REVIEW OF DISABILITY STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, Volume 15, Issue 4
Research Article
A Critical Disability Studies Approach to 'Inclusive' Early Childhood 
Teacher Education
Nicole Eilers
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract: Critical Disability Studies (CDS) focuses on how normalcy is constructed and 
offers an important framework for questioning 'inclusive' early childhood practices. This 
article proposes a CDS approach to early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education that (1) 
develops a CDS pedagogy, (2) identifies ableist practices, and (3) questions and redefines 
'inclusion'.

Keywords: Critical Disability Studies; Inclusive Education; Early Childhood Education

Introduction

      Within the United States, when the term 'inclusion' is used in an educational context, 
it most often refers to the practice of placing children with disabilities into mainstream 
classrooms alongside their typically developing peers (e.g., Buysee & Hollingsworth, 2009; 
NPCI, 2009; Soukakou, 2012). The practice of educating children with disabilities within the 
least restrictive environment was made a legal requirement with the passage of the Education 
for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142). While this legislation ultimately 
makes it possible for children to be legally excluded from the general education classroom, it 
has also led to an increase in the number of children with disabilities in 'inclusive' classrooms 
(Kliewer & Raschke, 2002). The increasing number of children with disabilities in the general 
education classroom resulted in a research agenda focused on (1) parent and teacher 
perceptions of challenges and barriers to inclusion (Robertson, Chamberlain, & Kasari, 2003; 
Sainato, Morrison, Jung, Axe, & Nixon, 2015); (2) the impact of inclusive education on 
academic success and social development (Robertson et al., 2003; Sainato et al., 2015); (3) the 
development of procedures and best practices for inclusion (Barton & Smith, 2015); and (4) 
the implications of this body of research on inclusion for teacher education and professional 
development (Buysee, 2012; Buysee & Hollingsworth, 2009; Soukakou, 2012). Critical 
special education and disability studies in education (DSE) scholars began to call attention to 
the idea that 'inclusion' must be more than just a physical placement (Ferri & Bacon, 2011). 
The resulting critical studies demonstrate that teacher attitudes towards disability (Huang & 
Diamond, 2009), classroom dialogue and interactions (Franck, 2018; Naraian, 2011; Watson, 
2017), and curriculum (Kilderry, 2004), all impact the 'inclusive' schooling experience of 
children with and without disabilities.
      Over the past decade, the definition of 'inclusion' has broadened to mean the 
implementation of support to ensure that all children are able to physically, socially, and 
academically have access to, and participate in the general education classroom 

--PAGE 1--

(DEC/NAEYC, 2009). However, even with this broader understanding of 'inclusion', 
research from scholars in the field of critical disability studies (CDS) indicates that the value 
of 'inclusion' does not necessarily translate into practice as intended or described. Children 
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds continue to be disproportionately 
represented in subjective disability categories (Connor, Ferri, & Annamma, 2016; Ferri & 
Connor, 2006; Losen & Orfield, 2002). Children with disabilities, and children from non-
dominant backgrounds, continue to experience social, physical, and academic exclusion in the 
'inclusive' classroom (Franck, 2018; Watson, 2017). The academic field of CDS "expands the 
understanding of disability from a health science perspective to consider it as a civil and 
human rights issue, a minority identity, a sociological formation, a historic community, a 
diversity group, and a category of critical analysis in culture and the arts" (Garland-Thomson, 
2019, p. 12). CDS provides an important framework for preparing future teachers to 
implement critically inclusive practices.

      This paper describes three foundational elements of a CDS approach to early 
childhood 'inclusive' teacher education programs: questioning and redefining 'inclusion', 
identifying ableist practices, and developing a CDS pedagogy. I'll begin by describing why a 
CDS approach to 'inclusive' teacher education is necessary in the first place. Then, I'll 
explain how I arrived at the three proposed elements of a CDS approach to early childhood 
'inclusive' teacher education. I will describe each element, using theoretical vignettes to 
illustrate the translation into practice. Finally, I provide my suggestions for future work that 
incorporates a CDS approach to early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education.

Why Teacher Education?

      Based on the 2017-2018 child count data, approximately 45% of children with 
disabilities between the ages of 3 and 5 years receive special education services within regular 
early childhood programs in the United States (USDE, 2018). In other words, almost half of 
preschool and kindergarten children with disabilities are educated in 'inclusive' environments, 
where 'inclusion' is defined as an educational placement that integrates students with and 
without disabilities. Barton and Smith (2015) compare 1989 and 2014 surveys about 
perceived barriers to effectively implementing 'inclusion' in preschool classrooms. They note 
that the attitudes and beliefs about 'inclusion' were rated the greatest challenge in the 2014 
survey, a finding supported by the research of Huang and Diamond (2009) and Kwon, Hong, 
and Jeon (2017). While the category of attitudes and beliefs contains a number of concerns 
(e.g., lack of collaboration, lack of preparedness), both special educators and general 
educators expressed the belief that children with and without disabilities are more effectively 
educated in separate settings (Barton & Smith, 2015). Concerns about educating students with 
and without disabilities together in the same classroom are generally attributed to a lack of 
preparation (pedagogical and collaborative skills), resources (material and staff), and 
administrative support (Barton & Smith, 2015). This points to the importance of all early 
childhood teacher education programs preparing pre-service teachers for the 'inclusive' 
classroom. In the following section, I'll explain why CDS provides a useful framework for 
reconceptualizing early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education.

--PAGE 2--

Why Critical Disability Studies?

      While teacher education research described above provides one story as to why CDS 
might be a useful tool for the early childhood 'inclusive' classroom, it is important to take a 
look at how 'inclusion' is defined and described by the field of early childhood. The Division 
for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children 
(NAEYC) define early childhood 'inclusion' in their joint position statement:

Early childhood inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the 
right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to 
participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, 
communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children 
with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and 
membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and 
learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of inclusion that can be 
used to identify high quality early childhood programs and services are access, 
participation, and supports (DEC/NAEYC, 2009, p. 2).

      This definition communicates a more progressive definition of 'inclusion', which 
focuses not only on the placement of young children with disabilities in the general education 
classroom, but also on the importance of providing all young children with the support they 
need to access and participate in the classroom. If the field of early childhood 'inclusion' has 
adopted such an approach, why is it necessary to consider what a CDS perspective might 
suggest about early childhood 'inclusive' education? In order to provide a brief answer to this 
question, I will draw on an example of how inclusion is described in the Division for Early 
Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children's (2017) video, Because it Matters, 
published on their YouTube channel. In this video, a group of young children sit facing their 
teacher. Text appears on the screen, showing the labels of various children in the classroom 
(e.g., autism spectrum disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social emotional delay). Then, 
the text poses a question to the audience, "Can you tell the difference?" The video concludes 
with the statement, "Inclusion: Because it matters." The Division of Early Childhood's video 
implies that inclusion is important because it renders difference invisible. Despite articulating 
a more progressive approach to 'inclusive' education, the field of early childhood 'inclusive' 
education continues to construct difference as negative, and as something to be eliminated.

Towards a CDS Approach to Early Childhood 'Inclusive' Teacher Education

      In this paper, I will propose three foundational elements of a CDS approach to early 
childhood 'inclusive' education: questioning and redefining 'inclusion', identifying ableist 
practices, and developing a CDS pedagogy. I offer these specific elements based on my 
analysis of the ongoing divide between the fields of early childhood 'inclusive' education and 
CDS (Eilers, in press). This analysis reveals that the field of CDS is perceived as offering 
little practical application, while the field of early childhood 'inclusion' continues to make 
incremental shifts towards embracing a more critical approach to 'inclusive' education 
without being fully open to all that such a critical approach would require. The academic work 

--PAGE 3--

that does merge the fields of CDS and early childhood 'inclusion' informs the three 
foundational elements I propose. First, this work highlights the taken-for-granted idea that 
'inclusion' is best practice, and as such, falls outside the realm of practices that might need to 
be critiqued, indicating a need to explicitly introduce why it might be important to question 
and redefine 'inclusion' within early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education programs 
(Watson, 2017). Additionally, work by Burke (2015), Naraian (2011), and Watson (2016, 
2017, 2018), demonstrates how a CDS perspective highlights ableist practices that impact the 
'inclusive' schooling experience of young children. It is important for future teachers to 
develop the skill of being critically reflexive within the classroom, so that they might identify 
and respond to "the changing structures and meanings that define and restrict emancipation" 
(Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009, p. 64) within the classroom. Finally, and perhaps most 
importantly, programs that have incorporated disability studies into teacher education (Ashby, 
2012; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2017; Oyler, 2011) suggest the need for future teachers to 
understand not only how to be critically reflexive, but how to use this reflexivity for the 
development of a more critical pedagogy. In other words, it is important to be able to critique 
the underlying meaning of 'inclusive' education, and to identify practices that are ableist, but 
it is essential that this critique leads to action.

Element One: Identifying Ableism in Dominant 'Inclusive' Practices

      A CDS approach to early childhood teacher education "shifts attention away from the 
problems of disablism ('the Other') to the problems of ableism ('the same' or 'the 
dominant')" (Goodley, 2013, p. 637). Hutcheon and Wolbring (2012) provide a useful 
definition of ableism:

Ableism as a concept describes, and is reflected in, individual and group perceptions 
of certain abilities as essential. Ableism can be treated as both a hegemony which 
promotes ability preference and as an analytical tool used to understand these 
preferences and their impact (p. 40).

      Drawing on Hutcheon and Wolbring's definition, it is important that future teachers 
are prepared to recognize ableism as a hegemony, understanding the ways in which "ethnicity, 
class, gender, sexuality, and pan-national identities converge around the problems of disability 
as a consequence of attempts to maintain...ableist normativity" (Goodley, 2013, p. 637). 
Additionally, future teachers need to be prepared to use ableism as an analytical tool, 
examining the impact of how understandings of ability impact the schooling experiences of 
young children within the classroom. In order to develop these two competencies, pre-service 
teachers must first "be fluent in the discourses of special education" (Oyler, 2011, p. 209). 
Indeed, as pre-service teachers enter schools and classrooms that employ dominant methods 
of 'including' young children, they need to understand the structure and processes of these 
dominant methods in order to recognize and challenge ableism. This will allow pre-service 
teachers to understand the "tensions...between an inclusive philosophy and the meritocratic 
structure of schools" (Rice, 2006, p. 260). In this section, I will discuss how a CDS approach 
to 'inclusive' early childhood education might provide pre-service teachers with both a 

--PAGE 4--

thorough understanding of dominant methods of 'inclusive' education, and the tools to 
recognize ableist practices.

      Barton and Smith's (2015) book, The Preschool Inclusion Toolbox: How to Build and 
Lead a High-Quality Program introduces the text as one that could be used to develop 
"program-level policies and procedures that promote preschool inclusion" or "as a text for 
graduate students in early childhood special education programs and early childhood 
programs" (p. 1). A CDS-informed teacher education program might utilize such a textbook 
in order to introduce pre-service teachers to current methods of 'inclusive' education, and to 
engage pre-service teachers in the practice of identifying ableist practices. Pre-service 
teachers could be assigned to read portions of the text alongside corresponding CDS literature. 
For example, pre-service teachers might read Barton and Smith's (2015) definition of 
'inclusion', as well as their recommendations for socially including children with disabilities. 
Watson's (2016) article, Talking Tolerance Inside the "Inclusive" Early Childhood 
Classroom, could be simultaneously assigned in order to encourage pre-service teachers to 
problematize dominant methods of social 'inclusion', which "create a narrative about the 
marked child as Other, as lacking or deviant" (p. 4). Barton and Smith (2015) explain that the 
field of early childhood has transitioned away from using the term mainstreaming, and now 
utilizes the term 'inclusion' in order "to promote the full acceptance of each child as an 
engaged and participating member of his or her family, classroom, and community" (p. 36). 
The textbook primarily uses the term 'inclusion' to describe how to advocate for the 
placement of children with disabilities in the general early childhood classroom, and how to 
support children with disabilities using evidence-based practices. The following anecdotal 
example is given to demonstrate how a teacher, Elena, might make accommodations for a 
student with disabilities named David:

Elena notices that David often has a difficult time initiating interactions with peers. 
She decides to include 'peer buddy' activities during center time so he gets more 
opportunities to interact with peers one to one. In peer buddy systems, the teacher 
intentionally pairs up children who have more advanced social skills with children 
with disabilities who are learning social skills... (Barton, Pribble, and Joseph, 2015, p. 
118).

      This vignette illustrates how the 'inclusive' and evidence-based practice of peer-
modeling is meant to facilitate the social 'inclusion' of students with disabilities. When 
considering this vignette through the lens of CDS, the practice of peer-modeling can be 
problematized as an ableist practice. Specifically, a CDS perspective triggers the questions: in 
what ways does peer-modeling "permit the Normal to exercise power" (Watson, 2016, p. 8)?; 
how does David's disability come to explain how he "might act and think" (Watson, 2016, p. 
8)?; and what does the practice of peer-modeling suggest about the meaning of 'inclusive' 
education? Through this line of questioning, it becomes possible to see that the practice of 
peer-modeling, when framed as socially inclusive, "conceals power relations, the power of 
authority, and the power associated with discourses of the Normal" (Watson, 2016, p. 11). 

--PAGE 5--

Simultaneously reading Barton and Smith's (2015) text on dominant methods of 'inclusion' 
and Watson's (2016) critique of such methods allows pre-service teachers to identify how 
ableism "create(s) an environment that is often hostile to those whose physical, mental, 
cognitive, and sensory abilities...fall out of the scope of what is currently defined as socially 
acceptable" (Rauscher & McClintock, 1996, p. 198).

      Not only is it important for pre-service teachers to be able to identify ableism in daily 
classroom practices, but also it is essential for pre-service teachers to understand how ableism 
is entwined with race, class, and gender. While many traditional pre-service teacher education 
programs include coursework related to cultural competence, "few scholars actually practice it 
because the process of challenging traditional views often includes harsh and personal 
discourse" (Carter, 2002, p. 309). Additionally, early childhood teachers often hold beliefs 
that position children as 'too young' or 'too innocent' to actively negotiate ideas about 
dis/ability, gender, race, and class (Robinson & Díaz, 2006). A CDS approach to early 
childhood 'inclusive' teacher education must work to counter these beliefs, and to 
demonstrate that children come into the classroom with "a myriad of perceptions of difference 
that they have taken up from their families, peers, the media and other social sources and 
negotiated in the representations of their own identities" (Robinson & Díaz, 2006, p. 4).

      One example of particular relevance to the field of early childhood 'inclusive' 
education is the disproportionate representation of children from culturally and linguistically 
diverse backgrounds within the special education system (Losen & Orfield, 2002; Reid & 
Knight, 2006). The special education eligibility determination process has long been critiqued 
for lacking cultural sensitivity, resulting in a disproportionate representation of culturally and 
linguistically diverse children, particularly within subjective disability categories (e.g., 
learning disability, developmental delay) (Ferri & Connor, 2006; Losen & Orfield, 2002). In 
response to this issue, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) requires that 
assessments are "selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or 
cultural basis" (1414.E.A.i). However, this statute has not made an impact on the 
disproportionately high representation of minority students in special education (Harry & 
Klinger, 2014). Additionally, once classified as a child with a disability, students from 
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to be placed in segregated 
settings (Kozleski, 2016). In other words, the decision of "what category to place a student in 
is followed by another kind of decision in which constructions of race interact with disability 
to determine where a student will be educated" (Kozleski, 2016, p. 114-115). Fergus (2016) 
explains that, "the research on disproportionality focuses mainly on the structural components 
of schools and less on the role of practitioner beliefs about race and cultural difference" (p. 
119). After analyzing the results of a survey designed to measure teacher perceptions related 
to disproportionality, Fergus (2016) found that "as deficit thinking increased, cultural 
responsibility awareness, and knowledge decreased" (p. 126). A focus on practitioner beliefs 
about race and ability is of particular relevance for early childhood educators, as IDEA (1997) 
included a child find mandate, creating an environment in which teachers are expected to 
"hunt for disability" (Ferri & Bacon, 2011). The 'inclusive' early childhood classroom aims to 

--PAGE 6--

'include' students who have already been given a disability label, and students who are 
considered 'at-risk' because they come from culturally and linguistically diverse families 
and/or low-income families. Pre-service teachers must be exposed to literature that describes 
how "ability is constituted as property" (Ferri & Connor, 2014, p. 472) which is used "to 
justify segregating students with disabilities, as well as disproportionate numbers of students 
of color, English Language Learners (ELLs), and poor students (Ferri & Connor, 2014, p. 
472). A CDS approach to early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education must explore the ways 
in which the 'inclusive' classroom can "unmask and expose the normalizing processes of 
racism and ableism as they circulate in society" (Connor et al., 2016, p. 14).

Vignette: Active participation in circle time

      Olivia is beginning her student teaching practicum in an 'inclusive' preschool 
classroom. She spends the first week observing the classroom, participating in the daily 
routines and activities, and writing both anecdotal notes and reflections. In one reflection, she 
writes:

There are three students in the class with Individualized Education Programs (IEP). 
The teacher keeps a clipboard with each student's specific IEP goals. One goal that 
all three students have in common is that they participate in circle time by remaining 
with the class and engaging in activities (e.g. songs, read aloud) for ten minutes with 
no more than two redirections for five consecutive days. I notice that many of the 
students have a difficult time participating in the way that is expected of them during 
circle time. Students are directed to sit with crossed legs, but many need to be 
reminded several times. Also, the teacher uses the rhyme "One, two, three, eyes on 
me," and tells students that she knows that they are paying attention when she can see 
their eyes looking at hers. I think about what this direction suggests about the ableist 
norm of eye contact, which assumes vision as the only acceptable tool for accessing 
the classroom environment and indicating participation. Another thought I had, was 
that while many of the children in the class need reminders and redirections during 
circle time, the teacher is specifically tracking these reminders only for children with 
IEPs. What impact does tracking instances of redirection for just three children have 
on the teacher's perception of these students - of the other students? I notice that even 
though some students do not look at her while she is reading, they still seem to be 
listening and respond to questions at the end. These observations are making me 
wonder whether it might be important to allow for different types of active 
participation - Some students might need to sit in different positions, and some might 
need to stand. Some students might demonstrate that they are listening by looking, but 
others might be listening while looking at an object that they are feeling in their 
hands.

      Olivia uses the data from this reflection when she begins to take over activities in the 
classroom. She tests out a different approach to circle time, allowing for variable means of 
active participation. Before beginning, she has a discussion with the classroom teacher in 

--PAGE 7--

order to explain her rationale for trying out something new. It is important that Olivia has the 
opportunity to practice these types of conversations, as she will likely continue to encounter 
practitioners who might not take the same critical approach to 'inclusion'. Olivia is able to 
explain that she wants to understand what happens when the children are given the 
opportunity to participate in different ways during circle time. She leads circle time for a 
week, each day modifying the activities that she includes based on what she notices about the 
interests of students. Initially, the classroom teacher feels discomfort watching as some 
students lay on the ground, others held squishy toys in their hands, and one stood. However, 
Olivia is able to point out that the students contributed in ways that demonstrated their active 
engagement, despite the evidence of their participation taking a different form. Olivia's 
knowledge of dominant 'inclusive' practices, combined with her understanding of ableism as 
a hegemony and an analytical tool, allow her to navigate a complex situation.

Element Two: Questioning and Redefining 'Inclusion'

If we listen to teachers, education administrators and academics as they discuss 
inclusive education and the range of kids who present for schooling, we soon hear that 
we are a long way from where inclusive schooling should take us. There remains a 
firmly embedded notion of what a regular school is and more particularly, who it is for 
(Graham & Slee, 2008, p. 280).

      As Graham and Slee (2008) explain, the process of including children into the 'regular 
school' is heavily laden with ideas about who the 'regular child' is, and what the 'irregular 
child' must do in order to be successfully included. McDermott (1993) asserts that in the 
absence of some 'normal' definition of learning, there would be "no such thing" as an 
abnormal learner (McDermott, 1993, p. 272). However, pre-service early childhood teachers 
are rarely encouraged to ask questions about 'inclusion'. In her book, Inside the 'Inclusive' 
Early Childhood Classroom: The Power of the 'Normal,' Watson (2017) reflects on twenty 
years of teaching:

My knowledge and teaching practice was built on clinical and 'scientific' 'truth', and 
my understandings of the child were entrenched within 'the medical model of 
disability'. I did not know at the time that my knowledge, and my formidable 
allegiance to it, produced considerable constraints and limitations on the children I had 
taught. I lament the unquestioning and uncritical way I performed as a teacher and 
how I positioned myself (p. 4).

Watson's (2017) story demonstrates that the 'roles' of the teacher, the child, and the field of 
child development are highly engrained, and not often subject to critique. A CDS approach to 
early childhood 'inclusive' teacher education must encourage pre-service teachers to question 
how 'inclusion' "is framed by the political predisposition of exclusion" (Watson, 2017, p. 
191). In this section, I will draw on the work of CDS scholars in order to conceptualize 
pedagogical activities that would encourage pre-service teachers to explore how the 
'inclusive' classroom is constructed, and to consider a new way of defining 'inclusive' 
education.

--PAGE 8--

      Connor (2015) describes how he structures a disability studies course about 
'inclusion,' which also serves as the only required special education course for pre-service 
general education teachers. His course begins with the history of special education and 
disability studies, as well as the analysis of media portrayals and real life observations of 
dis/ability, which encourage students to consider "What is normal?" (Connor, 2015, p. 135). 
While thinking about dis/ability as a social construction is often an unfamiliar task, Connor 
notes that, "Most people...are intrigued by looking at a familiar phenomenon such as 
dis/ability in a radically different way that triggers a deep, personalized response" (p. 125). 
Connor (2015) explains that this initial focus on theory is essential as "without the theoretical 
grounding of [disability studies/disability studies in education], practices appear to be 
understood on a very superficial level- as if 'what works' is largely free of theory and 
ideology" (p. 136). Drawing on Connor's (2015) approach, I conceptualize a CDS approach to 
the common practice of conducting classroom observations during pre-service training.

      Early childhood teacher education programs often include a number of classroom 
observations, which help the pre-service teacher develop the skills to "assess developmental 
levels, interests, and the curriculum concepts and learnings that follow" (Vartuli, Snider, & 
Holley, 2016, p. 508). During these observations, pre-service teachers are often asked to focus 
on some specific element of teaching or learning, which coincides with the course material 
(Vartuli et al., 2016). For example, pre-service teachers might be asked to observe and reflect 
on the teaching practices used to facilitate the 'inclusion' of students with disabilities while 
reading about evidence-based practices for 'inclusion'. A CDS approach to this activity might 
begin in a similar manner, asking pre-service teachers to take a written record during a 
classroom observation, and to reflect on the observed 'inclusive' practices. After this initial 
observation, students would read Watson's (2018) article, Interrogating the 'Normal' in the 
'Inclusive' Early Childhood Classroom: Silence, Taboo and the 'Elephant in the Room,' and 
conduct a secondary analysis of their observation data to explore how children are positioned 
as included/already included/excluded within classroom activities and discourse. Watson's 
(2018) article provides an example of how to critically analyze 'inclusive' practices, and also 
presents an argument for critically thinking about the goals and practices of 'inclusive' 
education. In other words, this activity facilitates conversations about how to "further 
examine, understand and dismantle exclusion as it is present in education" (Watson, 2018, p. 
143). This activity is aligned with CDS as its aim is to draw focus away from disabled 
children, and onto 'the abled' in order to identify how "Ableist processes create a corporeal 
standard, which presumes ablebodiedness, inaugurates the norm and purifies the ableist ideal" 
(Goodley, 2013, p. 640). This activity is, of course, just an introduction to a CDS approach to 
'inclusion', and this line of deconstructive questioning must also lead to a reconstruction of 
'inclusive' education.

      From a CDS perspective, what is 'inclusive' education? After questioning 'inclusion', 
a CDS informed approach to teacher education should equip pre-service teachers to consider 
how they might redefine 'inclusion'. Given that 'inclusive' education suggests the need for 
the not-yet-included to conform in order to attain the status of 'included', should the term 

--PAGE 9--

'inclusion' even be used? It is important for these questions to be introduced as pre-service 
teachers engage with CDS theory and consider the implications for practice. I envision these 
questions serving as the topic for a final reflection, and culminating class discussion, within 
an introductory course on 'inclusive' education. I also view these questions as ones that must 
be revisited, within and beyond the confines of coursework, as it is essential to "continuously 
re-evaluate our analyses as both process and product" (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009, p. 
64).

      When asking pre-service teachers to question 'inclusion', and to consider what this 
line of questioning means for practice, it is important that teacher educators engage in this 
same type of reflection. As I construct my own CDS-influenced definition of 'inclusive' 
education, I take note of Meekosha and Shuttleworth's (2009) reminder "that our 
understanding of what constitutes the modes of critical analyses we employ is not set in 
stone" (p. 64). In other words, the definition I set forth must be revisited in order to remain "in 
concert with contemporary lives, the complexities of alienation and rich hopes of resistance" 
(Goodley, 2013, p. 641). For me, the continued use of the term 'inclusive' education allows 
the term to signal "a political message, a dimension of criticality that a whole new word 
would fail to achieve" (Graham & Slee, 2008, p. 279). The use of quotations around the term 
'inclusion' also aligns with the CDS goal of shifting the focus to "the centered-ness implicit in 
tokenistic attempts to 'include' the marginalized Other" (Graham & Slee, 2008, p. 279). 
Additionally, I would define a CDS approach to 'inclusive' early childhood education by 
drawing on Deleuze's (1987) notion of interdependency, which poses a challenge to the 
"conventional distinctions and separations between whole and 'broken' bodies" (Shildrick, 
2012, p. 39). Shildrick (2012) elaborates on a Deluezian approach to CDS, suggesting:

indeterminacy and instability are not unique to the anomalous body but stand as the 
conditions of all corporeality in as much as the finality and integrity of the normative 
subject are merely features of a phantasmatic structure. As such, the 'disabled' body 
signals not some exceptional lack or failure, but simply one mode among multiple 
ways of becoming (p. 39).

      My definition of 'inclusive' education focuses on de-centering the normal, or able-
bodied, through ongoing reflection on teaching practice and procedures (e.g., special 
education eligibility processes, methods of assessing progress, and curriculum content), 
resulting in "imaginative approaches to teaching and learning" (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 
2010, p. 287). With this approach to 'inclusion', "By refusing to accept, and entertain as 
'truth', the psychologizing and pathologizing stories, that are assigned to children, it may be 
imaginable to think and act differently within education, and see the child as a becoming 
subject" (Watson, 2017, p. 199).

Vignette: Critically defining inclusion.

      A cohort of undergraduate student teachers are finishing the first year of coursework. 
They have spent five hours each week observing and student-teaching in 'inclusive' early 
childhood classrooms. They have read and reflected on work written by CDS and disability 

--PAGE 10--

studies in education scholars, considering how this work might connect with what they are 
noticing in the classroom, and discussing these connections during seminars. In the following 
final reflection, a student connects her observations and course readings to how she is now 
thinking about defining 'inclusion':

One thing that I can't stop thinking about is how obvious it is that the students in my 
classroom who have disability labels are the ones who have to be included into the 
classroom community. I am noticing this the most when I observe how children with 
disability labels are supported to engage in social interactions with peers. There is a 
student in my class who has an autism diagnosis. He often gets very engaged in some 
activity on his own, but then is redirected to do the activity in a way that involves 
another student. It's clear that his play is not seen as acceptable, and the goal 
becomes to try to include him into the way that other children are playing. The other 
day, he was on the playground playing by covering his eyes, counting to ten, and 
saying "ready or not, here I come!" He then ran around the playground for a bit, and 
started the same process. It was clear that he was really enjoying this activity. After a 
little while, a few of his peers saw what he was playing, and joined in. I wondered - if 
his peers had not joined this activity, would he have been allowed to continue, or 
would he have been redirected? It seems that 'inclusion' is really about ensuring that 
children demonstrate behaviors, whether social or academic or physical, that are 
viewed as being acceptable within the classroom. This makes me think of Hutcheon 
and Wolbring's (2012) definition of ableism: "Ableism as a concept describes, and is 
reflected in, individual and group perceptions of certain abilities as essential" (p. 40). 
When I think about how I would like to define 'inclusion' moving forward, I want to be 
sure that I am constantly thinking about the 'why' behind any type of inclusive 
strategy: Am I asking a student to modify behavior because it might make me or others 
uncomfortable? If so, how could I instead focus on making difference valued. What I 
mean is, I want the 'inclusive' classroom to be a place that welcomes and normalizes 
the co-existence of many different ideas about what counts as a valuable skill.

      This reflection will inform Anna's planning as she moves into her full-time student 
teaching. It will help her to think about what a CDS pedagogy might look like, and to reflect 
on the activities that she implements within the classroom. At the end of her student-teaching, 
she will look back at this piece and consider whether there are revisions that she would make 
after having put some of her ideas to the test. Having developed a practice of ongoing 
reflection, Anna will continue to revise and reconsider how she critically defines 'inclusion' 
as she moves into the field, beginning her work as an early childhood 'inclusive' classroom 
teacher.

Element Three: Developing a CDS Pedagogy

      As the field of CDS receives criticism for its lack of practical application (Oliver & 
Barnes, 2012; Watson, 2012), it is imperative that CDS informed early childhood 'inclusive' 
teacher education prepare teachers to do more than just critique the current system of early 

--PAGE 11--

childhood 'inclusion'. Teachers must have the opportunity to develop the skills to actually 
implement a CDS approach within their teaching. A CDS pedagogy is one that responds and 
adapts to context, constantly reflecting and evolving, responding to the ever-shifting notion 
and impact of ableism. In other words, to develop a CDS pedagogy is to develop the skills to 
think critically, to respond creatively, and to reflect regularly. Such an approach cannot be 
prescribed, and must give teachers the trust and autonomy to develop "imaginative and 
responsive forms of educational provision" (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2010, p. 287). 
However, in order to effect change within the system as it presently exists, a system that 
highly values clearly defined procedures and competencies, it is important to provide a clear 
picture of what a CDS pedagogy would look like, and how teachers should be prepared to 
develop such a pedagogy. In order to provide such a description, this section will include an 
extended vignette that describes the aspects of both teacher education and teaching practice.

Vignette: Within the system

      This vignette captures what it means to develop a CDS approach to early childhood 
'inclusive' education. First, teachers must be prepared to use CDS theory in practice - to draw 
on theoretical work in order to disrupt ableism within the 'inclusive' classroom. Next, 
teachers must be critically reflexive, continually asking questions about their approach to 
'inclusion', and identifying what needs to change in order to challenge the dominant idea of 
the 'normal' child within the classroom. The semester begins, and it is time for a group of pre-
service teachers to take on the role of full-time student teachers in their assigned early 
childhood 'inclusive' classrooms. They have spent time reading traditional 'inclusive' early 
childhood texts alongside critical approaches. They have grappled with hard questions: what 
does it mean to include?; what is disability?; what is ability?; how do multiple identity 
markers impact the schooling experience of young children?; how has ableism played a role in 
the development of the field of early childhood education; and how does this history continue 
to shape approaches to 'inclusion' in the early childhood classroom? They have reflected on 
their experiences in the field-identifying ableism, considering how their pedagogical practice 
might challenge the construct of ability, asking questions after testing out ideas. They have 
written down their current way of thinking about critically approaching the 'inclusive' 
classroom. Now, it is time for them to put all of these ideas into practice during their student 
teaching practicum.

Jon, a student-teacher in an 'inclusive' preschool classroom, is observing a group of 
three children in the block area. Two children are building a tower together, and the 
third child comes over to the pair and holds up a picture card, which indicates that he 
is asking to join their activity. One child responds, "Yes," and moves over to make 
room for his peer to sit nearby. The other child looks over to Jon, and asks, "But why 
doesn't he just talk? Is he stupid or something?"

Jon later writes about this interaction in an analytical reflection paper:

When I heard the question, "But why doesn't he talk? Is he stupid or something?" I 
noticed my own discomfort. I felt discomfort because, ultimately, I wished that this 

--PAGE 12--

question had not surfaced in the first place. This question was one that I knew needed 
to be answered, and answered well. After all, ignoring or redirecting would only 
perpetuate the problem described by Watson (2018): "The children learn to separate 
from, and ignore difference, and feel awkward discussing it, as they have no 
sanctioned way to talk about it. The 'normal' discourses create the 'natural' and 
'right' way to be, that is so taken for granted, that other ways have no expression and 
no legitimacy" (p. 153-154). But, I felt fear. I felt afraid that I would not give the right 
answer. And I realize now that a part of this fear was also related to the idea, which I 
am still working to challenge, that young children might not be ready to talk about 
complex issues like difference and disability. I remember the work of Robinson and 
Díaz (2006), which explains that the early childhood 'inclusive' classroom is heavily 
influenced by "the discourse of childhood innocence" (p. 171). This discourse of 
innocence limits the opportunities children have to "question, analy(z)e, test, and 
critique" (Robinson & Díaz, 2006, p. 171) ideas about diversity and difference. 
Instead of making space for the exploration of difference, early childhood teachers 
often communicate the idea that all children are to be welcomed and accepted without 
question (Naraian, 2011; Watson, 2017). In this type of environment, children learn 
not to ask questions, and opportunities are missed to "support children in voicing 
their ideas and concerns about different social issues..." (Robinson & Díaz, 2006, p. 
172).

In the moment, I chose to try my best to answer this question, and this is what I said: 
"Some of us use our voices to communicate with each other. Some of us communicate 
using sign language, pictures, computers, or other ways. All of these ways of 
communicating allow us to share our ideas, thoughts, or questions with other people. 
One way is not better than another. But, what I noticed, and what I think that we 
should talk more about, is that a lot of times communicating using spoken language is 
seen as the 'smart' way of communicating, and other ways of communicating are seen 
as being less smart. Why do you think that is?" While I felt the urge to tell the child 
that I would not tolerate the use of the word 'stupid', I did not want to close down the 
conversation, I wanted us to be able to work through where this idea comes from, and 
why this language is so harmful. We eventually talked through the use of the word 
'stupid' and decided as a group that it was one we did not want to allow in our 
classroom. After our conversation, the child who initially asked the challenging 
question talked to his peer, asking if his words had hurt the child's feelings, and 
asking how he could repair this damage. The pair then spent time together because 
Jeremy wanted his peer to understand how his communication book works, a topic 
that he then introduced to the whole class.

My main take away from this experience is that I need to continually be aware of how 
my own fear or feelings might get in the way of allowing children to explore topics of 
difference. I also need to be willing to try, to get it wrong sometimes, and to trust that 
the children are capable of leading and participating in conversations that, to me, 

--PAGE 13--

seem tricky.

Moving Forward

How to do inclusion better...is not the challenge. It is instead recognizing and 
understanding that inclusion is framed by the political predisposition of exclusion 
(Watson, 2016, p. 191).

      The field of early childhood 'inclusive' education articulates a more expansive 
understanding of 'inclusion', but continues to shy away from taking up a CDS approach. 
While CDS may appear to threaten the very existence of 'inclusive' education, Slee (2011) 
suggests that "inclusive education needs to be decoupled from special education" (p. 155). If 
we can reconceptualize 'inclusion' as a practice of continually interrogating "the power of the 
Normal" (Watson, 2016, p. 12), then a CDS approach to 'inclusive' early childhood education 
becomes possible. While a CDS approach can certainly be imagined, an exercise I have 
briefly carried out within this paper, it is essential that this imagination be paired with action. 
The 'critical' component of CDS instructs scholars to be engaged in ongoing reflection, 
paying attention to how changes in society require changes to approaches and analyses 
(Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009). At the same time, criticality must not only produce theory, 
it must translate this theory into action. In other words, "the task is always to balance the 
activist's cry for accessible conceptualization with the scholar's understanding of the 
complex, interwoven but continually changing fabric of human societies" (Meekosha & 
Shuttleworth, 2009, p. 64). Future work should apply a CDS approach to early childhood 
'inclusive' teacher education and present the affordances and challenges of developing and 
implementing this type of program. Additionally, this work must consider the role of the child 
within a CDS-informed 'inclusive' classroom. Children should be central to decision-making 
about educational goals and the processes for reaching their goals in order to "create a culture 
where they can be viewed as a person who is expert in their own life and not someone who 
needs help because they 'can't do it'" (Rodriguez, 2016, p. 255). Indeed, as Goodley and 
Runswick-Cole (2010) explain, "Disabled children are queer children: with the potential to 
subvert, rethink and reject normative, narrow, dull, limiting, disablist, respectable, middle of 
the road, conservative, traditional and exclusionary schools, classrooms and pedagogical 
practices" (p. 275).

Nicole Eilers, is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the 
School of Education's cultural studies and literacies program. She is interested in critical 
disability studies, early childhood education, and teacher education.

References

Ashby, C. (2012). Disability studies and inclusive teacher preparation: A socially just path for 
teacher education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 
89-99.

--PAGE 14--

Barton, E. E., & Smith, B. J. (2015). The Preschool Inclusion Toolbox: How to Build and 
Lead a High-Quality Program. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Barton, E. E., Pribble, L. M., & Joseph, J. D. (2015). Evidence-based practices for successful 
inclusion. In E. E. Barton & B. J. Smith (Eds.), The Preschool Inclusion Toolbox: 
How to Build and Lead a High-Quality Program (pp. 113-129). Baltimore, Maryland: 
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Buysee, V., & Hollingsworth, H. L. (2009). Program quality and early childhood inclusion: 
Recommendations for professional development. Topics in Early Childhood Special 
Education, 29(2), 119-128.

Carter, A. (2002). A dialogue with divas: Issues affecting a scholarly agenda in special 
education, from Africana feminist perspectives. Journal of Negro Education, 71(4), 
297-312.

Connor, D., Ferri, B., & Annamma, S. A. (2016). DisCrit: Disability studies and critical race 
theory in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Deleuze, G. (1987). A Thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: 
Minnesota University Press.

[Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children] (2017, October 4). 
Because It Matters [Video file] Retrieved from: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSxa2huC49I

Division for Early Childhood, & National Association for the Education of Young Children 
(DEC/NAEYC). (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the 
Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of 
Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG 
Child Development Institute. Retrieved from 
https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-
shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/positionstatements/DEC_NAEYC_EC_updatedKS.
pdf

Eilers, N. (in press). Critical disability studies and 'inclusive' early childhood education: The 
ongoing divide. Journal of Disability Studies in Education.

Ferri, B.A. & Bacon, J. (2011). Beyond inclusion: Disability studies in early childhood 
teacher education. In B.S. Fennimore & A.L Goodwin (Eds.), Promoting Social 
Justice for Young Children (pp. 137-146). Netherlands: Springer.
Ferri, B.A. & Connor, D.J. (2014). Talking (& not talking) about race, social class, & 
dis/ability: Toward a margin-to-margin approach. Race Ethnicity and Education, 
17(4), 471-493.

--PAGE 15--

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion in 
desegregation and inclusion debates. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Fergus, E. (2016). Social reproduction ideologies: Teacher beliefs about race and culture. In 
S. A. Annamma, D. J. Connor, & B. A. Ferri (Eds.), DisCrit: Disability Studies and 
Critical Race Theory in Education (pp. 117-130). New York, NY: Teachers College 
Press.

Franck, K. (2018). A continuum deconstructed: Exploring how day-care staff's discursive 
practices construct children as possibly impaired. Scandinavian Journal of Disability 
Research, 20(1), 247-255.

Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability and Society, 28(5), 
631-644.

Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2010). Emancipating play: dis/abled children, 
development and deconstruction. Disability and Society, 25(4), 499-512.

Graham, L. J., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of 
inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 277-293.

Harry, B., & Klinger, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? (2nd 
ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Huang, H.H. & Diamond, K.E. (2009). Early childhood teachers' ideas about including 
children with disabilities in programmes designed for typically developing children. 
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(2), 169-182.

Hutcheon, E., & Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of 'disabled' post secondary students: 
Examining higher education 'disability' policy using an ableism lens. Journal of 
Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 39-49.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (1997). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.?

Kilderry, A. (2004). Critical pedagogy: A useful framework for thinking about early 
childhood curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(4), 33-37.

Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Reifying categories: Measurement in search of understanding. In S. A. 
Annamma, D. J. Connor, & B. A. Ferri (Eds.), DisCrit: Disability Studies and Critical 
Race Theory in Education (pp. 101-116). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kwon, K. A., Hong, S. Y., & Jeon, H. J. (2017). Classroom readiness for successful inclusion: 
Teacher factors and preschool children's experience with and attitudes toward peers 
with disabilities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(3), 360-378.

Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (2002). (Eds.). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge, 
MA: Harvard Education Press.

--PAGE 16--

McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. 
Lave (Eds.), Understanding Practices: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 269-
305). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What's so 'critical' about critical disability studies? 
Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47-75.

Naraian, S. (2011). Teacher discourse, peer relations, significant disability: Unraveling one 
friendship story. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(1), 97-
115.

Naraian, S., & Shlessinger, S. (2017). When theory meets the 'reality of reality': Reviewing 
the sufficiency of the social model of disability as a foundation for teacher preparation 
for inclusive education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(1), 81-100.

National Professional Development Center on Inclusion. (2009). Research synthesis points on 
early childhood inclusion. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG 
Child Development Institute, Author. Retrieved from 
http://community.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/NDPCI-ResearchSynthesis-9- 
2007.pdf/view

Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. London: Palgrave 
Macmillan

Rauscher, L., & McClintok, J. (1996). Ableism and curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A., 
Bell, & P. Griffen (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 198-231). 
New York: Routledge.

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. (2006). Disability justifies the exclusion of minority students: A 
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.

Rice, N. (2006). Promoting "epistemic fissures": Disability studies in teacher education. 
Teaching Education, 17(3), 251-264.

Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B., & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers' 
relationships with included students with autism. Journal of Autism and 
Developmental Disorders, 33(2), 123-130.

Robinson, K. H., & Díaz, C. J. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood education: 
Issues for theory and practice. England: Open University Press.

Rodriguez, E. L. (2016). Self advocacy and self determination for youth with disability and 
their parents during school transition planning. In P. Block, D. Kasnitz, A. Nishida, & 
N. Pollard (Eds.), Occupying disability: Critical approaches to community, justice, 
and decolonizing disability. (pp. 247-256). Dordrecht: Springer.

--PAGE 17--

Sainato, D.M., Morrision, R.S., Jung, S., Axe, J., & Nixon, P.A., (2015). A comprehensive 
inclusion program for kindergarten children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of 
Early Intervention, 37(3), 208-225.

Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical disability studies: Rethinking conventions for the age of 
postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge 
Handbook of Disability Studies (pp. 30-41). New York: Routledge.

Soukakou, E. P. (2012). Inclusive preschool classrooms: Development and validation of the 
inclusive classroom profile (ICP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 478-488.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (2015). The 37th Annual 
Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from: 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2015/index.html

Vartuli, S., Snider, K., & Holley, M. (2016). Making it real: A practice-based early childhood 
education program. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44, 503-514.

Watson, N. (2012). Theorising the lives of disabled children: How can disability theory help? 
Children and Society, 26, 192-202.

Watson, K. (2016). Talking tolerance inside the 'inclusive' early childhood classroom. Bank 
Street Occasional Paper Series, 36, 1-15.

Watson, K. (2017). Inside the 'inclusive' early childhood classroom: The power of the 
'normal'. New York: Peter Lang.

Watson, K. (2018). Interrogating the 'normal' in the 'inclusive' early childhood classroom: 
Silence, taboo and the 'elephant in the room'. In K. Runswick-Cole, T. Curran, & K. 
Liddiard (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Disabled Children's Childhood Studies 
(pp. 141-158). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

 
A Critical Disability Studies Approach to 'Inclusive' Early Childhood Teacher Education by 
Nicole Eilers is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
Based on a work at https://rdsjournal.org. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be 
available at https://www.rds.hawaii.edu/.

--PAGE 18--