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

Abstract

In this article, we provide commentary on the ‘state of play’ of inclusive education in the United States. We focus on the promises and limitations of inter‐related accountability‐ and market‐driven policies and Response to Intervention (RTI) (Vaughn and Fuchs, 2003). We argue that these policies and practice have ‘hopscotched’ their way through inclusive education reform, hopping over core tenets of the inclusive education movement. We propose policies and practices that have a strong commitment to inclusive education and that aim at debunking the myth of the normal child and school.

Disability, Race, and the Geography of School Choice: Toward an Intersectional Analytical Framework

“…Specifically, such models can create market incentives for schools to avoid enrolling students of 7 color with disabilities, as these students can make schools look less competitive and therefore less attractive for other students to enroll. Furthermore, market models of education can create incentives for specialized schools (e.g., a school for students with autism), which in turn incentivizes further segregation of SWDs (Dudley-Marling & Baker, 2012;Waitoller & Thorius, 2015). Furthermore, in the case of vouchers, market models of education can erode the provisions and legal rights of parents provided through the IDEA; if a parent of an SWD uses a voucher to attend a private school, she or he may need to forgo IDEA's entitlements (Anastasiou & Kaufmman, 2009).…”

Wicked problems in special and inclusive education

“…This wicked problem includes, for example : unhelpful calls for return to what might be described as traditional teaching practices and a regressive return to the ‘normative centre’ of education (Florian, ); greater segregation (or exclusion) of students affected by disability on account of their perceived negative impact on school or cohort achievement data (Norwich, ; Slee, ); exclusion of data from students with a disability in data‐led processes or initiatives designed to monitor the quality of educational provision; responding to evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of students affected by disability are being placed into segregated settings (Anderson and Boyle, ; Valle, Connor, Broderick, et al., ); increased reliance on strict categorical labels to access funding for additional support or intervention; reduced tolerance for non‐compliant, disruptive or challenging behaviour (‘three strikes’ model) and greater use of educational exclusion in response (Gibbs and Powell, ; Theriot, Craun and Dupper, ); greater emphasis in policy upon the notions of discipline and the merits of an orderly classroom (DFE, ); concerns about the unintended consequence of greater emphasis upon student performance and formal ‘accountability assessments’ (NAPLAN, TIMMS, SATS) as measures of educational progress (Cumming and Dickson, ); a narrowing of the curriculum and the corresponding loss of alternative spaces for educational achievement by students with disability (Darling‐Hammond, ; Waitoller and Thorius, ); reduced capacity by professionals and by schools to provide the additional support necessary for the success of students with a disability due to elevated occupational pressures and increased administrative workloads generated by neo‐liberal educational policies (Valle, Connor, Broderick, et al., ); research which indicates the numerous negative effects of ‘increased focus on individual teacher performance’ (Martins, , p. 25) and its potentially magnified impact on, often psychologically vulnerable students with a disability; and, finally in classrooms increasingly focused upon curriculum‐referenced academic output how do professionals ensure that there are vital but time‐consuming opportunities for agency and meaningful participation by students with a disability (Browne and Millar, ).…”

Leading through a critical lens: The application of DisCrit in framing, implementing and improving equity driven, educational systems for all students

“…The education workforce needs to understand its role in eliminating the impact of colonialism, linguistic isolationism, racism and ableism. It begins with the recognition of multiple forms of knowing, the value of cultural experiences, funds of knowledge and the varying developmental pathways to adulthood experienced by children (Waitoller and Thorius, 2015). The US dominant culture masks these processes.…”

“…Education's emphasis on market driven workforce development has serious implications for students with learning differences. The focus on narrowly defined outputs produces a bifurcated education system that provides an inadequate educational experience for students with dis/abilities (Waitoller and Thorius, 2015). Many argue the same forces produce a woefully inadequate education for all students (Peurach et al , 2019).…”