Date of Award
Educational Administration and Policy Studies
Ableism, Discourse, DisCrit, Legal, Racism, Special education
As families and advocates of students of color labeled with dis/abilities face mounting inequities they turn to the courts seeking protection. Unfortunately, even after courts issue written decisions ostensibly designed to protect students labeled dis/abled, these students continue to experience systematic oppression in school. This is due, in part, to the discourse used by the courts when addressing issues affecting students labeled dis/abled and the elitism of the judicial system. The purpose of this study was to examine the legal discourse used in the most recent Supreme Court case concerning the education of students labeled dis/abled, Endrew F. v. Douglas County RE-1, through the theoretical lenses of DisCrit and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), to understand the Supreme Court’s ideological perspectives on race and ability. The analysis revealed discourse that othered students labeled dis/abled based on normative standards of behavior and medical science, and narratives of meritocracy, neoliberalism, and ability-blind ableism. Based on these findings, the author offers several recommendations, including professional learning opportunities, centering student lived experiences, and strong counter narratives that humanize students labeled dis/abled. Future directions for research are also discussed.
Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Fusco, Stephen F., "Because I Said So: The (Re)production of White, Ableist Narratives Through Legal Discourse in Endrew F. v. Douglas County RE-1" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1930.
Received from ProQuest
Stephen F. Fusco
Available for download on Wednesday, January 31, 2024