The Rhetorics of (Re)Branding: A Historical and Discourse Analysis of the Inclusion/ Special Education Debate

• In Event: Fifty Years of Push and Pull: Challenging Assumptions about Inclusion Within Traditional Special Education Discourse

Abstract

Purpose
This session critically examines the historical and rhetorical trajectories of the sustained opposition to inclusive education through a critical discourse analysis of the work of the Fuchses related to the segregation – inclusion “debate.” Over four decades, their work reveals an evolution in terminology—from characterizing advocates of inclusion as the “Low-Incidence Group” to “abolitionists” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995; Fuchs et al., 2025). In this session we analyze how these iterative framings seek to maintain the legitimacy of segregated special education practices by:
1. Tracing the evolving rhetorical strategies in the Fuchses’ opposition to inclusion;
2. Examining how this discourse reflects deep ideological division within the field of special education that reinforces structural and hierarchical ableism; and
3. Exploring the policy implications of sustained deficit-oriented constructions of SWD.

Theoretical Framework
This study uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 1993, 2001) to examine the role of text, interactions with and interpretations of text, and the impacts these have on perceptions of SWD and equitable educational access. We use the lens of DisCrit (Annamma et al., 2013) to illustrate the erasure of race in Fuchses’ evidence to support their claims and the striking presence of race in their critique of inclusion advocates’ being “abolitionists,” while framing themselves as “conservationists” whose legitimacy rests upon positivism as the sole arbiter of empiricism, obfuscating an ableist ideology that asserts that some students can learn and deserve intensive instruction in segregated settings, while others cannot learn and only benefit socially from inclusion.

Methods and Data Sources
This study integrates CDA (Fairclough, 2001; Gee, 2011) and qualitative content analysis (QCA) (Krippendorff, 2018) to investigate discursive patterns and the rhetorical evolution in selected texts authored by Fuchs and colleagues (referenced with an asterisk [*]). We selected every scholarly article authored or co-authored by the Fuchses with sustained engagement with the inclusion–segregation debate and analyzed texts at the levels of textual/ linguistic features, discursive interpretations/ practices, and broader ideological contexts and impacts. Concurrently we employed QCA to inductively and iteratively code themes and shifts in terminology and argumentation across multiple decades. Through this dual approach, we traced how language choices construct and sustain deficit discourses, reinforce structural ableism, and legitimize exclusion within special education discourse.

Findings
Preliminary findings reveal that Fuchses’ work persistently frames “inclusion” as unscientific and potentially harmful. They critique advocates of inclusion as ideological, radical extremists lacking scientific rigor, whose views and attendant practices are a threat to the academic progress of students, particularly those who are labeled with “high-incidence” disabilities such as Specific Learning Disability. In contrast, they cast themselves as neutral scientists, professionals who are motivated by evidence, not ideology and seek to uphold the current system of narrowly defined “evidence-based practices” to be provided in segregated settings.

Scholarly Significance
This session contributes to a deeper understanding of how language shapes educational policy and practice for SWD. By unpacking the rhetorical strategies used by influential special education scholars, we can understand how “scientific” and “empirical” authority maintain parallel, exclusionary systems and seek to discredit those who disagree.

Authors

• Julia M. White, Syracuse University

• Christine Elaine Ashby, Syracuse University

• Rebekah Wallis, Syracuse University

• Ethan W Jackson, Syracuse University

• Cam MIchael Powell, Syracuse University