Focus on Research in Practice Electronic Edition # 2
Florida Educational Leadership
electronic edition
is an official publication of Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and is published during the course of the year. Articles are grouped in the following categories: Perspectives Voices From The Field Student Voices Research in Practice Technology in the Schools Electronic editions may focus only on one or two of these fields. Interested persons are invited to submit material for publication. See the inside back cover for details or visit our website at www.fascd.org. All articles are peer reviewed. The opinions expressed in Florida Education Leadership are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of FASCD.
Coming Events
March 26—28, 2011 ASCD Annual Conference: Bold Actions for Complex Changes - San Francisco, CA October 22, 2011 FASCD presents an in depth presentation by Dr. Art Costa: Developing Habits of Mind January, 2012 FASCD presents an in depth presentation Judy Willis : Brain-based Learning Strategies
Electronic Issue #2
March, 2011
Special Issue Focus Research in Practice Associate Editor Ann Nevin Criteria For Research Briefs Ann Nevin Teaching To Trouble: Using A Disability Studies In Education (DSE) Lens to Conduct Critical Book Reviews By Ann Nevin and contributing authors
D
isability Studies in Education (DSE) offers a framework that (a) grounds policy / practice in the experiences ‘ perspectives of people with disabilities, (c) challenges practices/ policy that isolate, de-humanize individuals, and (c) leads to new questions to pose.
Urban Narratives: Portraits in progress: Life at the intersection of learning disability, race, and social class By: D. J. Connor A Book Review by Melanie Kamae and Christy Neria
Research in Practice
Criteria For Research Briefs
Ann Nevin, Associate Editor
W
e know what we mean by research, it means we search, and search again...and again! What do we mean by “a research brief”? The purpose of a research brief is to disseminate new research findings in a way that communicates succinctly. Teachers, teacher educators, and administrators often realize that the time for reading research slips away from busy practitioners who rarely have time to pause, reflect, ponder, and muse about data analysis and meaning. So research in education, when it appears, must be treated with respect. A research brief can generate deeper interest in readers because referring to the original research article is often a step that readers take to get a fuller description of who was studied, what happened, and especially, how were results measured. This is the kind of research task that people undertake when they are implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) programs which require research-based strategies. Examples of research briefs are now available in the literature. The 4-Page Research Brief was established by the American Educational
Research Association (AERA) to disseminate research that could influence policies at state and national governmental departments. Christopher Connell (2004) shows how eleven recent studies can be briefly represented in a four page brief for policy makers. Another example appears as a regular column in Educational Researcher, AERA’s flagship journal. Rodgers, Gómez-Bellengé, Wang, & Schultz (2005) summarize in one page the results of a study presented at AERA conference in Montreal. Predicting literacy achievement for struggling readers (including ELLs) represents a vexsome challenge for selecting early intervention strategies. Administrators as well as policy makers needed to stay current in this area due to recent mandates for using research-based strategies. Practitioner oriented journals appreciate the busy lives of their members and has several ways to publish brief reports about current research. For example, Info Briefs is sponsored by Educational Leadership, the signature journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Rick Allen (2010) summarized 15 studies
of turnaround schools in approximately 4 pages. Featuring points that administrators and other school leaders can use today, Allen explained how to use turnaround techniques such as learning from models outside the school system, providing pertinent on-the-job training, and identifying zones of flexibility. He calls for more research because some practices hold a promise to make a difference. This is the kind of research brief that FEL believes will appeal to most of our subscribers— policy makers, professors, practitioners, and the parents of the children we are teaching. The basic outline for a research brief for FEL includes a title (no more than 15 words), an abstract (no more than 50 words), author and affiliation (including research interests), the research summary (who was studied, what were the research questions, how was the study conducted and how did research participants interact with the re-
searcher, when did it take place, where did the study take place, what happened (what were the findings), and so-what (why are the results important). Finally, include a list of references. Send your research briefs to Ann Nevin (email: ann.nevin@asu.edu) or arrange for a conference call to discuss your ideas for research briefs (skype address: ann.irene.nevin). The FEL editorial team is available to work with you to publish your idea!
References Allen, R. (2010). Turnaround schools place hope in new leadership: Info Brief. Educational Leadership, 16(2), retrieved on March 8, 2011, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/ infobrief/vol16/issue2/full/Turnaround-Schools-Place-Hope-inNew-Leadership.aspx Connell, C. (2004). English language learners: Boosting academic achievement. Research Briefs, Winter Issue, 1-4. Retrieved on March 8, 2011, from http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/ Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Winter04.pdf Rodgers, E. M., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Wang, C., & Schultz, M. M. (2005, April). Predicting the literacy achievement of struggling readers: Does intervening early make a difference? Montreal,
Research Resources From Florida Department of Education ACT/SAT/AP Reports - ACT/SAT reports by district and school, AP reports by district, school, exam score, and test-takers. PK-20 Education Data Warehouse External Data Requests - access forms and information related to the research proposal process. FCAT Demographic Results - provides customized FCAT demographic reports by state, district, and school level. Florida Performs - reports how Florida is doing in areas of education that affect the quality of life for you, your family, and your neighbors. Florida School Indicators Report - provides numerous indicators of school status and performance on public elementary, middle, and high schools for each of Florida's school districts. High School Feedback Reports - historical pre-graduation indicators for Florida’s public high school students by district. Master School ID Database (MSID) - contains contact information for all public PK-12 schools, adult, and vocational-technical schools. Performance Profiles - provides customized reports with comparison data that demonstrate the progress of Florida’s students and schools by state and legislative district. PK-12 Reports and Publications - reports on PK-12 students, staff, and schools. Available by state, district, and school levels.
Research In Practice
Teaching To Trouble: Using A Disability Studies In Education (DSE) Lens to Conduct Critical Book Reviews
Ann I. Nevin Contributing authors listed at end of article
D
isability Studies in Education (DSE) offers a framework that (a) grounds policy / practice in the experiences ‗ perspectives of people with disabilities, (c) challenges practices/ policy that isolate, de-humanize individuals, and (c) leads to new questions to pose.
I
n this descriptive paper, the pedagogy for critical book reviews from a DSE perspective is delineated. The following questions guided the process. What is a DSE perspective? Why is this theoretical lens important for 21st century teacher educators? What are the elements and instructional methods for generating a critical book review from a DSE perspective?
What did we discover?
Rationale and Background Disability Studies in Education (DSE) is a relatively new field of study. The history of the DSE movement is articulated by Connor, Gabel, and Peters (2006). Beginning with the influences of the 1960s-70s, the Civil Rights era in the United States and the worldwide Independent Living movement (http:// www.disabilitystudiesineducation.org/ history.htm), the Society for Disability Studies (SODS) was formed in the 1980s. SODS became e clearinghouse of disability studies in the U.S. with its annual conferences and publication, Disability Studies Quarterly, the first journal to feature people with disabilities as authors or co-authors of research. In the 1990s, three DSE members--Phil Ferguson from Chapman University, Susan Gabel from National University, and Susan Peters from University of Michigan-were active in disability studies advocacy efforts, kept educational research visible within the U.S. disability studies community, and provided leadership within SODS (past President, past Secretary). In 1990, they formed a DSE Special Interest Group within the American Educational Research Association in order to influence the larger audience of educational researchers who often ignored or masked the disabled populations. The DSE SIG was in-
the content of the presentation (e.g., large print handouts). The SIG also established a ―Quiet Room‖ which provides respite for people with disabilities who present and attend at the annual conferences. In addition, they established a separate national conference in 2001, adopted a mission statement and framework for DSE in 2007, and convened an international forum for DSE researchers across the Atlantic and Pacific and in the United States. In 2004, they published Ideology and the Politics of (In) Exclusion, an international collection of essays by educational researchers edited by Linda Ware. Perhaps most importantly, Journal of Teacher Education (2001)] published an article based on Ware‘s research which featured practical application of disability studies in classrooms (Writing, Identity, and the Other: Dare we do Disabilities Studies?) Subsequently Ware conducted a collaborative study with secondary teachers, titled Working Past Pity: What We Make of Disability in Schools, was published in Allan‘s (2003) edited book, titled Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What's the Purpose? In summary, the history for DSE in the 2010s is yet to be uncovered. Connor et al. emphasize that the relative youth of the DSE movement requires carefully constructed future research. For example, scholars and practitioners need to explore and disseminate the tensions, paradoxes, contradictions, and
reticence within education toward conceptualizations of diversity that include disability. Future scholars can contribute to deeper understanding of how disability is affected by class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. More importantly, to influence future educators, scholars are encouraged to infuse analyses and interpretations of disability throughout all forms of educational research, teacher education, and graduate studies in education. However, because the of the prevalence of people with disabilities in all walks of life and because the increasing numbers of K-12 school age as well as college age students is increasing, we believe that it is important for the next generation of scholars and future leaders in education to be schooled in this perspective. A disabilities studies in education (DSE) theoretical framework seeks to ground policy and practice in the experiences and perspectives of people with disabilities, challenges practices and policy that isolate and dehumanize individuals, and leads to new questions to pose (Danforth & Gabel, 2006). The purpose of a DSE approach is to use intellectual and practical tools as well as forms of thought and action that (a) nurture a deeper awareness among educators about disability rights, (b) lead to more inclusive participation, and (c) reveal the uniqueness and importance of disability identity. We agreed to adopt the definition of DSE posted by Gabel (2005) which clarifies that DSE is an interdisciplinary field, uniting critical inquiry, political advocacy, and approaches from the arts, humanities, and humanistic/posthumanistic social sciences to improve the
lives of people with disabilities based on their expressed wishes. An example of how a DSE lens leads us to challenge the status quo is provided by Reid and McKnight (2006). They describe how the phenomenon of ableism which is intertwined with the ideology of normalcy is rooted in eugenics. This ideology promotes the idea that it is better to be as ―normal‖ as possible rather than be disabled. Reid and McKnight (2006) argue that current special education systems reflect a deficit-oriented perspective—basically, an ableist perspective where disability is considered a personal condition to correct or cure through accommodations, interventions, segregation, etc. In contrast, a DSE perspective considers disability as the oppression of a given culture and historical period rather than an impairments per se.
Method Using a narrative approach, the methods are described as a timeline. By the end of the 2nd week of classes in the Fall, 2009, all participants had selected a book to review and by the 14th week of the semester, all had targeted at least one publication venue as a possible dissemination outlet. The method to prepare the critical review included submitting drafts of the review to a peer for guided feedback. In addition, the instructor provided substantive feedback prior to publication as a Class Big Book of Book Reviews. The instructor participated in the process of writing a critical book review, also demonstrating the collaborative process. Two participants decided to collaborate to write their review of the same book that they had read.
Participants Seven doctoral students (6 females) in an advanced graduate course conducted critical reviews of current books in the area of special education and disabilities studies. Many of the doctoral students were members of under-represented populations seeking doctoral degrees (i.e., Cuban-American bilingual Spanish/English speaker, Filipino American, Russian American, Navaho, Hawaiian American). All participants had completed three years of preparation for the Ph. D. and were positioned to prepare their dissertation proposals. All participants were career special educators: 3 speech/language pathologists, sign language instructor, special education program specialist, resource specialist, preschool/early childhood special education specialist, high school teacher of students with autism, and consulting teachers for students with disabilities in K-12 settings. Three had administrative responsibilities as well; two were serving as adjunct professors and two were teacher education professors and researchers.
The Critical Book Review Elements In this section the elements of the assignment and the instructional methods for generating the critical review are described. As shown in Table 1, the assignment focused on revealing to readers the content of the book. The critique was to focus on applying the intellectual tools of a DSE perspective.
Table 1: The Critical Book Review Assignment The goal of this assignment is not to summarize what the book says, but to: 1 Identify the author‘s central purpose in writing the book and analyze the significance of the book in terms of how it adds to an understanding of the subject of disability studies in education. 2 Identify and analyze the significance of important arguments made in the book. 3 Evaluate the extent to which the author succeeded in fulfilling the purpose for writing the book. 4 Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the book with regard to how it adds to an understanding of the subject of disability studies in education Address (at least) the following points in your written critique: Give full bibliographic information on the book at the top of the 1st page. State whether or not the author make his/her own perspective clear and whether or not the perspective adds or detracts from the value of the book. What is your own relationship to the subject of the book and how does this affect your understanding of the book? What in particular is valuable about the book? Would you recommend the book to someone who wants to understand the subject of disability studies? Why or why not? In writing this review, please justify your analysis. Whether you criticize or commend the author, you need to say why you do so and you need to give evidence to support what you say. Web Accessible Resources ―Writing Book Reviews‖: http://www.indiana.edu/ ~wts/wts/bookreview.html ―How to Write a Book Review‖: http://stauffer.queensu.ca/inforef/ bookreview/write_review.htm ―How to Write a Book Review‖: http:// legacy.bluegrass.kctcs.edu/LCC/HIS/review.html
Participants selected a recently published book that they wanted to read and interpret with a DSE lens. The books often reflected their intended dissertation topics (e.g., studies of students with disabilities that focused on eliciting their voices and perspectives, leadership advances in international disability studies, native American studies.) Table 2 lists the books that were selected for the critical review.
Cherland (2006) offers important insights for teacher educators and K12 school personnel who wish to decrease the impact of racism in schooling practices. Similarly, University of California Berkeley professor Kleege (2009), in her review of a new biography of Helen Keller, emphasized how the untold stories of disabled lives, even though a singular life, the biographer contextualized and critiqued the book in light of 19th and 20th century American culture, This technique highlighted how
Table 2. List of Books Reviewed with a Critical DSE Lens
Table 3. Advice for Critiques
Collard, J., & Normore, A. (Eds. 2009 Leadership and Intercultural Dynamics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Connor, D. J. (2009). Urban Narratives: Portraits in progress. Life at the intersection of learning disability, race, and social class. NY: Peter Lang. Deloria, V., & Wildcat, D. (2001). Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Howard-Hamilton, M. et al. (Eds. 2009). Standing on the Outside Looking In: Underrepresesnted Students’ Experiences in Advanced Degree Programs. Herndon, VA: Stylus Press Mooney, J. (2008). The Short Bus: A Journey Beyond Normal. NY: Macmillan. Normore, A. (Ed. 2008). Leadership for Social Justice: Promoting Equity and Excellence Through Inquiry and Reflective Practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Ong-Dean, Colin. (2009). Distinguishing Disability: Parents, privilege, and special education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
1
Summarize the author(s)‘ argument. This can reveal any gaps in the argument. Summarizing also ‗validates‘ that you have read the material.
2
Show integrity. If you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the author(s) argument, this provides a balanced review.
3
Ask questions. Critiques can be framed by asking questions about parts that are hard to understand, or about the origins of the framework, or the authors‘ intention at a particular juncture.
4
Reflect what the authors are trying to say. If a particular point is unclear, it can be useful to try to reflect that point back to the writer: "What you seem to be saying here is...‖ The author then can decide if the writer‘s feedback warrants further refinement of his/her manuscript.
Instructional Methods
5
Make suggestions. Help the author(s) with ideas on how to address the gaps or the problems you‘ve identified.
6
Give and receive feedback responsibly. Use the reviewer feedback to improve your manuscript! Reviewers often discover that they should follow their own advice!)
We used modeling and peer review/feedback to complete the assignment. Several published examples of book reviews were deconstructed in order to reveal key components of successful critiques. For example, in her critical review, University of Regina professor
the interplay between gender, class, and disability shaped her life—a valuable perspective for those of us who are not accustomed to seeing how our cultures shape our lives.. In addition, we agreed to practice a constructive process in providing the critiques of various drafts of the reviews. Listed in Table 3 are the 6 tips we followed in giving and receiving feedback.
Results The process yielded eight critical book reviews. All have been submitted for publication in a respected journal, carefully selected to influence various social services practitioners to read the book and to appreciate a DSE perspective. Two have been accepted for publication in 2010. Journals included Florida Educational Leadership, Urban Education, Journal of Educational Administration, Issues in Teacher Education, Teaching Exceptional Children, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, and Remedial and Special Education. When discussing the resulting reviews as a gestalt, we noted that the DSE principles most frequently used in the book reviews focused on disability identity and forms of thought/action to nurture deeper awareness among educators about disability rights. However, all reviewers used the intellectual tools of posing troubling questions and calling for increased dialogue. We learned to respect and apply Freire‘s method of studying as a critical, creative, re-creating activity which is naturally occurring by virtue of the curiosity of the one who is studying. We agreed that studying what other people have
written sets us up in a special way. As Freire notes, "Reading the word enables us to read a previous reading of the world" (p. 18). This world may no longer be pertinent, but the word has captured it for us to read within the context of our world. Reflections on Teaching to Trouble In commenting on the usefulness of some of the class readings for the book review assignment, one participant (Neria) noted in an email exchange with the class, ―Gabel‘s (2001) description of teaching as an ‗encounter with the self … fits nicely with the Freirean Dialectic article (by Nevin). … The idea [that] Gabel [suggests is] posing questions to her students about their perception…‖ [and this is what I hope to do in my critical review applying DSE principles to a recently published book, The Short Bus by Jonathan Mooney.} Similar to the notion of teaching to trouble, Brown elaborated on Gabel‘s research: ―[Gabel] wants the data [in her research] to ‗complicate our ideas about disability‘ …. [thinking about how] "reflection must transform practice‖ [has acquired a new meaning as] a tool for me to inform or transform my teaching.‖ Similar to Gabel (2001) who wants to ―complicate our ideas about disability, Ferri‘s concept ―Teaching to trouble‖ was also helpful in formulating a way to approach the book reviews through a DSE lens. Beth Ferri (2006), a teacher educator at Syracuse University, explains that she purposefully troubles her students so as to challenge their prevailing unconscious assumptions about disability. Her purpose is to show them that the notions of ability and disability are con-
structed. In her words, Dislodging dominant paradigms requires a critical rethinking of foundational assumptions. For example, any advocates of disability studies in education, myself included, identify as being pro-inclusion. Yet, because even in inclusive models the dominant group retains the power to include or exclude, inclusion in and of itself does not automatically dislodge the privilege maintained by the dominant group‖ (Ferri, p. 292). Other insights occurred in our critical reviews which showed that our own understandings of the issues that had been studied in previous semesters had changed, thus leading us to question our foundational knowledge. The connection to becoming aware of the power of language stimulated one participant to share a deeply seated memory of her childhood. After reading an introduction to research conducted with a disability studies lens (Gabel, 2001), Esquer wrote, ―The title—‗I wash my face in dirty water‘-- immediately induced vivid memories of my childhood growing up on the ___ reservation … I have come to realize that my sense of shame [from this experience] came from a deficient understanding of the world, and the future. My parents did all they could to contribute to developing my self-esteem, but sadly their efforts were undermined in the classroom. I viewed my culture and way of life as second rate. My opinion of Gabel‘s article is it lends a voice to the way institutionalized racism in our communities, schools, and selves can negatively constrain educational excellence.‖ After reading the range of researchers, practitioners, and advocates in Danforth and Gabel
(2006), Erratt noted, ―The various uses of the language of disability reflect the diversity of disability culture, purpose and movements. My understanding is that there is general acceptance of disability as a term referring specifically to social constructs. There is less clarity on the use and definition of impairment and handicap. And as ‗outsiders‘ we must always be sensitive to terminology and definitions that are in the exclusive domain of ‗insiders.‘‖ Showing how the new awareness they had gained in reading the Danforth and Gabel text, Authors C, E, and H had gained a new awareness of viewing the university preservice teachers as learners who bring rich histories, familial and linguistic cultural views, to their pedagogy which they were now determined to elicit from their students during revisions of the courses they taught for the Spring semester. Ocampo continued the theme of the power of language, especially language that represents the preferences expressed by various populations of people with disabilities. She wrote, ―my training as a speech-language pathologist has been primarily from objectivist - quantitative paradigms. I found Gabel‘s interpretations to be profound and I was impressed with her methodology. While I read her article, the words of Allen Peshkin (The Color of Friends, The Color of Strangers) resonated with me, ―one‘s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed‖. It should be expected that our experiences will inform our pedagogy. I will remember the term she used: pedagogical knowledge, knowing the importance of how to teach (as opposed to emphasizing what to teach). As a [self de-
scribed] ―able-bodied‖ professional in speech -language pathology and novice researcher in disabilities studies, I have always grappled with recognizing that I would be considered an ―outsider‖. How could I possibly represent a population or community where I do not belong. I posed this question to Paul Longmore during a recent teleconference [at our university]. He mentioned the concept of doing research WITH and not ON individuals with disabilities. Regarding Gabel‘s choice to use disability-first language in her scholarship, I never knew how words could SIMULTANEOUSLY represent a source of pride and a symbol of oppression / discrimination. She purposely chooses the terms depending on her audience---something I need to be more aware of.‖ During class discussions both in face-toface sessions and online discourse, all participants raised the issue of how to apply a DSE perspective to their work as advocates in their professional roles. Several addressed this directly in the critical book reviews by choosing books related to policy (e.g., Erratt, Esquer, Kamae, and Ocampo) or those with clear policy implications (e.g., Brown and Neria). Others shared dilemmas they were facing in their respective professional practice. Neria‘s dilemma involved her professional organizations exclusion of those who were deaf who could speak from their personal experiences, in their research, literature, and conferences. Through discourse with the writing team, Neria decided to write a position paper using her newly acquired DSE partial knowledge about the importance of doing research with those with hearing impairments.
Her position was carefully documented with those few studies where the ‗voices‘ of deaf students were quasi-included, for example, when the interviews were conducted with the children‘s parents who then spoke about their children. Neria essentially called for a new stance from her professional organization, and her position paper was published in a Fall 2010 issue of the Newsletter. Of course this outcome of her advocacy spurred her on to infuse these ideas into her dissertation research proposal. In contrast, Ocampo needed to change a policy that was unfairly discriminatory regarding the treatment of very young children with potential speech-language disorders from marginalized families (with limited cultural capital to negotiate the professional system). Given the research that she and many of her colleagues knew so well wherein the younger the child, the more likely the child is to benefit from speech-language interventions especially when extended to the home environment. Similarly, Ocampo undertook a systematic campaign to use DSE arguments to have that policy changed, and by the end of the semester, she was able to show that she had been successful. The parents of the nowto-be-included children were especially happy! In summary, all participants were able to show they had gained new insights for how a DSE perspective might be applied in their roles as researchers, practitioners, and advocates. Their new awareness led them to take new actions.
Discussion Results must be cautiously interpreted as gen-
eralizations beyond this particular group of doctoral students are not warranted. Nevertheless, we believe that teacher education professors at all levels (preservice, graduate, and doctoral studies) can easily and beneficially incorporate the development of critical review skills by assigning similar tasks in their teacher education courses. Applying the DSE lens led us to discover that in the process of coming to critical consciousness (conscientization), we were required to analyze (interactively and through dialogue) who is and is not allowed access to resources and opportunities, and how access is allowed or denied. Critical consciousness ultimately requires questioning the status quo rather than taking it as given – often creating an uncomfortable feeling. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire insisted that dialogical encounters can help students to develop critical consciousness of social, political, and economic contradictions so that they can take action against them (1970/1990, p. 43). This is an important awareness for 21st century educators (all educators) who must teach in new ways so as to include students with and without disabilities in their classrooms. We believe that Freire‘s views illuminated our understandings of applying a DSE perspective. When the voices of those with disabilities are heard, when DSE researchers and educators join forces with people with disabilities, then we become conscious of the injustices that manifest in our current educational practices. This critical consciousness can then lead to more emancipatory praxis. The anguish expressed by those who are mar-
ginalized can become the motivation for us to face the system and move forward in constructing more socially just systems. Even though we might resonate with the anguish that our educational system perpetuates through sorting, labeling, segregating those who are different, we may prefer to avoid a deeper examination because it highlights the more profound alienation of our general educational and special educational practices! The authors of the books we reviewed agree on the power of engaging in dialogue to facilitate the conversations out of which participants acquire more language to name themselves and their experiences. The process of finding my voice and naming myself as oppressed and outraged (for example) rather than slow, strange, weird, or different is in itself liberating. Freire (1985) writes, ―Only when the people of a dependent society break out of the culture of silences and with their right to speak—only, that is when radical structural changes transform the dependent society—can such a society as a whole cease to be silent toward the director society‖ (p. 73). This is what it means to practice a liberating pedagogy. The processes we followed in writing book reviews using a DSE perspective helped us each to achieve that kind of liberating pedagogy.
References Cherland, M. R. (2006). Review of Teaching for Equity and Diversity--Research to Practice by R. P. Solomon and C. Levine-Rasky (Published by Canadian Scholars Press, Toronto). Policy and Practice in Education, 12(1, 2), 78-82. Connor, D. J., Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2008). History of Disability Studies in Education. Retrieved
March 8, 2010, from http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/ DSEConf/history.html Danforth, S., & Gabel, S. (Eds.). (2006). Vital questions facing disability studies in education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Freire, P. (1990; 1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Freire, P. (1985). Politics of education. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Co. Ferri, B. (2006). Teaching to trouble. In S. Danforth and S. Gabel (Eds.). Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 289 – 306). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Gabel, S. (2001). ―I Wash My Face with Dirty Water‖: Narratives of disability and pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 31-47. Gabel, S. (2005). Introduction: Disability studies in education. In S. L. Gabel (Ed.). disability studies in education: readings in theory and method (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kleege, G. (2009). Beyond the Miracle Worker: The Remarkable Story of Anne Sullivan Macy and Her Extraordinary Friendship with Helen Keller by Kim Nielsen (Published by Beacon Press). Disabilities Studies Quarterly, 29(3), Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.dsq-sds.org/ article/view/944/1117 Thousand, J., Diaz-Greenberg, R., Nevin, A., CardelleElawar, M., Beckett, E. C., & Reese, R. (1999). (1999). Perspectives on a Freirean critical pedagogy approach to promote inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education, 20(6) 323-327. Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18-23. Ware, L. (2001). Writing, identity, and the other: Dare we do disabilities studies? Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 107-123. Ware, L. (2003). Working past pity: What we make of disability in schools. In J. Allan (Ed.), Inclusion, participation and democracy: What's the purpose? (pp. 117139). New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Ware, L. (Ed.) (2004). Ideology and the politics of (In) Exclusion. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Authors Ann I. Nevin, Professor Emerita, Arizona State University Faculty Affiliate, Chapman University, Orange CA 2819 36th Avenue West, Bradenton FL 34205 E-mail: ann.nevin@asu.edu Stephanie Brown Teacher for Young Children with Disabilities Doctoral Student in Disability Studies at Chapman University in Orange CA E-mail: brown180 @mail.chapman.edu John Erratt Special Educator and Department Chair in the Orange Unified School District Doctoral Student in Disabilities Studies at Chapman University, Orange CA E-mail: errat100@mail.chapman.edu Jocelyn “Joyce” Esquar Special Educator who works in the Ontario-Montclair School District Doctoral Student in Disability Studies at Chapman University, Orange, CA E-mail: esque103@mail.chap.edu Melanie M. Kamae Resource Specialist, Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach, CA Doctoral Student at Chapman University, Orange, CA E-mail: kamae100@mail.chapman.edu Christy M. Neria Special Educator and Sign Language Interpreter in the Covina Valley Unified School District Doctoral Student in Disability Studies at Chapman University, Orange, CA E-mail: csign26@verizon.net Alaine Ocampo Speech-Language Pathologist and Clinical Director for a Culturally Diverse Clinic in southern California Doctoral Student in Disability Studies at Chapman University, Orange, CA E-mail: alaineslp@aol.com
Book Review
Urban Narratives: Portraits in progress: Life at the intersection of learning disability, race, and social class By: D. J. Connor
Reviewed by: Melanie Kamae Christy Neria
I
n the field of education, disability, race and social class are viewed as distinct entities rather than intersecting phenomena that influence and effect one another. In David J. Connor’s book Urban Narratives: Portraits in Progress, Life at the Intersections of Learning Disability, Race, & Social Class (2008) eight urban adolescents with learning disabilities describe their experiences with life, disability, schooling, and identity. Connor’s theoretical framework, methodology, self reflection, and historical analysis of learning disability, race, and social class provide readers with a substantial examination of the current school bureaucracy that has perpetuated marginalized group into further alienation through segregated special education classrooms. Using participant voices as primary data, Connor uses ana-
lytic literary bookends to tie and support his participants’ valuable and reflective voices that make up one third of the text. To analyze this seminal piece of literature, the reviewer will describe Connor’s content, evaluate its contribution to the literature, and finally make recommendations for further analysis.
Framing the Portraits The voices that Connor sought to showcase required framing in order to place the portraits in proper context. This book is unique because not many narratives have been published regarding students with disabilities. Even fewer narratives have been collected which highlight the voices of adolescents whose lives have intersected with race, disability, and social class. Furthermore, the narratives that have given voice to students with learn-
ing disabilities have been primarily Caucasian and middle class (Connor, 2008). Connor emphasized this dilemma further by referencing Foucault (1977) who described the ignominy of talking for people rather then letting them speak for themselves. Therefore, Connor began by chronicling his own journey as an educator while shedding light on the marginalization urban youths with disabilities have had to face in our current segregated educational system through a thorough examination of the literature and current educational practices. To fully frame his study, Connor also used subsequent chapters to describe his purpose, participants, setting, methodology, theoretical framework, data collection, and finally extensive analysis of these data. Each piece was woven together with a critical lens in order for the reader to fully understand the participants’ background and history prior to revealing their portraits. In the last third of the book, Connor revealed his analytic choices. He notes specific frameworks developed by Crenshaw (1990, 1993) and Collins (1990, 2000) that facilitated an intersectional analysis of race and gender. Collins (1990) related the experience of African American women, using a framework that was first developed in Black Feminist Thought, conceptualized as a matrix of domination that “encapsulates the universality of intersecting oppressions as organized through diverse local realities” (p. 284). Crenshaw, on the other hand, used a three part model focused on the (a) structural intersectionality, which is defined loosely as an investigation of lives lived at the bottom of numerous “hierarchies to determine how the dynamics of each hierarchy exacerbates and compounds the consequences of another” (p.286); (b) political intersectionality, concerned with how politics and discourse practices sometimes relate, other times being “oppositional and potentially contradictory” (p. 286); and (c) representational
intersectionality, focusing on how images within a culture intersect to depict people, often in stereotypical ways, making them images that “wound”, essentially serving as a hegemonic tool used by the dominate group “to undermine the value of those it others” (p. 286). Connor used Collins’ matrix of domination in addition to taking some aspects from Crenshaw to come up with four interrelated domains of power: structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal. He used these domains to analyze the complicated ways in which LD intersected with race and class. Following each domain addressed, Collins concludes with an examination of the politics of empowerment. In his final chapter, Connor focused on contemplations, implications and questions. Connor disclosed that he had entertained the idea of ending it with the participants thoughts, however he chose instead to end it by sharing his ideas while inviting readers to draw their own conclusions. He organized it into four short sections: Implications for theory, implications for research, implications for policy, and implications for practice. At the conclusion of each implication, he included questions to contemplate. The authors found these questions to be very compelling and a strong point in which to begin a serious discussion of timely and relevant issues in education with regards to race, class, and disability.
Unveiling the Portraits Just as artists would not describe another artists painting when being revealed, so, too, Connor refrained from contaminating the narratives with his own voice. Through the workshops he provided the “artists” (his participants) during the data collection process helped to focus the artist’s thoughts into topics relevant to his study. With very little editing, extensive coding, and titles, the youths’ portraits began to emerge as they worked with Connor to “crystallize” their final master-
pieces. Connor referenced Clandinin and Connelly (2000) when describing the participant’s role in crystallizing the data. This collaborative effort infuses power into the otherwise marginalized (Connor, 2008). Conner also considered Fairbanks (1996) who further encouraged collaborative efforts in research by revealing the layers of experiences each participant has to express. Thus, collaboration requires dialogism that was an ingredient within Connor’s bricolage methodology. His bricolage methodology is fashioned after CRT theorists Solorzano and Yosso (2001a). Connor gives credit to their way of creating multi-layered approaches to research in order to heighten the degree and richness of involvement of the participants. The eight portraits are prefaced with a short biographical description, a poem by the participant, a sketch, and a personal narrative that delves into a multitude of life experiences ranging from school, disability, race, social class, social perspectives, identity, their future, and an analysis of their art. The reader is introduced to Chanell, Jarrel, Michael, Michelle, Santiago, Vanessa, W.G., and Precious. As the book unfolds, the reader becomes aware of the personhood, personality, coping mechanisms, and lived experience of each. The reader often forgets they have been labeled disabled. All participants came from a low-income background and their ethnic heritages were either African American, Latino or both, what Fierros & Conroy (2002) regarded as the “double jeopardy” of being Black or Latino/a and labeled disabled. Each voice could be clearly heard, as Connor let the lived experience of each participant, shaped by the markers of identity of race, class, and disability, shine through which offered a “rich, nuanced, intimate look into the everyday existence of young people in and out of schools” (p. 67).
Recommendations
Connor integrated several seminal pieces that helped give readers a more holistic and contextual viewpoint of students whose lives intersect with disability and class. First, utilizing the ideas of critical race theory and critical theory frames are noteworthy and appropriate given his research design and questions. Guiding his participants through workshops and inquiries provided a platform for his students to voice their experiences without limitations. In addition, he empowered his participants by encouraging them to situate themselves within their unique lived experiences. Finally, the questions for consideration in each of the implications for research sections provide readers with substantial considerations when working with various participants across class, race, and disability. The reviewers note that “the majority of urban students who have been labeled LD drop out of school, meriting a separate study” (p.61). By locating students who have dropped out of school he could enhance the literature base as well as his recent findings. Others could extend this study of urban adolescents to students who intersect both disability and race, but come from a background of some privilege. It might be interesting to see, for example, if the experiences of Asian American or other students of color with disabilities who live in a different socio-economic class mirror the experiences of the students in the urban schools. Are they segregated from their peers as well, or do the class and race of the student make a difference? Is there little or no movement to the general education classes? Do they feel the same invisibility that their urban counterparts experience, or does class carry some clout with the education system? As practicing special educators, the reviewers believe that other practitioners can benefit from reading these narratives. Teachers rarely have the chance to understand the impact of how their teaching is organized (e.g., segregated classrooms
or inclusive classrooms) or the impact of the varied labels that their learners acquire. To hear the participants relate in their own voices how they felt about their education is a powerful message. It’s a rare opportunity to “get inside” the heads of students and find out how they really feel once they are assigned a label. Overall, the reviewers highly recommend this book to educators, students, administrators, and other practitioners. Connor’s research brought to life real voices of young people along with the intersecting themes of learning disabilities, race and class. By meeting these urban youth, our lives have been changed. Empowering and thought provoking, Urban Narratives: Portraits in Progress is a masterful display of how to conduct qualitative research with individuals while shedding light on issues that are rarely considered in education and society.
References Connor, D. J. (2008). Urban narratives: Portraits in progress, Life at the intersections of learning disability, race, and social class. NY: Peter Lang Publishers.
Publisher Urban Narratives is published by Peter Lang 29 Broadway, New York, NY 10006 (2009), 412pps $38.95 ISBN-10: 0820488046; ISBN-13: 978-0820488042
About the Reviewers Christy M. Neria is a special educator in the Covina Valley Unified School District. As a doctoral student in the College of Educational Studies at Chapman University, Orange, California, her research interests are in Disability Studies social justice, and Deaf Studies.
Melanie M. Kamae is a resource specialist in a middle school in the Ocean View School District, located in Huntington Beach, California. As a doctoral student in the College of Educational Studies at Chapman University, Orange, California, her research interests are in Disability Studies, critical theory, critical race theory, Asian critical theory, equity and native Hawaiian issues.
FASCD Membership Dr. Mr. Mrs. Ms. (Name) ________________________________________________________________ Position Title ___________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address ________________________________________________________________________ City _______________________________ Florida , ZIP ____________ County ____________________ Work Phone (_______)__________________________ FAX (_______)_____________________________ e-mail___________________________________________________________________________________ This coupon entitles the above to a one-year membership in FASCD at the introductory rate of $35. (Purchase orders are not valid with this offer.)
Mail To: FASCD 11511 Pine St Seminole FL 33772
Florida Educational Leadership - electronic edition - is published throughout the year. Each issue includes articles of interest to all FASCD members. The journal is grouped by various areas of interest: "Perspectives", "Voices From The Field", "Student Voices", "Research In Practice" and "Technology In The Schools". Reviews of appropriate books of interest to educators are encouraged. These areas assure that every area of interest of FASCD members is covered. A general issue includes articles from several of the fields. Special issues may focus on one interest area. This new presentation format will allow for more members and others to publish articles intended to inform, provoke or amuse. As a result, word level requirements have been relaxed and the editors will consider all articles, regardless of length. Short articles, however, that are focused on the point are most easily read and used by readers. Sometimes, however, what needs to be said requires more than the traditional word limit. So please send your articles to us for consideration.
Articles Considered Have you wanted to share your thoughts about what is happening in education? Have you just returned from a trip with new ideas from a different place? Have you wanted to share some really exciting written papers from your students - regardless of age or grade level? Have you completed a research project you want to share with your fellow members? Have you learned about a new technological idea that will help teachers?
Format Submissions should be in a Word document. Articles should be clearly written and may be accompanied by black and white photographs, charts, or graphs. All photographs, charts, and graphs accompanying articles should be submitted as .jpg or .eps files and must be submitted along with the article. You may indicate where you would like them placed, if you have a preference, by simply noting it in your text.
Rights Materials, once submitted, become the property of Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The editor reserves the right to publish the article in the most suitable issue. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material and for any and all copyright permissions necessary.
How to Submit Articles Submit articles via email directly to Dr. Marcy Kysilka, at Kysilka@bellsouth.net Please include the following information with your article: a .jpg of yourself your position your email address and your postal address
Deadlines The publication dates of each FEL issue is open with publication determined by the number of articles. The editor will determine the date and placement of articles submitted. Florida Educational Leadership (ISSN 1538-9561) is a benefit of membership in the Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Copyright Š 2010 by FASCD. All rights reserved. Florida Educational Leadership is intended primarily for educators in PreK-12 schools through higher education and anyone interested in promoting sound education in Florida schools. Membership information is found elsewhere in this issue or on our website: www.fascd.org. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily
Editorial Staff Editor Marcy Kysilka is Professor Emerita at UCF. She may be reached at kysilka@bellsouth.net
Associate Editor: Perspectives
Associate Editor: Voices From The Field
Vicki Zygouris-Coe is profes-
Jeffrey Kaplan is Associate Professor
sor at UCF. She may be reached at vzygouri@mail.ucf.edu
UCF. He may be reached at JKaplan@mail.ucf.edu
Associate Editor: Student Voices
Associate Editor: Research in Practice
Sherron Killingsworth Roberts
Ann I. Nevin, is Professor Emerita, Ari-
is Associate Professor at UCF. She may be reached at skrobert@mail.ucf.edu
zona State University. She may be reached at: ann.nevin@ asu.edu
Associate Editor: Technology In The Schools Mark Geary is asst. prof. at Dakota State University, Madison, SD. He may be reached at: Mark.Geary@dsu.edu
Officers and Board of Directors of FASCD
Johnny Nash President
Alina Davis President-Elect Secretary
Pat Melvin Vice-President
Paul Terry Past President
David Magee Treasurer
Kim Pearson Executive Director
Directors: Ralph Barrett, Angel Chaisson, Dona DePriest, Felitia Lott, Sharon Kochlany, Marcy Kysilka, Michael Mizwicki, Patricia Melvin, Sally Payne, Kelley Ranch, Anna D. Tsambsis, Julie Williams, Shelia Windom