Schools are expected to provide safety, structure, and meaningful support for every student. However, the reality that Black students with disabilities experience often looks very different from that promise. Although federal laws outline accommodations through IEP and 504 plans, the success of these supports depends on how teachers and school administrators choose to implement them. These choices are not minor. They shape how a student feels, how their academic identity develops, and how their behavior is interpreted by adults who hold institutional authority. When accommodations are mishandled, ignored, or delivered in embarrassing ways, the immediate emotional harm can escalate into disciplinary consequences. These consequences fall disproportionately on Black disabled students because of racial stereotypes and behavioral assumptions deeply embedded in school culture.
The power to either support or harm lies not in distant government agencies but in the daily decisions made inside classrooms and hallways. This paper argues that teachers, principals, and special education coordinators hold the most direct and impactful power over IEP and 504 accommodations because they control the moment-to-moment delivery of support. Their actions, especially when influenced by limited training or racialized assumptions, can transform accommodations into mechanisms of surveillance that increase disciplinary involvement and push Black disabled students toward the school-to-prison pipeline.
Although laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require schools to provide specific supports, these laws do not dictate how teachers handle these supports in real time. Teachers are responsible for deciding when to provide accommodations, how to communicate them, and whether to deliver them privately or publicly. Mendoza and Houston document situations where teachers reveal accommodations loudly or hand out modified materials where peers can clearly see. These actions seem small, but they matter because students with disabilities often want to feel included and not singled out. A teacher who loudly announces that a student needs extended time or reads aloud which students need reduced assignments sends a signal that the student’s disability is something others should pay attention to. The student is placed in a vulnerable emotional position with no control over how their peers interpret these differences.
The power teachers hold over this process is rarely acknowledged, but it is influential. Teachers decide whether accommodations protect a student’s dignity or expose them to ridicule. When teachers fail to provide accommodations privately, students often experience a combination of shame, fear, and frustration. These emotions shape how students respond in class. A student who feels exposed may disengage from discussions, avoid asking questions, or stop requesting help. These reactions are natural but are often misunderstood by teachers who interpret emotional withdrawal as disrespect or laziness. Because teachers control both the environment and the interpretation of student behavior, they have the authority to turn an uncomfortable moment into a disciplinary problem.
The emotional consequences of poorly delivered accommodations are not imagined. The National Center for Learning Disabilities has extensive research showing that students across the country experience their accommodations in ways that make them uncomfortable or embarrassed. When teachers ask students about their accommodations in front of others or question their need for support publicly, the classroom becomes a place of exposure rather than safety. Students who fear embarrassment often choose not to ask for the help they need. This avoidance is then interpreted by teachers as a lack of motivation or refusal to engage. The problem becomes a cycle. The student avoids support because of fear, and the teacher interprets this avoidance as defiance.
These interpretations have serious consequences for Black disabled students. Research consistently shows that Black students are judged more harshly for the same behaviors displayed by their peers. Allen explains that Black students are labeled defiant more frequently, even when they are expressing frustration or confusion in developmentally appropriate ways. This means that Black disabled students who respond emotionally after being exposed are at much higher risk of being disciplined. Their reactions are framed as intentional disruption rather than responses to emotional discomfort. Teachers may assume they are being confronted or challenged, even when the student is simply trying to cope with embarrassment.
Okonofua and Eberhardt’s study on teacher responses to repeated behavior offers a deeper understanding of why Black disabled students face harsher consequences. Their research shows that teachers escalate discipline after what they perceive as a second misbehavior. When the student is Black, teachers are more likely to assume the behavior reflects a character flaw rather than a temporary emotional moment. This two-strikes pattern becomes especially dangerous for Black disabled students who must rely on supports that teachers sometimes ignore or mishandle. A teacher may mishandle an accommodation on one day and misinterpret a student’s emotional response as a first strike. A week later, another teacher may provide an inconsistent version of the support, causing the student to react again. The reaction is then treated as a second strike, leading to suspension or referral to administration. In this way, mismanaged accommodations directly feed into disciplinary escalation.
This cycle is reinforced by structural problems within schools. The Hechinger Report reveals that many teachers begin the school year without complete information about which students receive accommodations. Documentation is sometimes delayed, incomplete, or unclear.
Teachers report receiving conflicting instructions or no instructions at all. Without clear systems in place, teachers must rely on their own judgment to guess what students need. When judgment replaces structured support, student safety becomes unpredictable. Some teachers may be skilled and attentive, but others may not understand the importance of privacy or consistency. This inconsistency is particularly harmful for Black disabled students who rely on predictable support to feel secure in the classroom environment.
Inconsistent support not only disrupts learning but can also affect how students see themselves. Many students internalize repeated moments of embarrassment or misunderstanding. They begin to believe they are difficult, incapable, or problematic. These internalized beliefs can affect self-esteem and academic confidence. When a student feels misunderstood by teachers, the relationship between the student and the school becomes strained. Students may stop trusting teachers, withdraw from participation, or develop school avoidance. These emotional and behavioral shifts make students more vulnerable to disciplinary action, which further distances them from academic success.
The Government Accountability Office provides a national perspective on these patterns. Their findings show that Black students and students with disabilities face higher suspension and expulsion rates, even for minor behaviors. These disparities cannot be separated from how accommodations are delivered. When teachers interpret emotional distress as misconduct and administrators rely on discipline rather than support, Black disabled students are caught in a system that punishes them for needing help. The school-to-prison pipeline is not created by a single event. It is constructed through many small decisions that accumulate over time. Each missed accommodation, each misunderstanding, and each disciplinary referral pushes students further from education and closer to systems of punishment.
The power structures at the school level must be understood in order to disrupt this cycle. Teachers, principals, and special education coordinators have the authority to create environments that either protect or harm students. Confidentiality, consistency, and clear communication should be the standard expectations for accommodation delivery. When teachers are trained to understand disability needs, cultural differences, and the emotional impact of public exposure, classrooms become safer. When administrators ensure that teachers receive proper documentation and training at the start of the year, students experience stability rather than confusion. Schools must also invest in anti-bias training that addresses how racial stereotypes shape teacher perceptions. Without this training, even well-meaning teachers may misinterpret behavior through harmful assumptions.
To truly address the school-to-prison pipeline, schools must move beyond surface-level solutions and focus on the everyday interactions that shape students lives. Accommodations cannot simply exist on paper. They must be delivered with care, privacy, and consistency. Teachers must be supported so they can support students. Administrators must monitor accommodation delivery to ensure that students are not unintentionally harmed. Most importantly, schools must listen to the voices of Black disabled students who have long described the ways their needs are misunderstood.
In conclusion, school-level power plays a central role in shaping whether IEP and 504 accommodations serve their intended purpose. Teachers and administrators control how accommodations are delivered and how student behavior is interpreted. When these decisions are made without proper training or awareness of racial bias, Black disabled students face emotional harm, disciplinary escalation, and increased risk of entering the school-to-prison pipeline. The path toward justice begins with recognizing that the school environment is shaped by human choices. By transforming the way accommodations are handled, schools can protect the dignity of Black disabled students and prevent the unnecessary harm that has been normalized for far too long.
