Who May Be Literate? Disability and Resistance to the Cultural Denial of Competence

Abstract

Through a critical interpretivist frame, the authors use ethnography and archives to examine themes associated with society’s ongoing denial of literate citizenship for people with perceived intellectual disabilities. They link this denial to the experiences of other devalued and marginalized groups to challenge the common perception that citizenship in the literate community is an organic impossibility for people defined as intellectually disabled. The authors present four themes of literate disconnection and, in the conclusion, ponder the moral shift necessary to craft a science of literacy for all.

Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society

“…Justice Harlan's conceptualization of a color-blind racial ideology ignored the historical underpinnings of racism that had been written into the law ('But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here'), the social construction of race ('all citizens are equal before the law'), and the social and material consequences of racism ('The law regards Requires positioning historically marginalized students as fully human while simultaneously recognizing how avoiding talking about race and dis/ ability is problematic (Ferri and connor 2006) ignores the social construction of race and dis/ability, as well as the material and social consequences of both are perpetuated via unspoken norms overlooks that dis/ability is not an immutable fact, ignores the ways race and ability are socially constructed in tandem, equates difference with deficit (erevelles and Minear 2010); and disguises the social processes that position children of color as less than making them more likely to be labeled (Kliewer, Biklen, and Kasa-hendrickson 2006) demonstrates the social construction of race and ability while simultaneously confronting the social and material consequences of racism and ableism Recognizes how people of color and their communities can be oppressed through standards, both explicit and hidden, compelling all to articulate and resist those norms (annamma et al 2013a) Rewards individual passivity and discounts ways systems work to reinforce and (re)inscribe power allows for a justification of individual inaction that propels the system of racial inequities forward and disregards the system of white supremacy in which institutions, discourses, and practices are located…”

“…In this sense, by subscribing to the racial ideology of color-blindness, we are perpetuating a parallel trend that Gotanda (1991) originally critiqued -the idea that race is an immutable fact. In this case, assuming dis/ability is an immutable fact disguises the social processes that position children of color as less than making them more likely to be labeled with a dis/ability and ignores the ways society dis/ables many people (Kliewer, Biklen, and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006).…”

An exploration of parental decisions to transfer children from regular to special schools

“…Learning barriers were not as strong a theme for the focus group participants who had transferred to special school; however, a distinctive topic in focus group conversations generally, when children had intellectual disability, was that schools misjudged children's capacity to learn, and failed to teach their children. These results support the findings of others that children with intellectual disability are likely to be underestimated and denied access to potent learning opportunities (Kliewer et al, 2006); they emphasise the importance of children being supported to be authentic learners, and the impact on parents' school enrolment decisions when they are not. Given the importance parents placed on learning, it is logical that barriers to learning in the regular school would be the impetus for leaving the mainstream.…”

“…Research findings from both community (CDA, 2015;QPPD, 2011) and academic investigations (e.g., Lalvani, 2013;Siperstein et al, 2007;Smith, 2010) attest to the rejection experienced by students with intellectual disability, both from and within regular schools. Examples of the devalued roles of children with intellectual disability abound; discussions in the literature illustrate views of children with intellectual disability as non-human (Kliewer, Biklen, & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006); as tragic (Fisher, 2007); in the role of menace (Glazzard, 2011;National Disability Rights Network, 2009); as non-participants (Ashby, 2010;AIHW, 2008;Darcy & Dowse, 2012); non-learners (Biklen, 2015;Courtade et al, 2012); as objects of charity, to be passively nurtured (Bourke, 2010); and as a burden (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011;Lalvani, 2015;Moliner, Sales, Ferrández, & Traver, 2010). Refer to Appendix A (point 5) for a list of the traditional devalued roles identified by SRV.…”

“…For example, an investigation by The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (2012) found evidence of the lack of control/autonomy that SRV forecasts will occur as a consequence of being stigmatised and segregated (for example, reports of restraint and seclusion Cologon, 2013;Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010;Rossetti, 2012). Deindividualisation is another wound anticipated by SRV and there is extensive discussion in the academic literature about the stereotypical responses to students when they have an intellectual disability (e.g., Blum & Bakken, 2010;Kliewer et al, 2006;Lalvani, 2015 It is clear that the devaluation and wounding articulated in SRV theory is as relevant to children in today's educational sphere as it is, and has been, to devalued people in a variety of other contexts, for example, human services and the movement for deinstitutionalisation (Duffy, 2010). A particular advantage of using SRV in the schooling system, is the clarity that the theory is able to bring to the inclusive schooling context.…”