As charter schools continue to attract lots of political and policy attention, research has emerged suggesting that these schools enroll fewer students with disabilities than public schools. Given that the success of the movement is based on charters being more effective than public schools as determined by test scores, it is not entirely surprising that we see exclusionary practices taking place. Responding to this issue, many states have increased oversight to ensure inclusion and equity. At the same time, other charters have opened specifically for students with special needs. Using a disability studies lens, this article asks questions of the charter movement and the policy responses by problematizing the perpetuation of both normative school practices and constructions of ability.
AppleM. W. (2005). Are markets in education democratic? Neoliberal globalism, vouchers, and the politics of choice. In AppleM. W.KenwayJ.SinghM. (Eds.), Globalizing education (pp. 209-229). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AppleM. W.BeaneJ. A. (2007). The case for democratic schools. In AppleM.BeaneJ. (Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed., pp. 1-27). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
3.
AndersonJ.B. (1998). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
4.
AuW. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
AyersR.AyersW. (2011). Teaching the Taboo. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 267-278. doi:10.1177/0741932510362200
7.
BanksJ. A.BanksC. A. M. (Eds.). (1997). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. New York, NY: John Wiley.
BejoianL. M.ReidD. K. (2005). A disability studies perspective on the Bush Education Agenda: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2011. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 220-231. doi:10.1080/10665680591002597
10.
BerlinerD. C.BiddleB. J. (1995).The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
BiestaG. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
12.
CarrP. R.PorfilioB. J. (2011). Introduction: Audaciously espousing hope within a torrent of hegemonic neoliberalism: The Obama educational agenda and the potential for change. In CarrP. R.PorfilioB. J. (Eds.), The phenomenon of Obama and the agenda for education: Can hope audaciously trump neoliberalism? (pp. xxi-li). Charlotte, NC: Information Publishing.
13.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (n.d.). What is Universal Deisgn for Learning? Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
16.
ChristianakisM.MoraR. (2011). Charting a new course for public education through charter schools. In CarrP.PorfilioB. (Eds.), The phenomenon of obama and the agenda for education (pp. 97-119). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
DanforthS. (2006). Learning from our historical evasions: Disability studiesand schooling in a liberal democracy. In DanforthS.GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 77-90). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
19.
DavisL. J. (Ed.). (2010). The disability studies reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
DolmageJ. (2005). Disability studies pedagogy, usability and universal design. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(4). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/627/804
21.
DowningJ. E.SpencerS.CavallaroC. (2004). The development of an inclusive charter elementary school: Lessons learned. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 11-24.
22.
Dudley-MarlingC.BakerD. (2012). The effects of market-based school reforms on students With disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). Retrieved from dsq-sds.org/issue/view/3187/3072
23.
Dudley-MarlingC.GurnA. (2010). Troubling the foundations of special education: Examining the myth of the normal curve. In Dudley-MarlingC.GurnA. (Eds.), The myth of the normal curve (pp. 9-23). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
24.
EstesM. B. (2004). Choice for all?The Journal of Special Education, 37, 257-267.
25.
EstesM. B. (2009). Charter schools and students with disabilities: How far have we come?Remedial and Special Education, 30, 216-224. doi:10.1177/0741932508315647
26.
FabricantM.FineM. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s at stake?New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion in desegregation and inclusion debates. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
28.
FrankenbergE.Siegel-HawleyG.WangJ. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1), 1-96. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/779
29.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
30.
GabelS. L. (2006). Applying disability theory in educational policy: NIDRR’s “New Paradigm of Disability” as a cautionary tale. In DanforthS.GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 179-200). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
31.
GallagherD. J. (2006). The natural hierarchy undone: Disability studies’ contributions to contemporary debates in education. In DanforthS.GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 63-75). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
32.
GardaR. A.Jr. (2012). Culture clash: Special education in charter schools. North Carolina Law Review, 90(3), 1-57. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1791780
33.
GirouxH. A. (2004). Public pedagogy and the politics of neo-liberalism: Making the political more pedagogical. Policy Futures in Education, 2(3 & 4), 494-503.
34.
GleasonP.ClarkM.TuttleC.DwoyerE. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
LackB. (2009). No excuses: A critique of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) within charter schools in the USA. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(2), 127-153. Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/index.php
46.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
MeierD.WoodG. (2004). Many children left behind. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2011b). April 2012 Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish metropolitan Nashville public schools charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/AssetFactory.aspx?did=64065
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Office of Innovation. (2011). Application for a public charter school. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page89721.aspx
MironG.UrschelJ. L.MathisW. J.TornquistE. (2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organizations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/schools-without-diversity
MutuaK.SmithR. M. (2006). Disrupting normalcy and the practical concerns of classroom teachers. In DanforthS.GabelS. L. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 121-132). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
RofesE. (2004). Charter schools as counterpublics of disenfranchised communities: Pedagogy of resistance or false consciousness? In RofesE.StulbergL. (Eds.), The emancipatory promise of Charter schools (pp. 245-261). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
65.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
RussellM. (1998). Beyond ramps: Disability at the end of the social contract. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
68.
RussellM. (2003). Backlash, the political economy and structural exclusion. In KriegerL. (ed.), Backlash Against the Americans with Disabilities Act: Reinterpreting disability rights: Corporealities, discourses of disability. Retrieved from http://www.martarussell.com/russell-umich-edit.html
69.
SaltmanK. J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools—A threat to democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
70.
SaltmanK. J. (2007). Capitalizing on disaster: Taking and breaking public schools. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
71.
SaltmanK. J. (2012). The failure of corporate school reform. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
72.
Sapon-ShevinM. (2010). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
73.
SleeterC. E. (2007). Democracy, equity, and accountability. In SleeterC. E. (Ed.), Facing accountability in education: Democracy and equity at risk (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
StrikerH. J. (2000). A history of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
76.
StuitD. A.SmithT. M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31, 268-279.
77.
StulbergL. M. (2004). What history offers progressive choice scholarship. In StulbergL.RofesE. (Eds.), The emancipatory promise of charter schools: Toward a progressive politics of school choice (pp. 7-26). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
78.
StulbergL. M. (2008). Race, schools, & hope. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
WilsonT. S. (2010). Civic fragmentation or voluntary association? Habermas, Fraser, and Charter School Segregation. Educational Theory, 60, 643-664. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00382.x
YanceyP. (2004). Independent Black schools and the charter movement. In StulbergL.RofesE. (Eds.), The emancipatory promise of charter schools: Toward a progressive politics of school choice (pp. 125-158). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
84.
ZollersN. J.RamanathanA. K. (1998). For-profit charter schools and students with disabilities: The sordid side of the business of schooling. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 297-304. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439428
