The sociology of disability and the struggle for inclusive education

Abstract

IntroductionThe development of the field of sociology of disability can be attributed to a small number of key scholars (Len Barton, Sally Tomlinson and Mike Oliver) and is characterised by a significant shift in the analysis of the nature and causes of disability from individualistic to social and material frames of reference. This field, however, has been a somewhat troubled and contested one, with intensive battles over identity and presence and a series of active erasures and absences -the removal of the body from the social model of disability; the disappearance of the Other from educational policies and practices; disability academics" own absence from political discourse and action. These battles, and the ensuing erasures, have done little to advance the struggle for inclusive education and more voices than ever before can be heard to challenge the very idea. This article charts the emergence of the sociology of disability and examines the areas of contestation. It considers the contribution of the sociology of disability to inclusive education and examines some of the objections to it currently being voiced. The paper ends with some reflections on the possibilities for alternative forms of engagement by academics within the sociology of disability and outlines a series of duties that may make inclusive education more feasible and more capable of making a material difference to the lives of disabled children. The sociology of disabilityThe sociology of disability emerged in the 1980s as a direct challenge to the weighty paradigm of special education, with its fixation on individual deficits and remedies.Len Barton"s (1988) The politics of special educational needs; Sally Tomlinson"s

Estudiantes con discapacidad en la Universidad. Un estudio sobre su inclusión

“…Este proceso requiere, necesariamente, contemplar dos aspectos puestos de relevancia en la literatura (Allan, 2010;Forteza y Ortego, 2003;Shevlin, Kenny y McNeela, 2004;Wai y Man, 2006) sobre la formación del profesorado y la sensibilización de la comunidad universitaria encaminada a una participación plena de los estudiantes con discapacidad.…”

Mothering and intellectual disability: partnership rhetoric?

“…The same can be said for mothers with disabled children, who are looking for solutions to problems. Yet the professionals are often working within a set bureaucratic and state-led agenda, which does not necessarily include the mother's important and relevant knowledge (Allan 2010;Ong-Dean 2009). This emotional and practical knowledge may be an important part of the puzzle when attempting to put together a package of support for a child, and continues to be indicated as such in government discourse (DfES 2007).…”

“…It could have drawn on any number of government documents written since the late twentieth century, not least of all the Lamb Inquiry (DCFS 2009). However, Tomlinson (1982) wrote this nearly three decades ago, and despite activism and academic research driving 'special education' and disability studies into the public and academic arena -from the likes of Barton (1986) and Oliver (1996), to Allan (2010), Cigman (2007), Lynch (2010) and Slee (2010) -the benevolent rhetoric around 'partnership' still exists for families who have children identified with SEN (Hodge and Runswick-Cole 2008;McLaughlin et al 2008;Murray 2000;O'Connor, McConkey, and Hartop 2005;Ong-Dean 2009;Read 2000;Rogers 2005Rogers , 2007aRogers , 2007bRogers , 2007cRunswick-Cole 2007;Russell 2003;Ryan and Runswick Cole 2009). 564 C. Rogers…”

The irresistible rise of the SEN industry

“…An extended literature has, over the past 20 years, debated the meanings and practices of inclusion and often deplored the continuing persistence of a special education sector (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994;Brantlinger, 1997;Allan, 2010;Slee, 2011). Yet governments of all political persuasions, bowing to a variety of economic, professional and parental vested interests, have acquiesced in the expansion of the SEN industry, implicitly conceding its importance in dealing with potential groups who, while being offered some education and training, appear increasingly surplus in 'knowledge economies' and/or are in need of social control from an early age.…”