Dominant Narratives, Subjugated Knowledges, and the Righting of the Story of Disability in K-12 Curricula

Curriculum Inquiry

ISSN: 0362-6784 (Print) 1467-873X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcui20

Dominant narratives, subjugated knowledges, and the righting of the story of disability in K-12 curricula

Jessica K. Bacon & Priya Lalvani

To cite this article: Jessica K. Bacon & Priya Lalvani (2019) Dominant narratives, subjugated knowledges, and the righting of the story of disability in K-12 curricula, Curriculum Inquiry, 49:4, 387-404, DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2019.1656990 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1656990

Published online: 09 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 400

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcui20 CURRICULUM INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 49, NO. 4, 387–404 https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1656990

Dominant narratives, subjugated knowledges, and the righting of the story of disability in K-12 curricula

Jessica K. Bacon and Priya Lalvani Department of Early Childhood, Elementary and Literacy Education, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Dominant stories, as upheld through K-12 curricula, are influential Disability studies; discourse in reproducing systems of power and privilege in schools and theory; K-12 curriculum; society. In this article, we suggest that stories of people with dis- critical pedagogy; ableism abilities are either missing in K-12 curricula, or told in ways that are highly ableist. We use discourse theory as a frame for considering the role of curricula in reproducing power/knowledge in schools, and promote critical pedagogy as a tool for teaching students to recognize and disrupt the ableism inherent in dominant educational discourses. We provide concrete strategies for infusing counter-narratives and subjugated knowledges into the curriculum where silences or authoritative presences exist. Overall, this article is a call to educators to tackle, head-on, ableist discourse in the curriculum with a goal of promoting liberatory knowledges about disability in schools.

We inhabit a world of stories; through stories we inherit and those we choose to tell, we make sense of the world and construct our realities (McLean, 2015). Our stories are cultural texts that reflect a shared understanding of the meaning of experiences, and which mirror the social ecology within which they exist (McAdams, 2008). Simultaneously, stories are acts of individual meaning-making within sociocultural contexts. Through stories, discourses, and activities, we can either accept dominant cultural narratives or exercise agency by rejecting them, and in doing so, come to author ourselves (Bamberg, 2004). Thus, operating individually and collectively, stories serve as a bridge between sociological and individually-lived, personal dimensions (Bell, 2010). The USA is often depicted as a multicultural society, rich with the stories of diverse groups (Bell, 2010). However, as Bell notes, not all stories are equally acknowledged, affirmed, or valued; some stories are upheld and reified by power structures, while others must “fight tenaciously to be heard” (p. 18). Dominant narratives, originating from perspectives of groups that hold power and privilege, collectively uphold particular interpretations of reality. In contrast, counter-narratives (Bamberg, 2004), or what Foucault (1980) referred to as subjugated knowledges originating from experiences of

CONTACT Jessica K. Bacon [email protected] ß 2019 the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 388 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI marginalized groups, contest dominant ways of thinking and offer alternative perspectives. There are also single stories in which complex human experiences are reduced to one person’s interpretation (Adichie, 2009). Other stories are not told. Stories, there- fore, have the power to be liberating and empowering, but they can also be marginal- izing or silencing (Bell et al., 2008). In the grounding premises of disability studies (DS), disability is conceptualized as a social, cultural, and political phenomenon. Rejecting notions about disability as a universal and biologically-fixed category, or as embodied deficits (Goodley, 2017), DS instead posi- tions disability as a naturally occurring human variation, and seeks to understand the experience of disability in relation to ways that societies represent and respond to it. DS is commonly associated with the social model (Oliver, 1990) in which disability is distinguished from, rather than equated with, impairment. While impairment refers to particular physical or sensory experiences (e.g. blindness, absence of motor func- tion, etc.), disability or disablement refers to the political, economic, social, and cultural oppression that people experience. Critical DS scholars, such as Goodley (2017), argue that the impairment/disability dichotomy is overly simplistic and minimizes the embodied experience of impairment. Goodley (2017) suggests that impairment must also be understood as “culturally constructed, because bodies/minds have histories and are experienced, performed and institutionally located” (p. 36). Through this framework, DS scholars contend that constructed definitions of disability and normalcy are linked with issues of power and privilege; in response, they petition us to retract our gaze from individuals’ impairments per se, and instead focus on how normalcy is constructed, consider how embodiment helps define disability experience, and high- light the pervasiveness of ableism in society (Linton, 1998). Ableism refers to the persistent devaluing of disability, or viewpoints in which disability is cast as an inherently negative state of being (Campbell, 2009). It operates as “a pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses people who have mental, emotional, and physical disabilities” (Rauscher & McClintock, 1997, p. 198). Social justice scholars have unpacked the ways that oppression operates at individual, cultural, and institutional levels (e.g. Smith & Sparkes, 2008), and illuminated how we, as individuals and society, can act to either reproduce or resist oppression. Consistent with these ideas, we raise questions about what is lost when a collective history, as well as stories of and by people with disabilities, are either missing or presented only through ableist tropes within K-12 curricula. Simultaneously, we make a case for inviting students to explore how stories of disability are told, distorted, or co-opted in the dominant narratives that persist. In endeavoring to do this work, it is necessary to position ourselves within it. Jessica identifies as a White, nondisabled, lesbian woman who has spent her career working with both adults and children with disabilities in a range of community and school settings, some of which include a summer camp, a group home, K-12 schools, a self-advocacy group, and an inclusive college program for early adults with intellectual disabilities. Priya identifies as a South Asian, nondisabled woman, and is a mother of a child labeled with an intellectual disability. Her work is situated in, and informed by, these contexts, as well as her professional experiences which include working with adults who had been previously segregated from society through institutionalization. DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 389

Although we use the term “nondisabled” in identifying ourselves, and elsewhere in this paper (in addition to the term “disabled”), we recognize that disability is neither a stable category nor a singular identity, but rather a facet of multiple and intersectional identities in flux and situated in sociopolitical contexts (Erevelles & Minear, 2010). This idea is further elucidated in an emerging body of critical scholarship entitled DisCrit, which focuses on complex interactions of multiple discriminatory discourses and ideologies, including racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, sexism, and colonialism (Annamma, Connor, & Ferri, 2016). DisCrit makes the case for intersectional work, high- lighting the need to account for the ways in which both race and dis/ablement play out in schools. Using a DS lens in tandem with Foucauldian discourse theory (Foucault, 1972) and critical inquiry frameworks (e.g. Allen, 2013; Bartolome, 2004; Giroux, 1994), we offer a conceptual model and pedagogical strategies for educators to engage with their students towards recognition and confrontation of ableism in K- 12 curricula.

The Silent Narratives: Absence of the Topic of Disability in Social Justice Education A stated mission of critical multicultural education is to provide students with tools to confront oppression head-on, with the aim of creating more equitable, democratic, and just societies. This is aligned with the perspectives of social justice education, which focuses on preparing educators to name and interrogate oppressive ideologies and practices, and invite their students to do the same, through critical pedagogy in schools (Bartolome, 2004; Giroux, 1994; Grant & Sleeter, 2009). These perspectives recognize the crucial role of education in preparing citizens for active participation in democratic societies and focus on raising critical consciousness among students so that they have the social and political knowledge and tools to recognize and act upon injustices (Baltodano, 2012; Bartolome, 2004; de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002). Scholarship based on the lived experiences of disabled scholars and activists calls for interconnected efforts among groups that have experienced ableism, sexism, queer- phobia, classism, or any form of systematic oppression, while cautioning against form- ing silos (Darder, 2018; Mingus, 2019). Although critical multicultural educators have responded to this call by infusing anti-bias programs into school curricula (and right- fully so), there is often a glaring omission of the topic of disability in critical multicultural education (Lalvani, Broderick, Fine, Jacobowitz, & Michelli, 2015) and a relative silence around the issue of disability oppression from the “social justice inventory” (Slee, 2001, p. 174). Mingus (2019) – writer, educator, and community activist for disability rights and transformative justice – explains that an insidious outcome of systematic oppression is marginalized groups becoming disconnected from each other. To wit, even within critical multicultural education and critical race theories, there is a silence around the topic of disability and ableism, and disability is not typically acknowledged as an intersecting identity marker. One reason that critical race scholars may distance themselves from discussions of disability is because they are “burdened by the debates associated with the Bell Curve” (Erevelles, Kanga, & Middleton, 2006, p. 77). This disassociation is 390 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI understandable because, in the past, an association with intellectual inferiority has been used to justify brutality against and exploitation of people of color. Yet, this disassociation perpetuates the message that not discussing or noticing disability is preferable. Beliefs about not noticing disability are similar to the “colorblind” ideology in schools, (i.e. claims about not noticing race, or the notion that one should not mention it). Critical race theorists have long argued that using a colorblind approach is antithetical to fairness and serves to maintain racial inequalities (e.g. Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Problematizing the silences around racialized conversations in schools, social justice scholars (e.g. Grant & Sleeter, 2009) have argued that there is a need to introduce curriculum and pedagogy that attends to and confronts all forms of oppression at all levels. Annamma, Jackson, and Morrison (2017) theorize a framework of color- evasiveness, which builds upon ideas of color-blindness, but uses an intersectional lens that integrates an analysis of both ableism and racism in schools. This concept moves beyond describing “dis/ability as a metaphor for undesired” (p. 153) and provides productive tools to combat structures of racism and ableism in schools. Extending upon conceptions of color-evasiveness, we argue that the association of disability with special education can be implicated as one reason for its omission from the “social justice inventory” (Slee, 2001, p. 174). In the context of schooling, references to disability usually trigger an association with special education, and all conversations pertaining to students with disabilities are understood as being within its purview (Connor, 2012; Connor & Gabel, 2013). Special education is entrenched in a medicalized framework of deficit and disorder (Connor, 2012), which conceptualizes disability as something to be remediated, fixed, or alleviated. As such, its fundamental guiding assumptions are at odds with principles of social justice education and critical multiculturalism, which are to value difference, rather than diminish it; cultivate plural- ism, rather than assimilate into “normalcy”; and create social change and alter power dynamics, rather than accept the status quo (Villegas, 2012). An association of disability with special education leads to an aversion of an intersectional analysis where disability is understood as a complex part of a myriad of identity categories. Ware (2005) notes that teachers continue to be skeptical about the need to address the topic of disability in their classrooms, and that, in the absence of meaningful curricula and pedagogy, negative assumptions about disability and ableist beliefs persist. However, Connor (2012) more optimistically points out that the tides are shifting; we are now living in times where conversations about disability are being freed from the theoretical shackles of special education, and increasingly, disability is recognized as a form of human diversity discussed in the context of social justice and critical multicultural education. He concludes that disability, the “formerly uninvited guest,” (para. 54) now sits at the table of social justice education. Although we share Conner’s optimism about this growing acknowledgement of disability oppression among social justice and critical multicultural scholars, we feel compelled to note that there is much more work to be done in terms of translating these acknowledgements into the develop- ment of critical pedagogies in K-12 classrooms. Within schools, silences around disability and its intersections continue to be common, and ableism typically remains far from a majority of teachers’ consciousness. DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 391

The Dominant Narrative: Upholding Ableism in K-12 Curricula If the topic of disability is discussed at all in classrooms, it is often through stereotyp- ical representations and tropes of people with disabilities. Master narratives, rooted in paternalistic, medical model perspectives center on notions of disability as tragedy, something to be “fixed” or overcome, or as life not worth living (Saxton, 2000). These deeply ableist master-narratives are often reified in children’s literature and cultural products, where people with disabilities are represented as scary, burdensome, exotic, childlike, or as evoking pity (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017; Cologon, 2013). Within K-12 curricula, there are minimal efforts to teach children to question these problematic representations and dominant ways of viewing disability persist. Many DS scholars assert that educators should endeavor to engage children in deconstructing messages about disability in master scripts and in exploring alternative ones (e.g. Ware, 2005). In order to do this, they need to position disability as a form of diversity, as well as a positive group identity. It must be acknowledged that in K-12 curricula there is currently little attention given to the perspectives of individuals with disabilities themselves. Solis and Connor (2006) argue that, in the spirit of the common refrain of the disability rights movement – nothing about us without us – if we are to engage children in recognizing oppressive master scripts, it is equally necessary to allow for opportunities for students to learn about the perspectives of individuals with disabilities and to engage with critical counter-narratives (Smith & Sparkes, 2008) that promote emancipatory understandings of disability. To these ends, we call on all educators to problematize the omission of disability from K-12 curricula, to position themselves against ableism, and to reconsider the ways in which human differences are discussed within the classroom.

Conceptual Framework In order to conceptualize how ableism operates in schools, we use a Foucauldian notion of discourse theory in tandem with a DS lens to guide our analysis of what is silent and present in K-12 curricula. Additionally, we use critical pedagogy as a tool to promote liberatory curricula. This invites students to recognize master scripts and explore counter-narratives on disability, so that educators and students can develop discourses and practices that resist ableism in schools and society.

Discourse Theory Curriculum plays a large role in either reproducing master narratives or creating opportunities to shift discourse towards more liberatory ends. Giroux (1994) describes the role of curriculum as a struggle that cannot be removed from considerations of history, power, and politics. Moreover, curriculum theories are often heavily weighted in favor of those who have power. Curriculum debates abound in politics because of the influence schooling can have on ideologies and knowledges that children adopt from young ages. Discourse theory, informed by a DS lens, provides a framework to connect the role of particular ways of knowing disability and the role of curriculum in the production of larger discursive knowledges. 392 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI

According to Hall (1997), Foucault described discourse as a system of representation that produces knowledge about a topic through language at a particular historical moment. There is no particular point of origin to be traced when looking at how discourse functions and becomes produced in society; instead, people, stories, practices, (curricula) and systems all work together to construct and reproduce knowledge about a subject (Hall, 1997). Foucault stressed that it was not just the language and practices of what was said that contributed to the “regime of truth,” but also what is not said. He claimed that we must try to determine the different ways of not saying such things … [and] which type of discourse is authorized … There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourses. (Foucault, 1980, p. 27) Silences or absences of overt acknowledgement of disability in schools are part of the master narrative that constructs truths about disability. Foucault (1990) also provides a lens for understanding how discourse shifts and can potentially produce new, more liberatory truths over time. Discourse can be used as a point of resistance because it can expose, as well as produce, power dynamics. One Foucauldian concept, which could lead to new knowledges about a “subject” (like disability) is the idea of “subjugated knowledges.” Allen (2005) explains that subjugated knowledges come from individuals who have been disqualified and marginalized as bearers of knowledge. Thus, Foucault might consider “psychiatric patients, the sick, nurses, doctors, and delinquents” (p. 102) as bearers of subjugated knowledge that dif- fers from the “formal knowledge of scientific medicine, psychiatry, criminology, and so on” (p. 102). We promote a DS perspective that often draws on the lived “subjugated” experiences of people with disabilities as sites of knowledge that counter dominant regimes of truth built in schools through K-12 discourses. Additionally, drawing from Bartolome’s(2004) ideas, we believe there is much to be gained from developing political and ideological clarity among teachers and students, such that they may engage deeply with knowledge they encounter and come to their own understandings about the nature of socioeconomic and political hierarchies. In applying DS theory to Foucauldian ideas, Tremain (2005) describes Foucault’s conception of strategic reversibility, which uses knowledges formed by experiencing subjugating practices to develop counter-politics as tools of resistance. Drawing on this work, we offer tools to integrate subjugated knowledges and other ways of thinking about disability (such as anti-ableist, intersectional counter-narratives) into the curriculum in hopes of liberation and strategic counter-politics through language. We will provide an analysis of how we can avoid silences, and how we purposefully consider the role of curricular choices made by teachers in working towards a liberatory approach to understanding disability through critical pedagogy.

Critical Pedagogy Students, young and old, are curious about power structures, and are often deeply concerned about issues of fairness and equity (Kuby, 2013). Critical pedagogy questions inequalities of power and taken-for-granted beliefs about oppressed groups in DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 393 schools and literature. Foundations of critical pedagogy stem from the work of Freire (2005), who not only critiqued a “banking” model of education as a tool of the oppressor, but also provided a framework for working alongside students to fight oppression, while simultaneously learning valuable educational skills. Critical pedago- gist Giroux (1994) states that educators “must connect the practice of classroom teaching to the operation of power in the larger society. At the same time, they must be attentive to those broader social forces that influence the workings of schooling and pedagogy” (p. 44). Critical pedagogical frameworks emphasize the need for collective action and social change through teaching and learning (Burbules & Berk, 1999). Thus, critical pedagogy invites students into inquiry by incorporating multiple and contra- dictory perspectives into classrooms. This range of perspectives enables students and teachers to “make sense of text as the world and the world as text … [by encouraging] critique, diversity, rigor and meaning making” (Fecho, 2000, p. 195). Thus, critical pedagogy provides opportunities for students to explore inequities in their own lives and in society and to examine their own complicity in these, with a goal of creating social change (Kuby, 2013). Allen (2013) emphasized an approach to critical pedagogy, called critical literacy, in which students and educators take a critical stance, engage in critical literacy techni- ques, and ask critical questions. One way to take a critical stance is to be purposeful about one’s use of language, so that teacher language is interrogated and “refocused” away from deficit-based discourses of differences, and towards affirming language for marginalized populations. Critical literacy also challenges the framework of textual analysis to focus on issues of power and to promote transformation while encouraging readers to question and examine relations of power (Allen, 2013). Finally, Allen pro- motes asking critical questions about texts that educators and their students encounter, which can allow for students to discuss power relationships and inequities about disability. Some questions suggested by Sweeney (as cited in Allen, 2013) are: “Is this fair?; Is this right?; Does this hurt anyone?; Is this the whole story?; Who benefits and who suffers?; Why is it like this?; How could it be different, more just?” (p. 8). Other useful questions consider whose viewpoint and interests are upheld, and whose are omitted (Allen, 2013). Critical pedagogical frameworks have been used to deconstruct racism, for instance, through culturally relevant teaching (Leonardo & Grubb, 2014). However, while critical pedagogy experts, like other social justice oriented scholars in education, have “privileged the theorization of the body along the axes of race, class, gender, and sexuality, they have consistently omitted any mention of the ‘disabled’ body” (Erevelles, 2000, p. 25). Erevelles argues for an approach to critical pedagogy that pro- ductively draws upon a materialist DS perspective as an organizing principle for analysis of intersectional oppression in schools. We find that using the tools of critical theorists, but grounding our analysis in a DS approach, allows us to unpack ableism in K-12 classrooms by teaching children to recognize how dominant narratives are present and reproduced in stories and curriculum. As students engage critically with curricular realities, schooling structures must fight material inequities between groups of students. We believe that using critical pedagogy to support youth’s engagement with curricula can create opportunities for discursive and material shifts in society. Thus, we 394 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI assert that dominant narratives, silences, and subjugated knowledges about disability in cultural products and literature can serve as useful entry points for critically examining ableism and other forms of marginalization in our society, and can support children in recognizing and confronting such issues.

Rethinking Disability in Schools: Toward Liberatory, Anti-Ableist K- 12 Curricula How can educators use critical pedagogies to support students in recognizing and disrupting ableist narratives and practices in society, rethinking authoritative knowledges, and engaging in making transformative shifts in their understandings about disability? In this section, we examine pervasive silences around disability and present ableist discourses in schools while integrating suggestions for introducing subjugated knowledges through a critical pedagogical approach. We provide several examples to exemplify common ways in which authoritative knowledge is taught in school and to open a discussion on how discourse about disability can be shifted in K-12 curricula. As we present these examples and ideas, we draw from our own range of experiences in K-12 schools and make recommendations that might be infused into classrooms across ages, grades, and other aspects of diversity encountered in the myriad of schooling systems in the USA. We do not suggest that there should not be further localized decision-making processes related to the population of students and other unique circumstances that schools and educators might encounter. We hope that the suggestions we provide might act as a catalyst for educators to begin to think differently and purposefully about infusing and integrating DS-inspired ideas into the curricula.

Breaking the Silence Around Disability Earlier, we argued that the failure to confront the silence around the topic of disability in schools perpetuates stigmas surrounding disability, and as such, is itself a form of ableism. In this section, we identify more specifically the contexts in which these silences exist and offer suggestions for how teachers can interrupt silences. Such interrup- tions will enable students to think more expansively about topics of study by embedding relevant issues related to disability within curricula. To this end, we consider the potentiality for integrating disability-related content to address: (a) the omission of disability in the K-12 curricula; (b) the silences around disability-related language and terminology in schools; and (c) the questions that students may have about their own disability or about peers with disabilities in their classroom or school communities. Despite the perennial presence of disability throughout history, the collective story of disabled people has generally remained outside of public awareness, and disability history is rarely taught in schools. One place to start is in a Social Studies lesson. For instance, in studying the changing industrialized societies of the 20th century, students might explore the US’s response to disability during this time. This might include the institutionalization of people with disabilities, the existence of the “ugly DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 395 laws” (Schweik, 2009), or the “freakshow” (Bogdan, 1988) in the 20th century. In a study about World War II, there is a clear opportunity and a moral imperative to teach about the Eugenics Movement and its sanctioning of the involuntary sterilizations, denial of medical treatment, and “euthanasia” of large numbers of people with disabilities. Students could conduct an inquiry on the similarities and connections between the American Eugenics Movement and the Nazi T4 program through which people with disabilities became the first victims of the Holocaust (Mitchell & Snyder, 2003). They might also explore how the return of war veterans in the 20th century provided the impetus for the passing of many disability-related laws in the USA. We urge that, in studying disability history, students should learn not only about the historical oppression of people with disabilities, but also about their resistance to oppression and their empowerment through the disability rights movement. Typically, social studies units include a study of civil rights movements, and of the historical fig- ures and leaders associated with them. This provides natural opportunities for students to learn about the emergence of disability pride, disability culture, and various disability rights activists such as Ed Roberts, Irving Zola, Harriet McBryde Johnson, Leroy Moore, Mia Mingus, and Judy Heumann. When learning about branches of government and processes of creating legislative change, teachers could use the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as an example to help students understand how a bill becomes a law. Or students can learn how to create a timeline by research- ing the many events (including protests) leading up to the landmark passing of this law. Additionally, we urge that instead of merely learning about these historical events, students be encouraged to engage in critical inquiries about the implications of them for present society. For example, they might conduct a survey or investigation on whether various public spaces in their own communities (including their own school) are compliant with ADA regulations. Or they might be encouraged to explore broad connections between the struggles of various historically marginalized groups. In con- junction with units on civil rights struggles, students usually learn about Jim Crow laws in the US, school segregation, and the subsequent Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in which schooling “was” desegregated. Perhaps within these lessons, they could also learn about the history of school segregation around disability and how Black students often filled segregated classrooms (Ferri & Connor, 2006). To emphasize intersectionality and the mantra of the disability rights movement – ”nothing about us without us”–teachers could also introduce the Disability Justice Movement. The Disability Justice Movement is led by disabled people such as Alice Wong, Mia Mingus, Leroy Moore, Lydia Brown, and Patty Berne, many of whom are also people of color, queer, trans, and/or gender nonconforming, who seek to trans- form the organizations of society that perpetuate ableism (Wong, 2018). From an interdisciplinary standpoint, this presents an opportunity to integrate math and social studies. For instance, what if students were invited into an inquiry about current patterns of segregation, perhaps even in their own schools, and were asked to use graphs to demonstrate whether segregation around race, class, language, and disability continues to exist? What if teachers engaged students in conversations about intersectionality by exploring how “minority” students get counted repeatedly in 396 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI statistical categories used by schools, or examining the statistical overrepresentation of “minority” children in special education? Or what if students examined the history of the prison system in the USA, while considering the legacy of Jim Crow laws as contributive to the current school-to-prison pipeline, as an example of the ways in which ableism and racism work in confluence (Erevelles, 2014)? Some teachers may already discuss the concepts of “fair versus equal” as part of their lessons on equitable and democratic societies. Perhaps as part of this lesson, students could explore the concepts of access and accommodation with practical, hands- on opportunities to use augmentative communication or other accessibility-related technologies and devices. Introducing social model perspectives on disability (Oliver, 1990), teachers might distinguish between the terms impairment and disability. This could be followed by an inquiry lesson in which students investigate the environmen- tal barriers that would disable a person with an impairment, as well as identify some supports and technologies that would allow people with specific impairments to par- ticipate in all aspects of life, thus shifting students’ definitions of disability. As an action project, working in small groups, students could be tasked with building a prototype for a more inclusive playground, dance studio, gym, or sports venue for all members of their own school or community. Another area of silence pertains to the lack of language available to students in discussing disability. As teacher-educators, we have had recent conversations with in-service and pre-service teachers who have stated that, outside of the context of special education, the term disability itself seems to be considered taboo and, consequently, is avoided; in its place, there are an alarming number of euphemisms used when refer- ring to students with disabilities, such as: “exceptional,”“special,”“differently-abled,” and “inclusion kids.” The rhetoric of “we are all different” seems, to many teachers, to be sufficient in addressing the topic of disability. Even within bullying, anti-bias, or character education curricula, although there is often discussion of “differences” or “diversity,” disability is not typically named. As noted by Allen (2013), a key way to promote critical inquiry is to adopt and model language in schools that subvert dominant and negative discourses. We assert that the ways teachers talk about disability in their classrooms and the ways they model conversations about disability can have immense impact on students; thus, we recommend directly naming disability and issues of ableism in schools. This is particu- larly necessary in light of the fact that our present cultural lexicon is rife with ableist metaphors and disability-related pejoratives. Consider that the terms “ret rd” or “ret rded” are so ubiquitously used to convey ugly, stupid, or undesirable, that the use of the terms barely elicit negative reaction among many audiences. To counter this, we suggest using teachable moments when students use ableist language in the classroom. Teachers could bring up a Public Service Announcement clip from, for instance, the “spread the word to end the word” campaign (R-word: Spread the word to end the word, 2019) that describe the problems with ableist language. Within anti- bullying programs, using social-model perspectives, students could conduct inquiry on various intersecting identity groups, explore how language can become a tool for oppression of those with marginalized identities, or investigate statistics on high rates of bullying for students with disabilities or other identities. Additionally, students could DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 397 read about the concepts of person-first (Snow, 2009) and identity-first language (Ladau, 2015) followed by a debate to help students understand multiple perspectives on this issue. Teachers may provide opportunities for students to engage in discussions or conduct interviews with individuals who identify as disabled and/or have pride in being associated with this community. We acknowledge that disability is a fluid identity and, as Mia Mingus (2019) reminds us, the disabled/non-disabled binary is not productive when working toward ending oppression. Yet, disability is an identity that many take pride in. Thus, we believe it is valuable for teachers to help students understand ways in which individuals choose to position themselves in terms of their own multiple identities, and how their intersectionalities inform their language preferences and experiences of stigma. In these lessons, teachers should be intentional in disrupting the notion that disabled people are the objects of inquiry. A third silence pertains to addressing questions that students may have about their classmates, or peers in segregated spaces, who have disabilities. Some families of children with disabilities may want to “protect” their children from knowledge about their labels or avoid the stigma associated with them, or perhaps the children themselves do not want to identify as having a disability. Students of all ages are likely to be curious about the differences they notice among their classmates, or about the reasons that some students are educated in segregated classrooms. However, when students do not openly ask questions about disability (or other aspects of diversity), many teachers take this as indication that they do not have any, rather than as an indication that they have learned to silence their curiosity around certain kinds of questions (Lalvani, 2015). Silences around why some students might need specialized equipment or curricula, or have different ways of communicating, moving, or learning, only serve to promote misunderstandings and reinforce dominant discourses that uphold ableist structures. Perhaps if we had more open conversations about disability in the classroom, stigma surrounding disability might be lessened and more students might choose to share their experiences. Teachers can collaborate with families and students who identify as disabled in order to create the spaces and provide support for students to explore and discuss their own intersectional and disability identities, and to share their narratives, experiences, and support needs through presentations or collaborative projects.

Challenging Authoritative Knowledges In this section, we provide examples of problematic discourses that are present in schools, which serve to uphold ableist and authoritative knowledges (Foucault, 1990) about disability. We do not advocate for censorship of problematic representations of disability in the curriculum, but instead encourage teachers to be discerning in curricular choices, while using pedagogical tools that foster critical inquiry about disability. We concur with Margilos and Shapiro (1987, as cited in Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017) who state that: 398 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI

The issue is never that of banning or censoring but of discussing and exploring symbolism so that damaging messages are negated. When literature is taught without explanation of the moralistic meaning assigned to disabilities, those with impairments might find it difficult to overcome deeply entrenched prejudices. (p. 207) In order to address how teachers can confront problematic representations of disability in the curriculum, we describe and challenge: (a) ableist authoritative knowledge present in curricular materials and (b) common school-wide initiatives that are complicit in the reproduction of authoritative knowledges about disability.

Ableist Authoritative Knowledges in Classroom Curricula As described previously in this article, various dominant tropes that promote medicalized, pitying, tragic, and normalized views of disability and difference permeate curricula. For example, many schools study Steinbeck’s(1937) Of Mice and Men, which perpetuates the idea that disability is a tragedy or burden. In the story, the main character, Lennie, is characterized as a dangerous, overgrown child, and as dependent on the nondisabled main character, George. The overall message sent through this book is that Lennie is less than human or, at the very least, an eternal child who is ultimately better off dead. Rarely do educators critically engage students to consider disability-related themes that arise in Steinbeck’s(1937) novel. Using critical literacy, a teacher might discuss narratives promoted through the text by using prompts such as: What does it mean to be human? Why does Lennie need to die at the end of the book? For whose convenience must he die? Where does the idea that people with disabilities are childlike come from? The problematic ideas in the book could be con- trasted with a present-day narrative of a productive adult with an intellectual disability. Upon asking such questions, teachers can also introduce the historical shifts in societal understandings and treatment of people with disabilities. Students can thus gain a critical perspective on the history of disability treatment, and discuss connections to current practices or beliefs. Authoritative ableist content also presents itself through the permeating discourses of normalcy within the curricula. It can be argued that K-12 curricula are often the very spaces in which restrictive understandings of human functioning and communication, as well as highly-prescribed notions of body aesthetics, are manufactured and reified. Normalizing discourses about the human body begin early in schools; through preschool rhymes, poems (e.g. “Ten little fingers, ten little toes, two little ears and one little nose … .” [Fox, 2008]), stories, and visual representations, children are accultu- rated to understand that the human body looks and functions a certain way. To contrast these ideologies, teachers can seize opportunities that exist within core curriculum areas, as well as through arts, for students to redefine normalcy. For example, students could be invited to explore the vast variations in human bodies through an investigation of artwork, dance performances, music genres such as Krip Hop (Moore, 2019), or narratives, each of which can disrupt traditional understandings about movement, communication, and notions of aesthetic beauty. Even very young children can be invited to reconsider expectations of the “normal” body, as Seuss (1960) seems to have presciently endeavored to do in the beloved DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 399 children’s book One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. In the story, a character with eleven fingers is introduced as a matter of course; here, by casting this character as neither abnormal nor pitiable, the author broadens the parameters of expected variations among us. Similarly, teachers might encourage young children to rethink restrictive notions of physical normalcy in a variety of ways. Perhaps within a unit on families or communities, where teachers already seek to introduce children to representations of diversity in ethnicity, race, family structure, and gender identity, teachers might also introduce children to members of our communities who may also have a range of disabilities or bodies that do not conform to the “norm.” Another example of the permeating discourse of normalcy can be found in the popular young children’s book, Leo the Late Bloomer (Kraus & Aruego, 1987). In this book, the main character Leo, grows up not being able to read, write, draw, or speak. Nonetheless, his parents have faith that he will eventually “bloom.” Eventually, Leo learns to read, write, draw, and speak, proclaiming: “I made it!” Although the book was undoubtedly intended to convey a positive message to children about believing in oneself and others, ultimately it reifies a dominant narrative about “overcoming” disability (i.e. the notion that even though students may develop at different rates, if they set their minds to it, they will eventually transcend their “challenges” and become like everyone else – normal). Instead, what if teachers used this story to promote critical thinking by inviting students to consider different scenarios for Leo’s life, or even write different endings to the book? What if Leo remained different from his peers in his abilities? How could his community learn to value his ways of being, or learn to communicate with him in alternative ways? A teacher who uses this story might juxtapose it with another story, such as It’s OK to be Different (Parr, 2009), which teaches young children that it is acceptable for people to be different. Teachers could use both stories to start a discussion with students about how Leo would still be a valuable member of the class community if he never learned to be good at reading, writing, speaking, or drawing because it is “OK to be different.” Within the higher grades, medical model perspectives about disability often eman- ate through science curriculum. Priya recants with dismay the time when her own, then 8th grade, daughter (who has Trisomy 21) brought home a science class handout on genetics, which stated: “All people have 23 pairs of chromosomes, which makes 46 in all.” Her daughter indignantly described this statement as false, having understood all her life that she has 47 chromosomes in each of her cells, as do many other people she knows. Priya’s daughter’s outrage aside, we are compelled to wonder how the teacher managed to inform the class that the cells of all people are comprised of 46 chromosomes, when right before them, there was a member of their community whose chromosomal count varied. (It should be noted that this incident was followed by a conversation with the teacher, and subsequently, a class presentation on Down syndrome and ableism by Priya’s daughter.) Upon further investigation, we found that the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) explains that as organisms pass on genetic material to daughter cells, the process is typically accurate, however “errors” do occur, resulting in “mutations” (Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States, 2013, p. 89). When students learn that “normal” cells are composed of 46 chromosomes, and deviation from this is considered an errored, abnormal “mutation,” a 400 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI medical model understanding of human variation is reiterated. Educators teaching science content should discuss variations in genes as a natural part of our humanity, and critique ableist language. An educator interested in disrupting dominant discourses through critical pedagogy could integrate into the lesson websites and writings from the disability rights community about current debates on genetic screening and values of human variation in the flourishing of the human race.

School-Wide Initiatives that Reproduce Ableist Authoritative Knowledges Ironically, ableist views about disability are likely to be promoted through school-wide “disability awareness days,” which usually include the all-too-popular disability “simulation” activities (e.g. walking around with a blindfold, or rolling around in a wheelchair to experience “what it’s like” to have a disability). Disability simulations are highly objectionable to the disability community, as they end up promoting deeply problematic notions about life with a disability (Lalvani & Broderick, 2013). Additionally, many of these events are rooted in a charity model. Take, for instance, schools that commonly celebrate “Autism Awareness Month” in April. Autism Speaks has on its home page a list of 26 ideas for ways that schools can celebrate Autism Awareness Month; all but one of the ideas (bring in an informational speaker) raise money for Autism Speaks (Autism Speaks, 2015). Autistic self-advocates have strongly criticized Autism Speaks because of: (a) its promotion of a charity, cure and fear men- tality; (b) its lack of representation of Autistic people in its leadership; and (c) its redir- ection of the monies raised from local communities to fund high-paid salaries of the organization’s executives, advertising, and research for a “cure.” Instead of working with Autism Speaks, schools might instead collaborate with the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN, 2013) and other organizations that promote the idea of “Autism Acceptance” throughout the year, rather than “Autism Awareness” in the month of April. Other ways to engage in school-wide approaches to supporting shifting discourse about disability is to invite guest speakers who proudly identify as disabled to assem- blies, use first-person narratives through film, blogs, and literature, and develop school-wide initiatives which integrate stories and literature that promote authentic understandings of disability. Finding ways to bring students together around disability advocacy can also be supported by the school’s administration. Priya’s ongoing work within schools toward the goal of developing anti-ableist curricula, finds that students of all ages can be engaged in considering complex issues related to disability oppression, and that, through their engagement, they come to find not only their understandings of disability and normalcy, but also their own roles in combating ableism, transformed (Lalvani, 2015). After doing research on how the self-advocacy movement applied to K-12 education, Jessica found that counter to the adult identity-affirming self-advocacy movement, the term self-advocacy as applied to K-12 schools was pre- dominantly used to describe how students with disabilities often lack such “skills” that they must then gain through separate self-determination curricula (Cowley & Bacon, 2013). In contrast to this deficit-oriented framing of self-advocacy as a skill students lack and must be taught, we recommend modeling Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 401 that are common in many schools to promote identity-building and supportive inclusion for Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQþ) youth. With regard to a disability framework, schools might support youth to come together around advocacy issues that impact the inclusion and social integration of students with disabilities in their school and community. The ally model would promote an identity-based, yet inclusive platform for students to work collaboratively for social change. Being diligent in critically assessing the presence of dominant authoritative knowledges in classrooms and schools and integrating alternate perspectives creates the potential to shift discursive structures and understandings of youth in schools.

Conclusion Audre Lorde stated that it is not differences that divide us, but it is our inability to recognize and celebrate those differences (Lorde, 1984). In this same spirit, this essay is a call to all educators to engage in intentional repositioning of disability as a form of human diversity, and to create pedagogies that actively challenge dominant discourses and authoritative knowledges about normalcy. In this paper, we have taken on the overt and covert K-12 curriculum, which, through its reproduction of dominant narratives and their silences, ultimately structures the realities for students with disabilities in schools. We argue that the lack of acknowledgement or analysis of how discourse about disability operates in schools further marginalizes students with disabilities and does little to promote new knowledges and ways of understanding disability. Even schools that identify as “inclusive” or that use social justice-oriented pedagogies rarely move beyond the dominant discourse of special education when making curricular decisions that are related to the topic of disability. Our hope and intention are that the issues and questions we have raised, and the examples we have provided, may act as a catalyst for educators interested in shifting discourse about disability through engagement with the curriculum. We anticipate that once educators and administrators “get their feet wet,” so to speak, in taking on critical pedagogical approaches to disrupt ableist discourses, they themselves might rethink taken-for-granted assumptions about disability. We are confident that as enlightened educators encounter problematic discourses about disability or become aware of gaping silences in curricula, they will collaborate with students and col- leagues, which will eventually spur discursive shifts that might impact the policy and practice of disability and special education in schools. We hope that developing awareness and offering tools for incorporating “subjugated knowledges” into the curriculum can lead to what Foucault called “strategic reversibility” (Tremain, 2005), where a counter-politic is created that has the potential to shift problematic authoritative discourses prevalent in schools and society. To this end, we invite all educators to engage critically with disability in the curriculum, to read more DS literature, and to start small, perhaps by attempting to integrate one counter-narrative into an upcoming lesson or school-wide initiative. By engaging in this work, we may find potential to shift discourse, power structures, and knowledge, and in doing so, to create more just and liberatory schooling spaces for all students. 402 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI

Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID Jessica K. Bacon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4543-7209 Priya Lalvani http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1670-1867

References Adichie, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story. TED Global. Retrieved from https://www.ted. com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language Allen, B. (2005). Foucault’s nominalism. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 93–107). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Allen, J. (2013). A critical inquiry framework for K-12 teachers: Lessons and resources from the rights of the child. In J. Allen & L. Alexander (Eds.), A critical inquiry framework for K-12 teachers (pp. 1–19). New York: Teachers College Press. Annamma, S. A., Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2016). DisCrit—Disability studies and critical race theory in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147–162. doi:10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 Autism Speaks. (2015, September 7). School event ideas. Retrieved from https://www.autism- speaks.org/student-initiatives/school-events Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2013, March 12). Want to bring autism acceptance month to your community? Retrieved from http://autisticadvocacy.org/2013/03/want-to-bring-autis- m–acceptance-month-to-your-community/ Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Baltodano, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: The corporatization of schools of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 487–507. doi:10.1080/09518398.2012.673025 Bamberg, M. (2004). Considering counter narratives. In M. Bamberg & M. Andrews (Eds.), Considering counter narratives (pp. 351–371). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bartolome, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97–122. Bell, L. A., Roberts, R. A., Irani, K., & Murphy, B. with the Storytelling Project Creative Team (2008). The storytelling project curriculum: Learning about race and racism through storytelling and the arts. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/itc/barnard/education/stp/ stp_curriculum.pdf Bell, L. A. (2010). Storytelling for social justice: Connecting narrative and the arts in antiracist teaching. New York: Routledge. Bogdan, B. (1988). Freak show: Presenting human oddities for amusement and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education (pp. 45–66). New York: Routledge. Campbell, F. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DISABILITY STUDIES AND K-12 CURRICULA 403

Cologon, K. (2013). Growing up with ’difference’: Inclusive education and the portrayal of charac- ters who experience disability in children’s literature. Write4Children, 4(2), 100–120. Connor, D. J. (2012). Does dis/ability now sit at the table(s) of social justice and multicultural education?: A descriptive survey of three recent anthologies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(3). doi:10.18061/dsq.v32i3.1770 Connor, D. J., & Gabel, S. L. (2013). “Cripping” the curriculum through academic activism: Working toward increasing global exchanges to reframe (dis)ability and education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(1), 100–118. doi:10.1080/10665684.2013.750186 Cowley, D., & Bacon, J. (2013). Self-determination in schools: Reconstructing the construct through disability studies framework. PowerPlay, 5(1), 463–489. Darder, A. (2018). Critical leadership for social justice: Unveiling the dirty little secret of power and privilege. In P. MacLaren & S. SooHoo (Eds.), Radical imagine-nation (pp. 41–73). New York: Peter Lang. De los Reyes, E., & Gozemba, P. A. (2002). Pockets of hope: How students and teachers change the world. Westport: Bergin & Garvey. Erevelles, N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x Erevelles, N. (2014). Thinking with disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 34(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4248/3587 Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable offences: Untangling race and disability in discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 4(2), 127–146. doi: 10.3828/jlcds.2010.11 Erevelles, N., Kanga, A., & Middleton, R. (2006). How does it feel to be a problem? Race, disability, and exclusion in educational policy. In E. Brantlinger (Ed.), Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people’s children (pp. 77–99). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fecho, B. (2000). Developing critical mass: Teacher education and critical inquiry pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 194–199. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003006 Ferri, B., & Connor, D. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion and desegregation in inclusion debates. New York: Peter Lang. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage. Fox, M. (2008). Ten little fingers and ten little toes. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Teachers, public life, and curriculum reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 35–47. doi:10.1080/01619569409538776 Goodley, D. (2017). Disabilities studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage. Kraus, R., & Aruego, J. (1987). Leo the late bloomer. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers. Kuby, C. (2013). Critical inquiry in early childhood education: A teacher’s exploration. Voices of Practitioners, 8(1), 1–15. Ladau, E. (2015). Why person-first language doesn’t always put the person first. Retrieved from https://www.thinkinclusive.us/why-person-first-language-doesnt-always-put-the-person-first/ Lalvani, P. (2015). “We are not aliens”: Exploring the meaning of disability and the nature of belongingness in a fourth grade classroom. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(4). doi:10.18061/ dsq.v35i4.4963 Lalvani, P., & Broderick, A. (2013). Institutionalized ableism and the misguided “disability awareness day”: Transformative pedagogies for teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(4), 468–483. doi:10.1080/10665684.2013.838484 404 J. K. BACON AND P. LALVANI

Lalvani, P., Broderick, A. A., Fine, M., Jacobowitz, T., & Michelli, N. (2015). Teacher education, in/ exclusion, and the implicit ideology of separate but equal: An invitation to a dialogue. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10(2), 168–183. doi:10.1177/1746197915583935 Leonardo, Z., & Grubb, W. N. (2014). Education and racism: A primer on issues and dilemmas. New York: Routledge. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Toronto: Crossing Press. McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. John, R. Robins & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 242–257). New York: Guilford Press. McLean, K. C. (2015). The co-authored self: Family stories and the construction of personal identity. New York: Oxford University Press. Mingus, M. (2019, January 9). Leaving evidence: About. Retrieved from https://leavingevidence. wordpress.com/about-2/ Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (2003). The eugenic Atlantic: Race, disability, and the making of an international eugenic science, 1800–1945. Disability & Society, 18(7), 843–864. doi:10.1080/ 0968759032000127281 Moore, L. (2019). Krip-hop nation: It’s more than music! Retrieved from http://kriphopnation.com/ Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: National Academies Press. Oliver,M.(1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Parr, T. (2009). It’s okay to be different. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Rauscher, L., & McClintock, J. (1997). Ableism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffen (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 198–229). New York: Routledge. R-word: Spread the word to end the word. (2019). Not acceptable R-word PSA. Retrieved from https://www.r-word.org/r-word-not-acceptable-psa.aspx Saxton, M. (2000). Why members of the disability community oppose prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 147–164). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Schweik, S. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press. Seuss, T. (1960). One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. New York: Random House. Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2–3), 167–177. doi:10.1080/ 13603110010035832 Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. (2008). Narrative and its potential contribution to disability studies. Disability & Society, 23(1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/09687590701725542 Snow, K. (2009). To insure inclusion, freedom, and respect for all, it’s time to embrace people first language. Retrieved from https://www.inclusionproject.org/nip_userfiles/file/People%20First% 20In%20Depth.pdf Solis, S., & Connor, D. J. (2006). Theory meets practice: Disability Studies and personal narratives in school. In S. Danforth & S. L. Gabel (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 103–119). New York: Peter Lang. Steinbeck, J. (1937). Of mice and men. New York: Covici Friede. Tremain, S. (2005). Foucualt, governmentality and critical disability theory: An introduction. In S. Tremain (Ed.) Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 1–26). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Villegas, A. M. (2012). Collaboration between multicultural and special teacher educators: Pulling together the threads in the conversation. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 286–290. doi:10. 1177/0022487112446513 Ware, L. (2005). Many possible futures, many different directions: Merging critical special education and disability studies. In S. L. Gabel (Ed.), Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method (pp. 103–124). New York: Peter Lang. Wong, A. (2018). Resistance and hope essays by disabled people: Crip wisdom for the people. Retrieved from https://disabilityvisibilityproject.com/resist/