ELEMENTARY TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING OF DISABILTY, INCLUSION, AND
SPECIAL EDUCATION: A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY
By
JoDell R. Heroux

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Special Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2013

	
  

	
  
ABSTRACT
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF DISABILITY, INCLUSION, AND
SPECIAL EDUCATION: A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY
By
JoDell R. Heroux
A wide range of cultural studies research have explored the impact of deeply held cultural
stereotypes on stakeholders’ attitudes and dispositions towards race, gender and class, which has
resulted in the development of culturally responsive teaching frameworks designed to address
educational inequity for diverse groups of students. Research exploring cultural stereotypes of
disability however, is generally missing from the special education literature. A
phenomenographic case study design was used to explore stakeholders’ cultural perceptions of
disability, special education and inclusion in a rural elementary school. This study involved 30
participants from various stakeholder groups. Semi-structured interviews and a researcher
developed image sort were utilized to explore participants’ conceptions of disability, inclusion
and special education. The data revealed that the majority of participants’ perceive disability to
be primarily physical or visible. This is important because the majority of students found eligible
for special education services have invisible disabilities such as LD, ASD, EI, ADHD, POHI,
etc. These findings have significant implications for teacher practice and teacher preparation
programs.

	
  

	
  

Copyright by
JODELL R HEROUX
2013

	
  

	
  

DEDICATION
To Julie, the most incredible woman I have ever known and my reason for being. Your unending
support, love, and confidence motivated me to persevere through the most challenging of nights.
Without your guidance and encouragement, I would never have known what I am capable of
accomplishing. It is because of you that I am in this new place pursuing my passion. To my
daughter Jessa, my biggest fan, my eternal cheerleader and one of the most patient twelve year
olds a mother could ask for. I hope this experience has shown you what can be accomplished
when you believe in yourself. To my daughter Devan, for challenging me to believe blindly in
the love between a mother and her child. To Dr. Susan Peters for showing me a different way to
think about disability, special education, and inclusion.

	
  

iv
iv	
  

	
  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude, first and foremost, to Dr. Elizabeth Heilman
for encouraging me to engage in passionate research. I would also like to thank Dr. Troy Mariage
and Dr. Susan Peters for the opportunity to be a member of the Disability and Diversity in Urban
Education leadership cohort. Thank you Dr. Mariage for supporting and guiding me through my
program at every turn. You challenged me to think in ways that were at times uncomfortable, but
clearly necessary as I continue my scholarly journey. I would also like to acknowledge the
support and guidance I received from Dr. Susan Florio-Ruane and Dr. Michelle Purdy. You were
insightful and supportive in providing the guidance I needed to strengthen this project. Your
commitment to excellence is evidenced by your willingness to engage in this project during
extremely challenging times. I cannot thank you enough. A colossal thank you to LaShawn
Hanes for her mad transcription skills, her willingness to engage in thoughtful dialogues
regarding disability and diversity and her constant support and encouragement both locally and
virtually. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff of Parker Elementary for their support
and their generosity. Without them, this project would not have been possible. And last but not
least, my family for their love, support and encouragement throughout this process and for
providing much-needed waterfront escapes when I just could not sit in my office for one more
day.

	
  

v
v	
  

	
  

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 4
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 5
Background on the Problem ................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 11
Cultural Perceptions of Disability ........................................................................ 11
History of cultural conceptions of disability ............................................. 11
Diversity Education and Teacher Beliefs ............................................................. 18
School Personnel Perceptions of Disability, Special Education, and
Inclusion ................................................................................................... 22
Children’s Understandings of Disability ............................................................. 24
Special Education................................................................................................. 26
The Medical Model of Disability .......................................................................... 28
The Social Model of Disability ............................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 33
Operational Definitions ........................................................................................ 33
Role, Positionality, and Ethics ............................................................................. 34
Phenomenography................................................................................................ 37
Social Semiotics ................................................................................................... 39
Context .................................................................................................................. 42
Setting the Stage ...................................................................................... 42
Participants ............................................................................................... 45
Teachers .................................................................................................... 46
Students ..................................................................................................... 51
Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 53
Discussion of the Researcher Developed Image Sort .............................. 53
Semi-structured Phenomenographic Interviews ....................................... 60
Document Analysis ................................................................................... 60
Place Analysis ........................................................................................... 61
Procedures ............................................................................................................ 61
Data Collection .................................................................................................... 61
Image sort data .......................................................................................... 61
Interview data............................................................................................ 62
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 62
Phenomenographic Analysis .................................................................... 62

	
  

vi
vi	
  

	
  
Social Semiotic Analysis ......................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 4: PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY .......................................................... 66
Researching Semiotic Conceptions and Phenomenological Beliefs .................... 67
Perceptions of Disability ....................................................................................... 71
Disability is Visible................................................................................... 71
Disability as Deficit .................................................................................. 78
Disability in Context ................................................................................. 80
Disability is Easily Defined ...................................................................... 91
Disability is Undesirable ........................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 5: SPECIAL EDUCATION IN RELATION TO THE CONCEPT OF
DISABILITY .................................................................................................................
Special Education Involves Invisible Disabilities..............................................
Special Education is a Student Characteristic ....................................................
Special Education Requires Specialized Knowledge and Training ...................
Special Education Equals More Impaired..........................................................

102
106
112
118
125

CHAPTER 6: PERCEPTIONS OF INCLUSION .........................................................
Inclusion Is a Good Thing..................................................................................
Inclusion Is More Work for Teachers ................................................................
Inclusion Is Provided FOR Those with Disabilities ..........................................
Inclusion is Primarily Educational Not Social, Legal or Civic ..........................

132
135
141
145
151

CHAPTER 7: FROM HEGEMONY TO POSSIBILITY ..............................................
Everyone is Able/Disabled ................................................................................
Media Portrayals and Public Perceptions ..........................................................
Levels of Awareness and Discomfort with Semiotic Sorting ............................
Are Males More Medical Model Oriented? .......................................................
Principal Perceptions of Disability, Inclusion and Special
Education ......................................................................................................
Structural and Post-Structural Perspectives .......................................................

156
156
161
165
167
171
179

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 181
Implications of the Hegemony of Disability as Visible/Physical ....................... 181
Implications for In-Service and Preservice Teacher Educators ......................... 184
Implications for Special Education .................................................................... 187
Implications for Research .................................................................................. 191
Future Directions ............................................................................................... 194
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 196
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 197
Appendix A General Education Teacher Interview Protocol ........................................ 198
Appendix B Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol ......................................... 199
Appendix C Student Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 200
Appendix D School Administrator Interview Protocol ................................................. 201

	
  

vii
vii	
  

	
  
Appendix E Oral History Interview Protocol ................................................................ 202
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 203

	
  

viii
viii	
  

	
  

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1

Demographic Data of Teacher Participants .................................................. 47

Table 3.2

Demographic Data of Student Participants ................................................... 52

Table 3.3

Total Images per Category ............................................................................ 55

Table 4.1

Indications of Cognitive Dissonance Related to Image Sort ........................ 68

Table 4.2

Images, Symbols, or Objects Associated with Disability ............................. 71

Table 4.3

Conceptions of Disability as Visible ............................................................ 73

Table 4.4

Percentage of Participants Who Categorized Image as Disability ............... 75

Table 4.5

Results for Teacher Categorization of Familiar Images ............................... 81

Table 4.6

Results for Teacher Categorization of Images as Less or Not Disabled ...... 85

Table 4.7

Images Easily Categorized as Representing Disability ................................ 94

Table 4.8

Binary Adjectives ......................................................................................... 97

Table 4.9

Negative Words Used to Describe Images of Disability .............................. 99

Table 5.1

Perceptions of Special Education and Disability ........................................ 105

Table 5.2

Specific Disabilities Associated with Special Education ........................... 111

Table 5.3

Special Education is a Characteristic .......................................................... 113

Table 5.4

Number of Special Education Associations with Students, Teachers,
and Programs .............................................................................................. 114

Table 5.5

Frequency of “Othering” Phrases Involving They and Them .................... 116

Table 5.6

“Othering” Phrases ..................................................................................... 117

Table 6.1

Results of Images Students Associated with Inclusion .............................. 135

Table 6.2

Teachers’ Conceptions of Inclusion ........................................................... 152

	
  

ix
ix	
  

	
  
Table 6.3

Broad Conceptions of Inclusion ................................................................. 154

Table 7.1

Images Identified by Administrator as Representing Disability ................. 175

Table 7.2

Images Identified by Administrator as Representing Inclusion.................. 177

	
  

x
x	
  

	
  

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1

	
  

Images......................................................................................................... 56

xi
xi	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom and
curriculum has received increasing support both legislatively and socially for well over a decade.
In the United States, many school districts are shifting from segregated special education service
delivery models to more inclusive models. This change in service delivery not only has
implications for where students are serviced, but how they are serviced. “Simply integrating
children with disabilities into general education environments without pedagogically dealing
with attitudes is meaningless and, in some cases, increases negative attitudes” (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012, p. 7). Therefore, a shift in placement must also include a shift in attitudes – an
important lesson learned from the racial desegregation of schools.
In Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court unanimously recognized
that the segregation of school children by race, even if the facilities and other tangibles were
equal, deprives them of equal educational opportunity (Donelan, Neal, & Deneese, 1994). And
though Brown helped remove legally sanctioned barriers to educational equality, subsequent
policies allowing academic tracking and ability grouping drew new boundaries to stifle African
Americans as they sought to realize their full potential in school and life (Donelan, Neal, &
Deneese, 1994). Howard (2006) attributes this to the fact that “schooling, like all other social
institutions, continues to function as a system of privilege and preference, reinforced by power,
favoring certain groups over others” (p. 118). Therefore, we cannot simply attend to issues of
placement without also attending to issues of deeply held cultural biases, stereotypes, and
perceptions.

	
  

1
1	
  

	
  
Many scholars have indicated that the examination of deeply held cultural beliefs is a
critical first step in raising awareness of the educational inequities experienced by marginalized
groups of students. For example, Teel and Obidah (2008) stress that competent teachers possess
an “awareness of race, of the possibility of their own racism and the racism of others, and the
significance of these perceptions in the teaching and learning process” (p. 4). Giroux stated that,
“education works best when those experiences that shape and penetrate one’s lived realities are
jolted, unsettled, and made the object of critical analysis” (as cited in Szpara & Wylie, 2005, p.
811). Additionally, Szpara and Wylie (2005) suggest that only through “deep reflection and
experiential opportunities” can “peoples belief systems (including their prejudices and biases)”
be influenced (p. 811). This has important implications because Brown served as a catalyst for
legislation aimed at equalizing educational opportunities for other minority groups including
students with disabilities. Fitch (2002) recommends developing closer collaboration between the
movements for inclusive education and multicultural education in an effort to address the lack of
cultural understanding and critical discourse that continues to reproduce segregation and
inequality for disabled and minority students.
The 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), later called the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with its subsequent reauthorizations,
mandated that students with disabilities receive access to a free and appropriate public education
in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Both IDEA and Brown sought to address
educational inequity by changing “where” minority and students with disabilities received their
education, however limited attention was given to “how” this would occur. Much like academic
tracking and ability grouping allowed the continued segregation of minority students, IDEA’s
requirement that school districts provide a complete continuum of alternative placement options

	
  

2
2	
  

	
  
allowed opportunities for the continued segregation of some students with disabilities (Kavale &
Forness, 2000).
The achievement gap that exists today between white and minority students and students
with disabilities suggests there is more to be done than simply changing educational locations.
Ukpokodu (2007) argues that unless teachers are prepared to develop a sense of consciousness of
schooling as a sociopolitical context and a sense of social responsibility, the academic failure of
urban students and the achievement gap will remain problematic and will continue to prepare
teachers who cannot successfully teach in urban schools. This also has implications for special
education as increasing numbers of students with disabilities are placed in general education
classrooms for the majority of the school day to comply with the legislative requirements of
NCLB (2001) and IDEIA (2004). Teachers must be prepared to teach increasingly diverse
populations of students, which as Grant & Asimeng-Boahene (2006) suggest, requires teachers to
come to terms with their preconceived notions of the abilities of students from diverse
backgrounds if they are to see past the stereotypical underachievement of diverse students.
Teachers must also come to terms with their preconceived notions and stereotypical beliefs about
students with disabilities as well.
It is important to understand how educational stakeholders’ assign meaning to the terms
and concepts disability, special education and inclusion because they are frequently used in
education research and practice yet how they are conceptualized has been relatively unexplored.
Much of the research on inclusion explores stakeholders’ professional rather than cultural
attitudes and dispositions towards including students with disabilities in the general education
classroom and often assumes that stakeholders have a shared understanding of these concepts. If
individuals hold differing conceptions of these terms and we proceed as if there is a shared

	
  

3
3	
  

	
  
understanding, much of the work aimed at improving the educational experiences of students
with disabilities may be missing a critical component that could prove very useful in changing
attitudes and dispositions towards inclusive education. According to Artiles (2003), unless
researchers and practitioners surface their assumptions about difference, as well as culture and
space, the special education field will continue to perpetuate the silences that threaten the
educational and life needs of historically marginalized students. This study aims to add to the
special education literature by exploring how stakeholders at Parker Elementary understand the
concepts special education, inclusion, and disability and to raise awareness of potential
misconceptions that may influence inclusive attitudes and dispositions. Because perceptions are
often very personal, phenomenographic methodology was used. However, because perceptions
are also driven by cultural factors, critical semiotics was also used as an additional analytic
frame.
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to explore how stakeholders assign meaning to the concepts
inclusion, special education, and disability. Additionally, it was intended to enrich our
knowledge about individual’s conceptions of disability, special education and inclusion and the
role of culture in the development of these conceptions. A researcher developed image sort was
used to elicit responses beyond those obtained through semi-structured interviews. Because
participants might be inclined to respond to interview questions in prescribed ways, the image
sort was created as a method for promoting dialogue, affording opportunities for a deeper
understanding of participants’ conceptions of disability and inclusion. An exploration of the
meanings individuals assign to the concepts disability, special education, and inclusion may
provide powerful insights that could potentially inform our efforts to improve inclusive practices.

	
  

4
4	
  

	
  
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were the following:
1. How do teachers and students understand the phenomenon of disability, inclusion,
and special education?
2. What categories or patterns of the phenomenon emerge within and between the
participant groups?
3. How do the intra and inter-individual understandings of the phenomenon of disability,
special education, and inclusion reflect current policy and practice?
4. Does the image sort/verbal protocol and the semi-structured interview elicit similar
and/or different aspects of the relationship between the participant and their
understanding of the phenomenon of disability, inclusion, and special education?
5. What are the potential implications for practice?
Background on the Problem
With the legislative call for increased accountability for the academic achievement of
students with disabilities, many school districts have shifted from self-contained special
education service delivery models to increasingly inclusive models where students with
disabilities receive the majority of their instruction in the general education classroom. Since the
passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001, with its expectation that students with disabilities
demonstrate progress towards grade level standards, increasing numbers of students with
disabilities are being included in the general education curriculum. This is most frequently
achieved through inclusive practices. The U.S. Department of Education (2009) estimates that
more than half of all students with disabilities spend at least 80 percent or more of their day in
the general education classroom.

	
  

5
5	
  

	
  
The increased implementation of inclusive practices has resulted in a variety of research
studies exploring issues related to inclusion. Much of this research explores stakeholders’
professional rather than cultural attitudes and dispositions towards including students with
disabilities in the general education classroom (Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003;
Avramidis, 2002; Cook, 2001; Hastings, Hewes, Lock, & Witting, 1996; Monahan, Marino, &
Miller, 1996; Praisner, 2003; Waldron, McLeskey, & Pacchiano, 1999) and often assumes that
stakeholders have a shared understanding of the concepts “inclusion”, “disability”, and “special
education”. This assumption warrants exploration because these terms are frequently used in
special education research and practice yet how individuals assign meaning to these concepts has
been relatively unexplored. It is also important to explore conceptions of all three terms:
disability, inclusion, and special education, because beliefs about one influence beliefs about the
other(s). Those who ascribe to a clinical/medical rather than sociological conception of disability
would likely have clinical/medical conceptions of special education and inclusion. From the
medical model perspective, special education is frequently perceived as involving diagnosis and
treatment and inclusion in the general education classroom is frequently perceived as more
appropriate for students with mild impairments.
Though many studies have explored stakeholders’ professional attitudes towards
inclusion, special education and disability (Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003; Praisner,
2003; Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007; Everhart, 2009; Monahan, Marino, & Miller, 1996),
few have considered how participants’ more personal and culturally rooted conceptions may
influence their understanding of these terms. A wide range of cultural studies research suggests
that stakeholders are likely to hold deep cultural stereotypes about these issues and while cultural
stereotypes about race, class, and gender have been well researched, this type of cultural studies

	
  

6
6	
  

	
  
inquiry is generally missing from the special education literature. Baglieri & Shapiro (2012)
suggest that attempts to understand the issues of disability, schooling, and inclusive education at
a micro level must examine the cultural meanings of disability at a macro level. In other words,
large macro-level social issues and policies affect individual perceptions (Kalyanpur & Harry,
2001).
One example is the fact that legally enforced racial desegregation contributed to
individual racist beliefs in the United States. The Supreme Court mandated the desegregation of
schools, however they failed to provide strong supervision, which signaled a weak commitment
to change and encouraged white resistance (Feagin & Barnett, 2005). According to Feagin and
Barnett (2005), most school desegregation has done little more than change the demographic mix
of students. They maintain that in most segregated schools, teachers are disproportionately white
and many other features of school settings remain white-normed. Given the realities of
institutionalized racism, black children in desegregated schools with white majorities have
continued to face racial harassment and other discrimination (Feagin & Barnett, 2005).
Special education has experienced similar issues. Historically, special education within
the public school system developed as a specialized program separate from general education
and was embodied in the categorical “special class” (MacMillan & Hendrick, 1993; Safford &
Safford, 1998). And according to Gerber (1996), it was seen as the best means for avoiding
conflicts while providing universal education. However, Dunn’s (1968) seminal article entitled
Special Education for the Mildly Retarded – Is Much of it Justifiable? questioned whether
separate “special” classes were justifiable, which brought the issue of inclusion to the forefront.
Since that time, there has been contentious debate between special education traditionalists, who
maintain that a continuum of service options is necessary to meet the diverse needs of students

	
  

7
7	
  

	
  
with disabilities (Pugach & Lilly, 1984; Reynolds & Wang, 1983) and full inclusionists, who
maintain that all students with disabilities be integrated, regardless of disability type or severity
level (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984b).
Though IDEA requires consideration of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for
students with disabilities, it does not mandate full inclusion. Various stakeholders’ that may have
differing perceptions of disability and special education determine the extent to which students
with disabilities are included in the general education classroom. According to Fitch (2002),
continued educational segregation and inequality for individuals with disabilities may be due to
the lack of cultural understanding and critical discourse in this area. This study sought to add to
this critical discourse by examining stakeholders’ perceptions of disability, special education,
and inclusion at Parker Elementary School (a pseudonym). Though multiple theoretical
frameworks provided the foundation for this study, a summary of the broader theoretical
framework, sociocultural theory, will be provided in the next section. Phenomenography and
critical semiotics, which provided the analytic framework, will be discussed in greater depth in
Chapter Three.
Theoretical Framework
Sociocultural theory provided the broader theoretical framework for this research study due
to its overarching focus on the interdependence of social and individual processes in the coconstruction of knowledge (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Sociocultural approaches are based on
the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts, are mediated by language and
other symbol systems (semiotic mediation), and can be best understood when investigated in
their historical development (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). This study draws upon the aspect of
sociocultural theory focused on Semiotic Mediation (Lemke, 1997) where cultural tools and

	
  

8
8	
  

	
  
various signs are used to construct meaning. Chandler (2005) defines semiotics as the study of
what we refer to as ‘signs’ in everyday speech and anything that ‘stands for’ something else.
Signs take the form of words, images, sounds, odors, flavors, acts or objects. However, as
Chandler (2009) asserts, these have no intrinsic meaning and only become signs when we invest
them with meaning.
Special education has been criticized for its reliance on labeling and categorization, which
according to Bourdieu (1984) provide ways to perceive and ignore, to value and devalue, to
include as well as exclude individuals associated with these categories and labels. Labeling
deviance theory helps explain how enforceable definitions of deviant labels such as “learning
disabled”, “culturally disadvantaged”, or “at risk” depend on the ability of one or more groups to
gain enough power to enforce their definition or version of normality, competence, social
worth/utility, and morality on others (Fitch, 2002, p. 468). And though this theory was not used
as a framework for this study, it recognizes the centrality of language in the social construction
of deviance and deviant identities and how societies create, sustain, and penalize nonconformity
as certain individuals and groups are positioned outside the norm (Fitch, 2002), which reflect
underpinnings of sociocultural theory. Chandler (2005) suggests studying semiotics to assist us
in becoming more aware of reality as a construction and of the roles we play in constructing it.
Additionally, he asserts that deconstructing and contesting the realities of signs can reveal whose
realities are privileged and whose are suppressed; a critical notion to consider when exploring
inclusive education.
Thomas and Corker (2002) argue that while our understandings about the nature of the
body and mind as being impaired or not are produced in our social interactions, they originate
and are mediated through the ways that language symbolizes our ideas about the human body.

	
  

9
9	
  

	
  
The meaning of disability, like so many other meanings within culture, is not fixed but rather is
changed across time and place (Scully, 2002). Sociocultural theory is inherent in the social
models of disability and serves as the foundation for this study particularly as it relates to
semiotic mediation. However, this study was supported more specifically by phenomenography
and critical semiotics because images and language were used to explore how meanings of
disability are constructed and perceived across various stakeholder groups. Phenomenography
and critical semiotics as methodological frameworks for this study will be discussed in greater
detail in Chapter Three.

	
  

10
10	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study explored the qualitatively different ways that stakeholders at Parker
elementary understand special education, disability, and inclusion. To provide a foundation for
understanding conceptions of disability, I will begin this chapter with a brief overview of the
historical development of cultural conceptions of disability. This will be followed by a review of
the literature on teacher beliefs because according to Brown (2006), beliefs are the best
predictors of individual behavior and educators’ beliefs influence their perceptions, judgments,
and practices. I will further review the special education literature on perceptions of disability
and inclusion and provide a brief summary of the literature in diversity education specifically in
terms of how disability is addressed within the field and how some of the methods used to
develop cultural awareness in preservice and in-service teachers might also be used to increase
disability awareness. I will close the chapter with a discussion of two opposing models of
disability, the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. Though they are
considered competing models, when taken together, they may actually provide a framework for
improving inclusive practices.
Cultural Perceptions of Disability
History of cultural conceptions of disability. The cultural narrative of disability as a
deficit is woven throughout our history from the perceived inability of individuals with
disabilities to contribute to human survival to the perceived threat of passing on undesirable or
defective genes, to the need for segregated, specialized programming. Today individuals with
disabilities experience increased access to and participation in their communities, however
deeply held cultural stereotypes may continue to impose barriers to full inclusion. Therefore, it is

	
  

11
11	
  

	
  
crucial to consider the various ways disability has been culturally influenced and socially
constructed over time. I will begin this review with a brief description of culture as it is referred
to in this study.
Kalyanpur & Harry (1999) describe culture as the “shared implicit and explicit rules and
traditions that express the beliefs, values, and goals of a group of people” (p. 3). Our perceptions
of and responses to disability have a rich history dating back to primitive societies (Funk, 1987).
Our past influences our present therefore, it is prudent to examine historical conceptions of
disability and their influence on present day perceptions of special education and inclusion. As
Baglieri & Shapiro (2012) attest, “Attitudes do not arise in a vacuum- they emerge from the
customs, laws, and practices of the past. Examining their foundations helps us perceive the longlasting influence of culture and beliefs about disability on the present” (p. 53).
Throughout human history, societies have defined what did and did not constitute a
disability and these definitions have changed over time (Scheer & Groce, 1988). Early human
societies relied on hunters and foragers for survival. They relied on the able-bodied for
provisions of food, shelter, and safety. Their very existence depended on their ability to
contribute to the collective group. In some cases, those who were unable to contribute due to
physical or intellectual disabilities were perceived as a threat to survival and were often left
behind to die. Counter to this Western stereotypical notion, there are a number of societies in
which there is evidence to indicate that disabled children were relatively well treated (Scheer &
Groce, 1988). For example, Marshall (1976) reports that a child with a physical disability was
carried on his mother’s back into adolescence. Prior to Europe’s industrialization, most persons
with disabilities were integrated into community roles, protected by ties of kinship and
participation in wider social networks (Stone, 1984).

	
  

12
12	
  

	
  
There is some evidence to support the idea that reactions to human variation were heavily
influenced by spiritual and religious beliefs, which often linked disability to immorality
(Garland, 1995). Many believed that extreme disabilities were omens or punishments from God.
These beliefs led to a range of cultural practices such as extermination and segregation (Baglieri
& Shapiro, 2012), which occurred throughout time and across cultures. For the purposes of this
study, the following sections will address American reactions to and perceptions of disability
beginning with the colonial period and continuing through present day.
During the colonial period in the United States and until the twentieth century
progressive era, the care of disabled persons was the responsibility of the family unless the
family could not provide for their basic needs. There were few distinctive terms for types of
disabilities. Prior to modern medicine, a wide range of physical and psychological illness was
very common and many conditions, that are medically treated today, caused what are now
considered learning difficulties and psychological issues. The unhealthy or an abnormal body
was a much more familiar part of everyday life. People commonly had damaged or absent limbs
due to injury or infection. Disabilities resulting from diseases such as polio and rheumatic fever
and tuberculosis were common. Given that antibiotics were not commonly used until after World
War II, most extended families included people with significant illness and disability. As a
result, parents did not always have the expectation that they would raise a healthy child.
In the mid to late 1600’s through the 1700’s, a few communities in New England began
building residential facilities to house individuals with disabilities who required public care.
These residential facilities, also called almshouses, poorhouses, jails, and insane asylums became
places to house colonists with disabilities whose care was charged to the public (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012). The great majority of communities in the United States and Europe, however,

	
  

13
13	
  

	
  
did not have facilities for any deviant person, or even full time school until the later nineteenth
century.
According to Rothman (1971), the introduction of a disease/medical model of disability
and a humanitarian social movement encouraged the public funding of asylums to shelter and
educate the disabled during the mid to late 1800s. Asylums for the mentally ill were the first to
be built, followed by residential and educational facilities for the blind, the deaf, and the
mentally impaired (Scheer & Groce, 1988). These facilities established, maintained, and
perpetuated the segregation, isolation, and infantilization of disabled people. The focus of these
residential facilities, which once aimed to educate individuals with disabilities, shifted during the
late nineteenth century to providing long-term custodial care, often in the name of benevolence
and protection (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). The belief that disabled individuals needed to be
protected from society shifted to a growing sentiment that society needed protection from
disabled people.
Concern over the appalling living conditions and the inhumane treatment of individuals
in these facilities prompted a comprehensive reform movement with the goal of providing
education and rehabilitation. The success of the few institutions that provided educational and
vocational opportunities was short lived as the late 1800s and early 1900s became increasingly
driven by science and research. During this time, researchers became increasingly interested in
studying heredity and the reproduction of desirable traits to improve the biological progress of
mankind. This signaled the beginning of the eugenics movement with the aim of eliminating
unwanted inherited disorders from human populations through selective marriage practices,
compulsory sterilization, restricted immigration, and institutionalization (Baglieri & Shapiro,
2012).

	
  

14
14	
  

	
  
The early part of the twentieth century was marked by two World Wars and the return of
veterans with various combat-related disabilities. Antibiotics enabled soldiers that would have
died in previous wars to survive often leaving them with various physical disabilities. This
changing face of disability was met with federal policies and initiatives such as the War Risk
Insurance Act (1914) and the Smith-Sears Veterans Rehabilitation Act (1918) aimed at
addressing the concerns of disabled veterans. Others such as the Disabled American Veterans
(1920) organization, the National Easter Seal Society (1922), the League of Physically
Handicapped (1935-1938), and the March of Dimes (1937) signified a shift in societal
perceptions of disabled people and paved the way for a new era of disability rights to emerge
(Baglieri & Shaprio, 2012).
The latter part of the twentieth century marked a shift in the social, scientific, and
political landscape as individuals with disabilities and disability advocates began to challenge
discriminatory laws and practices. The creation of a Social Security Disability Insurance (1956)
program provided financial assistance to disabled workers while the Vocational Rehabilitation
Amendments of 1943 and its subsequent amendments expanded vocational programs and
increased federal funding to address rehabilitation, education, and accessibility issues for
individuals with disabilities and their families (Disability History Timeline, 2003). This period
also saw an increased focus on the deinstitutionalization of disabled individuals and the
beginning of efforts to support independent living.
Brown v. the Board of Education along with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964
provided the foundation for challenging discriminative laws and policies towards individuals
with disabilities. Pushed by a growing civil rights movement and by the legal challenge of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Supreme Court

	
  

15
15	
  

	
  
declared racial segregation in education to be unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), an important triumph that set the stage for a major new development in American
education: the desegregation of southern schools as well as concerns about segregated northern
schools. (Feagin & Barnett, 2005) At the same time, in this climate of rights based social action,
courts established legal mandates to recognize the educational rights of females, the
handicapped, and non-English speaking students.
The 1970’s gave rise to the Disability Rights Movement, a grass roots effort by disabled
people to acquire the right to control their own lives. This prompted a shift in the way physicians
and rehabilitative professionals serviced individuals with disabilities affording them increased
control over their care and treatment. This was one of the first indications that the perceptions of
individuals with disabilities as deviant, feebleminded and helpless were changing. The Disability
Rights Movement more directly targeted adult populations, however it was influential in shaping
educational legislation for children with disabilities as well. In 1971, the Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Children (PARC) fought for the right of ALL children to enter public
schools with Mills v. the Board of Education of the District of Columbia following suit in 1972.
Both cases were instrumental in opening the public school doors for children with disabilities
and paved the way for additional legislation addressing educational inequities. (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012)
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) passed in 1975 provided states
with funding to establish school programs for students with disabilities. Public schools for
students with disabilities sought to provide specialized instruction for those who had long been
denied educational opportunities. The ratification of EHA required the provision of a free,
appropriate public education for students with disabilities (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). Though

	
  

16
16	
  

	
  
this groundbreaking legislation was the first to specifically address the educational inequities for
students with disabilities, students were still perceived as decidedly different from typical
students and in need of specialized programming. By the 1980s, equity was increasingly
interpreted not just as having physical access to equally funded and openly available schooling
but, much more deeply, as having equitable access to responsive curriculum and instruction
based on aspects of difference. IDEA (1997) required consideration of the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) when developing the Individualized Education Program (IEP) to ensure that
students with disabilities were educated alongside non-disabled peers to the maximum extent
appropriate. The subjective nature of IDEA language however, still allowed justification for
segregated placements of students perceived as too disabled to be in the general education
classroom. PL 94-142 was reauthorized in 1997 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) and included amendments aimed at improving the education of students with
disabilities through early identification, access to the general curriculum, and increased
accountability.
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 along with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
have attempted to address the achievement gap for disadvantaged students through increased
accountability measures. For the first time, students with disabilities would be held to the same
educational standards as non-disabled peers and required to demonstrate progress towards these
standards as measured through statewide assessment programs. The inclusion of students with
disabilities in statewide assessments has prompted a shift in special education service delivery
models. Special education service delivery has progressed from segregated schools to special
classrooms within public schools, to resource room programs providing specialized instruction in

	
  

17
17	
  

	
  
a segregated setting for a portion of the day, to full inclusion in general education with special
education support.
The changes in special education service delivery have rapidly progressed, however
changes in attitudes and dispositions toward disability have failed to keep pace. This could be
due in large part to the underlying beliefs and perceptions of disability that have been culturally
influenced, maintained, and perpetuated over time. As indicated earlier, the United States has a
long history of perceiving human variation as abnormal and deviant, which influences the
development of individual beliefs. Pajares (1992) defines beliefs as a foundation or support
system for attitudes therefore attempts to change one’s attitude toward human diversity must first
begin with an understanding of one’s beliefs about it. In the last 100 years, since the inception of
compulsory education in the United States, the educational system has failed or simply excluded
the same groups of students – African Americans, American Indians, students with disabilities, a
succession of recent immigrant groups, poor Whites, and so forth (Spring, 1989). And according
to Valle and Reid (2001), the public and educators have historically and systematically located
the reason for failure within the groups themselves, rather than the practices and policies of
schooling, which may due to the individual biases, assumptions, and perceptions held in
association with these groups. For this reason, many researchers have considered how our beliefs
and perceptions associated with different racial, ethnic, gender, and social class groups influence
our attitudes and dispositions. The following section will review the literature regarding diversity
education and teacher beliefs more specifically, how teacher education has addressed the
preparation of teachers to work with students from diverse backgrounds and the ways in which
disability is addressed within the field.
Diversity Education and Teacher Beliefs

	
  

18
18	
  

	
  
In-service and preservice teachers need to develop the understanding that every act of
teaching is a political act (Cochran-Smith, Freire, 1970; Greene, 1998; Kriesburg, 1992), that
their role as teachers within a democracy is to ensure the equitable delivery of education to each
child and to be socially responsible by challenging the status quo and unjust educational
practices (Ukpokodu, 2007). The first step in achieving this, according to Cochran-Smith (2003),
is by examining and challenging existing ideological underpinnings by placing culture and
racism front and center. This is critical because the majority of teachers are White and have been
shaped by ideologies of color/culture blindness therefore they must learn to deconstruct who they
are as socio-cultural/racial beings and how their socio-cultural/racial worldview and
positionalities might influence their thinking, perception, knowledge base, relationship, and
practice (Ukpokodu, 2007).
Other researchers also espouse the importance of exploring teacher beliefs particularly as
they relate to diverse populations. For example, Brown (2006) evaluated research by other
scholars who indicated that beliefs are the best predictors of individual behavior and influence
teachers’ perceptions, judgments, and practices. Pohan and Aguilar (2001) posit that professional
beliefs and behaviors are shaped by personal beliefs and Gay (2010) suggests that beliefs need to
be reflected on, articulated, and confronted, not only for the curricula and student interaction but
also for the teachers themselves.
Many researchers support the exploration of deeply held beliefs about race and ethnicity
as a critical step in developing culturally responsive teachers. For example, Ullucci and Battey
(2011) suggest that raising awareness of how discrimination functions in society is crucial to the
preparation of teachers for working with children from diverse backgrounds. Easter, Shultz,
Neyhart and Reck (1999) appear to agree as they discuss how unexplored beliefs of preservice

	
  

19
19	
  

	
  
teachers can result in perpetuating antiquated and ineffectual teaching practices and the
importance of examining these beliefs to better prepare them for teaching students from diverse
backgrounds. Though these authors are specifically referring to the preparation of teachers for
students from different racial, ethnic and social class backgrounds, it is also appropriate for the
preparation of teachers for working with students with disabilities.
According to Ullucci and Battey (2011), “Teachers cannot see racial inequities if they
position race as insignificant in schooling and see racism as a historical artifact. Rather, teachers
need to be open to the fact that racism still operates in structural and interpersonal ways” (p.
1196). Delpit (1995) suggests that with changes in attitudes and actions in the classroom, we can
change what happens in schools and in the lives of our students. However, as Ullucci and Battey
(2011) attest, change hinges on our ability to confront potentially negative and/or outdated
normative beliefs that determine who is worthy of an education, which students are deemed able,
and who is pushed and who is left behind. When applied to issues of disability, this has
important implications. Fitch (2002) indicated that the normalizing discourse of categorization
and labeling that occurs within the special education field continues to play a key role in the
increasing acknowledgment of disability as a fundamental cultural signifier.
Because “societal knowledge and beliefs about disability are communicated through
media, entertainment, art, laws, and language” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 5), many
researchers have studied the influence of popular culture in the perpetuation of disability
stereotypes. For example, in 1972, Wolfensberger, Nirje, Olshansky, Perske and Roos described
the typical attitudes and related stereotypes associated with disability and though other scholars
have conducted similar studies more recently (Darke, 1998; Shakespeare, 1994; Thomson, 1997;
Nario-Redmond, 2008), many of the stereotypes associated with disability have remained

	
  

20
20	
  

	
  
unchanged and continue to influence individual beliefs and perceptions of disability. For
example, some of the most persistent stereotypes that are readily recognizable in media,
entertainment, art, and other elements of culture include individuals with disabilities as the object
of pity, subhuman, the eternal child, the burden, and the supercrip or the extraordinary disabled.
The stereotype of the ‘supercrip’ portrays the disabled person as deviant because of
“superhuman” feats or as “special” because they have regular lives “in spite of” disability, which
reinforces the idea that disabled people are deviant – and so, for someone who is less than
“complete” the accomplishment is “amazing” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 36).
“Stereotypes and their related prejudices can lead to discrimination in everyday
interactions, as well as operate within oppressive social structures and systems” (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012, p. 36). For example, underlying stereotypical beliefs about disability, such as the
ones mentioned above, can result in ableism, which Wolbring (2008) describes as “A set of
beliefs, processes and practices that produce – based on abilities one exhibits or values – a
particular understanding of oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship with others and the
environment and includes how one is judged by others” (p. 252). According to Wolbring (2008),
ableism is one of the most societally entrenched and accepted isms and one of the biggest
enablers for other –isms (p. 255). Storey (2007), suggests that as our schools struggle with the
inclusion of students with disabilities, ableism may play an influential role in why students with
disabilities are often excluded.
The way in which teachers respond to the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
general education classroom is inextricably linked to their underlying beliefs and assumptions
about disability. Simpson and Miles (1993) reviewed the literature describing inclusive programs
written from the late 1960s to 1993 and concluded that supportive attitudes of general education

	
  

21
21	
  

	
  
[and special education] teachers are an essential condition for successful inclusion programs. As
Ullucci and Battey (2011) explain, preparing teachers to work with children from diverse
backgrounds requires a willingness to see how prejudice and discrimination functions in society,
however this preparation also requires a willingness to see how ableism functions in schools and
societies. Though there is limited research exploring teachers’ personal beliefs and perceptions
of disability, there are studies that have examined professional beliefs about inclusion and
disability, which provided additional support for this study.
School Personnel Perceptions of Disability, Special Education, and Inclusion
In this study, I aimed to uncover stakeholders’ conceptions of disability that have been
internalized through institutionalized rules, regulations, and practices. My experiences as an
educator in both general and special education settings have revealed that teachers may hold
relatively narrow conceptions of disability. Some teachers’ embrace the inclusion of students
with mild disabilities in the general education classroom however, may respond less favorably to
students perceived as having moderate to severe disabilities. A synthesis of twenty-eight research
studies conducted by Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) reported that the majority of teachers
surveyed believed they lacked the sufficient skills, resources, and training necessary for
including students with disabilities in general education. This may be due to the influence of the
medical model of disability on education systems and teacher preparation programs. An outline
of the medical model of disability and its influence on the development of special education
legislation and separate education systems will be provided later in this chapter.
Many studies have explored teachers’ beliefs about diversity and disability (Brophy, 1983;
Cardona, 2005; Herrera, 2010; Praisner, 2003; Pajares, 1992; Pierre, 2009; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1996; Sparks, 2009) because beliefs are the best predictors of individual behavior

	
  

22
22	
  

	
  
and influence perceptions, judgments, and practices (Brown, 2006). An abundance of research
exploring stakeholder attitudes towards disability and inclusion can be found in the literature
(Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003; Praisner, 2003; Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007;
Everhart, 2009; Monahan, Marino, & Miller, 1996) however, few have considered the influence
of the social and medical models of disability on stakeholder attitudes and perceptions and many
assume a shared understanding of the concepts disability, special education, and inclusion. For
example, Praisner (2003) surveyed 408 elementary school principals to investigate attitudes
towards inclusion using The Principals and Inclusion Survey. The survey was designed to
determine the extent to which training, experience, and program factors were related to
principals’ attitudes towards inclusion, however it did not operationally define inclusion to
ensure a shared understanding across participants. The author identifies the assumption that all
principals work under the same conditions as a limitation of the study. An additional limitation
could be the assumption that all principals hold a shared understanding of the meanings of
inclusion and disability. This study examines participants’ experiences with various disability
categories, which reflects the medical model of disability. The use of specific disability
categories implies a normal/abnormal, able/disabled distinction.
Avramidis and Norwich (2002) conducted an extensive review of the literature on
teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion, noting that uncommon language may indeed
pose challenges to research. They reported that much of the research has been primarily
represented by acceptance and/or rejection issues, which reflect the traditional categories of
disability. They suggest that this may be problematic given that respondents may have multiple
interpretations for the same label. Research exploring inclusion should attend to issues of
differing interpretations/meanings of critical terminology in special education.

	
  

23
23	
  

	
  
Olkin & Howson (1994) conducted a study of attitudes toward and images of physical
disability, which involved the examination of two separate studies. Study 1 asked 184
undergraduate students to complete the Attitude Toward Disabled People scale (Yuker, Block, &
Campbell, 1960; Yuker, Block & Younng, 1966), the Social Distance Scale (based on Bogardus,
1933) and an open ended question “When I think of the term ‘disabled person’, I usually think of
someone who has the following disability ______________” (Olkin & Howson, 1994). Study 2
involved 84 participants from the Department of Social Services. The participants responded to
the SDS scale and the open-ended question provided in Study 1. The researchers chose to omit
the ATDP scale to reduce the time required to complete the questionnaire and because it was less
central to their primary research question. In both studies, when subjects named a specific
disability, it most frequently fell into the category of “wheelchair” even though approximately
90% of school age students with disabilities have “invisible” disabilities. In both studies,
participants were asked to complete the surveys prior to answering the open-ended question. The
surveys focused on disabilities that are generally visible to the observer, which may have
influenced responses to the open-ended questions given that the image most frequently evoked
by the term “disabled person” is of a wheelchair user (Olkin & Howson, 1994). This study
explored the attitudes of undergraduates and employees of the Department of Social Services
who may or may not have experience with individuals with disabilities. Expanding this study to
include a variety of educational stakeholders could add to the literature on inclusive education.
For example, exploring how children understand disability provides an interesting perspective
that adds to the discourse of inclusion.
Children’s Understandings of Disability

	
  

24
24	
  

	
  
Baglieri and Shapiro (2012) consider how attitudes toward disability are formed early in life
through “observational learning” and that many negative influences in our culture teach children
to accept the idea that certain human qualities such as physical “wholeness”, attractiveness,
intelligence, and clear speech are valued, whereas the qualities of others are demeaned,
stigmatized, ridiculed, feared and degraded. They also assert “Children learn to assume that
people with disabilities are more “different from” than “similar to” persons without them and
those differences minimize their status and set them apart” (p. 7). Though younger children show
more acceptance of their peers with disabilities, by ages seven and nine, children’s awareness of
differences may be transformed into full-blown prejudice (Brodkin & Coleman, 1993). For this
reason, some researchers have chosen to examine children’s beliefs and perceptions of disability
and special education.
One such study was conducted by Mousourou (2009), in which ethnographic methods were
used to study young children’s understandings of disability. Through interviews, artifacts, and
field notes, the researcher explored how teachers, parents, and students with and without
disabilities come to understand the term ‘special needs’. This involved actively listening to how
students and teachers explained it during classroom activities and how it was used in dialogues
and interactions. Additionally, the researcher asked students what comes to their mind when they
hear the words ‘special needs’. The findings indicated that the children held a primarily
functionalist point of view describing ‘special needs’ as one’s inability to perform certain
functions such as walking, talking, hearing, or understanding certain things due to brain
problems or illness. The researcher also invited participants to draw or write a few words of
things that came to mind when they heard the term ‘special needs’. Several of the participants
drew hospitals, nurses and doctors, or people in wheelchairs. The findings also indicated that

	
  

25
25	
  

	
  
students obtained much of their information about ‘special needs’ from parents, family members,
the media, teachers, other school professionals, and peers with special needs. This study focused
on how educational stakeholders in Cyprus conceptualize the term ‘special needs’. The present
study sought to extend this exploration to include the terms and concepts ‘inclusion’, ‘disability’,
and ‘special education’ to examine how various educational stakeholders come to understand and
make meaning of these terms. However, before discussing stakeholder perceptions of special
education, I will provide an overview of special education in the United States in next section.
Special Education
The fight for access to a public education for children with disabilities resulted in the
development of a dual education system, the general education system and the special education
system. As discussed earlier, a macro-level policy such as separate but equal in special education
inevitably fosters cultural perceptions of extreme difference. This dual system has had profound
implications for both public education and teacher preparation as well as for cultural perceptions
of the disabled. The following section will address the implications for public education.
The passing of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), now known as
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) ensured students with
disabilities access to a public education. Though the intention of the act is to ensure that children
with disabilities are afforded equal educational opportunities, a possible unintended consequence
of the law was to stigmatize and marginalize students through required labeling and, often,
individualized programming in segregated settings. This legislation guaranteed a free,
appropriate public education for students with disabilities, however in its early implementation
students were often placed in programs based on their disability. For example, there were
particular classrooms for students labeled mentally retarded, visually impaired, deaf, emotional

	
  

26
26	
  

	
  
impaired, etc. Many of these early special education programs were housed in special schools or
as self-contained classrooms within public schools. The underlying assumption was that students
with particular disabilities would benefit from the same kinds of services and curriculum
(Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).
The idea that the educational setting should align with the disability diagnosis is
reflective of a scientific approach to disability. Reauthorizations of EHA (1975) challenged this
assumption by requiring that students with disabilities be educated alongside their non-disabled
peers to the maximum extent appropriate and that alternative programming only occur when the
nature and severity of the disability prevented the student from progressing within the general
education curriculum and environment. The subjective nature of the language in this progressive
piece of legislation continues to allow justification for placing students with disabilities in
segregated settings. It is probable to assume that such decisions are influenced by cultural
stereotypes as well as the dominance of the medical model in schools. Disability studies
research indicates that stereotypes, misconceptions, uneasiness, and fear still drive perceptions of
the disabled.
Cultural stereotypes and the medical model are as influential today as they were in the
early twentieth century. “Despite the strides made in law, the medical paradigm of disability is
still a persistent influence on the general public’s perceptions of disability and disability-related
political issues” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 96). For many, school is the first place that
experience with disability occurs and in the early 1970s perceptions of disability were
profoundly influenced by labeling and programming practices. The placement of students with
disabilities in categorical programs in segregated classrooms perpetuated the perception of
disability as deficit (Baglier & Shapiro, 2012).

	
  

27
27	
  

	
  
As indicated previously and supported by Mousourou’s (2009) study, many beliefs and
perceptions associated with disability are culturally influenced by literature, arts, media, school,
and families, which have historically reflected medical, psychological, and behavioral
orientations toward disability. This is important because these paradigms of disability primarily
locate disability within the individual, which results in a narrow conception of disability as an
individual deficit in need of remediation and/or cure and while these orientations are necessary
and valuable, they may result in negative perceptions of disability if they are not considered
alongside social models of disability. As indicated by many scholars in the field of disability
studies (Baglieri and Shapiro, 2012; Danforth & Gabel, 2006; Hehir, 2002; Oliver, 1996; Valle
& Connor, 2010), a primarily medical model perspective fails attend to the broader sociopolitical context in which disability is experienced. The medical and social models of disability
provide critical perspectives, which are frequently referred to throughout this study. For this
reason, a brief summary of both the medical and social models is provided below.
The Medical Model of Disability
The models of disability are conceptual frameworks for understanding disability, which
can provide some insight into why certain attitudes exist and how they are reinforced in society
(Sullivan, 2011). Though we have made substantial legislative progress in our treatment of
individuals with disabilities, our cultural perceptions of disability are evolving much more
slowly. Baglieri and Shaprio (2012) suggest that the ways in which we make meaning of
disability are funneled through cultural ideologies, which they indicate are heavily influenced by
a medical model orientation toward disability. According to them, a medical model perspective
best describes how we address disability in American schools and society (p. 15). Therefore, it is

	
  

28
28	
  

	
  
critical to consider the ways in which the medical model has influenced the field of special
education in both positive and negative ways.
The historical conception of disability as a medical anomaly in need of treatment
influenced the development of special education. That is, an education program that responds to
the unique and varied needs of students with disabilities, which are perceived to differ
substantially from the needs of students in general education. “IDEIA offers an overview and
rules and regulations for the process of diagnosing or assessing disability, then developing a
formal course of treatment for the student, which is documented in the IEP” (Baglieri & Shapiro,
2012, p. 22). IDEIA’s alignment with the medical model of disability is evidenced by its
requirement of the use of “technically sound” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 22) instruments to
inform assessment and reliance on information obtained from educational experts such as school
social workers, speech and language pathologists, physical and occupational therapists, and/or
various categorically certified educational consultants. The eligibility determination process
culminates in a written educational report detailing the students’ academic, functional, and
behavioral strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions for addressing the students’
identified weaknesses. This information may be useful in determining appropriate academic and
behavioral interventions, which have been found to be beneficial for some students exhibiting
similar characteristics. However, as Reid and Valle (2004) attest, there are important unintended
outcomes related to this process. “Ironically, although the intention in testing is to ‘level the
playing field’, it is common knowledge that tests have become instruments to confirm
unconscious assumptions about the unacceptability of some students and to legitimate their
exclusion” (Reid & Valle, 2004, p. 469).

	
  

29
29	
  

	
  
The medical model of disability unintentionally influences educational policy and
practice in potentially negative ways as well. Baglieri and Shapiro (2012) identify two
distinguishing features of the medical model (a) its classification schemes in which
characteristics are designated as normal and abnormal or pathological; and (b) the preference for
a course of cure-seeking treatment, as prescribed by a medical or rehabilitation professional (p.
25). A narrow conception of disability as primarily medical, leads to a limited understanding of
the individual and the particular ways that a specific individual may experience a disability.
According to Sullivan (2011), the medical model is the root of most negative attitudes held
towards people with disabilities; they are seen as defective and dependent, in need of cure or
rehabilitation. The hegemonic conception of disability as abnormal perpetuates negative
stereotypes of disability many of which were discussed earlier in this chapter.
According to Baglieri and Shapiro (2012), stereotypes are reflections of paradigms and
are created and circulated over time and reinforce the paradigms on which they were built. The
medical model of disability, as a paradigm, heavily influences both professional and personal
perceptions of disability and frequently reinforces ableist attitudes, for example, the belief that it
is better or superior not to have a disability than to have one and it is better to do things in the
way that nondisabled do (Storey, 2007). “Reliance on the scientific, medical, and psychological
discourses for making meaning of disability discourages conceptualizations of difference other
than as “deviance from the norm, as a pathological condition, as a deficit and significantly as an
individual burden” (Linton, 1998, p. 11, as cited in Reid & Valle, 2004, p. 469). Hehir (2002)
contends that negative cultural assumptions about disability continue to have a negative
influence on the education of children with disabilities. For this reason, I believe attention to
competing paradigms of disability is crucial in both preservice and inservice teacher education.

	
  

30
30	
  

	
  
The next section will provide a brief summary of the social model of disability and discuss the
importance of presenting a balanced approach to understanding disability that draws on both the
medical and social models of disability.
The Social Model of Disability
Contrary to the medical model, which views disability as pathological, the social model
of disability considers how disability is experienced within the broader socio-political context.
“Social models of disability forefront the influence our economic and social structures and
central values have on the ways in which we define disability and respond to persons with them”
(Oliver, 1990, as cited in Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 25). The aim of the social model is to
understand disability as a total experience of complex interactions between the body and
physical, social, and cultural environments, rather than primarily individual and pathological.
This orientation affords a more comprehensive understanding of the disability experience and
provides an important foundation for challenging negative perceptions of disability often
perpetuated by medical model perspectives. “The thrust of social models is to interrupt the
dominance of the medical model, in order to more fully understand and challenge the ways that
deep-seated assumptions and beliefs about how the nature of impairment and disability prevent
the equal participation and status of disabled persons” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 29).
The social model is reflected in schools though the idea of inclusive education. From this
perspective, inclusion is seen as active engagement in social interactions with all members of the
school community and more specifically, peers in the general education classroom. According to
Allan (1999), classroom members continuously construct and negotiate the social and academic
contexts of schooling to position themselves and others as included and excluded, full or
ancillary members in the classroom and learning community. From a social model perspective,

	
  

31
31	
  

	
  
disability is constructed as a natural form of human variation. Reid and Valle (2004) recommend,
examining the social meanings we give to variations that exist in human behavior and
appearance to begin to challenge the implicit or explicit valuings used to construct exclusionary
categorical binaries such as normal/abnormal and able/disabled. They also assert that “when we
view variation as productive and natural, we can address it through the differentiation of
instruction, not through the sorting of children into already available categories – a very different
way of thinking about both disability and classrooms” (Reid & Valle, 2004, p. 473), which can
have incredibly positive implications for improving inclusive practices.
Reid and Valle (2004) call for a balanced approach to understanding disability by
infusing a social model perspective within the already dominant medical model perspective as a
way to broaden conceptions of disability to include the variety of ways disability is experienced.
“Either we can continue to sort and segregate students according to the current special education
discourses, despite the lack of evidence that these are helpful to them – or we can work in
solidarity with and for disabled people to foster a set of different assumptions: not competition,
but cooperation; not exclusion, but inclusion, and not disability, but ordinary human diversity”
(Reid and Valle, 2004, p. 474). Reid and Valle (2004) suggest that we need to break this cycle by
generating knowledge about how macro-level processes such as societal attitudes about diversity
interact with micro-level conditions and events as they are articulated in commonly held beliefs
and in the legislation that protects those values. This study examined stakeholders’ culturally
influenced perceptions of disability, special education, and inclusion with the intention of
providing a starting point for addressing this concern.

	
  

32
32	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
In this study, I employed a phenomenographic, semiotic case study design to explore
stakeholders’ perceptions of critical terms in special education in a rural elementary school,
which recently shifted from primarily pullout to an inclusive education model. Much of the
research on inclusive education involves studies of individual’s professional beliefs about
disability rather than their personal beliefs. Some multicultural research has suggested that
teachers must investigate their own attitudes and beliefs about other cultures before they will be
able to implement a culturally responsive pedagogy (Nieto, 2004; Grant & Asimeng-Boahene,
2006). A pedagogy that is culturally responsive to sexual orientation, class, ethnic and racial
differences must also include dis/ability. For this reason, it is important to investigate
stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs about inclusion, disability and special education.
Operational Definitions
There are various definitions for the terms disability, special education and inclusion
though it is often assumed that individuals hold universal understandings of these terms. Baglieri
& Shapiro (2012) discuss this as it applies to the term integration, “the concept of integration,
with respect to schooling, is often described with several terms producing confusion among those
unaware of their definitional nuances” (p. 11) For example, the terms Mainstreaming, Least
Restrictive Environment, and inclusion are commonly used interchangeably with the term
integration though they have significantly different professional meanings. To provide a common
understanding of the concepts explored in this study, the terms will be defined in the following
way:

	
  

33
33	
  

	
  
Inclusion: The school-based arrangements in which students with and without disabilities
learn together in general education settings (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).
Disability: According to The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAA)
of 2008, an individual with a disability is a person who has: a) a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual, b) a record of
such impairment, and c) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Special Education: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Special Education is defined as specially designed instruction provided at no cost to parents, to
meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.
Role, Positionality, and Ethics
My professional experience includes seventeen years as a Special Education teacher and
as such, in this study, I am a member of the general group “special education teacher.” Since I
am not currently working in this role, nor working in the school I will study, I am conducing my
research as a “partial member”. This role affords me with contextual understanding of these
concepts and issues, as well as the corresponding need to bracket my own views in order to listen
to my participants without judgment.
I became interested in exploring individual’s perceptions of disability as a result of my
experiences in a Special Education Policy course during my first year of doctoral education. I
was still teaching full time in a resource room for seventh and eighth grade students with
disabilities while taking this course. The instructor introduced us to the social model of
disability, which aims to understand disability as a total experience of complex interactions
between the body and physical, social, and cultural environments (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).
This was an entirely new perspective for me. The clinical/medical model of disability heavily

	
  

34
34	
  

	
  
influenced the teacher preparation program that I was involved in during my undergraduate
studies. This perspective recommends a scientific approach to disability with the primary
concerns being proper diagnosis and determination and implementation of appropriate treatments
(Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).
The Disability Rights movement inspired by the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s led
persons with disabilities to demand full control and access to society. Individuals with
disabilities fought for full access to society’s spaces, places, and opportunities, and the rights to
self-determination and dignity. The central issue being that individuals should not be
discriminated against on the basis of their perceived dis/ability. I had spent the majority of my
teaching career believing that I knew what was best for my students; that I knew what they
needed and what should be expected. Suddenly, my entire perspective shifted. I began engaging
my middle school students in conversations about their education. They became instrumental in
developing their own Individualized Education Program and frequently participated in
facilitating the meeting. These seemingly minor changes significantly impacted the culture of our
classroom. Students were less resistant to working on academic tasks and increasingly engaged
in appropriate conversations with staff regarding academic and behavioral expectations. This
experience prompted me to consider how one’s beliefs about disability influence their attitudes
and dispositions towards individuals with disabilities.
In the fall of 2010, I participated in a series of workshops designed to challenge racism
by understanding privilege and oppression. We engaged in a variety of activities to broaden our
understanding of issues related to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. The facilitators
organized the activities around the idea that individuals must understand their own prejudices,
biases, and beliefs if they hope to become advocates for social justice. Though this experience

	
  

35
35	
  

	
  
was incredibly powerful and had a profound personal and professional impact on me, I wondered
why the topic of disability was given such limited attention. If exploring our own beliefs about
race, ethnicity and class is the first step towards becoming more culturally aware and responsive,
then it seems as though exploring beliefs about disability would also be beneficial.
I chose to conduct this study at Parker Elementary because of their recent commitment to
providing an inclusive education to students with disabilities. The building shifted to inclusive
practices only a few years before I had joined the staff. I was hired briefly as a part-time special
education teacher to provide services to a small caseload of students with disabilities within their
grade level classrooms. The majority of staff members reported feeling positive about inclusion,
however did not feel as though they were adequately prepared for teaching students with
disabilities. The principal expressed interest in continuing to provide inclusion and a desire to
improve their practices. This appeared to be a mutually beneficial situation as the findings of the
study could potentially provide important information for improving inclusive practices at this
school while also affording me the opportunity to conduct a study exploring perceptions of
disability, special education, and inclusion.
As a previous staff member, I had developed a positive rapport with teachers, parents,
and students, which aided in the selection of participants. The sense of trust and respect I built
during my short tenure at Parker Elementary put participants’ at ease, making the interview
process more comfortable and allowing me to obtain richer more descriptive responses. I was
also able to obtain additional information about the history of special education at Parker
Elementary through oral histories and document reviews. This allowed for the development of a
comprehensive study of stakeholders’ perceptions of disability, special education, and inclusion
at Parker Elementary. However, as noted above, my role as a partial member also demands that I

	
  

36
36	
  

	
  
remain reflective about my own experience and perceptions in order to best represent my
participants’ perspectives.
Phenomenography
My study focused on exploring how meanings associated with disability, special
education, and inclusion are constructed and communicated across stakeholders in one
elementary school. Sociocultural theory provided the broader theoretical framework as it attends
to how meaning is socially constructed and reconstructed through various interactions and
experiences. More specifically, I used both phenomenographic and critical semiotics as analytic
frames to examine the meanings associated with special education, disability and inclusion.
Phenomenography provided an appropriate framework for exploring the qualitatively
different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand various
kinds of phenomena (Richardson, 1999). This methodological approach was used to examine
how stakeholders perceive and communicate their understandings of disability, inclusion, and
special education and how variations in meaning are related to their experiences. The
phenomenographic method is an explorative procedure using empirical data to discover
differentiated categories that describe a phenomenon in the world as people see and describe it in
various ways (Marton, 1994; Lepp & Ringsberg, 2002).
The focus of this study was to describe how stakeholders at Parker Elementary
experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand the concepts disabled, special education and
inclusion. According to Svensson (1997), the most significant characteristics of
phenomenography are the aiming at categories of description, the open explorative form of data
collection and the interpretive character of the analysis of data, which provides a powerful
framework for analyzing the data. It is important to note that the conceptualizations the

	
  

37
37	
  

	
  
participants hold regarding these critical concepts was the unit of analysis, not the participants
themselves.
Phenomenography has particular relevance in educational research for example, Walker
(1998) used a phenomenographic approach to remind educators that it is incorrect to assume that
a text or lesson is read or learned in the same way by every child. I used a similar approach in
this study as a reminder that it is incorrect to assume that the terms disability, special education,
and inclusion are understood and perceived in the same way by every teacher and every student.
Walker (1998) goes on to say that learning and experience are inextricably connected and what
we learn affects how we experience phenomena, and how we experience phenomena affects how
we learn and relate ideas. From this perspective, phenomenography reflects an association with
sociocultural theory in that learning is mediated by social interactions/experiences and is
constructed and reconstructed over time.
Baglieri and Shapiro (2012) recognize the critical relationship between cultural
experiences and attitudes toward disability, “We begin to form attitudes about disability early in
life, from strong cultural influences including, school, media, language, and literature” (p.3).
Literature and media have historically portrayed individuals with disabilities as less desirable or
abnormal. Dahl (1993) suggests that children’s classics are particularly graphic frequently
representing villains as ugly and deformed while heroes and heroines are depicted as beautiful
and graceful. For example, the childish dwarfs and humpbacked wicked witch in Snow White,
the evil giant in Jack and the Beanstalk, and the sly deformed dwarf, Rumpelstiltskin impress
upon young minds that individuals with mental or physical differences are to be feared, pitied,
trivialized, or ridiculed (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). Many of us are introduced to these images
early in life and they frequently resurface as we struggle to make meaning of difference and

	
  

38
38	
  

	
  
disability. Therefore, efforts to disrupt the influence of these images on beliefs and perceptions
of disability is imperative, however we must first raise awareness that negative perceptions of
disability exist. One way this can be accomplished is through social semiotics. Language, media,
and literature are considered semiotic resources because they are used for communicative
purposes and have a meaning potential based on their past uses and a set of affordances based on
their possible uses (Van Leeuwen, 2004). I introduce semiotic resources here first, to preface
their importance in the cultural development of meaning and second, as a brief introduction to
critical semiotics, which I employed as an additional analytic frame for this study.
Social Semiotics
Since cultural images and representations help shape conceptions about disability and
special education, I also used techniques from social semiotics in the design of my data
collection procedures and data analysis. Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was one of the first
founders of semiotics. Saussure argued that a word (either spoken or written) creates meaning in
the minds of the readers or listeners (Pearson & Warburton, 2008). The word itself is referred to
as the ‘signifier’ and the mental image it conjures up is referred to as the ‘signified’. The word
and the image taken together are referred to as the ‘sign’. Saussure was the first theorist to
develop the idea that signs are arbitrary, that there is no absolute connection between the word
and the mental image it creates, however as Pearson and Warburton (2008) point out, the
meanings of words are captured in forms of social knowledge and a complex set of shared rules
which allow members of a speech community to process language. That is to say, individuals
reach a shared understanding of the meanings of ‘signs’ as demonstrated by their ability to
effectively communicate through a shared language system. Pearson and Warburton (2008)
further state that everyone (who speaks English) knows “what the word ‘dog’ means because the

	
  

39
39	
  

	
  
word existed before we were born and we were acculturated into a social system where the
meanings of words have been largely fixed and which we learned as children” (p. 165). While
culture has influenced the development of shared meanings for words such as dog, chair, and car,
it has also influenced the meanings ascribed to concepts such as disability, special education, and
inclusion.
I utilized a semiotic photo elicitation approach to explore how participants’ come to
understand critical terms in special education. Photo elicitation in data collection involves using
photographs during interviews and asking research subjects to connect images to personal
conceptions and to discuss the meaning of photographs. According to Mavers (2008), a social
semiotic approach takes for granted that while the ways in which meanings are made are the
same for all humans, the resources and the conditions in which meanings are made in one culture
and society are not necessarily like those in another (p. 174). This approach provided an
appropriate framework for exploring the range of social and cultural meanings attached to these
terms so we can begin to understand how perceptions of disability are related to attitudes and
dispositions towards individuals with disabilities.
Specifically, I used the following semiotic analytic concepts: sign, signifier, hegemonic
representation, binary and myth. At the macro-level the overarching structuralist semiotic
concept is hegemony. According to Antonio Gramsci (1978), this term denotes the permeation
throughout society of an entire system values, attitudes, beliefs, and practices that have the effect
of supporting unequal power relations. Hegemonic society employs "discourses" as the
"organizing principles" of everyday life (Heilman, 2011). A discourse is a system of signs and
signifiers, which means the words and images (signs) that they connote (signifiers) establish the

	
  

40
40	
  

	
  
boundaries for making sense of the world. One way to understand and break down a discourse is
to begin to notice its important oppositions or binary structures of meaning and value.
A hegemonic representation is smaller than a discourse. A hegemonic representation is
usually more of a noun; it is a particular concept like “disability” and it is held up within
discourses and their binaries. Hegemonic representations are attempts to dominate the field of
discursivity, "to arrest the flow of difference to construct a center" (Gramsci, 1978). A
hegemonic ideal is in effect and has a powerful influence when a certain idea, group, or type
"naturally" seems better or right and everyone knows what it is; a hegemonic representation is a
more general term, and it is in effect when everyone comes up with a similar image and
interpretation in response to a simple word like disability. Hegemonic ideals and representations
are those to which most people give "spontaneous consent" to the "general direction imposed on
social life by the dominant fundamental group" (Gramsci, 1978, P:12). What Roland Barthes
(1973) calls a myth is the story that goes with hegemonic ideals. In “On Myth”, Barthes (1973)
explains that we have "myths of Order" that are necessary for social control and cohesion. We
use them to both to interpret action, objects and scenes, and suggest choices. They organize
understanding over time. They have a plot. In this way, because they occur over time and are
historical, they are four-dimensional.
To summarize, phenomenography was used as the first layer of data analysis to explore
the qualitatively different ways that participants’ perceive and understand disability, special
education, and inclusion. It aims to describe the key aspects of the variation of the experience of
a phenomenon rather than focus on the richness of individual experiences (Reed, 2006). I
employed social semiotics as a second analytic layer, which involved examination of the data for

	
  

41
41	
  

	
  
evidence of hegemonic conceptions, binaries, and myths associated with conceptions of
disability, special education and inclusion.
Context
Setting the Stage. This study of stakeholders’ perceptions of disability, special
education, and inclusion took place at Parker elementary school, a medium sized school with
approximately 441 students. Parker is located in a small suburban area in the Midwest outside a
major city and inside an urbanized area with a population of less than 100,000. A flashing sign
advertising upcoming school events and student birthdays sits at the school entrance. The school
sits approximately sixty yards southeast of a small intersection. On the northeast corner is a gas
station with the city post office just to the right of the gas station and across the street from one
of the schools two parking lots. A local bank sits on the southeastern corner of the intersection
with a laundromat and a restaurant on the western corners. Most of the students are bused to
school, however some students who live in nearby neighborhoods walk to school. There are two
wheelchair accessible entrances to the building, one off the staff parking lot and one at the front
entrance.
There is a sprawling playground behind the school surrounded by a chain link fence.
There is a small jungle gym, two sets of swings, a slide, and a basketball court. The remaining
area is used for soccer and football during recess times. The majority of the playground is
cement with patches of grass in the eastern corner. Parker has two cafeterias, one in the third and
fourth grade wing and one in the fourth and fifth grade wing. Only the cafeteria in the third grade
wing is wheelchair accessible and allows access to the playground as well. The only entrance to
the other cafeteria is located down a small flight of stairs, therefore fifth and sixth grade students

	
  

42
42	
  

	
  
requiring wheelchair accessibility are required to use the cafeteria located in the third grade
wing.
Parker elementary is a predominantly white, lower-middle class school. The student
demographic break down is as follows; 93.9% White, 3.2% Black, .69% American
Indian/Alaskan Native, .69% Asian/Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, and 1.4% Hispanic. Fifty
percent of the student population is at-risk according to socioeconomic data collected by the
district and determined by the number of students receiving free or reduced lunch. At the time of
this study, approximately 17% of the student population in grades three through six received
special education services. There are a total of 24 classroom teachers including music, physical
education, technology, and Title-I reading. Two full-time teachers and one part-time teacher
provide special education services to eligible students within the general education classroom.
One teacher provides special education services in a Cognitively Impaired (CI) self-contained
classroom. There are four certified teachers at each grade level third through sixth. 63.7% of the
certified staff hold bachelor’s degrees with continuing education hours and 36.3% hold advanced
degrees.
Parker Elementary publishes an annual report with information for parents regarding
curriculum, the school-wide positive behavior support program, enrichment programs and
special services. The inclusion model for teaching is listed as a special service along with reading
recovery, speech therapy, social work, physical therapy, Title-I, resource room, and Response to
Intervention support. No additional information about the programs is provided. A summary of
the state wide assessment results were provided by gender indicating slow but steady growth in
reading and mathematics scores.

	
  

43
43	
  

	
  
I conducted a thorough review of the student handbook, which provided detailed
information regarding school policies, the district and school mission statements, emergency
procedures, field trip, homework, and attendance policies, as well as transportation rules and
policies. Several pages were dedicated to providing a detailed explanation of the school
discipline policy including the positive behavior support expectations, steps, and procedures. The
handbook did not contain information regarding any of the special education programs,
procedures or contact information. There was also no description of the “inclusion model for
teaching”, as it was referred to in the annual report, providing additional information for parents
or guardians. I also reviewed the special education manual, however the manual referred to
policies prior to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEIA and did not include the major policy changes.
I conducted two interviews with individuals who have extensive knowledge of Parker
elementary including the history of Special Education at the school. Louise has worked at Parker
for over 25 years as a paraprofessional in the classroom and more recently as the student
facilitator for in-school suspension. She reported that prior to 2000-2001, special education at
Parker was primarily self-contained with minimal if any inclusion. Louise indicated that the first
shift in special education services occurred when a new teacher was hired in 2003-04. She was
hired to teach in the Cognitively Impaired (CI) classroom and within the first year or two, she
had begun mainstreaming her students into the general education classroom for science and
social studies. Louise indicated that this was met with significant resistance from the general
education teachers initially, however after a short time, they seemed to adjust. The next major
shift in special education service delivery at Parker occurred when Gretchen arrived as the new
principal. Louise indicated that conversations regarding the full time placement of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom began shortly after Gretchen became principal.

	
  

44
44	
  

	
  
According to Louise, this too was met with extreme resistance at first particularly with veteran
teachers close to retirement. She reported that the principal was supportive and responsive to the
needs of the teachers involved in inclusive classrooms and tried to assist them by lowering their
class sizes and offering some paraprofessional support for portions of the day. Louise shared that
she was initially resistant to inclusion as well but has since changed her mind because she has
seen the benefits of it. She also indicated that general education teachers have become more
positive about it as well.
The second interview was conducted with Leslie a former Parker elementary student,
parent of students who previously attended Parker, and a current employee at Parker. She
appeared to share Louise’s sentiments regarding special education’s transition to inclusion over
the last five years. She too reported being aware of the initial resistance by general education
teachers and how the support of the new principal appeared to ease some of the tension. Leslie
indicated how the legislative changes in IDEA that occurred in 2004 had begun to impact special
education policies and practices at Parker but that it was not until Gretchen arrived in 2006-07
that a significant change was made. Gretchen, the principal at Parker elementary, has been with
the school for the last six years. She supervises twenty-four certified staff members as well as six
paraprofessionals. A detailed discussion of her interview can be found in Chapter seven.
Both Leslie and Louise reported feeling positive about inclusion and indicated a desire to
see the program expand to include students in the self-contained CI classroom.
Participants
The purpose of this study was to achieve a phenomenographic semiotic description of
stakeholders’ perceptions of disability, special education, and inclusion therefore, it was
important to select teachers with some experience including students with disabilities in the

	
  

45
45	
  

	
  
general education classroom. Purposive sampling was used to select teacher participants to
ensure that at least one general education teacher at each grade level had experience teaching
students with disabilities in the general education classroom. I purposefully avoided the
selection of new teachers and those with very long experience or unusual experiences.
Teachers. Eleven general education teachers participated in this study. Three of the
eleven had participated in the previous study, however I conducted follow up interviews to
update the previous data as well as to collect additional data that was not part of the interview
protocol in the initial study. Three itinerant teachers were selected to participate based on their
experience with inclusion. All three itinerant teachers worked with inclusive and self-contained
classrooms without additional support from the special education teacher, which provided a
unique perspective. Both of the special education teachers had participated in the previous study,
however I conducted follow up interviews to update the original data and to collect new data
based on revised interview protocols. A total of 17 teachers participated in the current study. In
addition to the demographic data provided in Table 3.1, I also provide a brief narrative
description of each participant. All participants in this study are identified by a pseudonym to
maintain anonymity and confidentiality.

	
  

46
46	
  

	
  
Table 3.1 Demographic Data of Teacher Participants
Teacher

Grade/Role

Years Exp.

Education

PD/CW

Todd

6

11-15

Masters +

Yes

Carrie

3-4

6-10

Bachelors

Yes

Holly

11-15

Masters

Yes

John

3-6 S.E. CI
Gym

11-15

Masters

Yes

Julie

Music

6-10

Masters

No

Kelly

Computers

1-5

Bachelors

1

Ellen

6

th

1-5

Bachelors

2 PD

Greg

6

th

11-15

Masters

No

Lisa

5

th

6-10

Masters

No

Amy

5

th

1-5

Bachelors

No

Susan

5

th

11-15

Masters

1 PD

Jessica

4

th

11-15

Bachelors+

1 PD

Colleen

4

th

1-5

Bachelors

2 PD

Amanda

4

th

1-5

Bachelors

1 CW

Marcia

4

th

1-5

Bachelors

1 PD/ 2CW

Tracy

3

rd

6-10

Bachelors

2 CW

Renee

rd

11-15

Masters

PD

Gretchen

3
Administrator

15+

Masters

No

Leslie

Oral history

20+

Louise

Oral history

20+

th
th

S.E.
S.E.

th

Note. PD = professional development seminar on special education topics; CW =
undergraduate/graduate coursework on special education topics.
Greg is a sixth grade general education teacher with over 11 years of teaching experience
at Parker elementary. He is over six feet tall and wears a shirt and tie to work Monday through
Thursday; on Fridays, the staff is encouraged to wear their school colors. Greg is on the school
board in the district where his children attend school and where his family resides. Greg is

	
  

47
47	
  

	
  
responsible for teaching math to all sixth grade students. He holds a Masters degree in
curriculum and reported receiving no professional development or coursework related to
inclusion or special education. He has been an inclusion teacher for the past five years.
Ellen is a sixth grade general education teacher with less than five years of teaching
experience. She is responsible for teaching writing to all sixth grade students at Parker. Though
she is a relatively new teacher, she indicated receiving no coursework in her teacher preparation
program involving inclusion or students with disabilities. She indicated participating in two
professional development sessions regarding inclusion and co-teaching. She holds a bachelors
degree and indicated that she was enrolled in a Masters program at the time of this study.
Amy is an energetic fifth grade teacher with less than five years of teaching experience.
She holds a bachelors degree but indicated that she is currently in a Masters program. She is
responsible for teaching math to all fifth grade students. She reported having two years of
experience with inclusion and expressed positive feelings about it. She indicated that she had no
coursework or professional development regarding inclusion or students with disabilities.
Lisa joined teaching later in life as a second career. She was in the business field prior to
becoming a teacher. She is a self-contained fifth grade teacher with three years of inclusion
experience. At the time of this study, she was co-teaching with a first-year special education
teacher. Lisa reported having no coursework or professional development related to inclusion or
students with disabilities.
Susan is a fifth grade teacher with more than 11 years of teaching experience. She is
responsible for teaching writing to all fifth grade students. She holds a masters degree in
teaching. She reported having at least five years of experience with inclusion and reported

	
  

48
48	
  

	
  
positive feelings about it. Susan indicated having some professional development related to
inclusion and co-teaching.
Colleen is a fourth grade general education teacher with less than five years of teaching
experience. She entered teaching later in her career. She holds a bachelors degree and reported
having at least two professional development sessions on inclusion and co-teaching. She
indicated positive feelings about inclusion for both students with and without disabilities.
Marcia is a fourth grade general education teacher with less than five years of teaching
experience. She indicated having no experience with inclusion, however she had taken three
courses related to inclusion and students with disabilities. She holds a bachelors degree. Marcia
expressed very strong feelings about inclusion particularly in regards to how it is implemented at
Parker.
Jessica is a fourth grade teacher with more than 11 years of teaching experience. She
holds a bachelors degree plus 30 graduate credits. She indicated participating in one professional
development session during her 11 years at Parker. This was her first year as an inclusion teacher
and she reported very positive feelings regarding its implementation.
Amanda is a fourth grade teacher with less than five years of teaching experience. She
holds a bachelors degree and reported receiving some coursework on inclusion and students with
disabilities. Amanda indicated that she did not have experience with full inclusion but had some
experience with partial inclusion. She indicated that students from the self-contained CI
classroom were in her homeroom and participated in science and social studies daily.
Renee is a third grade general education teacher with more than 11 years of teaching
experience. She reported having experience with full inclusion as well as partial inclusion. Renee
expressed very positive feelings about co-teaching and believes that all students belong in

	
  

49
49	
  

	
  
general education, unless they are a disruption to the learning environment. Renee indicated that
she did not have any coursework or professional development related to inclusion or students
with disabilities.
Tracy is a third grade teacher with less than five years of teaching experience at Parker.
She had taught several years in another school district. Tracy holds a bachelors degree and
indicated having at least two courses regarding inclusion and students with disabilities. She
reported positive feelings associated with inclusion though she had not yet had the opportunity to
be an inclusion teacher at Parker. She did report having experience with inclusion at her previous
school however.
Kelly is a computer teacher for grades three through six at Parker. She has less than five
years of teaching experience. She reported having one course on inclusion in her undergraduate
program. She holds a bachelors degree and indicated that she will be pursuing a masters degree.
Kelly reported having three years of experience teaching students with disabilities within the
general education setting as well as in a self-contained setting. She reported feeling like inclusion
is extremely challenging because she does not have support from the special education teacher or
a paraprofessional in her classroom.
John is a physical education teacher for grades three through six and has more than 11
years of teaching experience. He holds a masters degree and reported having minimal
coursework on inclusion and students with disabilities. He indicated fairly positive feelings about
inclusion particularly in gym class.
Julie is a music teacher for grades three through six at Parker. She has more than six
years of teaching experience. She indicated that she had no coursework or professional
development related to inclusion or teaching students with disabilities. Currently, she teaches

	
  

50
50	
  

	
  
music to students with disabilities in the general education setting as well as in the self-contained
CI classroom setting.
Todd is a special education teacher with more than 16 years of teaching experience. At
the time of this study, he was co-teaching with two sixth grade teachers for math and language
arts. He holds a masters degree and 30 additional graduate credits. Todd is soft-spoken and kind.
He reported feeling burned out and ready for a change but was unsure about leaving Parker
elementary.
Carrie is a special education teacher with more than six years of teaching experience. She
began her career as a resource room teacher and reported feeling positive about the move to
inclusive practices. She indicated enjoying her work with Renee, the third grade teacher, and
Jessica, the fourth grade teacher. She holds a bachelors degree and indicated that she is
considering a Masters degree at some point.
Holly is a self-contained special education teacher in the Cognitively Impaired classroom.
She began her career at Parker and has been there for more than ten years. Holly holds a masters
degree in special education. She indicated a desire to move to inclusive practices with her
students but felt that administration was unsupportive. Holly mainstreams her students for
science and social studies but reported that she would like to do more.
Students. I used network sampling to ensure a balanced representation of student
participants with disabilities and without disabilities. I asked teachers to suggest students with
and without disabilities who might be interested in participating in the study. Six students from
fifth and sixth grade participated in the previous study therefore I was primarily interested in
finding participants from third and fourth grades. Third and fourth grade teachers assisted in the
selection of student participants. Eight students in grades three and four were invited to

	
  

51
51	
  

	
  
participate. After repeated attempts to obtain parent/guardian permission, three fourth graders
and one, third grader agreed to participate. In addition to the demographic data provided in Table
3.2, I also provide a brief narrative description of the student participants.
Table 3.2 Demographic Data of Student Participants
Students Grade level
th

General
Special
Education Education
X

Brian

6

Carly

6

th

X

Jay

6

th

X

Mary

5

th

X

Jack

5

th

X

Adam

5

Cassie

4

th
th

X
X

th
th

Andrew

4

X

Tyler

4

X

Thad

3

rd

X

Three fifth grade students participated in the previous study. I was not able to locate them
for follow up interviews to update the interview data or obtain new data. Adam was a fifth grade
student who was eligible for special education as a student with a specific learning disability. At
the time of the initial study, he was enrolled in a full inclusion classroom. Mary was a general
education fifth grade student enrolled in an inclusion classroom at the time of the initial study.
Jack was also a general education fifth grade student enrolled in an inclusion classroom at the
time of the initial study. The data for all three participants was included in this study.
Brian was a sixth grade general education student enrolled in an inclusion classroom at
the time of the initial study. Carly and Jay were both students eligible for special education
services as students with specific learning disabilities. At the time of the initial study, both
students were enrolled in an inclusion classroom.

	
  

52
52	
  

	
  
Andrew and Tyler were both fourth grade students enrolled in an inclusion classroom at
the time of this study. Andrew was eligible for special education services as a student with a
specific learning disability, as was Tyler. Both students participated in the interview and the
image sort, both of which were audio recorded.
Cassie was a fourth grade student at that time of this study. She was not in a full inclusion
classroom, however several students from the self-contained special education classroom joined
her homeroom for science and social studies. Cassie’s data is not included in the current study
because she was unable to answer the interview questions or complete the image sort. Cassie was
not able to describe images associated with disability or special education because she reported
that she did not know what those two words meant. For that reason, she was also unable to
complete the image sort. Thad, a third grade student, responded similarly. He too indicated no
knowledge of what disability and special education were. It is interesting to note that the two
fourth grade participants that were quite familiar with the concepts of special education and
disability were both students with disabilities.
Data Sources
Two data sources were developed to explore participants’ perceptions of disability,
special education and inclusion; a semi-structured interview protocol and verbal data based on
participants discussion of the researcher developed image sort. Both of these forms of verbal
data were recorded and transcribed. A semiotic document analysis and place analysis provided
additional secondary data sources, which helped me understand the context in which these
beliefs are held.
Discussion of the Reasearcher Developed Image Sort. Data was collected as participants
completed an image sort and discussed their perceptions and choices. In the previous section, I

	
  

53
53	
  

	
  
addressed the influence of culture on our perceptions and the role images play in constructing,
maintaining, and/or perpetuating individual’s beliefs about disability. For this reason, I chose to
use photo elicitation as a way to stimulate conversation regarding participants’ beliefs about
disability and inclusion. Although photo elicitation has been used in many types of research,
there were no existing image sort protocols in the area of disability and special education to draw
from or adapt for the purposes of this study, therefore I designed a photo elicitation image sort
specifically for this study.
The image sort needed to include images that represented various disabilities as well as
images that represented inclusion. In the fall of 2010, I contacted twelve colleagues from the
university’s teacher education and special education departments requesting examples of 3-5
images that they believe represent disability and inclusion. I chose these particular colleagues
because of their affiliation with both general and special education programs. Of the initial
twelve contacted, six individuals responded sending me five or more images they felt represented
those categories. I collected a total of 30 images.
A semiotic analysis of the images revealed that twenty-two images involved a visible
disability therefore; I selected an additional eight images that could be representative of inclusion
or invisible disabilities. These eight images included two photographs of a child without a visible
disability, three photographs of groups of individuals in social settings, one photograph of an
accessible van, and two graphics representing inclusion. See Table 3.3 for a breakdown of the
number of images by category.

	
  

54
54	
  

	
  
Table 3.3 Total Images per Category
Image Category

Total Images

Photograph of typical classroom

2

Photograph of isolated visible disability

3

Photograph of adaptive equipment/vehicles

4

Illustrations/ graphics of inclusion

3

Universal symbols and graphics of disability

4

Photograph of groups of individuals in social settings

4

Photograph of two people; one with a visible disability

3

Photograph of classrooms including students with visible disabilities

5

Photograph of single individual without a visible disability

4

Photograph of single individual with a visible disability

6

Numbers were randomly assigned to all images and recorded on the back of each image
with a black marker for the purpose of data analysis. Figure 3.1 displays all 38 images.

	
  

55
55	
  

	
  
Figure 3.1 Images
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

56	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 3.1 (cont’d)
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

57	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 3.1. (cont’d)
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

58	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 3.1. (cont’d)
37.

38.

* Note. For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this
dissertation. See footnote for citations and description of image 25. 1

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
(Borba, 2013); 2. (Co-teach Preschool , n.d.); 3. (Alibaba.com, n.d.); 4. (Rosenberg, 2010); 5. (Interior Design and Style, n.d.); 6.
(Glastonbury Public Schools, 2013); 7. (Home Away, n.d.); 8. (Southern Nevada Chapter, 2010); 9. (Inspiring Movie, 2011); 10.
(Train, 2011); 11. (Blogspot.com, n.d.); 12. (Marlee Matlin Biography, 2013); 13. (Datcher, 2013); 14. (National Inclusion Project,
n.d.); 15. (Filmsound.org, n.d.); 16. (Lisveen, n.d.); 17. (Sweeter than Candice, 2010); 18. (Daisy Among Roses, 2012); 19. (Pacer
Center, 2013); 20. (ESL Article.com, 2013); 21. (Life-Medic, n.d.); 22. (Waffles, 2010); 23. (Miller, 2010); 24. (Peters, 2010); 25.
(Kids Together, Inc, 2010) General Education/Inclusive Education/ Special Education; 26. (Grey Ops, 2011); 27. (Autism &
Oughtisms, 2011); 28. (Peters, 2010); 29. (Briccola, 2001); 30. (Peters, 2010); 31. (Enjoying the HI-5’s of Autism, 2013); 32. (Smart
Exchange, 2011); 33. (Temporary Pedestrian Access Routes, 2013); 34. (No Author, n.d.); 35. (Mizzou Wire, 2007); 36. (Squidoo,
n.d.); 37. (Education Jobs, Special Education Jobs, 2013); 38. (Thomas, 2013)	
  

1	
  1.

59	
  
	
  

	
  
Semi-Structured Phenomenographic Interviews. Semi-structured interviews offer
insight into respondents’ memories and explanations of why things have come to be what they
are (Stark & Torrance, 2008) or in this case, how respondents conceptualize disability, special
education, and inclusion. The interviews were conducted prior to the image sort so as not to
allow the images to influence interview responses. Three separate interview protocols were
developed to capture the variation in participant knowledge and experiences. The interviews
were 15-30 minutes in length. All interview protocols began with the question, “What images,
(by images, I mean symbols, objects, people, etc) come to mind when you hear the words
disability, special education, and inclusion?” Additional questions were developed for the adult
participant interview protocols. The teacher interview protocols included additional questions to
explore personal and professional feelings associated with these concepts. See appendices for
interview protocols. An oral history from an individual who was present through these transitions
was also collected.
Document Analysis. Documents can be examined for immediate content, changing
content over time and the values that such changing content manifests (Stark & Torrance, 2008).
A semiotic review of policy documents provided insight into how the district as a whole
communicates their understanding of disability, special education and inclusion. I also looked for
historical special education policy documents to gain an understanding of how special education
has been communicated to people in this building over time. I looked specifically for special
education manuals for the eras where special education legislation changed; 1975, 1997, and
2004 by contacting the local Intermediate School District. The only available manual was
entitled, “Intermediate School District Plan for the Delivery of Special Education Programs and
Services” from 2001. The secretary indicated that this was the most current manual and that

	
  

60
60	
  

	
  
previous manuals did not exist. It is important to note that Parker elementary has been operating
under this manual since 2001.
Place Analysis. I examined the building in terms of the semiotics of how space is used
and what signs and symbols may convey related to inclusion, disability and special education.
Procedures
At the beginning of the study, I met with the school administrator and the district
superintendent to obtain permission to conduct my study. This study was an extension of a prior
study I conducted at Parker elementary and included additional participants as well as document
analysis. With the principal’s permission, I expanded this study to include third, fourth, and sixth
grade teachers as well as itinerant teachers. Due to the nature of the research question, purposive
sampling was used to select teacher participants who then recommended student participants.
I met with each teacher and scheduled interviews, distributed consent forms, and enlisted
their assistance in identifying student participants. The teachers provided contact information and
invitations were sent to four parents of students without disabilities and four parents of students
with disabilities. Following the consent process, I determined a convenient time and location to
meet with the participants to conduct the interview and image sort. A total of thirty interviews
were conducted and audio recorded for transcription.
Data Collection
Image sort data. Participants were provided a template with two columns. At the top of
the left column was the word Disability, at the top of the right column was the word Inclusion.
Participants were instructed to consider which images they believed represent Disability and/or
Inclusion and place them in the corresponding column. To indicate when they felt the image
represented both categories, they were instructed to place the images in the middle. I prompted

	
  

61
61	
  

	
  
the participants’ to provide a rationale when placing various images in particular categories to
gain a deeper understanding of their conceptions of disability and inclusion. The image sort was
audio recorded and transcribed.
The images were randomly numbered on the back and as participants completed the
activity, I recorded the numbers in the appropriate columns. Numbers of images that represented
both categories were documented at the bottom of the template. An excel spreadsheet was used
to record participant responses and to develop preliminary descriptive data. Frequencies of
responses were calculated using an Excel spreadsheet, which included the number of the image,
the four response categories, and the total number of participant responses for each category. The
categories were assigned values 1 through 4 with category 1 representing Inclusion, category 2
representing disability, category 3 representing both, and category 4 representing omitted
images. A series of descriptive statistics were calculated including frequency and percentages.
Interview data. The information gathered from the semi-formal interviews was collected
to explore what cultural images and experiences have influenced participants’ understandings of
disability, inclusion, and special education. The interview protocols can be found in the
appendices A, B, C, and D. The interviews were audio recorded using a recording device. A total
of thirty-three interviews were transcribed and coded for analysis.
Data Analysis
My approach to analysis drew upon qualitative traditions of phenomenography and social
semiotics. In this section, I explain these analytical frames and how they related to my research. I
then explain how I employed them in the analysis of my data.
Phenomenographic Analysis

	
  

62
62	
  

	
  
Aspects of phenomenography and social semiotics drove my analysis, as this was most
appropriate for addressing the research questions developed of this study. The most significant
characteristics of the phenomenographic approach according to Svensson (2006), are the aiming
at categories of description, the open explorative form of data collection and the interpretive
character of the analysis of data. Phenomenographic analysis identifies similarities and
differences in the way the participants perceive disability, special education and inclusion. It
involves identifying the ways in which the phenomena is experienced by participants and allows
for grouping the experiences to understand at a deeper level what has been said or not said.
According to Reed (2006), the ways of experiencing a phenomenon are often referred to as
conceptions, which in phenomenographic research are typically represented in the form of
categories of description and should be thought of as ‘denoting’ conceptions rather than as
synonymous with conceptions.
This type of analysis allowed me to examine the way in which participants
conceptualized and communicated their understanding of disability, special education, and
inclusion. Barnard, McCosker, and Gerber (1999) refer to the qualitatively different ways in
which people understand a phenomenon as “outcome space”. The interviews involving the
verbal protocol and the photo-elicitation protocol were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.
My research assistant completed the initial transcriptions, which I reviewed and examined for
accuracy. As interviews were transcribed and reviewed, I became more familiar with the data
and began to note interesting comments and responses that were similar and/or distinctly
different.
I then reread each transcript aiming to identify the qualitatively different ways of
understanding disability, special education, and inclusion. I compared responses and labeled

	
  

63
63	
  

	
  
them in the margins, which resulted in the identification of several preliminary categories. I
reviewed the data and began coding accordingly. Initially, I had approximately 20 codes,
however as I went back through the codes I was able to condense codes that were similar and
remove codes that were less robust. To provide a detailed discussion of the findings for each
concept, I felt it was important to limit the number of categories discussed. I chose the top four
or five categories that emerged for disability, special education and inclusion with the help of my
dissertation co-chair. Five additional categories emerged that have particular relevance to the
research questions, which can be found in Chapter Seven.
There are two ways to characterize outcome space, hierarchical and horizontal.
Hierarchical outcome space occurs when one conceptualization is considered more advanced or
developed than the rest of the outcome space (Webb, 1997). Horizontal categories occur when
different viewpoints emerge, which are of equal importance in relation to one another (Hyrkas,
Astedt-Kurki & Paunonen, 1999). The conceptualizations of disability, special education, and
inclusion that emerged from the outcome space could be discussed hierarchically however, I
prefered to discuss the themes that emerged horizontally because I believe these conceptions are
equally important in relationship to one another. The intertextual and intratextual nature of the
outcome space revealed conceptions of disability, special education and inclusion, which I
believe would be more appropriately discussed in relationship to one another.
For organizational purposes, the findings are discussed according to the specific concept
that was explored. For example, Chapter Five addresses participants’ conceptions of disability,
Chapter Six addresses participants’ conceptions of special education, and Chapter Seven
addresses participants’ conceptions associated with inclusion. Organizing the chapters in this
way provided a framework for discussing them as distinct conceptualizations however, they were

	
  

64
64	
  

	
  
frequently described in relationship to one another. For this reason, I chose not to present them
hierarchically in order of importance, but rather horizontally, alongside one another. The
interrelated nature of these concepts was revealed throughout the study therefore, the order in
which I discuss each of the themes within the chapters also does not reflect their significance in
comparison to one another but rather their significance in relationship to one another and the
natural progression of the chapters.
Social Semiotic Analysis
The phenomenographic outcome space was further reviewed and coded for patterns,
which revealed (a) hegemonic and marginalized representation, (b) binary conceptualizations,
and (c) the wider cultural discourses and myths associated with these ways of thinking. As I
examined the outcome space, I coded for evidence of the hegemonic conception of disability as
understood from a medical model orientation, that is, pathological and individualistic. I also
coded for evidence of binaries associated with disability such as able/disabled, normal/abnormal,
right/wrong, visible/invisible, and so forth. My final analysis involved coding for evidence of
responses reflecting cultural myths associated with disability such as the myth of the supercrip.
This analysis afforded a more nuanced approach to examining the data and will be discussed
alongside the phenomenographic findings in the remaining chapters.

	
  

65
65	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 4
PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY
In this chapter I discuss the nature of participants’ perceptions of disability, special
education and inclusion. I also discuss the implications for educators as well as for disabled
people and a democratic society. With the legal and philosophical mandate to provide equal
opportunity, liberty and justice to all, research exploring stakeholders’ perceptions of disability,
inclusion, and special education is crucial. According to Furman (2008), “There can no longer be
a view of teaching as apolitical or that ignores issues of diversity in its many forms. The job of a
teacher must be to make inequity visible and to broker in intercultural capital” (p. 76). To
address issues of diversity and inequity in education, first requires educators to examine their
biases, prejudices, and beliefs associated with culturally diverse groups. These examinations are
key in determining how one’s awareness and beliefs will eventually end up informing their
practice in the classroom (Dedeoglu & Lamme, 2010).
I wanted to explore perceptions of disability, inclusion and special education in such a
way that participants’ would naturally engage in dialogue about their assumptions, biases, and
prejudices. For this reason, I paired photo elicitation with phenomenographic interviews to
stimulate dialogue and to potentially obtain richer descriptions of teachers and students beliefs
about disability, inclusion and special education. I was interested in exploring how individuals at
Parker elementary come to understand and make meaning of these phenomena in their own
minds. First, I asked participants to describe what images, symbols, objects, or ideas came to
mind when they heard the words disability, inclusion, and special education. To further explore
their perceptions, I then showed participants 38 images and asked them to determine which
images they believed represented disability and which images represented inclusion. “Images

	
  

66
66	
  

	
  
evoke deeper elements of human consciousness than do words; exchanges based on words alone
utilize less of the brain’s capacity than do exchanges in which the brain is processing images as
well as words” (Harper, 2002, p. 1) For this reason, photo images were used to elicit responses
from participants that would provide a deeper paradigmatic understanding of their perceptions of
disability and inclusion than research without images. According to Harper (2002), elicitation
interviews connect “core definitions of the self” to society, culture and history, which proved to
be instrumental in exploring participants’ cultural perceptions of three incredibly complex
phenomena.
Researching Semiotic Conceptions and Phenomenological Beliefs
Social semiotics provided an exciting and effective method for exploring participants’
personal and professional perceptions of disability because it is concerned with how meaning is
attached to signs. Bal and Bryson (1991) say, “human culture is made up of signs, each of which
stands for something other than itself, and the people inhabiting culture busy themselves making
sense of those signs” (as cited in Rose, 2012, p.106). In this study, I explored participants’
cultural associations of disability, inclusion, and special education. Some of the participants
appeared to be aware of the difference between a cultural association and a more reflective
personal association and seemed distressed by it. McLeod (2008) refers to a situation involving
conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors as causing cognitive dissonance. McLeod states that
cognitive dissonance produces a feeling of discomfort or tension leading to an alteration in one
of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. “Cognitive
dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward
dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction”
(Festinger, 1957, p. 3). Several participants reported feeling frustrated during the image sort

	
  

67
67	
  

	
  
because they did not feel as though it accurately reflected their “personal” beliefs. Wilson (2011)
points out that dissonance can be manifested in the particular way an individual feels on a
personal level, a belief or attitude, that may not be appropriate on a professional level, which
creates the dissonance between the two (p. 14). This appeared to be the case for Marcia, a fourth
grade teacher, who expressed intense frustration towards the end of the image sort because she
felt as though she was not representing her beliefs, “Okay, I’ll tell you what bothers me because
I feel like you just put me into how the regular public perceives these things and that makes me
feel uncomfortable because that’s not how it should be.” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Other teachers appeared to experience cognitive dissonance, however Marcia expressed
the most intense feelings about it. See Table 4.1 for additional information.
Table 4.1
Indications of Cognitive Dissonance Related to the Image Sort.
Teacher
Kelly
Colleen
Tracy
Greg
Julie
Ellen
John
Holly
Carrie
Todd
Susan
Jessica
Amanda
Renee
Lisa
Amy

	
  

Words Used to Express Feelings
Related to Image Sort
None
Nervous
Nervous, judgmental
Judgmental
Stereotypical, awkward
Weird
Too open ended
None
Very uncomfortable, stereotypical
None
A little uncomfortable
Bad, judgmental
Not good
Happy
A little nervous
Self-conscious

68
68	
  

	
  
The majority of the participants expressed feelings of nervousness, discomfort, and
judgment associated with the image sort. Both Amy and Carrie expressed some frustration as
they engaged in the image sort. Amy’s frustration appeared to stem from uncertainty, “you do
question yourself because you want to do it, you want to put them in the right category.”
(Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Carrie, a special education teacher, reported feeling
uncomfortable because, “it makes you think of things, like preconceived notions or stereotypes
that you’ve had your whole life. No one wants to do this, you know? It’s uncomfortable…”
(Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
It is worth noting that all three teachers were given the option to change the sort to more
appropriately reflect their beliefs, yet only Amy and Carrie opted to do so. Marcia refused
saying, “No, because I don’t know enough [about the individuals in the images].” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). However, when she reported being very familiar with one of
the images, she appeared even more frustrated saying, “I feel like I know the most about image 9
and it bothers me even more.” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). She decided to leave
the images in their original categories even though she was visibly uncomfortable with it. Grohol
(2008) suggests that we often do not like to second-guess our choices because we may feel that
we are not as wise or as right as we have led ourselves to believe. For this reason, we may
commit to a particular course of action and become insensitive to and reject alternative, perhaps
better, courses that come to light. The participants may have refused to revise the placement of
some of the images in an attempt to reduce the discomfort experienced by
competing/contradictory beliefs and by accepting the dominant social perception of disability as
visible.

	
  

69
69	
  

	
  
While teachers sometimes correctly pointed out that their perceptions weren’t “their
fault”, they were nonetheless their perceptions and their existence highlights the importance of
this research. It is particularly important to research concepts that are culturally weighted with
signification since this is the symbolic milieu in which we live, think and speak.
The data below reflects participants’ sometimes conflicting and even directly
contradictory beliefs and perceptions. I have not tried to find a “one best answer” from
participants since this complexity and contradiction is a very relevant part of their personal
conceptual frameworks. Individuals can, for example, believe something strongly or not, with
passion or not, for good reason or not. Two persons may hold the same belief system with a
different measure of strength, with more or less adequate reasons, or with more or less adequate
evidence. They may, on the contrary, believe different things with equal strength, reason or
evidence (Green, 1968, p. 38). Green describes these differences as referring to the way in
which beliefs are held in relationship to each other and second to the way in which beliefs are
held in relation to evidence or reasons. Green (1968) describes a “primitive belief” as one, which
is held without question, which has the status of an arbiter, so to speak, in determining which
beliefs can be received and which must be rejected. According to Greene (1968), whether a
belief is central or peripheral has little to do with its consent. “Some beliefs are more important
than others and the measure of their importance…is not whether they are logically primitive, but
whether they are psychologically central (p. 40).” The data does not indicate with certainty
whether the participants were experiencing cognitive dissonance or merely holding conflicting
beliefs, however several important and relevant themes emerged which may provide valuable
insight into attitudes and beliefs about disability and inclusion that could positively influence the
future of inclusive practices.

	
  

70
70	
  

	
  
The interview and image sort responses were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for
phenomenographic and semiotic analysis. The phenomenographic analysis resulted in an
“outcome space” (Barnard, McCosker & Gerber, 1999) for examination, interpretation, and
discussion. The outcome space revealed several interesting themes related to participants
perceptions of disability, which will be discussed in this chapter. I will first present and briefly
explain the themes that emerged related to participants’ perceptions of each phenomenon
including the perception that disability is visible; disability is incompetence; disability is easily
defined and disability is abnormal. I will also discuss the potential implications of these findings.
Perceptions of Disability
Disability is Visible. As part of the verbal interview, I asked participants to describe any
images, symbols, or objects that came to their mind when they heard the word disability. For the
majority of participants, the response was distinctively a physical and/or visible disability.
Though several participants would later reference cognitive or learning disabilities, the first
image that came to their minds was that of a visible or physical disability. Table 4.2 displays the
images most frequently associated with disability as elicited by the question, “What images,
symbols, or objects come to mind when you hear the word disability?
Table 4.2
Images, Symbols, or Objects Associated with Disability.
Images
Wheelchair
Physical Impairment
Mental Impairment
Learning Disability
Cane/Crutches
Walker
Braces
Hearing Impairment
Emotional Impairment

	
  

Tally
11
10
6
4
3
3
2
1
1

71
71	
  

	
  
Table 4.2 (cont’d)
Images

Tally

Heart Problem
Cleft Palate/Mouth Guards
Handicapped Parking Sticker
Helmet

1
1
1
1

Participants’ perception of disability as visible is supported by the image sort data as well.
During the image sort, 84 percent of participants appeared to use evidence of a visible
disability as their main criteria for categorizing the images. Amanda, a fourth grade general
education teacher, reluctantly stated, “…I would say that this student maybe looks like she may
have a disability…” (Personal communication, April 17, 2013) as she contemplated placing
image 14, a photograph of a student with Down syndrome, in the disability category. Marcia,
also a fourth grade general education teacher, used the lack of visible evidence to determine the
placement of image 32, a photograph of a young girl reading, saying, “I can’t see right away if
this child has any learning disabilities or not.” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). John, a
physical education teacher, categorizes image 36, a photograph of a young boy outside, as
disability because, “…it looks like he could be autistic…” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). The perception of disability as visible was woven throughout the verbal interview and
image sort data as indicated in Table 4.3.

	
  

72
72	
  

	
  
Table 4.3
Conceptions of Disability as Visible
Sorted for visible
disability
Yes
Participant

SE teacher
SE teacher
SE teacher
PE teacher
Music teacher
Comp. teacher
th
GE teacher 6

Yes

Grade or role

Todd
Carrie
Holly
John
Julie
Kelly
Ellen

No

Verbal response of visible
disability

th

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Yes +
invisible

No

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Greg

GE teacher 6

X

Lisa

GE teacher 5

th

X

Amy

th

GE teacher 5

X

Susan

GE teacher 5

th

X

X

Jessica

GE teacher 4

th

X

X

Colleen

th

GE teacher 4

X

X

Amanda

GE teacher 4

th

X

Marcia

th

GE teacher 4

X

Tracy

GE teacher 3

rd

X

X

Renee

GE teacher 3

rd

X

X

Brian

6 GE student

th

X

Carly

6 GE student

th

X

X

Jay

th

6 SE student

X

X

Andrew

6 SE student

th

X

Mary

5 GE student

Jack

5 GE student

th

X

Adam

5 SE student

th

X

X

Tyer

th

4 GE student

X

X

Cassie

4 GE student

th

X

X

Thad

3 GE student

rd

X

X

th

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

Totals
19
8
11
11
5
* Note. SE = Special Education; GE = General Education; PE = Physical Education

	
  

73
73	
  

	
  
The image sort data indicated that participants most frequently categorized images as
representing disability when they involved a) photographs of individuals using mobility devices
such as wheelchairs, prosthesis, canes, or walkers; b) photographs of individuals using sign
language and/or braille; c) symbols such as the handicapped parking sign and symbols
representing cognitive, hearing, vision, or physical impairments; and d) photographs of
individuals with characteristics indicative of Down syndrome and Cerebral Palsy.
Twenty-seven of the 38 images involved individuals with visible disabilities, assistive
devices, or symbols associated with disability and though the participants used different criteria
for categorizing images as representing disability, there were several images that appeared to be
the least contested across all participants. Images 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27,
29, 33, 34, 35, and 37 were categorized as representing disability most frequently across
participants (See Table 4.4). Of these 18 images, six photographs included wheelchairs, three
involved universal disability symbols, four involved individuals using prosthetic devices, four
involved individuals with vision or hearing disabilities and one included an individual with
Down syndrome.

	
  

74
74	
  

	
  
Table 4.4
Percentage of Participants Who Categorized Image as Disability
Image Percent of Participants Number of Participants
5

88

23

29

88

23

10

85

22

17

85

22

20

85

22

27

85

22

37

85

22

33

85

22

12

81

21

21

81

21

23

77

20

8

77

20

35

77

20

18

73

19

16

73

19

11

69

18

34

69

18

7

62

16

*Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56 .

	
  

75
75	
  

	
  
As mentioned above, I asked participants to describe the process they used to determine
which category each image represented to gain a deeper understanding of their perceptions of
disability. Ninety-three percent of participants reported that they placed images in the disability
category if there was visible evidence of a disability or the need for adaptive equipment or
assistive devices. Kelly, a third year computer teacher, reported that she “…stuck to physical
disabilities, just in disability [category]…” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Greg, a
sixth grade general education teacher, appeared to associate disability with difference or
aberration, categorizing image 27, a universal symbol of various disabilities, as representing
disability “…because it just represents things that could be wrong.” (Personal communication,
April 15, 2013). He identified three other images; 34, a photograph of an individual with a
prosthetic leg, 33, a photograph of an individual using a cane, and 20, a photograph of a child
with Down syndrome, as representing disability based on the visible nature of the disability.
Amongst the collective K-12 student population in the United States today, the number of
students with invisible disabilities far outweighs the number of students with visible disabilities.
According to the U. S. Department of Education (2012), 10.3 percent of the 13.1 percent of
students receiving special education services have invisible disabilities such as Specific Learning
Disabilities, Speech or Language Disabilities, Intellectual Disabilities, Emotional Disturbance,
and/or Autism. The remaining 2.8 percent are students with visible disabilities such as Physical
Impairments, Hearing Impairments, Vision Impairments, and/or Multiple Impairments. The data
from the current study suggests that teachers may be more likely to perceive disability as visible
or physical, which could influence how they perceive and respond to students with invisible
disabilities. Dedeoglu and Lamme (2010) reiterate the importance of determining how aware

	
  

76
76	
  

	
  
individuals are of the diversity that surrounds them and how they choose to respond to it because
it is a key factor in knowing how beliefs will ultimately be reflected in the classroom.
This study involved photo-elicitation as a way to more deeply explore participants’
beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about disability and inclusion. Two-thirds of the images used
in this study involved visible cues of disability and though this was the criterion most often used
to categorize images as representing disability, it certainly was not the only one. Even though the
images did not involve an equal number of visible and invisible disabilities that did not appear to
negatively impact the findings primarily because the images were used as a qualitative method to
elicit participants’ deeply held beliefs and assumptions about disability and not as a quantitative
method for numerical analysis. The visible presence of a disability did not automatically prompt
participants to categorize the image as representing disability. There were occasions when
participants indicated using background knowledge and social context as criteria for determining
whether images represented disability as well, a finding that will be explored further later in the
chapter.
Another implication is that physically disabled students may be understood to be “more”
disabled in school than students with invisible disabilities; a finding that will be explored further
in Chapter Six. A physical disability does not always result in significant educational challenges.
One example of this is the famous physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who has
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and has been nearly completely paralyzed for decades.
Students with physical disabilities (that do not impact their academic abilities) need support and
respect for their “normalness”, which ironically may be something not clear to teachers who
seem fixated on physical limitations. This will be discussed further in the following section.

	
  

77
77	
  

	
  
Participants described their process for categorizing images as representing disability
using primarily visible criteria however, for some participants, this criteria changed based on the
perceived success of the individual(s) in the photographs. The notion that success reduces or
eliminates disability is noteworthy; therefore, I will explore this in greater depth in the following
section.
Disability as Deficit. Research suggests that for many people, disability is perceived as a
deficit and is often described in terms of what one cannot do (Wolfensberger, 1988; Darke, 1998;
Mitchell & Snyder, 2001; Nario-Redmond, 2008; Westbrook, Legge & Pennay, 1993). Similarly,
for some of the adult participants in this study, disability appeared to be determined by the level
of success or normalcy that could be achieved. That is to say, the more successful and “normal”
the individuals appeared, the more difficult is was for some of the participants to consider them
disabled. For example, image 12, a photograph of Marlee Matlin, prompted this response from
Greg, “I don’t think she fits, the lady from T. V. I don’t know, she just, maybe she is just doing
too well.” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Her success as an actress appeared to
strongly influence Greg’s perception of her as non-disabled because he categorized image 8, the
universal symbol for sign language, as representing disability. Baglieri and Shapiro (2012) point
out that the ways we make meaning of disability are funneled and focused through cultural
beliefs that inherently devalue disability as appeared to be the case with Greg who struggled to
associate disability with success.
John indicated the belief that attitude and confidence are important factors in determining
disability. He quickly decided that image 11, Stevie Wonder, did not belong in the disability
category saying, “…I guess the main thing is, with him, it’s his attitude as far as his disability.
He just doesn’t let it bother him. It’s no big deal. He’s very confident in himself and that helps”

	
  

78
78	
  

	
  
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He used a similar rationale for image 18, a
photograph of a woman running with prosthetic feet, “Here’s one with a woman running…on
her prosthetic legs so, I don’t see that as either [disability or inclusion]. Um, I mean they made
an adaption so, it’s not really disabled, you’re still doing what you can do” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). Some of the individuals in these images were perceived as
being too successful to be disabled and some with access to devices that enable them to do
“normal” things were also perceived as less disabled or not disabled at all. Amanda, for example,
struggled to categorize image 34, an individual with a prosthetic leg, saying, “…if this person
had pants on, I wouldn’t even know this person has a disability or not…I guess it is a disability
but I think they could probably function just like the rest of us” (Personal communication, April
17, 2013). The more able-bodied, the more successful, and the more confident the individuals
were perceived to be, the less disabled they were perceived to be.
The majority of participants implicitly indicated the dominant myth of disability as
deficit. The perspective of disability as a deficit is inherent in the medical model of disability,
which recommends a scientific approach to disability. It is the most dominant model for
addressing disability in schools as evidenced by IDEIA, which provides the framework for
determining special education eligibility and service provisions. Greg, John, and Amanda
indicated orientation toward the medical model of disability as they resisted the association of
disability with success, able-bodiedness, and confidence. Other participants also indicated an
orientation toward the medical model of disability as they described “lack of motivation” and
“lack of confidence” as characteristics typically associated with disability. Some responses
reflected the indication of a social model orientation toward disability, which considers the

	
  

79
79	
  

	
  
broader context in which disability becomes meaningful. The next section will discuss the role
context played in the determination of disability.
Disability in Context. The majority of participants consistently associated disability with
visible or physical features as indicated by the interview and image sort data. However, it
appeared that background knowledge and familiarity with the images played a role in the
determination of disability for some of the teacher participants. I will begin this section with a
brief overview of these images to provide a context for discussing the unique perspectives of
four teachers and their implications for inclusion.
Five of the 38 images involved famous characters from movies and television as well as
famous musicians and actors. Image 11 is a photograph of Stevie Wonder, a famous singer,
songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist. Image 12 is a photograph of Marlee Matlin, a famous
movie and television actress who is the only deaf performer to win the Academy Award for Best
Actress in a Leading Role. Image 9 is an advertisement for the movie I am Sam (Nelson, 2001),
which involves a father with mild cognitive impairments played by Sean Penn. Image 15 is a
photograph of Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, sitting on a park bench waiting for the bus
in the Academy Award winning movie Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994). Image 22 is a
photograph from the movie Mask (Starger, 1985) starring Eric Stoltz as Rocky Dennis, a boy
diagnosed with Craniodiaphyseal Dysplasia, an extremely rare disorder known commonly as
Lionitis due to the disfiguring cranial enlargements that it causes. The majority of adult
participants indicated being at least vaguely familiar or very familiar with these images, which
reportedly influenced how some of them categorized the images. The results for the
categorization of these images are shown in Table 4.5.

	
  

80
80	
  

	
  
Table 4.5
Results for Teacher Categorization of Familiar Images
Categorized image as representing:
Images Disability Inclusion Both Omitted
9

5

3

7

2

11

8

2

5

2

12

9

2

5

1

15

5

5

4

3

22
4
5
5
3
* Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56.
As indicated earlier, the majority of teachers appeared to associate disability with a
visible or physical condition across the data. There were four teachers however, who appeared to
associate disability with other factors such as, the level of success or independence achieved.
This was particularly relevant in reference to image 11, a photograph of Stevie Wonder. John, a
physical education teacher, and Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, omitted the image altogether, while
Jessica, a fourth grade teacher, and Holly, a self-contained special education teacher, categorized
it as representing inclusion only. Their rationale for placement may indicate an orientation
toward the social model of disability or an orientation toward the myth of the ‘supercrip’.
Image 11 elicited the following response from Jessica, “…people don’t really see that or
don’t think of it as he’s blind and that he can’t see…he’s still a wonderful singer that everyone’s
amazed with his singing ability” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). She elaborated
saying, “I don’t necessarily think about him being disabled…I just don’t, I think of him as a
singer…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). John did not believe image 11 represented
disability or inclusion and omitted it from the sort saying, “I guess the main thing is, with him,

	
  

81
81	
  

	
  
it’s his attitude as far as his disability. He just doesn’t let it bother him, it’s no big deal, he’s very
confident in himself and that helps” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Even though he
recognized that Stevie Wonder is blind, John did not perceive it to be a disability. Lisa also
omitted image 11 from the sort saying, “I don’t consider image 11 a disability…he’s overcome
it” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). The perception of disabled individuals as
overcoming the trauma of disability through courage and perseverance is regarded by many in
the disabled community, as the myth of the “supercrip” (Nelson, 1996).
Though Julie categorized image 11 as representing both disability and inclusion, she
indicated a similar perception saying, “There is an obvious disability but he didn’t let that stop
him, he is very mainstream” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). The narrow focus on the
heroic struggles of the few, diminishes the much needed attention to broader accessibility issues
such as, healthcare, employment, education, recreation, and housing that remain problematic for
many disabled individuals (Nelson, 1996). Although all four of these participants reported
being aware that Stevie Wonder is blind, they did not perceive him to be disabled reportedly
because of his level of success and independence. Similar responses were elicited by images 9,
10, 12, 15, 18, 22, 29 and 34, which will be discussed in further detail below.
Image 12, a photograph of Marlee Matlin, a well-known television and movie actress
who is deaf, prompted interesting responses from several participants. While nine participants
categorized the image as representing disability, only two participants categorized it as solely
representing inclusion. Five teachers categorized it as representing inclusion and disability while
one teacher omitted the image altogether. As two participants struggled to categorize this image,
they provided surprising rationale for their decisions. For example, Greg was apprehensive about
categorizing image 12 as disability initially saying, “I don’t know, she just, maybe she is just

	
  

82
82	
  

	
  
doing too well” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013) indicating the belief that because she
was so successful she may not be disabled. As he debated where to place the image, he finally
conceded that, “I guess she is deaf. She would probably be disability…I don’t know, yeah I’m
going to go with disability” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Greg’s indecision was
apparently caused by Matlin’s perceived level of success. Lisa reported a similar perception, “I
don’t consider that a disability because she uses sign [language] and I think there are a lot of
ways to accommodate that now” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013).
The belief that individuals with disabilities who are successful or who appear to function
independently are somehow less disabled or not disabled at all was indicated by other
participants as well. Jessica provided this rationale for image 18, a photograph of a woman with
prosthetic feet, “…this person is running down the beach. I think I would have an automatic
respect, like this person doesn’t have any kind of disability, they’re running” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). The woman in image 18 has access to assistive devices that
afford her the opportunity to participate in an activity that she may not otherwise be able to
engage in. Accommodations are intended to increase access to opportunities that may not
otherwise be accessible to individuals with disabilities, however they do not eliminate the
disability.
Amanda appeared to hold a similar perception about image 15, an advertisement for the
film Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994), saying “Well, I think that he is obviously…mentally a
little slow obviously…there were obviously social cues that he missed but that didn’t stop him
really. So, I don’t know where he falls” (Personal communication, April 17, 2013). Marcia used
a similar rationale for images 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 29, and 34, “These, to me…are possibly people
with special needs that have achieved inclusion in their lives outside of the classroom; meaning

	
  

83
83	
  

	
  
that they have taken…their disability and made it to where, their disability hasn’t stopped them
[Pause] beyond the classroom. To me, these people have overcome, or done their best to
overcome their disability, to function outside, beyond school” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013). The perception that people with disabilities cannot lead full and productive lives is a
myth commonly associated with disability. Marcia indicated that some of the individuals in the
images have overcome their disability because they appeared to be functioning independently
and successfully. She did not seem to consider the possibility that individuals could function
independently and successfully with a disability, but rather that they must have overcome it.
John appeared to hold similar conceptions, however rather than suggesting that the
individuals have overcome their disability, he suggested that they do not have a disability at all.
For example, as he considered images 18 and 34, he said, “Here’s a person that has a prosthetic
leg [Image 34] and with the advances today, I don’t really see that as a disability because there
are people that were in the Olympics that have that. Here’s one with a woman running [Image
18], like I said with the man in the Olympics…I don’t see that as either [disability or inclusion]”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). John did not perceive image 11, Stevie Wonder, as
disabled either due to his perceived success and positive attitude. He provided a similar rationale
for image 15, a photograph of Forrest Gump, saying, “…I don’t think he really needed the
braces…in the movie he was portrayed as a little slow but did many great things so, I don’t think
he really had a disability” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013) Lisa provided a similar
rationale for omitting image 15 from the disability category, “I personally don’t think it belongs
in either one. He’s productive; he was successful in his life story in the movie. He did not, he’s
not any different than anybody else as far as his life goals and being able to achieve them”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013) She also omitted images 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 29, and

	
  

84
84	
  

	
  
34 from the disability category saying, “…to me [disability] is a challenge that the person who
holds it cannot easily overcome…” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Lisa appeared to
believe that individuals, who use adaptive equipment, assistive devices, or accommodations, are
not disabled because, “You can overcome, you can live your life to the fullest in a wheelchair”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013) See Table 4.6 for additional data pertaining to
categorization of images 10, 18, 29, and 34.
Table 4.6
Results for Teacher Categorization of Images as Less or Not Disabled
Categorized image as representing:
Images
Disability Inclusion Both Omitted
10
10
2
4
1
18
6
3
6
2
29
10
2
4
1
34
9
6
1
1
* Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56.
This orientation toward disability perpetuates the stereotype of “the supercrip” or the
“extraordinary disabled” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). According to Smart (2001), disability
advocates define a supercrip as the presentation of a person, affected by a disability, as
‘overcoming’ to succeed as a meaningful member of society and to live a ‘normal’ life. While
popular because of its inspirational element, the supercrip reinforces the low societal
expectations of people with disabilities (Iwakuma, 1997; Golden, 1992). The myth that the more
successful and independent you are, the less disabled you are has several important implications.
First, providing appropriate accommodations or adaptive equipment is intended to minimize the
impact of a disability, not eradicate it. To view individuals with disabilities as less disabled or
not disabled at all because they are able to access the world around them in seemingly nondisabled ways, assumes that all disabled people strive for normalization when in fact, there are

	
  

85
85	
  

	
  
many ways in which disability can be experienced. For example, some individuals with
disabilities that are not highly visible may choose to pass as ‘normal’ because their disability is
not the most salient part of their identity, rather they tend to see themselves as ‘normal’ people
who ‘happen to have’ a disability (Darling, 2003, p. 886). In contrast, there are others who view
their disability as their primary identity and view it positively, sometimes even in association
with disability pride (Darling, 2003). As humans, we have multiple and varied identities that
change over time. The same is true for disability; therefore we must be aware of and sensitive to
these changing identities and resist ascribing to the negative stereotypes and myths associated
with disability.
Second, perceiving individuals with disabilities as less disabled or not disabled at all
because they are successful, reflects the assumption that those with disabilities can overcome
their disability through hard work, determination, and a positive attitude. This implies that
disability is the obstacle; that the disability is what must be overcome and that it is the
responsibility of the individual to make that happen. This is a common and pervasive myth that
is not only reflected in this study, but in society as well. For example, Rock Your Business is an
online blog designed to provide professional support to “up and coming” musicians. On March 6,
2011, the authors posted a story about Stevie Wonder entitled, “A Lesson in Overcoming
Adversity”. The blog entry suggested taking a lesson from Stevie Wonder and don’t make
excuses for yourself, rise above adversity, stop complaining and work hard. They also added that
Stevie “was dedicated, hard working, and talented. He didn’t want others to feel sorry for him”
(Miller & Levitch, 2011, para. 9). This perspective is influenced by the medical model of
disability, which fundamentally constructs students with disabilities as physically “defective”
and most in need of diagnosis and treatment (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).

	
  

86
86	
  

	
  
The myth of disability as visible was reflected in the majority of participants’ interview
and image sort data, however some participants appeared to hold contradictory beliefs about
disability. On the one hand, they appeared to perceive disability as primarily visible or physical,
yet on the other hand, they reported believing that some visible disabilities were not disabilities
at all. For example, seven participants categorized images 5, 10, 16, 17, 20, 33, and 37 easily,
without providing a rationale indicating that there was something inherent in the image itself that
allowed them to easily categorize it as representing disability (See Figure 3.1 on page 56).
Jessica illustrated this point as she easily categorized image 16, a photograph of an
individual reading Braille, as representing disability but struggled to categorize image 11, a
photograph of Stevie Wonder, as representing disability. She indicated that if she “didn’t know
him [Stevie Wonder]…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013) she would have easily
categorized it as disability, however because he is a famous singer, she did not perceive him as
disabled. Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, indicated her perception of disability as, “…more of a
cognitive disability, I don’t think of physical as necessarily a disability, it’s more the cognitive”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013) Staying true to her beliefs, she easily categorized
image 20, a photograph of a child with Down syndrome, as representing disability saying,
“there’s more of a cognitive impairment here…” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013)
however, her specific knowledge of image 15, Forrest Gump, prompted a contradictory
response. While she acknowledged that Forrest Gump was cognitively impaired, she did not
perceive that as a disability based on his success and ability to achieve his goals. The idea that
participants may hold contradictory beliefs about disability became even more apparent when
looking at images 9, an advertisement for the movie I Am Sam (Solomon, Hall, Zwick, Nelson,
& Herskovitz, 2002) and 22, an advertisement for the movie Mask (Starger, 1985).

	
  

87
87	
  

	
  
The data indicated that the majority of participants perceived disability as primarily
visible, however it appears as though context played an important role in the determination of
disability in some cases. When the participants had more specific knowledge of the individual in
the image, they appeared to use contextual factors to determine whether the image represented
disability. Image 9, an advertisement for the movie I Am Sam (Nelson, 2001), involves a
photograph of an adult male pushing a young girl on a swing. There is no visual indication of
disability for either the man or the young girl, therefore drawing on specific knowledge of the
characters in the movie aided them in categorizing this image. Ellen, a 6th grade teacher
reported,“…most of the things I put with disability are things that I can see, I can
physically…tell that they’re different somehow…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013),
yet she did not use this criteria for categorizing image 9. Ellen appeared to draw on her
knowledge of the movie when determining that image 9, an advertisement for the movie I Am
Sam (Nelson, 2001), represented both disability and inclusion saying, “…he’s definitely
disabled, but he’s kind of working in the real world. He has to figure out how to mesh in the real
world” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). She appeared to associate disability with an
invisible characteristic such as cognitive functioning in the case of image 9. Jessica also
categorized images as disability based primarily on visible criteria, yet she appeared to agree
with Ellen saying, “…but I know from the movie that he has some kind of disability” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). This also appeared to be the case with Greg who primarily used
visible criteria when categorizing images as disability, however he categorized images 9, I Am
Sam (Nelson, 2001) and 15, Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994) as representing disability based on
their perceived level of cognitive functioning as a result of his familiarity with the movies.

	
  

88
88	
  

	
  
Eight participants categorized image 22 as representing disability based on appearance
alone. Image 22 is an advertisement for the movie Mask (Starger, 1985), which involves a
teenage boy with Craniodiaphyseal Dysplasia resulting in the development of visibly different
facial characteristics. Eight participants familiar with the movie did not categorize the image as
representing disability rather they placed it in the inclusion category or chose to omit it
altogether. Carrie provided this rationale, “I think he was born with a bad birth defect, I saw the
movie but I don’t think it’s necessarily a disability, he doesn’t seem to be cognitively impaired
just because he has a deformed face” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Amy responded
similarly saying, “I don’t even know if that would be a disability because it’s just a deformed,
deformity. That’s not necessarily a disability…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
Jessica concurred saying, “I mean he has a disease but it’s not necessarily a disability” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013).
As this data indicates, there were occasions when participants appeared to use contextual
factors to determine whether the image represented disability, which may reflect a social model
of disability orientation. This is illustrated by Todd, who believed image 22 represented
inclusion rather than disability, saying, “…if I didn’t know the movie, I probably would have put
it over here [disability], just saw someone who had a disability…” (Personal communication,
May 10, 2013). Jessica referred to this as well when categorizing image 9, I Am Sam (Solomon,
et al., 2002), saying, “…I know from the movie that he has some kind of disability” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). While familiarity with the image appeared to assist some
participants in categorizing some of the images, one participant did not find it helpful. Initially
Marcia indicated a desire to know more about each image so she could sort them, however she
quickly changed her mind when she came to image 9, I Am Sam (Solomon, et al., 2002). As a

	
  

89
89	
  

	
  
matter of fact, Marcia found it even more frustrating saying, “I feel like I have the most history
with this one. I feel like I know the most about this one and it bothers me even more!” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). Those participants that considered the context of the image
rather than relying solely on what was visible in the image could be reflecting a broader
conception of disability. Though there was no specific reference made to different conceptions of
disability, their responses could potentially reflect an underlying belief of disability as socially
constructed. “Social models of disability forefront the influence our economic and social
structures and central values have on the ways in which we define disability and respond to
persons with them” (Oliver, 1990, xii, as cited in Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 25). That is to say,
social models focus not only on the impairment, but also on the social context in which it
becomes meaningful (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). As mentioned above, some of the teachers used
information about the social context of the image as they categorized them, which may indicate
the potential for broadening teachers’ conceptions of disability to include the social model of
disability. Social models of disability provide a paradigm that places the physical, social, and
political environment as the crucial focus of intervention rather than the student, which is the
primary focus of current legislation. Education becomes truly inclusive when the student, the
disability and the physical, social, and political contexts are considered together rather than
separate.
As indicated above, there were occasions where participants appeared to think about
disability as more than primarily visible or physical, however this often occurred because
specific images were familiar. The majority of images did not involve familiar individuals or
events and therefore did not elicit extended responses. These images were categorized easily and

	
  

90
90	
  

	
  
with minimal consideration, which along with their verbal responses indicated that disability is
very easily defined. This will be explored further in the next section.
Disability is Easily Defined. For educational purposes, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) provides the vocabulary to define disability (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012). According to IDEIA, there are 13 disability categories: Visual Impairments,
Hearing Impairments, Deafness, Deaf-Blindness, Speech or Language Impairments, Orthopedic
Impairments, Traumatic Brain Injury, Other Health Impairments, Multiple Disabilities,
Cognitive Impairments, Specific Learning Disabilities, Emotional Disturbance and Behavioral
Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Each of these categories has its own distinct definition
that is used to aid in the determination of a disability for school-aged children. Disability
involves many diverse and complex distinctions.
In this study however, participants easily, narrowly and similarly defined disability.
Though there are 13 different categories of disability, each with unique characteristics, many of
the participants in this study provided similar conceptions of disability and again, they did this
quickly and easily. Below, I will describe this finding in greater detail and provide examples
from the image sort as well as the verbal interview.
Twenty-two of the 27 participants provided verbal descriptions of disability that involved
visible criteria, learning disabilities, or indicated a deficit in physical or intellectual functioning.
For example, Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, confidently stated, “…it’s more of a physical
impairment and not an educational impairment” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
Amy, also a fifth grade teacher, explained, “When I think of disability, I think of…someone who
has a physical disability…I think of body disabilities, not necessarily disabilities that you don’t
see from the outside” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). This was a theme that was

	
  

91
91	
  

	
  
woven throughout the verbal interviews but was particularly relevant in general education
teacher responses. Three of the 4 fourth grade teachers easily associated disability with a visible
presence. For example, Jessica responded by saying, “…I just think of disability as someone
who’s in a wheelchair…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). and Marcia responded
similarly, “The first things that come to my mind are like wheelchair or cane, or physical
limitations” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Amanda described disability as,
“…either physical or mental” (Personal communication, April 17, 2013). Renee, a third grade
teacher appeared overwhelmed saying “…like a hundred pictures show up in my head at once…”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013) but as she proceeded to describe the images, she led
with, “I’m seeing kids in wheelchairs…” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
Some of the student participants also appeared to easily define disability as visible. Jay, a
sixth grade student with a disability, described it as, “…someone who can not like walk around
that good…” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011) and Brian described disability as, “…like
not being able to do things that other people are common with or can do well” (Personal
communication, May 10, 2011). Mary, a fifth grade student, provided this definition of
disability, “I think of kids that have, like they can’t do stuff that we can. Like kids in
wheelchairs. They can’t walk like we can and some kids can’t think as we can, like mentally
retarded…” (Personal communication, May 17, 2013). The most compelling evidence that
disability is easily defined or understood by the participants was revealed during the image sort.
In this paragraph, I report the distinctive findings that resulted from data collected
through the audio-recorded image sorts. While I have field notes on all participants conducting
this activity, the precise words and phrases used are important for discussing disability as
“easily” defined. There were 15 image sorts audio-recorded (2 students and 13 teachers) for this

	
  

92
92	
  

	
  
study. As I conducted the image sorts, I was struck by how easily some of the images were
categorized as representing disability and how some images appeared to be more difficult,
eliciting longer more detailed explanations. During the image sort, the majority of the
participants appeared to easily categorize images as representing disability. This was indicated
by the speed with which they placed the image and the limited rationale provided for placing the
image. For example, as Jessica participated in the image sort, she provided detailed explanations
for placing some images in the disability category while others she did not. She pondered over
the placement of image 14 saying, “Okay, um, I guess I would say this is both [disability and
inclusion] because it looks like a girl who has a disability…and another girl who may not. They
look like they’re friends and they work together. So, I guess I would say it’s both” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013), however she quickly placed image 7, a photograph of a woman
in a wheelchair holding hands with a man walking next to her, in the disability category saying
only the word, “Disability” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). The table below shows
the images that appeared to be easily categorized as representing disability.

	
  

93
93	
  

	
  
Table 4.7
Images Easily Categorized as Representing Disability
Rationale Provided:
Image No Limited Detailed Number of Participants Percentage
20
8
3
3
14
93
17
8
3
0
13
87
27
10
1
1
13
87
5
10
1
0
12
80
8
7
4
0
12
80
9
5
3
2
12
80
12
6
4
2
12
80
29
9
1
1
12
80
33
10
1
1
12
80
16
8
1
1
12
80
35
9
2
1
12
80
37
9
0
1
12
80
26
9
0
1
12
80
10
9
1
1
11
73
11
10
0
1
11
73
18
7
2
1
11
73
21
7
2
0
11
73
23
11
0
0
11
73
34
8
1
1
10
67
28
6
1
0
8
53
* Note. Percentages based on the total number of audio-recorded image sorts N=15 (Images
can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56)
The images that were categorized as representing disability that elicited the least amount
of dialogue were images that involved adaptive equipment such as; wheelchairs, glasses, braces,
canes, a small bus or universal symbols associated with disabilities or individuals with visible
disabilities. This indicated that participants’ perceived disability to be primarily a visible
condition but it also indicates that disability is easily identifiable and easily defined. As indicated
by IDEIA’s 13 disability categories, not only is disability not easily defined or identifiable, it is
incredibly complex. Though specific, formal disability categories were not explicitly referenced,
participants’ responses reflected some awareness of the disability categories of Cognitive

	
  

94
94	
  

	
  
Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, Orthopedic Impairment, Hearing Impairment, Visual
Impairment, Emotional Impairment and Autism through their description of images associated
with disability. Their responses however, did not reflect an awareness of the other disability
categories including Speech or Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury or Multiple
Disabilities. Disability is not easily defined nor easily identified. The data however, revealed that
some participants hold narrow conceptions of disability as visible and they may also hold
hegemonic representations of disability as abnormal. This theme will be explored in greater
detail in the following section.
Disability is Undesirable. The interview data indicated that the majority of participants
hold hegemonic representations of disability as not only a visible, observable condition but also
as abnormal or different from the “norm” and somewhat negatively. Hegemonic representations
are those to which most people give “spontaneous consent” to the “general direction imposed on
social life by the dominant fundamental group” (Gramsci, 1978, p. 12). Connell (1996) explains
this in relationship to the concept of masculinity. He says, “hegemonic” signifies a position of
cultural authority and leadership, not total dominance; other forms of masculinity persist
alongside. The hegemonic form need not be the most common form of a concept; it is simply the
most dominant or valued [italics added] (p. 211). In other words, when asked, these teachers
were able to refer to their professional knowledge to report that the most common disabilities in
schools are invisible learning disabilities, yet when grouping images or responding to terms, the
hegemonic conception of physical or visible disability as the most dominant meaning of
disability, came to their minds, as did clearly negative associations. This is unsurprising given
that the traditional framework, or medical model, of disability, which “emphasizes the medical
nature of disability and focuses on individual-centered deficits and impairments" (McDonald,

	
  

95
95	
  

	
  
Keys, & Balcazar, 2007, p. 146) has been extremely influential in developing both personal and
professional beliefs about disability. Below I describe the many negative adjectives and phrases
used to characterize disabilities. The data indicated that participants perceive disability as
different from the norm and negatively both in terms of physical and intellectual functioning as
well as appearance. This perception of disability as abnormal was indicated throughout the data
both as part of the verbal interview and the image sort. I will begin by discussing how this theme
emerged through the verbal interview data followed by its emergence in connection with the
image sort data.
During the verbal interview, participants were asked to describe what they believe to be
characteristics of a “typical” student with a disability. This question was designed to further
explore participants’ perceptions of disability and the characteristics they commonly associate
with it. Several participants indicated the perception of disability as behavioral deviations from
the norm. For example, John, a physical education teacher, indicated that students with
disabilities often lack motivation when participating in physical education. He suggested that,
compared to non-disabled students, students with disabilities require constant motivation, “…if
I’m not right on top of them, they’ll lie around and not do much” (Personal communication, May
15, 2013). Marcia, one of the fourth grade teachers, indicated that behavioral issues are the first
things that come to mind when she thinks about characteristics of a student with a disability,
though she clarified that, “…its not necessarily always negative behavior issues, although that is
the first thing that stands out in my mind…” (Personal communication, May 15, 2013). She
described a typical student with a disability as exhibiting behaviors that were negative in extreme
ways such as, “withdrawn…disappear in the classroom…don’t talk, they don’t participate…or
they participate too much, or seek attention in other ways that are a distraction…” (Personal

	
  

96
96	
  

	
  
communication, May 15, 2013). Amy, a fifth grade teacher with three years teaching experience,
also described negative behavioral characteristics of a typical student with a disability saying, “I
thought they were the kids that were not socially adept. I mean they don’t have the social
skills…that others do” (Personal communication, May 10, 2011). Perceiving disability in
negative terms either behaviorally, academically, or visibly creates hegemonic binaries of
abnormal/normal, wrong/right, irregular/regular, deviant/acceptable and more, which influence
how we respond to individuals and situations. These binaries are reflected in stereotypes of
disability, which can be understood as exaggerated beliefs associated with a category (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012). Nario-Redmond (2010) posits that the distinction between individual beliefs and
cultural stereotypes is important because whether or not one rejects the validity of a stereotype, it
can nevertheless influence reactions to particular group members.
Some participants appeared to perceive disability as negative based on intellectual
functioning and, again negative, binary adjectives were used such those found in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8
Binary Adjectives
Negative – Abnormal Terms Positive – Normal Terms
Slow
Dumb, Retard
Low
Wrong

Fast
Smart
High
Right

Holly described a typical student with a disability as being, “…just a lot, lot lower [functioning]”
(Personal communication, May 11, 2011). Two fifth grade student participants used negative
statements to describe disability. Mary stated, “…their brains are not thinking as fast as we are
and they’re just a little bit slower…” (Personal communication, May 17, 2011) while Jack said,

	
  

97
97	
  

	
  
“…they either have some problem when they were born or they can’t walk right…” (Personal
communication, May 18, 2011). Three teacher participants also appeared to associate disability
with something wrong. Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, recalls her perception of disability as a high
school student in the early 1980s, “I remember the perception in general that they were dumb,
that they were stupid, that they were retards…” (Personal communication, May 3, 2011)She
described how, “We got to know them because they had some kind of a label or something
wrong with them”. Carrie, a special education teacher, struggled to describe her perception of
disability, “I would typically think of a physical…or a learning disability more so than…a
disability like something is wrong with them or something like that” (Personal communication,
May 3, 2011). A fourth grade teacher, Amanda, shared how visible differences make it easier to
see disability, “…when people have a physical disability it’s easier for you to see that with your
eyes but it’s not easy to see if the student looks like everyone else…” (Personal communication,
April 17, 2013). Susan, a fifth grade teacher appeared to agree with Amanda saying, “…you
always think about disability as being something that’s more like, physical or
sensory…something you can look at or obvious…not so much as…having a learning disability
or something wrong with the brain necessarily…” (Personal communication, May 10, 2011).
Data from the verbal interview and image sort transcripts indicated that some of the
participants might hold perceptions of disability as visibly different or abnormal, however as I
read and re-read transcripts, I became struck by some of the words and phrases participants chose
to use to describe disability. Because words are powerful indicators of our beliefs and our
perceptions, I chose to re-read the transcripts paying particular attention to words associated with
disability that could be considered negative or hegemonic in nature. See Table 4.9.

	
  

98
98	
  

	
  
Table 4.9
Negative Words Used to Describe Images of Disability.
Words/Phrases Used

Utterances

Mentally having problems / slow / behind / struggling /
delayed / cognitively impaired
Short bus
Birth defect / missing leg / can’t walk / deformity / can’t
control / hearing problem / handicapped
Struggling reader/ poor writer
Poor behaviors/ frustrated/ demanding/ unmotivated/ antsy/
low self esteem/ off task/ unorganized
Looks different
Wrong/ out of whack/ dumb/ stupid/ retards

19
3
26
5
17
3
6

The words displayed in Table 4.9 reveal important binaries associated with disability
such as normal/abnormal, wrong/right, typical/defective and high functioning/low functioning,
which contribute to the deficit driven disability discourse that heavily influences personal and
professional beliefs and perceptions and educational policy and practice. For example, both
IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001) reflect a medical model orientation through the special
education eligibility determination process, which requires identification of academic and/or
behavioral deficits and Response to Intervention, which requires universal screening to identify
students who may be “at-risk” for school failure. Sullivan (2011) identifies language as one area
where the lasting influence of the medical model can be seen. She proposes that language has the
potential to be labeling and oppressive, to perpetuate misconceptions, and to reinforce
stereotypes of disability such as weakness, dependence and incompetence. Though great strides
have been made to shift language from labeling and oppressive to people-first terminology,
which emphasizes the person rather than the disability, the data from this study indicated there is
still much work ahead.

	
  

99
99	
  

	
  
The perception of disabled individuals as significantly different from the “norm”
appeared to justify their exclusion from certain educational opportunities. For example, three
participants from this study appeared to believe that the students’ perceived level of academic
functioning plays a role in determining how and where he or she receives their education. Tracy,
a third grade teacher, indicated this belief as she looked at an image of a bus specifically used to
transport students with disabilities stating, “Some kids might be too impaired and need a separate
environment” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). She also indicated that, “If the student
can’t cognitively keep up in high school, they might need a separate class…to receive instruction
in life skills” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Renee expressed support for the
inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, “…unless it affects
others in the classrooms ability to learn…when there’s outbursts constantly…that’s where I think
the excluding part should happen, the pull-out, the separate room” (Personal communication,
May 15, 2013). Carrie shared the story of a former student with a visual impairment who was
placed in a self-contained classroom for students with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities
because the general classroom teacher could not support his academic needs. This memory
appeared to influence Carrie’s belief that students with visual impairments may require selfcontained placements as she placed an image of an individual reading braille in the disability
category rather than considering the category of both [disability and inclusion]. The music,
physical education, and computer teacher participants shared their perceptions of students in both
self-contained and inclusive settings, which will be discussed in more depth in Chapter Eight.
As indicated by the data, many of the participants associated disability with something
visible or observable either in terms of the adaptive equipment used such as wheelchairs,

	
  

100
100	
  

	
  
prosthesis, braces, canes, and sign language or in terms of their perceived intellectual functioning
as indicated by facial characteristics such as Down syndrome.
While this study focused primarily on disability and inclusion, participants often conceived of
these concepts in relationship to, or in tension with, the concept of “special education”. Special
education was not a category provided as part of the image sort however, participants referred to
special education periodically throughout the sorting activity in association with disability and/or
inclusion. Some of the participants’ appeared to hold different conceptions of disability and
special education; therefore this data will be discussed in the next chapter.

	
  

101
101	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 5
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN RELATION TO THE CONCEPT OF DISABILITY
A research study exploring teachers’ perceptions of disability should also attend to
teachers’ perceptions of special education since the two concepts are educationally interrelated.
According to Baglieri & Shapiro (2012), special education encompasses the sets of procedures,
services, and practices designed to evaluate and instruct students with disabilities in school
settings. Special education has also been heavily influenced by the medical model of disability as
evidenced by past categorical placement practices. “The assumption that students with the same
disability would benefit from the same kinds of services and curriculum exemplifies the
assumption of the objectivity of a disability diagnosis” (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p. 22). As a
result of these practices, special education became synonymous with the placement of a disabled
child into a segregated classroom with groups of students with similar disabilities (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2012). Legislation such as IDEA 1997 and 2004 has taken up the issue of categorical
placement by requiring consideration of the LRE, which specifies that the removal of children
with disabilities only occurs when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
the regular classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be satisfactorily
achieved (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(B)). And, despite the strides made in the law, the medical
paradigm of disability is still a persistent influence on the general public’s perceptions of special
education and disability as the data from this study indicates.
My initial study only asked participants to describe images that came to mind when they
heard the words “special education”. Responses indicated that participants might hold notably
different conceptions of disability and special education therefore, in this study I chose to
explore this phenomenon further. I asked participants to not only describe images associated with

	
  

102
102	
  

	
  
special education, but to explicitly describe their conceptions of disability in relation to special
education. Then they were asked to describe any characteristics they associate with a typical
student with a disability and a typical student with special needs. These two questions were
designed to explore participants’ assumptions about special education and disability in
association with students. According to Sullivan (2011), it is important to study language
because it has the potential to be labeling and oppressive, to perpetuate misconceptions, and to
reinforce stereotypes of disability.
Again, the interview and image sort responses were audio recorded and transcribed
verbatim for phenomenographic and social semiotic analysis. The phenomenographic analysis
resulted in an “outcome space” (Barnard, McCosker & Gerber, 1999), which is used for
examination, interpretation, and discussion of the data. The outcome space revealed several
interesting themes related to participants’ perceptions of special education such as special
education involves invisible disabilities, special education is a characteristic, special education
requires specialized knowledge and training, and special education equals more impaired. I will
begin this section with a brief discussion of how participants did or did not associate special
education with disability followed by a thorough discussion of each of the themes mentioned
above.
In the previous chapter, I discussed participants’ perception of disability as primarily
visible. This theme emerged as a result of recurring phrases and words used to describe disability
as, for example, a “physical presence”, “wheelchair”, “canes”, and “braces”. I had anticipated
similar responses for images associated with special education mainly because according to
IDEIA (2004), a student must have an identified disability to be eligible to receive special
education services. This, however, was not the case. Two participants (students) were unable to

	
  

103
103	
  

	
  
provide images associated with or describe their understanding of special education, therefore
descriptive statistics were calculated based on the total number of participant responses, N = 25.
The results of which will be discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs.
According to the data, 40 percent of the participants indicated the belief that special
education and disability are related, if not identical, concepts however, 60 percent perceived
disability and special education to be significantly different concepts. When asked to describe
images associated with special education, ten participants initially responded with either the
word student(s) or made reference to students. For example, Amanda, a fourth grade teacher,
said, “…I see a student needing accommodations…” (Personal communication, April 17, 2013)
and Julie, a music teacher, replied, “ I think of a class full of students that aren’t very uniform”
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Amy also associated special education directly with
her students, specifically identifying them by name. Susan described special education as, “…a
kid who looks just like everyone else…” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013) and Carrie, a
special education teacher, replied, “…I would think of students with more severe disabilities
typically” (Personal communication, May 3, 2011). This immediate association of special
education with students or student characteristics is interesting given that special education is
actually a service provided to students with disabilities. Three participants indicated a potential
understanding of special education as a program or service while they engaged in the image sort
activity. For example, Kelly, a computer teacher, indicated an understanding of special education
as a service or program saying, “…they don’t need special ed. services, they need a 504 but they
don’t need an IEP…” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Amy also said, “…you can
have a physical disability and not need special education services support” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). Julie indicated a similar understanding, “I guess I think of

	
  

104
104	
  

	
  
someone who has a disability as a part of special education, like the disability would be the precursor to the service” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). The majority of participants did
not associate disability with special education rather they appeared to perceive them as two
completely different concepts. However, some similarities in conceptions of special education
were revealed as participants described characteristics associated with a student with special
needs. One common conception appeared to be the association of special education with
invisible, cognitive or learning, disabilities. Table 5.1 displays the data related to participants’
conception of special education and disability. The distinction between special education and
disability is an important one and will be explored further in the following section.
Table 5.1
Perceptions of Special Education and Disability
Special Education and
Disability:
Same
Different
Participant
Jessica
Kelly
Amanda
Lisa
Renee
Susan
Julie
John
Todd
Ellen
Marcia
Amy
Colleen
Greg
Carrie
Tracy
Holly
Andrew
Tyler

	
  

X

Explicitly Indicated:
Yes

No

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

105
105	
  

	
  
Table 5.1 (cont’d)
Special Education and
Disability:
Same
Different
Participant
Jack
Mary
Brian
Adam
Jay
Carly
Cassie
Thad

Explicitly Indicated:
Yes

X

X

X
X
X

No

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

No
response
No
response

Totals
10
15
18
* N = 25 (two participants did not provide a response)

7

Special Education Involves Invisible Disabilities. As Table 5.1, displays, 60 percent of
the participants’ responses indicated marked conceptual differences between special education
and disability. Of those 15 participants, 11 described explicit differences between the two
concepts. The most common distinction indicated by participants involved the association of
special education primarily with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, whereas disability was
primarily associated with physical/visible disabilities. This is surprising given that all students
who are eligible to receive special education services must be identified as having at least one of
the 13 disabilities covered under IDEIA, which includes visible disabilities such as, orthopedic
impairments and multiple impairments.
The medical model of disability views disability as something that needs remediation,
which significantly influenced how special education developed: disabilities were seen as
individual flaws and special education was designed to remedy a child’s “deficits” (Rapp &
Arndt, 2012). Special education and disability are inextricably linked in terms of special

	
  

106
106	
  

	
  
education service provision, which makes participants’ conception of special education and
disability as discrete constructs intriguing.
The association of special education with invisible disabilities was a recurring theme
revealed both explicitly and implicitly. Student participants were only asked to describe images
associated with the words special education, whereas adult participants were asked two
additional questions regarding their perceptions of special education. The first question asked
adult participants to describe how they understand special education and disability as separate or
related concepts. The second question asked adult participants to describe characteristics they
associate with a typical student with special needs. This gave participants the opportunity to
explain their understanding of special education within the broader context of disability and
within the more personal context of classroom experiences. These questions elicited more
detailed and varied responses from the adult participants, therefore I will begin with a discussion
of the students’ perceptions of special education and transition into a more thorough discussion
of teachers’ perceptions of special education.
The student participants frequently indicated a cognitive association with special
education and a physical/visible association with disability. For example, Jack describes images
of special education in terms of intellectual functioning such as, “…they can’t understand” and
“…their brain needs a little more help” while he describes disability as, “…they can’t walk right
or something” (Personal communication, May 18, 2013). Carly appeared to hold a similar
understanding of special education describing it as, “…kids that need help learning…someone
that kinda needs help” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011) while she associated disability
with, “Wheelchair, helmet, and people with mouth guards” (Personal communication, May 11,
2011). Two other students also associated special education with cognitive ability. Brian

	
  

107
107	
  

	
  
described special education as, “Like needing help with things…” (Personal communication,
May 10, 2011). He did not refer to a particular person or indicate the type of help needed;
however his nonchalant response indicated that needing help might not be an unusual
occurrence. At the time of this study, several of his classmates were receiving special education
services in the general education classroom, which may account for this seemingly casual
response. Mary, after serious consideration, responded by saying, “Special education? It makes
me think about kids…around our age, but their brains are not thinking as fast as we are. They’re
just a little bit slower…” (Personal communication, May 17, 2011). She focused her response
primarily on the students’ cognitive functioning adding, “…it’s like they have a different brain
age…” (Personal communication, May 17, 2011). There were also several students receiving
special education services in Mary’s class at the time of this study so she may have been drawing
on that experience when responding to this question.
These students appeared to hold decidedly different meanings of special education and
disability, which could indicate a potentially important conceptual disconnect that could have
implications for inclusive practices. If students’ perceive disability as primarily visible or
physical and special education as primarily related to intellectual ability, do they understand that
students who receive special education services have a disability? “Public perceptions of
disability are of people who use wheelchairs or are blind, readily apparent markings of a
disability; these perceptions have not yet expanded to naturally include the array of ways
disabilities manifests themselves” (McDonald, Keys, & Balcazar, 2007, p. 153). Knowing that an
individual has a disability influences our perceptions and expectations. For example, an
individual with a physical disability that requires the use of a wheelchair would not be expected
to walk to class, however the perceptions and expectations of students with learning disabilities

	
  

108
108	
  

	
  
might be similar to that of non-disabled students simply because the disability is not visible. It is
possible that by making the invisible visible, that is to say, making cognitive and learning
disabilities visible by acknowledging them, students may begin to understand the connection
between special education and disability. Rather than associating special education with students
that “just need a little extra help” or “have a different brain age”, students could begin to
associate it with a disability. Acknowledging disability and special education in the classroom
could be a stepping-stone to creating truly inclusive classrooms, however this assumes that
teachers have a clear understanding of the relationship between special education and disability.
However, the data from this study indicates that teachers’ conceptions of special education and
disability are similar to that of the students.
The adult participants were asked to describe their understanding of special education and
disability, more specifically, they were asked to describe any characteristics they associated with
a typical student with special needs, because as Pohan (1996) indicates, those with strong biases
or those who hold negative stereotypes about diverse groups are less likely to develop beliefs and
behaviors that lead to practices that allow them to teach in culturally responsive ways. For this
reason, it was important to explore the characteristics teachers’ associated with a typical student
with special needs.
According to the data, teachers’ not only appeared to associate special education with
primarily invisible disabilities such as cognitive impairments, learning disabilities, and/or
emotional impairments, but they also tended to use deficit-based language. For example, Tracy
described special education as students who, “struggle with writing and written expression”
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013), a characteristic that is not immediately visible.
According to Lisa, a fifth grade teacher with seven years experience, special education involves

	
  

109
109	
  

	
  
students who are, “…just like you and me. It’s just something they’re not grasping as quick
maybe at this time” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Lisa did not refer to specific
disabilities such as dyslexia, auditory processing delay or dyscalculia, rather she described it as,
“…their minds maybe work a little differently…they might be working so fast that they can’t
process, or maybe working so slow that they can’t process” (Personal communication, May 10,
2013). Todd, an upper elementary special education teacher, described characteristics associated
with a student with special needs as, “Students who need more support than your typical
[student]” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). John, a physical education teacher,
specifically indicated his perception of special education as related to cognitive functioning
saying, “…most of the special education students I see don’t have [physical] disabilities…it’s
usually their cognitive needs” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Renee, a third grade
teacher in her fifth year of inclusion, describes a typical student with special needs as, “A kid
that needs a little extra time, a little extra motivation, a little extra confidence” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013).
Some teacher participants used disability-specific terminology associated with special
education, though much less frequently than the majority of teacher participants’ who used vague
descriptions of student characteristics (see Table 5.2). The association of special education with
vague characteristics rather than specific disabilities may help explain why these teachers did not
perceive special education as associated with disability. Specific terms such as learning
disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, auditory processing disorder, autism, speech and
language impairment and/or emotional impairment were rarely mentioned in association with
special education. As a matter of fact, many of the teachers appeared to intentionally avoid using
disability specific terminology. This is important because not only are special education services

	
  

110
110	
  

	
  
directly tied to the presence of a disability, but also because “most of us reach a determination
about our intelligence, appearance, and intrinsic worth through a process of learning how others
see us” (Jenkins, 1996, p. 30). Describing a student who receives special education services as,
“…needing accommodations…or special help with reading, writing, and math…” (Amanda,
fourth grade teacher), minimizes or disguises the disability which, may or may not be as
stigmatizing as the label itself. Hehir (2007) suggests that one way to minimize the impact of
disability and maximize opportunities is for parents and educators to have a clear understanding
of the students’ disability diagnosis. It is also important for students to have a clear
understanding of their disability whenever possible to aid in the building of self-determination
and self-advocacy skills.
Table 5.2
Specific Disabilities Associated with Special Education
Teacher

LD CI ADHD EI

Todd
X X
Carrie
X
Holly
John
Julie
Kelly
Ellen
Greg
Lisa
X
Amy
X
X
Susan
Jessica
X
Colleen
Amanda X
Marcia
Tracy
X X
X
Renee
Totals
6
3
1
1
* LD = Learning Disabilities; CI = Cognitive Impairments; ADHD = Attention Deficit
Hyperactive Disorder; EI = Emotional Impairment

	
  

111
111	
  

	
  

Special education is linked to disability both legislatively and educationally, however this
data indicates that personally and professionally they are perceived quite differently. As
indicated above, one of the most dominant themes that emerged was participants’ primary
association of special education with invisible disabilities such as learning, emotional, and
cognitive disabilities however, the data also revealed the perception of special education as a
characteristic rather than a service. The data revealed that participants used the words special
education to describe a place or a person more often than as an educational service provided to
students with disabilities. I will explore this theme further in the next section.
Special Education is a Student Characteristic. Baglieri & Shapiro (2012) describe
special education as the set of procedures, services, and practices designed to evaluate and
instruct students with disabilities in school settings and though many participants indicated a
similar conception, another association emerged from the data that warrants investigation.
Sixty percent of the participants appeared to associate special education with students
themselves, frequently referring to them as “special ed students or special ed kids.” There were
also 13 participants who associated special education with programs and/or services. Five
participants associated special education with teachers, referring to them as “special ed teachers.”
Table 5.3 shows the number of participants who associated special education with students,
teachers and/ or programs.

	
  

112
112	
  

	
  

Table 5.3
Special Education is a Characteristic
Participant S. E. Student/ kids S. E. Teachers S. E. Class/Programs
Adam
Brian
Andrew
Carly
Jack
Tyler
Jay
Cassie
Thad
Mary
Amanda
Amy
Carrie
Ellen
Greg
Holly
Jessica
John
Colleen
Kelly
Lisa
Renee
Susan
Todd
Tracy
Marcia
Julie

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

Totals
15
* S. E. = Special Education

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

5

13

While Table 5.3 shows the number of participants who used special education to
describe students, teachers, and/or programs, what the table does not show is how often
participants’ referred to “special ed students” in comparison to “special ed programs” during the
interview. This is important because while participants did refer to special education as a

	
  

113
113	
  

	
  
program or service, they much more frequently used special education to describe students. For
example, Susan, a fifth grade teacher, used the phrases, “…special education students”,
“…they’re labeled special ed…” and “So and so is special ed…” (Personal communication,
April 18, 2013) as she described her understanding of and experiences with special education.
Todd, an upper elementary special education teacher, used similar phrases eight times during his
interview. Carrie, a lower elementary special education teacher, made reference to “special ed
kids” on four separate occasions. Tracy, a third grade teacher, used the phrase “special ed kids”
or made reference to special education students on seven occasions during her interview, while
only making reference to special education as a program once.
Table 5.4
Number of Special Education Associations with Students, Teachers, and Programs.
Associations

Number of Utterances

S. E. Students / Kids
49
S. E. Teachers
8
S. E. Programs / Services 20
As Table 5.4 shows, participants referred to “special ed students” or “special ed kids”
much more frequently than either “special ed teachers” or “special ed programs” during the
interviews. The perception of special education as a student characteristic rather than a service
that is provided to students with disabilities has important implications. It reflects a hegemonic
binary of special versus general education, which inherently privileges one type of education
over the other. This could be seen in some of the teacher participants’ responses. For example,
Holly, a self-contained special education teacher, described her idea of a general education
classroom as, “…kids without learning disabilities…doing work at grade level…” (Personal
communication, May 11, 2011), while she described a special education classroom as,

	
  

114
114	
  

	
  
“…academic based but still working on more functional time and money…basic skills”
(Personal communication, May 11, 2011). Amanda, a fourth grade teacher, assumed special
education classrooms were, “…maybe very disorganized…” and “…kids… not knowing what to
do…” (Personal communication, April 17, 2013). Renee, a third grade teacher with over ten
years of teaching experience, provided this description, “…involved with regular ed kids more.
Involved in the regular curriculum a lot more. Exposed to different things that they wouldn’t
normally be exposed to in pull-out ”(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Renee’s
description of general education as providing increased opportunities appears to privilege general
education over special education. Artiles (2003) supports this claim saying, “special education,
an historically segregated system parallel to general education, further privileges certain groups
by separating and marginalizing students deemed problematic or difficult” (p.90).
The association of special education with individuals rather than services provides fertile
ground for marginalizing students with disabilities by identifying them as belonging to a
stigmatized group. Special education refers generally to the medical model as practiced in
schools (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012) whereby students classified as having disabilities are
provided “special” rather than “general” education services. The segregation of students based
on ability is referred to as ableism, which has been historically present in schools as well as in
society at large and is tied in part to the medical model that seeks to “fix” people with disabilities
(Longmore, 1995). An important consequence of ableism is the relegation of disabled people to
the position of ‘other’, which was a perspective that was reflected by the data in the current
study.
An important idea to address at this time involves how special education was associated
with students. Often times, the phrases that were used situated students in the position of

	
  

115
115	
  

	
  
“other”. For example, Jack, a fifth grade student, described special education like this, “…they,
like need more. They can’t understand…their brain needs a little more help…and they need more
hands on activities…that would really help them” (Personal communication, May 18, 2011).
Jack refers to “them” a total of five times as he described what images came to mind when he
heard the word special education. Carly indicated that sometimes “they go into a room to calm
down” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). And Mary said, “…their brains are not
thinking as fast…they’re just a little bit slower…they need to learn about their level…they have
a different brain age” (Personal communication, May 17, 2011). This “othering” was not only
indicated in student responses but in teacher responses as well. See Table 5.5.
Table 5.5
Frequency of “Othering” Phrases Involving They and Them.
“Othering” Pronouns Total Utterances by:
They

Teachers
140

Students
6

Them

48

1

As indicated by Table 5.5, the teacher participants used “othering” phrases much more
frequently than students. As a matter of fact, there were five teachers who used more than ten
“othering” phrases during their interview. Of the five teachers, two were itinerant teachers who
teach music and physical education to all students at Parker Elementary, one was a fifth grade
teacher with seven years of teaching experience, one was a fourth grade teacher with less than 5
years of teaching experience, and one was a third grade teacher with more than ten years of
teaching experience. It is interesting to note that only one teacher did not use any “othering”
phrases during the entire interview. Below are some examples of the phrases that were used.

	
  

116
116	
  

	
  

Table 5.6
“Othering” Phrases
They
They’ve never been pushed
They’ll lie around and not do much
They’re more in their natural element
They can’t necessarily overcome
They’re just like you and me
They can learn to adapt to it
They’ve coped in different ways
They don’t talk
They participate too much
They can’t advance as quickly
They work hard at whatever level

Them
Constant battle between me and them
The motivation for them isn’t really there
It’s easier for them
I was subjected to them
Something wrong with them
Their disability hasn’t stopped them
Breaking steps down for them
People just expect them to be
It makes them angry
A large percentage of them do know
what’s going on

Describing students with disabilities in terms of “they” and “them” leads to broad
generalizations that often perpetuate negative attitudes and dispositions towards special
education, disability, and inclusion. The dominant groups in society reduce minority culture to a
discourse of the other (Peters, 2000). “The ‘them and us binary’ is central to the notion of the
other’ in which impairment labels are used pejoratively to denote deviance and undesirability
and to differentiate between them, ‘the impaired’, and us ‘the dominant non-impaired majority’
(Goodley, 2011 as cited in Martin, 2012, p. 15). The consequences of “othering” have profound
implications for inclusive practices, which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Eight.
At the beginning of this chapter, I discussed my decision to add some additional
questions to further explore participants’ perceptions of special education. They were asked to
describe images associated with special education; they were asked to describe characteristics
associated with a typical student with special needs; and they were asked to describe their
understanding of disability and special education as either related or unrelated concepts. As an

	
  

117
117	
  

	
  
additional way to explore personal beliefs about special education and disability, I asked
participants to describe any feelings they associated with special education, disability, and
inclusion. A common theme emerged from their responses that reflected participants’ hegemonic
conception of special education as significantly different from general education. So different, in
fact, that many of the teachers indicated the belief that they are not adequately credentialed or
prepared to teach students who qualify for special education services. A discussion of this
finding is provided in the following section.
Special Education Requires Specialized Knowledge and Training. As discussed
earlier, three of the interview questions were designed to explore teachers’ perceptions of special
education. They were asked to describe images associated with special education, to describe
their understanding of special education as related (or not) to disability, and to describe
characteristics associated with a typical student with special needs. The majority of teachers’
responses appeared to come primarily from a professional perspective as they frequently drew
upon past and current experiences with students, classrooms, and programs. For example, Renee
began one of her responses with, “I’ve had so many kids with different disabilities…” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). Ellen referred to specific students currently enrolled in her
classroom saying, “Bobby [pseudonym] is such a sweetheart but he gets so frustrated so
easily…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Julie, a music teacher, drew upon her
experiences with different programs as well saying, “…when they’re in self-contained, they act a
lot differently than when they are with their homerooms…” (Personal communication, April 18,
2013). In an attempt to probe a little deeper into teachers’ perceptions, I asked them to describe
any feelings they associated with special education. This question appeared to elicit responses
from both a professional and personal perspective. As I recursively coded and analyzed interview

	
  

118
118	
  

	
  
data, I noticed explicit references to the need for specialized knowledge or training in special
education while other references, though somewhat cryptic, appeared to indicate similar
understandings. In the next paragraph, I will focus my discussion on the hegemonic conception
of special education as requiring specialized knowledge and/or training, which emerged from the
teacher interview data.
The data revealed that 12 of the 17 teacher participants either explicitly stated or
otherwise indicated that special education required knowledge or skills beyond those required for
general education. I purposely chose to include three itinerant teachers in this study because
music, physical education, and computers are typically the classes that students who receive
special education services are included in first and often without additional support. Therefore, I
felt it crucial to include their perspectives and as I had anticipated, their perceptions of special
education were similar to those of classroom teachers. Both the computer and music teachers
reported feeling less knowledgeable about teaching students with special needs. And though the
physical education teacher, John, did not indicate a need for additional training or knowledge, it
appeared to be because, “…most of their IEPs have to do with making accommodations for the
cognitive and in gym class, there isn’t really much cognitive, it’s mostly physical” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). He reported that students with disabilities often required more
motivation but less instruction because, “…they seem to understand most of what I talk about”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
As previously mentioned, the computer and music teachers both questioned their teaching
efficacy in regards to special education. For example, Kelly acknowledged feeling “…a little
stressed because it’s [special education] more and it’s not my specialty…” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). She went on to say that, “I feel like I would need more training

	
  

119
119	
  

	
  
in it and because of that, I don’t know if I’m doing my best…” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013). Julie, the music teacher, appeared to have similar feelings as she replied, “I think it
makes me nervous because I want to do the best for them but I don’t feel as though I’m super
equipped” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Both teachers expressed a sincere desire to
meet the needs of students with disabilities and believe that additional training and knowledge is
necessary for that to occur.
Two general education teachers and one special education teacher appeared to share this
sentiment. Marcia, a fourth grade teacher, was extremely emotional throughout the entire
interview expressing frustration and anger related to special education and disability in
particular. She angrily acknowledged that while she would like for students with disabilities to
be included in the general education classroom, she doesn’t, “think the resources are available”
or “that teachers have the knowledge” or “that teachers have the understanding” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013) required to make it a reality. Tracy, a third grade teacher,
expressed similar feelings about special education saying, “I feel like they should be given the
same opportunities and chances as everybody else…” and similar frustration because, “…not
everybody sees it that way because they don’t have the training…” (Personal communication,
April 18, 2013). Not only did Tracy indicate a need for additional training, but she also identified
“patience” and “creativity” as characteristics needed for successfully teaching students with
disabilities. This may be due to her perception that teaching students who qualify for special
education services as much more challenging than teaching students with disabilities. Tracy
explained that, “…kids with disabilities don’t require as many accommodations or modifications
or energy because they still have enough skills to be able to support themselves”, however
“…the special ed kids, they need a lot, a LOT [emphasis added] more” (Personal

	
  

120
120	
  

	
  
communication, April 18, 2013). Carrie, a special education teacher, responded from a deeply
personal perspective as she shared her thoughts about special education and inclusion. She
thought about the services that would be necessary for specific students to be successful in the
general education classroom and whether additional knowledge, skills, or training would be
required. This was particularly apparent in regards to students with vision and hearing
disabilities, “…she [a student who is deaf] couldn’t be in a typical inclusion classroom because I
don’t know sign language” and “he [a student who is blind] couldn’t go into a typical
classroom…without a teacher that’s specially trained” (Personal communication, April 30,
2013). As she considered her current situation, she said, “We’ll take any kid no matter how high,
no matter how low…except for the visually and hearing impaired, unless I can get some training
on that, then I’d have a hard time on that one” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). These
three classroom teachers explicitly indicated that additional knowledge, training, and skills are
necessary to effectively teach students who receive special education services.
Although six teachers explicitly indicated the perception that special education requires
specialized knowledge or training, there were also six teachers who implicitly indicated a similar
conception. Jessica expressed feelings of frustration as she described the challenges she faces as
a general education teacher when, “you don’t really know what to do for those kids...who may
need extra, like more, than just a regular classroom…” (Personal communication, April 30,
2013). She indicated the perception that students with special needs may need more or different
instruction than what she can reasonably provide. At the time of this study, Jessica was in her
first year of inclusion and co-teaching with a special education teacher. While she indicated that
her perception of special education has changed somewhat, she maintained her belief that, “…to
some extent kids do still need the separate, one on one time or at least small group” (Personal

	
  

121
121	
  

	
  
communication, April 30, 2013). She seemed to believe that some students required more
specialized instruction in a self-contained special education classroom. Ellen, a sixth grade
teacher with more than three years of experience co-teaching, also indicated her frustration with
special education saying, “…it’s hard to meet those demands in a way that’s going to help them
succeed” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). She reported feeling pressure because
students are “…so far behind and I just don’t know how to get them caught up” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). As Ellen described her feelings about special education, she
expressed an overwhelming sense of frustration with the lack of support saying, “I feel like it’s
all up to me…it would be nice to have some support…” (Personal communication, April 30,
2013). She clarified this to mean that she needed more than just “…another body in the room”
indicating that perhaps, specialized knowledge or training might be necessary.
Amanda, a fourth grade teacher, expressed the belief that students with special needs
require, “…special help with their reading, writing, and math” (Personal communication, April
17, 2013). Amanda reported that she had no experience with full inclusion or co-teaching but
that she did have experience teaching social studies to students with disabilities in her classroom.
She described that experience as a “struggle” because she “…had them on her own” (Personal
communication, April 17, 2013), meaning without support from the special education teacher.
Colleen, also a fourth grade teacher, reported feelings of fear and anxiety associated with special
education due to the “…additional work” required to differentiate instruction and “…figure out
what works” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
The issue of additional support was a common theme among these six teachers. While
they did not always explicitly state that special education required specialized knowledge or
training, they frequently referred to the presence of an additional teacher. This additional teacher

	
  

122
122	
  

	
  
was often the special education teacher who is perceived as having specialized knowledge and
training to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This was indicated by Susan, a fifth grade
teacher and Renee, a third grade teacher, both with more than five years of co-teaching
experience. Susan expressed being frustrated with the lack of support from the special education
teacher saying, “He just stands around. He doesn’t work with the special ed kids and he is the
one with the special ed degree” (Personal communication, May 10, 2011). Renee approached this
from a different perspective. Rather than describing her own personal feelings about teaching
students with special needs, she reported being extremely angry with other teachers who,
“…make comments about students with disabilities…saying that they didn’t get into teaching to
teach those kind of kids…they aren’t trained to teach them” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Renee did admit however, that her opinion about special education could be due to the
“fact that my co-teacher is so awesome…” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
It is interesting to note that of the five remaining teachers who did not appear to perceive
special education as requiring specialized knowledge or additional special education teacher
support, only one of them appeared to think about it from a potentially more inclusive
perspective. Amy, a fifth grade teacher with three years of teaching experience, indicated a
potentially more inclusive perspective of special education. As she participated in the image sort,
she engaged in extensive dialogue about disability, special education and inclusion, even though
special education was not included in the image sort. Amy was determining where to place
image 32, a photograph of a young girl reading, when she decided that it represented inclusion.
To gain a deeper understanding of her perception of inclusion, I asked her to explain her
thinking. She said, “Because you have a lot of struggling readers but…they don’t necessarily
have to have special education services, but they still need to have extra support” (Personal

	
  

123
123	
  

	
  
communication, April 30, 2013). She went on to explain that because so many of the images
involved individuals with visible disabilities, it influenced how she interpreted the images.
However, as she reflected on her response, she said, “…it’s possible that she’s not a struggling
reader. She could be my high reader and if she’s my high reader, technically I should be giving
her services that are higher level services…making sure her needs are being met” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). I cautiously interpreted this to mean that she viewed herself as
primarily responsible for meeting the diverse needs of the students in her classroom. My caution
turned to optimism as she again made reference to herself as the primary teacher responsible for
meeting her students needs, “…you have to meet all of their needs and at some point, you figure
you have to – whether they’re at a regular fifth grade level, they’re below level, or higher level –
you still have to do some form of [intervention]” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
When she described her perception of inclusion, she again indicated that the general education
teacher is at least equally responsible for providing services, “Even if it’s just one on one or more
time with your regular classroom teacher without the additional teacher… they need some kind
of extra support” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). It is interesting to note that she
never indicated needing specialized knowledge or training to meet the needs of her students. Her
perspective stood in sharp contrast to the majority of the teachers’ responses in this study,
however it definitely added to the discussion and will be revisited as I consider the implications
of this research study.
Research indicates that the feelings experienced by general education teachers such as,
lack of sufficient knowledge, experience, training, and support for including students with
disabilities in the general education classroom is nothing new (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;
Burke & Sutherland, 2004; Bradshaw & Mudia, 2006; Cook, Tankersley, Cook & Landrum,

	
  

124
124	
  

	
  
2000; Esposito, 2003). Gartner and Lipsky (1987) suggest that, “there is, in effect, a “deal”
between special and general education. The former asserts a particular body of expertise and a
unique understanding of “special” students, thus laying claim both to professional obligation and
student benefit. The latter, because of the lack of skills and resources or prejudice, is often happy
to hand over “these” students to a welcoming special education system” (p. 181). It is interesting
to note however, that research suggests that disabled students who are placed in segregated
programs do not exhibit greater educational gains than comparable peers educated in integrated
contexts (Artiles, 2003). If specialized knowledge and training doesn’t produce increased
academic gains for students in segregated settings, what then is the rationale for maintaining a
system of exclusion?
Others, with a social model of disability orientation, believe that disabling attitudes and
dispositions towards students with disabilities must be addressed first if the benefits of inclusion
are to be realized. Hehir (2006) likens it to cases of racism and sexism suggesting that progress
toward equity must begin with the acknowledgment that ableism, the belief that it is better or
superior not to have a disability than to have one (Storey, 2007, p. 56), exists in schools. As
Hehir (2006) suggests, this is accomplished through open discussions about disability and the
recognition that disability is a basic issue of diversity.
Teachers’ belief that special education requires specialized knowledge and training could
be influenced by their perception of students who receive special education services as more
impaired than students with disabilities. This theme emerged as I repeatedly coded and analyzed
interview data. I will discuss the findings and the potential implications in the next section.
Special Education Equals More Impaired. The interview data revealed that 53 percent
of the teacher participants’ appeared to perceive individuals who qualify for special education as

	
  

125
125	
  

	
  
more impaired than individuals with disabilities. Not only did these participants reflect differing
conceptions of disability and special education, they frequently described special education as
potentially more severe than disability. Seven of the teachers appeared to hold very similar
perceptions related to this theme, which I will discuss first. The other two teachers appeared to
hold somewhat different conceptions related to this theme, which I feel compelled to address at
the end of this section.
There appeared to be an implicit assumption that students who qualify for special
education are more impaired than students with disabilities for seven of the nine teachers. This
emerged as participants’ described their conceptions of special education and disability. For
example, Kelly, a computer teacher, acknowledged that images of students from the selfcontained special education classroom came to mind when she thought about special education.
She reported having to “check in on them after each direction” and that “I know with them I have
to dig a little deeper” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Carrie, a lower elementary
special education teacher, described students who are eligible for special education services as,
“…students with more severe disabilities typically”, “…possibly students maybe with Down
syndrome” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Yet, she described images of disability as,
“typically I would think of physical disabilities…” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
Todd, the upper elementary special education teacher, appeared to have a similar conception of
special education describing it as, “…students who are a couple of grade levels below their grade
equivalency…typically students who need extra support and accommodations to be successful in
the general ed room” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). John expressed a clearer
distinction between special education and disability saying, “…with special education, it’s
usually their cognitive needs…not the physical abilities” (Personal communication, April 15,

	
  

126
126	
  

	
  
2013). He described his experience with students from the self-contained special education
classroom as, “…a constant struggle to keep them going” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Ellen, a sixth grade teacher, also described students who receive special education
services as, “unmotivated”, “antsy”, and “frustrated” though she described disability in terms of
“difficulty with motor skills” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). She also described
special education as it related to her current students describing them as, “so far behind” that she
fears they won’t get “caught up” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Jessica and
Amanda, both fourth grade teachers, described disability as mostly physical but described special
education as students who, “need accommodations”, “special help with their reading, writing,
and math” and “need extra support”, indicating the perception that special education is more
involved.
Tracy, a third grade teacher, indicated a much stronger distinction between disability and
special education often emphasizing the more challenging nature of special education. She
reported, “I think of kids with special needs in different ways…their pacing is different…they
might need some form of tools, something to type with or to write with and steps broken down
for them” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). She described disability as being,
“…isolated, being more one area that’s a struggle…somebody with a disability might just
struggle in writing…or processing…it doesn’t affect their entire learning or their entire ability to
process…” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Tracy referred back to special education
saying, “…I find special ed kids can struggle in the big picture of everything [emphasis added]”
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013). She also described special education in the context of
the classroom saying, “I find that the special ed would be more in depth, I’d have to go further
with it, where my child with a disability may not need me to go as in depth with everything”

	
  

127
127	
  

	
  
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013). She provided additional clarification saying, “I find
that kids with disabilities don’t require as many accommodations or modifications or energy
because they still have enough skills to be able to support themselves where, often the special ed
kids, they need a lot, a lot more…” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). It appeared that
for Tracy, the students who received special education services were significantly different than
students with disabilities and she made the differentiation based on whether the student had an
IEP. This was indicated by her description of the different classrooms, “I think I deal with kids
more with disabilities than I do with special ed because kids with special ed or IEPs are not with
me. They are in a full inclusion classroom because they need greater accommodations, deeper
accommodations” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Tracy made no reference to special
education as involving students with disabilities, which made it difficult to interpret whether she
believed that students who are eligible for special education also have a disability. She did,
however, make it clear that she knows students with disabilities might not be eligible to receive
special education services. This type of misconception could have implications for how students
access and make progress in the curriculum, how they are perceived by their peers, the types of
support and services they are provided, and the role of the classroom teacher in all of this.
Lisa indicated a very different perception of special education. Rather than perceiving
special education as more involved, she appeared to perceive it as something that can be
overcome or remediated. I felt that it was critical to explore Lisa’s perception further primarily
because it was such a departure from the perceptions discussed thus far. Lisa described her
understanding of disability as, “I see somebody, something, or people, I should say, who need a
lot more one-on-one. Students or people who need…maybe more individualized instruction…”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013). She added, “Not that special needs don’t but just not

	
  

128
128	
  

	
  
to the severity or the degree of somebody who is cognitively impaired” (Personal
communication, May 10, 2013). Lisa attempted to clarify her perception by placing it in the
context of the classroom saying, “I mean cognitively impaired, I see more in one-on-one, oneon-two ratios, where special needs are just like you and me, it’s just something they’re not
grasping as quick maybe at this time” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Not only did
Lisa indicate very different conceptions of special education and disability based on perceived
cognitive ability, but she also indicated that students who receive special education services
could overcome their learning struggles. She explained, “...it’s not to say that a year, two years
from now that they’re not going to overcome it, because they can. They can learn to adapt to it”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Lisa repeatedly indicated that individuals could
overcome their disabilities with hard work and perseverance. For example, “You can overcome,
you can live your life to the fullest in a wheelchair” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013).
She referred to this idea again as she discussed why image 28, a young boy with visual
impairments, did not represent disability, “…it’s a young student that appears to be blind. If he
was recently blind and he has to learn to overcome a new [disability], then it would be a
disability at first, but not after he overcomes it, as he [Stevie Wonder] did” (Personal
communication, May 10, 2013). Lisa appeared to perceive a physical or visible disability as a
temporary situation that can be overcome. She also appeared to believe that the challenges facing
students with special needs could also be overcome.
It is interesting to note, that Lisa did not refer to special education in association with
disability at all. She described characteristics associated with special education vaguely such as,
“their minds maybe work a little differently”, “they are working so fast they can’t process”,
“they’re not making those connections from the board” (Personal communication, May 10,

	
  

129
129	
  

	
  
2013). She does not explicitly associate those characteristics with a disability, rather she
describes it as, “somewhere along the line somebody has picked up the cue that they’re a little bit
different than the majority and have taken that step to identify them” (Personal communication,
May 10, 2013). She is also the only teacher that reported perceiving disability as relating
primarily to cognitive disabilities, which she indicated were less likely to be overcome.
The majority of participants in this study appeared to reflect a more medical model
orientation toward disability, which situates disability as a problem within the students’
themselves rather than the educational systems and structures (Brantlinger, 2006) that perpetuate
categorization and segregation. Many of the participants described special education in terms of
student characteristics such as “slow”, “needing extra support”, and “struggling”. “Because so
many in our society buy into difference as impairment (i.e., they construct difference as
negative), the normalizing discourse and resulting social structures create barriers to access for
individuals with differences and frequently prohibit them from active participation in the
communities in which they reside” (Baglieri & Knopf, 2004, p. 525). One way to address these
barriers is by raising awareness of ableist assumptions in schools. Multicultural literature
suggests that raising awareness of racist, classist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes aids in
developing more culturally responsive teaching, so too will raising awareness of ableist attitudes.
The perception that special education involves more significant impairments, is a
characteristic rather than a service, and requires specialized knowledge has tremendous
implications for inclusion. All of the participants’ perceptions of disability and special education
mentioned thus far appeared to influence their perceptions of inclusion as indicated by the data
collected during the interview and image sort. As I engaged in the iterative process of coding and
analyzing the data exploring perceptions of inclusion, several themes emerged such as; Inclusion

	
  

130
130	
  

	
  
is a Good Thing, Inclusion is FOR Those with Disabilities, Inclusion is the Capacity to Function
Normally, Inclusion is More Work for Teachers, and Inclusion Occurs in a Classroom. I will
discuss these themes in greater detail in Chapter Six.

	
  

131
131	
  

	
  

CHAPTER 6
PERCEPTIONS OF INCLUSION
The last two decades have been marked by significant changes in special education
service delivery models beginning with IDEA (1997) and its subsequent reauthorizations to No
Child Left Behind (2001) with its multi-tiered systems of support component. Both have
encouraged a more collaborative relationship between special and general education to meet the
complex and varied needs of an increasingly diverse student population. The decades-long shift
can also be explained by parents and educators who are concerned about the equitable treatment
of students with disabilities that regarded inclusion as an antidote to what they considered to be
exclusionary education practices (Berry, 2006).
Now, more than ever before students with disabilities are receiving the majority of their
instruction in the general education classroom. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (n.d.), approximately 61 percent of children and youth with disabilities spent 80 percent
or more of their school day in regular classes in 2010-11, compared to just 33 percent in 199091. In 2010-11, sixty-five percent of students with specific learning disabilities, 86 percent of
students with speech or language impairments, 64 percent of students with visual impairments 18
percent of students with intellectual impairments and 13 percent of students with multiple
disabilities spent most of their school day in general classes. The increased implementation of
inclusive practices has resulted in a variety of research studies exploring issues related to
stakeholders’ attitudes and dispositions (Hammond & Ingalls, 2003; Leatherman & Niemeyer,
2005; Cook, Cameron & Tankersley, 2007) and educational outcomes for students with
disabilities (Manset & Semmel, 1997; McLeskey & Waldron, 1995). However, few studies have

	
  

132
132	
  

	
  
explored how participants’ more personal and culturally rooted conceptions of disability and/or
special education influence their understanding of inclusion.
This research study was designed to explore perceptions of disability, special education,
and inclusion involving teachers, students, and the administrator at Parker Elementary. Parker
shifted to inclusive practices approximately five years ago. The school was in the rather early
stages of inclusion, which made it an interesting setting to explore individuals’ perceptions of
these three concepts. As previously mentioned, I used a phenomenographical, semiotic approach
to studying participants’ personal and professional conceptions, which included qualitative
methods such as verbal interviews and photo elicitation.
Participants were asked to describe images associated with inclusion and any feelings
they experienced related to inclusion. They were then asked to view 38 images involving
photographs, symbols, and illustrations associated with disability and inclusion. The images
involved some individuals with and without visible disabilities in school and community settings
as well as, universal symbols frequently associated with disability.
As previously indicated, participant responses were audio recorded and transcribed
verbatim for phenomenographic and semiotic analysis. The phenomenographic analysis resulted
in an “outcome space” (Barnard, McCosker & Gerber, 1999) for examination, interpretation, and
discussion. The outcome space revealed several interesting themes. For example, many of the
participants reported believing that “Inclusion is a good thing”. Many of the participants also,
implicitly revealed their perception that inclusion is something we do or provide for individuals
with disabilities, which may reflect the myth that people with disabilities are dependent and
should be cared for. For example, Susan explicitly stated that, “Obviously if somebody has a
physical disability where they’re in a wheelchair or something, it’s easy to feel sympathetic, it’s

	
  

133
133	
  

	
  
easy to help them”. The concept of inclusion also appeared to be associated with more work,
more preparation, and more time particularly for the general education classroom teachers.
Lastly, the majority of participants appeared to associate inclusion narrowly as something that
primarily occurs in a school setting rather than broadly as part of a pluralist society.
The current study included some additional features designed to capture participants’
deeper conceptions of disability, special education and inclusion. The initial study I conducted
did not ask students to explicitly describe their understandings of inclusion, however some of
their conceptions were revealed through the image sort. The initial study did not include audio
recording of the image sort, however I took field notes during the image sort to aid in the
interpretation of the data. The majority of the students appeared to associate inclusion with
images of classroom settings and images involving more than one individual. In hopes of gaining
more insight into students’ understandings of inclusion, I chose to add an inclusion question to
the verbal interview for this study. Four students reported not knowing what inclusion was,
therefore I told them that inclusion is, “All people, regardless of height, weight, skin color,
gender, age, or ability working and playing together, and included in all activities.” This
provided a foundation for them to interpret the 38 images as representing disability and/or
inclusion. Table 6.1 below displays the images students most often associated with inclusion.

	
  

134
134	
  

	
  
Table 6.1
Results of Images Students Associated with Inclusion
Image

Inclusion

Disability

Both

Omitted

1

4

1

2

1

2

6

2

0

0

4

7

1

0

0

9

4

1

1

2

13

4

2

1

1

14

6

1

0

1

15

5

0

0

3

19

8

0

0

0

24

7

0

0

1

26

4

0

1

3

28

4

2

0

2

30

6

0

1

1

31

4

1

2

0

32

5

0

0

3

38

6

1

0

1

* Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56.
There were minimal changes made to the interview protocol for the teacher participants.
As in the initial study, they were asked to describe images associated with their conception of
inclusion. As part of the current study I also asked teachers to consider any feelings they
associated with inclusion. The first theme that I will discuss emerged from the data collected as
part of the teacher interview only. I will discuss how the majority of teachers appeared to
perceive inclusion as “a good thing” in the section below.
Inclusion is a Good Thing. Teachers were asked to describe images and feelings they
associated with the concept of inclusion and the majority of participants either explicitly or

	
  

135
135	
  

	
  
implicitly referred to inclusion as a “good thing”. Of the 17 teachers interviewed, only one
teacher did not explicitly or implicitly refer to inclusion as a good thing. Holly, a self-contained
special education teacher, described images associated with inclusion strictly from a professional
perspective, “I just picture a classroom with lots of different kids in it…more than one teacher in
the room…maybe a parapro…” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). Her initial response
seemed mechanical, however as she continued, this shifted slightly. Her tone sounded bitter as
she replied, “…the kids with more severe disabilities are in my room, so…I would just say its
[inclusion] students in a classroom” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). This prompted
me to ask her what inclusion looked like for her students?” She replied, “If [emphasis added]
they were to be included you mean?” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). Though she did
not explicitly indicate a perception of inclusion as good, she did say, “I think my class could do
inclusion but Mrs. W [building administrator] chooses not to do inclusion with my kids”
(Personal communication, May 11, 2011). Holly’s response, which did not indicate the belief
that inclusion is a good thing, could potentially be caused by feelings of exclusion. Her response,
“If …they were included” was delivered with a somewhat angry or sarcastic tone, indicating
potential frustration. In contrast, the other 16 teachers either explicitly or implicitly expressed
beliefs of inclusion as a good thing, which will be discussed further in the paragraph below.
Explicitly supportive statements of inclusion were reported by ten of the 16 teachers. The
statements indicated the perception of inclusion as either good for students, with and without
disabilities, or good for the teacher in some way. For example, Greg, a sixth grade teacher,
explicitly stated that inclusion is, “…good – it’s good…in the long run, it’s a good thing I guess”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He did not explicitly indicate whether he believed it
was good for students or good for teachers, however later in the interview he described it as

	
  

136
136	
  

	
  
challenging for him as a teacher. Therefore, I interpreted his response as referring to inclusion as
good for students in the long run. Marcia, a fourth grade teacher, reported being frustrated with
how inclusion is being implemented at Parker, but she expressed a fondness for inclusion as a
concept saying, “What I want to see is all kids working together…where kids with special needs
are in with kids without special needs…they should all be working together…that’s how I think
it should be” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Colleen, also a fourth grade teacher,
reported that inclusion is good because, “Kids feel more proud…the focus is on their abilities not
their disabilities” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). She appeared to believe that
inclusion is good for students because being in the general education classroom allows them to
feel like, “I’m not much different from other kids” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
Julie, a music teacher, indicated the perception that inclusion is good for general education
students because they have opportunities to help other students through “peer teaching”. Julie
also reported that she relies on the assistance of general education students primarily because she
does not often have adult support in music class. She gave this example, “I know in my room, if I
say turn to page 58, the student next to them often leans over to help them find that page”
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Julie expressed an interesting perception of inclusion
as potentially less beneficial for students with disabilities, which will be discussed in greater
detail in another section.
Amy and Susan, both fifth grade teachers, referred more specifically to inclusion as good
for teachers. Susan has taught fifth grade for more than ten years, the last five of which have
involved inclusion. Inclusion at Parker elementary means that students with disabilities spend at
least 80 percent or more of their day in the general education classroom and receive special
education services within that setting through co-teaching with the special education teacher.

	
  

137
137	
  

	
  
Both Amy and Susan were in co-teaching situations at the time of this study and frequently
referred to that experience when describing their conception of inclusion. Susan expressed
positive feelings about inclusion saying, “It is really beneficial to have that special education
expertise in the classroom…as long as the special ed teacher does more than just stand around”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2011). Amy responded similarly, “I think my perception of
inclusion has changed a lot this year because my co-teacher actually teaches” (Personal
communication, May 10, 2011). She reported that in the past she did not think inclusion was that
beneficial but because of the relationship she built with her co-teacher at the time of this study,
she was much more optimistic. Renee, a third grade teacher with five years of experience with
inclusion, also reported feeling positive about inclusion due to co-teaching, “I feel really good
about inclusion. I love inclusion. I don’t know if it’s the fact that my co-teacher is so awesome
and we get a along really well, I know that’s part of it” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Renee also shared her perception of inclusion as good for students, which will be
discussed in the paragraph below along with the remaining teachers who appeared to agree with
her.
Six teachers, five general education teachers and one special education teacher indicated
the perception of inclusion as being good for students. Renee expressed extremely positive
feelings about inclusion particularly for students. She described inclusion as, “Including not
excluding. Not pull out. Involved with regular ed kids more. Involved in the regular curriculum a
lot more. Exposed to different things that they wouldn’t normally be exposed to in pull out”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). She went on to explain her belief that, “…all students
should be able to learn and all students should be included in the regular ed classroom. I think
special ed should happen in the regular ed classroom. I’m really excited about inclusion”

	
  

138
138	
  

	
  
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Renee also indicated that, although inclusion can be
hard work, it is important to make students, “…feel a part of the classroom and not different”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
John, the physical education teacher, indicated the perception that inclusion is good for
students as well. He was able to provide an interesting perspective because he taught the same
group of students in two different contexts. The students in the self-contained special education
class attended gym twice a week, once with their peers with disabilities and once with their
homerooms. John described it as “more challenging” when they came to gym with their peers
from the self-contained class. He reported that, “…they’re a lot better when they’re in their
regular education class. When they’re with the other classes, I don’t have as much difficulty
because all the other kids are in there and I don’t know if they want to conform to the other kids
or what, but it’s not as challenging” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Carrie, a special
education teacher, expressed how difficult it was to pull kids out of their general education
classrooms to provide special education services, “…some of them would feel weird or different,
like why am I going, or they were embarrassed about it” (Personal communication, May 3,
2011). When she thinks about inclusion now, she thinks about “…the kids enjoying staying in”
(Personal communication, May 3, 2011). Jessica, a fourth grade teacher, made a similar
reference saying, “I can’t believe the difference at how much these kids are benefitting compared
to when they were being pulled out because they were…missing out on a lot. And now, they’re
not” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Tracy, a third grade teacher, explained her
perspective a little differently as she referred to the image of a student with Down syndrome,
“I’m assuming she has Down syndrome, which is a disability, but at the same time, ya know,
could easily be in an inclusion classroom and feel successful and grow from where she’s at”

	
  

139
139	
  

	
  
(Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Inclusion was reported by these participants as
beneficial for students, however there were a few teachers who also indicated feeling positive
about it on a more personal level as well.
Jessica, a third grade teacher in her first year of inclusion, excitedly responded, “It makes
me feel good to see the difference from classrooms that weren’t inclusion and now that I’m
doing it, I have a different understanding of it than before when I was just saying, well, you
know is it [inclusion] really the best thing? Some of those kids need to be taken out…” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). Jessica indicated that her perception of inclusion changed as a
result of having experience with it. She has more than ten years of teaching experience at Parker
elementary, however this was her first experience with inclusion.
Ellen is a sixth grade teacher with approximately three years of teaching experience. She
expressed deeply personal emotions during the interview as she described her feelings about
special education and inclusion. She reflected on individual students in her class as she described
feelings associated with inclusion, “I really admire them, like Stephanie [pseudonym] has such a
great attitude and she works so hard and you know there are just these moments…” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). It was evident in her responses that she was actively involved
in teaching students with disabilities in her classroom. With great pride she said, “…and James,
he boosted his reading level up to a sixth grade reading level this year. He scored 6th grade on a
QRI by himself, filling in the answers by himself” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
She added, “…it is so amazing and inspiring when you see that…it amazes me what these kids
are capable of…I’m very proud” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
The majority of teachers appeared to believe that inclusion is a good thing, which is
crucial to its success. According to Sarason (1982) teachers’ beliefs regarding inclusion are a

	
  

140
140	
  

	
  
strong influence on the success or failure of inclusion classrooms. Simpson and Myles (1993)
reviewed reports describing inclusive programs written from the late 1960s to 1993 and found
that supportive attitudes of general education teachers are an essential condition for successful
inclusion programs. Though the majority of teachers involved in this study reported feeling
extremely positive about inclusion, several also indicated that it could be very challenging. This
theme will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.
Inclusion is More Work for Teachers. As the previous section indicated, the majority
of participants reported perceiving inclusion as “a good thing” either explicitly or implicitly.
Even though the majority of perceptions were positive, there were equally as many teachers who
reported inclusion as challenging and requiring additional work. I will start this section with a
discussion of the responses from the itinerant teachers because their perceptions of inclusion
were similar in some respects and quite different in others.
As was the case with John, both Julie and Kelly teach students with disabilities from the
self-contained special education room on two separate occasions, once with their classmates
from the self-contained classroom and once with their homerooms. This provided a unique
opportunity to explore inclusion from different perspectives. For example, Kelly, a computer
teacher, and Julie, a music teacher, both reported that inclusion is challenging for them, however
John, a physical education teacher, indicated that inclusion “doesn’t really affect me too
much…” He indicated that, “…when they’re with their regular class, it’s not that big of a deal”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He reported that it was much more challenging when
the students came to gym from the self-contained special education classroom. He described it
as, “…very challenging because they’ve never been pushed for most of their lives outside of
school…they really have to be pushed and it’s kind of like a constant battle between me and

	
  

141
141	
  

	
  
them…” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Renee, a third grade teacher, appeared to
agree with John as she described how “pull out” programs were a “pain”. She said, “…it was a
lot of extra work and you as a teacher didn’t see any of the benefits of it or the rewards of it”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). This is an interesting perspective, however not one
that was shared by the other itinerant teachers.
Julie and Kelly described their experience with inclusion quite differently. For example,
Kelly, the computer teacher, described inclusion as, “A full classroom, a full, busy classroom
because that’s been my struggle this year, my third grade inclusion classroom. When I have
them, I also have my cognitively impaired kiddos that come in. So I have a full classroom and
I’m always working one on one with them” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). She also
indicated that this made her feel a little stressed because, “…it’s more and it’s not my specialty
so I feel stressed because I know I need to know more…” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Kelly explained that she uses other students to help her “get through a whole lesson” but
reported feeling “guilty for putting that on them sometimes” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013).
Julie, the music teacher, indicated similar feelings, “I don’t know if I am doing the best I
can for them. Especially when it’s inclusion” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). She
reported feeling much more confident when the students with disabilities came to music with
their self-contained classroom as opposed to their general education homeroom. She explained
this in great detail saying, “…when they’re self contained…they act a lot differently than when
they’re with their homerooms and they’re in the inclusion setting. They tend to be willing to take
risks. They’re supportive of each other and they’re more in their natural element” (Personal
communication, April 18, 2013). Julie clarified that “They aren’t trying to put on a show for their

	
  

142
142	
  

	
  
peers. They stay in their regular mode, so to speak, and we get a lot of work done. I mean good
work. They are able to do what their peers do because they don’t feel inhibited” (Personal
communication, April 18, 2013). Her experience with the same students coming to music with
their general education homerooms was vastly different; “it’s like they put a block and a wall up
and they have to put on a show almost, for their peers. So, rather than taking risks, it’s more
about, I hate to say it, but it’s more about what poor behaviors they can display”(Personal
communication, April 18, 2013). Julie, Kelly, and John were in the unique position of having the
same students in two different contexts, which provided richer descriptions of their perceptions
of inclusion. The other classroom teachers did not have that opportunity; therefore they described
their perception of inclusion as more work from the perspective of the general education
classroom only.
There were ten classroom teachers who appeared to perceive inclusion as challenging or
requiring extra work. Holly, a self-contained special education teacher, indicated that if her
students were included in the general education classroom it would “…be a lot harder because
they are just a lot, lot lower and you would have to have more groups because there would be a
lot more levels to teach” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). When Lisa, a fifth grade
teacher, was asked to describe images associated with inclusion she replied, “Inclusion, to me,
would normally appear chaotic. It would seem to me to be more difficult to plan and additional
work for the general education teacher” (Personal communication, May 3, 2011). It was
interesting that Lisa chose to follow this up with the statement, “That’s not my opinion but that’s
what I would normally see” (Personal communication, May 3, 2011). At the time of this study,
Lisa had several students with disabilities in her social studies class as well as a co-teacher,
however she made no reference to having any personal experience with inclusion. It was unclear

	
  

143
143	
  

	
  
why Lisa avoided drawing on her personal experience with inclusion rather than discussing it in
a decontextualized manner however, her response indicated the perception that inclusion is
indeed more work for the classroom teacher.
Greg and Colleen both described inclusion as a struggle. Colleen, a fourth grade teacher
with approximately three years of inclusion experience, said, “Inclusion is a lot of work. It’s hard
because you have all different levels and you have to differentiate and make adjustments all the
time” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Greg, a sixth grade teacher with approximately
five years of inclusion experience, described it as, “At first it was a struggle. It still kind of is”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He went on to explain the challenges of co-teaching,
“It’s a balancing act of trying to teach it with a special ed teacher in the room and making it work
because you have your own way of doing things and if you don’t think they’re teaching it the
way they should be, you jump in a little too often” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
Initially Greg used the word difficult to describe his experience with co-teaching but later he
described it more accurately as requiring personal “restraint”. He said, “It’s difficult trying to
hold myself back and not jump in so often” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Ellen also
described inclusion as challenging in terms of the co-teaching partnership. She said, “Right now,
it’s kind of frustrating because I feel like its not working. I feel like a lot of it is still on my
shoulders…I feel like it’s all up to me, so it would be nice to have some support with that. Even
though I get that support, I guess, there’s another body in the room but I don’t know that it’s
working as well as it should. So it’s very frustrating” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013).
There appeared to be a range of feelings associated with inclusion from how teachers felt
about it personally and professionally, to how they felt about it in relationship to both general
education students and students with disabilities. A range of studies have explored teachers’

	
  

144
144	
  

	
  
professional beliefs about inclusion, which reveal similar findings. For example, Fuchs (2009)
conducted a study of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about current inclusion practices and found
that teachers generally agreed that responsibilities and expectations of regular education teachers
were unreasonable and they also reported feeling frustrated with the lack of support from special
education staff. D’Alonzo, Giordano, and Vanleeuwen (1997) also found that when teachers
were given the opportunity to agree or disagree with proposed problems or proposed benefits of
inclusion, they overwhelmingly agreed with the problems posed by inclusion and had mixed
reactions about the proposed benefits. The teachers in this study however, expressed more
positive feelings about inclusion while indicating that it can also pose some challenges.
The teachers’ perceptions of inclusion revealed in this section were not surprising,
however an interesting theme did emerge from the data that I had not anticipated. Some of the
participants indicated that inclusion is something we do for individuals with disabilities. I will
address this theme in more detail in the next section.
Inclusion is Provided FOR Those with Disabilities. Participants were asked to view 38
images and determine whether they believed the image represented disability, inclusion, both or
neither. I had asked participants to describe their thinking as they categorized the images. As
indicated earlier in the chapter, some of the images were easily categorized while others
appeared to provoke much more consideration. At those times, I would prompt participants to
elaborate. As some participants elaborated on specific images, they sometimes indicated that an
individual without a disability was “including” an individual with a disability. As if it was
something that was provided to the individual with a disability rather than as their educational
right. This could be a reflection of underlying myths of disability, which according to Henderson
and Bryan (1997) the five most common myths associated with individuals with disabilities

	
  

145
145	
  

	
  
include: 1) they are inferior, 2) they are totally impaired, 3) they are less intelligent, 4) they need
charity, and 5) they prefer the company of others with disabilities (p. 70-75). The perception of
inclusion as something we do for students with disabilities may reflect the myths of individuals
with disabilities as too impaired to be in the general education classroom and needing help from
their non-disabled peers. I will explore this possibility further in the paragraphs below.
There were 11 teacher participants who indicated their perception of inclusion as
something “they” provided “to” students with disabilities in the classroom or as part of a
program. This perception fails to embrace inclusion as an educational imperative rooted in equity
and social justice. Rather, the teachers’ appeared to believe that inclusion is something we do for
students with disabilities when the conditions are right. This perception was most strongly
indicated by Carrie, the lower elementary special education teacher. Therefore I will begin this
section with a detailed discussion of Carrie’s perception of inclusion followed by a discussion of
several other teachers’ responses that indicated similar beliefs.
When asked to describe images associated with inclusion, Carrie responded by saying,
“Students with and without disabilities working together in the general education classroom”
(Personal communication, May 3, 2011). As she proceeded through the remainder of the
interview, she appeared to hold true to her initial description, however an additional perception
of inclusion as something schools provide or do for students with disabilities was revealed
through the photo elicitation data. Carrie categorized the images from a very personal
perspective often considering her own personal role as the special education teacher in an
inclusion classroom. For instance, she labored over the placement of image 12, a photograph of
Marlee Matlin, saying, “I guess I couldn’t say inclusion because she couldn’t be in a typical
classroom because I don’t know sign language, nor does my co-teacher” (Personal

	
  

146
146	
  

	
  
communication, April 30, 2013). She appeared to be deeply concerned about meeting the
academic needs of students with disabilities in a general education classroom setting, however
she never made reference to the social benefits of inclusion. This was evident again as she
struggled to categorize image 28, a boy reading braille in a classroom, saying, “…he couldn’t go
into a typical classroom around here without a teacher that’s trained” (Personal communication,
April 30, 2013). Throughout the image sort, she frequently referred to inclusion as the
responsibility of the special education teacher. She indicated being concerned about whether she
would be qualified to “help” or “teach” particular students. For example, she revisited image 12
saying, “If I felt like, if she was a student and I could meet her needs, then she could be
included” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). In other words, if she was fluent in sign
language, then she would be able to include that student in the general education classroom. She
could provide inclusion to that student. Carrie continued to sort the remaining images from this
very personal perspective and when she finished, I challenged her to expand her conception of
inclusion and consider whether she would make any changes. I prompted her to consider the
possibility that additional services were available to the individuals in images 12 and 28. She
quickly responded, “If I take myself out of it as an educator, like not talking about me teaching
these kids, then it could absolutely be inclusion” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). It is
puzzling that as a special education teacher with extensive knowledge of the supplementary aids
and services available, Carrie did not consider other options for meeting the students’ academic
needs such as Visual or Hearing Impaired Teacher Consultants who provide professional support
to both teachers and students. Carrie based the inclusion of students with disabilities only on her
personal ability to support them without considering the possibility of additional supports, which
are routine considerations during annual IEP meetings.

	
  

147
147	
  

	
  
Carrie also indicated her belief that inclusion is something provided to students with
disabilities and that its provision is primarily determined by the teachers. For example, she
reported, “I look at inclusion as like we’ll take everyone. Like we’ll take any kid no matter how
high, no matter how low, if they’re in a wheelchair, if they’re not. Except for the vision and
hearing impaired, unless I can get some training on that” (Personal communication, April 30,
2013). While Carrie indicated the desire to include all children (except those with vision and
hearing impairments), Holly reported a different perspective. At the time of this study, she was a
self-contained special education teacher whose students spent 80 percent or more of their school
day in the special education classroom. When asked about her perception of inclusion, she
appeared visibly annoyed saying, “I think my class could do inclusion. It just depends on the
school and how they’re doing it. My kids are lower and the principal chooses not to do inclusion
with my kids, but they could” (Personal communication, May 11, 2011). So inclusion was
perceived not only as a program or service that is provided to students with disabilities, but it’s
provision appears to be determined by the principal and/or the teachers themselves.
Todd, an upper elementary special education teacher, made very subtle references to
inclusion as something we do for students with disabilities. His perception of inclusion appeared
to be much broader than Carrie’s as he referred to it both educationally and societally. The
majority of Todd’s responses indicated that he believed inclusion involves individuals with and
without disabilities working and playing together. He categorized 19 images as representing
inclusion. His rationale for placing 15 of them reflected his perception of inclusion as individuals
with and without disabilities altogether in either educational or social settings. For example, he
described image 33, a photograph of an individual using a cane, as inclusion because, “…they
appear to be walking on the sidewalk with everybody…out in public with everybody” (Personal

	
  

148
148	
  

	
  
communication, May 10, 2013). Additionally, he categorized image 34, a photograph of an
individual with a prosthetic leg, as inclusion saying, “I would say inclusion because he has a
prosthetic leg so he can do day to day activities, day to day life” (Personal communication, May
10, 2013).
In contrast to Carrie, Todd did not appear to sort images based on his personal
qualifications or training. In fact, he appeared to think about inclusion much more broadly in
terms of accessibility. He categorized image 5, the universal symbol for wheelchair access, as
“…inclusion because you tend to see…like in a bathroom, you would see this picture that could
be used for people who are not disabled and disabled. So, included amongst each other”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Though Todd more frequently referred to inclusion as
individuals with and without disabilities working and playing together, he did refer to inclusion
as something schools/teachers provided to students on three separate occasions. For example, he
categorized three images uttering the phrases, “…they’re being included”, “…he seems to be
accepted by…people his own age”, and “…she has a disability but she’s being included”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013).
There were eight additional teachers that implicitly indicated the perception of inclusion
as a program schools provide to students with disabilities. Amanda, a fourth grade teacher,
described inclusion this way, “I haven’t actually done an inclusion class” (Personal
communication, April 17, 2013) and Tracy, a third grade teacher, also said, “I have never done
inclusion” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Jessica, a veteran teacher in her first year
of co-teaching, described it in terms of a particular classroom called the “inclusion classroom”.
She also reported that “It makes me feel good to see the difference from classrooms that weren’t
inclusion and now that I’m doing it, I have a different understanding of it than before...”

	
  

149
149	
  

	
  
(Personal communication, April 30, 2013). While these 11 teachers all indicated some perception
of inclusion as a program, there were a few who also described images of inclusion involving
students without disabilities helping students with disabilities.
The music teacher, Julie, shared this image of inclusion, “…other [general education]
students helping them [students with disabilities], like peer teaching” (Personal communication,
April 18, 2013). The perception that inclusion involves individuals without disabilities “helping”
individuals with disabilities was a recurring theme throughout the image sort. For example, Lisa
contemplated how to categorize a particular image saying, “I’m going to assume its inclusion. It
looks like it might be a buddy system, pair system, helping her read the highlighted text”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Julie referred to this idea on five separate occasions
during the image sort. One example of this involved image 7, a man walking hand in hand with a
woman in a wheelchair, as Julie shared, “It looks like he is purposely trying to include someone
with a physical handicap” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). A second example
involved image 3, an accessible bus, where Julie explained, “It makes an effort to help people
with disabilities ride with non disabled passengers” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013).
Greg seemed to agree with Julie’s description of image 7, saying, “He’s including her in the
vacation trip” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Once again, inclusion is perceived as
something we do for individuals with disabilities rather than as a moral imperative for achieving
educational equity for all students.
This perception of inclusion as a program or service that is provided to individuals with
disabilities by individuals without disabilities has important implications. First, it implicitly
situates nondisabled individuals in positions of power where they can determine who gets
included, in what activities or situations, and at what times. In this way inclusion is perceived as

	
  

150
150	
  

	
  
a program rather than as a “moral imperative” (Baglieri & Knopf, 2004). Reid and Valle (2004)
argue that “…access to general education classrooms is not an earned privilege, but a right
grounded in a civil rights discourse that focuses on interactions among difference, impairment,
and disability…we assume that everybody belongs and ask how educators can make general
education classrooms welcoming, productive…environments for all students.” (p. 8). The
teachers in this study appeared to hold a narrow conception of inclusion primarily referring to
nondisabled and disabled students working together in the general education classroom. They
rarely discussed inclusion broadly as encompassing all areas of human diversity such as race,
gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and so on, which will be addressed in more
depth in the following section.
Inclusion is Primarily Educational not Social, Legal or Civic. When asked to describe
images that came to mind when they heard the word “inclusion”, the majority of teachers
described it from an educational perspective. All 17 teachers described inclusion as primarily
associated with the classroom. In every case where inclusion was considered in the broader
context of society, it was elicited through various photographs during the image sort. This is
important because it not only revealed that the teachers in this study initially appeared to hold a
narrow conception of inclusion as associated with the classroom, but it also demonstrated the
power of photo elicitation as a research method. Table 6.2 shows teachers’ conceptions of
inclusion as indicated by the verbal interview and as elicited through photographs during the
image sort.

	
  

151
151	
  

	
  
Table 6.2.
Teachers’ Conceptions of Inclusion
Teacher

Inclusion in:
School
Classroom
Society
Todd
V
P
Carrie
V, P
P
Holly
V, P
John
V, P
Julie
V, P
P
Kelly
V
Ellen
V
Greg
V, P
Lisa
V
P
Amy
P
V
P
Susan
V
Jessica
V
Colleen
V
Amanda
V
Marcia
V
P
Tracy
V
V, P
Renee
V
* V = verbal interview, P = photo elicitation
As Table 6.2 indicates, 100 percent of the teachers in this study provided verbal
descriptions of inclusion as associated primarily with the classroom. Broader conceptions of
inclusion were only indicated when elicited by photographs during the image sort. Todd referred
to inclusion as extending beyond the classroom during the image sort much more frequently than
the other five teachers. For example, Todd described image 27 as representing inclusion because,
“…it appears to be signs of those with disabilities included into the public” (Personal
communication, May 10, 2013). He provided a similar response for image 5, the universal
symbol for wheelchair accessibility, saying, “I would say inclusion because you tend to
see…like the bathroom, you would see this picture that could be used with people who are non
disabled and disabled” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Todd was the only participant
who mentioned how accommodations for those with disabilities can benefit individuals without

	
  

152
152	
  

	
  
disabilities as well. This is an important concept because it highlights the benefits of inclusion
for all individuals not just those with disabilities. Only one other teacher discussed the benefits of
inclusion for students with and without disabilities saying, “…the general education kids are
benefitting from inclusion too. It’s a win/win situation” (Colleen, Personal communication, April
15, 2013). Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, also explicitly discussed inclusion in a broader context as a
result of the image sort. She described some of the images of adults with disabilities as
representing inclusion, therefore I encouraged her to explain her rationale. She eagerly
responded, “Oh, inclusion isn’t just in the classroom. It’s has to be in a workforce. Inclusion has
to be everywhere” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013).
Table 6.2 shows that there were six teachers that indicated a broader conception of
inclusion as extending beyond the classroom, beyond the school, and into the community. This is
important because inclusion began as a grass roots movement by Disability Rights activists to
guarantee persons with disabilities the right to equal access to all aspects of society including
public accommodations, transportation, communications, employment, recreation, and education
(Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012). Teachers must consider inclusion as related to all areas if we are
truly preparing students with and without disabilities for life beyond the classroom.
Because Todd appeared to hold the broadest conception of inclusion, I decided to explore
his responses further. Todd associated images 5, 7, 27, 33 and 34 with a broader conception of
inclusion as occurring beyond the context of the classroom. I decided to examine the remaining
teachers’ responses associated with those same images to determine if other teachers interpreted
them as representing inclusion in a broader context as well. The results are displayed in Table 6.3
below.

	
  

153
153	
  

	
  
Table 6.3
Broad Conceptions of Inclusion
Teachers

Todd
B
B
B
B
B
Carrie
D
N
D
N
N
Holly
D
N
D
D
D
John
O
O
D
D
N
Julie
D
N
D
D
D
Kelly
D
D
N
N
D
Ellen
D
D
D
D
D
Greg
D
B
D
D
D
Lisa
D
O
D
O
O
Amy
D
D
N
N
D
Susan
D
N
D
D
D
Jessica
D
D
D
D
D
Colleen
D
D
D
D
N
Amanda
D
D
D
D
N
Marcia
D
D
D
D
N
Tracy
D
N
D
N
N
Renee
D
D
D
D
D
* B = broad conception of inclusion, N = narrow conception of inclusion, D = disability, O =
omitted
As Table 6.3 shows, Todd indicated the broadest conception of inclusion associated with
those images. Greg reflected a broader conception of inclusion as extending beyond the
classroom regarding image 7 as he explained, “It’s inclusion because he is including her in the
vacation trip” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). However, the majority of teachers not
only appeared to hold narrow conceptions of disability associated with those images, but many
of them identified them as representing disability rather than inclusion.
Inclusion, perceived narrowly as occurring only within the school setting, indicates that
participants view inclusion as relating primarily to schools, classrooms, teachers, and students.
One of the major arguments in favor of inclusive education involves consideration of post-school

	
  

154
154	
  

	
  
experiences for individuals with disabilities. The Institute on Community Integration of the
University of Minnesota considers acceptance of individual differences as one of the many goals
of inclusive education.
People in our society have many misconceptions about persons with disabilities. The best
way to overcome these is by bringing people together in integrated settings. As students
with and without disabilities interact as classmates and friends, their parents and teachers
have the opportunity to witness successful integration in action. This new experience
enables many adults to embrace the vision of a society that accepts and values the
inclusion of persons with disabilities into all aspects of community life. (as cited in
Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012, p.14)
The absence of a conception of inclusion as social, legal and civic contrasts with
multiculturalism which is widely understood to be important socially, legally, and as a healthy
aspect in a civic society. Special education and inclusion have been described as being
understood through a medical model and a social model. Within the social model, political and
legal issues are addressed on an individual level rather than as a practice that is widely beneficial
to everyone in society. Within multicultural discourses, cultural diversity is seen as community
strength. The medical model is the dominant discourse in special education, which does not
consider diversity of human bodies, minds and (dis)abilities as a normal feature and an asset in
democratic society. We have cross-cultural education to address issues of historical perspectives
and to promote cultural understanding but not cross-ability education.
In the next chapter I will discuss some of the less common conceptions associated with
disability because while they were not representative of the majority, they have important
implications nonetheless. For example,

	
  

155
155	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 7
FROM HEGEMONY TO POSSIBILITY
The previous chapters clearly indicated that participants hold hegemonic perceptions of
disability and special education, however some participants indicated more equitable, complex,
and democratic conceptions, which point the way towards greater possibilities for the disabled in
schools and in public life. The use of poststructuralist analytical processes and techniques will
produce many different readings of the texts. These readings will variously concentrate on
recurring themes, contradictions, and the identification of patterns in the ways in which
participant experiences are articulated. Readings will also place emphasis on absences,
avoidances, inconsistencies, and contradictions. (Fawcett, 2008).
In this chapter, I will discuss some of the more complex outlier themes that emerged from
participants’ responses both individually and in relationship to one another. These include the
notion that everyone is able/disabled; media portrayals and the perception of the supercrip; levels
of awareness and discomfort with semiotic sorting; males as more medical model oriented and
hegemonic; and the distinctive responses of the principal. As Frechtling & Sharp (1997) explain,
“unlike quantitative researchers, who need to explain away deviant or exceptional cases,
qualitative analysts are also usually delighted when they encounter twists in their data that
present fresh analytic insights or challenges. The first theme that I will address emerged from
several participants’ responses indicating that disability is not unique to specific individuals;
rather it is in all of us.
Everyone Is Able/Disabled
Participants were asked to describe images associated with disability and special
education and while the majority of responses indicated hegemonic conceptions, a few responses

	
  

156
156	
  

	
  
indicated a much broader, comprehensive conception of disability as something we all
experience. Renee, a third grade teacher with five years of inclusion experience, described it this
way, “So, I like to think of it as abilities and disabilities and we all have them whether we are
certified [disabled] or not” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Susan, a fifth grade
teacher also with five years of inclusion experience, indicated a similar conception saying, “I feel
like the word disability is in every single one of us because there are things that we are talented
at and there are things that we are not [talented] at…whether we are labeled or not, we are all in
one together” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Both Susan and Renee expressed very
positive feelings about inclusion and the desire to create inviting classrooms that acknowledge
and accept differences. They were notably more positive in this regard than most other
participants. However, their perception that everyone has a disability, everyone has a weakness,
while intended to create more inclusive classrooms, may actually do just the opposite. For
example, many preservice and in-service teachers have proclaimed being “colorblind” in their
attempts to create inclusive classrooms yet, as Ullucci and Battey (2011) report, this blends into
a troubling chorus of “we don’t see race”. Ullucci and Battey (2011) further elaborate the
consequences of colorblindness as contributing to a collective ignorance, which relieves
individuals of the responsibility of fighting against the impact of racism. This may also be
applicable to issues concerning disability. Renee and Susan’s proclamation that everyone is
disabled may in fact allow them to ignore the impact of disability by indicating that it is
something that everyone experiences in one way or another. This over generalization could
potentially minimize and trivialize the disability experience for individuals who have legitimate
disabilities, rather than mere areas of weakness. According to Rosenberg (2004), colorblindness
allows people to deny that “race, especially skin color has consequences for a person’s status and

	
  

157
157	
  

	
  
wellbeing” (p. 257). Generalizing disability in such a way may also allow people to deny that
disability has consequences as well.
Some multicultural studies have explored how preservice and in-service teachers who
claim to be “colorblind” in their desire to create inclusive classroom communities, often further
marginalize and oppress students of color (Banks, 2001; Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Cochran-Smith,
1995; Johnson, 2002). This, according to Ullucci and Battey (2011), occurs because claiming to
treat everyone the same shuts down any need to discuss inequality. Truly inclusive classrooms
do not deny the existence of significant differences or generalize differences across individuals,
rather they acknowledge and embrace differences as a natural part of the human experience.
Rosenthal (2001) suggests that promoting inclusive practices involves two main avenues to
working with difference. First, it is about having conversations in order to clarify and hear about
the ‘other’s’ position, so that differences can be described and better understood. “I can stand in
the other’s’ shoes so to speak” (p. 389). Second, it involves doing some private work inside
oneself, looking at, owning and re-appraising one’s perceptions, beliefs and values (p. 389).
Though Susan and Renee appeared to believe that generalizing the disability experience to
everyone would create a more inclusive community, it may actually stifle conversations about
difference that are vital to creating and maintaining the type of inclusive classroom they hope to
achieve. “To start accepting the differences between us, we first have to notice them, point them
out, talk about them, explore them. With this in mind, it is not our responsibility to talk or act
colorblind” (Rosenthal, 2001, p. 389).
Rather than address disability vaguely as strengths and weaknesses that everyone
experiences, teachers need to have open discussions about disability that specifically address
individual’s unique and varied experiences with it. Susan and Renee appeared to believe that

	
  

158
158	
  

	
  
creating an inclusive classroom environment means acknowledging that, “…we all have different
abilities and different disabilities…” which is a step in the right direction. However, expanding
these to include specific and intentional conversations related to all areas of difference such as,
disability, race, gender, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation would move them closer to
achieving truly inclusive classrooms. Rosenthal (2001) suggests that “whilst inclusion is a
laudable goal for our education system to embrace”, we need to aim for a broader discussion that
encompasses the core concepts of sameness and difference (p. 391). He maintains that in order to
get to know one another, we need to debate and acknowledge our points of similarity to and
difference from one another and that by doing this we may minimize and perhaps extinguish the
misunderstandings and disharmonies we have seen so much of in our schools and communities.
Another important implication in the overgeneralization of disability is the potential to
minimize or trivialize the disability experience. For example, Renee opens her classroom each
school year with this:
I have a huge conversation with my kids. It’s all about family. We are all one
unit and I tell them we all have different abilities and different disabilities.
Mine is drawing. I cannot draw. I draw stick people, and they laugh at me at
first and I know that. So, that’s an area that I struggle in so when I go to
draw, I may ask someone who I know is a good artist, “Could you come and
Help me? Could you walk me through it? (Personal communication, April 15,
2013).
Renee indicated that her inability to draw could be considered a disability however, she did not
indicate difficulties in related areas such as visual memory, spatial relationships, spelling or
copying which could be associated with a visual perceptual processing disorder and thus could

	
  

159
159	
  

	
  
actually impact her functioning as a learner or professional. She likened her challenges with
drawing figures to the challenges students may experience with reading and mathematics, “It’s
the same with reading, we have some kids who are really high in reading…I have kids that
struggle with reading…but maybe their strength is math and they may be helping you with math”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Renee excitedly shared that story and her desire to
make her classroom more inclusive, which may reflect an orientation toward the social model of
disability.
The social model views disability as stemming from societal and environmental barriers
and individuals with disabilities are perceived as valuable, “normal” members of society
(Sullivan, 2011). Renee sought to address disability as ordinary, as residing in everyone, and as
not requiring specialized attention or treatment, however critics of the social model argue that
casting impairment as only a neutral human difference ignores the lived realities of many
individuals with disabilities (Taylor, 2005). Because not all individuals with disabilities share a
common perspective, it is important to consider models that reflect the entire range of disability
orientations (Darling, 2003). Some individuals with disabilities prefer to appear as normal as
possible while others prefer to include disability as one part of their identity, while still others
may consider their disability a point of pride (For more about disability orientations, see Darling,
2003). To create a truly inclusive classroom environment requires attention to and consideration
of the many ways that individuals experience disability.
Renee and Susan were not the only participants who appeared to reflect a potential social
model orientation. Several other participants indicated a similar orientation during the image
sort, particularly in response to image 15, an advertisement for the film Forrest Gump
(Zemeckis, 1994). As participants’ deliberated over the placement of image 15 in either the

	
  

160
160	
  

	
  
disability or inclusion category, they appeared to hold very different perceptions, which will be
discussed in greater detail in the following section.
Media Portrayals and Public Perceptions
I used photo elicitation methods in hopes of obtaining a deeper understanding of
participants’ perceptions of disability and inclusion. The images that evoked the most detailed
responses were those involving famous individuals and those involving characters from familiar
movies. Teacher participants’ indicated drawing on their specific knowledge of the character and
the storyline when determining where to place the images. Though none of the participants
indicated any awareness of the different disability models, some of their responses reflected
broader conceptions of disability, which could be interpreted as representing underpinnings of
the social model. Several teachers considered how societal factors such as accessibility,
stereotypes, and prejudices may have contributed to perceptions of individuals as disabled. This
is interesting given the fact that “the media as a whole is a major proponent of medical model
views of disability, not just through language but through the overall portrayal (or lack of
portrayal) of people with disabilities” (Sullivan, 2011, p. 7). This could indicate a shift in
teachers’ perceptions of disability from the more medical, deficit-driven orientation to the more
social, ability-driven orientation, which could have significant implications for the future of
inclusion. Image 15, an advertisement for the film Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994), evoked the
most varied responses from teachers.ok
The film Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994), is based on the 1986 novel by Winston
Groom. The author describes the main character, Forrest Gump, as an autistic savant, which
refers to individuals with autism who have extraordinary skills (Edelson, n.d.). However, Roger
Ebert, a famous film critic, describes Forrest Gump as a “thoroughly decent man with an IQ of

	
  

161
161	
  

	
  
75” who is “incapable of doing anything less than profound.” The apparent discrepancy between
the book and the film in terms of Forrest Gump’s disability could be one explanation as to why
participants in this study appeared to have different perceptions, though only one participant
actually referred to a specific disability when describing him. Todd, a special education teacher
described Forrest Gump as autistic “just because of the things he was able to recall and he gets
focused on one thing” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). Those responses that appeared
to indicate an orientation toward the social model of disability are discussed below.
According to the image sort data, five teachers categorized image 15 as representing
inclusion, five teachers categorized it as representing disability, five teachers categorized it as
representing both inclusion and disability and three teachers omitted the image altogether. The
eight teachers who categorized the image as representing inclusion or omitted the image
appeared to use external factors in their decision making process. For example, Carrie, a special
education teacher, said, “I don’t really think he has a disability per se and I think he functions
just fine in the real world” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). John, a physical education
teacher, did not consider Forrest Gump disabled saying, “…he was portrayed as a little slow but
did many great things, so I don’t think he really had a disability” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013). Julie, a music teacher, categorized it as representing inclusion because “He was
mainstreamed in society and not placed in a home which was typical at that time” (Personal
communication, April 18, 2013). Lisa, a fifth grade teacher, also associated image 15 with
inclusion saying, “He was productive. He was successful in his life story in the movie. He did
not, he’s not any different than anybody else as far as his life goals and being able to achieve
them. I think he had a disability to other people but not to himself” (Personal communication,
May 10, 2013). These responses could indicate broader conceptions of disability as “stemming

	
  

162
162	
  

	
  
from societal and environmental barriers” (Sullivan, 2011, p. 3). However, they could also be
espousing the myth of the “inspirational supercrip…which are people or characters who conform
to the medical model by overcoming disability, and becoming more ‘normal’, often in a heroic
and extraordinary way” (Roper, 2003, as cited in Sullivan, 2011, p. 8). Given the types of
responses elicited from other images, which I will discuss in the next paragraph, and the findings
discussed in Chapter Five, I am inclined to believe the latter.
Image 9 is an advertisement for the film I Am Sam (Nelson, 2001). The film is about a
father with a mild cognitive impairment who loses custody of his young daughter because he is
perceived as incapable of raising her on his own. According to the data, three teachers
categorized the image as representing inclusion, five teachers categorized it as representing
disability, eight teachers categorized it as representing both disability and inclusion, and two
teachers omitted the image. Only six teachers reported being familiar with the movie and some
of their responses indicated that context played a factor in their decision to categorize the image.
For example, Ellen, a sixth grade teacher, categorized the image as representing disability and
inclusion saying, “I would say maybe both because he is definitely disabled, but he is kind of
working in the real world. He has to figure out how to mesh in the real world” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). She is clearly drawing on her knowledge of the character and
the context because there is nothing in the image itself that indicates that he is disabled.
Marcia, a fourth grade teacher, expressed intense frustration when categorizing this
image saying, “I feel like I know the most about this one [image 9] and it bothers me even more.
I feel like I have the most history with this one. Like to me, he has a disability but, he has done,
he’s overcome his disability to the best of his ability and functioning” (Personal communication,
April 15, 2013). Again, the myth of the supercrip is indicated by the perception that he heroically

	
  

163
163	
  

	
  
overcame his disability. According to Sullivan (2011), the amount of praise and admiration
shown for the success of a person with a disability implies that one is not expected to succeed if
one has a disability, the unintended outcome being the perpetuation of disability as dependent or
incapable.
Image 22 is an advertisement for the film Mask (Starger, 1985). The film is about a boy
named “Rocky” who is diagnosed with craniodiaphyseal dysplasia, which is an extremely rare
disorder that causes disfiguring cranial enlargements. Six participants indicated being familiar
with the movie and used that knowledge in categorizing the image as representing disability or
inclusion. For instance, Amy said, “I don’t even know if that would be a disability because it’s
just a deformed, deformality [deformity]. That’s not necessarily a disability” (Personal
communication, April 30, 2013). She appeared to use more than visual cues of disability in
determining whether the image represented inclusion or disability as she indicated that he looked
physically different but that he wasn’t necessarily (cognitively) disabled.
In the film, Rocky excelled academically which appeared to be a factor for some
participants in determining whether the image represented disability or inclusion. For example,
Carrie, a special education teacher, said, “…I saw the movie but I don’t think it’s necessarily a
disability. He doesn’t seem to be cognitively impaired just because he has a deformed face”
(Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Greg also appeared to consider the context when
categorizing this image saying, “He was included in the movie…he went to class, made fun of
himself. I thought it was cool” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Tracy placed the
image in the inclusion category saying, “He was mentally capable” (Personal communication,
April 18, 2013). These responses are also in odd contradiction to participants’ assertions that
disabilities are visible and physical. Competence neutralizes physical disability.

	
  

164
164	
  

	
  
Image 22 appeared to elicit broader conceptions of disability as some participants used
more than visible cues as criteria for determining whether the image represented disability or
inclusion. Though previous responses indicated some orientation toward the myth of the
supercrip that did not appear to be the case with image 22. Teachers at Parker elementary
appeared to reflect adherence to some disability stereotypes, though they may also be reflecting a
broader conception of disability. Adherence to disability stereotypes such as the myth of the
supercrip, perpetuate ableist attitudes and dispositions. Ableism can be described as the belief
that it is better not to have a disability than to have one and that it is better to do things in the
way that nondisabled people do (Storey, 2007). Ableist attitudes pose significant challenges to
developing a culture of inclusion therefore any efforts to improve inclusive practices must
involve identifying and challenging ableist assumptions.
Levels of Awareness and Discomfort with Semiotic Sorting
I chose photo elicitation as a method for exploring participants’ deeply held cultural
biases and assumptions about disability, which proved to be incredibly effective as noted above.
I was able to obtain rich, detailed data regarding participants’ beliefs about disability, however I
also realized that the image sort was prompting participants to engage in critical reflection
regarding their own biases and stereotypes of disability. For some, this reportedly caused
feelings of anger, frustration, nervousness, discomfort, and uncertainty. Giroux (as cited in
Szpara & Wylie, 2005) stated that, “education works best when those experiences that shape and
penetrate one’s lived realities are jolted, unsettled, and made the object of critical analysis” (p.
811). Many of the teachers expressed how sorting the images forced them to confront their
beliefs about disability, which at times made them uncomfortable. It is at the intersection of
awareness and discomfort that new perspectives can be developed. Szpara and Wylie (2005)

	
  

165
165	
  

	
  
suggest that only through “deep reflection and experiential opportunities” can “peoples belief
systems (including their prejudices and biases)” be influenced (p. 811).
About half of the teachers at Parker elementary indicated some awareness that they hold
stereotypical perceptions of disability and reported being uncomfortable with it during sorting.
When asked how participating in the image sort made her feel, Carrie replied, “…it was very
uncomfortable. I mean it makes you think of things, like preconceived notions or stereotypes
you’ve had your whole life. No one wants to do this.
You know it’s uncomfortable and you don’t want to think, oh this person has a disability because
of this…or they can’t walk” (Personal communication, April 30, 2013). Julie acknowledged that
the image sort made her feel “stereotypical…the images weren’t always obvious so I put them
where society tells you to” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013). Tracy, a third grade
teacher, indicated feeling “nervous, I felt judgmental. I didn’t want to offend someone. I didn’t
want to send the wrong message about my beliefs” (Personal communication, April 18, 2013).
Marcia, a fourth grade teacher, expressed the most frustration with the image sort saying, “It’s
hard for me to put them into categories because I think that this student may have a disability,
but…yes I had mixed feelings sorting them into specific piles” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013). She became increasingly agitated as she explained “Just because this represents a
disability for me, doesn’t mean it can’t go there [points to inclusion category]. I could take all of
these, if I wanted to, and put them there [inclusion category] because that’s how I would like for
things to be” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Marcia ended by saying, “…okay, I’ll
tell you what bothers me. I feel like you just put me into how the regular public perceives these
things and that makes me feel uncomfortable because that is not how it should be”(Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). This response was helpful in that it indicated that these teachers

	
  

166
166	
  

	
  
acknowledge the gap between social “regular public” conditioning and other ways of perceiving
disability.
Within this category/theme, there also appeared to be a difference in perceptions based on
the participants’ gender. Though many of the female teachers expressed feeling uneasy,
frustrated, and / or stereotypical about sorting the images into categories, the male teachers did
not appear to share those feelings. This was an interesting finding that I will explore further in
the next section.
Are Males More Medical Model and Oriented and Hegemonic?
Of the 17 teachers participating in the image sort, four made reference to image 26 as the
stereotypical “short bus”. Three of the four references belonged to the male participants. Not
only did they associate image 26 with a negative stereotype, both John, a physical education
teacher with more than 11 years of teaching experience, and Greg, a sixth grade teacher also with
more than 11 years of teaching experience, laughed when describing the image as representing
disability. For example, Greg chuckled, “The short bus would be disability. My friend had one of
those. We used to go tailgating in it once in awhile. [Laughing] We had disabilities afterword”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). John simply chuckled and said, “The proverbial
‘short bus’. Disability” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). Todd referred to the “short
bus” as representing disability “…just because of the stereotype…” (Personal communication,
May 10, 2013).
Image 15, an advertisement for Forrest Gump (Finerman, 1994) elicited laughter from
Greg as well, “[Laughing], Forrest Gump, disability that guy” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013). John also appeared to find image 5, the universal symbol for wheelchair access,
humorous, “Handicap symbol [Chuckle] just because so many people have it, I don’t think it’s a

	
  

167
167	
  

	
  
disability. I see so many people use it in the parking lot and then get out and walk in with no
problem” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). None of the images elicited laughter from
the female participants, however this was not the only difference in responses. I will address
another apparent gender-based difference that emerged from the data in the paragraph below.
Another interesting finding was that the male teachers did not express as many negative
emotions associated with the image sort as the female teachers did. For example, when asked
how participating in the image sort made him feel, Greg said, “It’s tough. It’s like you’re judging
people. You’re judging kids. Like I shouldn’t be the judge and jury about whether this kid fits
into this category…they’re just kids for the most part” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). He did not indicate feeling stereotypical or frustrated and the image sort did not appear to
stimulate any self-awareness regarding his assumptions or biases toward disability. However, his
responses indicated that he might have a stronger orientation toward the medical model of
disability. For example, when asked to describe characteristics associated with a typical student
with special needs, he replied chuckling, “Boys. There are more boys at this point. Um, high
energy it seems. I don’t see any calm special ed kids. That’s about it” (Personal communication,
April 15, 2013). Greg reflected a medical model orientation toward disability throughout the
image sort. He described image 27, universal symbols for disabilities, as representing disabilities
because “it just represents things that could be wrong” (Personal communication, April 15,
2013). Greg also appeared to easily categorize 16 images as representing disability based on
visual cues alone. He simply described the images such as “a guy with a knee brace”, “the
walking stick”, “kid with Down syndrome”, “lady with one leg”, followed by the word
“disability” as he placed the images on the template (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).

	
  

168
168	
  

	
  
Todd, a special education teacher, did not express negative feelings associated with the
image sort either. He indicated being more concerned about doing it correctly, “I kept thinking, I
hope I’m doing it how I should be doing it” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). The
image sort also did not appear to stimulate self-reflection or raise Todd’s awareness of any
personal biases or stereotypes he may have associated with disability. He indicated a stronger
orientation toward the medical model of disability as he categorized images as representing
disability based primarily on visible cues. For example, Todd categorized image 36, a young boy
playing outside, as representing disability “just because he appears to be autistic maybe”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013) and he associated image 37, a special education
classroom, with disability because, “There appears to be people in the background with
disabilities” (Personal communication, May 10, 2013). There were occasions however, where
Todd appeared to consider the context in which the disability became meaningful particularly in
association with the images involving films. While his familiarity with the film and the social
context appeared to influence his perception of the image, he still indicated a more dominant
orientation toward the medical model of disability. For example, Todd categorized image 9, I Am
Sam (Nelson, 2001), as representing disability because “…the father clearly has a disability”
(Personal communication, May 10, 2013), however his disability is not visible within the image
itself. He also categorized image 15, Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994), as representing disability
because he perceived him to be autistic based on his ability to recall facts and focus intently on
one thing.
John did not express negative feelings about engaging in the sorting activity either. He
simply said, “I guess for me, there is no right or wrong answer and I want a right or wrong
answer”(Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He went on to say:

	
  

169
169	
  

	
  
I don’t know, some of them were easy, some of them were – and I know that
some of them would probably overlap and I may have put one or the other. But
my biggest thing is when we do tests like this, I have a hard time with making a
choice. I don’t know. Sometimes I will go one way; sometimes I will go the other
for no apparent reason (Personal communication, April 15, 2013).
He did not indicate gaining any self-awareness of his biases or prejudices toward disability even
though they were apparent in some of his responses. For example, he describes some students
with disabilities as challenging “…because they’ve never been pushed for most their life outside
of school” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013). He also described image 36, a photograph
of a young boy outside, as representing disability because “it looks like he could be autistic”
(Personal communication, April 15, 2013) and image 10, a photograph of a young man in a
wheelchair, as, “a person in a wheelchair, obviously disabled” (Personal communication, April
15, 2013).
While there are differences among men and masculinities, there is always a prescriptive
ideal that men are held up to and “all American men must also contend with a singular vision of
masculinity, a particular definition that is held up as the model against which we all measure
ourselves” (Kimmel, 2006, p. 4). According to Kimmel, the foundation of masculinity is a fear of
scrutiny by other men that will reveal a man’s masculine inadequacy and subsequently, expose
him as a fraud, i.e. ‘not manly enough.’ Kimmel notes that these are “the silences that keep other
people believing that we actually approve of the things that are done to women, to minorities, to
gays and lesbians in our culture…” (p.35). This analysis suggests that men are culturally less
likely to be comfortable with weakness or the weak and vulnerable.

	
  

170
170	
  

	
  
John reflected medical model orientations toward disability by primarily using visible
cues of disability in association with deficit language “he just doesn’t let it [his disability] bother
him, it’s no big deal…” and “she looks Down syndrome-ish, so probably disability” (Personal
communication, April 15, 2013). Some of his responses could have been interpreted as
potentially oriented toward the social model of disability because he appeared to consider the
social context in which the disability became meaningful, however it seemed to more strongly
reflect an association with the myth of the supercrip. For example, he described Forrest Gump as
“… a little slow but did many great things, so I don’t think he really had a disability” and Stevie
Wonder as not “…let[ting] his disability stop him” (Personal communication, April 15, 2013)
from being successful. He categorized images of individuals using prosthetic devices for running
and walking (images 18 and 34, respectively) as not disabled but categorized individuals using
wheelchairs (images 10 and 35) as “obviously disabled”. It appeared that the more successful or
the more “normal” he perceived the individual to be, the less likely he was to categorize them as
disabled.
These perceptions are important because individuals who use wheelchairs may or may
not perceive themselves as more or less disabled than individuals who use prosthetic devices.
Again, this illuminates the importance of increasing disability awareness in terms of disability
models and various orientations toward disability so teachers can understand how disability is
not a collective experience but rather a very individual and unique experience. Teachers need
support in developing the kind of disability awareness that is critical to providing truly
individualized educational experiences for students with disabilities.
Principal Perceptions of Disability, Inclusion, and Special Education

	
  

171
171	
  

	
  
Few would argue that teacher attitudes and dispositions toward disability are critical to
the success of inclusive practices, however studies are showing that administrative support plays
a pivotal role in developing and maintaining successful inclusive practices. Praisner (2003)
highlights the importance of principals in ensuring the success of inclusion by exhibiting
behaviors that advance the integration, acceptance, and success of students with disabilities in
general education classes. For inclusion to be successful, first and foremost, the school
administrator must display a positive attitude and commitment to inclusion (Evans, Bird, Ford,
Green, & Bischoff, 1992; Rude & Anderson, 1992). For this reason, I chose to engage in a
focused discussion of the principals’ perceptions of disability, special education, and inclusion.
Leatherman (2007) identifies administrator attitudes toward inclusion and the types of support
offered to teachers as major factors that impact the success of inclusive programs. Additionally,
Hargrave (2001) asserts that for inclusive practices to produce optimal success for all students,
inclusion must be considered as part of the total belief and practice of school faculty members.
Therefore, research exploring administrator attitudes and beliefs about disability are crucial.
Gretchen [pseudonym] is the principal at Parker Elementary school. She has been with
Parker for just over six years. Prior to her position at Parker, she spent more than ten years as a
general education classroom teacher. Gretchen reported having experience with inclusive
practices as a general education teacher and spoke favorably of her experience collaborating and
teaching with the special education teacher. Gretchen indicated that her positive experience with
inclusion was instrumental in her decision to shift to inclusive practices at Parker. Prior to her
arrival, Gretchen reported that approximately 100 percent of special education services were
provided in segregated, pull out programs or resource rooms. She was determined to reverse that
practice, “I wanted the [special education] teachers to be in the classrooms along with the kids. I

	
  

172
172	
  

	
  
never like the, here let me sit you out…” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013). Gretchen
described the shift to inclusive practices as a gradual process beginning with two classrooms the
first year and growing from there.
Gretchen indicated that the shift to inclusive practices was met with some resistance,
particularly with veteran teachers. She stated, “There was quite a bit of why would we want to do
that?” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013) however, with the help of a few new teachers
and increased legislative support, she was able to begin the shift to inclusive practices. Gretchen
demonstrated her support by providing professional development opportunities to co-teaching
teams, though she admitted that she was not able to do that until a year or two later. She also
reported providing them at least a small amount of time to plan collaboratively, “I gave them a
small amount of time, definitely not enough, but what we could provide and offer” (Personal
communication, June 16, 2013). Gretchen further demonstrated her commitment to inclusion by
attempting to keep their class sizes low and obtaining additional professional development
opportunities. She indicated that although she feels like they are making progress, “…we still
have a long ways to go” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013).
Leatherman (2007) identified several factors as critical for successful inclusion such as,
additional support services, adequate resources, administrator support, appropriately trained
personnel, and positive teacher attitudes. Gretchen appeared to agree with Leatherman (2007) as
she reportedly supports inclusive efforts through providing increased opportunities for
professional development and access to adequate resources such as collaborative planning and
lower class sizes. Gretchen expressed a desire to implement inclusive practices upon her arrival
at Parker only six years ago and though she reported a positive attitude about inclusion, her
cultural beliefs and perceptions about disability had not been examined.

	
  

173
173	
  

	
  
According to Sarason (1982), teachers’ beliefs regarding inclusion are a strong influence
on the success or failure of inclusion classrooms, however it is not only their beliefs regarding
inclusion, but also their beliefs regarding disability and special education. And because the work
of teaching occurs within a school culture, which is facilitated by an administrative team, it is
equally, if not more, important to explore administrators’ beliefs about disability and special
education as well. “A group’s attainments are the product not only of the shared knowledge and
skills of its different members, but also of the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic dynamics
of their transactions” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75-76). To create and sustain an inclusive ideology
within a school system requires collective effort on the part of administrators, teachers, and
students to raise awareness of the biases and negative stereotypes associated with diverse groups.
The current study explored teacher and student perceptions of disability, which were discussed in
Chapter Five, however the administrators’ perception of disability as related to teacher and
student perceptions will be discussed below.
Gretchen identified 19 images as representing, both disability and inclusion, 11 images
as representing disability only, and eight images as representing inclusion only. There were only
two images that Gretchen identified as representing disability that were in contrast to other
participant responses, image 13, a photograph of a self-contained special education classroom,
and image 22, an advertisement for the film Mask (Starger, 1985). More participants categorized
image 13 as representing both disability and inclusion rather than disability only. Gretchen
identified it as representing only disability because “…there’s no other [non disabled] students in
the class” The majority of participants categorized image 22 as representing inclusion only or
both inclusion and disability. As indicated previously, many of the participants appeared to use
their knowledge of the film to assist them in categorizing the image. This was not the case with

	
  

174
174	
  

	
  
Gretchen. She indicated that she was aware of the film but had not seen it and based her decision
solely on the visible cues in the image itself. The remaining nine images that Gretchen
categorized as representing disability were in agreement with the majority of participants. Table
7.1 below shows the images Gretchen identified as representing disability and her rationale for
placement.
Table 7.1
Images Identified by Administrator as Representing Disability
Image Rationale
5

Handicap symbol [long pause], um a physical impairment, so disability.

8

I see as sign language for a hearing disability.

13

Students what looks like that has a physical disability [long pause] and support staff
and teachers. I see that as disability because there’s no other students in the class.

16

Braille would be visual. I would say disability.

21

Disability.

22
23

From the Mask. Um, not quite sure what that physical issue was but I’m going to say
disability.
Braces, disability.

27

Um, is a picture of visual, physical, hearing, and cognitive to me that says disability.

28

I see a student with a visual impairment using a braille book. I would put that under
disability.
35
We have 4 students playing in a wheelchair, so I would, and all of them are in a
wheelchair so disability.
37
Students with physical handicaps or disabilities looks like severe, I would say
disability.
* Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56.
Though Gretchen disagreed with the majority of participants on two images, her
rationales indicated that she too perceives disability as primarily visible. She also indicated this
perception when asked what images she associated with disability, “I typically think of

	
  

175
175	
  

	
  
somebody who has a physical impairment, um that they were born with” (Personal
communication, June 16, 2013). As a school administrator, Gretchen has access to important
student information including the number of students receiving special education services and
their related disabilities. Therefore, she is aware that the majority of students in her building
receiving special education services have specific learning disabilities, which are primarily
invisible, yet she reported associating disability primarily with a physical or visible presence.
This is important because administrators who hold narrow conceptions of disability may not
realize the need to broaden teachers’ understandings of disability and how critical it is to the
development of an inclusive school community.
According to Baglieri & Shapiro (2012), inclusive schools aim to diversify children’s
experiences and peer relationships, which can allow them to develop accurate knowledge about
disability and other differences. However, the majority of teachers in the current study indicated
narrow conceptions of inclusion as associated primarily with disabled and non-disabled students
working together in the general education classroom. And according to the data, Gretchen
indicated a similar conception, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
The majority of participants categorized ten of the 38 images as representing inclusion.
The ten images involved three graphics supporting inclusive education, four photographs of a
visibly disabled student engaged in an activity with a non-disabled student, and three
photographs of typical classrooms. Gretchen categorized seven of the ten images as representing
inclusion only, however she categorized the remaining three as representing disability and
inclusion. Table 19 displays the ten images the majority of participants categorized as
representing inclusion, Gretchen’s results, and her description of each image.

	
  

176
176	
  

	
  
Table 7.2
Images Identified by Administrator as Representing Inclusion
Images Category Rationale
2
Inclusion I see a picture of what looks like to be a teacher and four students. Is she
supposed to be, does she have Down’s? I would say both.
4

Inclusion Would be inclusion.

6

Inclusion A little boy with 2 other people and a teacher playing. Inclusion.

14

Inclusion I see a student with what looks to be like Down syndrome with a student
without, so I would go inclusion.

19

Inclusion Six children. I don’t see a physical impairment nor any signs of an
emotional disability, so Im going to say [long pause] inclusion. Even though
it kind of goes against what Ive been doing.

24

Both

[long pause] It is appearing, there is a visual disability because of the words
on the computer, might possibly be bigger, working together, I would say
both.

25

Both

[whispers] Special education, inclusive education, general education, both.

30

31
38

Inclusion [long pause] a picture of a class of students [long pause] I don’t know if
there’s any physical, it doesn’t look like there’s any physical maybe
emotional but I’m going to say inclusion because there is a large group.
Both

All Children Can Learn, I would say both because I believe kids with a
disability should be included and can learn. All children.

Inclusion A lot of diversity, different kids “together we’re better” [long pause]
inclusion

* Note. Images can be found in Figure 3.1 on page 56.
Gretchen also indicated a fairly narrow conception of disability, for example many of the
images that she categorized as representing inclusion involved an individual with a visible
disability and an individual without a visible disability such as images, 2, 6, 14, and 38. She also
indicated that perception as she determined which images did not represent inclusion, for
example when she was describing image 13 she said, “I see that as disability because there’s no

	
  

177
177	
  

	
  
other [non-disabled] students in the class” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013). As
Gretchen considered how to categorize image 19, six children lying on the ground with their
heads together, she said, “I don’t see a physical impairment nor any signs of an emotional
disability, so I am going to say [long pause] inclusion. Even though it kind of goes against what I
have been doing” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013). Gretchen indicated feeling like the
placement of image 19 in the inclusion category was not consistent with the other images she
associated with inclusion, meaning there was no indication of a visible disability within the
group of children. Someone with a broader conception of inclusion may have considered the
possibility that this image represented different races and/or cultures. However, this was not
indicated by any of the participants in this study.
There were occasions when Gretchen indicated a broader conception of inclusion such as
when she was determining where to place image 11, a photograph of Stevie Wonder. She said,
“Um [long pause] both because of having a disability with his visual handicap or physical
disability but included in the world” (Personal communication, June 16, 2013). This was also
indicated in her categorization of image 34, an individual with a prosthetic leg, “[Long pause] He
has a physical disability but has been included…I’m assuming he was in the army” (Personal
communication, June 16, 2013). Image 34 is a photograph of an adult and there are no other
individuals in the picture, yet Gretchen considered him to be included in society, which may
indicate a potentially broader conception of inclusion. Although Gretchen appeared to more
strongly associate inclusion with students and classroom settings, her subtle references to
societal inclusion may indicate a willingness to broaden her perception of inclusion to embrace
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, class, and disability.

	
  

178
178	
  

	
  
A principal seeking to bring about change in his or her school must do so within the
everyday setting of the school – a setting which is immersed in the assumptions, values, and
beliefs held by those who work there (Lucas, 2001); it may well be, then, that the principal
cannot possibly bring about changes associated with reform unless he or she is also consciously
working to shape the culture of the school (Kytle & Bogotch, 2000). Gretchen’s beliefs and
assumptions about disability and inclusion are important because, as a school leader, she is
central to the development of an inclusive school culture. If she holds hegemonic conceptions of
disability and inclusion, it is unlikely that she will recognize the need to challenge the ableist
assumptions frequently associated with a medical model orientation of disability. While this
hegemonic view is problematic for any educational professional, it may be especially
problematic for an administrator who holds greater power in an institution. Inclusion is more
than a classroom where students with disabilities are educated with non-disabled peers; it is more
than two teachers, each with their own expertise, collaborating and co-teaching. It is a
philosophy that embraces all types of diversity, not just different abilities, but different races,
religions, families, and cultures. It is a philosophy, a belief system, a way of being, which cannot
be forced upon teachers but rather must be cultivated through building an “atmosphere for
supporting teachers in sharing their intrapersonal attitudes and beliefs” (Idol, 1997, p. 387).
Structural and Post-structural Perspectives
Structuralism allows us to research dominant cultural perceptions while post
structuralism points our gaze toward outliers, margins, and exceptions. Each analysis is valuable.
"Poststructuralist research practices do not look to identifying participant responses that can be
seen to give rise to essentialist or uniquely privileged accounts that discover “the truth” of a

	
  

179
179	
  

	
  
situation. Instead, emphasis is placed on identifying meanings that are context specific and that
relate to the varying [emphasis added] discursive practices operating." (Fawcett, 2008)
This study sought to explore participants’ conceptions of inclusion because as Hargrave
(2011) indicated, the history of the inclusion movement has been typified by controversy due to
the lack of a common definition of inclusion. The lack of a shared understanding of inclusion is
both problematic and suggestive of possibility. A shared understanding of disability and special
education may be lacking as well, which may have implications for inclusion. The findings
indicated that the majority of participants hold hegemonic conceptions of disability and differing
conceptions of special education the implications of which will be discussed in Chapter Eight.

	
  

180
180	
  

	
  
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore how stakeholders understand inclusion, special
education, and disability. Much of the research in special education assumes that stakeholders
have a shared understanding of these terms, which has implications for both policy and practice.
This is evident in the special education literature where the terms inclusion, integration, and
mainstreaming are used interchangeably, even though they are distinctly different concepts. This
study attempts to contribute to the existing special education research by investigating how
stakeholders come to understand disability, inclusion, and special education. Using
phenomenographic interviews and semiotic photo elicitation, I was able to explore participants’
more deeply held cultural perceptions of disability and the relationship of those perceptions to
their personal and professional conceptions of special education and inclusion. Below I discuss
the implications of my findings for in-service and preservice teacher educators, the field of
special education, and for qualitative research, however I will begin by discussing the overall
implications of the hegemonic conception of disability as primarily visible/physical.
Implications of the Hegemony of Disability as Visible / Physical
All of the participants in this study had experience with individuals with learning
disabilities as either a teacher or a student in a full inclusion classroom, however the majority of
them did not initially associate disability with learning or cognitive impairments. They primarily
associated disability with wheelchairs, canes, braces, crutches, or a visible physical condition
that requires adaptive equipment or assistive devices such as sign language, braille, and/or
prosthesis. These types of accommodations are reasonable and necessary for individuals to
access the world around them. Using sign language or providing a hearing aid for individuals

	
  

181
181	
  

	
  
who are deaf or hard of hearing is a reasonable and necessary accommodation. A wheelchair is a
reasonable and necessary accommodation for an individual with a physical disability who cannot
walk. These types of accommodations play a critical role in providing individuals with
disabilities opportunities to participate in and access various life activities. The visible nature of
the disability provides proof of its existence and justification for various accommodations.
However, as I previously mentioned citing the case of Stephen Hawking, some individuals with
severe physical limitations require assistive technologies like wheelchairs, voice amplification
and/or speech to text software, but may not necessarily require instructional accommodations.
Students without such visibly obvious or physical disabilities often have equally
compelling needs, but their needs, like their disabilities, are often invisible. According to
McDonald, Keys, and Balcazar (2007), individuals with learning disabilities frequently
encounter skepticism concerning the authenticity of their disability and are often routinely
questioned as to whether they use their disability to avoid working hard (Beilke & Yssel, 1999;
Kruse, 1998). This perception influences what types of accommodations classroom teachers are
willing to provide, how often students are allowed to use them and in what situations.
Accommodations do not change what students learn rather they are intended to change how
students with disabilities access the information, how they participate in the learning process and
how they demonstrate mastery. Accommodations are not intended to change what is learned.
Changes in what is learned is considered a modification. Accommodations and modifications are
routinely misunderstood and as such are often either under utilized or over utilized. Instructional
accommodation is not a technology, or a “fix” and it is not visible. Research suggests that
teachers too often fail to instructionally accommodate invisible disabilities, and instead provide
technologies and solutions that “fix” or avoid the disability when instruction is called for. For

	
  

182
182	
  

	
  
example, students with reading disabilities need a range of specific, evidence-based instructional
interventions, yet, instead are often given a technology such as, audio books or a reading partner.
Sometimes audio books can be used instructionally but they can also be used as a replacement
for high-quality instruction. There is an important distinction between accessing the curriculum
and progressing in the curriculum. Accommodations allow increased opportunities for students
to access the curriculum, however they do not replace targeted instructional interventions. It is
important for teachers to know which situations are best responded to with assistive technology
and which are not. One of the concerns raised by this data is that if disabilities are seen as
primarily physical, teachers may implicitly believe there are physical solutions to fix, avoid or
overcome most disabilities. This practice may be related to the deep conception of disability and
the necessary accommodations as visible, technological and physical. As indicated by the data,
the majority of educators in this study, perceived disability as visible even though their
classroom experience has been primarily with students with learning disabilities, Autism, and/or
emotional impairments. Providing accommodations, such as hearing aids, glasses, extended time
on assignments, braille and so on for individuals with visible disabilities is rarely, if ever
contested. The invisible nature of learning, emotional and language disabilities, however has
posed some challenges to the provision of appropriate accommodations.
Individuals with disabilities in mathematics calculation, or dyscalculia may require the
provision of a calculator, which would be considered an appropriate accommodation.
Dyscalculia, is a learning disability that affects the acquisition of knowledge about numbers and
arithmetic (Piazza, Facoetti, Trussardi, Berteletti, Conte, Lucangeli, Dehaene, & Zorzi, 2010).
However, this invisible disability is poorly understood and the provision of a calculator is a
highly contested accommodation amongst educators and assessment specialists. The use of an

	
  

183
183	
  

	
  
audio text would be an appropriate accommodation for an individual with a reading disability,
however this is also a highly contested accommodation amongst educators and assessment
specialists due to issues of validity and reliability in assessment results. While there are a variety
of appropriate accommodations available to help individuals with invisible disabilities access
and participate in the general education curriculum, there is an issue with determining who is
eligible for what accommodation and when it should be provided.
When classroom teachers perceive disability narrowly, as primarily visible, do they
readily provide the necessary accommodations to assist students with intellectual, learning, or
language disabilities in accessing the general curriculum? There is ongoing debate regarding the
types of accommodations students with disabilities are eligible for when taking high-stakes tests,
which has influenced the types of accommodations allowed in classrooms as well. According to
Cortiella (2005) accommodations should be the same or similar across classroom instruction,
classroom tests and state/district tests. Limiting access to accommodations only to those that are
allowed on state/district tests, could significantly impact a students’ progress within the general
education curriculum. According to No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), students with
disabilities are expected to demonstrate progress within the general education curriculum and
classroom teachers are accountable for ensuring their success. This requires an individualized
educational approach, which cannot be achieved using a prescribed list of state or federally
“approved” accommodations. The development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is
a central tenant of IDEIA’s provision of a free and appropriate public education for students with
disabilities receiving special education services. For this reason, it was important to examine
participants’ perceptions of not only disability and inclusion, but also special education.
Implications for In-service and Preservice Teacher Educators

	
  

184
184	
  

	
  
Educational policies have a tendency to focus on legal and technical issues, which
distracts researchers from seeing the complexity, hegemony, and contradictions in our semiotic
worlds. For example, special education policies focus primarily on the legal and technical
aspects of providing services to individuals with disabilities, however very limited attention is
given to examining individuals’ negative biases and stereotypes toward disability and special
education. Even though, as Fitch (2002, p. 463) suggests, “disability is increasingly
acknowledged as a fundamental cultural signifier” and that “among all social hierarchies,
disability has functioned…as a sign of and justification for inferiority and exclusion” (Baynton,
2001). Longmore (1995) asserts that ableism has been historically present in schools as well as
in society at large and is tied in part to the medical model that seeks to “fix” people with
disabilities. The medical model orientation toward disability that underpins the majority of
special education literature, research, policies and practices maintains and perpetuates narrow
conceptions of disability as deficit. The results of this study indicate that participants continue to
have strong orientations toward the medical model, which left unchallenged could result in
maintaining a culture of ableism rather than building a culture of inclusion. Therefore, it is
imperative that teachers have opportunities to raise to consciousness their culturally rooted
stereotypes and biases related to disability and special education.
Research on teachers tells us that teaching involves both professional and personal
experiences, and makes reference to the past as we reflect on present challenges and keeps in
mind our future hopes and expectations (Clandinin, & Connelly, 1995; Heilman, 2000; HoltReynolds, 1992; Knowles, 1992; Knowles & Holt-Reynolds,1991; Miller Marsh, 2002; Van
Manen, 1991; Vinz,1996). Multiple influences shape teacher choices and identity, including
media images, school experiences, life experiences and beliefs about teaching that come from

	
  

185
185	
  

	
  
pre-service teacher education. Knowles (1992) for example, finds four sources of teacher identity
to be especially important: (1) role models, especially positive ones; (2) previous teaching
experiences; (3) significantly positive or negative education classes; and (4) remembered
childhood experiences about learning and family activities. Each of these sources hold
tremendous possibilities for either maintaining or challenging stereotypic, negative cultural
perceptions of diverse populations.
To prepare educators for work in culturally diverse settings requires both a close
examination of personal beliefs and a critical analysis of professional behavior (Brown, 2006).
And, though this is generally thought to apply more specifically to issues of racial, ethnic,
gender, and class biases, it is equally as important to issues of disability. A major goal of
multicultural education is the elimination of stereotypes (Bennett, 2003) and it is unlikely that
the mere physical presence of diverse groups of students is likely to change negative attitudes or
that contact alone will in itself overcome personal prejudice (Allport, 1954; Gilson & Depoy,
2000; Smart, 2001, as cited in Storey, 2007). Only through deep reflection and experiential
opportunities can people’s beliefs systems, including their prejudices and biases, be influenced
(Szpara & Wylie, 2005).
Research shows that explicit attention to developing culturally responsive educators
makes a difference (Ukpokodu, 2007; Cardona, 2005; Cochran-Smith, 1997; Derman-Sparks &
Ramsey, 2006; Gay, 2000; Howard, 2006; Johnson, 2002; Nieto, 2012; Sleeter, 2001) therefore
it is important to include issues of disability within multicultural education for both in-service
and preservice educators and administrators. This will require going beyond what is typically
offered within traditional special education teacher preparation, which has historically focused
on categorical labels, characteristics and remedial instruction, to include various models of

	
  

186
186	
  

	
  
disability that challenge stereotypes and myths of disability that have been supported and
perpetuated through the medical model orientation. For example, infusing components of the
affirmation model, which views disability as part of a positive social identity and a normal form
of human diversity rather than as a condition that needs to be changed (Bejamin-Darling, 2010)
and the social model, which considers how disability is made meaningful in social contexts
(Baglieri & Shaprio, 2012) into the current in-service and teacher preparation coursework could
potentially broaden perceptions of disability and develop more inclusive attitudes. Fitch (2002)
recommends two approaches that could be significant in moving education beyond the politics of
exclusion: (1) creating a much closer alliance between the movements for inclusive education
and multicultural education and (2) making disability studies an integral part of teacher
preparation programs and infusing it throughout the multicultural curricula in general (p. 472).
Implications for Special Education
According to this study, the special education teachers also held narrow conceptions of
disability and special education. All three special education teachers described it in terms of
student deficits. This is not surprising given the fact that special education reflects strong
associations with the medical model orientation. In the field, there is tremendous pressure to
adhere to the requirements of IDEIA (2004), which requires specific knowledge of each facet of
the legislation and the related paperwork. Therefore, special education teachers spend a great
deal of time focused on the technical issues related to special education such developing and
implementing Individualized Education Programs (IEP), collecting data for Re-evaluation of
Existing Data (REED), and identifying appropriate environmental and curricular
accommodations to ensure students with disabilities have access to and make progress in the
general curriculum.

	
  

187
187	
  

	
  
With this type of intense, technical, professional focus on the legal aspects of special
education, there is very little time for considering one’s personal perceptions of special
education. Kauffman and Pullen (1996) suggest that there are many myths associated with
special education that find their way into the perceptions and professional practices of special
educators as well as the general public. They describe myths as “alluring beliefs” that express
something of our fears and hopes, which should remind us of the realities we need to address. “A
myth is distinguished from reality by its overgeneralization, distortion, or misapplication of fact”
(Kauffman & Pullen, 1996, p. 1), which makes it exceedingly difficult to combat. They identify
one myth as the most persistent, “hard-core” myths of all social services including special
education, which is “We would, if we could, eliminate labels and simply provide all students the
services they need without categories or labels” (p.20). The field of special education is riddled
with labels and has often been accused of having its own “special” language in terms of the
abundance of acronyms used to simplify an exceedingly complex field. And while, labels can be
stigmatizing, they can also raise awareness and promote understanding of particular difficulties
(Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). However, as Kauffman and Pullen (1996) assert, the real issues with
labels are the meanings we attach to disabilities, not the fact that we label them.
The field of special education is driven by labels and the policies and practices associated
with them, which means that special educators often become entrenched in the technical and
political issues surrounding special education. According to Baglieri and Shapiro (2012), special
education refers generally to the medical model as practiced in schools and encompasses the sets
of procedures, services, and practices designed to evaluate and instruct students with disabilities
in school settings. Therefore, education programs prepare special educators for this scientifically
driven profession by focusing primarily on disability categories, characteristics, and instructional

	
  

188
188	
  

	
  
practices aimed at remediating disabilities. Special education teachers are one of several
professionals in the field who are influenced by the medical model of disability. For example, a
team of professionals including school psychologists, social workers, physical and occupational
therapists, mobility specialists, and speech pathologists are professionally prepared by
educational programs that are heavily influenced by the medical model of disability. Special
educators typically work very closely with members of this multi-disciplinary team who have
rarely, if ever, been introduced to social or diversity models of disability which, aim to
understand disability as a total experience of complex interactions between the body and
physical, social, and cultural environments (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012).
It is critical to understand not just special education teachers’ perceptions of their
profession and their practice but also their personal beliefs and how they inform and influence
one another. As this study indicated, special education teachers may also have a stronger
orientation toward the medical model of disability. Whether this is due to deeply held personal
beliefs about disability or traditional, medical model influenced, teacher preparation, or a
combination of the two, is difficult to ascertain and requires additional research. However, as
those in the field of multicultural education have suggested (Grant & Asimeng-Boahene, 2006;
Nieto, 2004), development of a culturally responsive teaching pedagogy requires that teachers
investigate their own attitudes and beliefs about other cultures. I believe that this is equally
critical for special education teachers because of the unique opportunity many of them have to
effect change.
The shift in special education service delivery from segregated classrooms to
collaboration and co-teaching in the general education classroom could afford greater
opportunities for both students and teachers beyond that of academic and behavioral support.

	
  

189
189	
  

	
  
Collaboration and co-teaching could potentially provide opportunities for special education
teachers to become change agents. According to Fullan (1993), “the moral purpose of teaching
must be reconceptualized as a change theme. Moral purpose without change agentry is
martyrdom; change agentry without moral purpose is change for the sake of change. In
combination, not only are they effective in getting things done, but they are good at getting the
right things done” (p. 14). The collaborative nature of co-teaching places special education
teachers in the unique position of working with both students and teachers. Special educators
with a commitment to inclusion and an awareness of the various disability models could become
instrumental in facilitating change. Systems don’t change by themselves. Rather, the actions of
individuals and small groups working on new conceptions intersect to produce breakthroughs
(Fullan, 1993).
According to Bandura (1997) “collective efficacy” refers to the perceptions of teachers in
a school that the faculty, as a whole, can execute the courses of action necessary to have positive
effects on students”. The role of the special education teacher in developing collective efficacy
around inclusive practices could be pivotal. Special education teachers in co-teaching situations
have the opportunity to effect change through interactions with teachers and students in inclusive
settings. However, if special education teachers, like many general education teachers, have
strong medical model orientations toward disability, their ability to facilitate a shift toward
developing inclusive school cultures is limited.
One way to build on the potential for special education teachers to be change agents is to
provide a balanced approach to disability perspectives by infusing various models of disability
into preservice and in-service teacher education. Goddard et al. (2000) asserts that it is the
“teachers’ shared beliefs” that “shape the normative environment of schools” (p. 502).

	
  

190
190	
  

	
  
Expanding orientations of disability to include competing models such as the social, affirmation,
and/or diversity models would provide a broader foundation on which to build inclusive
attitudes. There are many in the field of disability studies that support moving away from the
medical model of disability altogether, particularly as it relates to education. However, I would
argue that achieving a balance between the social and medical models of disability could provide
teachers the technical knowledge they need to meet the needs of students with disabilities while
also attending to the broader social context in which disability becomes meaningful.
This study indicated that participants’ were primarily oriented toward the medical model
of disability, however there were occasions when they appeared to consider the impact of context
on disability. This finding would not have been revealed had my study not involved semiotic
photo elicitation methods. It was primarily through participants’ descriptions and categorizations
of the images that I was able to develop a deeper understanding of their perceptions of disability.
This has significant implications for special education research.
Implications for Research
Image based semiotic research is valuable. Photo elicitation is very useful beyond the
“typical” semiotic race, class, and gender topics as evidenced by this study. Several of the
participants indicated that the images allowed them to better articulate their perceptions of
disability and inclusion. For this reason, semiotic photo elicitation methods have tremendous
potential for adding to the field of qualitative research, particularly special education research
exploring attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions.
Harper (2002) indicates how images have the power to evoke deeper elements of human
consciousness than words do. He suggests that elicitation interviews connect “core definitions of
the self” to society, culture, and history (p. 1), which made it an incredibly useful method for

	
  

191
191	
  

	
  
exploring participants’ deeply rooted, cultural perceptions of disability. According to Stockall
(2013), “to study inclusion in the context of disability requires that we not only examine the
signs and sign processes, but also the context of the situation that presses upon, evolves into and
moves other signs to create a fracture in the system. That fracture is doubt. The ability to
interpret, to reason logically and take insight into account and then change belief is dependent
upon the concept of doubt. Without doubt, habit remains and reasoning fails.” (p. 312). Doubt
creates the impetus for seeking out those things that we do not know that we don’t know and if
educators believe that they know what inclusion is, then there is no need to examine practice or
seek to make the familiar strange (Stockall, 2013).
I received an email from Ellen, a sixth grade teacher that highlighted the importance of
photo elicitation for research but also the potential for its use as a teaching tool as well. She
wrote:
The image sort that you had me complete was really interesting. I can definitely see its
value. It got me talking about what I saw and it pushed me to confront my perceptions of
disability versus inclusion. I thought it was difficult to verbalize what images came to
mind when you said certain words, so the image sort of helped me put my thoughts into
words as I looked at the pictures. There was definitely some discomfort there but I think
that it was a good thing. My discomfort came from not having a special ed background
and not knowing enough about inclusion and special education to know that this is a
serious but delicate subject and I didn’t want to be seen as insensitive. I learned
something from this study that we had been introduced to in college but it didn't really hit
home with me until doing this image sort and applying what I was seeing to how I view
my own students: If you see someone in a wheelchair, you know they can't use the

	
  

192
192	
  

	
  
stairs. If you see a blind person in a cane, you know they won't be able to read a printed
text. But someone with a learning disability or emotional impairment doesn't
automatically register in a person's mind as being "unable" to function in a certain
way. That would be immensely frustrating to look like everyone else but have a brain
that doesn't work like everyone else's. They need accommodations like a blind person
needs braille, but that isn't automatically understood by the people they interact with on a
daily basis. It would never cross my mind to ask a deaf person to listen to an audiobook
and give a chapter summary. However, I find myself trying to get my learning disabled
students to do the same things that my gen. ed students can do. (Personal communication,
April 30, 2013).
Not only did Ellen find the photo elicitation method useful in helping her to articulate her
thoughts, her feedback indicated that it could potentially be used instructionally as a way to raise
awareness of disability stereotypes that can then be discussed and challenged to promote more
inclusive attitudes.
Julie, a music teacher, also indicated that at first when I asked her to describe in words
any images she associated with disability she was not sure what I meant but once she began the
image sort the question made much more sense. She said, “There are symbols around us all the
time but we become immune to them because they become commonplace. I suppose that’s a
good thing because it means society is inclusive (coming from the perspective of someone who
does not face extra challenges)” (Personal communication, June 11, 2013). She also reported
that, “as I worked on the image sort, I felt I was forced (via the images) to stereotype people and
environments. I almost felt guilty labeling an image as “disabled” because I put that person or
group of people into a category. The images were easy to sort based on stereotypes but that was

	
  

193
193	
  

	
  
all the more disturbing” (Personal communication, June 11, 2013). Julie made an interesting
statement that supported the power of semiotic research saying, “In a sense, as much as we try to
mainstream students, there is always a visual reminder of their differences and as much as I try to
view all students as “equal”, it’s just not true” (Personal communication, June 11, 2013). Julie’s
feedback highlights the power of semiotic research in exploring perceptions of complex
phenomena such as disability and inclusion.
Much of the research on perceptions of disability, special education, and inclusion
involves the use of surveys and semi-structured interviews (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly,
2003; Cook, 2001; Cook, Cameron & Tankersley, 2007; Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996),
however my study involving semiotic photo elicitation methods adds to this literature by
providing additional insight into how individuals make meaning of the concepts disability,
special education and inclusion.
Future Directions
The results of this study indicate that much work needs to be done to raise awareness of
perceptions of disability that may pose challenges to developing inclusive attitudes and cultures.
This study shows promise for future research exploring cultural perceptions of diverse
populations. In a recent study, Gay (2010) emphasized the profound effect of educator beliefs on
teaching and indicated that more research is needed in this area. She indicated that beliefs need
to be reflected on, articulated and confronted, not only for curricula and student interaction, but
for the teachers themselves. This study indicates the potential use of photo elicitation for
uncovering the beliefs that Gay (2010) says need to be confronted in order to become more
culturally responsive.

	
  

194
194	
  

	
  
This study was conducted in one school in a fairly rural area; therefore future studies
should consider including schools in urban areas with diverse populations, which could add not
only to the special education literature, but multicultural literature as well. Baglieri and Knopf
(2004) suggest that we need to work on creating a discourse of difference in which all students
are allowed access, valued for their unique characteristics, and provided with opportunities to
learn and perform in myriad ways that address individual needs and personal goals. Future
studies that employ semiotic photo elicitation methods to explore cultural perceptions could
provide the foundation for challenging the discourses of difference, which could result in more
inclusive practices.
Successful reform movements require effective leadership as indicated by Kytle and
Bogotch (2000) who identify the pivotal role of the administrator in developing the school
culture. This study involved one administrator and though her perceptions were critical to this
study, future studies like this should consider using a variety of administrators at elementary,
middle and high school levels.
The findings of this study add to the special education literature on professional and
personal perceptions of disability, inclusion, and special education. Not only did this study find
that participants indeed have different conceptions of these phenomena but it also supports future
research on effective interventions for addressing stereotypes and biases that pose challenges to
inclusive education. Professional development seminars and workshops designed to develop
disability awareness and introduce social models of disability could potentially influence
inclusive attitudes and practices. Therefore, a follow up study at Parker could explore the impact
of a disability studies oriented professional development series on participants’ perceptions and
classroom practices.

	
  

195
195	
  

	
  
Conclusion
Students with disabilities have been increasingly included in general education
classrooms over the last two decades, however despite the landmark legislation IDEA in 1997,
the goals of inclusion in schools and society remain elusive: “On the whole inclusion in the
school context is neither uniformly understood, readily accepted, nor willingly acted upon.”
(Ware, 2000 as cited in Fitch, 2002, p. 472). Hargrave (2001) suggests that this could be due in
part to the controversy created by the lack of a shared understanding of the term “inclusion”.
This study found that participants at one rural elementary school appeared to have similar
perceptions of inclusion as students with and without disabilities working together in the general
education classroom. And though this was a common understanding of inclusion, it was also a
very narrow perception of inclusion.
According to Wilson (2011), awareness predicts personal beliefs, personal beliefs predict
professional beliefs, and professional beliefs and awareness predict culturally responsive
practices. Following this line of thinking, it seems as though any attempt to become a culturally
responsive educator would require developing an awareness of one’s own personal beliefs
related to diverse populations and then confronting and challenging those beliefs. The most
formidable challenge however, is determining the most effective way to prepare culturally
responsive teachers. Fitch (2001) suggests that one way to address this by linking inclusion and
critical multiculturalism. “Critical multiculturalism avoids the contradictions and exclusionary
consequences of affirmative assimilationism and serves as an appropriate rallying point for a
closer alliance with inclusive education” (p. 474). Perhaps collaboration between inclusionists
and multiculturalists would provide a more comprehensive approach to preparing culturally
responsive teachers to meet the diverse needs of all students.

	
  

196
196	
  

	
  

APPENDICES

	
  

197
197	
  

	
  
Appendix A. General Education Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Questions: General Education Teacher
1. I am going to say three words individually. For each word(s) I would like you to tell me
what images (by images, I mean symbols, objects, people, etc) that come to mind when
you hear them. For example, if I said the word ‘dog’ the images that come to mind might
be…animal, furry, tail, four legs, etc.
a. Special education
b. Disability
c. Inclusion
2. Think about the images you just described (special education/disability/inclusion), and I
want you to tell me what feelings do you associate with these images/terms?
3. When you think of a typical special education student what comes to mind?
4. When you think of a typical student with a disability what comes to mind?
5. How did you feel about doing the image sort?

	
  

198
198	
  

	
  
Appendix B. Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Questions: Special Education Teacher
1. I am going to say three words individually. For each word(s) I would like you to tell me
what images (by images, I mean symbols, objects, people, etc) that come to mind when
you hear them. For example, if I said the word ‘dog’ the images that come to mind might
be…animal, furry, tail, four legs, etc.
a. Special education
b. Disability
c. Inclusion
2. Think about the images you just described (special education/disability/inclusion), and I
want you to tell me what feelings do you associate with these images/terms?
3. When you think of a typical special education student what comes to mind?
4. When you think of a typical student with a disability what comes to mind?
5. How did feel about doing the image sort?

	
  

199
199	
  

	
  
Appendix C. Student Interview Protocol
Interview Questions: Students
1. Do you know what images are? Have you ever had to imagine what something would
look like? When my teacher used to read to us when I was in school, sometimes there
weren’t any pictures to go with the story so I had to imagine what it looked like. For
example, when my teacher read a story about the farm, I imagined black and white cows,
chickens, red barn, tractors, etc. Those are called images; they can be pictures, symbols,
or objects in your mind or words used to describe it.
2. Let’s practice one together. What images come to mind when I say ‘park’?
3. Now let’s try ‘cat’.
4. Now let’s try another one. What images come to mind when I say:
a. Special education
b. Disability
c. Inclusion
5. Think about the images you just described (special education/disability/inclusion), and I
want you to tell me what feelings do you associate with these images/terms?
6. How did feel about doing the image sort?

	
  

200
200	
  

	
  
Appendix D. School Administrator Interview Protocol
Interview Questions: Administrator
1. What was special education like during your first year as principal?
2. Why did you move to inclusive practices?
3. What was the response from teachers regarding this change?
4. How did you prepare them for inclusion/co-teaching?
5. When you think of a typical special education student what comes to mind?
6. When you think of a typical student with a disability what comes to mind?
7. How are students placed in inclusion classrooms? What criteria is used?
8. Image sort updated data

	
  

201
201	
  

	
  
Appendix E. Oral History Interview Protocol
Interview Questions: Oral History
1. What was special education like at Keicher elementary?
a. Can you describe some of the changes that occurred over time based on federal
policy changes
b. school district changes
c. school building policy changes?

	
  

202
202	
  

	
  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

	
  

203
203	
  

	
  
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abberley, Paul 1987 "The Concept of Oppression and the Development of a Social
Theory of Disability." Disability, Handicap and Society, 2(1): 5-19.
Alghazo, E. M., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Attitudes of pre-service
teachers towards persons with disabilities: Predictions for the success of
inclusion. College Student Journal, 37(4), 515-522.
Allan, J. (1999). Actively seeking inclusion: Pupils with special needs in mainstream
schools. London: Falmer Press.
Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in
views of culture and space. In L. I. Katzman, A. G. Gandhi, W. S. Harbour, & J.
D. LaRock (Eds.), Special education for a new century (pp. 85-120). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Avramidis, E. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of
the literature. European journal of Special Needs , 17, 129-147.
Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration /
inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 17(2), 129-147. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Baglieri, S. & Shapiro, A. (2012). Disability Studies and the Inclusive Classroom: Critical
practices for creating least restrictive attitudes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16.
Barnard, A., McCosker, H. & Gerber, R. (1999). Phenomenography: A qualitative
research approach for exploring understanding in health care. Qualitative Health
Research, 9(2), 212-226.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Beatty, E. M. (1987). Understanding concepts in social science: Towards an effective

	
  

204
204	
  

	
  
evaluation strategy. Instructional Science, 15, 341-359.
Benjamin-Darling, R. (2003): Toward a model of changing disability identities: a
proposed typology and research agenda, Disability & Society, 18(7), 881-895.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Burns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives
of teachers and parents. Council for Exceptional Children, 64(1), 115-131.
Berry, R. A. (2006). Inclusion, power, and community: Teachers and students
interpret the language. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 489529.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence
of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Bourke, P. (2007). Inclusive education research and phenomenology. Paper
presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education.
Bradshaw, L., & Mudia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education:
Bruneian in service and pre-service teachers. International Journal of Special
Education, 27(1). Retrieved from
http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com
Brandes, J. A. & Crowson, H. M. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of
students with disabilities: The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with
disability. Social Psychology Education, 12, 271-289.
Brantlinger, E. A. (Ed.). (2005). Who benefits from special education?: remediating
(fixing) other people's children. Routledge.
Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631-661.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(5), 700-745. doi: 10.1177/0013161x06290650.
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs.
experience. Education, 125(2), 163-172.
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes
towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental
Disability, 28(4), 369-379.

	
  

205
205	
  

	
  
Cardona, C. M. (Apr 11-15, 2005). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about diversity in personal
and professional contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved
from:http//www.eric.ed.gov.ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019/b/80/1b/c3/7e.pdf
Carlberg & Kavale (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for
exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-306.
Carson, T., Pearson, M., Johnston, I., Mangat, J., Tupper, J., & Warburton, T. (2005).
Semiotic approaches to image-based research. In. B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.),
Research methods in the social sciences, (pp. 164-171). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Chandler, D. (2005). Semiotics for beginners: Introduction. Retrieved
from:www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html
Chandler, D. (2009). Semiotics for beginners: Signs. Retrieved
from:www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html
Chubbuck, S. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: The complexity of
personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 301-333.
Chmiliar, L. (2009). Perspectives on inclusion: Students with LD, their parents, and
their teachers. Exceptionality Education International, 19(1), 72-88.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Colorblindness and basket making are not the answers.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493-522.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1997). Knowledge, skills, and experiences for teaching culturally
diverse learners: A perspective for practicing teachers. Critical knowledge for
diverse teachers and learners, 27-87.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students
with mild and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-214.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers'
attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special
Education, 40(4), 230+. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000777176
Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T.J. (2000). Teachers’
attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 67(1), 115-135.
Cortiella, C. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Determining appropriate assessment

	
  

206
206	
  

	
  
accommodations for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: National Center
for Learning Disabilities.
Dahl, M. (1993). The role of media in promoting images of disability: Disability as
metaphor, the evil crip. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18(1), 75-80.
Dansforth, S. & Gabel, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Vital questions facing disability studies in
education (Vol. 2). New York: Peter Lang.
(Eds.) New York: Peter Lang.
Dansforth, S. & Rhodes, W. C. (1997). Deconstructing disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 18(6), 357-367.
Darke, P. (1998). Understanding cinematic representations of disability. In T.
Shakespeare (ed.), The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives (pp. 181197). London: Casell.
Darling, R. B. (2003). Toward a model of changing disability identities: A proposed
typology and research agenda. Disability & Society, 18(7), 881-895.
Dedeoglu, H. & Lamme, L. (2010). Selected demographics, attitudes, and beliefs about
diversity of preservice teachers. Education and Urban Society, 42(6). doi:
10.1177/0013124510380718.
Delpit, L. (1995). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220-231.
doi: 10.1177/0022487105285966.
Disability History Timeline. (2003). Disability Social History Project. Retrieved from
http://www.disabilityhistory.org/timeline_new.html
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded-Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. (2006). What if all the kids are White? Anti-bias
multicultural education with young children and families. New York: NY:
Teachers College Press.
Donelan, R. W., Neal, G. A., & Jones, D. L. (1994). The promise of brown and the
reality of academic grouping: The tracks of my tears. The Journal of Negro
Education, 63(3), 376. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/22
2069034?accountid=12598
Easter, L. M., Shultz, E. L., Neyhart, T. K., & Reck, U. M. (1999). Weighty perceptions:
A study of the attitudes and beliefs of preservice teacher education students
regarding diversity and urban education. The Urban Review, 31(2), 205-220.

	
  

207
207	
  

	
  
Ebert, R. (1994, July 6). Forrest Gump. [Review of the film Forrest Gump, directed by
Robert Zemeckis]. Chicago Sun Times.
Edelson, S. M. (n.d.). Research: Autistic savants. Autism Research Institute. Retrieved
from: http://www.autism.com/index.php/understanding_savants
Englert, C., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenents of
sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In CH. A MacArthur, S. Graham, &
J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (208-221). New York: the Guilford
Press.
Esposito, M. K. (2003). Teacher views concerning inclusion in general and inclusion in
specific. Journal of Integrative Psychology, 4(7), 42-49.
Evans, J. H., Bird, K. M., Ford, L. A., Green, J. L. & Bischoff, R. A. (1992). Strategies
for overcoming resistance to the integration of students with special needs into
neighborhood schools: A case study. CASE in Point, 7(1), 1-15.
Everhart, B. (2009). Anxiety of preservice teachers teaching students with disabilities: A
preliminary investigation. Education , 129 , 704-713.
Fawcett, B. (2008). Poststructuralism. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods. (pp. 667-671). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ferri, B. A. & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and
(re)segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453-474.
Finkelstein, V. (2001). The social model of disability repossessed. Paper presented
at the Manchester Coalition of Disabled People.
Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: How accepting are
teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119133.
Fox, N. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school
level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64, 81-98.
Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining Teachers' Perceived Barriers Associated with Inclusion.
SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30-35.
Funk, R. (1987). Disability rights: From caste to class in the context of civil rights.
Images of the disabled, disabling images, 7(7).
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational
Leadership, 50(6), 12-17.

	
  

208
208	
  

	
  
Garland, R. (1995). The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the GrecoRoman World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system
for all students. In Katzman, L. I., Gandhi, A. G., Harbour, W. S., & LaRock, J.
D. (Eds), Special Education for a New Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Review.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education-Washington DC-, 53(2), 106-116.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Golden, M. (1992). Not on the front page. Progressive, 56(3), 43.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1997). Looking in classrooms (10th ed). Pearson Education,
Inc.
Gramsci, A. (1978). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Trans and
Ed). Q. Hoare and N. Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Grohol, J. (2008). Fighting Cognitive Dissonance & The Lies We Tell Ourselves. Psych
Central. Retrieved on May 15, 2013, from
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/19/fighting-cognitivedissonance-the-lies-we-tell-ourselves/
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices
(Vol. 2). Sage Publications Limited.
Hardin, M. M. (n.d.). The ‘supercrip’ in sport media: Wheelchair athletes discuss
hegemony’s disabled hero. Sociology of Sport Online, 7(1). Retrieved from
http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v7i1/v7i1_1.html
Hastings, R. P., Hewes, A. Lock, S. & Witting, A. (1996). Do special educational needs
courses have any impact on student teachers’ perceptions of children with severe learning
difficulties? British Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 139-144.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 132.
Henderson, H. & Bryan, W. (1997). Psychosocial Aspects of Disability. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Herrera, J. (2010). Teacher beliefs and practices: Their effects on student achievement in
the urban school setting. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan,

	
  

209
209	
  

	
  
Kansas. Retrieved from: http://krex.kstate.edu/dspace/bitsteam/2097/3889/7/JohnHerrera2010.pdf
Hirsch, K. & Hirsch, J. (1995). Self-defining narratives: Disability identity in the
postmodern era. Disability Studies Quarterly, 15(4), 21-27.
Horne, P. & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 273-286.
Howard, G. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers multiracial schools.
New York: NY: Teachers College Press.
Hyrkas, K., Astedt-Kurki, P. & Paunonen, M. (1999). Finnish nurse teachers’ perceptions
of their ‘scientific thinking’ and its development during Master’s-level teacher education
at university. Scand J Caring Sci., 13, 129-136.
Iwakuma, M. (1997). From pity to pride: People with disabilities, the media, and an emerging
disability culture. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication Annual Meeting, Chicago.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London: Routledge.
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and
development. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206.
Johnson, L. (2002). “My eyes have been opened”: White teachers and racial awareness.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 153-167.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal
family-professional relationships. PH Brookes Pub..
Kavale, K. & Forness, S. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the
inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.
Kiger, G. (1989). Disability in film and social life: A dramaturgical perspective. In S.
Hey, G. Kiger, & D. Evans (eds.), The Changing World of Impaired and Disabled
People in Society (pp. 149-159). Salem, OR: The Society for Disability Studies
and Willamette University.
Kress, G., & Mavers, D. (2008). Social semiotics and multimodal texts. In. B. Somekh &
C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences, (pp. 172-179). London,
UK: Sage Publications.
Kytle, A. W. & Bogotch, I. E. (2000). Measuring reculturing in national reform models.
Journal of School Leadership, 10, 131-157.

	
  

210
210	
  

	
  
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African
American students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 206-214.
Lauchlan, F. & Boyle, C. (2007). Labels and special education: Is the use of labels in
special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22(1), 36-42.
Lemke, J. (1997). Cognition, Context, and Learning: A Social Semiotic Perspective in D.
Kirshner and A. Whitson, Eds., Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and
Psychological Perspectives. (pp. 37-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lepp, M., and K.C. Ringsberg. 2002. Phenomenography: A qualitative research
approach. In Qualitative methods in public health research: Theoretical
foundations and practical examples, ed. R.L.-M. Hallberg. Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur.
Leyser, Y. & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and
factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 51(3), 271-285.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational Psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1‐24.
Loja, E., Costa, M. E., Hughes, B. & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and
ablesim: Stories of resistance. Disability & Society, 28(2), 190-203. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096875999.2012.705057.
Longmore, P. K. (1995). The second phase: From disability rights to disability culture.
The Disability Rag & Resource, 16(5), 4-11.
Lucas, S. E. (2001). Transformational leadership: Principals, leadership teams, and
school culture. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: ProQuest.
Manset, G. & Sammel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild
disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. The Journal
of Special Education, 31, 155-180.
Marshall, L. (1976). The Kung of nyae nyae. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, N. (2012). Disability identity-disability pride. Perspectives: Policy and Practice
in Higher Education, 16(1), 14-18. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2011.611832
Marton, F. 1994. On the structures of awareness. In Phenomenongraphic reseach:

	
  

211
211	
  

	
  
Variations in methods, ed. J.A. Bowden and E. Walsh. Melbourne, Australia:
Office of the Director EQARD, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Mavers
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (1995). Inclusive elementary programs: Must they
cure students with learning disabilities to be effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 77,
300-303
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Simply Psychology. Retrieved
from http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Mickelson, R. A. (2001). Subverting Swann: First and secong-generation segregation in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal,
38(2), 215-252.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, A. & Levitch, J. T. (2011, March 6). Stevie Wonder- A lesson in overcoming
Adversity [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://rockyourbusiness.wordpress.com/contact-us/
Mitchell, D. T. & Snyder, S. L. (2001). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the
dependencies of discourse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Monahan, R. G., Marino, S. B., & Miller, R. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward
inclusion: Implications for teacher education in schools 2000. Education,
117(2), 316+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d5001642893
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The condition of education: Children and
youth with disabilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
Nario-Redmond, M. (2008). Consensus for disability stereotypes: Maintaining group
boundaries and legitimizing the status quo. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Disability Studies, New York, NY.
Nelson, J. (Director). (2001). I Am Sam (Motion Picture). United States: New Line
Production.
Nelson, J. A. (1996). The invisible cultural group: Images of disability. Images that
injure: Pictorial stereotypes in the media, 119-125.
Nieto, S. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural

	
  

212
212	
  

	
  
education. Longman, 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425
Noor, K. B. M. (2008). Case study: a strategic research methodology. American Journal
of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602-1604.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan.
Olkin, R. & Howson, L. J. (1994). Attitudes toward and images of physical disability.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(5), 81-96.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Peck, C. (2003). Children’s understanding of ethnic diversity. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Peck, C.A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C. & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the
impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 135-143.
Piazza, M., Facoetti, A., Trussardi, A. N., Berteletti, I., Conte, S., Lucangeli, D., & Zorzi,
M. (2010). Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe
impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition, 116(1), 33-41.
Pierre, J.E. (2009). Not in my classroom: Regular education teacher attitudes on the
inclusion of special education students in rural and urban school
communities. Dissertation. ProQuest LLC.
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.pr
oquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/305069937?accountid=12598
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the
inclusion of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(2),
135-145.
Pugach, M. & Lilly, M. S. (1984). Reconceptualizing support services for classroom
teachers: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35,
48-55.
Rapp, W. H., & Arndt, K. L. (2012). Teaching Everyone: An Introduction to Inclusive
Education. Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L. & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students
with disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Council for Exceptional

	
  

213
213	
  

	
  
Children, 68(2), 203-223.
Reid, K. D. & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability:
Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 37(6), 466-481.
Reynolds, M. C. & Wang, M. C. (1983). Restructuring “special” school programs: A
position paper. Policy Studies Review, 2, 189-212.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.
Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
Roper, L. (2003). Disability in media. The Media Education Journal. Retrieved from:
http://www.mediaed.org.uk/posted_documents/DisabilityinMedia.htm>.
Rude, H. A. & Anderson, R. E. (1992). Administrator effectiveness in support of
inclusive schools. CASE in Point, 7(1), 31-37.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Scheer, J. & Groce, N. (1988). Impairment as a human constant: Cross-cultural and
historical perspectives on variation. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 23-37.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1),
59+. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=50000413411
Scully, J. L. (2002). A postmodern disorder: Moral encounters with molecular
models of disability. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.),
Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory, 48-61, New York:
Continuum.
Shigematsu, J. (2011). The influence of cultural perceptions on parent participation in
special education preschool programs. California State University, Fullerton,
ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Simpson, R. L. & Myles, B. S. (1993). General education collaboration: A model for
successful mainstreaming. In E. L. Meyer, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds).
Challenges facing special education (p. 63-78). Denver, CO: Love.
Sleeter, C. E. (1989). Doing multicultural education across the grade levels and subject
areas: A case study of Wisconsin. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(3), 189203.

	
  

214
214	
  

	
  
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94106.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender. Columbus, OH: Wiley.
Smart, J. (2001). Disability, society, and the individual. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
Publishers.
Spann, S. J., Kohler, F. W. & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents’ involvement in
and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a
parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
18(4), 228-238.
Sparks, L. J. (2009). General education teachers resistance to teaching in inclusion
classrooms. Dissertation ProQuest LLC.
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.p
roxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/964184264?accountid=12598
Spring, J. H. (1989). The sorting machine revisited: National educational policy since
1945. New York: Longman.
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1984b). A rationale for the merger of special and regular
education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111.
Starger, M. (Producer) & Bogdanovich, P. (Director). (1985). Mask [Motion Picture].
United States: Universal Pictures.
Stone, D. (1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Storey, K. (2007). Combating ableism in schools. Preventing School Failure, 52(1), 5660.
Sullivan, K. (2011). The Prevalence of the Medical Model of Disability in Society (AHS
Capstone Projects). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.olin.edu/ahs_capston_2011/13
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education
Research & Development, 16(2), 159-171.
Szpara, M. Y. & Wylie, E. C. (2005). National board for professional teaching standards
assessor training: Impact of bias reduction exercises. Teachers College Record,
107(4), 803-841. Retrieved from: http://www.tcrecord.org/library.
Tait, K., & Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes toward disability: Teacher education for inclusive

	
  

215
215	
  

	
  
environments in an Australian university. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 47(1), 25-38.
Taylor, R. R. (2005). Can the social model explain all of disability experience?
Perspectives of persons with chronic fatigue syndrome. Americal Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 59, 497-506.
Teel, K. & Obidah, J. (2008). Building racial and cultural competence in the classroom:
Strategies from urban educators. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thomas, W. I. (1971). On the definition of the situation. M. Truzzi (Ed). in Sociology:
The Classical [1923] Statements. New York: Random House: 274-277.
Thomas, C. & Corker, M. (2002). A journey around the social model. In M. Corker &
T. Shakespeare (eds.), Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory
(pp. 18-31). London: Continuum.
Ukpokodu, O. N. (2007). Preparing socially conscious teachers: A social justice oriented
teacher education. Multicultural Education.
Ullucci, K. & Battey, D. (2011). Exposing color blindness/grounding color
consciousness: Challenges for teacher education. Urban Education, 46(6), 1195-1225.
United States Congress (2004). Public Law 94-142, The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest
of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2.
Valle, J. W. & Connor, D. J. (2010). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach
to inclusive practices. New York: McGraw Hill.
Valle, J. W. & Reid, D. K. (2001). Parent – educator partnerships: A critical history of
the search for authentic and respectful home – school relationships. School Public
Relations, 22(1), 23-36.
Waldron, N.L., McLeskey, J., & Pacchiano, D. (1999). Giving teachers a voice:
Teachers’ perspectives regarding elementary inclusive school programs
(ISP). Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 141-153.
Walker, C. (1998). Learning to learn, phenomenography and children’s learning.
Educational and Child Psychology, 15(3), 25-33.
Ware, L. (2000). Sunflowers, enchantment and empires: Reflections on inclusive
education in the United States. In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong, L. Barton, & D.
Fulton (Eds). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives

	
  

216
216	
  

	
  
(p. 42-59). London: Ltd Publishers.
Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of
phenomenography. Higher Education, 33, 195-212.
Westbrook, M. T., Legge, V., & Pennay, M. (1993). Attitudes towards disabilities in a
multicultural society. Social science & medicine, 36(5), 615-623.
Wilson, M.T. (2011). The eye of the storm: The significance of diversity awareness and
beliefs on culturally responsive practices of educators (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3482307)
Wolfensberger, W. (1988). Common assets of mentally retarded people that are
commonly not acknowledged. Mental Retardation, 26(2), 63-70.
Zemeckis, R. (Director). (1994). Forrest Gump (Motion Picture). United States:
Paramount Pictures.

	
  

217
217