U.S. public schools function as contemporary institutions of normalization, similar to prisons or health systems. They construct "normalcy" and position students who deviate as "abnormal" or "sick." Schools are the most proliferating mechanism making the "othering" of disability visible. This framework avoids interrogating the system's historical and sociopolitical foundations.

Schools as Normalization Institutions

Traditional special education roots itself in pathologization, intervention, and Eugenist philosophies. Students with disabilities are viewed through a deficit lens requiring them to be "fixed." The system demands students adapt to fit existing structures rather than questioning those structures. This approach perpetuates harm and dehumanization.

Special Education's Roots in the Medical Model

Schools sustain a rigid binary between ability and disability based on medicalized conceptions. This dichotomy positions students categorically as "abled" or "dis/abled" with hierarchical implications. The binary naturalizes the idea that some students are competent while others are incompetent. Fixed categories prevent recognition of disability as socially constructed.

Ability/Disability Binary

- Schools as Normalization Institutions
- Special Education's Roots in the Medical Model
- Ability/Disability Binary

State University of New York at Binghamton

U.S. public schools perpetuate harmful ability/disability binaries by viewing students with disabilities through a deficit lens requiring them to be "fixed" rather than questioning systemic structures. The authors propose integrating Disability Studies in Education (DSE) theory with Discursive Psychology (DP) methodology to analyze how everyday language practices in schools actively construct students as dis/abled. This synthesis enables new research questions focused on institutional discourse rather than individual pathology, revealing how talk in settings like IEP meetings organizes notions of "competent" and "incompetent" behavior. The framework aims to disrupt binary thinking and hierarchical power relationships embedded in school systems, ultimately guiding educators toward equity, inclusion, and rejecting medical deficit models.

Chapter 2: Problematizing the Binary: A Poststructural Understanding of Dis/Ability in Schools

Lester, J. N. (Ed.). (2021). Discursive Psychology and Disability. Palgrave Studies in Discursive Psychology. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Reference For: Discursive Psychology and Disability

The Systematic Ways U.S. Schools Construct and Perpetuate Disability As Deficit

- Poststructuralism Foundation
- Discourse as Reality-Maker
- Deconstruction Project
- Disability Studies in Education (DSE) Framework

Poststructuralism and Disability Studies in Education Theories that Ground Critique

- Analytical Tools and Concepts in Discursive Psychology
- Discourse as Social Action
     - Discourse is Constructed
     - Discourse is Situated

Discursive Psychology as the Analytical Tool for Studying Discourse Empirically

- DSE + DP Synthesis
- New Lines of Inquiry
- Challenging Presumptions of Pathology
- Disrupting Binary Thinking

How DSE and DP Synthesis Creates New Analytical Possibilities

Disability Studies in Education repositions disability as social, cultural, and political construction. DSE shifts focus from individual pathology to systemic structures. Core tenets include contextualizing disability politically, promoting social justice, privileging disabled voices, and rejecting deficit models. This provides theoretical grounding for systemic change.

Disability Studies in Education (DSE) Framework

- Moving Towards Inclusion
- Practical Applications for Educators

Intended Outcome for Schools and Students

Chapter 2 discusses the construction of disability in US schooling contexts. It maps DP principles onto Disability Studies in Education (DSE) tenets, allowing researchers to investigate how school interactions/structures continue to "construct some students as disabled".

Learn Before

Related

Learn After