Disability & Society
ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20
‘Away with the fairies?’ Disability within
primary‐age children's literature
Angharad Beckett , Nick Ellison , Sam Barrett & Sonali Shah
To cite this article: Angharad Beckett , Nick Ellison , Sam Barrett & Sonali Shah (2010) ‘Away with
the fairies?’ Disability within primary‐age children's literature, Disability & Society, 25:3, 373-386,
DOI: 10.1080/09687591003701355
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003701355
Published online: 28 Apr 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3165
Citing articles: 15 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20
Disability & Society
Vol. 25, No. 3, May 2010, 373–386
‘Away with the fairies?’ Disability within primary-age children’s
literature
Angharad Beckett*, Nick Ellison, Sam Barrett and Sonali Shah
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
(Received 20 February 2009; final version received 8 June 2009)
Taylor and Francis
CDSO_A_470657.sgm
Disability
10.1080/09687591003701355
0968-7599
Original
Taylor
302010
25
a.e.beckett@leeds.ac.uk
AngharadBeckett
00000May
&Article
Francis
&(print)/1360-0508
2010
Society
(online)
This article outlines the findings of a new study that explores the portrayal of
disability within a sample of the primary-age children’s literature most readily
available to UK schools. The kind of literature to which children are exposed is
likely to influence their general perceptions of social life. How disability is
handled by authors is therefore important from the standpoint of disability
equality. Findings suggest that whilst there are some good examples of inclusive
literature ‘out there’, discriminatory language and/or negative stereotypes about
disability continue to be present in a range of more contemporary children’s
books. Clearly, more still needs to be done to ensure that schools and teachers are
provided with information relating to the best examples of inclusion literature and
efforts must continue to be made to inform authors, publishers and illustrators
about how to approach the issue of disability.
Keywords: disability; disablism; prejudice; attitudes; inclusive education;
children’s literature; inclusion literature
Introduction
This article presents findings from stage one of an ESRC funded study focusing upon
Disability Equality in English Primary Schools (DEEPS Project). The purpose of the
project is to explore the role of education in challenging disablism (‘discriminatory,
oppressive or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others’, http://www.scope.org.uk/disablism) and, in particular, any ‘disabling’
attitudes or misconceptions held by non-disabled children. A significant aspect of the
research – the aspect reported upon here – has been to explore how disability is
portrayed in the primary-age (5 to 11 years) children’s literature that is most readily
available to UK schools.1 As such this article outlines the findings of a study of 100
books for the primary-age group in which a disability-related theme or a disabled
character is present. This investigation is an important component of the project
because the type of literature to which children are exposed is likely to influence their
general perceptions of social life. How disability is handled by authors is therefore
important from the standpoint of disability equality.
In the UK the 2006 Disability Equality Duty (DED) extension to the Disability
Discrimination Act (2001) places a duty on schools to ensure that the harassment of
disabled people is discussed and confronted in the classroom, and that positive
*Corresponding author. Email: a.e.beckett@leeds.ac.uk
ISSN 0968-7599 print/ISSN 1360-0508 online
© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09687591003701355
http://www.informaworld.com
374
A. Beckett et al.
attitudes towards disabled people are promoted. One of the suggestions made by the
authors of the DED guidelines for schools is that teachers should ensure that there
are positive images of disabled people within school books (Teachernet 2006). Even
without this policy context, however, it is clearly important to understand how
contemporary children’s literature portrays disability and to consider how various
portrayals either do, or do not, challenge disablism/disabling attitudes.
Before further discussion of these issues, it is important to locate this article
within the long tradition of research that has explored the issue of education and
disability and, in particular, Inclusive Education (see, for example, Barton 1986;
Cook, Swain, and French 2001; Kenworthy and Whittaker 2000; Oliver 2004; Rieser
and Mason 1990; Shah 2007; Slee 1993; Thomas 1997). Over the past 10 years or so,
understandings of Inclusive Education have broadened. Inclusive Education is now
understood to be about more than simply ‘integrating’ disabled children into mainstream schools, although this is still considered to be very important. According to
authors such as Thomas (1997), Armstrong and Barton (2007) and members of the
Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE) Inclusive Education is about ensuring that schools and classrooms become truly inclusive environments with associated
values and prejudice-reduction strategies. Our interest in the portrayal/representation
of disability within children’s literature directly relates to this understanding of
Inclusive Education, since inclusive classrooms need books that support these goals
i.e. are inclusive books (or to use current terminology, are examples of ‘inclusion
literature’ [Andrews 1998]).
This article begins by considering the evidence supporting the use of inclusion
literature. A critical overview is then provided of a range of studies that have been
carried out into disability in children’s literature. These two sections represent the
research context for the study reported upon here, the nature and findings of which are
presented in the final sections of the article.
Inclusion literature: an introduction
Leicester (2007, 8) comments that an absence of literature in which there are
characters who are disabled carries the message that disabled people are ‘less interesting and less valued’ members of society. Other authors have argued that providing
children with inclusive reading material is important because it reflects the increasing
social diversity of their classrooms, promotes positive attitudes towards peers of all
abilities and, in the case of disabled children, supports the development of a positive
self-image (Andrews 1998; Quicke 1985; Saunders 2000). Equally importantly, the
usefulness of inclusion literature as part of teaching strategies to increase disability
awareness more generally has also been highlighted (Andrews 1998; Fein and
Ginsberg 1978; Heim 1994; Radencich 1986; Stroud 1981; Umerlik 1992 and others).
Such strategies are concerned, above all, with providing non-disabled children with
accurate information about the lives of disabled people and promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people as members of ‘our society’, not just of ‘our
classrooms’.
Previous studies that have trialled the use of inclusion literature with non-disabled
children support many of the claims made about this type of reading material. An early
study by Monson and Shurtleff (1979) found that the use of inclusive ‘media’ had a
positive impact upon non-disabled children’s attitudes. They concluded that the most
powerful medium is books. Children who had either read books or had books read to
Disability & Society
375
them that were about disability demonstrated the most positive change in attitude.
Later studies, although not replicating Monson and Shurtleff’s work precisely, have
produced equally encouraging results (Cameron and Rutland 2006; Trepanier-Street
and Romantoski 1996). Trepanier-Street and Romantoski (1996), for example, found
that inclusion literature can play a useful part in classroom strategies to increase nondisabled children’s acceptance of disabled children as ‘friends’.
Of course, these studies form part of a larger literature relating to the beneficial
contribution of literature to child development in general. Pinsent (1997) provides a
short but useful review of literature in this area. She quotes Wells (1987, 194), who
states that:
stories have a role in education that goes far beyond their contribution to the acquisition
of literacy. … Through the exchange of stories … teachers and students can share their
understandings of a topic and bring their mental models of the world into close
alignment.
Pinsent also presents her own argument about the power of children’s literature in
terms of the politics of equality. She comments that:
If they are well chosen and well told, the stories children hear and the reading which they
go on to do for themselves can help them towards an appreciation of their own worth and
that of others, and about the kind of behaviour which best reflects these values. Literature
is thus a major part of the education of children about the equality of all human beings.
(Pinsent 1997, 22–3)
Evidence from the studies referenced above certainly supports this claim, suggesting
that inclusion literature has an important part to play in the education of children about
the equality of disabled people.
The portrayal of disability within children’s literature: the research to date
In the UK we live in a disabling society. Evidence for this can be found in the literature that has emerged from within Disability Studies (Barnes and Mercer 2003), not
least within the extensive catalogue of articles published within this journal (see, for
example, Imrie 2003; Roulstone 2002). The role of the media, their portrayal of
disability and the role that they play in terms of creating and reinforcing disabling attitudes has been, and continues to be investigated (Barnes 1992; Biklen and Bogdana
1977; Bolt 2005; Pointen and Davis 1997; Titchkosky 2005). Studies have been
undertaken to explore the portrayal of disability within a range of media (print, television, film). The portrayal of disability within children’s literature has been considered by several authors.
A number of studies has been undertaken to explore the portrayal of disability
within ‘classic’ children’s fiction (19th and early 20th century). In one study Keith
(2001) analysed the role that disability plays in classic literature for girls and argued
that it is used thematically (as opposed to being deployed to explore character), and
frequently as a means of teaching rebellious girls or women virtues such as patience
or self-restraint. In another study, Dowker (2004) presents a somewhat broader argument and is not always fully in agreement with Keith. She suggests that the treatment
of disability in classic children’s fiction ‘is more complex than it appears at first
sight’ (Dowker 2004, 2), with some disabled characters developing as full characters
376
A. Beckett et al.
with a range of attributes and failings. Further, as Dowker makes clear, lessons in the
‘School of Pain’ (as she describes the theme highlighted by Keith) are not just
confined to characters experiencing impairment and just to girls/women – this is, in
other words, a more general theme in classic fiction. Nevertheless, both authors agree
that there is a sense in which 19th and early 20th century children’s literature
routinely used a range of mishaps and challenges (including financial ruin) to illustrate the contingent nature of the human condition – and indeed the need to submit to
the will of God as the surest path to salvation. The experience of disability occupies a
distinctive niche within this.
With regard to analyses of more contemporary literature, Rieser (1990) provides
an overview of the key studies that had been undertaken up until 1990. He highlights
the importance of Biklen’s and Bogdana’s (1977) analysis of media portrayals of
disability for later studies and, in particular, of the 10 stereotypes that they identified
of disabled people as: ‘pitiable and pathetic’; ‘an object of violence’; ‘sinister or evil’;
‘curio or exotica’; ‘an object of ridicule’; ‘supercripple’; ‘their own worst enemy’; ‘a
burden’; ‘asexual’; ‘incapable of fully participating in everyday life’.
As Rieser (1990) explains, later studies such as that by Schwartz (1977) applied
these stereotypes to the analysis of children’s literature and found that the majority of
literature published up until the late 1970s reinforced these stereotypes. Other studies,
although not resting upon Biklen’s and Bogdana’s work, have also been instructive.
For example, Baskin and Harris (1977) highlighted the fact that literary critics have
not always been sufficiently rigorous in their critique of the portrayal of disability in
children’s books because of an assumption that any book that includes a disabled
character serves an important social goal. Rieser (1990) mentions, however, that
questions have been raised over the ‘seriousness’ of the evaluations undertaken by
some of these older studies. The approach taken by Baskin and Harris, for example,
has been questioned on this basis by Quicke (1985).
Quicke (1985) provides what is probably the most in-depth and frequently
referenced study of the portrayal of disability within ‘modern’ children’s literature
(from USA and UK). It would be impossible to summarise Quicke’s highly detailed
analysis here and much would be lost if we attempted such a summary. It is nevertheless possible to state that Quicke draws our attention to a number of important points,
not least how particular ‘issues’ – for example family life for disabled people – have
been handled both positively and negatively. In this example, he compares the ‘horror
of it all’ portrayal of family life with the more subtle and sometimes humorous ‘tell it
like it is’ approach (Quicke 1985, 36). Quicke not only provides a valuable review of
the available literature at that time, but he also provides a powerful argument in favour
of the use of good quality inclusion literature, which he claims can enable a child to
realise ‘how disability functions in a particular social, emotional and even historical
context’, and he outlines a set of criteria for choosing/assessing literature (Quicke
1985, 5).
Quicke’s criteria include such things as: ‘is the book basically pessimistic or
optimistic?’ (he is in favour of optimism but not of unrealistically happy-ever-after
endings); ‘how is the disabled character portrayed?’ (he is in favour of avoiding
stereotypical portrayals or those that either over- or under-estimate the talents of a
disabled child); and ‘how does the book deal with prejudice, discrimination and rolestereotyping in society generally?’ (he warns against books that locate bullies within
the lower working class or do not portray fathers as playing a role in caring for a
disabled child).
Disability & Society
377
Quicke’s work has not gone unquestioned, however. Rieser (1990) queries some
aspects of Quicke’s approach, in particular the manner in which he does not exclude
from his suggested books list certain texts that provide negative views of disability.
According to Quicke, by reading this type of text non-disabled children come to
understand how disability functioned in, for example, a particular historical context.
There may be strength to Quicke’s argument here, but like Rieser, we remain sceptical, because Quicke’s argument rests upon an understanding of children as ‘critical
readers’. The extent to which children critically engage with reading material remains
much contested, in the same way that the audience response to any form of media
remains contested.
Despite Rieser’s critique, he remains largely complementary about Quicke’s
study and it certainly remains an important ‘touchstone’ for subsequent research,
including our own. Following Quicke, similarly detailed and rigorous explorations of
disability within more recent literature for children are few and far between and this
is particularly the case with regard to literature that is readily available to UK schools.
We argue, therefore, that there is a need for new studies of contemporary inclusion
literature that build upon earlier analyses and are from a UK perspective. Further,
although most of the studies referenced above demonstrate a degree of affinity with a
Disability Studies approach, they do not employ the Social Model of Disability as an
investigative tool. Echoing Saunders (2004), we argue that much can be gained by
using this theoretical tool to assess children’s literature critically.
Methodology
In this section we outline the nature of our study. The study took the form of an
exploration of the portrayal of disability within 100 texts for the primary-age group.
In order not to replicate any substantial existing study we focused upon literature
published since 1990. In particular, our focus was upon texts most frequently recommended to, or easily sourced by, UK schools. Books were identified by accessing
information from a number of UK-based organisations that publish lists of disabilityrelated children’s books. This included: a number of organisations ‘for’ and ‘of’
disabled people (e.g. SCOPE, Spinal Injuries Association); public library, schools’
library services and Local Authority (LA) book suppliers in LAs across England
(including LAs in: London, Midlands, Yorkshire). The eventual list of books included
a range of fiction and non-fiction texts. We make no claims to have found every book
published since 1990 that is about disability or includes a character who is a disabled
person, but we believe that by utilising the method above we have established a list of
the books that are being most frequently recommended to, or are easily sourced by,
schools in the UK.
Our method for reviewing the texts then took the form of a qualitative documentary/content analysis during which texts were examined on the basis of their explicit
and ‘inferred’ messages (Bryman 2004). In order to minimise/counteract the tendency
towards subjectivity that is inherent within this approach we wish to be as explicit as
possible about the process involved in our analysis. An inductive approach was taken.
Our method was to formulate initial criteria of definition which then determined the
aspects of the textual material to be considered. In this case, our first criterion of
definition was derived from the particular ‘standpoint’ that we take to ‘disability’.
Following Finkelstein (2001) we view the Social Model of Disability as a valuable
‘tool’ that can be employed to provide theoretical insights into the position of disabled
378
A. Beckett et al.
people in the UK. Although it has not gone uncontested, the Social Model has been
embraced by the Government in the UK and, it can therefore be argued, has become
increasingly ‘mainstream’ (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit [PMSU] 2005). The model
makes an important distinction between the ‘biological’ and the ‘social’ i.e. between
the barriers facing individuals associated with their impairments (the ‘biological’) and
those that result from the ways in which society is organised economically, environmentally and culturally (the ‘social’) and which bring about disability (PMSU 2005).
Our first criterion for evaluating the portrayal of disability within our sample of books
was therefore the extent to which they portrayed disability from a Social Model
perspective.
We were also interested in exploring the extent to which the texts portray
positive images of/ideas about disabled people. This criterion of definition emerged
from the policy context for the research: the introduction of the DED guidelines for
schools, which mention the importance of positive images within school books.
Our additional criterion for evaluating the portrayal of disability was therefore the
extent to which the books were free from negative stereotypes/ideas about disabled
people and the degree to which they promoted more positive messages about
disability.
Having established these initial criteria, a pilot sample of 30 books was read and
tentative analytical categories were generated. The reading was carried out by three
members of the DEEPS Project team, each reading 10 texts and proposing tentative
categories. These emergent categories were then discussed within the team, revised
and eventually reduced to main categories. A detailed protocol for the analysis of the
remaining texts was then devised, which included all categories, but importantly also
allowed for new and unexpected categories to emerge and to be explored.
The final stage of the content analysis involved a process of researcher triangulation during which all texts were read by two members of the DEEPS team.
Comparisons were then drawn between the analyses of texts carried out by different
readers and, in the event of any discrepancies or uncertainties, a third reading was
carried out by an additional member of the team. The final synthesis of the research
findings was carried out by Beckett, who as part of this synthesis finalised the
analytical categories.
Findings part 1
During the content analysis we uncovered both positive and negative portrayals of
disability. We begin by outlining the more problematic issues/themes. Table 1
provides a general overview of the frequency with which these issues/themes emerged
within the books under review. This table utilises our final analytical categories. What
Table 1.
Problematic issue/theme
Language
Individual/Tragedy view of disability
‘Happy ever after’ endings
‘Curio’ stereotype
Disabled people as ‘a lesson to us all’
Number of books in which occurs
30
33
8
7
8
Disability & Society
379
follows is a qualitative/narrative discussion of these categories. At all appropriate
points in the narrative, examples of texts in which an issue/theme is present are given
(in italic and within brackets).
Language and tone
Thirty books contained outdated terminology that does not conform to the ‘language
of disability’ (Clark and Marsh 2002). This included the appearance of terms such as
‘handicap/ped’ (The Special Raccoon and Charlie’s Eye), ‘different’ and ‘special’
(Sparky: a very special teddy bear) to describe disabled people. These are terms that
the UK disability movement has deemed discriminatory. Other instances of inappropriate and/or discriminatory language included the terms ‘dwarf’, as opposed to the
preferred term ‘person with restricted growth’ (Clark and Marsh 2002) (Bambert’s
Book of Missing Stories) and the use of the term ‘people with disabilities’ rather than
‘disabled people’ (please see PMSU 2003 for UK definitions) (Be Quiet Marina).
Finally, despite sourcing these books via UK-based libraries and organisations, a
number of the books were by US authors and included the term ‘mental retardation’,
as opposed to the preferred term here in the UK, ‘learning difficulty’ (What’s Wrong
with Timmy?).
We also found that the use of ‘correct’ language did not necessarily imply a
complete understanding of the political implications of terminology being employed.
For example, a number of the texts blur the distinction between impairment and
disability: defining ‘disability’ as ‘not being able to do some things’ and this ‘inability’ being the result of a person having an impairment and not the consequence of
living in a disabling society (What Do We Think About Disability?, 5).
Individual/tragedy model view of disability
Thirty-three books contained evidence of an individual/tragedy model view of disability. Here the aim was arguably to elicit sympathy rather than empathy from readers.
Readers of this journal will be familiar with this way of understanding disability: the
‘problem’ of disability is located within the individual, results from their functional
‘limitations’ (i.e. from ‘biological’ not ‘social’ barriers) and is a personal tragedy that
renders people ‘victims’ or ‘poor unfortunates’ (French and Swain 2004; Oliver
1990). Such a view of disability succeeds in focusing attention upon the individual and
their experience of impairment whilst diverting attention away from the social,
economic and cultural factors that act to ‘disable’ people who have an impairment
(Becky’s Pony). Books that maintain a tragedy-view of disability are thus incompatible with an understanding of disability as a form of social oppression.
Tragedy-model thinking was particularly evident within storylines relating to
bullying, where disabled people were frequently viewed as passive victims unable to
fight back. In certain texts the only solution proposed to this bullying involved magic
(Adam and the Magic Marble). There is a sense in which the resort to magic reinforces
the stereotype of the passive disabled person who in ‘normal’ non-magical situations
is ‘incapable’ of challenging bullies. Elsewhere bullies were presented as reforming
only after they have become permanently or temporarily ‘impaired’ in some way (this
idea even appears in what are otherwise ‘good’ examples of inclusion literature e.g.
Buster and the Amazing Daisy). This type of approach runs the risk of perpetuating
the idea that having an impairment is a ‘terrible thing’ – an ‘affliction’ – and it is only
380
A. Beckett et al.
when bullies start to feel sorry for their victims because ‘now they know how they
feel’, that their behaviour changes.
Finally, a number of books included, usually as the ending to the story, the death
of a disabled character (Bambert’s Book of Missing Stories, The Crowstarver and
Freak the Mighty). Shakespeare (1994) has suggested that underpinning tragedymodel thinking is a fear that non-disabled people feel about the possibility of becoming disabled and even of their own mortality. Arguably, texts that include the death of
a disabled character do little to dispel these fears and thus perpetuate a tragedy-model
view of disability.
‘Happy ever after’ endings
Quicke (1985) suggested that optimism is a ‘good thing’ when discussing the lives of
disabled people. Without optimism, there is a risk of tragedy-model thinking shaping
a text. He also stresses, however, that a ‘tell it like it is’ approach to stories or nonfiction accounts of disability is important because this reduces the risks associated
with promoting unrealistically ‘happy ever after’ endings. In other words, if it is
important to avoid falling into a tragedy-view of disability, it is equally important to
avoid promoting the idea that disability is ‘difficulty free’. There is a fine balance to
be struck here – but we consider it to be an important one.
Eight books contained evidence of unrealistically ‘happy ever after’ endings.
Within this analytical category the depiction of disability within fantasy fiction was
found to be especially problematic, in particular the ‘miracle cures’ that are sometimes
part of these stories. Fantasy, of course, is a key element in children’s fiction in
general and we would be loath to state that disability cannot be considered within this
genre. There is no reason to suppose that it is not as important to disabled children that
people ‘like me’ appear within fantasy books as it is to non-disabled children. There
is some need for caution here, however, particularly where the depiction of the fantastic includes miracle cures for what are, in reality, permanent impairments. As previously stated, our primary concern in this study is with the non-disabled readership of
these texts and there is a risk that ‘miracle cures’ may encourage non-disabled children not to take disability sufficiently seriously or not to engage with the long-term
nature/consequences of disability. Further, by focusing upon the ‘impaired body’ and
how this is magically ‘fixed’, miracle cures distract from the attitudinal and structural
barriers that disable people – locating the problem, again, entirely within the body of
the individual.
Adam and the Magic Marble incorporates the ‘miracle cure’ theme and warrants
particular discussion here. The book tells the story of three boys, two of whom have
Tourette’s Syndrome and one who is ‘afflicted’ with cerebral palsy. As implied by the
term ‘afflicted’, the representation of the boys’ experiences of impairment reflects the
tragedy model. When the boys discover a magic marble, things begin to change,
because the marble also has the powers to cure impairments and all three boys are
‘fixed’ by the magic marble. The finale of the book sees the boys facing a particular
dilemma. The magic marble is smashed and its power becomes diminished. There is
only enough magic left to ‘fix’ one of the boys permanently and so they have to
choose whom to cure. The boys who have Tourette’s Syndrome choose to cure the
child who has cerebral palsy because: ‘he was stuck in his wheelchair with his cerebral
palsy. Unable to walk with his weak legs’ (Adam and the Magic Marble, 97) and they
consider this to be worse than experiencing the ticks associated with Tourette’s
Disability & Society
381
Syndrome. The miracle cure theme is thus developed to incorporate a ‘hierarchy of
suffering’, with a ‘happy ever after’ ending only occurring for one of the ‘tragic
victims of disability’. We have serious reservations about this approach.
‘Curio’ stereotype
Biklen and Bogdana (1977) highlighted the stereotype of the disabled person as
‘atmosphere or curio’ and stated that making a disabled person into an object of
curiosity dilutes their humanity. They cited examples of this, including the use of
disabled people as ‘exotica’ – i.e. as a form of ‘freak show’. This was not something
that we came across often within the reviewed books, but it was present in seven of
the texts. Examples, all fiction books, ranged from stories about children who have
invented impairments (The Boy Who Grew Flowers), through tales of children whose
impairment was made into a ‘spectacle’ (Charlie’s Eye), to tales of disabled children
who had remarkable, almost magical abilities to communicate/interact with animals
(The Crowstarver; Dolphin Boy).
The most obvious example of the ‘curio’ stereotype, however, was found in
Spoofer Rooney and again, this warrants particular discussion here. In this text, not
only does the central character ‘Hopper’ have an unspecified impairment that means
‘his brain burns’ when he eats sugary foods or foods full of additives, the story also
includes an additional character, ‘Ambrose’ or ‘Ambo’ who has learning difficulties
and is described as follows:
He’s sixteen, looks ten and has the brain of a two-year-old. He’s so pale and skinny he
looks dead. He’s got popping eyes and a pointy nose, and short spiky hair like a hedgehog shaved by a strimmer. He dribbles and twitches and doesn’t say much. Actually, he
doesn’t say anything, so it’s like sharing with a window dummy. … Ambo’s away with
the fairies. (Spoofer Rooney, 20–1)
Quite apart from the obvious problems of language and tone here, which dehumanise Ambrose, in our reading of the text both Hopper’s unspecified impairment and
Ambrose’s presence in the story act as a form of ‘voyeuristic side-show’ to the main
story – that is, right up until the moment when Ambrose suddenly and entirely unexpectedly ‘saves the day’, in another example of an unrealistically ‘happy ever after’
ending.
‘A lesson to us all’
Eight books contained evidence of what we have termed the ‘lesson to us all’ theme.
This theme is similar to Keith’s (2001) ‘School of Pain’ motif (as described by
Dowker 2004) and occurred most often in books that include a religious dimension –
in all cases Christian. One version of the ‘lesson to us all’ theme suggests that the
problems/difficulties associated with disability can be ‘overcome’ with ‘God’s will’
and that this is more likely to happen if the disabled person is brave and good
(Becky’s Pony).
Another version of the ‘lesson to us all’ theme presents disabled people as existing
for the good – moral or spiritual – of others (non-disabled people). In one text disabled
people are presented as having a ‘special mission’, and it is implied that this mission
is to teach non-disabled people how to be strong and how to look beyond difference
382
A. Beckett et al.
(What’s Wrong With Timmy?). The problem with this ‘lesson to us all’ theme is that
whilst it may not be the most ‘sinister’ of all portrayals of disabled people, it nevertheless reduces the disabled character to a vehicle for the moral/spiritual development
of the ‘main’ character or intended reader (who is not disabled).
Findings part 2
This section outlines the more positive portrayals of disability that we found within
our sample of children’s literature. In total, 55 books contained no evidence of the
more problematic issues/themes outlined previously. Establishing clear-cut analytical
categories with regard to these texts was not easy, however. This was partly due to the
fact that although more positive in their portrayal of disability, the messages contained
within these texts were diverse. It was also due to the fact that although these books
provided a more positive portrayal of disability, this is not to say that they all represented ‘perfect’/‘ideal’ examples of inclusion literature. Some of the texts were poorly
illustrated (for example, old style NHS wheelchairs being pictured instead of more
contemporary models); some admittedly positive messages about disability were
nevertheless presented in an overly or clumsily didactic manner; and finally, reworkings of traditional folk or fairy tales to include a disabled character were sometimes
too crude, the result being a story that opened itself up to the accusation of being
‘political correctness gone mad’.
Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, two broad analytical categories did emerge
during the reading of the texts. These two categories were as follows: ‘disability as
part of diversity’ (40 books) and ‘anti-disablist’ (15 books).
Disability as part of diversity
Evidence of this theme or approach was found within 40 books, all of which were
fiction texts. One message conveyed to the reader (non-disabled or disabled) by this
type of book is that disabled people are not (and should not be) an ‘other’ or ‘outsider’
but are/should be full members of our society/community/class/family. In some cases
this took the form of disability (perhaps more accurately on most occasions, impairment) appearing almost as an ‘incidental’ within illustrations only: a disabled person
is depicted as part of the action or scene – i.e. as being ‘included’ – but no other reference is made to them being a disabled person (The Animal Boogie and The Giant
Turnip). At other times, whilst no reference is made within the text, a disabled person
is positioned even more prominently within illustrations – the clear intention being
that the illustrations tell part of the story. For example, in Boots for a Bridesmaid,
although no textual reference is made within the story to her being a disabled person,
‘Mum’ is portrayed within illustrations as a wheelchair user. A positive message about
parenting by disabled people is thus conveyed by this book (and further supported by
information about spinal injuries provided at the end of the book). Finally, in two
books disability (again, more accurately perhaps, impairment) is mentioned in the text
and is more central to the story. In these two books a disabled person is again
portrayed as a valued member of a family (brother, grandfather) and their impairment
is portrayed realistically. The particularly positive aspect of these books is that rather
than focusing too heavily upon impairment, the emphasis is more upon how a guidedog (Dan and Diesel) and positive attitudes on the part of a non-disabled person
(Lucy’s Picture) can ‘enable’ the disabled character.
Disability & Society
383
In other books within this category, the approach taken is to mention impairment
within the text but to present it as simply being ‘a part of who someone is’ and not the
defining feature of the person. A realistic portrayal of a particular impairment is given
and sometimes of the experience of disability, but the story does not become ‘about’
the person’s impairment/position as a disabled person (Trouble for Letang and Julie
[and others in series]; Blabber Mouth [and others in series]). Instead the aim of this
type of text would appear to be to provide the reader with a positive, but also,
importantly, multi-dimensional portrait of a disabled person and perhaps to encourage
readers to see ‘beyond’ a person’s impairment.
The presence of disabled people in these stories, whether or not they are the central
character or much, if anything, is made of their position as a disabled person, is valuable from an inclusion and disability equality perspective, and such books would
therefore make a positive addition to a school library. What the ‘disability as part of
diversity’ book does not do is highlight in an overt or sustained way the ‘social’ barriers, economic, environmental or cultural, that impact upon the lives of disabled
people. These are not, therefore, the most ‘political’/‘radical’ of the books that we
considered. Of course, to what extent and how it is possible to address these barriers
within texts for the primary-age group, and at what stage of cognitive development
children are best introduced to these ‘realities’, are important questions for educationalists. It is, however, beyond the remit of our study and of this article to do more than
raise these questions.
Anti-disablist
Finally, 15 books contained evidence of a more ‘anti-disablist’ theme or approach.
The distinguishing feature of these texts is that in addition to incorporating the
‘disability as part of diversity’ theme/approach, these texts go one step further and
directly address a range of ‘social’ barriers facing disabled people – most frequently
those associated with the realm of culture, in the form of disabling attitudes. Of these
books, certain texts and series of texts warrant mention here. In Harry and Willy and
Carrothead and Rent a Friend, assumptions about ‘incompetence’ and the ‘pitiable
and pathetic’ stereotype associated with a tragedy view of disability are challenged. A
number of non-fiction books also directly address ‘social’ barriers. In addition to
providing positive images and information about the lives and achievements of
disabled people, these non-fiction texts, often parts of series, provide factual information about impairments and address some of the key ‘social’ barriers associated with
disability (e.g. When It’s Hard To … See; Think About … Being in a Wheelchair).
Whilst improvements might have been made to some of the titles of these books, they
are nevertheless more overtly ‘political’ in their stance and are concerned with disability equality even if not always expressed in these terms. They would therefore also
make a valuable contribution to a school library and, we argue, valuable teaching
resources.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this article we outlined contemporary understandings of Inclusive
Education and inclusive school environments. We discussed the reasons why inclusive classrooms need inclusive books (inclusion literature) and highlighted the important ‘window of opportunity’ for considering this issue provided by the application of
384
A. Beckett et al.
the DED to UK schools. Our analysis of the portrayal of disability within 100 books
for the primary-age group has shown that good examples of inclusion literature are
‘out there’. This is encouraging. Our analysis has also shown, however, that discriminatory language and/or negative stereotypes/ideas about disability continue to be
present in a range of more contemporary children’s books, including some texts that
are being recommended to schools. This is disheartening. Clearly, more still needs
to be done to ensure that schools and teachers are provided with information relating
to the best examples of inclusion literature and efforts must continue to be made to
inform authors, publishers and illustrators about how to approach the issue of disability. In 1990, Rieser concluded that there were not enough books and materials
available which provided positive portrayals of disability and disabled people. Since
then, things have begun to change, but arguably not fast enough, and certainly not at
a speed that is in keeping with the momentum towards Inclusive Education.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the ESRC for their financial support for the study upon which this article is
based (ESRC Ref. RES-062-23-0461). Thank you also to the two anonymous reviewers for
their interesting and encouraging comments and to Colin Barnes for his feedback on the final
draft of this article.
Note
1. Subsequent articles will report upon the other aspects of the study: non-disabled children’s
understanding of/attitudes towards disability and teaching practices relating to disability
equality/awareness. Further information regarding the DEEPS Project can be found at
http://www.sociology.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/deeps/.
Children’s book references
Barkow, H. 2001. The Giant Turnip. Mantra Lingua.
Bertagna, J. 1999. Dolphin Boy. Mammoth.
Buehrens, A. and C. Buehrens 1991. Adam and the Magic Marble. Hope Press.
Carlisle, K. 1994. The Special Racoon. Helping a child learn about handicaps and love. Small
Horizons.
Caseley, J. 1991. Harry and Willy and Carrothead. Greenwillow Books.
De Bear, K. 2001. Be Quiet Marina! Star Bright Books.
Gleitzman, M. 1992. Blabber Mouth. MacMillan.
Harter, D. 2000. The Animal Boogie. Barefoot Books.
Horgan, D. 1998. Charlie’s Eye. Puffin Books.
Hudson, C. and L. Gardiner. 2006. Dan and Diesel. Red Fox.
Hughes, F. 1994. Rent a Friend. Simon and Schuster Young Books.
Jung, R. 2002. Bambert’s Book of Missing Stories. Egmont Books.
Kebbe, J. 2002. Spoofer Rooney. Corgi Childrens.
Keith, L. 1998. Think About…Being in a Wheelchair. Chrysalis.
Kidd, P. 1997. Becky’s Pony. Scripture Union Publishing.
King-Smith, D. 1998. The Crowstarver. Doubleday.
Knight, J. 1998. Sparky. A very special teddy bear. The Book Guild.
Moon, N. 1994. Lucy’s Picture. Orchard Books.
Naidoo, B. 1994. Trouble for Letang and Julie. Pearson.
Ogaz, N. 2002. Buster and the Amazing Daisy. Jessica Kingsley.
Philbrick, R. [1993] 2004. Freak the Mighty. Usborne.
Powell, J. 1998. What Do We Think About Disability? Hodder Wayland.
Royston, R. 2006. What’s It Like?…Using a Wheelchair. Heinneman Library.
Disability & Society
385
Shriver, M. 2001. What’s Wrong With Timmy? Warner Books and Little, Brown and Company.
Wilkins, V.A. 1995. Boots for a Bridesmaid. Tamarind.
Wojtowicz, J. 2005. The Boy who Grew Flowers. Barefoot Books Ltd.
References
Andrews, S.E. 1998. Using inclusion literature to promote positive attitudes toward disabilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 41, no. 6: 420–26.
Armstrong, F., and L. Barton. 2007. Policy, experience and change and the challenge of inclusion. In Policy, experience and change: Cross cultural reflections on inclusive education,
ed. L. Barton and F. Armstrong, 5–18. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Barnes, C. 1992. Disabling imagery and the media. An exploration of the principles for media
representations of disabled people. Halifax, UK: British Council of Disabled People and
Ryeburn Publishing.
Barnes, C., and G. Mercer. 2003. Disability. Key concepts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Barton, L. 1986. The politics of special educational needs. Disability & Society 1, no. 3: 273–90.
Baskin, B.H., and K.H. Harris. 1977. Notes from a different drummer: A guide to juvenile
fiction portraying the handicapped. New York: R.R. Bowker Co.
Biklen, D., and R. Bogdana. 1977. Media portrayal of disabled people: A study of stereotypes.
Inter-racial Children’s Book Bulletin 8, nos. 6–7: 4–9.
Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L., and A. Rutland. 2006. Extended contact through story reading in school:
Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues 62, no. 3:
469–88.
Clark, L., and S. Marsh. 2002. Patriarchy in the UK: The language of disability. Disability
Studies Archive. http://216.239.59.132/search?q=cache:jHFKq5uTuZIJ:www.leeds.ac.uk/
disability-studies/archiveuk/Clark,%2520Laurence/language.pdf+language+of+disability
&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1.
Cook, T., J. Swain, and S. French. 2001. Voices from segregated schooling: Towards an
inclusive education system. Disability & Society 16, no. 2: 293–310.
Dowker, A. 2004. The treatment of disability in 19th and early 20th century children’s literature.
Disability Studies Quarterly 24, no. 1. http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/843/1018.
Fein, R.L., and A.H. Ginsberg. 1978. Realistic literature about the handicapped. Reading
Teacher 31, no. 7: 802–5.
Finkelstein, V. 1996. Modelling disability. Disability Studies Archive. http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/models/models.htm.
French, S., and J. Swain. 2004. Whose tragedy?: Towards a personal non-tragedy view
of disability. In Disabling barriers – enabling environments, ed. J. Swain, S. French,
C. Barnes, and G. Thomas, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Heim, A.B. 1994. Beyond the stereotypes: Characters with mental disabilities in children’s
books. School Library Journal 40, no. 9: 139–42.
Hollindale, P. 1988. Ideology and the children’s book. Stroud, UK: Thimble.
Imrie, R. 2000. Disabling environments and the geography of access policies and practices.
Disability & Society 15, no. 1: 5–24.
Keith, L. 2001. Take up thy bed and walk. Death, disability and cure in classic fiction for
girls. New York: Routledge.
Kenworthy, J., and J. Whittaker. 2000. Anything to declare? The struggle for inclusive education and children’s rights. Disability & Society 15, no. 2: 219–31.
Leicester, M. 2007. Special stories for disability awareness: Stories and activities for teachers, parents and professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Monson, D., and C. Shurtleff. 1979. Altering attitudes towards the physically handicapped
through print and non-print media. Language Arts 56, no. 2: 163–70.
Moore, C.A. 1984. Portrayal of the disabled in books and basals. Reading Horizons 24, no. 4:
274–9.
Oliver, M. 1990. The politics of disablement. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Oliver, M. 2004. Education for all? A perspective on an inclusive society. In Special
educational needs and inclusive education: Major themes in education, ed. D.R. Mitchell,
86–119. London: Routledge Falmer.
386
A. Beckett et al.
Pinsent, P. 1997. Children’s literature and the politics of equality. London: David Fulton.
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (PMSU). 2005. Improving the life chances of disabled people:
Final report. Cabinet Office. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/disability.pdf.
Quicke, J. 1985. Disability in modern children’s fiction. London: Croom Helm.
Radencich, M.C. 1986. Literature for children and adolescents about people who happen to
have a handicap. Techniques 2, no. 4: 364–9.
Rieser, R. 1990. Children’s books. In Disability equality in the classroom: A human rights
issue, ed. R. Reiser and M. Mason, 105–14. London: ILEA.
Rieser, R., and M. Mason. 1990. Disability equality in the classroom: A human rights issue.
London: ILEA.
Roulstone, A. 2002. Disabling pasts, enabling futures? How does the changing nature of
capitalism impact on the disabled worker and jobseeker? Disability & Society 17, no. 6:
627–42.
Saunders, K. 2000. Happy ever afters. A storybook guide to teaching children about disability. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Saunders, K. 2004. What disability studies can do for children’s literature. Disability
Studies Quarterly 24, no. 1. http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/849/1024.
Schwartz, A. 1977. Disability in children’s books: Is visibility enough? Inter-racial Books
Bulletin 8, nos. 6–7: 10–5.
Shah, S. 2007. Special or mainstream? – The views of disabled students. Research Papers in
Education 22, no. 4: 425–42.
Shakespeare, T. 1994. Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal?
Disability & Society 9, no. 3: 283–99.
Slee, R. 1993. The politics of integration – new sites for old practices? Disability & Society 8,
no. 4: 351–60.
Stroud, J.G. 1981. Selecting materials which promote understanding and acceptance of
handicapped students. English Journal 70, no. 1: 49–52.
Teachernet (DFES). 2006. Guidance on disability equality in schools. Teachernet. http://
www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=10596.
Thomas, G. 1997. Inclusive schools for an inclusive society. British Journal of Special
Education 24, no. 3: 103–7.
Titchkosky, T. 2005. Disability in the news: A reconsideration of reading. Disability &
Society 20, no. 6: 655–68.
Trepanier-Street, M.L., and J.A. Romantoski. 1996. Young children’s attitudes toward the
disabled: A classroom intervention using children’s literature. Early Childhood Education
Journal 11: 45–9.
Umerlik, A. 1992. Fostering an understanding of the disabled through young adult literature.
School Library Media Activities Monthly 8, no. 9: 35–6.
Wells, G. 1987. The meaning makers. London: Hodder and Stoughton.