This collection of essays explores the intersections of disability studies perspectives on education and the law from a US perspective – with the aim of exploring ‘legal studies potential to inform work in disability studies in education and vice versa’ (xiii).
In ‘The Relationship between Disability Studies and the Law,’ Arlene Kanter believes that ‘Disability Legal Studies’ critiques law and identifies power structures that lie behind social norms. Such an approach is presented as radical and transformative, opening up new avenues for civil rights and equality. In terms of implementing such changes, ‘A first step in responding to these questions is to increase the visibility people with disabilities within law schools and within the academy itself’ (36).
Matha Minow suggests that a backlash against the integration of disabled students has been caused by conflicts between ‘mainstreaming’ (which she defines as ‘the selective placement of special education students in one or more “regular” classes’), and ‘inclusion’ (defined as ‘structuring the educational environment to the extent possible to include students with special needs in general classrooms’ (41). Such a backlash is likened to the white reaction to black civil rights in the United States. She believes that the way out of this circular argument is through the promotion of principles of universal design in education.
In ‘Rights, Needs and Capabilities: Institutional and Political Barriers to Justice for Disabled People,’ Thomas M. Skrtic and J. Robert Kent suggest that Martha Nussbaum’s ‘capabilities approach’ serves as a useful starting-point for discussions of disability, law and social justice. However, it must also recognize ‘the institutional context in which needs-claims are adjudicated’ (59). Such an approach is said to resonate with American liberalism.
Susan Baglieri and Linda Ware wrote an interesting ethnographic chapter about their experience as scholars in the field of disability studies in education. Schools of education have been dominated by a pathologizing, medicalized approach to disability, and they reflect on their abilities to infuse a disability studies approach within such an educational context, particularly in the teaching of special education teacher-preparation programs.
‘Teaching the Incomplete Child’ by Scott Danforth and Theodoto Ressa, and ‘The Present King of France is Feeble-Minded’ by Philip M. Ferguson both offer historical examinations of the construction of disability as a category of social exclusion, particularly for people with learning difficulties.
Zanita E. Fenton’s ‘Disabling Racial Repetition’ is one of the most important chapters. Fenton highlights the over-representation of black children, especially black boys, among students who are ‘intellectually disabled’ and ‘emotionally disturbed,’ as well as students who are expelled, disciplined or suspended. Through an intersectional approach towards race, class and gender, including a recognition of institutionalized racism and institutionalized ableism, Fenton suggests that there is ‘coordinated subordination’ (183), linked to cycles of ‘miseducation and inequality’ (193).
Another chapter I enjoyed was ‘Children with Disabilities, Parents without Disabilities, and Lawyers’ by Mark C. Weber. Both non-disabled parents and attorneys (who are also usually non-disabled) have different perspectives to disabled children themselves, even though they are important advocates in education. Weber also looks at the problems associated with placement of disabled children in both mainstream settings and in special education programs.
In ‘The Tale of a Reluctant Expert Witness’ Alicia A. Broderick uses auto-ethnography to discuss her experiences of being an ‘expert witness’ whose credentials were questioned. She deconstructs the ‘discourse of expertism’ (219) and discusses the objections of opposing counsel to her being recognized as an ‘expert witness.’ A judge also positioned her as an ‘advocate of inclusion’ rather than a ‘compelling’ expert (229).
According to Wendy F. Hensel in ‘The Case for Inclusive Eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act,’ the meaning of ‘disability’ as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act has been hotly contested, but far less attention has been paid to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. She explores the ways that the education system identifies the students who are ‘disabled enough’ to qualify for services and accommodations – for instance, waiting for serious academic failure before recognizing eligibility. Hensel suggests that ‘Creating clear eligibility standards will assist in insulating these important decisions from the political and ideological positions of the eligibility team’ (264).
Ani B. Satz discusses ‘Disability, Vulnerability and Fragmented Protections,’ emphasizing the incomplete and fragmented nature of legal protections under US disability legislation. Many people with impairments are excluded from these protections and accommodations in education, healthcare, employment and other areas. In order to address this problem, Satz believes that ‘Government subsidies should facilitate access across daily environments’ (293).
Wendy S. Harbour’s ‘Inclusion in K–12 and Higher Education’ is the last chapter in the volume. She stresses that disabled students experience new eligibility requirements in higher education, and new barriers associated with higher education’s reliance on the medical model. Also, she states that a disability studies approach can be useful in highlighting problems such as ‘normality, expertise, gate keeping, inclusion, self-advocacy, and academic standards.’
My criticisms of Righting Educational Wrongs are two-fold. First, with the exception of the chapter by Fenton, there is a real failure to engage in discussions of race, class and gender – or to explore their combined effect on the relationship between disabled students, education and the law. These areas are filled with systemic, and overlapping inequalities, which are not emphasized in this volume. Second, as Skrtic and Kent explain, much of this discussion is rooted in American liberalism. The reforms that are suggested are fairly conservative, such as increasing the visibility of disabled students and professionals, providing government subsidies, and developing clearer eligibility procedures. These hardly seem significant enough for those who see the legal and education systems as a major part of the problem for disabled students.
The University of Toledo, OH, USA
[email protected]
© 2014, Mark Sherry
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.888834