Physical and social organization of space in a combined credential programme: implications for inclusion

Abstract

Social geography brings a new perspective to understanding longstanding separation between general and special education in higher education. This paper uses methods from social geography to consider how the structures and processes of space function to maintain longstanding divisions between general and special education in a US teacher education programme that strives towards inclusivity. This intensive ten‐month qualitative case study includes mapping, observations, and interviews to understand better the physical and social space in a teacher education building. Results indicate not only separation between disability and typicality in the department, but also boundary lines drawn around race, ethnicity, and language in relation to special and general education teacher education.

Notes

1. For a detailed explanation of three models of American teacher education programmes (blended, merged, and integrated) that address learning differences in some degree, see Blanton & Pugach (2007). What I call combined, Blanton and Pugach would deem a synthesis of blended and merged teacher education programmes.

2. ‘Typicality’ is a term brought out from interview and observational data. It comes from references to ‘the typical student’ often said by professors and PSTs. Typicality is a norm against which students with disabilities are measured. If disability refers to the social effects of physical or mental impairment then typicality refers to the social effects of not having a labelled impairment.

3.

The terms ‘people with disabilities’ and ‘disabled people’ are used interchangeably throughout this paper. Many disability rights activists believe that the term ‘people with disabilities’ puts the person first without undue focus on their physical (or psychological) condition. Other disabled individuals, particularly in the UK, assert that ‘disabled person’ should be used to highlight the salience of disability oppression. The use of both terms is meant to recognize and support both perspectives.

  (Ostrove, 2006, endnote 2)

In addition, terms like ‘handicapped’, ‘special needs’ or ‘special education’ occur in pre‐existing quotes or in how participants in this study refer to labelled as disabled students in school.

4. The assumption that it is better to be as ‘normal’ as possible rather than be disabled (Baker, 2002).

5. Participants will be used to denote both faculty and PSTs in this chapter. This word ‘choice’ is used to reinforce the notion of co‐construction where concepts about disability and typicality are not created solely in the minds of an individual but necessitate interaction with other people and the environment.

6. All names are pseudonyms to protect the identity of participants. Professors are denoted as Professor plus first name and PSTs by first names only.

7. When ramps are placed at a significant distance away from steps, it creates material and symbolic distance between people using the ramps and those using the stairs. It also denotes the ramps as less universal than they could be if closer in proximity to stairs. For more detailed analysis of the relationship of ramps to social relationships, see Laws (1994) and Imrie & Wells (1993).

8. This fact is supported by research that attends to a lack of attention to cultural and linguistic diversity in special education and remains of concern since 30% of students receiving special education services do not speak English as a home language and 65% are not white in California (California Department of Education, 2006).

9. Thanks are extended to Tara Higgins for helping with the visual display.

10. For references to the first teacher to ‘invent special education’, see Kode (2002). For a more detailed history of disability and schooling, see Winzer (1993).

11. IEPs are Individualised Education Programs, which are similar to ‘statements’ in the UK.

12. This section borrows terminology like ‘breakdown’, ‘installed base’, and ‘embodied standards’ from Star & Rohleder (1996).