Article Summary Form Complete APA Citation: Egbert, J., & Jessup, L. (1996, September). Analytic and systemic analyses of computer-supported language learning environments. TESL-EJ, 2(2), 1-24. http://tesl-ej.org/ej06/a1.html. Purpose: The purpose of my paper is to establish what kinds of tasks are effective for CALL classrooms. Category Entry RELEVANCE How does the study apply to your manuscript? What will you use it to do? This study provides some conditions that tasks should meet to be effective. I will use it to show what past research has found and what the gaps are. PARTICIPANTS Describe the participants generally. 102 ELL adults in community college. STUDY METHOD What was the method?: _____ ethnography __X___ experiment _____ grounded theory _____ participatory action research _____ phenomenology _____ other Describe the method in one sentence. The author used two groups (traditional and cooperative) and gave each an intervention using computers. Analyses included small-space analysis (multi-dimensional scaling) and MANOVA. STUDY PURPOSE State the purpose/topic of the study in one sentence. To uncover patterns of students’ perceptions in the 2 environments based on eight constructs DATA SOURCES _____ participant observation _____ interviews _____ historical _____ focus groups __X___ other Describe the data sources used to answer the research question. Pre/post survey CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS What did the study conclude? What were the implications of the findings? Groups may have process losses during tasks, control can be interpreted in various ways, it’s the students’ perceptions of the task elements that may matter more, previous computer use may matter to their interest in tasks, interest was central to student outcomes. WEAKNESSES What did the study fail to do? What were the limitations/delimitations of this study? Self report only, didn’t check whether students perceived the actual constructs or understood them, the difference in the tasks didn’t seem to make a difference so there were no real outcomes STRENGTHS What did this study accomplish? What did it add to the literature? What do we know now that we didn’t know before this study? What was done well? New methodology in CALL (MDS) and theory that can be tested. 3-4 sentence summary: In a seminal study, Egbert and Jessup (1996) explored students’ perceptions of two tasks, one drill-based and one content/culture-based. Using multi-dimensional scaling, they used a pretest/post test design to ask 102 community-college ELL students about their perceptions of 8 constructs of the tasks. Results included that student interest, based on how useful the task content and process was, might be a major factor in how they perceived the tasks. The authors note that further research should be done to explore how student interest can be integrated into tasks. Egbert and Jessup’s (1996) study with community college ELLs used multi-dimensional scaling to find p.

1. Article Summary Form
Complete APA Citation:
Egbert, J., & Jessup, L. (1996, September). Analytic and
systemic analyses of computer-supported language learning
environments. TESL-EJ, 2(2), 1-24. http://tesl-
ej.org/ej06/a1.html.
Purpose: The purpose of my paper is to establish what kinds of
tasks are effective for CALL classrooms.
Category
Entry
RELEVANCE
How does the study apply to your manuscript? What will you
use it to do?
This study provides some conditions that tasks should meet to
be effective. I will use it to show what past research has found
and what the gaps are.
PARTICIPANTS
Describe the participants generally.
102 ELL adults in community college.
STUDY METHOD
What was the method?:

2. _____ ethnography
__X___ experiment
_____ grounded theory
_____ participatory action research
_____ phenomenology
_____ other
Describe the method in one sentence.
The author used two groups (traditional and cooperative) and
gave each an intervention using computers. Analyses included
small-space analysis (multi-dimensional scaling) and
MANOVA.
STUDY PURPOSE
State the purpose/topic of the study in one sentence.
To uncover patterns of students’ perceptions in the 2
environments based on eight constructs
DATA SOURCES
_____ participant observation
_____ interviews
_____ historical
_____ focus groups
__X___ other
Describe the data sources used to answer the research question.

3. Pre/post survey
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
What did the study conclude? What were the implications of the
findings?
Groups may have process losses during tasks, control can be
interpreted in various ways, it’s the students’ perceptions of the
task elements that may matter more, previous computer use may
matter to their interest in tasks, interest was central to student
outcomes.
WEAKNESSES
What did the study fail to do? What were the
limitations/delimitations of this study?
Self report only, didn’t check whether students perceived the
actual constructs or understood them, the difference in the tasks
didn’t seem to make a difference so there were no real outcomes
STRENGTHS
What did this study accomplish? What did it add to the
literature? What do we know now that we didn’t know before
this study? What was done well?
New methodology in CALL (MDS) and theory that can be
tested.
3-4 sentence summary:
In a seminal study, Egbert and Jessup (1996) explored students’
perceptions of two tasks, one drill-based and one
content/culture-based. Using multi-dimensional scaling, they
used a pretest/post test design to ask 102 community-college
ELL students about their perceptions of 8 constructs of the
tasks. Results included that student interest, based on how
useful the task content and process was, might be a major factor
in how they perceived the tasks. The authors note that further
research should be done to explore how student interest can be
integrated into tasks.

4. Egbert and Jessup’s (1996) study with community college ELLs
used multi-dimensional scaling to find patterns in students’
responses to a survey about two tasks. Their findings suggest
that student perceptions of tasks may not be the same as
teachers and task designers for a variety of reasons, and that
more specific data on student group work in tasks is needed.
One study that does address tasks in the English language
classroom is Egbert and Jessup (1996). The researchers
explored two different tasks based on 8 constructs of learning
environment conditions. Although their study did not result in
definitive findings about effective CALL tasks, the theoretical
framework used can be useful in future research that explores
CALL tasks. Therefore, this framework has been adopted for the
current study.
Assignments View Feedback
Feedback for 4-2 Final Project Milestone Two: Applying
Storytelling Themes
Submission Feedback
Rubric Name: ENG 510 Final Project Milestone Two Rubric
Score
92.5 / 100 - A
Feedback Date
Feb 23, 2020 5:47 PM
Assignment

5. 4-2 Final Project Milestone Two: Applying Storytelling Themes
SP
Sandy:
You wrote an engaging scene that had me glued to my screen
from the onset. The emo!on feels authen!c
and the dialogue is intelligently and believably paced.
Addi!onally your classic and contemporary
jus!fica!ons showcased your self-awareness regarding the
conscious tac!cs and decisions you made as
well as your ra!onale for having chosen those pieces. Nice work
here.
Be well and have fun.
--S
Submission ID Submission(s) Turni!n® Similarity Date
Submi"ed
10163466 MIlestone 2.docx (11.5 KB) 0 % Feb 17, 2020 10:35
PM
https://learn.snhu.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folders_List.d2l?ou
=344913
javascript:void(0)
https://learn.snhu.edu/d2l/le/dropbox/344913/turnitin/747262/su
bmission/10163466/13316908/RetrieveOriginalityReport
https://learn.snhu.edu/d2l/common/viewFile.d2lfile/Database/M
TMzMTY5MDg/MIlestone%202.docx?ou=344913
Done

6. Creative Work (The Crisis)
Cast:
A woman in her late thirties (Carlotta)
Her son (Domingo)
The woman’s father (Papi)
Fletcher (Head of CIA)
Receptionist at CIA
Carlotta is in the middle of her hot pursuit to unravel the recent
fatal shooting of her sister-a detective working with the CIA.
Amid the pain of the loss of her sister, she has to deal with
taking care of an ailing bed-ridden father who is too sick to be
told that her bread winner daughter is no more lest he die out of
shock. On the other side, Domingo, Carlotta’s son, is unable to
go back to college due to financial crisis occasioned by the
demise of his aunt.
A seemingly distressed Carlota storms into an office building
after staying in the lift for what seems to be an eternity.
Carlota: Is he in? I need to speak to him as a matter of urgency.
Receptionist at CIA: Who?
Carlota: Fletcher, the head of CIA. I know he is in there. I’m
going in.
Receptionist: Just a moment madam. Appointment?
Carlota: (Now even more agitated) What? Are you kidding me?
Wasn’t she your colleague? Do you not care about Selina? It
doesn’t trouble you that her killers are on the loose and you, the
CIA are sitting on your damn asses? I’m going in.
Fletcher: Good morning Carlota. How may I help you?
Carlota: You can’t help me. Since you can’t find the killers of
my sister, I’m here to help you instead. I know who killed
Selina. It’s that weird boyfriend of hers. I knew it right then.
I’ve always had the feeling. The writing is on the wall!
Fletcher: Slow down Carlota. That’s a sensational accusation.
His alibi checked. Remember?!
Carlota: No! Doesn’t make sense at all. He had the motive. He

7. is a drug dealer. Took advantage of Selina but she finally saw
him for who he really is, a drug lord! You know I’m right
Fletcher.
Fletcher: Even if you are, the evidence does not support your
theory. Unfortunate. I know you are hurting but let us do our
job. We owe it to Selina as CIA and as our former colleague.
Carlota: (Amid tears) Hurting is an understatement of what I’m
going through…what my family is going through. Haven’t you
seen my father in that bed? I can’t even tell him Selina is no
more. At least when I tell him, it might hurt less if I also told
him that the killer was behind bars.
Back at Carlota’s home…
Domingo: Any breakthroughs mum? Am I going back to school?
Carlota: I’m sorry Domingo. I’m so sorry.
Domingo: It’s okay mum. We’ll be fine. As instructed, I haven’t
told Papi a word about it.
Carlota: Good. Hang on in there, you’ll be back to school once
the CIA sign off on your aunt’s benefits. Just a matter of time.
Phone rings…
Carlota: Carlota speaking…
Fletcher: This is Fletcher. Got news for you. You need to come
to the office right away.
Carlota: Right away. Thanks.
At the office…
Carlota: Finally!
Fletcher: Yes, a breakthrough finally. But it doesn’t look good.
Good news is we have proved motive for her boyfriend to want
to kill her and we have a witness that is willing to testify to the
fact that he ordered and payed for the hit on Selina. Bad news is
that we can’t take him down without soiling the reputation of
your sister. She was an accomplice to some of his dirty
business, intentionally or not, we don’t know. Either way, she’s
cooked.
Carlota: Oh my God. This can’t be real. What now?
Fletcher: I shouldn’t do this, but for Selina I’d bend the
rules…we take him down, he goes down with your sister’s great

8. reputation of service and with it the financial benefits due to
her.
Carlota: Oh no! What now?
Fletcher: You tell me. I want you to decide. It’s the reason I
wanted you here in person.
Justification
A. I would have my character (Carlota) grow into a character
that chooses compromise rather than justice or revenge. In light
of the financial distress occasioned by her sister’s demise,
coupled by an ailing father and an out of school son, letting her
killer go to protect the name of her sister and consequently open
the gates to the benefits would be the better option.
B. I used the third person point of view because it allowed me
the opportunity to look at the situation from a bird’s eye view. I
went for the view because it helped me narrate a story without
emotional bias.
C. I would definitely employ this point again in my future
works. I like the liberty and freedom that comes with the third
person point of view as it offers me the opportunity to create
my characters.
D. I just finished reading William Shakespeare’s classic ‘The
Merchant of Venice’. In his play, Shakespeare employs the third
person point of view in telling the woes that befall Antonio
following his defaulted loan given by Shylock. The author’s
choice of point of view offers him the liberty to explore the
intrigues surrounding business and cultural life in Venice.
E. The contemporary text I’m currently reading is ‘Become a
Better You’ by Joel Osteen. In this literature, the author
employs the second person point of view. Through this, the
book is able to live to its expectation of being the voice that
addresses the reader to show him/her how to become the best
version of themselves.

9. JAS I
2001, Vol. 26, No. 4, 270-280
copyright. 20011 by
TFhe Association for Persons with Severe Handicicaps
A Deweyan Plerslpect'ive on Democracy
and Inquilry 'in thle F'Ieldl ofI
Speclal iEducat'ion
Sc)t Danorth
University f Miss ttri-S t [ouis
On whlat basis do siec38al edicators wi-k i iig ti tl-e
area of severe discabi1lties maike deciseiioins" f7iis article
provides an exploration of the practice of social incquirv
in professional work theat drawns froni the clein-icriatc
ethics (f John Dewey. Dewev ienphasizies thi aeed fior
kn-towledge to contribute to the dailx'Y c/u lei of fos"ifier-
ing equialty in lirhunian interactions and relationships. His
philosophv suppor ts the /ree developmnciit of itiailiv
formis of social in7q iirv anad the c ditivaton- of a pluralist'ic
dialogue valuiing dlivese perspectoves. This ariticle con7-
cludes wit/ tia descriiption ovf adlisorv work witfin tie
sel f-advocacv movenient 7as an example of Dewevxcee de-
11oc 'ticv in acti.oi
DESCRI1PTORS: Johbn Dwey, special education,
denmocrcvc
For every wav of life that fails in its democracv

10. limits the conitacts, exchanges, the commumica-
tions, the interactions bv which experience is
steadied while it is also enlarged anid enriched ...
the task of demi ocracy is forever that of ci eatiton ot
a freer an-d more humane experience in which all
share ancd all contribute. (Dewevy 1993, p. 245)
SpeciaL ecdlucatioin practitioniers make many decisions
every day. Some come in rapid-fire moition, an almost
intuitive series of quick reactioas anidst the deluge of
numerous classrooma demr ands. Some comie msire
slowly, occaurring in brief excxhanges between col-
leanues, discussions about problems, options, dead
ends, and hopefully solutions. Others come very slowlv,
dragging through long meetings itvolxving policies and
rules, in volving aEiput fro m and discussion across m-any
parties with varied perspectives and values. What all of
these decision-makino situations have in comrmon is the
requirem ent that professionals handle a complex situ-
ation that may be vie wed fiom i-nany perspectives in
Address all correspondence asd requests for reprints to
Scot Daniforth, College of Education, 8001 Niatural Bridge
Road, St. Louis, MO 63121-4499. F. asi: scotIurnal.edu
such a wav as to precipitate worthwhile action. Somne-
how the professional iimust solrt thriough the inforimation
and the perspectives onr the problem in o6ider to stand
firmly eniough on ani answer to take a step ftorwarcd to
do somiiethina worth doinrg.

11. But decision making occurs not mereliv in. a piece-
meal fashion. as if otne's choices and actions in one
moment have nio relevant connection to the circum-
stance that precedes or follows. We should view pro-
fessionl I decision makikig thi ough a less microanalytic
lens, tocusineg not onix on the process of thought and
choice within a specific moment, but on the broader
sense of social purpose that encompasses and unites a
profession a4s manr actions. We may- conceptualize
profession-ial decisioni makling as a broad and deep
stream of eitacted purpose and intent, an oni-going h tu-
man etfort of a distinctlv moral nature. But how does a
professional do this" On xwhat basis does one consider
information, input, options, alternatives, and perspec-
tives On wxhat basis does one make the many impor-
tant decisions?
Traditionally, many resear hers have adIvised pirofes-
sionals to listen-E to tthe adsvice of ouLtr special eduication
knowledge base. For mIani (btit obviousil not all) is-
sues, there is a social scietnce research literature that can
be hiahly informative to practitio-ners. We researchers
often bemnow-i the so-calledi -research-to-practice gap,"
the way that research findings tenid to grow old on ye-
lowving pages rather than actively inform the practices
of teachers.
In the past, because of the positiVist roots of mi6ost
special education research (Skrtic, 1991 1996; foi cur-
rent status of positivist roots, see Kauffman & Brigham.
1999), it was nIot uncommorn fto researilhers to clam
that professionals should viexw research as preseriptive,
to sonme extent dictating specific kinds of professional
action This xway of viewing research helct that social
scientists had methods of creatinig kinowledge that al-
lowed us to (a) accurately lmap the biological acnd psy-

12. chocagical dimensions of specific disabilitv condi-
tions,9 and (b) authoritatively discern between erfec-
tive (.xwh at w oirks") and ineffective ("what doesn't
work,") professional practices and programs. In the lat-
ter case, this claimi took the form of attemi pts to "sci-
270
Dcemocracy andi Inquiry
entifically validate" professioinal practiies (Danforth.
1 999).
As the field of disability research has muatured over
the past two decades, many special educators have
gradually be/come uncon vinced that the idea that a
single approach to research is superior and theref ore
should be entrusted with prescribing professional ac-
tion (D'anforth, 19)7; Heshusius, 1988, 198)a, 1989b;
Kliewer & Drake, 1998; Patton, I998; Poplin, 1987,
1988; Skrtic, 1991. 1996). Certainly, the area of severe
dLisabilities has been a leader in opening minds to the
divergent voices and nondominant forrms of knowledge.
In an era of cultural critique and the proliferation of
research methods and phileosophies, special educators
have moved inTcreasingly toward honoring the conmplex-
ity and uncertain ground of professioial decisions.
As a contrast to the historically prior goal of acdhering
to the findings of a particular brand of science, an al-
ternative is to suggest that professioinal decisions he
made in light of a worthwhile goal for community and
humanity, an orienitation to soeial ethics. If our profes-
sional mission is to bring benefit and hope to students

13. considered to hlave disabilities and their families, it fol-
lows that we exa'mine and take actioni amidst challeng-
ing situ'ttions in the light of a serious concern for the
ethics of social and commu nal living.
Ackn-owledging the priority of social ethics in profes-
sioinal work allows us to recast our decision making in a
broa'der light, incquiring how a given professional actilon
might contribute to a social ethics of communal livi'ng
that supports the developlment of peace, equality, and
social justice. Cast in this way, the highly focused ques-
tioni of a single professional deeision is iinseparable fronm
broater ethical and political conversations about how
we-professionals' families, iidividuals with disabili-
ties, and others-might co-construct -the good life and
the good society (Gouinlock, 1994, p. Xi)" together.
In recent years. mnany speciail eduLcators have claimed
that the most hbopeful and useful tradition of social eth-
ics available resides within the de'mocratic traditio is of
the American heritage (Danforth, 1999; Edgar, 1998;
Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; Skrtic, 1996). Edgar (199<, p.
163) hhas described democracy as a commoni cultural
niarrative within the American tradition that provides
tremendoes hope aind guidance for "how people of di-
verse hackgrounds, talents, and personal ncarratives can
live together in peace and justice." A deAmocratic ethics
of communal living might provide not a narrow "one
best way"' within which all should walk, but a multifac-
eted and inclusive conceptuIal and practical umbrella, a
social vision that accepts the diversity' of the many cul-
tural traditions and human variations that make up this
country and1 our schools, seeking the dcaily creation of
social equality and individual dignity within our profes-
sionial work.

14. The recent turin to a democratic ethics among special
educators echoes siimilar conceptual developments in
the nascent field of disability studies (Charlton, 1998;
Davis, 1997; Hahn, 1983, 1985, 1987; Linton. 1998;
Linton, Mllo, & O'Neill, 1995; Thoinson, 1995). Dis-
ability studies is a multi-disciplinary field of inquiry that
discards the traditional psychological and m edical em-
phiasis onI functional limitations. Working within or
drawing from the humanities, disability studies scholars
generally frame disa'bilitv within a minority group
model that focuses on the social, econoinic. and politi-
cal factors that limit the participation of individuals
with disabilities in many aspects of society. The goal is
not so much the treatnment of itidividual deficits in bio-
physical or cognitive functioniing, but rather the fuller
developmeient of inclusive denocratic communities that
welcome and support persons of widely varied abilities,
behavioral styl'es, and ph'sical iforms.
These democratic genres of disability scholarship in-
form us that an; thoughtful inquiry concerning profes-
sion'al work nmust be embedded within a broader dis-
cussion of social and commiunal ethics, of how people of
diverse abilities and bodily forms may live, learn, and
work together in acn ethical nmanner. In this essay, I turn
to the democratic philosophy of John Dewey as a
source of wisdonm and guidan'ce. Dewey is ideal counsel
because he spent a career spanning seven decades ex-
amining issues concerning philosophy of: sience, the
c )nnectioni betwee'n knowledge and practice, and the
contributions of inquiry to democratic life.
In this article, we will explore John Dewey's philoso-
phy of democratic ethics as a wav of understanding the
role of so:cial inquiry in the practical dlecisions made

15. each day by special educators and other service profes-
sionals. From that Dewevan perspective, this paper will
outline a broad understanding of how the practice of
social inquiry might contrihute to the work of profes-
sionals and the well-being of students and their fanmilies
within the daily tasks of demeocratic living.
The Aristocratic Ideal and the
Democratic Ideal
Every autocratic and a'uthoritarian scheme of so-
cial action rests on a belief that the needed intel-
ligence is confined to a superior few, who ... are
endowed with the ability an d right to control the
conduct of others; laying down principles a nd rules
anct directing the vays in which they are carried
out. (Dewey, 1994, p. 266)
In 1 888, while still a young professor at the Univer-
sity of Michigan, John Dewey published a paper that
f'oreshadowed much of the philosophical work he
would cdo over the next six centuries. In "The Ethics of
Democracy." Dewey used the term "democracy"' not in
reference to a form of government but as "can ethical
conception ... a form of moral and spiritual associa-
tion" (Dewey, 1993, p. 59). To explain his concept of
271
22)anforth
democracy as a practical, daily ethics of human inter-
action and communal living, Dewey contrasted: "the

16. aristocratic ideal" with "the democratic ideal."' A]-
though each ideal believes strongly that people should
live together in an orderly and peaceful fashion, the two
ideals differ greatly in explaining hbow that peaceful co-
existence should be created, organized, and main-
taimied.
The aristocratic ideal is based on Plato's notion of the
small group of philosopher-kings whose keein insight
and superior understanding provides a beacon of light
and authoritative direction for the proper activities of
all in the community. The multitude, the masses of
common community members, are assumed to be un-
able to understand what is best for theemselves and
therefore must turnt to a small group of highly educated
and intelligent leaders to find their proper place andi
activities in society.
The few best, the aristoi; these know and are fitted
for rule: but they are to rule niot in their own in-
terests but in that of society as a whole. and there-
fore, in that of every individual in society. They do
not bear rule over the others; they show thenm what
they can best do, and g-u6ide them in doing it.
(Dewey, 1993, p. 60)
The aristoi, the aristocracy who provide a benevolent
and paternal form of leadership, base their right to lead
on the claim, of superior knowledge. T'hey are "fitted
for rule" because they "know"; they knowxv what is best
in a way that common persons unidoubtedly could not.
Therefore, the prescriptions for the orderly and peace-
ful society, including the planis for how each individual
shall fit within the larger whole, are crafted by the :few
and kindly setnt down to the masses who await and
require direction.

17. Despite the benevolent gentleness of this aristocratic
model, Dewey rejects it in, favor of the democratic
ideal. In his words, the aristocratic ideal has historically
"failed because . . . the practical consequence of giving
the fewv wise ard good power is that they cease to be
wise and good. They become ignorant of the nieeds and
requirements of the manivy they leave the many outside
the pale with no real share in the commonwealth"
(Dewey, 1.993. pp. 60-6I). Later in his career, Dewey
would fully critique the assertion that a group of thinik-
ers could claim to hold a higher, greater form of knowl-
edge (Dewey, 1920, 1929) . At this early point, he con-
centrates on the political and social implications of such
a hierarchy of knoowledge. The lopsided distribution of
power creates a social chasm between the elite aind the
masses. The elite end up losing touch with the experi-
ences, perspectives, and needs of the masses,. wvile the
masses live in a society whose governan ce they do: nzot
share. "A class of experts is inevitably so removed. fro(m
common interests as to becoime a class xvith private
interests and private knowledge, whiich in social nmatters
is no knowledge at all" (Dewev. 1927, p. 20)7). The very
reason for the appointment of the elite experts to the
post ol leadership. the superior knowxledge of that
group concerning the well-being of all, fails within the
social divisioni and inequalitv of the arrangement.
Dewey offers the democratic ideal as the pronmising
and j1ust alternative. He explains that the democratic
ideal involves an ethical understanding of the relation-
ship between the inidividual anbd the community. In-
stead of viewitng the individual and the larger society in
opposition, Dewey's democratic ethics maintains that
the well-beine of the commuinity and the development

18. of individuals operate in reciprocal tandem. The goal of
the demnocratic society is to assenmble communities of
equality and social support such that the free expres-
sion and full development of the individuality of each
citizen is a paramount concern. The task of the inidi-
vidual withtin the democracy is to contribute his or her
unique talents and effort to the daily interactions and
activities that construct and further the communitv of
fireedom and equality.
At the heart of this is Dewey's belief in the complete
dignitv and universal humaniity of every individual. At
the bottom of it all, beneath our impressions of the
characteristics, abilities, or social importance of any one
person, ties no wav cf distinguishing the value of one
person from the value of aniother. In true humanistic
style. he calls us to understand all persons as equal in
worth. Dewey states: "It means that in every person
there lives an infinite and universal possibility; that of
being a king anid priest" (Dewey, 1993, p. 63). Aristoe-
racy casts indiividuals inito social roles based upon two
classes of value: the knowing and the unknowing, the
powerful and the powerless. A democratic ideal, ac-
cording to Dewey, holds that no matter how we might
feel or think about an individual, our practical axiom in
all our actions is that a basic equality, dignity, aind pos-
sibility inheres to each person.
Coupled with this understanding of the individtual is
Dewey's ethical concept of democratic living within a
commrnunity. He introdtuces this philosophy in his 1888
paper and extends it in his marny works through the
nanny years (Dewey, 1916, 1920, 1925, -1927. 1929, 1930.
1939; (Gouintlock, 1994; Westbrook, 1991; Ryan, 1995).
Three notable tlhemes recur in his writings on demo-
cratic comnmnunity: (a) the creation of equality in mun-

19. dane. daily activity; (b) the need for ani equal, inclusive
dialogue amiiong the diversity of community members;
anid (c) the role of free, cooperative, practical inquiry in
a democracy. In the sections to follow, I will explain
eacGh of these, concluding with the Deweyan urnder-
standiing of how a social inquiry enacting values of free-
don; cooperation, and practicality can serve and fortify
a democracy. Ihis will present a notion of inquiry to the
field of special education (and the broader professional.
commumnty) as a philosophy of social knowledge that
272
offfers promise and hope to those who seek to contrib-
ute to democratic ways of living.
The Daly, Communal aking of Equality
"Equa'lity . . . is not a natural possession but is a fruit
of the community... " (Dewey, 1927, p. 151). One
could call Dewey's understa'ding of democratic com-
munity an -over-the-side-fence" brand of associated
living, a philosophy of social ethics that describes equal-
ity not as an antecedent given but as a relational mode
created and recreated in the face-to-face conversations
and interaetions of common folk. Two neighbors lean
against the fence that divides their properties. each
standii g at the edge of her oxwn individuality, the par-
tial weight of each set in equal proportion against op-
posite sides if that common fence. As the neighbors
lean, they talk about interests and con.cerns that are
inevitably shared by persons who live side by side. It is
in that brief or extended discussion, tlat mundane so-
cial exchange that occurs daily in side yards, market-

20. places. houses of worship, and schools, where the
equality of persons can be made and rem-ade. In this
sense, equality thrives not within abstract state'ments of
pre-existing or natural rights, but through the actions
taken each day by eitizens who carry on this `icommon
narrative" (Edgar, 1998, p. 162) called demoeratic liv-
ing. Equality resides not in the areater knowledge or
worcis of elites, but in the associated conduct of plain
folks who are muddling through as best as they can.
Elaboirating on the way Dew'ey frames the politi-s of
society in terms of a practical ethics of human interac-
tion and relationship, Kerr (1996) invites us to create
cooperative, civi' spaces that foster "nurturance." She
niotes that the act of nurturing rings of words like
"love," "ciring," and "fully listening." Yet she hesitates
to allow those well-known words and ideas aboct sup-
portive reiationships to encapsulate her notion of "nur-
turance." It is all this, of course, but it is something
more. Kerr then invites us to engage in a little thought
experiment as a way of explaining her demoeratie-
relational idea.
What would it be like for you, Kerr asks us to imag-
ine, if your experienee of the world was completely
unrecognized, unnoticed, and unvalicdated by those
around yion'? What if the way y/ou felt, thought, or
viewed the events of your existence found no acknowl-
edgment or reception among other persons?
That is, when you feet pain, no one will ackniowl-
edge your discomfort. When you feel ebullient, 'io
one will smile back. When yot grieve, no one will
acknowledge your loss. When you report what you
experience an reading a poem, no one will ac-
knowled e your report, much less your experiene'.

21. Others talk only of their own experiences and the
facts of matters. (Kerr, 1996, pp. 41-42)
-u1q-u:y 273
To live without ainyone giving validation to your expe-
rienice of the world wonlld be the purest form of isola-
tion.
The tragedy of this isolation is not only the experi-
ence o'f anguish at lyving without relational validation
and support. Kerr explains that living in a state of cor-
plete social invisibility leads one to lose sight of oneself,
to lose a sense of one's iwn identity. An individual
comes to know himself or herself through the experi-
en ce of having feeliings, thoughts, and perspective rec-
ognized and even valued by others. To exist with no
such mirroring back of one's experienlce from other
persons strips one's biographv of weight, substance, and
legitimacy. It is to walk on sand without leaving a foot-
print. Indeed, as Kerr (1996, p. 42) concludes, "Your
self, your soul, is lost."
In Deweyan style, Kerr tells us that the difficult task
of creating a demicratic society amounts to multiple,
cooperative efforts to nlake social spaces where "nur-
turance" is possible, where individuals may construct
worthwhile selves throutgh the mutual acknowledgment
and validation of one another's experiences. In a demo-
cratic community, we craft opportunities, civic spaces,
where the personal stories of each may be equallv
heard (e.g., Coles, 1989). "Social spaces, civic spaces, a
safe, shared place to play with life as one actually ex-
periences it; a place whbere others recognize, acknowl-
edge, respect one's experiences-the self requires these
and is constituted in them" (Kerr, 1996, p. 47). 'The

22. practical activitv of demo cratic living amoutnts to imag-
ining, arranging for, supporting, and furthering the cul-
tivation of social opportunities where vxaluable selves
can be made.
Kerr warns us of the difficulty of doing this. The
structures and social habits of corporations, institutioins,
and helping professions tend to work against nur-
turance. Often the formalized procedures of profes-
sional helpers preclude the informal, relational acts of
nurturancee the co-construction of meaning in trustful
interaction. The experienices, perspectives, and bio-
graphic stories of disadvantaged groups are often de-
valued, ignored, and sileneed. Often they are destoried
by the very professionals v'ho seek to help.
What is needed, Kerr claims, are not armies of pro-
fessionals devising formal, depersonalized interven-
tions targeted at fixing up disordered lives. but 'messy,
labor-intensive work and ... thoughtful listlening by
persons who are willing and able to be curious about
the lives of others and to make the experiences of oth-
ers an integral part of their own stornes" (Kerr, :1996, p.
63). What is needed by professionals and nonprof-es-
sionals alike is a demoeratic ethic that actively trusts
and supports the priority of supportive, nurturing rela-
tionships. Respect, equality, and the nourishment of
self can occur in a civic society where social o(pportu-
nities for mutual and equal sharing, hearinig, atnd telling
abound.
T1-set----T --]f - _:_lir
l}WI1ltJWl a;y

23. 274 Dan
"Till the Great Society is coniverted into the Gr-eat
Communitv, the puablic will rem-ain in eclipse. C'omll
munieationi alone can create a Gireat Community"
(Dewey, 1.927, p. 142). The Deweyan picture of demo-
cratic living depenids oni processes of open and tree
communication. It views the community as a m-iosaic
multiplicity of dynamice social spaces where the plurality
of diverse views and perspectives are inivitedi atnd ac-
cepted. A sh-ared culture of equality and frceedom is
created in the dialogue of varied, disparate, and eveni
opposinig voices.
TFhe goal of public dialogue is not conformity, not a
uniformity of opin-ion or belief, T'he gyoal is not to get
everyonie to read from the same page, ch-ant the same
syllables, buy into the same theory, engage in. the samne
practices, in fact, to Dewey, conformity only occurs
wheni democratic dialogue is halted, wvhen discussion is
stagn-ated. "Conformity is the name of the absen-ce of
vital interplay; the arrest and benumbinig of commiuni-
cation' (Dewey, 1930, pp. 85-86). The only consensus
required by dem'ocracy is the general agreemenit to ac-
cept differences of belief in order to maintain the civil
space of dialogue. What is shared is the valuinig of the
equal opportunity to speak one's mind, to contribute
what one can to the community, to offer forth wordis
arising Ifrom onie's experience anid cultutral background,
Conlformity of th ought and action are anathema to ani
inclusive civic dialogue.
The purpose of this inclusive and diverse dialogue is
moral. What citizens discuss, ei-ther directly or indi-
rectly, through the specific issues an-d dilemmas that fill
the daily conversationis fall unider the general. moral

24. heiadingT of "How shall xve all live together? I-ow shall
we bring about peace and justice?" There are no cer-
tainties or absolutes regarding the outcomae of the
moral dialogue (for it can always go this way or thiat).
The distinctly moral dimensioni is en,acted not in the
surety of the results, but within, the cooperative process
of inclusive conversation. itself. Freedoma of speech, the
equal hearing of diverse perspectives, th-e common. mu-
tu-ally trusting sh-aring of the dialogue itself make for a
social process of uniquely moral substance.
Essential to this process of discussion is the attitude
of critique (see Patton, 1998). thre vigilanit axvareness of
and opposition to the on-going prevalence Of SOCia,l in-
equalities within the m-undane structures and habits of
groups, organizations, professions, anid the capitalist
marketplace. Dewey did not simiply paint a niaive and
idealized picture of an egalitarian and just comrmunity
thiat could be spread like vanilla frosting over a politi-
cally tainited cake-a happy tale to coiver up the miany
embattled, unjust social realities of American life. H-e
was fully aware of the pervasive tendency of political
power to tilt civic conversations and arrangements in)
the favor of privileged groups. Onie reason hei con-tina-
foirthi
ously championied the need for marginalized groups to
participate fully in all aspects of Amierican society was
his awareness that these groups often bring an ohr
wise unnoticed critique of the status quo. of the as-
sumed *fairness of doing butsiness as usual (sce West-
brook, 1991:. Ryan, 1995). A truly inclusive dialogue
allows for the unique perspectives of the disempowered
to conitribute critique of the customary practices of
dominanit groups, thereby providing f'or opportunities

25. for th e cor'rection of those' habituial practices anid the
greater equalization of power.
Inquiry: Free, Practical, Cooperative
John Dewey was one of the m-tost promineint and in-
fluential supporters of th-e developmnent of the new,, so-
cial sciences in the first half of the 20th cenitury. That
said. it would be an error for a niaive readier to dub th-is
philosopher as a "~positivist" or "objectivist" based oni
reading, a Dewey passage concerning the need for social
researchers to adapt the approaches of the natur al sci-
ences to the problems of the social world. He undoubt-
edly champioined the moral utility of social science (in-
cluding positivist or objectivist ap'proaches) in address-
ing the wide ranige of problems facing the public in thec
-modern era: however, a broad anid full reading of his
works in the areas of epistemology, social science, and(
ethics yields a complex vision of social inquiry that goes
far beyond thei limited scope, purpose, and mnethods of
aniy sinigle tiradition of research, In Dewrve, we see the
philosophical forerunner to the cuirrently developing
mosaic of multiple research miethods-quanititative and
qualitaitivc anid widely varied epistemologies (Dewey,
1916, 1920, 1925, 1927. 1929, 1930. 1939; Gouinlock,
1994, Westbrook, 1991: Ryan. 1995).
Dcewcv nevecr saw social scientists as ani elite group
hiaving access to a greater form of knowledge than is
available to the commoner. a "knowing" group that
should prescribe policy anid actioni to) the masses. As
Dewe-y scholar James Gouinlock explain-s.
Scienice is conceived as an instrument of hiuman
liberation anid enrichment. Dexwey abhors the no-

26. tion of having scientists rule communities:, anid h-e
never advocatcd anything so authoritarian (and
logTically absurd) as making the "right" hiuman
chioice folioxving deductively f"romi scientific piropo-
sitions. (CGouinlock. 1994,1 P. xxxiii)
Dewey held no illusion that natural or social science
could somehow allow humians to coireetly or near-
correctly represent the social worldi, whether that symi-
bolic representation occurs in numbers (quantitative)
or words (quialitative). He therefore did not see re-
searchers as leading the way in prescribinig actions to
professionals or layper-sons. Instead, be viewved social
science researchers as the crucial providers of in-
formed, r-ational opinions to the putblic on specific areas
Democracy and Inqiuilry
of expertise, creating well-reasoned statenents about
particular issues beyond the expertise or interest of the
layperson.
What Dewey envisioined for social inquiry was the
applica tio n of specific attitudes and forms of thought-
ope'n-mindedn ess, reflection, critique, flexibility, ex-
perimentation, imagination, foresight--to the conscious
contelRt of' one's experieince (see C'ampbell, 1993;
Dewey, 13925, 1927, 1993). The purpose of inquiry is the
further development of a democratic community of the
nature outlined abhove. The next three sectionis of this
paper will explain how Dewey viewed inquir y as free,
cooperative, and prac tical.
Free Inquiry

27. It may seem od d to many researc hers that inquiry be
described as "free." To those who work their wav
through graduate courses in educational or psychologi-
cal researclh methods, an inevitable lesson is that a re-
searcher …
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 3
Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy
and (Special) Education
Jennifer P. Stone & Donna M. Sayman
Wichita State University
Kelly Carrero
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Mandy E. Lusk
Clayton State University
Journal of Thought, Fall-Winter 2016
Rationale
It seems almost incredible to us, for example, that things which
we know
very well could have escaped recognition in past ages.
—John Dewey (1916, p. 21)
Equality is not sameness. In special education, all aspects of
educa-
tion and access are framed with the understanding that what is
fair is

28. not necessarily equal. In an age of heightened awareness of civil
rights
for many marginalized groups of people, our culture confuses
“equality”
with “equity.” Equality never guarantees, nor should it, that all
will be
equal. As Garrison (2012) posited, “equality is the antithesis of
same-
ness…Democratic moral equality celebrates incommensurably
unique,
one-time-only qualitative individuality” (p. 370).
The centennial of Dewey’s (1916) classic Democracy and
Education
reminds scholars about the love Dewey brought to the field of
educa-
tion, and by inference, special education. This anniversary leads
to
the contemplation of the issues of promise in education through
social
justice, and how differently special education practices would
look if
Dewey were alive today. The authors imagine Dewey’s voice
echoing
through the century was resounding clearly with the promise of
a true
democratic education for all children. This article
conceptualizes special
education in relation to Dewey’s vision of democratic education
and how
that would be framed in Democracy and Education.
It is the goal of this article to postulate how Dewey would have
Hibah Alharbi

29. Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy and (Special) Education4
imagined an education system had he the knowledge available
today.
This conceptual argument was directed by the question: What
would
Dewey say about modern inclusionary practices of students with
special
needs in a regular education classroom? The authors posit that
an ex-
amination of the current American education system through
Dewey’s
gaze would reveal that special education, as conceptualized
under IDEA
(2004), would not exist if Dewey had been born a few decades
later.
The authors further postulate that education and educator
prepara-
tion would include a focus on all children regardless of
difference, and

30. educators would differentiate based on each student’s strengths
and
needs had one of the seminal works in our field been able to
incorporate
the knowledge and understanding of children with
exceptionalities
available in this day and age. The authors agree with Danforth’s
(2008)
premise that Dewey would view disability as a social construct
and that
what disables a person is not an innate difference, but the way
society
interprets difference as aberrant. This paper seeks to illuminate
Dew-
eyan philosophy and its effect on special education by
addressing these
major topics: (a) the current state of American (special)
education; (b)
Dewey and inclusion; and (c) philosophy in special education
The Current State of American (Special) Education
At the beginning of the 20th century, people with severe
exception-
alities were not educated in public schools and few were raised
by their
families. It was customary for these individuals to be
recommended by
the family physician for institutionalization at a very young age.
These
people were shielded from society and society was shielded
from them.
It is not surprising that Dewey did not refer to people with
exceptionali-
ties in any uncertain, or more historically representative, terms
in his
pivotal work, Democracy and Education (1916). That does not

31. preclude
the idea that Dewey’s ideas are not directly relevant and
applicable to
the structure of today’s inclusive schools.
In fact, Baglieri and Shapiro (2012, p.67) stated that they are
not
“feeble minded” was the general consensus and terminology of
the early
20th century. In light of these policies and practices, Dewey
himself was
not shaped by experiences with people with exceptionalities. He
was
shielded from this population. Dewey’s own Pedagogic Creed
(1897) did
not take into consideration the psychological and sociological
needs of
students with exceptionalities. By revisiting Democracy and
Educa-
tion with a critical lens, the authors postulate how Dewey would
have
envisioned inclusive school practices such as co-teaching,
differentiated
instruction, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
WHY
Hibah Alharbi

32. Hibah Alharbi
‫مهمه‬ ‫قطه‬ ‫�ن‬
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 5
Situated in Deweyan philosophy through this uniquely
interpretive
lens, Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed would have one believe schools
are in a
unique situation to mimic society and help children understand
their
places therein (Dewey, 1897). Historically, when special
education ser-
vices in public schools were organized for individuals with
significant
exceptionalities (e.g., low functioning autism, medically fragile,
severe
cognitive impairments), they were separate, as mirrored in
society. This
was accomplished through an emphasis of difference and deficit
which
was clearly exemplified as these students were often educated in
sepa-
rate buildings or classrooms rarely were allowed to interact with
their

33. normally functioning peers (Raymond, 2011).
Analyzing Democracy and Education (1916) through Dewey’s
descrip-
tion of democratic schooling led to a unique perspective of how
embed-
ded, dichotomous thinking about education practices maintains
and
perpetuates a normalizing system of general versus special
education.
This denies social justice for all students, contradicting the
democratic
principles of an American education. Ashby (2012) noted, “The
separation
between general and special education is neither natural nor
inevitable”
(p. 98). If traditional teacher preparation programs do not
sufficiently
prepare general education teachers to reach the diverse students
they
will have in their classrooms, it only serves to embed a dual
education-
track mindset in the American system of schooling. Because
society has
become more inclusive and Dewey (1897) would have school
primarily
be a social institution representing present life, a major
paradigm shift
in teacher preparation programs is critical for ushering in true
social
justice and democratic education for all students.
If teacher preparation programs could effectively equip all
future
educators to (a) recognize characteristics of exceptionalities, (b)
differ-
entiate curriculum for diverse learners, and (c) effectively
implement a

34. positive behavior support system, dual-track systems of special
educa-
tion versus general education could be eliminated. Instead,
American
schools could offer a truly democratic education based on a
bedrock of
social justice by allowing true equal opportunity for all
students. More
than at any other time in American education, general educators
need
to accommodate instruction thereby allowing equitable
education for a
wide range of students in their classrooms.
The responsibility for training these educators belongs to
teacher
preparation programs. Dewey (1897) believed in the power of
connecting
the purpose of schooling directly to the individual’s needs (the
psychologi-
cal) and then to the social interaction in order to give learning
purpose.
Later, Dewey (1916) envisioned learning as an interactive
process where
new knowledge builds on prior knowledge within that social
interaction.
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi

35. Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy and (Special) Education6
Viewed through this critical lens, those with (dis)abilities have
greater
autonomy and an equal voice to express their experiences, thus
allowing
them equal power in their education (Gallagher, 2004). In what
Garri-
son (2012) described as “creative democracy” (p. 369)
education should
provide students with the ability to be critical thinkers and
challenge
social constructs that corrupt and separate people. Current
teacher
preparation paradigms negate the legacies of hope promised
through
decades of reform and policy since Brown v. Board of
Education and
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004).
This dual
educational track in schools actually entrenches segregated
thoughts in
educating typically developing students apart from those with
differ-
ences. In response to troubling data about the post-school
outcomes for
individuals with disabilities, various reforms efforts are being
proffered
to ameliorate the issue (Naraian & Oyler, 2014).

36. Teacher preparation programs have, historically, equipped
educators
for separate areas of teaching: general or special education
(King-Sears,
Carran, Dammann, & Arter, 2012). The problem is that teachers
in
general education are often insufficiently trained to
differentiate either
the curriculum or the classroom environment for students with
varying
levels of academic or behavioral needs. Lack of preparation to
accom-
modate the curriculum, classroom environment, and behavior
may lead
to the teacher incorrectly recommending students with
differences for
special education testing rather than providing needed
interventions
(Gehrke & Cocchiarella, 2013). Dewey (1897) saw that the
school was
the center of social progress, but in order for this to be
achieved, it was
necessary to endow the educator with the tools necessary to
perform
the tasks required. The proper teacher preparation, in this case,
is what
is needed at this time in society where diversity means
understanding
the needs of all children in a classroom.
Dewey and Inclusion
Inclusion as a Necessity of Life
Beings who are born not only unaware of, but quite indifferent
to, the
aims and habits of the social group have to be rendered

37. cognizant of
them and actively interested. Education, and education alone,
spans
the gap. (Dewey, 1916, p.6)
The authors imagine Dewey would stress that students with
excep-
tionalities cannot learn on their own, that they would need
support to
understand the world into which they have been born. Inclusion,
at its
basest form, exists as a matter of placement or educational
setting in
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 7
which children with exceptionalities are enrolled in programs
that are
designed for typically developing children. In this version of an
inclusive
classroom, the children with exceptionalities have the ability to
interact
with their nondisabled peers. Recent developments in
educational policy
and best practice call for inclusion of students of all ability
levels to be
educated in the same setting to the maximum extent possible or
appro-

38. priate (U.S. Department of Education, 2015 a). There are
dichotomous
viewpoints as to the extent to which this setting should be
implemented
with Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) on one side believing there should
be a
continuum of services from special homes to full time general
education
placements, to Stainback and Stainback (1984 ) on another side
who
believe that full inclusion in the general setting is the only true
option.
An initial look at Democracy and Education (1916) would
suggest that
Dewey may have supported this idea of inclusion as he notes
that the
“very process of living together educates” (Dewey, p. 9).
Though tension exists about the degree of implementation, this
minimal definition of inclusion is in accordance with the natural
and
least restrictive environment provision in the Individuals with
Disabili-
ties Education Improvement Act (U.S. Department of Education,
2015 a)
protecting the right of individuals with disabilities to be
educated to the
maximum extent appropriate among their same aged
nondisabled peers.
This is an additive approach to special education, and some are
of the
opinion that inclusion is an ongoing process; that practice of
this sort
will lead to further marginalization of children with disabilities.
Dewey
(1916) showed similar concerns in that he saw the formalization
of the

39. schooling process and focus on imparting information as
detracting from
the benefits of socialization and formations of social
dispositions vital
to experiencing life with meaning.
Inclusion as a Social Function
A second, and widely accepted, definition in the field sees
inclusion
not just as a setting, but as a purposeful way to help a child
with dis-
abilities to become part of the community in which they live
and society
in general . Proponents of this definition of inclusion argue that
it is
not enough to merely put a child with disabilities in an
environment
designed for typically abled children, but one must work to
ensure the
child’s participation in activities and development of
relationships. The
term should convey that children with disabilities are an
integral part
of their classrooms, accepted by their classmates, and desired
by their
friends. The focus on the social experience of children with
disabilities in
general education environments is a noted paradigm shift in the
field of
both sociology and special education. Again, Dewey’s (1916)
Democracy
Hibah Alharbi

40. Hibah Alharbi
Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy and (Special) Education8
and Education grows its definition and philosophy of education
as more
than a system set up to train the immature members of society
in the
process of desirable thought, but instead as a means to allow
children
to know what it means to be members of a tribe. Dewey
contends that
through group membership, each member can share successes
and
failures; thereby, developing a culture of concern for your
fellow man or
classmate. This principle runs through each fiber of special
education
legislation and best practices. Finally, this principle seeks to
not only
serve the students with disabilities, but also their same-aged,
typically
developing peers.
Inclusion as Direction
Still a third interpretation of inclusion takes instruction beyond
that which is directed solely towards the students with special
needs,
but instead it is a pedagogy designed to be accessible by all
students
from its inception . Inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Black-
Hawkins, 2011)
supports the achievement of all children in the classroom. It
allows

41. an opportunity for students “to have the same ideas about the
things
which others have, to be like-minded with them, and thus to be
really
members of a social group” (Dewey, p. 35). An inclusive
classroom, in this
sense, is characterized by universal accessibility of both
environment
and curriculum. The general curriculum does not need to be
modified
to meet the needs of students with disabilities; it is already
accessible
by design. Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) describe current
and
outdated additive inclusionary practice as the “process of
providing for
all by differentiating for some” (p. 826). Jordan et al (2009)
found that
meeting the needs of all students on individual levels is good
practice
and will serve to benefit all students in inclusive classrooms,
both those
who have disabilities and those who are typically developing.
As a matter of importance, Dewey (1916) noted the natural or
native
impulses of children do not always coincide with what is
expected of them
in society. It is necessary to consider, in today’s inclusive
environments,
that experiencing joint and shared situations leads to a different
kind of
socialization. By implementing inclusive pedagogy such as that
proposed
by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) early and throughout
school set-
tings, students will have the exposure to the kind of moral and

42. social
dispositions towards individuals with exceptionalities that will
influence
their own mental dispositions. As students experience
environments
that are designed with everyone in mind, it will become more
apparent
that people with exceptionalities are not oddities or targets.
They are
typical members of society, and it is important that children
learn how
to work with, be around, and be friends with people of all
abilities. Hav-
Hibah Alharbi
Hibah Alharbi
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 9
ing teachers and educators who practice inclusive pedagogies
will help
to serve as models in this endeavor. Dewey theorized, “Social
control of
individuals rests upon the instinctive tendency of individuals to
imitate
or copy the actions of others. The latter serve as models”
(Dewey, p. 3 9),
and this can be directly applied to the direction of inclusive
education
in the present day.

43. The Democratic Concept in Inclusion
The school, as an entity, is a place of natural diversity. Dewey
(1897,
1916) wrote that the school needed to be a direct reflection of
the com-
munity in which it is placed. In addition, Dewey strongly
suggested that
no part of this community or society should be ignored. An
advocate for
inclusion without knowing it, Dewey spoke negatively about the
effects
of isolation on any given population. Further noting “an alert
and ex-
panding mental life depends upon an enlarging range of contact
with...
the sphere of social contacts” (Dewey, 1916, p. 93 ). Therefore,
we live in
a society of diversity. Meaning, all persons in our society are
different,
and finding respect for these differences make us better
practitioners.
There are various categories that make students diverse.
Categories
of diversity may include: (a) ethnicity, (b) socioeconomic
status, (c) spiri-
tual and religious beliefs, (d) sexual orientation, (e) intellectual
ability
levels, and (f) geographical regions. Some subgroups also may
include
educational background, occupation, and even levels of parent’s
income.
Smith (2012) labeled these categories as visible (e.g., race,
gender) and
invisible (e.g., spiritual and religious beliefs, sexual
preferences) diversity
and encouraged educators to celebrate the differences of the

44. diversity
to promote democracy in our society. The democratic ideal
would have
these groups come together to share common interests and use
the rec-
ognition of those interests to gain more social control.
Additionally, and
more relevant to the topic of inclusive education, Dewey (1916)
would
see freer interaction between people with exceptionalities and
other
students as a product of diversification and a change in social
habit.
Together, this intentional readjustment to the educational
system and
its resulting effects are what Dewey would characterize as a
“democrati-
cally constituted society” (Dewey, 1916, p. 93 ).
Specifically related to students with various ability levels,
Dewey
(1916) passionately believed that all students should be
provided an
option to learn. He stresses the relation of Platonic Educational
Phi-
losophy as a function of individualization in education (e.g.
discovering
and developing personal capacities), a tenant inclusive
educators feel
strongly about. Still, Dewey identifies that Plato failed to
acknowledge
the uniqueness of individuals outside of class structures.
Specifically,
Hibah Alharbi

45. Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy and (Special) Education10
Dewey mentions the need to recognize active tendencies and
capabili-
ties in relation to diversity. When revisiting Democracy and
Education
with a critical lens, it is this kind of progressive statement that
lends
itself to direct application of inclusive philosophy. Dewey
suggested
“the two points selected by which to measure the worth of a
form of
social life are the extent in which the interests of a group are
shared by
all its members, and the fullness and freedom with which it
interacts
with other groups” (Dewey, 1916, p.106). Furthermore, Dewey
stated
that all citizens must share in the productivity of the society and
this
production is learned in the educational setting. Dewey does not
leave
students with exceptionalities out of this equation, rather, he
strongly
advises educators to work together to build all persons’
strengths.
Interest and Discipline
Due to the inclusive nature of today’s education system, it is
no
longer appropriate to train teachers in basic pedagogy and
delivery of
content; teachers must be able to identify and subsequently
prepare

46. interventions, accommodations, and inclusive environments for
students
who are at risk for failure or who have identified
exceptionalities. This
new invaluable set of skills often requires some formal
professional de-
velopment or training in special education (Valli & Rennert-
Ariev, 2000;
Blanton, Putagh, & Boveda, 2014). Similar to Dewey’s
contention that
the organism must regenerate and adapt to its environment,
interdisci-
plinary work emerges as a consequence of evolving industry and
science
(Newell, 2001). Colleges of teacher education have been forced
to consider
creative solutions to the discipline specific nature of higher
education
institutions in order to meet federal regulations on teacher
training
and quality. Specifically, NCLB (U.S. Department of Education,
2015b)
required that teachers be highly qualified. For special education
teachers,
particularly those teaching in secondary settings, state
interpretation
often resulted in requiring state certifications in both special
education
and a core academic area (i.e., a general education teacher
certification;
Blanton & Pugach, 2007). Consequently, traditional special
education
teacher preparation programs in higher education have had to
respond
to state mandates using non-traditional, or creative, measures.
The disciplinary take on teacher education is partially brought

47. on
by prior social conditions. As the students with exceptionalities
were
isolated, so was their instruction, and instructors of students
with excep-
tionalities received separate training. Dewey (1916) saw the
integration
of disciplinary instruction as a challenge to overcome, but it
seems that
colleges of education are in good position to find success in the
endeavor.
Dewey (1916) predicted,
Hibah Alharbi
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 11
. . . persons whose interests have been enlarged and intelligence
trained
by dealing with things and facts in active occupations having a
pur-
pose (whether in play or work) will be those most likely to
escape the
alternatives of an academic and aloof knowledge and a hard,
narrow,
and merely ‘practical’ practice. (p. 147)
Experience and Thinking/The Nature of Method
Dewey (1938) revisited his philosophy briefly to describe the
experi-
ence of the progressive schools. Continuing to view Deweyan
philosophy
through a critical lens, the authors noted that Dewey found an

48. urgency
to include a philosophy of experience in addition to the focus on
current
disciplinary methods. One common attempt at breaking
disciplinary
tradition in teacher education is to offer pre-service teachers
training in
collaborative or dual certification programs (i.e., preparation
for certifi-
cation in both general and special education; Blanton & Pugach,
2007;
Blanton & Pugach, 2011; Pugach, Blanton, & Correra, 2011),
thus giving
them more real experiences in inclusive and special education
settings
prior to joining the teaching profession. In order to develop
teacher
certification programs resulting in effective preparation in both
general
and special education teaching practices, diverse areas of
expertise are
necessary (Blanton & Pugach, 2007). Blending two traditionally
different
perspectives (i.e., general and special education teacher
preparation) can
prove challenging, yet provides an ideal environment for
utilizing the
co-teaching model (York-Barr, Bacharach, Salk, Frank, &
Beniek, 2004).
The most obvious co-teaching stage to be included in dual
certification
programs is co-programming or co-planning.
Co-programming. Faculty in teacher preparation programs have
to navigate multiple governing and accrediting bodies in order
to meet

49. national, state, university, college, and departmental
regulations. Fur-
thermore, regulations for general education and special
education teacher
preparation programs often differ quite significantly, causing
faculty to
employ creative solutions (Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
Faculty representing each group must meet the accreditation
stan-
dards of their respective national specialized professional
associations
(SPA) in order to then prepare a proposed dual certification
program to
meet Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
standards
and, consequently, be eligible for national accreditation and
recognition. In
addition to co-programming to meet national SPA requirements,
involved
faculty also must consider teacher competencies and guidelines
for each
respective discipline as outlined in their state department of
education.
All of this must be completed while adhering to strict guidelines
as to
the number of credit hours allowed in a program offering per
university
Thoughts on Dewey’s Democracy and (Special) Education12
regulations. Theoretical and practical synergy must emerge as
pedagogi-
cal priorities are discussed and agreed upon. Consequently,
agreements

50. require creative problem-solving and programmatic concessions
from
both disciplines and multiple administrations. Time, planning,
reflection,
concessions, and diligence are necessary components to
preparing a dual
certification program planning team. It should be noted that
through
this critical lens, Dewey (1938) predicted the difficulty of such
a feat as
to change the static structure of our current teacher education
system
when he noted that pushing schools in a positive direction in
terms of
selecting appropriate methods is required but is a “slow and
arduous”
(p. 30) process.
Modeling. Dewey contended that learning in a community with
others enriches the learning experience. In addition to co-
planning that
occurs as a result of the increased need for dual certification
programs in
teacher education, using co-teaching as a modeling strategy in
teacher
preparation programs is also highly effective (Bacharach, Heck,
&
Dahlberg, 2008; Patel & Herick, 2010). Pre-service teachers
report they
believe they will be expected to participate in co-teaching teams
when
they enter the P-12 classroom (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg,
2008).
Observing faculty negotiate conflict and collaboratively present
content
and experiences provides a model of teaching and

51. professionalism for
the pre-service teacher to reflect upon when entering the
profession.
Conclusion: Deweyan Philosophy in Special Education
Researchers suggest that of the six million students with
disabili-
ties served in special education, almost 80% spend the majority
of their
day in a regular education classroom (U.S. Department of
Education,
2012b). Gehrke and Cocchiarella (2013) noted that as a result of
trends
pushing for inclusive classrooms, general education teachers
must be
prepared to teach students in a variety of contexts and from a
variety
of backgrounds and abilities. General education teachers must
demon-
strate the ability to improve student learning for all students.
Inclusive
education practices are necessary for social justice to become a
reality
for all students (Artiles, Harris-Murri, & Rostenberg, 2006). As
Obia-
kor (2011) suggested, social justice is at the heart of inclusion
because
it stands in opposition to exclusion. Public education is one of
the few
arenas in American society where the hope of equity and the
prospects
of societal advancement may be realized by all of our children.
It is the
proving ground for optimism and the opportunity for all
students to
become productive members of society.

52. As stated at the beginning of the article, the authors posited
that
Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk 13
Dewey (1897, 1916, & 1938) would embrace all children in an
inclusive
education system that never delineates normal from different.
More-
over, had Dewey been born a few decades later, education and
educator
preparation would include a focus on all children regardless of
difference,
and educators would differentiate based on each student’s
strengths
and needs. Certainly, hints of an inclusionary education are
shadowed
throughout his inspirational work, Democracy and Education.
One can
easily see how Chapter Eight of Democracy and Education,
“Aims in
Education,” provides a template for the modern Individualized
Educa-
tion Plan (IEP) used in special education. Furthermore, when
Dewey
revisited his philosophy of education in Experience and
Education (1938),
he suggested, “only when development in a particular line
conduces to
continuing growth does it answer to the criterion of education
as growing”
(p. 36). As inclusive environments are not only educative to the
psycho-
logical selves of students with exceptionalities, these

53. environments are
also continuously educative to the sociological selves of all
students. The
authors believe that today’s principles and ideals of special
education …
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
2016, Vol. 35(4) 234 –244
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0271121415581611
tecse.sagepub.com
Article
In early childhood (EC), early intervention (EI), and early
childhood special education (ECSE), developing partner-
ships between professionals and families is at the heart of
quality education for young children. Family–professional
partnerships can be defined as interdependent relationships
between practitioners and families that are built on trust,
honesty, and shared responsibility (Brotherson et al., 2010).
By recognizing and affirming each other’s expertise, compe-
tencies, and capacity for decision making, families and pro-
fessionals can create sustainable, reciprocal partnerships
(Barrera, Corso, & Macpherson, 2003; Turnbull, Turnbull,
Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2015). Not only can family–
professional partnerships support young children’s early
learning and future academic success (Bruner, Agnamba,
Calderon, & Simons, 2013; Halgunseth, Peterson, Stark, &
Moodie, 2009), they can also strengthen parental self-efficacy
and teacher responsiveness (Dunst, Hamby, & Brookfield,
2007; Fults & Harry, 2012). Furthermore, EC/EI/ECSE pro-

54. grams are mandated to facilitate parent participation with
families of children with disabilities (Individuals With
Disabilities Act, 2004). Accordingly, pre-service teachers
need support and practice to embody the posture and facility
for partnering with families.
Yet developing partnerships can be challenging for prac-
titioners, particularly with families from diverse cultural
and linguistic backgrounds (Cheatham & Jimenez-Silva,
2012; Cheatham & Santos, 2011; Harry, 2008; Lupi &
Tong, 2001). A long history of families’ exclusion from edu-
cation programs and previous experiences with professional
insensitivity toward diversity can trigger mistrust for fami-
lies from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
(Harry, 2008). Differences in conversational norms and
expectations may cause communication difficulties (Howard
& Lipinoga, 2010). The sociocultural values and social
behavior of families and practitioners can be incongruous
(Chen & Rubin, 2011), leading to misunderstandings
(Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, & Garcia, 2009). Furthermore,
families may have unequal access to institutional power and
curricular knowledge (Cheatham & Jimenez-Silva, 2012;
Cheatham & Santos, 2011; Hollins, 2011). For example,
families from low socioeconomic backgrounds may pas-
sively participate during parent–teacher conferences due to
parents’ lack of knowledge about mainstream views of child
581611TECXXX10.1177/0271121415581611Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education XX(X)Beneke and Cheatham
research-article2015
1University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
Corresponding Author:
Margaret R. Beneke, Department of Special Education, School

55. of
Education, University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd.,
Lawrence, KS
66045, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Inclusive, Democratic Family–
Professional Partnerships:
(Re)Conceptualizing Culture and
Language in Teacher Preparation
Margaret R. Beneke, MAT1 and Gregory A. Cheatham, PhD1
Abstract
Family–professional partnerships are vital to the provision of
appropriate and effective special education services for
young children. Despite the recognized need, teacher educators
in early childhood and early childhood special education
have faced challenges in preparing their students to partner with
families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
In this article, we assert that for pre-service early
childhood/early childhood special education teachers to prepare
for
cross-cultural family–professional partnerships, teacher
educators can take a democratic, inclusive perspective and
address
conceptualizations of culture and language. To this end, we first
explain meanings of inclusive education and democratic
partnerships. We then focus on conceptualizations of culture
and language in developing cross-cultural partnerships.
Finally, we provide recommendations to prepare pre-service
teachers to form more democratic and inclusive cross-
cultural partnerships with families from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Keywords
family–professional partnerships, teacher preparation, cultural

56. diversity, linguistic diversity, inclusive education, democracy
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F02711214
15581611&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-04-23
Beneke and Cheatham 235
development, parents’ low confidence in their parenting
skills, and teachers’ unwillingness to give up control
(Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2011). These differences in access
to institutional knowledge and power can contribute to
challenging interactions and miscommunication, and may
influence practitioners to develop implicit, deficit views of
families (Halgunseth et al., 2009; Hanson & Lynch, 2010;
Harry, 2008).
Despite the recognized need, teacher educators in EC/
EI/ECSE have faced challenges in preparing students to
partner with families from diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds (Banerjee & Luckner, 2014; Fults & Harry,
2012; Hansuvadha, 2009). Building on the definition of
“family–professional partnerships,” above, we use the
term “cross-cultural partnerships” to describe future prac-
titioners’ positive relationships with families from diverse
backgrounds. Given the opportunity and achievement dis-
parities for young children from culturally, racially, ethni-
cally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds
in the United States, an emphasis on cross-cultural fam-
ily–professional partnerships in teacher preparation can
better support an increasingly diverse population of young
children and families in the United States (Bodur, 2012;
Brotherson et al., 2010). When teachers and families do
not establish strong cross-cultural partnerships, young
children from diverse backgrounds may have fewer oppor-

57. tunities for success in EC/EI/ECSE programs (Janus &
Duku, 2007). By attending to conceptions of culture and
language in partnering with families, teacher educators
have the potential to positively influence the success of
young children from diverse, historically underserved
backgrounds. Unquestionably, preparing pre-service
teachers to navigate and meaningfully engage with family
members from culturally and linguistically diverse back-
grounds is essential.
In this article, we assert that to meet the needs of young
children and families from diverse backgrounds, teacher
educators can take an inclusive, democratic perspective in
preparing pre-service teachers to form cross-cultural fam-
ily–professional partnerships. From an inclusive and demo-
cratic perspective, attention to the ways in which pre-service
teachers understand culture and language is warranted. To
this end, we discuss (a) meanings of inclusive education
and democratic partnerships, (b) culture and language in
developing cross-cultural partnerships, and (c) recommen-
dations to prepare pre-service teachers to form more demo-
cratic and inclusive partnerships with families from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Inclusive and Democratic Family–
Professional Partnerships
Two approaches for preparing pre-service teachers to cross-
culturally partner with families will be discussed here. First,
Artiles and Kozleski (2007) offered an expanded definition
of “inclusion,” a term that typically and exclusively refers
to inclusion of children with disabilities. Instead, they sug-
gest that inclusive education means cultivating an equitable
learning community in which all children and families are
regarded as valuable members. Conceptualized as a legiti-
mizing space for multiple and diverse ways of being, Artiles

58. and Kozleski assert that inclusive education consists of
developing and advancing practices to be inclusive and
equitable for those individuals from historically marginal-
ized groups (i.e., groups who have experienced historical
discrimination based on ethnicity, race, language, culture,
socioeconomic status, gender, religion, etc.). Inclusive edu-
cation, then, is a dynamic and flexible process that involves
constant attention, reflection, and action toward under-
standing how historically marginalized populations of chil-
dren and families can more equitably participate in
educational processes and communities (Artiles, Kozleski,
& Waitoller, 2011). An inclusive education approach can be
embraced to support positive and meaningful partnerships
with families.
Second, John Dewey’s 20th-century ideals of family–
professional partnership remain relevant to the 21st-century
challenges of social inequity and educational discrimination
(Dzur, 2004; Fischer, 2004; Skrtic, 2013; Sullivan, 2005).
In true democratic family–professional partnerships, Dewey
explained that professionals and citizens share responsibil-
ity through mutually beneficial alliances (Dzur, 2004;
Sullivan, 2005). Deference to professional expertise can be
debilitating for citizens (i.e., families), particularly those
from historically marginalized backgrounds (Dzur, 2004;
Fischer, 2004). When teachers and families are positioned
in expert–client relationships, families’ perspectives or wis-
dom may be overlooked. Instead, educators can deconstruct
and reconstruct expectations for family–professional part-
nerships to be more democratic and equitable, transforming
the role of educator from expert to facilitator (Dzur, 2004;
Fischer, 2004; Skrtic, 2013; Sullivan, 2005). A democratic
approach to cross-cultural family–professional partnerships
(e.g., engaging families in problem solving, critical think-
ing, collaboration) can empower families from historically
marginalized backgrounds. Educators can help families to

59. identify strengths, goals, and problems, setting the demo-
cratic agenda in the interest of the common good. Educators
can then apply specialized knowledge to address these
shared goals (Fischer, 2004). In these reciprocal relation-
ships of positive interdependence, expertise is both shared
and advanced (Skrtic, 2013).
In the context of EC/EI/ECSE teacher education, we tie
Artiles et al.’s (2011) view of inclusive education with con-
temporary Deweyan approaches to democratic partnership
(Dzur, 2004; Skrtic, 2013) to examine conceptualizations of
culture and language in preparing pre-service teachers to
facilitate cross-cultural family–professional partnerships.
236 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(4)
Pre-service teachers’ inconsistent and sometimes paradoxi-
cal understandings of culture and language may negatively
affect cross-cultural partnerships with families. To encour-
age inclusive, democratic family–professional partnerships,
teacher educators can provide pre-service teachers with
opportunities to explore and critically reflect on conceptual-
izations of culture and language. Furthermore, teacher edu-
cators can support pre-service teachers to examine who is
recognized and accounted for in definitions of culture and
language, with particular attention to democratic participa-
tion of families from historically marginalized groups.
Conceptualizations of Culture
and Language: Contradictions and
Clarifications
As families in EC/EI/ECSE programs become increasingly
diverse and the population of practitioners remains rela-
tively homogeneous, practitioners and families may be

60. positioned on opposite sides of a widening sociocultural
divide. A value for inclusion and democracy in EC/EI/
ECSE means calling attention to the implicit and explicit
processes that create inequity for families from culturally
diverse backgrounds. Although teacher educators may
emphasize aspects of culture and language in their courses
and practicum experiences, pre-service teachers’ surface
and/or static understandings of culture and language can
lead to strained cross-cultural relationships. When pre-ser-
vice teachers overlook the dynamic, varied, and value-
laden nature of culture and language, they may limit
families’ capacities to develop successful cross-cultural
partnerships.
Challenges and Changes in Conceptualizing
Culture
In this section, we look critically at conventional conceptu-
alizations of culture, offering new ways to conceptualize
culture that may yield more inclusive, democratic family–
professional partnerships (see Table 1). Subsequently, we
will draw on these new conceptualizations of culture to
offer recommendations for teacher educators.
Old way: Conceptualizing culture as fixed and static. First, the
conceptualization of culture as static can create challenges
for pre-service teachers to cross-culturally partner. To sup-
port pre-service teachers in recognizing cultural differ-
ences, some teacher preparation programs define culture in
terms of specific, categorical attributes that may be shared
by groups of people (Lubienski, 2003). For example, cross-
cultural studies both in and outside the United States have
demonstrated that some racial or ethnic groups value
authoritarian versus authoritative parenting styles (Dwairy
et al., 2006; Lim & Lim, 2004; Querido, Warner, & Eyberg,
2002; Varela et al., 2004). Although teacher educators may

61. elucidate these particular cultural behaviors to demonstrate
cultural variation and to challenge pre-service teachers’ cul-
tural expectations (Oyler, 2011), these efforts may uninten-
tionally perpetuate stereotypes and/or misunderstandings of
culture.
Based on a static understanding of culture, teacher can-
didates may anticipate homogeneity in behavior and think-
ing for all children and families from a particular racial or
ethnic group (Hollins, 2011). They may expect children or
families to act or identify in a particular way, based only on
perceptions of ethnicity or race (Sleeter, 2012). When cul-
ture is defined by specific, observable behaviors attribut-
able to individuals’ ethnic background, pre-service teachers
may oversimplify culture’s significance and assume indi-
viduals from particular groups can be characterized by a
fixed set of traits (Lubienski, 2003). Ultimately, allowing
teacher candidates to assume children and families from
specific social groups (i.e., racial or ethnic groups) possess
a static set of characteristics can distort the role of culture in
the lives of children and families (Rueda & Stillman, 2012).
New way: Conceptualizing culture as dynamic. Conversely, an
inclusive, democratic conceptualization recognizes the
dynamic nature of culture. Individuals engage in multiple
overlapping cultural communities, which shift and change
over time (Gutiérrez, Ali, & Henríquez, 2010; Rogoff,
2003). Sociocultural scholars recognize that culture is more
than a set of static attributes; culture is a dynamic process
that transforms through human activity (Rueda & Stillman,
2012). Although cross-cultural research can demonstrate
cultural differences among groups of people at a single
point in time, these definitions of culture are likely to evolve
and may have little relation to individual family members
with whom early educators partner. As individuals partici-
pate in cultural activities, their attitudes and beliefs are

62. altered through their participation. Cultural communities
simultaneously change because of individuals’ participation
(Rogoff, 2003).
Table 1. Conceptualizations of Culture.
Old way New way
Culture can be defined by
static, fixed traits
Cultural behaviors and ideas
evolve through dynamic
activity
Universal cultural norms exist There are many diverse,
legitimate ways of thinking,
behaving, and being
Mainstream cultural processes
represent unbiased
ideologies and produce
equitable relationships
Mainstream cultural processes
represent privileged
ideologies and produce
inequitable relationships
Beneke and Cheatham 237
With considerable increases in immigration and intercul-
tural families in the United States, cultural hybridization is
more likely to occur. For example, studies of immigrant

63. families in the United States found families were integrat-
ing traditional and mainstream cultures to create new par-
enting practices (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, & Kim, 2013;
Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). In addition, researchers
have found that parents with differing cultural backgrounds
may merge cultural practices in light of mutual goals for
their children (Crippen, & Brew, 2013). Parents from vari-
ous cultural backgrounds may negotiate culturally defined
gender roles (e.g., father works from home while mother
pursues graduate studies), abandon traditional disciplinary
practices in light of a new cultural context (e.g., replacing
corporal punishment with more authoritative parenting
style), or maintain customary parenting practices (e.g., co-
sleeping with young children). By engaging in ongoing dia-
logue about each family’s particular parenting practices,
attending to the values and beliefs that undergird these prac-
tices, and recognizing that each family may adjust parenting
practices over time and across contexts, pre-service teach-
ers can be inclusive, democratic partners. Conceptualizing
culture as a dynamic activity can support pre-service teach-
ers to get to know individual families and resist cultural
stereotypes.
Old way: Conceptualizing cultural norms as universal. A second
aspect of conceptualizing culture that can create challenges
in developing cross-cultural partnerships is the assumption
that universal cultural norms do and should exist. Children
learn to communicate and behave by participating in the
social contexts congruent with their home and community
environments (Pumariega & Joshi, 2010). Thus, the tools a
child has available for social interaction are likely based on
their experiences outside school. Researchers have demon-
strated the positive and legitimate use of social behaviors
that are not positively recognized in the United States (e.g.,
aggression, compliance, self-control, withdrawal; Chen,
2011; Han & Thomas, 2010). These social behaviors may be

64. valued, practiced, and even purposefully taught by families,
but are unlikely to be valued in EC/EI/ECSE programs.
In EC/EI/ECSE, practitioner expectations for social behav-
ior and social competence in the United States are often based
on mainstream European American middle class culture (e.g.,
self-expression, active exploration, leadership; Chen, 2011;
Han & Thomas, 2010; Smith-Maddox & Solórzano, 2002).
Incongruence between expectations at home and school can
create cultural conflict (Milner, 2010). Pre-service teachers
may lack experience working in diverse populations and may
implicitly expect children and families to meet mainstream
expectations based on their own cultural frames of reference
(Hollins, 2011; Nieto, 2005; Saluja, Early, & Clifford, 2002).
When a child’s legitimate attempts to socially engage do not
align with mainstream expectations, the child may be
negatively evaluated by the educator, leading to inappropriate
referral to special education (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Salend,
Barrick-Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002). Moreover, by judg-
ing the social practices of children against a single, universal
conceptualization of cultural norms, pre-service teachers can
uphold mainstream expectations and child development
expertise, discounting cultural values of families from histori-
cally marginalized backgrounds.
New way: Conceptualizing cultural norms as diverse and legiti-
mate. To prepare teachers for inclusive, democratic part-
nerships with diverse families, pre-service teachers can
benefit from understanding the nuanced, varied nature of
culture. Cultural meanings are mediated and transformed
by individual histories, ideologies, and contexts (Waitoller
& Kozleski, 2013). When culture is defined as locally con-
structed and unevenly expressed, pre-service teachers are
less likely to draw inaccurate inferences about families
based on faulty universal definitions of cultural behavior

65. (Lubienski, 2003; Oyler, 2011; Rueda & Stillman, 2012).
Acknowledging the active and multifaceted role of all indi-
viduals in cultural activity can provide space for pre-service
teachers to recognize the cultural nature of their own expec-
tations and validate those of diverse families (Cochran-
Smith, 2004).
Taking an inclusive, democratic perspective of culture
means that teacher educators emphasize the multiple, legiti-
mate ways in which practitioners and families think and
behave. For example, pre-service teachers may assume that
independent living is a goal that all families have for their
children. Yet leaving the home may not be a culturally nor-
mative goal for families that value interdependence with
extended family (Harry, Rueda, & Kalyanpur, 1999).
Understanding the variability of cultural meanings may
encourage pre-service teachers to inquire into the cultural
resources and processes that individual families from
diverse backgrounds draw on within and across EC/EI/
ECSE settings. When pre-service teachers can acknowl-
edge the plurality of culturally valuable social expressions,
they can be more inclusive and democratic partners with
families.
Old way: Conceptualizing culture as an unbiased phenome-
non. A conceptualization of culture as an unbiased, equita-
ble social phenomenon can strain family–professional
partnerships. In addition to not realizing their own partici-
pation in culture, pre-service teachers may not be aware that
mainstream educational practices can perpetuate oppres-
sion and social inequities, upholding the view that main-
stream cultural processes represent unbiased ideologies and
produce neutral relationships. If pre-service teachers have
been socialized into a culture of privilege, their perspective
may be further reinforced by mainstream ideologies and
prevailing practices with children and families in schools

66. 238 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(4)
(Hollins, 2011). When pre-service teachers interpret cul-
tural differences as impartial or neutral distinctions, they
may fail to recognize the oppressive nature of cultural pro-
cess and can create inequitable hierarchy of power and
expertise between families and teachers.
Pre-service teachers’ mainstream cultural beliefs about
child-rearing practices and parent involvement can add to
deficit views of children and families from historically
underserved groups and uphold the status quo. For instance,
educators may associate features such as single parenthood
or large family size with deficit perspectives of family func-
tioning without regard for the family’s parenting skills and
value for early education (Harry, Klingner, & Hart, 2005).
Without regard for the diverse ways families may intend to
contribute, pre-service teachers may limit or exclude fami-
lies from diverse backgrounds (Harry, 2008).Without atten-
tion to the value-laden nature of cultural expectations,
educators may use a privileged lens, thereby perceiving
children as having behavior challenges and blaming behav-
ioral differences on family dysfunction (Fults & Harry,
2012; Ladson-Billings, 2006). When pre-service teachers
view these mainstream ideologies as neutral and unbiased,
they may disempower families from historically marginal-
ized backgrounds.
New way: Conceptualizing culture processes as producing ineq -
uities. To be inclusive and democratic, pre-service teachers
need to recognize that cultural processes are never neutral,
but enmeshed in hierarchical relationships of power and
privilege. Accordingly, teacher educators can support pre-

67. service teachers in critically questioning dominant cultural
values and practices that may relegate families from histori-
cally marginalized backgrounds to a subordinate position
(Hollins, 2011). This includes studying the culturally con-
structed, sociohistorically ordered nature of expectations
for parent and child participation in EC and ECSE settings.
Reconceptualizing culture in terms of power relationships
can help pre-service teachers to reflect on the potentially
inequitable nature of their own and institutional practices,
shifting blame away from families (Bodur, 2012).
When educators can understand and appreciate each
family’s unique strengths, power relations are more equita-
bly leveled, and teachers can better participate in a demo-
cratic collaboration (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).
Pre-service teachers can recognize that deficit perspectives
of families from historically marginalized groups exist, and
that these families may be guarded in their interactions
based on a history of exclusion in schools (Harry et al.,
2005). By doing so, pre-service teachers can begin to ana-
lyze the ways in which their own cultural participation
plays a role in cross-cultural relationships of power and
expertise. Understanding the ways in which culture is
defined and enacted can help pre-service teachers to be
inclusive of cultural differences and to take a democratic
approach to partnering with families from historically mar-
ginalized groups.
Limitations and Resolutions in Conceptualizing
Language
The ways in which language is conceptualized in teacher
education can also create challenges for inclusive, demo-
cratic family–professional partnerships (see Table 2). In this
section, we examine and explicate conceptualizations of
language that support inclusive, democratic family–profes-

68. sional partnerships.
Old way: Conceptualizing language use as universal. First, pre-
service teachers’ expectation that conversational norms are
universal can impede development of cross-cultural, family–
professional partnerships. Importantly, the majority of pre-
service teachers are monolingual English speakers (Cho &
DeCastro-Ambrosetti, 2005; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-
Gonzalez, 2008), and standard English is often favored in
educational settings (Ayers, 2014). Based on universal con-
ceptualization of conversation, pre-service teachers in EC/EI/
ECSE may implicitly expect families to mirror their own
uses of language in conversation. Yet families who speak
non-standard dialects of English, or for whom English is a
second language, may draw on diverse participation struc-
tures and linguistic codes during dialogue. For example,
some families may value indirect communication by making
subtle suggestions, avoiding confrontation, and hinting at
disagreement (Cheatham & Santos, 2011). Other families
may feel comfortable sharing control of conversation with
multiple speakers, allowing interruptions (Philips, 2009).
When teachers use direct communication and expect
families to use these, or when teachers rely on conversa-
tional agendas (e.g., formal conference reports), teachers
may face challenges in effectively communicating with
these families. Although miscommunication may result
from practitioners misreading various communication
details and interactional patterns (Delpit, 2006), pre-service
teachers who lack experience with cross-cultural communi-
cation may not be aware of families’ advocacy attempts, or
may respond by dismissing aspects of families’ diverse lin-
guistic repertoires (Cheatham & Jimenez-Silva, 2012).
Furthermore, pre-service teachers may inadvertently make
Table 2. Conceptualizations of Language.

69. Old way New way
Universal conversational
norms exist
People use language in
diverse and legitimate ways
Language acts as a
decontextualized, power-
free mode of communication
Language enacts and
produces relations of
power in context
Beneke and Cheatham 239
negative assumptions about families (e.g., family as rude,
uninterested) based on the ways they talk, which may result
in fewer services for children and their families. When pre-
service teachers assume that language use in conversation
has universal characteristics that align with their own lan-
guage use and expectations, misunderstandings and inequi-
table relationships with families are likely to occur.
New way: Conceptualizing language use as diverse and legiti-
mate. To engage in inclusive, democratic conversation,
pre-service teachers need to be familiar with the multiple,
legitimate language uses. Rules of speaking are learned in
social and cultural contexts (Lupi & Tong, 2001). Language
practices are developed, transformed, and mediated by par-
ticipation in language communities (Gutiérrez et al., 2010).

70. Based on varied experiences with language, families and
practitioners may draw on differing conversational norms
to enact roles, dispositions, and cultures (Cheatham, & San-
tos, 2011). Importantly, no one dialect, linguistic code, or
participation structure is inherently superior (Godley,
Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, & Carpenter, 2006; Philips,
2009; Wodak, 2012). Conversational norms for being polite,
taking turns, and changing conversational topics vary and
can be equally valuable and effective (Adger, Wolfram, &
Christian, 2007). Yet the use of English as a second lan-
guage and non-standard English has historically been de-
valued …
International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2013, Vol. 5, No. 4
www.macrothink.org/ije 190
Educational Justice, Transformative Leadership
Practices, and Special Needs Students
Gregory Minton1 & M. Alayne Sullivan2,*
1 Redlands Unified School District, USA
2 University of Redlands, 1200 East Colton Ave., Redlands,
CA, 92373, USA
*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
Received: July 20, 2013 Accepted: December 11, 2013
Published: December 23, 2013

71. doi:10.5296/ije.v5i4.4820 URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v5i4.4820
Abstract
This mixed methods study investigated the extent to which
transformative leadership (TL)
practices of school administrators were considered with
particular regard to special needs
students in various public schools in Southern California. 26
purposefully selected school
administrators rated the extent to which they employed a range
of elements deemed
prototypic of transformative leadership as derived from
foundational texts of social and
educational justice scholarship. Results of a quantitative survey
questionnaire indicate a
strong validation of a specific range of TL attitudes and
behaviors, while qualitative interview
data yields inclusive practice themes emphasized as important
for working with special needs
students. The study presents important realizations for male
and female, and culturally
diverse administrators as well as teachers who work with
special needs students. As
importantly, the survey generated for this study is an important
measurement instrument for
future research into transformative leadership values and
practices.
Keywords: transformative leadership; educational justice;
special needs students; equity