Reid and Valle (in this issue) illustrate how discourse within the field of learning disabilities (LD) determines what can and cannot be said and shapes what counts as knowledge or truth. Because basic assumptions about disability often remain unquestioned, Reid and Valle ask us to focus on the epistemological foundations of the field of LD. They demonstrate how discourse, far from being simply an academic or abstract theoretical pursuit, has direct material consequences for people labeled as having LD. In this response, I highlight some of the ways that the discourse in the LD field is getting in the way of truly transforming education for all learners and impeding our ability to ask the hard questions about our own complicity in issues such as the overrepresentation of students of color and the inaccessibility of general education learning environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Artiles, A.J., Trent, S.C., & Kuan, L. (1997). Learning disabilities empirical research on ethnic minority students: An analysis of 22 years of studies published in selected refereed journals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 12, 82—91.
2.
Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-language learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 117— 136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3.
Baker, B. (2002). The hunt for disability: The new eugenics and the normalization of school children. Teachers College Record , 104, 663—703.
4.
Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 425—459.
5.
Clark K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
6.
Dudley-Marling, C. (2001). Reconceptualizing learning disabilities by reconceptualizing education. In L. Denti & P. Tefft-Cousin (Eds.), New ways of looking at learning disabilities (pp. 5—18). Denver: Love.
7.
Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 35, 5—22.
8.
Ferri, B.A., & Connor, D.J. (in press). Discourses of exclusion: Race, ability, and (re)segregated education. Teachers College Record.
9.
Fierros, E.G., & Conroy, J.W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39—70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
Gabel, S., & Danforth, S. (2002). Disability studies in education: Seizing the moment of opportunity. Disability, Culture andEducation, 1(1), 1—3.
11.
Gartner, A.K., & Lipsky, D. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367—395.
12.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 1—31.
13.
Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403— 415.
14.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press .
15.
Losen, D.J., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
16.
Mickelson, R.A. (2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215—252.
17.
Morris, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov. New York: Arnold.
18.
Mutua, K. (2001). Policied identities: Children with disabilities . Educational Studies, 32, 289—300.
19.
Oakes, J., Wells, A.S., & Jones, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, culture, politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482—510.
20.
Oswald, D.P., Coutinho, M.J., & Best, A.M. (2002). Community and school predictors of overrepresentation of minority children in special education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 1—13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
21.
Patton, J. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 25—31.
22.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F., Shernaz, B., & García, S.B. (2000). Profiles of Asian American students with LD at initial referral, assessment, and placement in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 61—71.
23.
Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodologies of the oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
Scully, J.L. (2002). A postmodern disorder: Moral encounters with molecular models of disability. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 48—61). London: Cassell.
25.
Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
Skrtic, T. (1986). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. Focus onExceptional Children, 18(7), 1—16.
27.
Sleeter, C.E. (1987). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of the field in its social context. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.), The foundations of the school subjects (pp. 210—237). London: Falmer.
28.
Spring, J.H. (1989). The sorting machine revisited: National educational policy since 1945. New York: Longman .
29.
Stanovich, P.J., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Research into practice in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 477—481.
30.
St. Pierre, A., & Pillow, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods (pp. 153—163). New York : Routledge.
31.
Tanaka, G. (1997). Pico college. In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 259—304). Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
Tubbs, N. (2003). The concept of “teachability.” Educational Theory, 53(1), 75—90.
33.
Uttal, L. (1990). Inclusion without influence: The continuing tokenism of women of color. In G. Anzaldua (Ed.), Making face, making soul: Creative and critical perspectives by feminists of color (pp. 42—45). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
