Search

Middle grades education has been the object of efforts to remediate US education to address an array of social problems. Districts have sought out K-8 models to create smaller learning communities, require fewer school transitions, and allow sustained student connections. This paper offers a historical analysis of K-8 schools, drawing on statistical and spatial methods and a DisCrit intersectional lens to illustrate how creating K-8 schools produced enclaves of privilege in one urban school district. K-8 schools in our target district became whiter and wealthier than district averages. Students with disabilities attending K-8 schools tended to be placed in more inclusive classrooms, where they were more likely to be integrated alongside nondisabled peers than counterparts attending traditional middle schools. We consider how the configuration of K-8 schools, which could be considered an administrative decision to better serve students, has obscured interworkings of power and privilege.

Using a DisCrit intersectional lens and statistical and spatial methods, we trace how the creation of K-8 schools functioned to create pockets of privilege in one urban U.S. school district. K-8 schools were both whiter and wealthier than district averages, serving as "enclave" schools. Although far fewer students with disabilities were served in K-8 schools compared to traditional elementary and middle schools, those attending K-8 schools were more likely to be educated in inclusive settings.

Lack of access to general education for students with disabilities, particularly students with extensive support needs, students of color, and students from low-income households, reflects continued educational inequities for multiply marginalized students. Here, we present findings of a geospatial analysis of the intersections of race, socioeconomic status, disability labels, and levels of inclusion for students with disabilities in an urban school district, serving primarily students of color. Findings show trends in segregated placements mirroring historical redlining practices, suggesting the persistence of racial segregation that is enacted systematically and systemically via special education placements, disability categories, and geography. Results suggest the need to examine student-level placement data in the context of race, class, disability label, and space to identify and address inequities in access to inclusive schooling.

In this review, we explore how intersectionality has been engaged with through the lens of disability critical race theory (DisCrit) to produce new knowledge. In this chapter, we (1) trace the intellectual lineage for developing DisCrit, (2) review the body of interdisciplinary scholarship incorporating DisCrit to date, and (3) propose the future trajectories of DisCrit, noting challenges and tensions that have arisen. Providing new opportunities to investigate how patterns of oppression uniquely intersect to target students at the margins of Whiteness and ability, DisCrit has been taken up by scholars to expose and dismantle entrenched inequities in education.

In this article, we critically review the work of Morgan et al. (2015) and offer Disability Studies in Education (DSE) as an alternative conceptualization to traditional research within special education. We first unpack many of Morgan et al.'s (2015) assumptions, which are grounded in deficit discourses about children, family structures, economic status, and home cultures. Next, we identify flaws in their research design and methodology. Finally, we elaborate on how, through naming and making visible the workings of ableism and racism, DSE offers a way to counter the deficit discourses and inaccurate abstractions of lived realities upon which Morgan et al.'s (2015) work rests.

In this commentary, the authors present disability studies in education (DSE) as an alternative way to reframe, understand, and teach students who are positioned as struggling in literacy classrooms. As the authors detail, a DSE perspective changes the relationship between teachers and students to a more reciprocal one, and in doing so, it relocates the source of and responsibility for literacy struggles. The authors begin with a discussion of DSE, followed by a reconsideration of how to support students in developing their academic literacies. The commentary concludes with a discussion of why, in an era marked by increasing educational standardization and homogenization, a move to teaching that is informed by a DSE perspective is increasingly a matter of great urgency.

It is estimated in the world today, that more than one billion people have a disability (World Health Organization, 2011). Many people with disabilities receive no education, and, of those who do, few receive an education on an equal basis with their non-disabled peers. In 2006, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD seeks to achieve equality for people with disabilities in all areas of life, including education. Article 24 of the CRPD specifically calls upon States Parties to ''ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning'' (United Nations, 2006, Art. 24, para. 1). In this article, the authors provide an overview of the right to inclusive education under international law prior to the CRPD, followed by a discussion of Article 24 of the CRPD. The authors then discuss the role of inclusive education in Italy, which has long been regarded as a leader in the field of inclusive education. The authors conclude the article with a discussion of lessons learned from the Italian experience that may help other countries as they work towards implementation of Article 24's mandate of an inclusive education system.

In this article we examine some of the omnipresent yet unacknowledged discourses of social and economic disadvantage and dis/ability within schools in the US. First, we document ways that social class, race, and dis/ability function within schools to further disadvantage and exclude already marginalized students. Next, we show how particular ways of talking about student ability and achievement rarely addresses this important connection. We then illustrate specific ways that race, social class, and dis/ability are elided even within more critical academic discussions. Finally, we argue for a more critical and sustained scholarly engagement that would necessarily entail reaching out margin-to-margin in order to fully understand and interrupt the myriad ways that race, economic disadvantage and dis/ability work to justify exclusion and inequality in schools.

Special education critics' vigorous appraisals of the social model of disability, along with their analysis of its implications for special education, provide a valuable forum for meaningful dialogue about how educators are to understand the nature of disability. In this article, we offer our response to their recent articles. As advocates of the social model, we find their critiques intriguing, at moments a bit provocative, but more importantly we find in their work an opportunity to advance beyond the far too incessant schism between those who support the medical model of disability and those who endorse its alternatives.

Brantlinger's [2004b. "Ideologies Discerned, Values Determined: Getting past the Hierarchies of Special Education." In "Ideology and the Politics of (in)Exclusion," edited by L. Ware, 11-31. New York: Peter Lang Publishing] critique of hierarchical ideologies lays bare the logics embedded in standards-based reform. Drawing on Brantlinger's insightful analysis, we trace how hierarchical ideologies impacted inclusive practice at one urban elementary school, deemed "failing" under the No Child Left Behind Act. Drawing on the qualitative analysis of data from interviews, public forums, and documents, we chart some of the negative effects of hierarchical ideologies on inclusive practice. We illustrate, for instance, how the school instituted a variety of segregated programmes aimed at increasing test scores. We also uncover how grade-level expectations and the need for content modification were used to justify exclusion. Finally, we examine how graduation requirements negatively impacted students with disabilities.

The potential of technology to connect people and provide access to education, commerce, employment and entertainment has never been greater or more rapidly changing. Communication technologies and new media promise to "revolutionize our lives" by breaking down barriers and expanding access for disabled people. Yet, it is also true that technology can create unexpected and under-critiqued forms of social exclusion for disabled people. In addition to exploring some of the ways that even (or especially) assistive technology can result in new forms of social exclusion, we also propose alternative ways of thinking about inclusive and accessible (as opposed to assistive) technology and provide some very practical ways that accessible technologies would promote greater access and flexibility for disabled students and adults. We contend that technology should be conceived of as a global, accessible and inclusive concept, not one that requires a qualifier based on who it is "for". (Contains 8 footnotes and 2 figures.)

In this paper, I critically examine the discourse surrounding response to intervention (RTI), a US-based education reform that has garnered a considerable amount of attention (as well as controversy) in a very short amount of time. A multi-pronged reform effort, RTI is a tiered approach to delivering instructional intervention to students at risk, an on-going and systematic model of monitoring student performance, as well as an alternative to the ability/achievement discrepancy model for identifying learning disabilities. In this paper, I argue, however, that RTI is not so much a reform but a tactic, aimed at returning to the status quo of segregated special education and reinvigorating many of the foundational assumptions of traditional special education practice. (Contains 7 notes.)

The field of learning disabilities (LD) has a complex and complicated history. Tensions over definitions, eligibility criteria, service delivery models, and best practices, as well as epistemological debates, have been a part of that history from its inception. Given our collective struggles, as well as the current realities facing the field, there could not be a more critical moment for a conversation about how it is that we go about knowing what we know. In this concluding essay, we consider how, by focusing so intently on "what works," we, as a field, may inadvertently lose sight of "what matters." In other words, contrary to the push for narrowing what counts as evidence or knowledge, we examine the potential value in opening up the field to a more diverse range of methods for students who struggle academically. We also challenge taken-for-granted assumptions in the push toward evidence- or research-based practice. Finally, we highlight several compelling themes that we take away from the contributors of this special double issue. (Contains 8 notes.)

Background/Context: Scholars in disability studies in education, like scholars in other critical fields of inquiry, increasingly draw on a more interdisciplinary range of texts in their research and teaching, including art, fiction, film, and autobiography. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The author asserts that contemporary disability life writing can and should be read with view to challenging a tangle of oppressive ideologies and destabilizing any claim to a normative or fixed center. Autobiography as a genre, however, requires a particular set of critical reading practices to fully illuminate myriad ways in which these texts can serve as important and politically grounded counternarratives to the dominant discourse. Read critically, these texts have the potential to unravel the myth of normalcy that undergirds so many of the exclusionary practices in education. Research Design: Analytic essay. Conclusions/Recommendations: A critical disability studies approach requires more than the infusion of different kinds of texts; it also requires the incorporation of diverse methods of analysis and theoretical framing of those texts in order to fully appreciate their transgressive potential.