Recent Posts
- Group 2 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 6: Critical Literacy for School Improvement: An Action Research Project
The action research study in this article focused on how conversations around multicultural children’s literature can serve as an enabler of culturally responsive pedagogy in a first grade classroom. As with all action research, Suoto-Manning’s research began with a critical observation or problem related to her practice – in particular she noticed that her students had questions regarding why “certain children went to certain classes while others could not opt to do so (Suoto-Manning, 2009, p.55).” Upon reflection, Suoto-Manning considered how despite the good intentions of pull-out enhancement or remediation classes, they tend to result in sorting and segregation within school walls. She therefore set out to address issues surrounding race with her students. In particular, she was curious how she could meet the needs of her students “without excluding and/or segregating them” (Suoto-Manning, 2009, p.55). Additionally, she wanted to provide students with the tools to “consider multiple perspectives without adopting an exclusionary view” (Suoto-Manning, 2009, p.55). To achieve this goal, Suoto-Manning exposed her students to a wide variety of multicultural children’s books throughout the 2001-2002 school year. She also supplemented each book read with semi-guided student dialogue, which was heavily documented. This exposure to the history and complexities behind race and segregation in the United States lead students to make connections with how seemingly segregated the pull-out services provided to students in their own classroom were. In other words, all students who received inquiry-based gifted enhancement-based services were white or Asian, and all students receiving deficit-based ELL or special ed services were all Latino or Asian, and African American respectively. The class was very troubled by this issue, and in response they proposed a possible solution to the problem, which served as the “action” component of the research. They proposed that they would matriculate to second grade together with the same teacher, and for the entire year all services (gifted, ELL, and special ed.) would be brought into the classroom and offered to all students simultaneously. Amazingly, Suoto-Manning and her students were able to generate the approval of the school’s administration, resource teachers, and parents to put the action plan in place for the 2002-2003 school year.
Throughout my time in graduate school I have read a lot of research articles, but I can easily say that this article was the most compelling educational research article I have ever read. My mind was buzzing the entire time I was reading, and for lack of a better metaphor, I felt that the experience reading the article took me on an emotional roller coaster ride. At first I felt shocked that any teacher would endeavor to explore this topic in a first grade class. I kept thinking that the kids were too young, and that Suoto-Manning was oversimplifying the topic. However, as I kept thinking about it, I realized just how tremendously significant this issue is, and if we ever hope to resolve it perhaps we do have to start young. Also, I felt very impacted and inspired by the level of dialogue the students demonstrated, and it caused me to feel frustrated that we don’t offer students more opportunities to engage in more of today’s most critical or problematic conversations based on the assumption that they topics are too advanced and the students are too young. That being said, I do have some major concerns, or perhaps misunderstandings about some parts of the article, and I would appreciate if any of my group mates can offer any insight or alternative perspectives to any of my confusion or criticisms. First, it seems to me like Suoto-Manning neglected to properly define the theoretical intention of pull-out programs to her students. While she is completely right that in many cases they have turned into schematized segregation, at their core these programs have a significant purpose. From a first grade student’s perspective, it is easy to see how a child could misunderstand or misinterpret pull-out programs after just having read a children’s book about the experiences of students in pre and post Brown versus Board of Education America. They could make the observation that only white kids in their class go to gifted programs, and only African American kids go special ed and get the impression that it is purposefully segregated, when it is much more complicated than that. That being said, I am not trying to delegitimize the severely problematic segregation that still exists in schools today, but the fact is that the pull-out services offered to students are not the same as legalized segregation, and students do need that direct explanation. Additionally, I felt a bit confused by some of Suoto-Manning’s methodology. More specifically, one of her research questions was based on addressing the segregated nature of pull-out classes, but she made it seem in her discussion that after months of exposure to multicultural literature the children made the connection to their school’s pull-out classes on their own. She explained that one day after reading a story about the experience of one African American girl in a predominately white school after the passing of Brown vs. Board of education that her students just naturally made the connection to their own school’s programs. They then proceeded to make a chart highlighting the segregated nature of students enrolled in gifted, versus ESOL and special ed programs. I question whether or not Suoto-Manning was more involved in this realization than she makes it seem. If so, she neglects to share the way in which she introduces or addresses the specific problem in their school in relation to the multicultural literature that the children were reading. Lastly, and perhaps this isn’t a criticism but more of a desire, I wonder why Suoto-Manning only used the push-in model or “action” her students developed for one year? She claims it was successful, but seems to suggest it was a one time experience. Why? I personally think that this model is worthwhile of more attention, and perhaps deserves research of its own. While Suoto-Manning conducted research to lead to this action, I wish she would’ve followed up with an action research or formal research on the effectiveness of “push-in” whole class intervention versus traditional pull-out programs. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed reading this article, and appreciate how seeming radical it was.
Sam, you and I spoke about the issue of oversimplification in class on Tuesday, and I think it is a very relevant point to discuss from this article. Being that Sam and I are both pursuing a Gifted Endorsement at UR, we have spent a lot of time studying the merits of gifted student identification. The intention is not to segregate students based on race or ethnicity but to empower and provide differentiation to a small subset of students who learn and think differently. Being in Gifted Endorsement program, I am also aware that the issue of racial/minority underrepresentation in gifted programs is very real. Yet, as Sam says, I hope these students were also taught about the intent of these programs to provide differentiation and personalization for students with different needs and styles, rather than fully focusing on their negatives. With that said, I would like to know more about the different components of the critical dialogue lessons. As Sam says, it’s a little bit hard to believe that some of these realizations were made by first graders without any teacher prompting. For example, was there an anticipatory set that activated knowledge by asking students to connect the issue of segregation to something in their own life experiences? Finally, Sam asks why the push-in experience was a one-time only phenomenon. In response to this question, I was struck by the author’s identification of the limitations of this program. It required complex, time consuming planning and collaboration with multiple other stakeholders. I would like to see research on how a similar push-in program could be implemented in a more simple, streamlined way. How do you make it replicable and broadly applicable?
Samantha and Rachel, I enjoyed reading your responses. I also found this article very interesting, and found myself in support of focusing on educating in a way that was disruptive of many students (and, probably their parents) moral/social perceptions. It seems to me that an underlying question might be about what educational outcomes we prioritize. Potentially, keeping all of the students together might result in certain students failing to progress as quickly as they otherwise would have, in certain areas. However, it may allow them to grown in other ways (i.e. empathy, cultural intelligence, concern for justice). I wonder if there is some confusion caused by mixing an idea of sorting based on ability (which is not inherently racist, although it does tend to be practically) with intentional sorting by race (which is obviously racist)? Is sorting by ability wrong? If so, then the approach they took seems great. If not, then the issue is more about properly identifying students from underrepresented groups. And, the issues are more about broader issues of income inequality and the systemic racism that have caused and continue to perpetuate the problems we are confronted by.
Samantha, I found your summary of the article to be very thorough. I too was on “an emotional roller coaster” as you stated throughout the article. At points I agreed and at other points I was not so sure. In addition, I was also surprised that she chose to carry out this action research with such a young group of children, but it did make me question whether we don’t give young children enough credit for what they are able to perceive and understand. What was even more shocking, which you also alluded to was how these students fought to remain in her class for another year and not to be pulled out with other teachers and won. I do wonder why she did not continue to use this approach, or if she did why she didn’t mention such intentions. As far as the questions/concerns you had, I agree that these children needed a clear explanation of the purpose behind pull-out special education services, gifted programs, and ESOL. I obviously see the benefit of such services as a special educator, but at the same time I don’t think children always need to be pulled out or that every child should be given the same services. I also do know that there is much overrepresentation of minorities in these programs, but like you I don’t believe this is always due to racism or prejudice. There is much more to it than that. I personally wondered whether these children’s views of these programs were tainted because of the lack of explanation and understanding. Lastly, I also wondered whether the students came to the conclusions and generated the chart all on their own or if Suoto-Manning was more involved than she let on. Then again, maybe I am just misjudging the students’ capabilities.
Samantha, Rachel, Chis and Lindsey I really enjoyed reading all your responses and reading the article! Samantha, you did a nice job summarizing, but also making me look at the article through a different lens. First, I was shocked that this study was approved due to it involving such young children. As a Kindergarten teacher I was excited as I read the children’s dialogue. I do understand your question Rachel if the students were prompted, however if you teach children early on how to analyze and articulate their thoughts, it is amazing what they can do! Due to trying to teach my children how to do that I would like to hope it wasn’t too much teacher prompting, but they were taught how to express themselves that way. But on the other hand, I do think this is a complex topic and like you said Lindsey I wonder how much they truly understood.
I also do agree with you all that children do not always need to be pulled out, but as teachers we need to serve the needs of all students. I am curious if she was able to do this fully.