Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

OHASSTA Nov 2014 final

Rapport 2014 the history curriculum normalizes “able bodiedness” in the way that it silences the historical voices and agency of people with (dis)abilities through such topics as an investigation of policies related to past events of sterilization and institutionalization. To its credit, numerous sections on civics open up opportunities for engaging with democratic ideals. As a case in point, “describe some civic issues of local, national and/or global significance e.g. ... accessibility of buildings in the local community for people with disabilities… “ (OME, 3013, p. 152). As well, within the curriculum, discussing current topics that could be controversial is acknowledged as a dimension of active engagement (pp. 10, 40). Examining disability and gender invites educators to reflect deeply on systems of privilege and power to recognize all individuals as participants in the past by recognizing the “normalizing practices that have limited our disciplinary work.” (Burch, 2013, p. 123). Applying a critical framework to analyze the process by which people have been naturalized, normalized and segregated builds on early insights that neither gender nor (dis)ability is fixed. This framework has profound implications for the historical significance through which educators draw upon the inquiry process to evaluate how representations of people, events/developments or ideas have shifted over time (eg. Fine-Meyer, 2013). As well, this perspective invites learners to explore how concepts of cause and consequence can explain both intended and unintended consequences of events/developments. Finally, by learning about stories, as educators, we can use the concept of continuity and change to compare what has changed and what has stayed the same over a period of time. Engaging with gender, normalcy and (dis)ability shifts our thinking from discrete categories of women or (dis)ability to explore the interdependence among communities of people to understand their lived experiences. Rather than marginalizing the experiences of women and disabled people, recognizing the role of “ablebodiedness” opens up opportunities for educators to draw upon the insights of historical perspectives to support and reach every student in the twenty first century. Bibliography 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. Burch, S., & Patterson, L. (2013). Not just any body: Disability, gender and history. Journal of Women’s History. 25 (4), 122- 137. Carstairs, C. & Janovicek, N. (Eds.) (2013). Writing Feminist History: Productive Pasts and New Directions. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Cutrara, S. (2009). “To placate or provoke: A critical review of the disciplines approach to history curriculum.” Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum, 7, 2, 88-109. Clark, P. (2005). “A nice little wife to make things pleasant:” Portrayals of women in Canadian history textbooks approved in British Columbia. McGill Journal of Education. 40, 2, 241- 260. Cook, S., McLean, L. & O’Rourke, K. (Eds.) (2002, reprinted, 2006). Framing Our Past: Canadian Women’s History in the Twentieth Century. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press. Fine-Meyer, R. (2013). The Ontario Women’s History Network: Linking teachers, scholars and history communities. In C. Carstairs & N Janovicek, (Eds.) Writing Feminist History: Productive Pasts and New Directions. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp 200-217. McLean, L., Rogers, P., Grant, N., Law, A., & Hunter, J. (2014). Spaces of collaboration: The poetics of place and historical consciousness. Historical Encounters. 1, 1, 1-16. Ontario, Ministry of Education (2013). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Canadian and World Studies: Geography, History Civics (Politics). Reaume, G. (2012). Disability History in Canada: Present work in the field and future prospects. The Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 1 (1) 35-81. Seixas, P. & Morton, T. (2012). The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts. Toronto: Nelson. Werner, W. (2002). Reading authorship into texts. Theory and Research in Social Education. 28, (2) 193-219. 10 RAPPORT FALL 2014