Critical Practice Analysis of Special Education Policy

Abstract

Since 1997, revisions to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have shown promise for addressing special education equity concerns: For example, states have the option to use response to intervention (RTI) for determining and thus reducing inappropriate disability determination, and states and districts are required to assess and address disproportionality in special education eligibility and placement. Yet, despite policy revisions, equity concerns endure. Apparent policy inadequacies necessitate that special education research explores policy as a process whereby it is appropriated by local actors. Accordingly, we draw from critical policy scholarship to propose a framework for study of special education policy appropriation. The approach centers equity and attention to actors' agency and structural forces. We discuss relevance of this framework and its theoretical tools for special education research concerned with how local actors enact federal special education policy. Finally, we provide suggestions for RTI policy research as a case-in-point.

High School Teachers’ Sense-Making of Response to Intervention: A Critical Practice Analysis

“…Thorius and Maxcy (2015) recommend using a critical practice framework when examining special education policy. The critical practice framework “precipitates and grows out of policy development related to redressing enduring equity concerns” (Thorius & Maxcy, 2015).…”

“…Thorius and Maxcy (2015) recommend using a critical practice framework when examining special education policy. The critical practice framework “precipitates and grows out of policy development related to redressing enduring equity concerns” (Thorius & Maxcy, 2015). Furthermore, this framework positions educators as powerful actors in the policy process, rather than recipients or implementers, and it shifts inquiry from how policy may be implemented with fidelity to exploring relationships between policy and local use (Thorius & Maxcy, 2015).…”

“…This qualitative study provides a nuanced critique of high school teachers’ use and understanding of DbDM for CLD students within an RtI framework. We utilize Welner’s (2001) zone of mediation (ZOM) as a framework to critique the implementation of equity-focused policy within local contexts (Thorius & Maxcy, 2015). This study contributes to the voices and experiences of high school teachers attempting to meet expectations of equity-focused policy in urban settings.…”

Activating Policy and Advocacy Skills: A Strategy for Tomorrow’s Special Education Leaders

“…Significant aspects of special education are driven by decisions occurring through the legislative and judicial processes (Kiarie, 2014; Rude & Miller, 2018; Thorius & Maxcy, 2015). Therefore, it is important to understand and engage in activities that inform the legislative process such as advocacy.…”

Playing hopscotch in inclusive education reform: examining promises and limitations of policy and practice in the US

“…Furthermore, accountability‐driven policies have created tensions with some core principles of IDEA, as individualised goals are trumped by standardised content, and non‐academic content such as applied life skills and social and emotional development supports are neglected in favour of knowledge derived from academic standards (McLaughlin and Rhim, ). The incorporation of academic standards in individual educational plans positions parents and teachers to struggle over two competing priorities (Thorius and Maxcy, ): recognition of students' individual assets and needs and standardised learning objectives (Mayrowetz, ; Thorius and Maxcy, ).…”