Reading the Research: Critical Discourse Analysis of IEP Meetings

Barb Novak contributed today's post. More of her thinking about research can be found here.

I mentioned a PLC I'm part of in a previous post. We meet monthly and discuss a piece of research (selected by one of the members) at each meeting. The study I'm writing about today was discussed by my PLC.

I'm sharing it simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"The the Eyes of the Institution: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Decision Making in Two Special Education Meetings"
Rebecca Rogers (2002)

The article is available free for Wisconsin educators through BadgerLink.

Why This Article: 
I'm interested in discourse analysis as a research methodology and am on a work group about College and Career Readiness IEPs.

Research Questions:

How are "contradictions of social structure embedded within the special education process" (p. 214)? Basically, research has already demonstrated that children from minority groups are over represented in special education. Rogers's research is unique because it investigates how the special education process maintains and/or perpetuates social inequalities.

Methods:
This is an ethnographic study; Rogers served as a participant-observer.

Rogers studied language and literacy practices of a community (Sherman Hollows) for two years. Much of her work focused on a mother (June Treader) and daughter (Vicky Treader). Rogers data collection was extensive; data included interviews; documents and photographs; 300 hours of recorded interactions in home, community, and school; 500 hours of participant observation in home and community; and interviews with school and community members. 

Rogers participant-observation included a special education eligibility and IEP meeting (when Vicky was in sixth grade), and Vicky's subsequent annual IEP (when Vicky was in seventh grade). The article focuses on the discourse as these meetings. Although, Rogers relies heavily on her understanding of the Treader family and their community to make sense of the meetings.

Findings:

There were vast contradictions between the two special education meetings.

• The eligibility determination meeting included a cataloged and data-based list of Vicky's deficits. One year later, the same things noted as deficits were discussed as strengths.
• Prior to both meetings, Rogers talked with June and Vicky about their hopes for the meetings. The outcomes of both meetings (along with communication between meetings) contradicted what June and Vicky wanted prior to the meeting.
• The eligibility meeting was highly structured and data driven. The second meeting included no formal data or evidence.
• June and Vicky spoke much more at the second meeting than the first meeting. Yet, democratizing the meeting did not change the results. Vicky remained in special education as

Limitations:
This research is highly contextualized. Findings cannot be generalized to other settings.

Vicky transitioned to a new school (elementary school to middle school) between the meetings. How were the contradictions between the meetings related to the differences in protocol and practice between schools?

Questions:

• Rogers references Mehan's (1996) work about disability as a cultural construct. I want to know more about this.
• How would these meetings look the same and different for a student who identifies with other cultural groups?
• How would the participants reflect on the experience now (almost 20 years later)?

Complete citation:

Rogers, R. (2002). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(2), p. 213 - 237. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3196174