This study focused on federal policy for education of students with disabilities. Assuming that principals occupy a pivotal policy implementation role, this analysis centered on selected elementary principals’ discourse about Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) clause in the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The study used a vertical discourse analysis looking from federal policy documents and case law through state and local guidance documents and finally into principals’ responses to open-ended interviews. These principals exhibited caution in their attempts to interpret LRE. They enforced a distance between regular and special education, ultimately yielding their political agency to others.
AlbrechtS. F.SkibaR. J.LosenD. J.ChungC. G.MiddelbergL. (2012). Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 14-25.
2.
AlqurainiT. A. (2013). An analysis of legal issues relating to the least restrictive environment standards. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13, 152-158.
3.
ArmstrongD.ArmstrongA. C.SpandagouI. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance?International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 29-39.
4.
AronL.LoprestP. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of Children, 22, 97-122.
5.
ArtilesA. J.BalA.ThoriusK. A. K. (2010). Back to the future: A critique of response to intervention’s social justice views. Theory Into Practice, 49, 250-257.
BallS. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 215-228. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065
8.
BallS. J.MaguireM.BraunA.HoskinsK. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32, 625-639.
9.
BeratanG. D. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: Ableism, racism, and IDEA 2004. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2),p. 3. Retrieved from: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/682/859.
10.
BirklandT. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
11.
BoyleC.ToppingK.Jindal-SnapeD. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19, 527-542.
12.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BuurmanM.DurR. (2012). Incentives and the sorting of altruistic agents into street-level bureaucracies. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114, 1318-1345.
14.
ChambersJ. G.ParrishT. B.EsraP. E.ShkolnikJ. L. (2002). How does spending on special education students vary across districts? An analysis of spending by urbanicity, district size, median family income, and student poverty levels in 1999-2000 [Report. Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP)] (ERIC Document Service No. ED480760). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480760
15.
ClarkA. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
de BoerA.PijlS. J.PostW.MinnaertA. (2012). Which variables relate to the attitudes of teachers, parents and peers towards students with special educational needs in regular education?Educational Studies, 38, 433-448.
18.
DornS. (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional Children, 76, 325-337.
19.
DrasgowE.YellM. L. (2002). School-wide behavior support: Legal implications and requirements. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 129-145.
20.
EnglishF.PapaR. (2010). Restoring human agency to educational administration: Status and strategies. Lancaster, PA: Proactive.
21.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Longman.
22.
FosterE. M.KalilA. (2005). Developmental psychology and public policy: Progress and prospects. Developmental Psychology, 41, 827-832.
23.
HiltonP. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357-383.
25.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
26.
JagerS. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70, 247-257.
28.
KoyamaJ. (2013). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly,50(2), 279-304.doi:10.1177/0013161X13492796
29.
LeistynaP. (2001). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 29, 183-189.
30.
Levi-FaurD.Vigoda-GadotE. (2006). New public policy, new policy transfers: Some characteristics of a new order in the making. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 247-262. doi:10.1080/01900690500437147
31.
LiasidouA. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive educational policies: The power to exclude. Journal of Educational Policy, 23, 483-500.
32.
LindleJ. C. (2009). Assessment policy and politics of information. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 319-332). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
LipskyM. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6, 391-489.
34.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individuals in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
35.
McDonnellL. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57-70). New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
37.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
38.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
PioreM. J. (2011). Beyond markets: Sociology, streetlevel bureaucracy, and the management of the public sector. Regulation & Governance, 5, 145-164.
41.
ReshW. G.PittsD. W. (2013). No solutions, only trade-offs? Evidence about goal conflict in street-level bureaucracies. Public Administration Review, 73, 132-142.
42.
RogersR. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In RogersR. (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
RozalskiM.StewartA.MillerJ. (2010). How to determine the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 18, 151-163.
44.
RussellJ. L.BrayL. E. (2013). Crafting coherence from complex policy messages: Educators’ perceptions of special education and standards-based accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(12), 1-22. Retrieved from epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1044
45.
SabatierP. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21-48.
46.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. New York, NY: SAGE.
47.
ShivelyW. P. (1998). The craft of political research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48.
Skilton-SylvesterE.Slesaransky-PoeG. (2009). More than a least restrictive environment: Living up to the civil covenant in building inclusive schools. Perspectives on Urban Education, 6, 32-37.
49.
SpradleyJ. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
50.
StamouA. G.PadeliaduS. (2009). Discourses of disability by teacher candidates: A critical discourse analysis of written responses to a disability simulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 509-540.
51.
TaylorS. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in “new times”: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 433-451.
van DijkT. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In WodakR.MeyerM., (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
VoltzD. L.CollinsL. (2010). Preparing special education administrators for inclusion in diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the Council for Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33, 70-82.
55.
WeatherleyR. A. (1979). Reforming special education: Policy implementation from state level to street level. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
WhiteL. G. (1994). Policy analysis as discourse. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13, 506-525.
58.
WilsonJ. (2001). Political discourse. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. H. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398-415). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
59.
WodakR. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
60.
YellM. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
61.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA. (2004). Placing students with disabilities in inclusive settings: Legal guidelines and preferred practices. Preventing School Failure, 49, 28-35.
