#DeleteDeficitThinking: Strategies to Name and Challenge Deficit Thinking in Universal Design for Learning

Introduction

Deficit thinking is a systemic problem in exceptional education, rooted in both ableism and racism. Deficit thinking in terms of disability, or ableism, was fundamental to the organization of special education, as a separate system was created for those that were seen as less capable (Skrtic, 1995). Deficit thinking in terms of race, or racism, pervades US schooling, creating inequitable outcomes for Black, Latinx and indigenous students (Love, 2019), including in special education categorization and placement (Artiles, 2013). Racism and ableism have operated as interlocking systems of oppression (Erevelles & Minear, 2010; Annamma et al. 2017). Deficit thinking can be a significant problem as teachers can internalize these ways of conceptualizing students, framing students of color with disabilities as broken and needing to be fixed.

Universal Design for Learning is a framework for inclusive education that includes, rather than segregates, students with disabilities (Meyer et al., 2014). Within UDL, deficits are located not in children, but in the systems we have created to educate them. UDL holds radical promise in helping educators redesign curriculum, classrooms, and schools to better serve the human variability across learners. However, while in some ways UDL is a radical framework, it has been enacted in a diluted way, de-emphasizing the radical conception of learners at its core. It has also been unresponsive to other equity concerns, such as race (Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016). Dolmage (2017) and others have critiqued UDL for erasure of disability, as a focus on disability has been replaced with an emphasis on “all learners.”

The authors of this chapter contend that if disability is not centered and race and other equity concerns are not directly addressed, UDL becomes a diluted version of itself, unable to effect the radical, transformative change that is necessary. Indeed, without explicit attention to race, disability and other social positionings, teachers learning about UDL may continue to hold deficit thinking about students with disabilities. The researchers argue that users and advocates of UDL will need to make explicit anti-deficit shifts in the conceptualization and implementation of UDL with inservice teachers to meaningfully address these concerns. In this chapter, the researchers argue that in order to eliminate deficit thinking in UDL educators must engage in the following two strategies:

• 1.

  Interrogate gaps and erasures in UDL professional development that affect its anti-racist and anti-ablest potential. First, researchers argue that spaces of erasure and exclusion in UDL need to be identified, particularly in how it is presented to classroom teachers. Towards this end, the researchers conducted a content analysis of 7 professional texts on UDL, analyzing how the user (the student) is conceptualized (Study 1: The User in UDL Professional Texts). Evidence is provided that UDL is often presented without reference to race or specific references to disability.

• 2.

  Provide professional development that can challenge deficit thinking. Secondly, researchers argue that professional development for teachers on UDL must include specific strategies to disrupt deficit thinking of teachers. Evidence is presented from a professional development course for teachers on UDL that specific pedagogical strategies can shift educators conceptions of disability (Study 2: The Impact of Including Disability Rights in UDL Professional Development). The course included awareness of disability rights movements, exposure to alternative models of disability, and a centering of the voice and perspectives of disabled people. Developing empathy (not sympathy) for disabled people seemed to be connected to understanding disabled people as experts on their own needs.

Conceptual Framework

Both studies are grounded in Disability Studies, including the application to education (Disability Studies in Education; DSE), and as integrated with the critical analysis of race (DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2013). The authors also review the history of UDL, including critique around the erasure of both disability and race.