Electronic Edition # 2

Focus on

Research in Practice

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

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

Electronic Issue #2 March, 2011

Criteria For Research Briefs

Res

earc

h i

n P

ract

ice

Ann Nevin, Associate Editor

W e know what we mean by re-

search, 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 dis-

seminate new research findings in a way that com-

municates succinctly. Teachers,

teacher educators, and administrators

often realize that the time for reading

research slips away from busy practi-

tioners who rarely have time to

pause, reflect, ponder, and muse

about data analysis and meaning. So

research in education, when it ap-

pears, must be treated with respect.

A research brief can generate

deeper interest in readers because

referring to the original research arti-

cle 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 Interven-

tion (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 re-

search 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 re-

sults of a study presented at AERA

conference in Montreal. Predicting lit-

eracy achievement for struggling read-

ers (including ELLs) represents a vex-

some challenge for selecting early in-

tervention strategies. Administrators as

well as policy makers needed to stay

current in this area due to recent man-

dates 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 Associa-

tion 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 perti-

nent on-the-job training, and identifying zones of

flexibility. He calls for more research because

some practices hold a promise to make a differ-

ence. 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 in-

cludes a title (no more than 15 words), an abstract

(no more than 50 words), author and affiliation

(including research interests), the research sum-

mary (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 impor-

tant). Finally, include a list of references.

Send your research briefs to Ann Nevin

(email: ann.nevin@asu.edu) or arrange for a con-

ference 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-in-New-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,

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, dis-

trict, and school levels.

Research Resources From Florida Department of Education

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 / prac-

tice 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.

Research In Practice

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?

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 at-

tend at the annual conferences.

In addition, they established a separate

national conference in 2001, adopted a mis-

sion 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 es-

says by educational researchers edited by

Linda Ware. Perhaps most importantly, Jour-

nal 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) ed-

ited 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 fu-

ture research. For example, scholars and

practitioners need to explore and disseminate

the tensions, paradoxes, contradictions, and

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 Stud-

ies (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 dis-

ability studies advocacy efforts, kept educa-

tional research visible within the U.S. disabil-

ity studies community, and provided leader-

ship within SODS (past President, past Secre-

tary). In 1990, they formed a DSE Special

Interest Group within the American Educa-

tional Research Association in order to influ-

ence the larger audience of educational re-

searchers who often ignored or masked the

disabled populations. The DSE SIG was in-

reticence within education toward conceptu-

alizations of diversity that include disability.

Future scholars can contribute to deeper un-

derstanding of how disability is affected by

class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orienta-

tion, nationality, etc. More importantly, to

influence future educators, scholars are en-

couraged to infuse analyses and interpreta-

tions of disability throughout all forms of

educational research, teacher education, and

graduate studies in education. However, be-

cause 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 gen-

eration of scholars and future leaders in edu-

cation to be schooled in this perspective.

A disabilities studies in education (DSE)

theoretical framework seeks to ground policy

and practice in the experiences and perspec-

tives of people with disabilities, challenges

practices and policy that isolate and de-

humanize individuals, and leads to new ques-

tions to pose (Danforth & Gabel, 2006). The

purpose of a DSE approach is to use intellec-

tual 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 participa-

tion, and (c) reveal the uniqueness and impor-

tance of disability identity. We agreed to

adopt the definition of DSE posted by Gabel

(2005) which clarifies that DSE is an inter-

disciplinary field, uniting critical inquiry, po-

litical advocacy, and approaches from the

arts, humanities, and humanistic/post-

humanistic 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 perspec-

tive—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 partici-

pants 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 in-

structor 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 ad-

vanced graduate course conducted critical

reviews of current books in the area of spe-

cial education and disabilities studies. Many

of the doctoral students were members of un-

der-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 spe-

cial educators: 3 speech/language patholo-

gists, sign language instructor, special educa-

tion program specialist, resource specialist,

preschool/early childhood special education

specialist, high school teacher of students

with autism, and consulting teachers for stu-

dents 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 cri-

tique 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 writ-

ing the book and analyze the significance of

the book in terms of how it adds to an under-

standing of the subject of disability studies in

education.

2 Identify and analyze the significance of im-

portant arguments made in the book.

3 Evaluate the extent to which the author suc-

ceeded 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 under-

standing 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 dis-

ability studies? Why or why not?

In writing this review, please justify your analy-

sis. 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, leader-

ship advances in international disability stud-

ies, native American studies.) Table 2 lists

the books that were selected for the critical

review.

Instructional Methods

We used modeling and peer review/feedback

to complete the assignment. Several pub-

lished examples of book reviews were decon-

structed in order to reveal key components of

successful critiques. For example, in her criti-

cal review, University of Regina professor

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 Ameri-

can culture, This technique highlighted how

Table 2. List of Books Reviewed with

a Critical DSE Lens

Collard, J., & Normore, A. (Eds. 2009 Leadership

and Intercultural Dynamics. Charlotte, NC: In-

formation Age Publishing,

Connor, D. J. (2009). Urban Narratives: Portraits in

progress. Life at the intersection of learning dis-

ability, race, and social class. NY: Peter Lang.

Deloria, V., & Wildcat, D. (2001). Power and Place:

Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Ful-

crum Publishing.

Howard-Hamilton, M. et al. (Eds. 2009). Standing on

the Outside Looking In: Underrepresesnted Stu-

dents’ Experiences in Advanced Degree Pro-

grams. Herndon, VA: Stylus Press

Mooney, J. (2008). The Short Bus: A Journey Beyond

Normal. NY: Macmillan.

Normore, A. (Ed. 2008). Leadership for Social Jus-

tice: 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. Chi-

cago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Table 3. Advice for Critiques

1 Summarize the author(s)‘ argument. This

can reveal any gaps in the argument. Sum-

marizing 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 frame-

work, 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 feed-

back warrants further refinement of his/her

manuscript.

5 Make suggestions. Help the author(s) with

ideas on how to address the gaps or the prob-

lems 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!)

the interplay between gender, class, and dis-

ability shaped her life—a valuable perspec-

tive for those of us who are not accustomed

to seeing how our cultures shape our lives..

In addition, we agreed to practice a construc-

tive process in providing the critiques of vari-

ous drafts of the reviews. Listed in Table 3

are the 6 tips we followed in giving and re-

ceiving feedback.

Results

The process yielded eight critical book re-

views. All have been submitted for publica-

tion in a respected journal, carefully selected

to influence various social services practitio-

ners to read the book and to appreciate a DSE

perspective. Two have been accepted for pub-

lication in 2010. Journals included Florida

Educational Leadership, Urban Education,

Journal of Educational Administration, Is-

sues in Teacher Education, Teaching Excep-

tional 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 fo-

cused 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 call-

ing for increased dialogue. We learned to re-

spect 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 Teach-

ing to Trouble

In commenting on the usefulness of some of

the class readings for the book review assign-

ment, 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 percep-

tion…‖ [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 ac-

quired 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 help-

ful in formulating a way to approach the book

reviews through a DSE lens. Beth Ferri

(2006), a teacher educator at Syracuse Uni-

versity, explains that she purposefully trou-

bles her students so as to challenge their pre-

vailing unconscious assumptions about dis-

ability. Her purpose is to show them that the

notions of ability and disability are con-

structed. In her words,

Dislodging dominant paradigms re-

quires a critical rethinking of founda-

tional assumptions. For example, any

advocates of disability studies in educa-

tion, myself included, identify as being

pro-inclusion. Yet, because even in in-

clusive models the dominant group re-

tains the power to include or exclude,

inclusion in and of itself does not auto-

matically dislodge the privilege main-

tained by the dominant group‖ (Ferri, p.

292).

Other insights occurred in our critical

reviews which showed that our own under-

standings of the issues that had been studied

in previous semesters had changed, thus lead-

ing us to question our foundational knowl-

edge. The connection to becoming aware of

the power of language stimulated one partici-

pant 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 ti-

tle—‗I wash my face in dirty water‘-- imme-

diately induced vivid memories of my child-

hood 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, practi-

tioners, 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 ac-

ceptance of disability as a term referring spe-

cifically to social constructs. There is less

clarity on the use and definition of impair-

ment 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 pre-

service 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 vari-

ous populations of people with disabilities.

She wrote, ―my training as a speech-language

pathologist has been primarily from objectiv-

ist - quantitative paradigms. I found Gabel‘s

interpretations to be profound and I was im-

pressed 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 Long-

more during a recent teleconference [at our

university]. He mentioned the concept of do-

ing research WITH and not ON individuals

with disabilities. Regarding Gabel‘s choice to

use disability-first language in her scholar-

ship, I never knew how words could SIMUL-

TANEOUSLY 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-to-

face sessions and online discourse, all partici-

pants raised the issue of how to apply a DSE

perspective to their work as advocates in their

professional roles. Several addressed this di-

rectly in the critical book reviews by choos-

ing 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 prac-

tice. Neria‘s dilemma involved her profes-

sional organizations exclusion of those who

were deaf who could speak from their per-

sonal experiences, in their research, literature,

and conferences. Through discourse with the

writing team, Neria decided to write a posi-

tion paper using her newly acquired DSE par-

tial 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 re-

search proposal.

In contrast, Ocampo needed to change a

policy that was unfairly discriminatory re-

garding the treatment of very young children

with potential speech-language disorders

from marginalized families (with limited cul-

tural capital to negotiate the professional sys-

tem). 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 envi-

ronment. Similarly, Ocampo undertook a sys-

tematic 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 now-

to-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 advo-

cates. 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. Never-

theless, we believe that teacher education

professors at all levels (preservice, graduate,

and doctoral studies) can easily and benefi-

cially 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 proc-

ess of coming to critical consciousness

(conscientization), we were required to ana-

lyze (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 re-

quires questioning the status quo rather than

taking it as given – often creating an uncom-

fortable feeling. In Pedagogy of the Op-

pressed, Freire insisted that dialogical en-

counters can help students to develop critical

consciousness of social, political, and eco-

nomic 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 per-

spective. When the voices of those with dis-

abilities are heard, when DSE researchers and

educators join forces with people with dis-

abilities, then we become conscious of the

injustices that manifest in our current educa-

tional 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 con-

structing 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 edu-

cational and special educational practices!

The authors of the books we reviewed agree

on the power of engaging in dialogue to fa-

cilitate the conversations out of which partici-

pants acquire more language to name them-

selves and their experiences. The process of

finding my voice and naming myself as op-

pressed 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 liber-

ating pedagogy. The processes we followed

in writing book reviews using a DSE perspec-

tive helped us each to achieve that kind of

liberating pedagogy.

References

Cherland, M. R. (2006). Review of Teaching for Eq-

uity and Diversity--Research to Practice by R. P.

Solomon and C. Levine-Rasky (Published by Ca-

nadian Scholars Press, Toronto). Policy and Prac-

tice 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 ques-

tions 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 dis-

ability 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). Dis-

abilities 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., Cardelle-

Elawar, M., Beckett, E. C., & Reese, R. (1999).

(1999). Perspectives on a Freirean critical peda-

gogy 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 Re-

searcher, 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 pur-

pose? (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

Urban Narratives: Portraits in progress:

Life at the intersection of learning disability,

race, and social class

By: D. J. Connor

Bo

ok

Rev

iew

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 in-

fluence and effect one another. In David J.

Connor’s book Urban Narratives: Portraits in

Progress, Life at the Intersections of Learning Dis-

ability, Race, & Social Class (2008) eight urban

adolescents with learning disabilities describe their

experiences with life, disability, schooling, and

identity. Connor’s theoretical framework, method-

ology, self reflection, and historical analysis of

learning disability, race, and social class provide

readers with a substantial examination of the cur-

rent school bureaucracy that has perpetuated mar-

ginalized group into further alienation through seg-

regated special education classrooms. Using par-

ticipant voices as primary data, Connor uses ana-

lytic literary bookends to tie and support his par-

ticipants’ valuable and reflective voices that make

up one third of the text. To analyze this seminal

piece of literature, the reviewer will describe Con-

nor’s content, evaluate its contribution to the lit-

erature, and finally make recommendations for fur-

ther analysis.

Framing the Portraits

The voices that Connor sought to showcase re-

quired 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 narra-

tives 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 them-

selves. Therefore, Connor began by chronicling

his own journey as an educator while shedding

light on the marginalization urban youths with dis-

abilities have had to face in our current segregated

educational system through a thorough examina-

tion of the literature and current educational prac-

tices.

To fully frame his study, Connor also used

subsequent chapters to describe his purpose, par-

ticipants, setting, methodology, theoretical frame-

work, data collection, and finally extensive analy-

sis of these data. Each piece was woven together

with a critical lens in order for the reader to fully

understand the participants’ background and his-

tory 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 di-

verse 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 bot-

tom 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 stereo-

typical 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, hege-

monic, and interpersonal. He used these domains

to analyze the complicated ways in which LD in-

tersected with race and class. Following each do-

main addressed, Collins concludes with an exami-

nation of the politics of empowerment.

In his final chapter, Connor focused on con-

templations, 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 organ-

ized it into four short sections: Implications for

theory, implications for research, implications for

policy, and implications for practice. At the con-

clusion 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 art-

ists painting when being revealed, so, too, Connor

refrained from contaminating the narratives with

his own voice. Through the workshops he pro-

vided 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 in-

fuses power into the otherwise marginalized

(Connor, 2008). Conner also considered Fairbanks

(1996) who further encouraged collaborative ef-

forts in research by revealing the layers of experi-

ences each participant has to express. Thus, col-

laboration requires dialogism that was an ingredi-

ent 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 de-

gree and richness of involvement of the partici-

pants.

The eight portraits are prefaced with a short

biographical description, a poem by the partici-

pant, a sketch, and a personal narrative that delves

into a multitude of life experiences ranging from

school, disability, race, social class, social perspec-

tives, 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 dis-

abled. 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 disabil-

ity, 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 de-

sign and questions. Guiding his participants

through workshops and inquiries provided a plat-

form for his students to voice their experiences

without limitations. In addition, he empowered his

participants by encouraging them to situate them-

selves within their unique lived experiences. Fi-

nally, 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 disabil-

ity.

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 locat-

ing students who have dropped out of school he

could enhance the literature base as well as his re-

cent 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 experi-

ences 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 educa-

tion 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 partici-

pants relate in their own voices how they felt about their education is a powerful message. It’s a rare op-

portunity 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 consid-

ered in education and society.

References Connor, D. J. (2008). Urban narratives: Portraits in progress, Life at the intersections of learning disabil-

ity, 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 Dis-

ability 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 tra-

ditional 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 © 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 else-

where in this issue or on our website: www.fascd.org. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily

Officers and Board of Directors of FASCD

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

Paul Terry Past President

Alina Davis President-Elect

Secretary

Kim Pearson Executive Director

Johnny Nash President

David Magee Treasurer

Editorial Staff

Sherron Killingsworth Roberts is Associate Professor at UCF. She

may be reached at

skrobert@mail.ucf.edu

Associate Editor: Student Voices

Vicki Zygouris-Coe is profes-

sor at UCF. She may be reached at

vzygouri@mail.ucf.edu

Associate Editor: Perspectives

Editor

Marcy Kysilka is Professor Emerita at UCF.

She may be reached at kysilka@bellsouth.net

Mark Geary is asst. prof. at Dakota State

University, Madison, SD. He may be reached at:

Mark.Geary@dsu.edu

Associate Editor: Technology In The Schools

Associate Editor: Voices From The Field

Jeffrey Kaplan is Associate Professor

UCF. He may be reached at

JKaplan@mail.ucf.edu

Ann I. Nevin, is Professor Emerita, Ari-

zona State University. She may be reached

at: ann.nevin@ asu.edu

Associate Editor: Research in Practice

Pat Melvin Vice-President