See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286916519

Deconstructing language practices: discursive constructions of children in

Individual Education Plan resource documents

Article  in  Disability & Society · December 2015

DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1113161

CITATIONS READS

5 268

3 authors:

Victoria A. Boyd Stella L Ng

University of Toronto University of Toronto
7 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   1,945 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Catherine Schryer
Ryerson University
38 PUBLICATIONS   1,279 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The TeaChR study: Can we show the impacts of Teaching Critical Reflection? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Victoria A. Boyd on 07 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Disability & Society

ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Deconstructing language practices: discursive

constructions of children in Individual Education
Plan resource documents

Victoria A. Boyd, Stella L. Ng & Catherine F. Schryer

To cite this article: Victoria A. Boyd, Stella L. Ng & Catherine F. Schryer (2015) Deconstructing
language practices: discursive constructions of children in Individual Education Plan resource
documents, Disability & Society, 30:10, 1537-1553, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1113161

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1113161

Published online: 14 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20

Download by: [208.96.76.147] Date: 14 December 2015, At: 06:53

 Disability & Society, 2015
Vol. 30, No. 10, 1537–1553, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1113161

Deconstructing language practices: discursive constructions of

children in Individual Education Plan resource documents
Victoria A. Boyda*, Stella L. Ngb,c,d and Catherine F. Schryere
a
School of Professional Communication, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada; bCentre
for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;
c
Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada; dCentre for Ambulatory Care Education, Women’s College Hospital,
Toronto, ON, Canada; eSchool of Professional Communication, Ryerson University, Toronto,
ON, Canada
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

(Received 8 March 2015; final version received 23 October 2015)

Although Individual Education Plan (IEP) resource documents in Ontario,

Canada aim to assist children in achieving their special educational goals, a point
of disjuncture exists between the documents’ intentions and children’s actual
experiences. Addressing this issue is crucial in preventing inequity and fostering
educational development and social well-being for children. We employ critical
discourse analysis informed by disability theory to deconstruct the language
practices used to conceptualize children in IEP resource documents. Our purpose
is to question the underlying assumptions regarding representations of children
and illuminate the potentially harmful consequences of such conceptions. We
expose the presence of both neutral and harmful language practices and consider
how such language may shape the way the documents translate from policy to
practice. This study offers a model through which the language of other special
education documents can be critically evaluated and proposes potential avenues
for creating documents that avoid disabling children further.
Keywords: language; disability; special education; Individual Education Plan

Points of interest

• Individual Education Plan (IEP) resource documents outline the mandatory

standards for special education programs in Ontario, Canada.
• The development and implementation of an IEP often does not manifest in
practice as it is outlined in the resource documents.
• Unintended negative language practices used to represent children with disabil-
ities can influence their daily lives and shape how society understands disabil-
ity.
• The way children are represented in IEP resource documents can reaffirm
unequal power relations in a manner that impedes the intention of IEPs, which
is to support equity and opportunity for all.

*Corresponding author. Email: victoria.boyd@ryerson.ca

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 1538 V.A. Boyd et al.

• We propose an ongoing re-examination of the language used to describe and

discuss children in order to minimize these barriers and better align IEP intent
(policy) and practice.

Introduction
The Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a culturally situated text used in special edu-
cation contexts across much of the western world. In Ontario, Canada, the IEP was
created by the Ministry of Education to outline individualized education programs
and services for children whose scholastic needs do not align with standard curricu-
lum expectations (MOE 2004). This mandatory, province-wide document offers an
opportunity for educators to create a personalized curriculum for children identified
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

by a teacher or parent as requiring special attention. The IEP is predominantly com-

prised of a description of a student’s ‘exceptionality,’ a summary of their program
and services, an explanation of goals and expectations, and an outline of how their
progress will be monitored (MOE 2004). In order to establish a student’s individual-
ized goals and expectations, a special education team comprised of teachers, para-
professionals, and the principal aggregates a wide range of medical and educational
documents from healthcare practitioners, social workers, and parents. As such, the
IEP is intended to be a collaborative process that foregrounds children’s learning
needs at all stages.
The process in which an IEP is planned, created, and implemented is governed
by several IEP policy documents, herein referred to as resource documents. These
texts are resources written by the Ontario Ministry of Education with the aim of
helping children, parents, educators, and healthcare practitioners meet ‘the planning
and regulatory requirements for students with an IEP’ (Zegarac, Drewett, and Swan
2008, 12). These documents outline the policy informing the IEP process and guide
educators in the production and modification of a student’s IEP. The discursive fea-
tures of the resource documents can influence how an IEP is interpreted and imple-
mented in the education system.
Unfortunately, a point of disjuncture can exist between the intentions of IEP
resource documents and the actual experiences of children in special education pro-
grams in Ontario. The development and implementation of an IEP often does not
manifest in practice as it is outlined in policy. This disconnect can cause an ‘ineffi-
ciency and inequity in the process of considering, creating, implementing and refin-
ing/revising’ a child’s IEP (Ng et al. 2013, 5). Addressing this issue is crucial
because inequitable practices can hinder children’s social, psychological, and educa-
tional development and well-being (Phelan 2011). Further, the IEP and related pol-
icy texts have previously been deemed successful by parents, educators, and
healthcare practitioners in other provinces and countries (Smith 1990), so it is cru-
cial to examine the shortcomings of these documents in Ontario.
To address the disconnect between the intentions of IEP resource documents and
children’s actual experiences, we deconstruct the language practices used to concep-
tualize children and critically examine the underlying implications of this language.
We argue that unintended negative language practices may contribute to representa-
tions of children that sustain dominant medical perspectives of disability, reaffirm
unequal power relations that marginalize children with disabilities, and contribute to
 Disability & Society 1539

the disconnect between IEP policy and practice. In investigating these notions, we
examine the resource documents as discursive constructions that both inform, and
are informed by, social order and relations of power. In order to investigate the dis-
connect between the intentions of IEP resource documents and the actual experi-
ences of children with IEPs in Ontario, we pose and explore three questions:

(1) How do the language practices of IEP resource documents conceptualize

children with special education needs?
(2) What power relations are produced through the language practices used to
conceptualize children?
(3) How might these language practices and subsequent power relations shape
the ways the intentions of IEP resource documents materialize in practice?

To address these questions, we first step back from the IEP to explore the inter-
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

section of language, disability, and power more generally. This exploration begins
by examining language as a socially produced discourse, then considers discourse as
an instrument of power, and finally focuses on the material implications of specific
discourses in special education documents.

Language as discourse
Bourdieu asserts that ‘language is not only an instrument of communication … but
an instrument of power’ (1977, 648). From this perspective, power can be exercised
or resisted through language. In order to explore this notion, we must consider lan-
guage as discourse. The term discourse refers to any form of communication or
social interaction that produces shared meaning and understanding (Sunderland,
Catalano, and Kendall 2009). Discourse extends beyond spoken or written commu-
nication to include text, music, images, visual symbols, non-verbal acts, and physi-
cal acts (Harpur 2012). Discourse orders the way the world is experienced (Foucault
1981) by acting ‘as a filter through which everything around us is perceived and
interpreted’ (Charon 2010, 4). Hacking (1999) exposes the social nature of this pro-
cess by linking discourse to social order. He argues that discourse and social order
are implicated in an interdependent, ‘looping’ relationship in which discourse both
determines, and is determined by, social order (Hacking 1999). Dominant discourses
make possible (and impossible) certain ways of viewing and acting upon disability.
Society internalizes these socially produced discourses and uses them to engage in
social practice. This social engagement contributes to the reproduction of particular
discourses of disability, which then reaffirm the very structures that shape society
(Fairclough 1989). For example, disability as something to be rehabilitated focuses
our view on ‘helping’ disabled individuals overcome disability and function as ‘nor-
mally’ as possible. This discourse deflects our attention away from other options,
such as targeting society for accepting individuals with disabilities as they are. In
this way, discourse reaffirms social structures, such as dominant systems of
rehabilitation. Hacking’s (1999) looping effect illustrates how discourse and social
order are implicated in a dialectical relationship; discourse is a social process that
shapes society, as well as a socially conditioned process shaped by society itself.
This perspective is central in examining the power of discourse in IEP resource
documents.
 1540 V.A. Boyd et al.

Discourse as an instrument of power

Discourse is central in the production, maintenance, and alteration of relations of
power (Bourdieu 1977). Fairclough (1989, 17) describes these power relations as
‘struggles for power’ in which various social groups with different interests engage
with one another. Groups that exercise control through discourse must struggle with
others to maintain their position, whereas groups who do not possess power must
challenge or resist (Fairclough 1989). Although a group does not necessarily con-
sciously strive to maintain power, discourse influences the group’s thoughts and
actions so that existing relations of power are unconsciously normalized (Ng et al.
2014; Wodak and Meyer 2009). Discourse can contribute to the dominance of some
groups by others, yet it can also be employed as a vehicle for undermining power to
enact social change (Foucault 1981). This duality is present in struggles for power at
all levels of society, such as an individual child with a disability, or a large educa-
tional institution. These power struggles generate, and are generated by, discourses
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

that filter into social interactions and define ‘conditions of possibility’ (Foucault
1981, 183) that shape the lives of those implicated in the discourse (Cockain 2014).
For example, historical power inequalities between able-bodied society and disabled
individuals have contributed to lasting discourses that position disability as some-
thing to be rehabilitated. In the health and education systems, these discourses can
often cause children with disabilities to be treated as ‘problems’ that need to be
fixed, which can limit their conditions of possibility. Understanding the relationship
between discourse and power is crucial for identifying the implications of various
language practices in IEP resource documents.

Discourses of special education documents

From a critical disability studies perspective, special education documents are ‘cul-
tural artifacts’ (Waltz 2005, 422) with powerful implications in the lives of children
with IEPs. These documents shape children’s educational curriculum, which in turn
informs their daily lives and future opportunities. Several studies have explored this
notion by critically examining various discourses used to represent children in
special education texts (Corker 2000; Erevelles 2005; Runswick-Cole and Hodge
2009; Sunderland, Catalano, and Kendall 2009). This research positions such texts
as discursive constructions that both determine, and are determined by, cultural prac-
tices and relations of power in education. This perspective situates the texts within
their sociopolitical context in order to understand the broader implications of special
education discourses. To date, these studies remain characterized by two main
schools of thought, namely critical discourse analysis (CDA) and critical disability
theory.
CDA is a theoretically informed approach that analyzes written texts to reveal
discursive sources of power and inequality (van Dijk 1996). This theoretical
approach seeks to identify relations of causality between language and broader
social structures, relations, and processes (Fairclough 1989). CDA investigates the
way language practices ‘arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of
power and struggles over power’ (Fairclough 1995, 135). Thus, CDA explores how
language is situated in specific social, political, and historical contexts. Research that
employs CDA provides a fine-grained linguistic analysis with an emphasis on the
broader power relations in which special education discourses are situated.
 Disability & Society 1541

In employing CDA, several studies explore the way discourse acts as a powerful
‘rhetorical device’ that can legitimize unequal relations of power within special edu-
cation (Corker 2000; Runswick-Cole and Hodge 2009; Sunderland, Catalano, and
Kendall 2009). Corker (2000) examines the discursive practices of government dis-
ability policies to expose language as an ideological force used to maintain hierar-
chical organization and social control. This perspective is exemplified by
considering ‘special needs’ discourses in education policies. Children are disabled
by the label ‘special needs’ because this language emphasizes ‘individual deficits
and, therefore, plays a part in constructing and sustaining exclusionary practices’
(Runswick-Cole and Hodge 2009, 7). ‘Special needs’ discourses exert power over
children by reducing their identity to a syndrome or condition (Runswick-Cole and
Hodge 2009). This process can have broad implications, such as denying children
independence and agency in constructing their own social identities (Sunderland,
Catalano, and Kendall 2009). This notion is founded on Foucault’s (1973) con-
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

tention that language has the power to construct experience. Language governs chil-
dren’s experiences by shaping the ‘conditions of possibility’ in their everyday lives.
Critical disability theory arose, in part, to disrupt dominant medical perspectives
that pathologize disabilities (Erevelles 2005). The medical and educational models
of disability often portray human variation as deviance from the norm and a patho-
logical impairment (Linton 1998). In contrast, critical disability theory argues that
disabilities are products of cultural perceptions of the ideal body, rather than proper-
ties of bodies themselves (Garland-Thompson 1997). This notion locates disability
within society, rather than within the individual, and calls for accountability at the
societal level (Phelan 2011). Disability theory disrupts normalized constructions of
disability and offers an ‘epistemological basis for inquiries and actions that could
not have been imagined from the restrictive thresholds’ of the medical model
(Linton 1998, 133). This foundation provides an opportunity to critique normalized
standards of education that both inform, and are informed by, dominant understand-
ings of disability.
Several studies adopt a critical disability theory perspective to expose how spe-
cial education discourses reaffirm medical perspectives of disability (Erevelles 2005;
Hoffmeister 1996; Waltz 2005). While this research employs a similar theoretical
foundation to CDA, disability studies tends to explore representations of disability
rather than the specific effects of language. For instance, Erevelles (2005) examines
the education curriculum as a classification system characterized by normalizing dis-
courses that efface signs of disability which threaten social order (Erevelles 2005).
This process occurs through standardized evaluations that segregate students based
on their ‘natural’ abilities and through classifications as ‘regular’ or ‘special’
(Erevelles 2005). This form of classification is a direct extension of medical dis-
courses that pathologize disability. Hoffmeister (1996) solidifies this notion by
examining representations of Deaf children in Deaf education texts. He found that
these texts employ medical perspectives and pathological language, such as physical
descriptions of the ear, in a manner that insinuates Deaf children possess a physical
abnormality (Hoffmeister 1996). This research demonstrates that the presentation of
‘medical facts’ is not a neutral activity, but an integral part of perpetuating the
medical model (Waltz 2005). Critical disability theory disrupts normalized construc-
tions of disability to expose the pervasiveness of medical discourses within special
education texts.
 1542 V.A. Boyd et al.

Although a significant body of research has explored the language practices of

special education documents with respect to broader power relations and cultural
processes, few studies have explicitly connected this analysis to the challenges of
translating the intentions of such documents to daily practice. We extend the previ-
ous analyses of language, disability, and power to answer our research questions and
draw meaningful conclusions about the possible disconnect between IEP policy and
practice.

Method of data collection

We analyzed three publicly accessible types of resource documents written by the
Ontario Ministry of Education and available on their website as of January 2015.1
These policy documents were chosen because they outline the mandatory standards
that healthcare practitioners, educators, and parents must follow throughout the IEP
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

process. As such, these documents guide special education practices in Ontario and
can shed light on discrepancies between IEP policy and practice.
The first document is titled ‘Individual Education Plans: Standards for Develop-
ment, Program Planning, and Implementation’ (herein referred to as the Standards
Document). This 24-page text describes the province-wide standards educators must
follow when developing, implementing, and monitoring an IEP. Each section of the
document identifies ‘the purpose of the standard described, the requirements to be
met in achieving the standard, and the criteria according to which compliance with
the standard will be assessed’ (MOE 2000, 3). The Standards Document aims to
improve the quality and consistency of special education, while increasing commu-
nication between healthcare practitioners, educators, and parents.
The second document is titled ‘The Individual Education Plan: A Resource
Guide’ (herein referred to as the Resource Guide). This 85-page document is
intended to assist practitioners, educators, and parents in producing and maintaining
a high-quality IEP. The Resource Guide elaborates on the explanatory notes in the
government-provided IEP template, provides guidelines for planning a student’s
individualized program, and offers instructions for developing an IEP that meets the
requirements of the Standards Document (MOE 2004). The Resource Guide there-
fore outlines the steps educators must take when planning, creating, and implement-
ing an IEP.
The final data source is a series of 30 example education plans titled ‘Sample
IEPs.’ The samples were written by government officials in accordance with the two
documents already described, as well as ministry policy and actual IEPs provided by
school boards (MOE 2008). The samples model the construction of an IEP, exem-
plify appropriate language, and provide content to inform the document’s collabora-
tive development. For the purposes of our study, each sample was assigned a
number from one to 30 based on the order of its appearance online. Fifteen of 30
were selected for analysis by a random number generator.
Collectively, the Standards Document, the Resource Guide, and the Sample IEPs
intend to facilitate collaborative work processes required for producing a successful
IEP (MOE 2000). The Standards Document and the Resource Guide outline the pol-
icy informing the IEP process, whereas the samples act as a model that educators
can employ in generating an IEP. As such, the discursive features of these texts have
significant implications on the way an IEP is constructed, interpreted, and imple-
mented in the education system.
 Disability & Society 1543

Method of data analysis

CDA informed by disability theory was used to analyze these documents. This
interdisciplinary investigation synthesizes previously distinct perspectives to
critically examine the intersection of language, disability, and power in IEP resource
documents. This analysis consisted of three consecutive steps.
First, four of Hodge and Kress’s (1993) linguistic definitions for discourse analy-
sis were used to code the dataset. Two of these, equatives and traditional attribu-
tives, are part of the syntagmatic model of discourse analysis (see Hodge and Kress
1993). The others, transformational attributives and the passive voice, are linguistic
transformations. These four terms were chosen because each can directly shape the
discursive construction of children in IEP resource documents.
Equatives are a form of classification that reveals a relation between two entities
that are both nouns through the ‘noun-is-noun’ form (Hodge and Kress 1993). For
instance: the child is an exception. Equatives establish a relation between the subject
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

(the child) and a noun (an exception) that equates the subject with the noun.
Attributives are a form of evaluation that establishes a relation between a noun
and an adjective. This linguistic practice can appear in both the traditional or trans-
formational form (Hodge and Kress 1993). The traditional attributive model is char-
acterized by the ‘noun-is-adjective’ structure, for example: the child is exceptional.
In this instance, the subject (the child) is linked to an adjective (exceptional) and
that adjective becomes a defining attribute in the child’s textual identity. As explicit
acts of classification and evaluation, equatives and attributives can sustain harmful
discourses and perpetuate negative constructions of disability. Exposing the presence
of these language practices is crucial in illuminating underlying assumptions regard-
ing children in the special education context.
Linguistic transformations ‘transform’ one linguistic model into another so that
the transformed structure differs significantly from the original (Hodge and Kress
1993). The transformational attributive model ‘transforms’ traditional attributives by
employing the ‘adjective+noun’ structure, rather than the ‘noun-is-adjective’ form
(Hodge and Kress 1993). For instance: the exceptional child goes to school. This
example establishes a relation between an adjective (exceptional) and a noun (the
child) much like traditional attributes, yet through a slightly altered grammatical
structure.
The passive voice is a transformation of the active voice because it has a similar
yet slightly ‘transformed’ grammatical structure. In the active voice, the subject per-
forms the action designated by the verb. The passive voice alters this structure so
that the subject is no longer the performer, but rather the recipient of the action
(Hodge and Kress 1993). For instance: the child has been identified as exceptional.
In this example, the subject (the child) is the recipient, rather than the performer of
the action designated by the verb (to identify). Locating the presence of linguistic
transformations within IEP resource documents is crucial because they can function
as a mode of suppressing and distorting the meaning of language (Hodge and Kress
1993).
The second step involved a textually-oriented and fine-grained discourse analysis
using these four linguistic terms. To focus this process, only sentences that
employed the word ‘student(s)’ were coded. This parameter ensured the data related
directly to the discursive construction of children. The coding process began by
investigating instances of the equative and traditional attributive models, and then
 1544 V.A. Boyd et al.

turned to focus on linguistic transformations. The frequency of each was aggregated

to draw connections between the most common language practices used to concep-
tualize children.
The final step was to conduct a broader social analysis using a critical disability
theory perspective. This analysis provided a platform to expose and contest some of
the implicit assumptions regarding language, disability, and power in IEP resource
documents. Our aim was to illuminate the relationship between the discursive
construction of children and the challenges of translating the intentions of the
documents to daily practice.

Findings
The equative model is not present in any of the documents in the dataset. Therefore,
IEP resource documents do not employ the ‘noun-is-noun’ structure to categorize
children. This finding indicates that the documents avoid conceptualizing children
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

by equating them with another noun.

In addition, IEP resource documents are characterized by a relatively infrequent
use of the attributive model. The dataset includes 13 instances of the traditional
attributive model and 14 instances of the transformational attributive model.
Traditional attributives employ the ‘noun-is-adjective’ construction to form a
relation between the subject and an attribute (Hodge and Kress 1993). Closer analy-
sis revealed that all 13 instances establish a relation between the student (noun) and
the student’s age (adjective), for example: ‘A form documenting all consultations
with parents and the student, if the student is 16 years of age or older, […] must be
prepared’ (MOE 2004, 42). This type of attributive does not contribute to the con-
ceptualization of children because it merely alludes to potential age. Thus, use of the
traditional attributive model does not influence the discursive construction of chil-
dren in IEP resource documents.
Transformational attributes ‘transform’ the traditional attributive model by
employing the ‘adjective+noun’ structure instead of the ‘noun-is-adjective’ form
(Hodge and Kress 1993). All 14 instances establish a relation between an attribute
(exceptional or gifted) and a noun (the student or the pupil), for instance: ‘The prin-
cipal is responsible for ensuring that an IEP is developed for exceptional pupils’
(MOE 2004, 9). This example establishes a relation between a quality (exceptional)
and a noun (the pupils). Although there are relatively few transformational attribu-
tives in the dataset, this practice is crucial because it repeatedly classifies children as
exceptions in relation to a standardized norm.
Additionally, 36 instances of the passive voice were present in the dataset. The
passive voice is a transformation of the active voice because the subject is the recipi-
ent of an action, rather than the performer of that action (Hodge and Kress 1993).
For example: ‘The student has been identified as exceptional by an [educator]’
(MOE 2004, 20). The student is the recipient of the action (to identify) and the edu-
cator is the actor behind that action. The passive voice establishes a dichotomy in
which educators are framed as actively in control of students’ educational futures
and students are perceived as passively compliant objects.
A closer examination revealed that 25 out of 36 instances of the passive voice
refer to the process in which the student is identified as exceptional, for example:
‘The student is identified as exceptional’ (MOE 2004, 20). Similar to that of
transformational attributives, these instances further frame children as exceptions in
 Disability & Society 1545

relation to the norm. This pattern exists because the passive voice acts as a linguistic
transformation of the traditional attributive model (Hodge and Kress 1993). Similar
to traditional attributives, the passive voice establishes a relationship between a noun
and a quality, and therefore has a close affinity with the ‘noun-is-adjective’ construc-
tion (Hodge and Kress 1993). In the previous example, a relation is established
between the subject (the student) and the process of being identified as exceptional.
Thus, a ‘noun-is-adjective’ relation is formed because the adjective ‘exceptional’ is
structured as an attribute of the student. Situated within the attributive model, this
‘exceptionality’ becomes a defining quality in children’s textual identities.
Furthermore, 26 out of 36 passive phrases explicitly exclude the actor responsi-
ble for the designated action. In employing the passive voice rather than the active
voice, the sentence structure is altered so that it is not grammatically necessary to
include the actor (Hodge and Kress 1993). This process can be exemplified by com-
paring the same sentence in both the active and passive voices. The active voice
begins with the subject, followed by a verb, and is finished with an object: The edu-
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

cator places the student in a special education class. The passive voice ‘transforms’
the ‘subject–verb–object’ structure so that the same sentence appears as: ‘The stu-
dent is placed in a special education class’ (MOE 2004, 21). In the passive voice,
the same action occurs but the educator responsible for placing the student in the
class is eliminated from the sentence through the use of the passive voice. This prac-
tice conceals the actor’s accountability for actions imposed on children.
In sum, a close discursive analysis of the language practices in IEP resource doc-
uments revealed that equatives and traditional attributives are not highly present.
Rather, linguistic transformations, such as transformational attributives and the pas-
sive voice, are more commonly used to conceptualize children. The presence of
transformations is crucial because transforming one linguistic structure into another
is a significant act of choice, no matter how habitual or unconscious it may appear
(Hodge and Kress 1993). In special education documents, transformations can func-
tion as a mode of suppressing and concealing meaning. Thus, the repeated use of
‘transformed’ language practices throughout IEP resource documents is important in
relation to the discursive construction of children.

Discussion
The following discussion adopts a critical disability theory lens to interpret the find-
ings. We consider the first research question by investigating how language both
resists and sustains harmful conceptions of children. We then turn to the second
research question to investigate how these conceptions may be implicated in rela-
tions of power. Lastly, we explore the final research question by analyzing the ten-
sion between neutral and damaging language within the documents and offering
suggestions for employing more informed language practices.

The role of language in resisting harmful conceptions of children

The absence of the equative model and the infrequent presence of the traditional
attributive model within IEP resource documents illustrate an attempt to resist con-
ceptualizing children in a harmful manner. According to Hodge and Kress (1993),
the equative and attributive models act as modes of classifying and evaluating a par-
ticular individual or group. In the context of special education, these models can be
 1546 V.A. Boyd et al.

employed as modes of classifying and evaluating students who do not meet normal-
ized curriculum expectations. Further, these practices can act as an instrument of
control to label, categorize, and impose order on students. In avoiding equative and
attributive language, IEP resource documents appear to provide a neutral conception
of children by refraining from explicitly equating them with any negatively per-
ceived nouns or adjectives. Therefore, the absence of the equative model and the
infrequent presence of the traditional attributive model within IEP resource
documents illustrate an element of resistance towards dominant representations of
disabled children.

The role of language in constructing harmful representations of children

Although the absence of equatives and the infrequent use of traditional attributives
demonstrate an aim to provide a neutral conception of children, alternative language
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

practices do contribute to harmful representations. More specifically, linguistic trans-

formations, such as transformational attributives and the passive voice, frame chil-
dren as exceptions and as passive.
The use of the transformational attributive model and the passive voice consis-
tently conceptualize children as an exception to a standardized norm. This pattern
exists because both linguistic structures facilitate an attributive relationship between
a noun (the student) and a quality (exceptional). Implicit in these attributive con-
structions is an act of judgment which causes that judgment to become a defining
quality in the student’s textual identity (Hodge and Kress 1993). For example:
‘Some exceptional students may experience difficulty in making the transition from
secondary school to postsecondary education’ (MOE 2004, 40). The student is
labeled and judged as ‘exceptional,’ which directly contributes to their discursive
construction. This act foregrounds the child’s impairment and reduces their identity
to a disability (Runswick-Cole and Hodge 2009). Such practices position children as
an exception, or an ‘abnormality’ in relation to their able-bodied peers. Moreover, in
employing discourses of ‘exceptionality,’ the documents do not account for other
complexities of individual identity, such as race, class, gender, or sexuality. On one
hand, this absence can be justified because these details are not relevant to a child’s
education. An IEP aims to offer equal access to education and does not consider a
student’s race, class, gender, or sexuality to have any bearing. Yet it is important to
note that discourses of ‘exceptionality’ do not attend to the intersectionality of other
forms of oppression. Rather, these discourses foreground disability and minimize the
importance of alternative aspects of identity.
In addition, the language practices of the resource documents frame children as
passive and powerless through the use of the passive voice. This pattern exists
because the passive voice positions children as the recipient of an action, rather than
the performer of that action. For instance: ‘The student is placed by the [educator]
in a special education class’ (MOE 2004, 22). In this example, the educator is
responsible for the act of placing the student in the special education class, while the
student is merely subjected to that action. The passive voice establishes a dichotomy
in which educators are framed as actively in control of students’ educational futures
and students are perceived as passively compliant objects. This practice frames chil-
dren as passive objects, rather than active subjects. Linguistically passive representa-
tions imply that children do not possess the power, ability, or desire to actively work
towards their own educational development.
 Disability & Society 1547

These representations assume even greater significance when considering the

way the passive voice consistently excludes the actor responsible for actions
imposed on children. In employing the passive voice rather than the active voice,
the sentence structure is altered so that it is not grammatically necessary to include
the actor (Hodge and Kress 1993). For instance: ‘The student is placed in a regular
class’ (MOE 2004, 21). In this example, the educator who placed the student in the
class is eliminated from the sentence. The passive voice deletes the actor and weak-
ens the causal connection between the actor and the action (Hodge and Kress 1993).
This practice distorts and conceals meaning by removing accountability from the
educator, masking the act of authority imposed on students, and naturalizing the pro-
cess in which students are controlled by a governing figure.
In sum, IEP resource documents appear to resist constructing harmful representa-
tions of children by avoiding equative and attribute language. Yet linguistic transfor-
mations, such as transformational attributives and the passive voice, contribute to
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

damaging constructions of children as an exception and as passive.

The underlying implications of linguistic transformations

In answering the second research question, we explore the relationship between the
language practices of IEP resource documents and relations of power. In doing so,
we identify some of the hegemonic practices stemming from representations of chil-
dren and consider the material implications of such practices. Hegemonic practices
refer to recurrent, normalized processes that may not seem harmful because they
appear natural (Ng et al. 2014). We argue that framing children as an exception and
as passive through linguistic transformations both contributes to, and is a result of,
unequal relations of power that marginalize children with IEPs. In identifying these
hegemonic practices, we seek to illuminate ways to be critically conscious and
thereby more sensitive to language’s implicit and explicit meanings and
implications.
From the perspective of Foucault’s (1973) contention that language has the
power to construct experience, framing children as an exception and as passive is a
discursive practice that can govern their social identities. These representations fore-
ground disability and reduce children’s identities to a disorder or condition
(Runswick-Cole and Hodge 2009). This act of control imposes a standardized iden-
tity on children, minimizes their importance as independent individuals, and alludes
to disability as inherent. Such practices can have significant implications, particu-
larly in contexts where disability is equated with deviance from the norm or an indi-
vidual deficit (Linton 1998). For example, discursively defining children’s identities
can threaten their unique individualities and suppress their self-expression (Foucault
1981). The process in which able-bodied society employs discourse to define and
control representations of disabled individuals exemplifies unequal power relations
that marginalize those with disabilities (Wendell 2006).
Additionally, these representations can shape societal perceptions of children in
special education programs. This process occurs because society obtains its under-
standings of disability and normality from the discourses produced by social texts
(Lyons 2000). Representations of children in the resource documents produce, and
are produced by, powerful discourses that ‘shape and limit the ways individuals and
institutions can think, speak, and conduct themselves’ (Hodges, Kuper, and Reeves
2008, 571). These discourses perpetuate conceptual dichotomies between ability and
 1548 V.A. Boyd et al.

disability, as well as between ‘regular’ and ‘exceptional’ students (Phelan 2011).

This dichotomy sustains power relations that define traditional education as ‘normal’
and special education as ‘abnormal,’ and position ‘regular’ students as superior to
‘exceptional’ students (Phelan, Wright, and Gibson 2014). Such perceptions are
problematic because they are founded on a system that excludes difference, rather
than one that accepts a diverse range of abilities as ‘normal.’ In sustaining this
dichotomy, IEP resource documents shape societal perceptions of ability versus dis-
ability, regular versus exceptional students, and traditional versus special education.
Lastly, representations as an exception and as passive reproduce discourses that
mediate children’s lived realities (Phelan, Wright, and Gibson 2014). As policy texts
that define real-world IEP practices, the notions established within the resource doc-
uments can easily translate into daily practice. Healthcare practitioners, educators,
parents, and even children themselves may employ the discourses established in the
documents to engage in social practice. Through the repeated exposure to such dis-
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

courses, children can internalize harmful messages in a manner that shapes their
beliefs, sense of self, learning processes, and daily actions (Phelan 2011). This pro-
cess occurs because individuals absorb socially produced discourses in order to
understand their own position within society (Swain and Cameron 1999). As such,
discourses sustained in IEP resource documents have the potential to filter into
social interactions and define the ‘conditions of possibility’ (Foucault 1981, 183) for
children with IEPs. This act of governance can threaten children’s autonomy, influ-
ence their social and psychological well-being, and perpetuate inequality within and
beyond the education system. Therefore, language employed to classify and label
children extends beyond written text to concretely shape their lived realities.
In identifying some of the hegemonic practices embedded in representations of
children as an exception and as passive, we demonstrate that these conceptions per-
petuate oppressive power relations. These relations of power marginalize children by
defining their social identities, shaping perceptions of disability, and mediating their
lived realities. Yet Hacking’s (1999) ‘looping effect’ reminds us that the relationship
between discourse and power is not unidirectional, but dialectical. These relations of
power are the very structures that inform how and why the Ministry of Education
created IEP resource documents as they did. Power relations shape the thoughts,
actions, and beliefs of the policy-writers who create IEP resource documents; in
turn, these documents reaffirm the same power structures informing them. IEP dis-
courses are both a product of, and a source for, unequal power relations, and these
same power relations are both a product of, and a source for, IEP discourses. We
now illuminate ways in which one may be critically conscious of the powerful con-
sequences of the language used in special education documents in order to break this
cycle and create more equitable documents.

A tension within IEP resource documents

In deconstructing the language practices of IEP resource documents, we demonstrate
that children are framed as an exception and as passive despite an explicit attempt to
resist such conceptions. Although the resource documents initially appear to provide
a neutral conception of children, deeper analysis revealed that the underlying effects
of the language is inherently damaging. As a result, the language practices of the
resource documents establish a tension within the texts. This tension arises from the
explicit attempt to provide a neutral representation of children by avoiding equative
 Disability & Society 1549

and attributive language, coupled with the implicit presence of harmful conceptions
produced by linguistic transformations. In other words, the language practices of
these documents contain both an overt resistance to damaging representations of
children and an underlying persistence of dominant discourses.
This tension demonstrates the complexity of language as a social process.
Language carries an array of intended and unintended meanings that simultane-
ously sustain and resist dominant discourses. Therefore, one particular text, such
as IEP resource documents, can employ both neutral language and damaging lan-
guage that seemingly send opposing messages regarding a child’s role in the
special education context. While this may appear contradictory, the tension is the
result of an interplay between conscious and unconscious language practices.
The presence of neutral language is the cause of the conscious aim to create
equitable documents, whereas the reproduction of dominant discourses is the
result of unconscious negative practices. Dominant discourses permeate the
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

resource documents precisely because of their hegemonic nature. Hegemonic dis-

courses are normalized practices that do not appear harmful because they seem
natural (Ng et al. 2014). As dominant systems of understanding, we are often
unaware of discourses’ influences and tend not to challenge their authority. As
such, we may not question why we use certain language practices in the way
we use them, and we may be unable to see how these practices shape our
thoughts, actions, and beliefs (Ng et al. 2014). It is from this perspective that
we suggest the authors of the resource documents intended to create positive
texts, yet remained influenced by the hidden effects of hegemonic practices.
In considering the final research question, we argue that the tension between
neutral and damaging language can shape the way the intentions of IEP resource
documents translate from policy to practice. This relationship exists because
hegemonic language alters the meaning of the documents and overshadows the well-
intentioned attempt to provide a neutral conception of children. Thus, the insidious
nature of dominant discourses undermines the aim to employ positive language
when discussing children and their needs.
This process is problematic because it can shape the way the objectives of
IEP resource documents are actualized in practice. For instance, the documents
aim to assist the process in which children actively progress towards the
achievement of a particular set of goals, yet representations as exceptions and as
passive give the impression that they do not possess the agency, ability, or ambi-
tion to do so. This contradiction can send conflicting messages to children and
parents regarding the child’s role in the special education context. Ongoing
ambiguity can hinder children’s progress within their individual curriculum. As a
crucial aspect of any child’s growth and development, education can have conse-
quences that extend beyond the school context to shape their social and psycho-
logical futures (Runswick-Cole and Hodge 2009). Thus, the tension established
through language can shape the way IEP resource documents translate from
policy to practice.

Moving forward: best practices?

To better align IEP policy and practice, policy-writers should aim to minimize
the tension between neutral and harmful language. To do so, writers must be
 1550 V.A. Boyd et al.

increasingly aware of this tension and should avoid further using negative language
practices, such as transformational attributives and the passive voice. It is precisely
due to the insidious nature of hegemonic discourses that we must be critically con-
scious of the tension existing in IEP resource documents and other special education
texts. In acquiring this form of critical consciousness, we can identify and challenge
taken-for-granted assumptions and unintended negative practices in order to mini-
mize this linguistic tension. Therefore, critical sensitivity can be employed in daily
practice as a concrete means of improving the production, implementation, and
maintenance of a child’s IEP.
This critical consciousness is not a matter of finding ‘the single best phrase-
ology’ to describe or discuss children, but rather continually (re-)examining the
language we use to do so (Ng et al. 2014, 6). Language is an active social pro-
cess with an array of meanings that are constantly evolving. Language practices
that may be considered acceptable today may be deemed inappropriate tomorrow.
Moreover, any attempt to find the single best way to discuss children will elicit
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

‘negative consequences of standardizing and categorizing a group of diverse indi-

viduals as, in some fundamental way, the same’ (Ng et al. 2014, 6). Therefore,
we do not suggest any universal ‘best practices’ for language use in such con-
texts. Rather, we encourage continually (re-)examining the meaning and implica-
tions behind the language used to discuss children and their needs (Ng et al.
2014). As we think, speak, and act, we must consciously consider the meanings
of our language and the consequences it may have for particular groups. In
doing so, we can uncover and avoid harmful language practices with the aim of
creating more equitable documents and minimizing the disconnect between IEP
policy and practice. Identifying harmful language allows us to better understand
the ‘looping effect’ between discourse and power. Social change requires both
understanding this cycle and locating the point at which we can break it. We
suggest that language, if we remain critically conscious of its meanings and
implications, is the point at which we can break the cycle between harmful dis-
courses and oppressive power structures. In order to make change more mean-
ingful, this critical consciousness should extend beyond special education to
become a regularized practice redefining how we think, speak, read, and write in
all aspects of our lives. Our goal is not to enact critical consciousness only in
certain contexts, but to alter our attitudes and values towards disability as a soci-
ety such that these negative practices become obsolete.

Conclusion
We employed CDA informed by disability theory to deconstruct the languages prac-
tices of IEP resource documents. In doing so, we investigated taken-for-granted rep-
resentations of children, contested normalized power relations implicit in the
education system, and considered correlations in IEP policy and practice. We found
that children are consistently framed as exceptions and as passive despite an explicit
attempt to resist such representations. Further analysis revealed that these construc-
tions are rooted in a dialectical relationship with power structures governing chil-
dren’s social identities and lived realities, shaping societal perceptions of disability,
and perpetuating inequality within and beyond education. In collectively considering
these discursive constructions and power relations, it is evident that such practices
 Disability & Society 1551

may shape the way the intentions of IEP resource documents translate to daily
practice. We conclude by proposing a critical awareness of the tension that exists
between neutral and damaging language, as well as a continual (re-)examination of
the language practices used to discuss children and their needs. In doing so, we can
minimize the disconnect between IEP policy and provide more equitable special
education programs and services in practice.
This article offers a model for deconstructing the language practices of special
education documents. However, we provide only one perspective on the way in
which language may influence the ability to translate the intentions of IEP resource
documents into practice. The purpose of our discussion is not to argue that language
is the sole barrier in aligning IEP policy and practice, nor is it to present the
resource documents as poorly written or disadvantageous. Rather, our aim is to criti-
cally examine the documents’ language practices in order to question some of the
underlying assumptions regarding representations of children and to illuminate the
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

potentially harmful consequences of such conceptions. It is only through this form

of critical reflection that we may engage in increasingly informed practices and initi-
ate social change within special education.

Disclosure statement
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest arising from the direct applications of this
research.

Funding
This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-130433].

Note
1. See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/speced.html.

References
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Charon, J. 2010. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Cockain, Alex. 2014. “Becoming Quixotic? A Discussion on the Discursive Construction of
Disability and How This is Maintained through Social Relations.” Disability & Society
29 (9): 1473–1485. doi:10.1080/09687599.2014.953245.
Corker, Mairian. 2000. “Disability Politics, Language Planning and Inclusive Social Policy.”
Disability & Society 15 (3): 445–462. doi:10.1080/713661963.
van Dijk, T. 1996. “Discourse, Opinions and Ideologies.” In Language and Peace, edited by
Christina Schaffner and Anita Wenden, 17–33. Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Erevelles, Nirmala. 2005. “Understanding Curriculum as Normalizing Text: Disability Stud-
ies Meet Curriculum Theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (4): 421–439.
doi:10.1080/0022027032000276970.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. Edinburgh: Longman Group.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group.
 1552 V.A. Boyd et al.

Foucault, Michel. 1973. The Birth of the Clinic. London: Routledge.

Foucault, Michel. 1981. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. New York: Cornell
University Press.
Garland-Thompson, R. 1997. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Disability in American Culture
and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University.
Harpur, Paul. 2012. “From Disability to Ability: Changing the Phrasing of the Debate.”
Disability & Society 27 (3): 325–337. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.654985.
Hodge, R., and G. Kress. 1993. Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge.
Hodges, Brian, Ayelet Kuper, and Scott Reeves. 2008. “Qualitative Research: Discourse
Analysis.” British Medical Journal 337 (7669): 570-572. http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.li
brary.utoronto.ca/10.1136/bmj.a879
Hoffmeister, Robert. 1996. “Cross-Cultural Misinformation: What Does Special Education
Say about Deaf People.” Disability & Society 11 (2): 171–190. doi:10.1080/0968759
9650023218.
Linton, S. 1998. “Disability Studies/Not Disability Studies.” Disability & Society 13 (4):
525–539. doi:10.1080/09687599826588.
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

Lyons, Antonia. 2000. “Examining Media Representations: Benefits for Health Psychology.”
Journal of Health Psychology 5 (3): 349–358. doi:10.1177/135910530000500307.
MOE (Ministry of Education). 2000. “Standards for Development, Program Planning, and
Implementation”. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elem
sec/speced/iep/iep.html
MOE (Ministry of Education). 2004. “The Individual Education Plan: A Resource Guide.”
Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/guide/
resource/index.html
MOE (Ministry of Education). 2008. “IEP Samples.” Accessed February 3, 2014. http://
www.ontariodirectors.ca/IEP-PEI/en.html
Ng, S., R. Stooke, S. Regan, K. Hibbert, C. Schryer, S. Phelan, and L. Lingard. 2013. “An
Institutional Ethnography Inquiry of Health Care Work in Special Education: A Research
Protocol.” International Journal of Integrated Care 13 (3): 1–9.
Ng, Stella, Farah Friesen, Elizabeth Maclagan, Victoria Boyd, and Shanon Phelan. 2014.
“A Critical Theory Response to Empirical Challenges in Report-Writing: Considerations
for Clinical Educators and Lifelong Learners.” Journal of Educational Audiology 20:
1–11.
Phelan, Shanon. 2011. “Constructions of Disability: A Call for Critical Reflexivity in
Occupational Therapy.” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 78 (3): 164–172.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/871242524?accountid=14771.
Phelan, S., V. Wright, and B. Gibson. 2014. “Representations of Disability and Normality in
Rehabilitation Technology Promotional Materials.” Disability and Rehabilitation 36 (24):
2072–2079. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.891055.
Priestly, M. 1999. Disability Politics and Community Care. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Runswick-Cole, Katherine, and Nick Hodge. 2009. “Needs or Rights? A Challenge to the
Discourse of Special Education.” British Journal of Special Education 36 (4): 198–203.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2009.00438.x.
Smith, Stephen. 1990. “Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in Special Education –
From Intent to Acquiescence.” Except Child 57 (1): 6–14.
Sunderland, Naomi, Tara Catalano, and Elizabeth Kendall. 2009. “Missing Discourses:
Concepts of Joy and Happiness in Disability.” Disability & Society 24 (6): 703–714.
doi:10.1080/09687590903160175.
Swain, J., and C. Cameron. 1999. “Unless Otherwise Stated: Discourses of Labeling and
Identity in Coming out.” In Disability Discourse, edited by M. Corker and S. French,
68–78. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Waltz, Mitzi. 2005. “Reading Case Studies of People with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: A
Cultural Studies Approach to Issues of Disability Representation.” Disability & Society
20 (4): 421–435. doi:10.1080/09687590500086575.
 Disability & Society 1553

Wendell, S. 2006. “Towards a Feminist Theory of Disability.”. In Disability Studies Reader,

edited by L. Davis, 243–256. New York: Routledge.
Wodak, R., and M. Meyer. 2009. Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Zegarac, George, Bruce Drewett, and Ruth Swan. 2008. “Closing the Gap as the Overarching
Goal: Changing Special Education Practices and Outcomes”. Toronto: Ministry of
Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/speced_aera_csse.pdf.
Downloaded by [208.96.76.147] at 06:53 14 December 2015

View publication stats