This case study documents a professional learning community (PLC) comprised of urban elementary educators working toward equitable education for students with dis/abilities. We employ an equity-expansive learning frame to evoke and then examine tensions and contradictions that emerged during the PLC and mediated learning as evidenced by participants’ expanded notions of equity. We introduced equity-oriented mathematics education content and tools based on what emerged from the PLC, then utilized an interpretive approach to analyzing data through a multistage process. Results indicate identity and power tensions that worked against equitable practices. However, participants recognized several tensions and proposed to address them as contradictions that mediated learning, thereby expanding notions of equitable education.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
3.
ArtilesA. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164–202. doi:10.17763/haer.73.2.j78t573x377j7106
4.
ArtilesA. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431–445. doi:10.3102/0013189X11429391
5.
BlanchettW. J.MumfordV.BeachumF. (2005). Urban school failure and disproportionality in a post-Brown era benign neglect of the constitutional rights of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 70–81. doi:10.1177/07419325050260020201
6.
BlantonL. P.PerezY. (2011). Exploring the relationship between special education teachers and professional learning communities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 6–16.
7.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
ClarkL. M.DePiperJ. N.FrankT. J.NishioM.CampbellP. F.SmithT. M.. . .ChoiY. (2014). Teacher characteristics associated with mathematics teachers’ beliefs and awareness of their students’ mathematical dispositions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 246–284.
11.
Cochran-SmithM.Dudley-MarlingC. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 237–244.
12.
CollinsK.FerriB. (2016). Literacy education and disability studies: Re-envisioning struggling students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 7–12. doi:10.1002/jaal.552
13.
CurryM. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110, 733–774.
14.
DavisL. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. New York, NY: Verso.
15.
DavisL. J. (2013). The disability studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
de AraujoZ.RobertsS. A.WilleyC.ZahnerW. (2018). English Learners in K–12 mathematics education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0034654318798093
17.
DolkM.FosnotC. T. (2005). Turkey investigations, grade 3–5 (CD): A context for multiplication (Young mathematicians at work). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
18.
DychesJ.BoydA. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022487117705097
19.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
20.
EngeströmY. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
EngeströmY.EngeströmR.VähäahoT. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In ChaiklinS.HedegaardM.JensenU. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural–historical approaches (pp. 345–374). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
22.
EngeströmY.SanninoA. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
23.
FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re)segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107, 453–474.
24.
GlasserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
25.
GutiérrezK. D.VossoughiS. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 100–117. doi:10.1177/0022487109347877
26.
GutiérrezR. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 37–68.
27.
GutiérrezR. (2018). Rehumanizing mathematics. In GoffneyI. M.GutiérrezR. (Eds.), Re-humanizing mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students: Annual perspectives in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
HillH. C.SchillingS. G.BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30. doi:10.1086/428763
31.
HollandD.LachiotteW.SkinnerD.CainC. (1998). Positional identities: Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (2008). Interpretive practice and social action. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 173–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
KaffM. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators are leaving the field. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17.
35.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312–328. doi:10.1177/0014402914563697
36.
KozleskiE. B.ArtilesA. J. (2012). Technical assistance as inquiry: Using activity theory methods to engage equity in educational practice communities. In SteinbergS.CanellaG. (Eds.), Handbook on critical qualitative research (pp. 431–445). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
37.
KozleskiE. B.ThoriusK. A. K.SmithA. (2013). Theorizing systemic reform in urban schools. In KozleskiE. B.ThoriusK. A. K. (Eds.), Ability, equity, and culture: Sustaining inclusive urban education reform (pp. 11–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
38.
LambertR.TanP. (2017). Conceptualizations of students with and without disabilities as mathematical problem solvers in educational research: A critical review. Education Sciences, 7(2), 51. doi:10.3390/educsci7020051
39.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
42.
MartinD. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in Mathematics for All rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21.
43.
McLeskeyJ.LandersE.WilliamsonP.HoppeyD. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings?Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670
44.
MirendaP. (2008). A back door approach to autism and AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 220–234.
NilsenS. (2017). Special education and general education: Coordinated or separated? A study of curriculum planning for pupils with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 205–217. doi:10.1080/13603 116.2016.1193564
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
RosasC.CampbellL. (2010). Who’s teaching math to our most needy students? A descriptive study. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33, 102–113. doi:10.1177/0888406409357537
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. doi.10.1177/001440290707300401
52.
SkrticT. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148–207.
53.
SpoonerF.BrowderD. M. (2015). Raising the bar significant advances and future needs for promoting learning for students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 28–42.
54.
TanP. (2017). Advancing inclusive mathematics education: Strategies and resources for effective IEP practices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 28–38.
55.
TanP.KastbergS. (2017). Calling for research collaborations and the use of dis/ability studies in mathematics education. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 10(2). Retrieved from http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/321
56.
TanP.ThoriusK. K. (2018). En/countering inclusive mathematics education: A case of professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 6(2), 52–67.
57.
ThoriusK. A. K. (in press). Facilitating encounters with white supremacy and ableism through professional learning around special education disporportionality. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.
58.
ThoriusK. A. K. (2016). Stimulating artifact-mediated tensions in special education teachers’ figured world: An approach toward inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1326–1343.
59.
ThoriusK. A. K.MaxcyB. D.NguyenT. S. T. (2011–2014). The Great Lakes Equity Center Equity Assistance Center Program: Civil Rights Training and Advisory Services. Indianapolis, IN: Authors.
60.
ThoriusK. A. K.StephensonJ. (2012). Racial and ethnic disproportionality in special education. In NoltemeyerA. L.McloughlinC. (Eds.), Disproportionality in education and special education: A guide to creating more equitable learning environments (pp. 25–44). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
61.
ThoriusK. A. K.TanP. (2015). Expanding analysis of educational debt: Considering intersections of dis/ability, race, and class. In ConnorD. J.FerriB.AnnammaS. A. (Eds.), Critical conversations about race, class, & dis/ability (pp. 87–100). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
62.
ThoriusK. A. K.WaitollerF. R. (2017). Strategic coalitions against exclusion at the intersection of race and disability: A rejoinder. Harvard Educational Review, 87, 251–257.
63.
ValleJ.ConnorD. (2011). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
64.
VescioV.RossD.AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
65.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
WaitollerF. R.ArtilesA. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83, 315–356.
67.
WaitollerF. R.ThoriusK. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy with Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for student dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86, 366–389.
68.
WalshawM. (2013). Post-structuralism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity and power. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 100–118. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0100
69.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70.
YanowD. (2014). Thinking interpretively: Philosophical presuppositions and the human sciences. In YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 5–26). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
