The Ontario Right to Read Inquiry and the Social Model of Disability
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21831775 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Natalie D Riediger (0000-0002-8736-9446, University of Manitoba, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 283-292 |
| Publication date | 2024-12-17 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Journal of Disability Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1929-9192 • E-ISSN: 1929-9192 |
| Publisher | University of Waterloo (PUBLISHER • CA) |
| DOI | 10.15353/cjds.v13i3.1171 |
| OpenAlex | W4411993758 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 2 |
Recently, Christine Caughill published an article in the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, critiquing the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) Report of the Right to Read Inquiry (herein referred to as “the report”), titled “Managing the problem of dyslexia: a review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Report of the Right to Read Inquiry” (Caughill, 2024). As a scholar of health equity, literacy advocate, and mother of children with dyslexia, I read this article with interest and concern. Caughill (2024) argues that the report utilizes a medical model of disability, was conducted in response to a “science of reading movement” (Caughill 2024, p. 38), frames children with reading disabilities as “a problem to be solved” (Caughill, 2024, p. 40), and is ultimately, “dehumanizing” of individuals with reading disabilities (Caughill, 2024, p. 38). However, Caughill misinterpreted and decontextualized aspects of the report, and in the process failed to recognize that the report is largely based on a social model of disability. In doing so, Caughill reinforces circulating narratives of dyslexia and disability that are harmful
Psychiatry · Social model of disability · Sociology · Disability Rights and Representation · Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development
| Highly cited | No |
|---|