Dehumanization by Another Name: A Dialogue Between Research on Policy and Experiences of the LRE

• In Event: Critically Complicating (Special) Education Policy, Process, and Praxis Through Family, Youth, Educator, and Scholar Perspectives

Abstract

Purpose
This paper presents a dialogue between two studies, each offering complementary insights for the purpose of humanizing the impact of political and systemic violence in special education. Through engaging foundational special education constructs such as Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) with student and family experiences, this work aims to illuminate the relativity of special education policy with lived experiences, emphasizing students navigating multiple vulnerabilities to oppressive social forces.

Theoretical Framing
This dialogue is theoretically grounded in Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2013) and racial capitalism (Pirtle, 2020). This framing supports the understanding of ableism and racism as inextricably linked, and further recognizes the significance of that in regards to (special) education as situated in an overarching capitalistic project.

Modes of Inquiry
Researchers engaged in dialogic reflexivity across findings from two studies to piece together mechanisms of othering, dehumanization, and resistance. Anchoring discourse to the LRE tenet of special education policy, the researchers examined findings from their original studies in relation to each other’s. The first study involved a multiple case study with three Black young adults with intellectual disability labels and their families. The second study engaged a sequential component mixed methods design that integrated findings from readability measures (i.e., Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG) and critical discourse analysis (i.e., corpus linguistics, dispositive analysis).

Data Sources
Data for this study was multi-layered and involved: (a) original study sources (e.g., interviews, procedural safeguard notices), (b) original study findings, and (c), researcher dialogue. Specifically, the first study (Author, 2021) incorporated a series of in-depth interviews, ethnographic field notes, and observations. The second study (Author, 2022) featured state procedural safeguards notices, the federal special education procedural safeguards template, and guidance documents developed for families by states.

Results
A dialogic cross-application of studies revealed tension between ideals framed by policy and lived experiences of exclusion that policy is intended to remedy. For example, a subset of findings from the first study illuminated the misalignment of LRE policy and implementation: In the first study, Black youth with intellectual disability labels experienced an organized manipulation of their educational placements in two key ways: (a) transfers within an exclusionary special education ecology, where placements were changed to more/less restrictive based on perceived severity/category of disability, and (b) lateral placement changes, where students were shuffled between schools–often suddenly and/or without explanation–in order to serve the efficiency goals of the district/system. These experiences texturize the reality of LRE, operationalized in study two as (1) time in general education settings, (2) physical proximity to nondisabled peers, and (3) exposure to general education content.

Scholarly Significance
This study illuminates how the distillation of youth rights to general education serves as an othering mechanism, contributing to how the participants were positioned as commodities–giving way to placement decisions based on exclusionary norms, categorical ableism, and capitalist efficiency ideals. By underscoring how current policy and practice operate to avoid a meaningful adjustment in values/services, this study contributes critical insight for repair.

Authors

• Courtney L. Wilt, University of Wisconsin - Whitewater

• Chelsea Morgan, University of Kansas