Running head PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .docx

Running head: PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
1
PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
6
Professional Interview Analysis
Stduent Name
Liberty University
Abstract
This interview is with a special education teacher who faces
many unique challenges. She is charged with the task of
educating, but also facilitating growth at a much more humble
rate, and in many different ways, than other educators. The
interview revealed several themes related to foundations of

leadership, ciritical issues, and effective practices.
Keywords: inclusion, special education, co-teaching
Prior to becoming a special education teacher, Amy, a
name provided in order for the subject to remain confidential,
grew up in a single parent home in Phoenix, Arizona. Despite
growing up with a single mom, Amy felt a sense of permanency
as she lived in the same house from the time she was three until
she had finished high school. She was active in her elementary
school and attended the same school through the eighth grade.
One of Amy’s elementary school teachers became a coach and a
mentor to her during her formative years. While she was in high
school, this same teacher moved to the high school to teach.
Amy felt this relationship with her teacher/mentor reassured her
through a difficult adolescent time and this reassured her that
she always had someone that she could trust and and talk to if
needed. This mutual understanding between teacher and student
helped inspire her to become a special education teacher. Amy
majored in psychology at Arizona State University and also
attained licensure in special education as well.
With an inherently pragmatist perspective in education
philosophy, Amy leads her classroom with a Deweyian sense of
democracy and community. Amy takes a purposeful
Montessorian approach to each of her students as she views the

individual as being exceptional, unique, and possessive of the
ability to learn especially when given the right types of
intervention. Amy’s personal, holistic commitment to the
student as a whole not only resounds of her Montessorian
perspective, but also can be theoretically linked to the
progressive ideas of John Dewey that students are individuals
and learn according to their own rate of change and progress
(Gutek, 2011). As a means of educating the whole student, Amy
recognizes the benefits of inclusion and relates its future
success within the school community to the effective practice of
co-teaching. The subsequent advantages that are commensurate
to this practice help to create continued professional
development, sponsor mentoring relationships, and foster
collaborative consensus. Each advantage of this practice
contributes to the ideals of teacher efficacy envisioned by
Horace Mann.
With the philosophical undertones of pragmatism, the
collaborative perspectives of Montessori and John Dewey,
Amy’s teaching reflects the type of classroom environment that
continues to grow and develop the intellect of each individual
student. Whild doing so, she holds herself accountable as a
professional with a duty not only to her students, but also to her
surrounding community.
Foundations of Leadership
As a special education teacher, Amy believes that
education philosophy is constantly changing and that
perspectives often change over the course of years while being a
teacher. When she first began teaching, Amy knew about
inclusion as a theory but did not yet quite have the experience
to see it in practice. After 7 years of teaching in a high school
setting with low-income students, most of whom are affiliated
with some type of gang, Amy feels that it is part of her duty
everyday to make sure that her students feel that they are in a
safe environment in her classroom. Fostering a democratic spirit
of community, ideas are to be expressed in a respectful way,
and her students must leave their differences at the door and

learn from one another. Amy wants her students to feel that at
least in her classroom, they have the opportunity to be the best
student that they can on that day, in that moment. Amy places
emphasis on the fact that her students recognize that they are
different from their peers and do not learn in the same ways as
general education students. As a result, many of her students
feel labeled as being “dumb” and become very passive and
apathetic about learning (A. Smith, personal communication,
2016). In an effort to confront this attitude, Amy strongly
believes that her students are taught the same subjects as
general education students. Her students may receive shortened
assignments or she may have them complete the assignments as
a class, but they do complete the same work as their general
education counterparts. In this way, Amy feels this allows her
students to be able to relate to their peers within the school
environment.
In response to the particular philosophy or education
philosopher that strongly influenced her as a teacher, Amy
conveyed her foundational beliefs similar to those of Maria
Montessori. As a special education teacher, Amy positions her
classroom around the central idea that all children are
exceptional. Montessori championed this same notion beginning
her career working with special needs students (Gutek, 2011).
Montessorian educators are trained to perceive all children as
exceptional and in equal response, individualized, flexible, and
differentiated learning are of utmost importance (Cossentino,
2010). Montessori’s commitment to the holistic and responsive
types of support needed to carefully match the needs of the
student with the instruction given are in direct correlation to the
stipulations found in current early intervention models and
corresponding instructional models (Cossentino, 2010). In
Amy’s classroom, she fosters a type of independence in her
students similar to the Montessori approach that is built upon
encouraging the “divine urge” which stimulates growth through
self-action (Gutek, 2011, p. 401). As a special education
teacher, Amy noted just how much her students need her

involvement, but with her decreased level of intervention, her
students learn to perform their work more independently. In
turn, similar to Montessori philosophy, there is derived in her
students a greater feeling of self-accomplishment and
satisfaction that comes from work completed or a task well
done. As a result, the feelings that surface from her students’
various forms of independence produce higher self-esteem
(Gutek, 2011).
Although Amy did not comment on any religious views or a
specific worldview that has impacted her view of education, she
did illustrate a pragmatist perspective reflective of John Dewey.
As a teacher and former student of psychology, Amy could not
directly assign to herself a religious background or worldview
perspective as she feels that such views are part of a rapidly
changing world. Her perspective of such views are reflective of
pragmatism in that they are tentative at best, pluralistic in
nature, and are left for openness subject only to the experience
of reality (Gutek, 2011). The characteristics that she sees are
the most important part of an educator’s repertoire are those
that, according to pragmatist philosophy, allow for a great
degree of probability in the classroom. For example, most of
Amy’s students have been identified through testing as learning
disabled, but to Amy, this quantitative knowledge about each of
her students is probable rather than certain. While such tests do
provide some direction and even present possible remedial
actions, they only provide generalizations that often result in
failure to capture changing individuality and most importantly,
experience. To Amy, and pragmatists in general, intellectual
testing primarily appeals to the aristocratic tradition that
“intelligence is a ready-made possession of individuals”
(Danforth, 2008, p. 58). In turn, this indeterminate system also
creates, according to Amy and pragmatists in general, some of
the most critical issues that currently face educators.
Criatical Issues
From the perspective of special education, Amy posits
three critical issues that currently amass within education today.

The constraint of intellectual disability, quantitative testing,
and a resulting negative attitude that permeates within her
students combine to create a prolonged, although outdated sense
that students with learning disabilities have very little room to
progress or change. In response to these issues, Amy’s model of
classroom community can and does imply a model for
institutional change as well as provide a glimmer of light to the
current most critical issue in special education: racial
disproportionality (A. Smith, personal communication, 2016).
Revealing his philosophy of education through the structure of
democratic processes, John Dewey titled his work, Democracy
and Education. In it, he expressed his belief that the power and
potential to grow is present where life exists (Danforth, 2008).
As a special education teacher, Amy recognizes the constraint
that an intellectual disability places on her students. Although
this is the case, Amy in true pragmatist spirit, does not view her
students as lacking the potential to grow and change over time
(Danforth, 2008). To her, an intellectual disability does not
freeze growth or learning, as has been the tendency to address
this issue in the past. Although expansions are quite humble for
her students in comparison to other general education students,
Amy liberates herself from past models of perceived learning
stagnation and supports each of her students by recognizing and
nurturing the gift that he or she is personally endowed. In
agreement with John Dewey, Amy sees it as a critical issue in
education to aggregate instances of failed learning into a
complete picture of inability that ultimately denies the potential
and reality of actual growth (Danforth, 2008). Further, Amy
classifies the current reliance on quantitative performance
criteria as being problematic, especially to her students. Sadly,
she feels that many of her students’ futures are predicted and
contstrained squelching the growth of their own individual and
dynamic capacities. This is most similar to John Dewey’s
perspective of education as a means of fulfilling a democratic
ethic to all individuals. In this regard, Dewey’s critical view of
intelligence testing equates to Amy’s objections in that it is

merely a welcome procedure with which to sink the individual
within a class based on a numerical scale, thereby limiting the
individual to certain vocations, rank, and a predestined order
(Danforth, 2008). For Amy, this leads to a third most critical
issue.
Amy’s students know that they are different. In fact,
Amy’s interview narrative relays that her students not only
recognize their inability to learn at the same rate as do their
peers, but that they also feel that this pattern of growth recasts
them as inferior. In a sense, Amy’s students feel that in addition
to a learning disability, they also feel defined as failing to be
the person that they should be. In an effort to combat this
invasisve attitude, Amy leads her classroom as a communal
unit. A pragmatist at heart, Amy approaches these problems
with a progressivist viewpoint recognizing that any sort of
progress for her students is implied change (Gutek, 2011). Her
class celebrates the successful completion of a task by a fellow
student as a family. The success of one is celebrated by all
members. Dewey’s notion of democracy is preserved in this
sense and a sort of dialectic, constructive relation is born
between the individual and the social organization which is in
this case, the school (Danforth, 2008). According to Amy, these
critical issues conglomerate into one overarching problem that
will continue to become a troubling development within special
education: racial disproportionality.
In Amy’s classroom, her students are mainly comprised of
Hispanic and African American ethnicity. There are currently
three students who would identify themselves as Caucasian. The
term of intellectual disability employed within the categorical
scheme operative in the U.S. currently is a label that is part of a
daily reality for at least six hundred thousand public school
students (Danforth, 2008). When diagnosed, there are doors
opened that compel a great deal of substantial financial and
personnel resources toward the individual student as well as the
activation of a legal apparatus that serves to protect the right to
instruction specifically designed according to the individual’s

academic and social abilities (Danforth, 2008). However, Amy’s
classroom also clearly demonstrates a disparate representation.
This pragmatic evaluation alludes to both achievement and
problems within the current system of special education.
Although Amy’s classroom model does not eliminate the
growing racial disproportionality in special education, it does
serve as a small step to a potential glimpse at institutional
change. Applying Dewey’s democratic education, Amy
recognizes that a school can move toward a democratic ideal
where individual members not only can experience satisfaction,
but can also achieve a filial sense of achievement and values
(Danforth, 2008). As a result, the growth and learning of one
student is understood as having value amongst the group as a
whole (Gutek, 2011). A school that promotes democratic
community increases the interaction between students with and
without disabilities and the progress of one has worth to the
others.
Effective Practices
In order to provide the best education possible for all
students, Amy’s school implements three successful practices
that have cohesively fostered a high-quality education in the
strategy for supporting inclusion within her school. Under
repeated efforts to include students who have disabilities in
general education, the practice of co-teaching continues to be
implemented in schools (Pugach & Winn, 2011). Working in
unision with one another, each practice in Amy’s school builds
upon the other in order to create a sense of shared responsibility
for a group of students. Co-teaching, for Amy, has been one of
these successful practices that her institution uses in order to
facilitate inclusion, a sense of community, as well as further
mentoring roles for novice teachers. As a result of co-teaching,
the effective practice of inclusion is promoted in conjunction
with the potential to ameliorate teacher burnout, provding
novice teachers with a mentor.
The term inclusion is often seen as a challenge to many
school districts. There is rarely a universally accepted

definition or even a narrowly defined policy that exists at the
federal level (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013). Inclusion is a
word not specifically outlined in IDEA (Individuals with
Disabilities Act) and is also not delineated within case law.
What does give rise to the legal impetus that coincides with
inclusion is the language that constitutes the least restrictive
environment component of IDEA (DeMatthews & Mawhinney,
2013). A student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP)
addresses what will be the least restrictive environment in order
to preserve individual learning goals, attain the appropriate
services for that goal, and where the student will receive those
services (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013). There is a
preference for inclusion in IDEA in which students remain part
of the general education classroom; however, IEP teams
(consisting of parents, teachers, the student, and service
providers) have the ability to determine the extent of inclusion.
In consequence, there is no mandate of full inclusion and the
courts create additional leeway for school districts to regulate
the degree of inclusion on a case by case basis (DeMatthews &
Mawhinney, 2013).
Co-teaching, or the shared responsibility of a general
education and special education teacher within the same
classroom, is a strategy implemented by schools to support
inclusion (Pugach & Winn, 2011). True to her pragmatist
philosophical style, Amy regards co-teaching as a means to
encourage a student-centered classroom where both teachers act
as helpers and guides to the path of learning (Gutek, 2011).
Further, inclusion is akin to Horace Mann’s concept of a
socially integrated organization that was also a vehicle to create
a social, racial, and academically integrated society (Gutek,
2011). Reflecting Mann’s integrationist themes, inclusion
supports Mann’s common school philosophy in that it provides
the same skills and knowledge equally to all students (Gutek,
2011). Consistent with Mann’s philosophical goals, public
schools create communal integration when wholly supportive of
inclusion. In order to achieve this level of inclusion, the co-

teaching method creates a sense of shared responsibility,
accountability, and resources conducive to support all students’
learning (Pugach & Winn, 2011). Amy’s school system
implemented a fairly atypical strategy of co-teaching which has
also served to create a stronger sense of community amongst
general education and special education teachers. In this model,
an interdisciplinary team is responsible for a group of students
for a period of two years. This team comprised of a special
education teacher and content teachers serves as the first point
of reference for parents while they also collectively develop
curriculum, plan interventions, and monitor student progress. In
this way, this co-teaching approach creates an environment of
inclusion, but it also lessens the degree of marginalization that
special education novice teachers often feel when entering the
field. This method establishes the effective practice that focuses
on assimilating special eduation teachers into the general
education community. They are no longer as isolated from their
professional cohorts and experience integration with their
colleagues. This degree of teacher preparation also rests on the
concept of Horace Mann in that teachers must not only be
experts in their level of knowledge and skill, but also be adept
at classroom management, while striving to be part of a
profession marked by consensual collaboration (Gutek, 2011).
Mentoring is a form of direct support that emerges as a part of
the team, and it is a practice that Amy feels is critical in helping
future special educators become effective practictioners.
According to Andrews and Brown (2015), the average
special education teachers work in the classroom for only a total
of six years. Attrition rates are generally higher than those of
general education teachers, and it is of particular note that many
special education teachers experience compassion fatige which
causes them to devalue their work and lose motivation to teach
(Andrews & Brown, 2015). This issue is one that Amy
contributes to the common mistakes found within special
education that provide inadequate professional
support/mentoring, a lack of integration of special education

teachers into the school community, and the inability to meet
standards while also meeting student’s needs. Perfectly situated
within Mann’s vision of consensus leadership, co-teaching
provides a method to address these mistakes and perhaps
eventually prevent teacher burnout. Despite different interests,
general education and special education teachers have the
opportunity to unite for a common cause, improve instruction,
and professionalize teachers (Gutek, 2011).
References
Andrews, A., & Brown, J. L. (2015). Discrepancies in the ideal
percpetions and the current experiences of special education
teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 126-
131. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i6.984
Cossentino, J. (2010). Following all the children: Early
intervention and Montessori.
Montessori Life, 22(4), 38-45.
Danforth, S. (2008). John Dewey’s contributions to an
educational philosophy of intellectual disability. Educational
Theory, 58(1), 45-62.

DeMatthews, D. C., & Mawhinney, H. (2013). Addressing the
inclusion imperative: An urban school district’s response.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(61), 509-526.
Gutek, G. L. (2011). Historical and philosophical foundations of
education: A biographical introduction (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pugach, M. C., & Winn, J. A. (2011). Research on co-teaching
and teaming. Journal of Special Education Leadership,
24(1), 36-46.
EDUC 703
Professional Interview Analysis Instructions
Assignment Description
You will conduct an interview and write a case study analyzing
the interviewee’s beliefs on education in the context of the
theories and thinkers covered in the course. The final document
must be 2,500–3,000 words; include a title page, abstract, and
reference page; and use current APA format. You must include
4 scholarly sources.
Specific Guidelines
You will be asked to analyze the statements of another educator
in the context of the thinkers covered in this course. Seek out a
person of interest and schedule an interview early in the course.
· Identify the person to be interviewed. This person may be a
teacher, administrator, or other educational professional
working in K–12 or in a higher education environment. The
person may not be related to you. Be candid with the person
about your task. You will not use real names in your report.
· You must use the first 3 sets of questions (items A–C below),
although you may add to or modify them to fit your interview.

Use sections A–C (Foundations of Leadership, Critical Issues,
Effective Practices) as first-level headings for your paper. You
may ask follow-up questions to probe more deeply if you need
more detailed responses to better inform your paper.
· Keep in mind that you want to have enough substantive
material to write your paper. In the case that a participant
cannot identify the philosophical basis of his/her practice as an
educator, the recommended approach includes asking questions
about practitioner issues in order to understand how he/she
approaches problems and real-to-life situations. This will
provide you with material for a substantial analysis.
· During the interview:
· Record the interview if you are able. If not recorded, you must
take detailed notes.
· Be aware of your own bias as you interview. Be sure you are
not taking any statements for granted. Question assumptions on
your part.
· Writing the Analysis
· This assignment is designed to introduce you to real case
study analysis.· Write the case using pseudonyms. Be sure to
begin your paper by providing the reader with a description of
the subject’s role/context, background of your analysis, and
your conclusions.
· Avoid the overuse of direct quotations by summarizing or
paraphrasing the participant’s responses.· Each major heading
must contain a brief summary of the participant’s comments
along with a thorough analysis. Your analysis is really an
examination of the participant’s statements in light of your
knowledge of philosophical perspectives in education. This is
not merely a summary of the interview; it must be an analysis of
the subject’s remarks to the interview questions. Be sure to
include specific citations and references to the various people,
concepts, and resources addressed in the course textbooks. You
are trying to place your subject on the continuum of beliefs.

Feel free to be critical.
· Your analysis must include proper citation of at least 4
references.
· You are being assessed on your ability to summarize and
critically think about the subject’s statements, your knowledge
of leadership theories and practices, and your writing style
(spelling, grammar, punctuation, and current APA format, etc.).
Interview Questions/Outline:
A. Foundations Of Leadership (required)1. Discuss your
background (e.g., where you grew up, where you went to
school, and life experiences before becoming an educator).2.
Describe your philosophy of education.3. Which philosophers
most shaped your beliefs? How?
4. What skills, characteristics, attitudes, etc., are most
important for an effective educator to develop?
5. How would you describe your “call” to be an educator?
6. How did your religious views or worldview impact your
views of education?
B. Critical Issues (required)1. Identify and comment on the 3
most critical issues (e.g., social, legal, pedagogical) currently
facing educators. How should schools work to resolve these
issues?
2. How have these issues been addressed by educators in the
past?
3. Describe any institutional plans to improve in a certain area
or areas.
4. What do you see as the most critical issue for education in
the coming years?
C. Effective Practices (required)1. Identify and briefly comment
on 3 effective practices used by you personally which have

enhanced your capabilities of accomplishing your institution’s
stated mission and/or vision.
2. What actions are you taking to help future educators become
effective?
3. What are common mistakes educators make?
Page 2 of 2

Running head PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from SUBHI7

More from SUBHI7 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .docx