Rowley Reconsidered: The (Re)Constitution of Free Appropriate Public Education through Multiple Possible Discourses

Susan Baglieri


In this response to Rosen's article, "An unintended consequence of IDEA," I expand his argument to consider the multiple possible ways that everyday people interpret the law as practice. The dominance of the law arises in an interdependent relationship between the intent of the law-writers as expressed in text and the public discourses in which disability and education gain meaning. I present the 1982 case of the Board of Education v. Rowley as a backdrop to examine discourses in disability and education that may have informed the Supreme Court's ruling on "Free Appropriate Public Education," and further offer understanding into the school context that led to litigation at the outset. Finally, I propose the central roles of teachers, whose changes in classroom discourses are at the heart of the increasing prominence of Deaf culture and ASL in schools.


IDEA; Deaf Studies; Inclusion; Disability Studies

Full Text:



Copyright (c) 2006 Susan Baglieri

Volume 1 through Volume 20, no. 3 of Disability Studies Quarterly is archived on the Knowledge Bank site; Volume 20, no. 4 through the present can be found on this site under Archives.

Beginning with Volume 36, Issue No. 4 (2016), Disability Studies Quarterly is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license unless otherwise indicated. 

Disability Studies Quarterly is published by The Ohio State University Libraries in partnership with the Society for Disability Studies.

If you encounter problems with the site or have comments to offer, including any access difficulty due to incompatibility with adaptive technology, please contact

ISSN: 2159-8371 (Online); 1041-5718 (Print)