Inclusion practices and special education can be transformed by using a disability studies perspective, which constructs differences as natural, acceptable, and ordinary. Although inclusion is a moral imperative in promoting social justice, some inclusive practices continue to marginalize students with disabilities. A truly inclusive school reflects a democratic philosophy whereby all students are valued, educators normalize difference through differentiated instruction, and the school culture reflects an ethic of caring and community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bejoian, L.M., & Reid, D.K. (in press). A disability studies perspective on the Bush education agenda: The No Child Left Behind act of 2001. Equity and Excellence in Education.
2.
Biklen, D. (1992). The inclusion philosophy. In Schooling without labels (pp. 20—37). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
3.
Davis, L.J. (1997a). Constructing normalcy: The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 9—28). New York: Routledge.
4.
Davis, L.J. (1997b). Nude Venuses, Medusa's body, and phantom limbs: Disability and visuality. In D. T. Mitchell & S. L. Snyder (Eds.), The body and physical difference: Discourses of disability (pp. 51— 70). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Dippo, D. (1995). What learning disability does: Sustaining the ideology of schooling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 406—414.
7.
Ellis, E.S. (1997). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities: Goals of the knowledge dimension. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 326—346.
8.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 150— 158). New York: Routledge.
9.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators' instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 21, 23—33.
10.
Gallagher, D.J. (2001). Neutrality as a moral standpoint, conceptual confusion and the full inclusion debate. Disability and Society, 16, 637—654.
11.
Gallagher, S. (1999). An exchange of gazes. In J. Kincheloe, S. Steinberg, & L. Villarverde (Eds.), Rethinking intelligence (pp. 69—83). New York: Routledge.
12.
Gantwerk, B. (1995). Placement decisions and least restrictive environment . Trenton: New JerseyDepartment of Education.
13.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4—9.
14.
Garrick-Duhaney, L.M., & Saland, S.J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational practices. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 121—128.
15.
Gindis, B. (1999). Vygotsky's vision: Reshaping the practice of special education for the 21st century. Remedial and Special Education , 20, 333—340.
16.
Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 487—508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and the contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 402— 415.
18.
Jubala, K.A., Bishop, K.D., & Falvey, M.A. (1995). Creating a supportive classroom environment. In M. A. Falvey (Ed.), Inclusive and heterogenous schooling: Assessment, curriculum, and instruction (pp. 111— 129). Baltimore: Brookes.
19.
Kincheloe, J.L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 279—313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.
21.
Longmore, P.K. (1997). Conspicuous contribution and American cultural dilemmas: Telethon rituals of cleansing and renewal. In D. T. Mitchell & S. L. Snyder (Eds.), The body and physical difference: Discourses of disability (pp. 137—160). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
Miller, H.M. (2001). Including “the included.”The Reading Teacher, 54, 820—822. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U. S. C. § 6301 et seq.
23.
Noddings, N. (1994). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. In The education feminism reader (pp. 171—183). New York: Routledge
24.
Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal. Disability and Society, 9, 283—299.
25.
Shapiro, A. (2000). Everybody belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward class-mates with disabilities (Vol. 14). New York: Routledge.
26.
Stiker, H.-J. (1997). A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
28.
Thomson, R.G. (2000). The new disability studies: Inclusion or tolerance?ADE Bulletin, 124, 18—22.
29.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
30.
Waldron, N.L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395— 405.
31.
Wang, M.C., & Reynolds, M.C. (1996). Progressive inclusions: Meeting new challenges in special educationTheory Into Practice,35(1), 20—25.
32.
Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
