The disability rights movement slogan, "nothing about us without us," has been trumpeted with such fervor that it is nearly a cliché. However, readers have never seen this phrase in "Studies in Art Education." Almost "nothing about us" has appeared in the pages of "Studies" or other major journals in the field despite significant advances in disability research. Of the scarce disability research in art education journals, most has been "without us," as nondisabled authors advocate nondisabled perspectives. Such research typically follows the predominant medical model that conceptualizes disability as a degenerative crisis to be managed by nondisabled caretakers, including teachers. This problem is most noticeable in research that promotes orthodox Special Education discourses as well as indulgent uses of disparaging disability metaphors and terminology. This is an unfortunate trend as disabled learners, educators, and others remain grossly underserved despite the truism that disabled people receive better treatment and resources than nondisabled people. The trend defies the logic of inclusive education and is counterintuitive to the steady increase of disabled students being placed in regular art classrooms (Causton-Theoharis & Burdick, 2008). Art education is failing to serve disabled people by its omission of sustained research on issues "about us." In this article, John Derby argues that as a progressive field, art education must pay closer attention to Disability Studies and other disability self-activism measures regarding Special Education. Art educators should strive toward innovative research that intersects the perspectives of disabled students, artists, and educators with Special Education as well as with intersecting identity issues.