This article provides an account of the ways in which students and adult supporters of an urban turnaround high school mobilized to defy the rhetoric of neoliberal reforms and the subsequent deficit narrative imposed on them and on their school. Their counternarratives refute the master narratives advanced by federal and state educational reforms. The current rationale of neoliberal reforms and the disabling terminology used to construct the identity of a school and the individuals associated with the school are interrogated through the theoretical framework of Dis/ability Critical Race Theory. An alternative approach and philosophy of thought regarding school reform and the ways in which we define the worth and value of a school, its students, and the larger community is offered.
AllenB. (2015). Foucault’s nominalism. In TremainS. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability: Enlarged and revised version (pp. 93–107). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
AndersonG. L.CohenM. I.SerausM. (2015). Urban leadership, neoliberalism, and new policy entrepreneurs: Merging leadership with resistance In KhalifaM.ArnoldN. W.OsanlooA. F.C. M.Grant (Eds.). Handbook of urban educational leadership (pp. 350–361). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
3.
AnnammaS. A.ConnorD.FerriB. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16, 1–31.
4.
BaglieriS. (2015). Toward unity in school reform: What DisCrit contributes to multicultural and inclusive education. In ConnorD. J.FerriB. A.AnammaS. A. (Eds.), DisCrit: Disability studies and critical race theory in education (pp. 167–179). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
BaldridgeB. J. (2014). Relocating the deficit: Reimagining black youth in neoliberal times. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 440–472. doi:10.3102/0002831214532514
6.
BellD. (1980). Brown v Board of the Education and the interest convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533.
7.
BloombergL. D.VolpeM. (2016). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BomerR.DworinJ. E.MayL.SemingsonP. (2008). Miseducating teachers about the poor: A critical analysis of Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty. Teachers College Record, 110, 2497–2531.
9.
CareyR. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the language and labels used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49, 440–468. doi:10.1177/0042085913507459
10.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeedsV.PattilloM. (2014). Organizational “failure” and institutional pluralism: A case study of an urban school closure. Urban Education, 50, 474–504.
13.
DouglasT. M. O. (2015). Sound the “bell”: Seeing space, seeing color in urban school leadership discourses. In KhalifaM.ArnoldN. W.OsanlooA. F.C. M.Grant (Eds.). Handbook of urban educational leadership (pp. 194–198). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
Dudley-MarlingC. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482–489.
15.
DurdellaN. (2019). Qualitative dissertation methodology: A guide for research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
FerriB. A.AshbyC. (2017). U.S. inclusion in the era of neoliberal educational reforms. In DovigoF. (Ed.), Special educational needs and inclusive practices: An international perspective (pp. 21–31). Boston, MA: Sense.
17.
FineM.WeisL. (2010). Writing the “wrongs” of fieldwork: Confronting our own research/writing dilemmas in urban ethnographies. In LuttrellW. (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 448–466). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
GrangerD. A. (2008). No Child Left Behind and the spectacle of failing schools: The mythology of contemporary school reform. Educational Studies, 43, 206–228.
19.
HamiltonMVasquez HeiligJ.PazeyB. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49, 182–215.
20.
HurshD. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 295–308.
21.
JohnsonA. W. (2013). “Turnaround” as shock therapy: Race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48, 232–256.
22.
KirshnerB.GaertnerM.PozzoboniK. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 407–429.
23.
KirshnerB.PozzoboniK. M. (2011). Student interpretations of a school closure: Implications for student voice in equity-based school reform. Teachers College Record, 113, 1633–1667.
24.
KoyamaJ.KaniaB. (2014). When transparency obscures: The political spectacle of transparency. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12, 143–169.
25.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
26.
LipmanP. (2013). Economic crisis, accountability, and the state’s coercive assault on public education in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 28, 557–573. doi:10.1080/02680939.2012.758816
27.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18, 631–660. doi:10.1177/0895904804268901
28.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (2009). School reconstitution and school improvement: Theory and evidence. In SkyesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 464–477). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
29.
McDermottR. P. (1987). The explanation of minority school failure, again. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 361–364.
30.
McDermottR.VarenneH. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 324–348.
31.
MeierD.WoodG. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
32.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
35.
NieszT. (2010). “That school had become all about show”: Image making and the ironies of constructing a good urban school. Urban Education, 45, 371–393. doi:10.1177/0042085908322691
36.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
37.
PazeyB. L. (1996). Understanding students’ funds of knowledge: A study of high school special populations students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
38.
PazeyB. L.ColeH. A.SpikesD. (2017). A single voice in the crowd: A case study of one student’s determination to challenge top down school reform. Teachers College Record, 119(5), 1–37.
39.
PazeyB. L.DeMatthewsD. (2019). Student voice from a turnaround urban high school: An account of students with and without dis/abilities leading resistance against accountability reform. Urban Education, 54, 919–956.
40.
PazeyB. L.Vasquez HeiligJ.ColeH. A.SumberaM. (2015). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Comparing special education students’ experiences of accountability reform across two decades. Urban Review, 47, 365–392.
41.
Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (2010). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
42.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23. doi:10.1080/0951839950080103
43.
PriceH. E. (2010). Does No Child Left Behind really capture school quality? Evidence from an urban school district. Educational Policy, 24, 779–814. doi:10.1177/089590810376564
44.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
45.
ShepardL. (2008). A brief history of accountability testing: 1967-2007. In RyanK. E.ShepardL. A. (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 25–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
SimonsH. (2009). Case study research in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
SmythJ.McInerneyP. (2013). Whose side are you on? Advocacy ethnography: Some methodological aspects of narrative portraits of disadvantaged young people in socially critical research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/09518398.2011.604649
48.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TienkenC. H. (2013). Neoliberalism, social Darwinism, and consumerism masquerading as school reform. Interchange, 43, 295–316.
51.
TomlinsonS. (2016). Race, class, ability, and school reform. In ConnorD.FerriB.S. A.Annamma (Eds.). DisCrit: Critical conversations across race, class, & disability (pp. 157–166). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
TrujilloT.RenéeM. (2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–34.
54.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ESSA
55.
ValenciaR. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
Vasquez HeiligJ.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75–110. doi:10.3102/0162373708317689
57.
YinR. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
