) examined the experiences of two ninth grade ULWD, one female and one male, at the intersection of immigration status and disability. Additionally, Annamma (2013) examined the intersectional identities that impacted the experience of one ULWD in the juvenile system. Annamma (2013) focused on the lived experiences of one participant in a juvenile detention center, and how the intersectionality of race, disability, and social status interfered with the participant’s wellbeing. Although the study was not conducted in a traditional public education setting, it provided readers an example of how immigration status plays a central role on the lives of ULWD. The participant related how she was afraid of being deported, how she did not trust authority, the low expectations staff had from her, and the lack of disability-related support. Padía and Traxler (2021) JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 5 Figure 1. Flowchart of search results for literature on ULWD. explored the intersectional experiences of two ninth-graders, one male, one female, when dealing with their disability and their immigration status. One student had legal status, but came from a mixed status family, while the other student was undocumented. The researchers focused on the unwritten rules of transitioning to post-secondary education and the burdensome, and inequitable responsibility being placed on the shoulders of ULWDs and their families pertaining financial assistance to pay for a college education. The other six studies (Author, 2018, 2019; Alvarado, 2004; Cioè-Peña, 2020; Morales, 2015; MoraLopez, 2016) examined the experiences of undocumented parents of children with disabilities. Alvarado (2004) examined the experiences of undocumented Latinx parents trying to provide services for their infant with disabilities. Two articles (Francis et al., 2018, 2019) examined the experiences of family caregivers (some of whom were undocumented) of students with severe disabilities as their children transitioned from school into adulthood. Specifically, Francis et al. (2018) focused on understanding the experiences of Latinx caregivers in supporting their family members with disabilities to achieve positive postschool outcomes, while the Francis et al. (2019) focused on understanding the contextual factors that influence Latinx family systems as their young adult family members with 6 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS Table 1. Articles that met literature review criteria on ULWD. Authors Annamma (2013). Participants 1 ULWD female in juvenile detention center 2 undocumented mothers with children receiving speech services Cioè-Peña, 3 Mexican undocumented (2021) mothers of emerging bilinguals with a disability Alvarado (2004). *Francis et 12 Latina mothers with family members between the ages of al. 14–25 who had a disability (2018) * Francis et 12 Latina mothers with family al. members between the ages of (2019) 14–25 who had a disability MoraLopez (2016). Morales (2015). Padía and Traxler (2021) 5 undocumented parents of children with special needs Topics of Articles ULWD Method Case Study Undocumented parents of students with disabilities Undocumented mothers of emerging bilinguals labeled as disabled (EBLAD) Latinx parents, some who are undocumented immigrants, of students with disabilities Latinx parents, some who are undocumented immigrants, of students with disabilities Undocumented parents of students with disabilities Undocumented parents of students with disabilities Phenomenological analysis 8 undocumented Latino (6 from Mexico, 1 from Peru, 1 from El Salvador) parents (2 male, 6 female) of children with disabilities 1 female ULWD ninth grade Ninth grade Latinx student &1 male, documented students one ninth grade student from undocumented, one a mixed status family from a mixed immigration status family Conceptual Participants Framework (n) Critical race theory, 1 and its branches FemCrit, LatCrit, and DisCrit Constructivist 2 Testimonios Constructivist 3 Interpretative analysis Interviews Constructivist Bronfenbrenner PPCVT 13 Interpretative Analysis Interviews DisCrit, Linguistic Human Rights theory 13 Interviews Grounded Theory 8 Qualitative Critical narrative inquiry 5 Interviews 2 Undocu-Crit & DisCrit disabilities transition from high school to adulthood. It is important to note that the main purpose of these two studies was not related to immigration status, however, this information emerged during interviews conducted by the researchers as several participants disclosed their immigration status. Cioè-Peña (2020) explored reasons why undocumented mothers of emerging bilingual students with disabilities chose to stay in the U.S. even though they know they felt unwelcomed. Two studies were dissertations (Morales, 2015; Mora-Lopez, 2016). Mora-Lopez (2016) investigated the experiences of Latinx undocumented immigrant parents and their access to services for their children with Autism. The author wanted to examine how being undocumented, monolingual, and having a child with a diagnosed disability hindered the parents’ ability to advocate for their children and the services their children needed (Mora-Lopez, 2016). Morales (2015) studied the involvement barriers undocumented Mexican parents of students with disabilities faced in schools in California in effort to develop a grounded theory regarding the perceived or experienced barriers by these families. Participants, research methods, and frameworks Participants Study participants included (a) an ULWD in the juvenile system (Annamma, 2013), (b) two undocumented Mexican mothers (Alvarado, 2004), (c) Latinx female caregivers from Mexico, Salvador, and JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 7 Puerto Rican- some of whom were undocumented (Francis et al., 2018, 2019); (d) undocumented Mexican mothers of learners with disabilities (Cioè-Peña, 2021); (e) undocumented Latinx immigrant mothers and fathers (Mora-Lopez, 2016), (f) undocumented Mexican mothers (Morales, 2015), and (g) and one high school ULWD and one documented high school student with a disability from a mixed-immigration-status family (Padía & Traxler, 2021). Research methods and frameworks All studies used qualitative methods and each researcher described establishing trusting relationships with participants prior to engaging in research (e.g., Alvarado, 2004 listened to participants tell their stories and validated their experiences). Annamma (2013) utilized case study design. This case study involved in-depth phenomenological interviews with the ULWD in the juvenile system, classroom observations, analysis of school records, and data analysis with the participant. Padía and Traxler (2021) also used case study to conduct and analyze interviews, case notes, and memos of two ninth grade students (one undocumented, one from a mixed status family) better understand their educational experiences Alvarado (2004) utilized phenomenological designed to engage in in-depth interviews with the two undocumented mothers of children with disabilities, participant observations, and an analysis of archival documentation from copies of each family’s Individual Family Service Plan, meeting minutes from the early intervention program, utility bills, photographs, and informational brochures about the early intervention program. In both articles by Francis et al. (2018, 2019), the authors used a basic interpretative design. In each article, multiple rounds of interviews occurred. In the first round of interviews, all 13 Latinx family caregivers were interviewed. For the second round, six of the 13 participants were selected due to their children’s transition-related milestones such as graduating from high school. For the third round, four of the six participants interviewed in round two were interviewed again. Cioè-Peña (2021) engaged in in-depth interviews with participants to create Testimonios- a long-standing methodological approach in Latin America, based on the idea that “storytelling is an intentional political act” (p. 9). Mora-Lopez (2016) used narrative inquiry design via in-depth interviews to document and examine the experiences of undocumented Mexican mothers regarding their access to services for their children with Autism. As Mora Lopez explained, this method was necessary to preserve the participant’s experiences intact (i.e., without the influence from the author). Morales (2015) used grounded theory to examine barriers undocumented Mexican mothers faced when attempting to become involved in the education of their children with disabilities. Comparing open-ended interview data from the participants and research memos written during the interviews, Morales then formulated the Gantlet Theory, which demonstrated the phenomenon of advocating school system while simultaneously avoiding agitating figures of authority. Three authors utilized a framework in the design and/or analysis of their study. Annamma (2013) and Padía and Traxler (2021) used Critical Race Theory (CRT) and some of its branches (i.e., Feminist Critical Theory, LatCrit, Disability Critical Theory, UndocuCrit) to analyze the intersectional identities and education experiences among their participants. Francis et al. (2019) applied Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) Person–Process–Context–Time (PPCT) model to organize participant data and called for a to critical approach to further research with this population including Critical Race theory and LatCrit. Like Author (2019), Mora-Lopez (2016) used Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model as a framework for data analysis. Morales (2015) developed the Gantlet Theory as a result of their study which may be used to inform future research. Common themes across study findings The eight studies in this review shared four common themes: (1) the myth that parents are not engaged in their children’s education, (2) a fear of authorities and deportation, (3) the use of a deficit perspective, (4) language barriers and discrimination. 8 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS The myth that parents are not engaged in their children’s education Each studies articulated the problem that arose from school personnel believing Latinx parents are not engaged in the education of their children. For example, Alvarado (2004) described how a lack of cultural understanding among educators and service providers resulting in professional judgments based on assumptions that did not match the families’ reality. As another example, Alvarado (2004) and Francis et al. (2018, 2019) expressed how participants’ undocumented status interfered with their quality of life and ability to earn decent wages for their families, even if they were working two or three jobs. These long work hours often prevented parents from attending school events, and parents were labeled as disinterested instead of hard working. Cioè -Peña (2021) provided an example when participants knew they are not welcomed in the U.S. and afraid that if deported, their children will be taken away from them; and yet they stayed. They knew that the quality of special education and disability services their children received in schools was far superior to the quality of services in their home country. Overall, participants in these studies wanted to provide the best disability services possible to their children, but due to their economic reality and job requirements, they were not always able to pay for services or attend meetings with school personnel. A fear of authorities and deportation The fear of deportation and authorities was a stressor in the daily lives of participants and interfered with may study participants’ ability to trust and interact with education professionals. For example, Annamma (2013) described the ULWD “cheeking her meds” (p. 36) (i.e., taking all of her medication at once) to cope with the stress and fear of being deported to an unknown country without her family. Similarly, Francis et al. (2019) described an undocumented participant considering asking a close Latnix friend who was a U.S. citizen to adopt her child so that he may continue to receive disability services if the participant was deported. Many participants in Francis et al. (2018; 2019) also avoided requesting services or interacting with school professionals for fear of deportation. Similarly, CioèPeña’s participants commented on the fear of being deported and not having someone to take care of their children since their children were born in the U.S. (2021). Further, Alvarado (2004) described how participant fear of deportation impacted every aspect of their lives, even more so than having a child with a disability. The use of a deficit perspective Study participants often observed service providers treating their child inadequately. For example, (Francis et al., 2018) some participants described their young adult children coming home from school with soiled menstrual pads and/or soiled clothing. Francis et al. (2019) also documented participants describing decreased participation in school activities among their young adults due frequent, harsh punishments. Annamma (2013) related how her ULWD participant was seen as a criminal by her teachers, instead of a valued individual who was worth investing in. In addition, Annamma discussed a lack of cultural awareness among detention center staff and captured the participant’s tumultuous feelings coping with her disability, immigration status, and detention amidst an environment that did not value any of her identities and maintained low expectations for her post-detention. Further, Francis et al. (2018) mentioned that, in some instances, participants were seen through the deficit lens as “too disabled to qualify for services” (p. 345), resulting in distrust from the family toward disability service providers and poor outcomes among their children with disabilities. Moreover, Morales (2015) described how educators adopted a deficit perspective when working with the participants’ children. For instance, one participant mentioned that one of his son’s teachers told him his child did not belong in school because he was not performing at grade level without taking the child’s first language or disability into account. Further, Padía and Traxler (2021) described how school counselors assumed undocumented students were not college-bound and denied them any college-related information. Additionally, Morales (2015) explained how participants in his study felt discriminated and talked down to by service personnel. JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 9 Language barriers and discrimination Language was a perceived barrier across studies. For instance, participants across all studies reported difficulty communicating with school personnel due to a lack of interpreters. Parent participants also felt that school and medical personnel discriminated against them; as seen through disrespect for participants’ culture, denial of services, questioning the legal status of participants, and/or intimidation. Participants in Alvarado’s (2004) study, for example, described discrimination by service providers once they found out participants could not speak English well. Further, Author (2018) described participants losing trust of educators after feeling they were being discriminated against because educators were intentionally not returning phone calls and not providing interpreters for meetings. Francis et al. (2019) also described participants feeling discriminated against for speaking Spanish as a first language. On the other hand, Cioè-Peña’s participants recognized that the language barrier was a barrier and source of discrimination, but they also used it to teach their children about their Mexican heritage and instill pride in them for having Mexican parents. Discussion The literature review sought to answer the following questions: (1) What was the purpose of research studies concerning ULWD, (2) Who were the participants and what methods and theoretical frameworks were used, and (3) What were the common themes across the studies? Two studies in the review (Annamma, 2013; Padía & Traxler, 2021), included ULWD as participants. Only one study included in this review, however, investigated the direct experiences of ULWDs in K-12 education settings: Padía and Traxler (2021) and Annamma (2013). The remaining six studies examined the experiences of Latinx parents- some of whom were undocumented and parented ULWD. Because of the range in educational experiences (e.g., disabilities, ages, geographic locations) of the participant’s children, the studies in this review provide a broad insight into the experiences of undocumented Latinx parents of children with disabilities. These articles highlighted the need for more research that addresses the needs of K-12 ULWD, as well as more research focused on directly learning from ULWD. Participants, and research methods and theoretical frameworks used Within the literature reviewed, all studies used qualitative methods and each researcher described establishing trusting relationships with participants prior to engaging in research. Out of all the literature reviewed, there was only one study that examined the educational experience of ULWD in public schools (Padía & Traxler, 2021), and only two that examined the educational experiences of ULWD in general (Annamma, 2013; Padía & Traxler, 2021). With approximately one million undocumented immigrant students attending public schools, with 70% of immigration being Latinx, understanding the educational experiences of ULWD is essential. Study participants included an adolescent female (Annamma, 2013), one ninth grade ULWD female student and one ninth grade male student from a mixed status family (Padía & Traxler, 2021), undocumented parents with children with disabilities (Alvarado, 2004; Morales, 2015; Mora-Lopez, 2016), and undocumented parents of young adults with disabilities (Francis et al., 2018, 2019). ULWD and the children of family caregivers ages ranged from infancy to young adulthood. The number of Mexican immigrants who participated in the research featured in this literature review was unsurprising, as this is the largest Latinx immigrant population in the U.S (Lopez et al., 2021). It is, however, important to consider the experiences other Latinx populations given the diversity of Latinx communities in the U.S. For example, in Florida most Latinx immigrants identify as Cuban and Venezuelan, in Massachusetts they identify as Dominican, and in Washington D.C. most Latinx immigrants identify as Salvadorian (Ennis et al., 2011). The cultural differences among Latinx immigrants are vast and well-documented (Artiles, 2013; Valdes, 1996), yet research on educational 10 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS experiences of Latinx students is limited and often presents Latinx immigrants as a homogeneous population. Although the designs differed, all studies used qualitative methods. This is somewhat unsurprising, as qualitative research is used for richly understanding and making meaning of human experiences, including researchers taking a critical approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, most qualitative research allows researchers to be responsive to participant needs; respecting the participants’ need for privacy, and allowing participants to express themselves in numerous, preferred ways. By selecting the appropriate design such as Testimonios, narrative inquiry, participatory action research, case study and maintaining a flexible, adaptive approach to a study. This flexibility allows for the adjusting of questions in semi-structured protocols, or varying approaches to analysis (Yin, 2016). Further, all authors highlighted building trust with participants as an important step prior to engaging in data collection. As Alvarado (2004) mentioned, it is the duty of researchers to represent participants “with dignity” (p. 528). Due to the nature of the topic and the trust needed between researcher and participants, Alvarado cautioned researchers that this type of research is difficult. If the researcher is not willing to establish a relationship with the participants, the results may be superficial, and participants are unlikely to share their real stories (Alvarado, 2004). Some of the studies (i.e., Annamma, 2013; Author, 2019; Cioè-Peña, 2021; Morales, 2015; Padía & Traxler, 2021) specifically listed frameworks that guided, informed, or emerged because of their research (i.e., Discrit, LatCrit, UndocuCrit, PPCT Model, Gauntlet Theory). However, each study, while not overtly stated included undertones of a critical theoretical framework for investigating and, perhaps, interpreting the research findings, as it is impossible to have atheoretical research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this line of research, it is essential that researchers understand and state theoretical/conceptual framework, as well as their positionality to disrupt the dominant narrative. Common themes Although the studies in this review spanned 17 years (2004–2021) and included children of all ages, participants described similar barriers as interfering with meaningfully participating in the U.S. education system through cross-cutting themes related to myths, fear, negativity, and other barriers. These discouraging findings present a daunting, albeit predictable outlook for undocumented Latinx immigrants. The five studies with parents as participants talked about their immigration status as interfering with their involvement in their child’s education. As mentioned, this inability to participate in their children’s education in ways in which they prefer or in ways in which school systems value. When not thoughtfully considered, this cycle of misunderstanding derived from a lack of communication can reiterate the dominant narrative about Latinx parents not being involved in the education of their children, when, in reality, it is the systemic barriers imposed on these families that interfere with the child’s education (Achola & Greene, 2016). Morales (2015) developed the Gantlet Theory to explain how discrimination and other barriers mentioned by participants were part of a system that provides for some (those who benefit from the dominant narrative) and not others (those who are not in-line with the dominant narrative). This dichotomy in services provided for students with and without marginalized characteristics and identities creates a situation where, for documented English-speaking students from European descent, special education services become a tool for success while, on the other hand, students who are undocumented immigrants or emerging bilinguals, special education services become a barrier or serve as way to keep students with disenfranchised characteristics and identities living in the margins (Artiles, 2013). While the influence of the dominant narrative is apparent and alluded to in each study, only four authors specified systemic barriers experienced by participants (Author, 2019; Annamma, 2013; Morales, 2015; Padía & Traxler, 2021), of these three, Annamma (2013) and Padía and Traxler (2021) mentioned the influence of the dominant culture (“dominant discourse” p. 33) affecting discrimination practices. JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 11 Another example of marginalization identified across studies was the language used during special education meetings and for school materials. Participants not receiving translated materials and interpreters during meetings is especially problematic because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) mandates that “public agencies take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understand the proceeded of the IEP team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter . . . ” (Sec. 300.322[e]). According to Morales (2015), the lack parent of understanding provides school personnel with an excuse to seclude certain types of students such as Latinx students with disabilities in more restrictive environments, as parents will have a harder time advocating for the services the student needs as opposed to parents who speak English as their first language. The lack of cultural understanding by professionals and educators was another recurring theme in this review (Author, 2018, 2019; Alvarado, 2004; Annamma, 2013; Morales, 2015; Mora-Lopez, 2016). These studies note that undocumented Latinx immigrants do not always trust schools and are afraid of school personnel reporting their status. This fear of authorities, coupled with discrimination based on their race, immigrant status, and disability, affect ULWD education experiences in unknown ways that are not addressed by the literature in this review (Alvarado, 2004; Annamma, 2013; Morales, 2015). Implications As a result of the deficit perspective, it is necessary that professionals are trained to provide culturally appropriate services (American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration, 2012; Annamma, 2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). When professionals fail to engage nondominant parents/family caregivers or students in a culturally responsive way, the services, delivery, and expectations may not reflect the needs of or be understood by parents or students (American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration, 2012; Annamma, 2013). Additionally, failing to engage in culturally responsive practices reiterates the dominant narrative that everyone must conform to the social norm (i.e., Eurocentric values of what is right and wrong), regardless of where the participants are from, the language they speak, or the belief system to which they ascribe (Castro-Gómez, 2007). Educators and service providers must gain the skills to recognize where and how the dominant narrative embedded in our professionals move past it and provide our students and their family caregivers with the appropriate services they require based on their real needs, not on a preconceived idea of what they need. Educators may do so by first investigating critical frameworks (e.g., CRT, LatCrit, DisCrit), as well as take small steps such as determining family preferences for ongoing communication (e.g., in-person, written documents, Zoom), diversifying classroom libraries or learning materials, and inviting families to share their funds of knowledge (e.g., skills and knowledge a family develop from their experiences; Moll et al., 1992) in the classroom or school. Limitations & future research While the scope of the literature review was broad and the authors were thorough in the terms used to identify articles or other research related to ULWD, it is possible that other literature did not emerge through the search (e.g., search algorithms, search engines, year of publication, language, gray literature). To stay current on this dynamic and advancing topic, it is important that researchers continue to search for the most up-to-date research on ULWD as new information and studies may be published in the future. Further, while the authors used a broad scope of terms to capture any literature surrounding ULWD for the search, other terms may be explored as well. This review demonstrated limited research about the experiences of ULWD exists. Given the general paucity of research located in this review there is a clear need for research about ULWD in any capacity to understand more about this population. However, only one study included in this review explored the direct experiences of ULWDs in K-12 education settings (Annamma’s study took place in a juvenile detention center). It is, therefore, critical to include the voices of ULWD in future 12 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS research (Francis et al., 2019; American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration, 2012; Dodds et al., 2018; Mallet et al., 2017; Padía & Traxler, 2021). However, as mentioned, FERPA regulations prevent schools from reporting immigration status of students or their parents to government agencies (Mallet et al., 2017). As a result, researchers must consider ways to build relationships with family organizations or other ways to learn from undocumented families and students with disabilities without causing fear or stress. In addition, the limited amount the research may cause the overgeneralization of themes captured in this review to all ULWD, which would be a fallacy and even dangerous given the varied Latinx populations. This only strengthens the need for additional research and first-hand accounts from ULWD. Finally, throughout the research articles, the dominant narrative was evident in the themes participants identified as barriers (e.g., instances of discrimination, a lack of authentic engagement by school officials) to their children’s academic success. Future research should not only expose systemic barriers that discriminate and oppress UWLD in schools, but also focus on the accomplishments and strengths of ULWD. This research can provide an alternative to the position expressed by the dominant narrative, a position that recognizes the value of undocumented immigrants in public schools, a position that centers the experiences of ULWD as knowledge, and a position that provides sheds light on the rich lives of students otherwise confined to the shadows. Conclusion Currently, there is limited research that provides insight into the school experiences of ULWD. This means that the only narrative on ULWD is the dominant narrative. The dominant narrative perpetuates negative stereotypes of immigrants and people with disabilities. Although there are laws that protect ULWD (e.g., FERPA, Plyler v. Doe, 1982), these laws are not enough to affect change until the dominant narrative understands and addresses the systemic barriers that perpetuate injustices against ULWD and other marginalized populations. Further, given the limited number of studies located for this review, it remains clear that ULWD continue to be underrepresented in research. This is problematic, because ULWD are an increasing number of students in public schools in the U.S. and educators have a responsibility to provide the same services and opportunities to them as they do any other student (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004; Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Additional research from a critical, culturally response, and asset-based perspective one approach that can shift the dominant narrative and influence positive change for ULWD. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). ORCID Carlos E. Lavín Grace L. Francis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5777 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8707-9430 References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review. Achola, E. O., & Greene, G. (2016). Person-family centered transition planning: Improving post-school outcomes to culturally diverse youth and families. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JVR-160821 *Alvarado, M. I. (2004). Mucho camino: The experiences of two undocumented Mexican mothers participating in their child’s early intervention program. The American Journal Of Occupational Therapy: Official Publication Of The American Occupational Therapy Association, 58(5), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.5.521 JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION 13 American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2012). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. http://www.apa.org/topics/immigration/report.aspx *Annamma, S. (2013). Undocumented and under surveillance: A case study of an undocumented Latina with a disability in juvenile justice. Journal of the Association of Mexican American Educators, 7(3), 32–41. https://amaejournal.utsa. edu/index.php/AMAE/issue/view/11 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 Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 Artiles, A. J. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities: An intersectionality critique across disability models. Du Bois Review -social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000271 Baker, D. L., Richards-Tutor, C., Sparks, A., & Canges, R. (2018). Review of single subject research examining the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12160 Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE. Castro-Gómez, S. (2007). The missing chapter of empire. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 428–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09502380601162639 *Cioè-Peña, M. (2020). Wanting to leave; needing to stay: Issues for undocumented mothers of children with disabilities. Multiple Voices: Disability, Race, and Language Intersections in Special Education, 20(2), 6–23. https://doi.org/10. 5555/2158-396X-20.2.6 Cioè-Peña, M. (2021). Raciolinguistics and the education of emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled. The Urban Review 53, 443–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00581-z Dodds, R. L., Yarbrough, D. V., & Quick, N. (2018). Lessons learned: Providing peer support to culturally diverse families of children with disabilities or special health care needs. Social Work, 63(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/ sw/swy019 Dolmage, J. (2011). Disabled upon arrival: The rhetorical construction of disability and race at Ellis Island. Cultural Critique, 77(1), 24–69. https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.77.2011.0024 Ennis, S., Rios-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. Census Brief No. C2010BR-04, 16. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA)., 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (1974). Francis, G. L., Gross, J. M. S., Lavín, C. E., Casarez Velazquez, L. A., & Sheets, N. (2019). Facing double jeopardy: The transition experiences of Latina family caregivers of young adults with disabilities living in a rural community. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 8756870519879069. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519879069 Francis, G. L., Gross, J. M. S., Lavín , C. E., Velazquez, L. A. C., & Sheets, N. (2018). Hispanic caregiver experiences supporting positive postschool outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56(5), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.5.337 Gonzalez, E. (2019). Stereotypical depictions of Latino criminality: U.S. Latinos in the media during the MAGA campaign (No. 1). Democratic Communiqué, 28(1), 46–62 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act., 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Jensen, R. (2006). The myth of the neutral professional. Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, 8(2), 1–9. Retrieved your access month date, year, from. http://www.eastern.edu/publications/emme/2006fall/jen sen.pdf Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. 1995. Toward a critical race theory of education. No. 97. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104. Lavín, C. E. (2020). Testimonios of Undocumented Latinx Students with Disabilities: Finding a Way Forward [Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest Global Dissertations and Thesis. https://www.proquest.com/ docview/2454195123?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true Lavín, C. E., Mason, L. H., LeSueur, R., & Haspel, P. (2020). The Dearth of Published Intervention Studies About English Learners with Learning Disabilities or Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Special Education. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2020-V25-I1-10203 Lopez, M. H., Passel, J., & Cohn, D., (2021). Key facts about the changing U.S. unauthorized immigrant population. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3uNwX5s Mallet, M. L., Calvo, R., & Waters, M. C. (2017). “I don’t belong anymore”: Undocumented Latino immigrants encounter social services in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 39(3), 267–282. https://doi. org/10.1177/0739986317718530 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th) ed.). Jossey-Bass. Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275 14 C. E. LAVÍN AND G. L. FRANCIS Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, K. D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00405849209543534 *Morales, S. (2015). Nuestras Escuelas: A Grounded Theory Study of the Barriers to Family Involvement in Special Education Faced by Undocumented Mexican Immigrant Families [Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1871571044/abstract/ 9D0960D379114761PQ/2 *Mora-Lopez, M. (2016). Undocumented Latino Parents’ Access to Services for Their Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Narrative Inquiry (ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 48106. ProQuest LLC. http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml) NCES. (2018). National center for education statistics. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2017_highlights/#/ Ortega, P., Shin, T. M., Pérez-Cordón, C., & Martínez, G. A. (2020). Virtual medical Spanish education at the corazón of Hispanic/Latinx health during COVID-19. Medical Science Educator, 30(4), 1661–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40670-020-01058-0 *Padía, L. B., & Traxler, R. E. (2021). Traerás tus Documentos (you will bring your documents): Navigating the intersections of disability and citizenship status in special education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 24(5), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1918410 Palmer, D. L., & Witanapatirana, K. (2020). Exposing bias through a deficit thinking lens using content-analysis of macro level policies. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam. 01.02.2 Plyler v. Doe. (1982). 457 U.S. 2020. Sanchez, G. J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, culture, and identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. Oxford University Press. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365 Soto, L. D., Cervantes-Soon, C., Villarreal, E., & Campos, E. (2009). The Xicana Sacred Space: A communal circle of compromiso for educational researchers. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer. 79.4.4k3x387k74754q18 Timmons, J. C., Hall, A. C., Bose, J., Wolfe, A., & Winsor, J. (2011). Choosing employment: Factors that impact employment decisions for individuals with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.285 Valdes, F. (1996). Latina/o ethnicities, critical race theory, and post-identity politics in postmodern legal culture: From practices to possibilities foreword. La Raza Law Journal, 9, 1–32. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press. Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd) ed.) The Guilford Press.