Search results

This chapter grapples with the relationship between dis/ability and narrative inquiry through the authors’ personal stories that push back at the cultural-historical, policy, and professional master narratives of dis/ability in order to contribute to efforts that theorize critical emotion praxis. We ask: what is the relationship between dis/ability and narrative inquiry? What are the lived experiences of those living within a variety of intersectional and emotional dis/ability narratives that resist and navigate the cultural-historical, policy, and professional master narratives of dis/ability at the intersections?

We use a Disability Studies in Education (DSE) paradigm to construct a collective autoethnography that challenges socially circulating cultural narratives of disability.

Our individual and collaborative narratives illuminate: (1) how master narratives impact self, (2) the ways that dis/abled women of color elevate human dignity and spiritual practices in ways that subvert and speak-back to master narratives, (3) the emotional impact of Learning Disability labeling, (4) forms of epistemic and personal experiences at various institutions of higher education, and (5) the liberatory practices manifest from co-created narratives with DSE students concerning disability identity within higher education.

This collaboration contributes to efforts that theorize critical emotion praxis with diverse positionalities of DSE scholars, teacher educators, and professionals within educational contexts. The chapter also suggests ways in which construction of collaborative narratives of resistance can point to paths for positive organizational change.

This chapter examines the relative absence of critique in inclusive education research, policy and practice, and in education more generally – and consider the consequences of doing without critique. It responds to Bruno Latour's (2004, p. 243) urgent call for progress towards “a fair position” and for the development of “new critical tools” to work positively and constructively towards social change. The potential for criticality is explored in relation to disability studies, disability arts and children's perspectives. Each of these sources is evaluated in terms of their affordance of criticality and for their potential to mobilise political action. They are also considered in relation to the epistemological shifts and altered power relations that are necessary to create an inclusive educational environment.

A humanist orientation is foundational to the educational right of students with disabilities to participate in the mainstream life of schooling communities. Social science researchers, however, are increasingly questioning the limitations of the humanist position, and making the ‘posthuman’ turn within their epistemological orientations (Coole & Frost, 2010). The history of disability has complicated clear distinctions between the human and not-human. Indeed, the posthuman character of disability affirms the concept of life beyond fixed boundaries of the self (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016). For inclusive education researchers, this means that school-based phenomena cannot be explained by either an empiricist logic or a social constructionist logic. A posthumanist orientation to inclusive education research recognizes human and non-human agents as entangled within arrangements emerging from particular relations with each other. It seeks to uncover inclusion as a material-discursive arrangement of people, events, ideas and things that are always in a state of flux.

For teachers to fully enact pedagogy rooted in equity and inclusion, they must have access to purposeful systems and tools supporting proactive and collaborative planning built explicitly to center the needs of those historically denied full access to learning. This chapter takes on the historical injustices that have been perpetuated within public education in the United States since its inception and presents practical tools and systems (rooted in research and refined in the field) that can promote more equitable day-to-day teaching and learning in classrooms.

This chapter lays out the conceptual foundations for this book. Grounded in the tradition of disability studies, the authors describe their orientation to ‘inclusion’ and the entangled institutions of general and special education. They explain their attachment to the many ‘articulations’ of inclusive practices rather than engage in discourses of ‘implementation’ which inadvertently divide world regions. In doing so, they briefly trace the evolution of inclusion as a global concept and its relation to conditions in different parts of the world. They subsequently offer an introduction to the different chapters in the book.

Concern about special education's future is widespread. Now there are calls for special education's abandonment or its nonexistence in any environment other than general education (i.e., for full inclusion or some form of general education only). Some advocates for reform consider special education obsolete, to be rejected in favor of newer ideas known as inclusionary education, and they advocate abandoning special education.

Now may be the time for a second revolution in thinking about what special education is and does so that it evolves into a service that more consistently realizes its promise. Special education is likely to become extinct if its devolution continues. Its collapse would hasten the abandonment of public education. Alternatively, it could evolve to become a viable part of public education, a distinct entity, a clearly identifiable and viable part of educating all children appropriately in public schools.

Among the many causes of special education's devolution, some stand out prominently: (1) confusing must and may; (2) accepting illogic and imprecision of language; (3) responding to all diversities in the same way; (4) spurning science; (5) confusing attribute and person; (6) putting the worst possible face on special education; and (7) misconstruing least restrictive environment.

Better thinking and clearer communication are required to achieve special education's revitalization. These include calling things what they are and relying on new, younger leaders. Clear and wide understanding – consensus – about what special education is and does and acceptance of the idea that we must have it as a separate and distinct part of universal public education would be revolutionary.

In an effort to better prepare pre-service candidates to work with all students and to respond to the current collaborative team teaching trend within New York City public schools, the authors who are professors of bilingual education and inclusive education/disability studies, respectively, combined their student teaching seminars in bilingual education and childhood education, in order to: (1) provide a model of co-teaching as well as an experience and perspective of being a student in a classroom with two teachers; (2) provide pre-service candidates with ongoing access to the expertise of two professors during their student teaching experience; (3) engage pre-service teachers in critical conversations about identifying and resisting deficit constructions of both emergent bilingual students and students with disabilities; (4) engage in a self-study of teaching practice within this collaborative context; (5) consider how well our respective programs currently prepare pre-service teachers. The Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices approach gleaned data from the co-instructors’ weekly reflective journals and student evaluations to reveal multiple benefits of a collaborative classroom context for pre-service teachers as well as the professors. These benefits included a rethinking of academic structures, spaces for interconnectedness across fields, and increased professor and student learning. The findings challenge teacher educators to consider whether or not a traditional approach to teacher preparation truly offers pre-service teachers the tools to serve diverse students. The authors call on schools of education to transgress traditional academic boundaries to adequately prepare pre-service teachers for the 21st century classroom.

This chapter focuses on the critical work of Dorothy Lipsky and Alan Gartner’s Inclusion and School Reform: Transforming America’s Classrooms, specifically through their 1987 piece, Beyond Special Education: Toward a Quality System for All Students. The chapter explores the five broad, interrelated areas of: (1) The Separate Special Education System; (2) Inclusive Education; (3) School Restructuring; (4) The Reform of Education and the Remaking of American Society; and (5) Amplification of Inclusion Issues. The chapter shows how the work of Lipsky and Gartner examines each theme in a discrete way whilst also showing how they are interrelated, analogous to jigsaw pieces that ultimately create a more comprehensive analysis of inclusive education scholarship and practice.

Values have long guided special education services and supports for students with extensive support needs; over the past four decades, those values have been backed by research evidence demonstrating the critical nature of values related to inclusive education, self-determination, and seeking strengths and assets. In this chapter, we investigate these values and their supporting research, documenting strengths and needs in extant research. We emphasize the need to continue to embrace and maintain these values while pursuing research that addresses research gaps while centering the priorities, perspectives, and preferences of people with extensive support needs.