Toward Equity in Mathematics Education For Students With Dis:abilities: A Case Study of Professional Learning

American Educational Research Journal
June 2019, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 995–1032

DOI: 10.3102/0002831218811906
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Ó 2018 AERA. http://aerj.aera.net
Toward Equity in Mathematics Education

for Students With Dis/abilities:
A Case Study of Professional Learning
Paulo Tan
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
Kathleen King Thorius
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
This case study documents a professional learning community (PLC) com-

prised of urban elementary educators working toward equitable education
for students with dis/abilities. We employ an equity-expansive learning
frame to evoke and then examine tensions and contradictions that emerged
during the PLC and mediated learning as evidenced by participants’
expanded notions of equity. We introduced equity-oriented mathematics
education content and tools based on what emerged from the PLC, then uti-
lized an interpretive approach to analyzing data through a multistage pro-
cess. Results indicate identity and power tensions that worked against
equitable practices. However, participants recognized several tensions and
PAULO Tan, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Hawai’i–Manoa, 1776

University Avenue, Everly Hall Room 222A, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA; e-mail: paulo
tan@hawaii.edu. His research focuses at the intersection of mathematics education
and students with dis/abilities. He works with individuals with dis/abilities, their fam-
ilies, advocates, and practicing and prospective educators to advance social justice in
and out of schools. Previously, he served as a public school mathematics teacher for
10 years in the United States.
KATHLEEN KING THORIUS, PhD, is an associate professor of special education and urban
education studies and Executive Director of the Great Lakes Equity Center and its
Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center. Dr. Thorius has expertise in culturally
responsive and sustaining education, special and inclusive education, equity consid-
erations in multitiered systems of support, and race and disability equity-oriented
educator development. Published extensively in practitioner and research outlets,
including Harvard Educational Review and the International Journal of Inclusive
Education, Dr. Thorius was a school psychologist before earning her PhD as
a USDOE-funded doctoral fellow in an interdisciplinary program to prepare culturally
responsive special education professors. She presents nationally and internationally
on race, language, dis/ability equity, and multitiered systems of support including
culturally responsive schoolwide discipline approaches. Her expertise undergirds
past and current work with myriad U.S. urban, rural, and suburban school districts
and state departments of education.
Tan, Thorius
proposed to address them as contradictions that mediated learning, thereby
expanding notions of equitable education.
KEYWORDS: cultural-historical activity theory, disability studies, equity in

education, mathematics education, teacher learning
A lthough students with dis/abilities are increasingly spending their school

days in general education classrooms (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson,
& Hoppey, 2012), many continue to be placed in segregated settings
(Kleinert et al., 2015) with limited access to general education curriculum
and opportunities to engage in learning with non-dis/abled peers.
Moreover, teachers do not feel prepared or supported and struggle in attend-
ing to their learning, specifically in mathematics (Maccini & Gagnon, 2002;
Rosas & Campbell, 2010) and, relatedly, connecting pedagogical practices
to systemic contexts of dis/ability (Artiles, 2003). In turn, we write dis/ability
with a slash to signal our stance in relation to the ways in which dis/ability is
culturally and politically constructed in schools and society, and where stu-
dents’ psychological and physical differences are often met with negative
treatment and outcomes (Davis, 1995; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016) informed
by ideas about who and what is normal (Davis, 2013). One such outcome
is the segregation into separate learning environments. Scholars have argued
against segregated educational placements for students with dis/abilities,
questioning their quality (Blanchett, Mumford, & Beachum, 2005; Ferri &
Connor, 2005) and associated patterns of poor outcomes and consequences
such as stigmatizing differences, maintaining racial segregation in schools,
and watering-down curriculum (Valle & Connor, 2011). Collectively, such
‘‘disabling’’ school practices have contributed to calls for educational equity
for all students, particularly in content areas such as mathematics (Tan &
Kastberg, 2017).
This case study documents how we worked as facilitator-researchers of
a professional learning community (PLC) to examine disabling school prac-
tices with the goal of moving toward more equitable practices for students
with dis/abilities in mathematics education. Schools have effectively imple-
mented PLCs with general and special educators alike as a way to integrate
‘‘teacher learning into communities of practice with the goal of meeting the
educational needs of their students through collaboratively examining their
day-to-day practice’’ (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008, p. 81). The PLC described
here involved us introducing practical and conceptual resources to build
general and special educators’ capacity to think about and respond critically
to systemic factors that were barriers to equitable and robust education for
students with dis/abilities in mathematics.
This article examines this case study through the lens of equity-expan-
sive learning. We designed and implemented content and processes for
the PLC based on dis/ability-centered concepts of equity and with the goal
996
Equity Professional Learning
of expansive learning rooted in a cultural-historical theoretical perspective.
Synthesizing these two strands of scholarship, we advance an integrated the-
ory of equity-expansive learning, which incorporates equity issues specific
to dis/abilities and emphasizes collective learning as mediated by tensions
and contradictions within an activity system, in this case, the PLC.
Accordingly, we examine the following two research questions: (1) What
tensions and contradictions are evoked and otherwise emerge during the
professional learning activity system wherein we introduce tools and facili-
tate discussions with the object of advancing equity in mathematics educa-
tion for students with dis/abilities? (2) Relatedly, we consider how any
contradiction mediates learning as evidenced by participants’ expanded
notions of equity in mathematics education. Our main argument in this arti-
cle is that equity-expansive learning involves surfacing and addressing
systemic-level tensions that community of educators operate within as part
of their work with students with dis/abilities. In turn, a thoughtfully con-
ceived and responsive PLC with equity-expansive learning elements is a cru-
cial first step to advancing educational equity for students with dis/abilities.
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

In what follows, first, we describe how we conceptualize education
equity in mathematics. Then, we describe the cultural-historical theoretical
perspective that we draw on and how we integrate it with the equity con-
cepts to drive development and facilitation of the PLC sessions. We highlight
the role of equity-expansive learning as crucial in gaining different insights
of how a PLC advances transformative work.
Situating the Study in Relation to Equity in Mathematics

Our framing of equity for students with dis/abilities synthesizes works
from the fields of mathematics education and disability studies in education;
the latter being a relatively new field that reframes dis/ability as a social con-
struction rather than viewing it as a deficit located within an individual
(Collins & Ferri, 2016). We draw on disability studies in education scholar-
ship because students with dis/abilities have largely been ignored in broader
educational equity discourse. In the field of mathematics education, for
example, equity discourse has predominately focused on gender and histor-
ically nondominant racial and linguistic groups (e.g., de Araujo, Roberts,
Willey, & Zahner, 2018; Gutiérrez, 2018). In turn, we situate equity based
on Gutiérrez’s (2013) four interdependent domains of equity in mathematics
education—access, achievement, identity, and power—pulling in work from
disability studies in education scholars to extend the application to students
with dis/abilities. We apply this interdisciplinary conceptual framework of
equity in our design and facilitation of the PLC.
997
Tan, Thorius
Domains of Equity and Dis/abilities
Access involves central participation in deep and conceptual content
and processes and an appreciation of the content and of those in the learn-
ing community (Gutiérrez, 2013). For teacher educators, this means support-
ing teachers to not only develop strong mathematics content and
pedagogical knowledge but also ground this knowledge in social justice per-
spectives (Dyches & Boyd, 2017). Consistent with Gutiérrez (2013), we oper-
ationalize achievement as students engaged in the process of deep and
multidimensional learning as an end in itself. That is, students engaging
meaningfully and inclusively in rich learning experiences, constructing
knowledge alongside a full range of peers, and making connections to their
lived experiences outside of school represent achievement.
According to Gutiérrez (2013), identity involves the process of under-
standing the inextricable and complex nature of actions of one’s self and
others, reflecting on assumptions and how those affect practices, and then
taking corrective steps. For students with dis/abilities, deficit assumptions
that question the ‘‘worth’’ of their engagement in rigorous content learning
(Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002) determine the types of interactions that
teachers will have with them and their families (Tan, 2017). Such interactions
position students’ deficits as the rationale for narrow educational program-
ming through a focus on nonacademic and functional life skills (Mirenda,
2008). Students with dis/abilities are typically constructed as incapable of
doing and thinking mathematically (Tan & Kastberg, 2017). We specifically
draw on Gutiérrez’s (2013) construct of power relating to problematizing tra-
ditional perspectives of knowing and doing mathematics. Current school
practices act as gatekeepers affording some students access to a full range
of learning that is blocked for others (Gutiérrez, 2013), in effect determining
students’ future success in mathematics and life. One way to challenge these
practices is through constructing counternarratives by questioning taken-for-
granted assumptions and for valuing the voices of those who are marginal-
ized (Gutiérrez, 2013). Individuals with dis/abilities have long advocated for
meaningful educational programming (Tan & Kastberg, 2017), yet their calls
have largely been dismissed by ‘‘experts’’ who purport to have specialized
knowledge of said dis/ability and privilege their own definition of success.
Thus, truly honoring the voices of individuals with a dis/ability represents
an important shift toward educational equity (American Educational
Research Association, 2017).
Importantly, our framing of equity related to access, achievement, iden-
tity, and power position teachers and their work as crucial elements in fram-
ing students as mathematics doers and thinkers capable of reasoning and
creativity as a human endeavor. In turn, our framing of equity in mathemat-
ics education along with a theory of action that we describe next guided the
concept of equity-expansive learning in our PLC design and facilitation.
998
Figure 1. Model used to represent an activity system.

Source. Engeström (1987, p. 78). Reprinted with permission.
A Theory of Action in Professional Learning

In this section, we describe expansive learning (Engeström, 1987), situ-
ated within the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT; Vygotsky, 1978). We
also describe how we synthesized expansive learning with the equity con-
cepts described in the previous section to formalize the concept of equity-
expansive learning and our rationale for its use including how it differs
from more traditional approaches to examining PLC.
The theory of expansive learning presupposes that explanations for
individual actions are mediated by the activity system in which they are con-
stituted (Roth & Lee, 2007). Specifically, individual actions or development
are interdependent with social, cultural, and historical activities (Rogoff,
2003). Thus, to examine individual learning, it becomes necessary to exam-
ine the situation or context in which individuals interact. Such context con-
stitutes an activity system (Engeström, 1987), typically depicted as a triangle
(see Figure 1), to organize and conceptualize the system’s embedded com-
ponents and interactions (Roth & Lee, 2007). This representation includes six
interacting, interdependent, and fluid components: artifacts, object outcome,
division of labor, community, rules, and subject.
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and Equity-Expansive Learning

The main premise of CHAT and expansive learning is that development
is mediated through goal-oriented and tool-mediated cultural practices in
activity systems (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). According to Engeström
and Sannino (2010), the subject component may represent a particular per-
spective of a participant in the system; object refers to the purpose or goals
of the collective; artifacts refer to the tools, physical, conceptual, and/or
999
Tan, Thorius
human resources, that are used to turn the object into desirable outcomes;
division of labor applies to both specific roles in the system; community is
made up of individuals who share the same object; and rules may be either
implicit or explicit ways of operating within the system. The circle around
the object represents its fluid status depending on how individuals in the
activity system make specific meaning of the object in relation to the gener-
alized societal meaning.
We applied the specific components of CHAT as follows—advancing
equitable practices for students with dis/abilities as the object of the activity
system; general educators, special educators, and/or researchers as the sub-
ject; the community is the professional learning participants composed of
teachers and researchers; rules are school practices evidenced during this
study that facilitate or hinder the object of the activity system (e.g., isolating
students with dis/abilities and their teachers from the rest of the school com-
munity); division of labor is the established and yet to be established prac-
tices related to the roles of general and special educators in the education
of students. Artifacts are practical and conceptual resources (i.e., tools)
and associated processes we introduced to build educators’ capacity to think
about and respond critically to systemic factors, including issues of access,
achievement, identity, and power that act as barriers to equitable education
for students with dis/abilities.
We drew from two assertions of expansive learning for this study. First,
learning is multidimensional; while it is ultimately manifested as changes in
the object of the activity system, qualitative changes will be evident in the
system’s individual components (e.g., division of labor; Engeström &
Sannino, 2010). The second is that contradictions (i.e., historically evolving
tensions that emerge and are addressed in activity systems [Engeström &
Sannino, 2010] through a process of deliberate examination and actions)
lead toward expansive learning (Roth & Lee, 2007). In turn, contradictions
are a tool for transformative change toward equity that comes from an exam-
ination of the interplay of power and identity in education (Walshaw, 2013).
We contend that the rules and division of labor components within the
activity system are prime locations for unearthing equity issues. Accordingly,
we introduced conceptual tools and facilitative discussions, informed by
equity concepts, as artifacts to surface tensions between activity system com-
ponents (e.g., subject and division of labor). We then supported participants
in recognizing and reconciling contradictions to develop new notions of
equitable practices in education for students with dis/abilities (i.e., the
object). This, in turn, represents shifts in the activity system and expansive
learning toward the object (Roth & Lee, 2007). In sum, equity-expansive
learning draws on particular CHAT concepts related to expansive learning
while foregrounding equity issues related to individuals with dis/abilities.
1000
The Need for an Equity-Expansive Learning Approach to PLCs
We assert that equity-expansive learning is useful in work involving
fields of study operating mostly in isolation. In particular, because profes-
sional learning opportunities for general and special educators have mostly
occurred in separate fields (Skrtic, 1991), each with its own history, culture,
and priorities (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012), expansive learning
is useful to understand a PLC designed to integrate these two fields to
advance equity for students with dis/abilities. In turn, expansive learning
and cultural-historical approaches allow for layered understandings beyond
the technical domain to centralize critical and contextual dimensions in pro-
fessional learning (Kozleski & Artiles, 2012).
Additionally, the complex nature of supporting the learning of students
with dis/abilities in schools involves myriad factors, including federal poli-
cies (e.g., Individual with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 and Every
Student Succeeds Act of 2015) and teachers’ content and pedagogical knowl-
edge (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004); consequently, such work requires the
expertise of those in various professional fields. From a cultural-historical
perspective, Engeström, Engeström, and Vähäaho (1999) refer to such inter-
disciplinary work as knotworking: ‘‘rapidly pulsating, distributed and par-
tially improvised orchestration of collaborative performance between
otherwise loosely connected actors and activity systems’’ (p. 346). Our artic-
ulation of an equity-expansive approach aligns with Waitoller and Artiles’s
(2013) charge of designing and examining professional learning across fields
or professional boundaries that
dismantle interesting and multiple barriers to learning and participa-

tion for all students. This line of research requires moving beyond the
analysis of outcome measures or descriptive processes. It requires
a robust theory of how teachers learn in complex institutional con-
texts in which various institutional and professional boundaries over-
lap. (p. 347)
PLCs are optimal sites to examine professional learning guided by

equity-expansive concepts. PLCs are rooted in community of practice
(Lave & Wenger, 1991) and ‘‘constitute strategic sites for transformational
learning’’ (Curry, 2008, p. 738). Although PLCs provide opportunities for
general and special educators to engage in shared learning and to grapple
with complex issues (Blanton & Perez, 2011), PLC studies, to our knowl-
edge, have not examined or designed professional learning from an
equity-expansive perspective. Importantly, PLCs are sites where injustices
and prejudices of marginalized individuals emerge and are potentially repro-
duced (Wenger, 1998). Consequently, professional learning with a focus on
equity is an important component to address systemic inequities (Waitoller &
Artiles, 2013). Teachers with opportunities to engage in equity-oriented
1001
Tan, Thorius
professional learning opportunities are more likely to hold beliefs of high-
quality mathematics education (Clark et al., 2014) and attune to problematic
practices involving students with dis/abilities (Tan & Thorius, 2018). Yet
research on this area of equity-oriented teacher education remains sparse
(Lambert & Tan, 2017). This article addresses the knowledge gap and inequi-
ties related to dis/abilities, such as access, achievement, identity, and power
by examining a PLC involving general and special educators focused on
mathematics education. Through this work, we seek to illuminate ways to
address inequities through expansive learning and advance equity in educa-
tion for students with dis/abilities.
Method
Context for the Project
This case study was part of a larger project involving two elementary
schools in one urban school district located in a large Midwestern city.
The larger project involved a partnership between a university school of
education and the district’s administrators, funded by two U.S. Department
of Education grants. Administrators expressed interest in developing a collab-
orative professional learning program through which to build shared learn-
ing and organizational capacity, particularly focused on inclusive practices in
mathematics for students with dis/abilities. The outcomes of the case study
served to inform the directions for the larger project.
For the case study, we focused on a small group of general and special
educator participants as they engaged in a PLC during the first two phases of
an inquiry cycle (Figure 2, Engeström, 1999). The goal of the PLC was to
improve inclusive mathematics practices so that students with dis/abilities
could participate in higher level mathematical inquiry within general educa-
tion curriculum and settings. We facilitated context-driven, collaborative pro-
fessional learning experiences and introduced conceptual tools, such as
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and structures for shared practices
(e.g., co-teaching) whereby participants determined how to utilize these
tools in their context. A full cycle would consist of having participants gen-
erate ideas during PLC meetings, test ideas in the classrooms, and collect
data on implementation; subsequently, participants would collectively ana-
lyze the data, generate new or refined questions and solutions, determine
next steps, and reflect on their professional learning experiences.
The authors, who have spent considerable time working as educators
and researchers in U.S. schools, facilitated the study in relation to their roles
with an Equity Assistance Center (EAC). EACs are funded by the U.S. Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education to provide technical assistance,
resources, and professional learning opportunities to state departments,
school districts, and schools related to equity, civil rights, and inclusive
1002
Figure 2. Cycle of inquiry in professional learning.

Source. Engeström (1999, p. 384). Reprinted with permission.
school reform. The design and facilitation of practice-embedded organiza-

tional learning with a focus on equity is one way the EAC’s staff engages
in such assistance.
Schools
The two participating public urban schools, both designated Title I, were
magnet option district schools with an International Baccalaureate (IB) curric-
ulum focused on inquiry-based learning. Because of these foci, the schools
drew a large number of students with dis/abilities due to their reputations
for promoting inclusive practices and individualized curriculum for students
with dis/abilities. This may be partly attributed to IB’s ideas toward inclusiveness:
IB programmes aim to increase access to the curriculum and engage-

ment in learning for all students. Learning communities become more
inclusive as they identify and remove barriers to learning and partic-
ipation. Commitment to access and inclusion represents the IB
learner profile in action. (International Baccalaureate Organization,
2015, p. 3)
Paradoxically, one of the participating schools also housed a ‘‘Life-Skills’’

program for students with severe1 dis/abilities, which operated as a separate
program within this inquiry-based and ‘‘inclusive’’ magnet school. With the
exception of a few students with severe dis/abilities, this program continues
to structure these students in self-contained classrooms with very limited
1003
Tan, Thorius
Table 1
Demographics of the Participating Schools and District
Demographic School 1 School 2a School District
Total students 352 228 28,193

White 55% 25% 21%
Black 26% 54% 54%
Hispanic 8% 14% 20%
Multiracial 7% 8% 5%
Free/reduced meals 45% 73% 83%
Special education 21% (0) 38% (12) 18%b
English language learners 3% 7% 14%
Note. Value in parentheses represents the number of students with severe dis/abilities as
reported by the participants.
a
School 2 is the school with the program for students with severe dis/abilities. bValue for
the district was not available.
access to the general education classroom and curriculum (see Table 1 for
demographics of participating district and schools).
Participants
We asked the two school principals to identify teachers who may be inter-
ested in participating in the PLC and who were already working in teams com-
posed of special and general educators. Six educators were identified for this
study—four special education and two general education teachers. The six
participants had varied experiences within a co-teaching model (i.e., working
together as general and special educators to promote inclusive practices for
students with dis/abilities). Moreover, all participants, except Nancy, were cer-
tified in an area they were teaching (i.e., as generalist or special educators) at
the time of the study through a university-based teacher preparation program.
Nancy received her special education teacher certification through an emer-
gency preparation program. Every participant self-identified as White female
and had taken part in the full scope of the larger study. Table 2 provides addi-
tional information about the participants. Participating teachers received a sti-
pend for attending and participating in all professional learning sessions and
completing related assignments. They engaged in seven 1.5-hour professional
learning sessions over the course of 3 months. Three researchers were
involved in the study as facilitators including both authors, with the second
author taking the lead facilitation role.
Data Sources
The PLC sessions, debrief meetings, transcripts from the sessions, and
individual interviews constitute our primary data sources, all of which
1004
Table 2
Description of Participants in the Case Study
Participant Age (Years) Years of Teaching Professional Role Grades Taught School
Melissa 22 1 (1) SE 1, 2, 4, and 5 1

Sarah 30 8 (8) SE K–3 1
Claire 44 4 (4) SE K–3 2
Liz 44 15 (2) GE 1 and 2 2
Kim 51 29 (10) GE 4 and 5 2
Nancy 50 12 (2) SE 4 and 5 2
Note. Value in parentheses represents number of years the participant taught at the current
school; SE = special education, GE = general education.
were conducted and collected over a 6-month period. During the sessions,
the first author took detailed field notes, and the sessions were digitally
audio-recorded. The first author conducted individual face-to-face, semi-
structured interviews (see Appendix A, available in the online version of
the journal, for question pool) with all participants at least once during
this study. Four of the participants (Melissa, Liz, Sarah, and Nancy) provided
two interviews. Claire was interviewed during the initial interview but was
unavailable for the follow-up. Kim was interviewed during the follow-up
phase but not during the initial one. Initial interviews occurred midway
through the 7-week sessions due to the availability of the participants, while
follow-up interviews occurred toward the end of or after the completion of
the professional learning. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.
Professional Learning Community

Situated in equity-expansive concepts, we designed the PLC to engage
participants in cyclic inquiry, critical thinking, and problem solving to
advance shared objectives, to strengthen collaborative relationships, and
to build capacity to improve student outcomes. We introduced conceptual
tools, such as UDL and structures for shared practices (e.g., co-teaching),
to surface tensions and encounter social forces precluding inclusive mathe-
matics practices. Seven weekly 1.5-hour sessions were held between April
and June 2013. Much of the session design came from the second author’s
experience with leading PLCs as part of national work on special education
disproportionality and technical assistance, as well as resources encountered
by the first author as a mathematics teacher educator (see Appendix B, avail-
able in the online version of the journal, for a summary of the PLC’s scope
and sequence).
Sessions took place at the end of the school day in the classrooms of
participating teachers, alternating each week between the two elementary
schools. In general, sessions focused on three outcomes: expanded patterns
1005
Tan, Thorius
of activity, corresponding theoretical concepts, and new types of agency
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010) grounded on the four principles of social
design experiments (Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010). Each session began
with debriefing and discussion of occurrences determined from the previous
session. We then introduced a set of tools and questions to guide discussions
and to stimulate collective critical inquiry and action to develop local solu-
tions toward transformative change (Thorius, Maxcy, & Nguyen, 2011–
2014). At the end of each session, we assigned next action steps for partic-
ipants (e.g., reflection writing, UDL lesson self-check) and researchers (e.g.,
locate additional supporting resources) to complete.
Data Analysis
We employed an interpretive approach (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008;
Yanow, 2014) to explore our two research questions and analyzed the
data using a three-stage process where each subsequent stage refined our
development of central themes and subthemes. This involved constant com-
parison (Glasser & Strauss, 1967) to confirm and counter the developing
themes and to explore alternative interpretations. Next, we describe the
credibility measures we employed followed by a more detailed account of
each of the three stages.
Credibility Measures
For this study, we conceptualized trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985) as the approximate accuracy of the account based on the participants’
realities and the degree to which the account was credible to them (Holstein
& Gubrium, 2008). We approached trustworthiness mainly via researcher
debriefs, a member-checking process (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner,
Pugach, & Richardson, 2005), and immersing in the audio-recordings.
Researcher debrief meetings followed each session where we discussed
immediate thoughts and reflections on the events of the session.
Consequently, we noted and, where necessary, revised any discrepancies.
We followed this process during the first three professional learning sessions
to develop several initial broad themes of what we found provocative and
interesting within the theoretical perspective used in this study. After the ini-
tial analysis of a given session, the research team met to share our interpre-
tations of the previous session and to plan for subsequent sessions. Tensions
that emerged in our analysis of observations provided a stimulus for discus-
sion during subsequent research team debriefs, professional learning ses-
sions, and participant interviews.
During the subsequent professional learning session, we presented
a summary of our conversations to the participants for member checking.
With member checking, we shared data analysis outcomes with the partici-
pating teachers at two different time points to capture their thoughts related
1006
to agreements, disagreements, and additions to the themes. We conducted
the first member check during the second and third sessions with all the par-
ticipants as a group. The first member-check process helped us redirect the
identity themes we were formulating as participants elaborated on their
interpretation of identity in their work. At that point, our interpretation
was focused on identities of students with dis/abilities. During the first mem-
ber check, participants indicated teacher identity as an area for further explo-
ration. The second member-checking process occurred during individual
teacher interviews after the final stage of data analysis, at which point we
finalized the themes.
Last, our review of audio-recordings also allowed us to recall the conver-
sations richly and contextually. The process of reviewing the audio-record-
ings also involved taking and organizing notes on a spreadsheet that
included a summative description of each topic captured from the record-
ings as well as the timestamp. Moreover, this process helped inform areas
of attention for upcoming data collection.
First Analysis Stage

During this first stage of analysis, initial themes and patterns included
mathematics identity construction, deficit-focus discourse about students
with dis/abilities, and inequities between general and special educators. For
the first stage, we analyzed the session observations and respective audio-
recordings for emerging themes and patterns. We reviewed the audio-
recordings to (1) make meaning of what was discussed in the session; (2) cap-
ture central topics discussed; (3) evidence tensions, contradictions, and solu-
tions; and (4) compare these with the field notes we took during the session.
Second Analysis Stage

Our second stage involved content analysis to organize and further
refine broad themes and patterns. Specifically, we engaged in an interactive
transcription process that allowed for intimate interaction with the data fos-
tering in-depth analysis and interpretation (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006).
Moreover, initial perceptions or ‘‘truths’’ were either confirmed or negated
during this process. Next, as a research team, we read through the transcripts
line by line and organized codes based on existing themes and patterns or
created new categories for new codes that emerged. This analysis stage
required constantly going ‘‘back and forth between the data and the classi-
fication system to verify the meaningfulness and accuracy of the categories
and the placement of data into categories’’ (Patton, 2002, p. 465). Thus,
the content analysis provided a solid grounding for the next phase wherein
we made meaning of the data (Patton, 2002). We also utilized initial and
focused coding strategies (Charmaz, 2006). Initial transcript coding involved
the use of Deedoseä to develop a manageable classification scheme (Patton,
1007
Tan, Thorius
2002) by initially coding the transcripts. We then used inductive analyses in
the focus-coding phase to organize and collapse the initial coding into
broader categories (see Appendix C, available in the online version of the
journal, for the list of initial coding and categories).
Third Analysis Stage

During the final stage, we combined categories into themes that reflected
central elements of those categories informed by equity-expansive concepts.
For example, we combined Categories 1 and 2 as they represented contradic-
tions in ways that we noticed expansive forms of learning regarding the cen-
tral tensions—namely, participants’ recognition of and solution to systemic
issues specific to dis/abilities. This process and refinement resulted in three
main themes and corresponding salient elements within each of the themes.
At the same time, we used CHAT to frame these elements to better understand
and organize the sources of the contradictions in the activity systems, its relat-
edness to other elements in the system, and, subsequently, how learning was
expanded through ways those contradictions were addressed.
Limitations
One limitation of this study is that we did not explore equity-expansive
learning of the PLC’s activity system in the context of daily practices and
beyond (Martin, 2003), which is a central component of expansive learning
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010). Another limitation is that school principals
recommended the participants for the PLC who likely had a strong interest
in inclusive practices involving students with dis/abilities. Finally, and as
important, we failed to directly account for the intersection of race and
dis/ability in shaping students’ opportunities to learn via educators’ practi-
ces, despite the situation of the study in an urban school that served students
of color. Although we did not know the racial memberships of the students
with dis/abilities taught by the PLC educators, we can safely assume that they
included students of color given the broader school population and given
the disproportionality of students of color in special education and segre-
gated education settings (Thorius & Stephenson, 2012). Elsewhere
(Thorius, in press), we detail teacher learning approaches in which we
draw intentionally from critical race theory and disability studies in educa-
tion intersections (e.g., consider the role of eugenics in sorting and segregat-
ing youth of Color with dis/abilities). We expect future studies doing the
same in planning and facilitating similar PLCs.
Results
To address our first research question—What tensions and contradic-
tions are evoked and otherwise emerge during the professional learning
1008
activity system where we introduced tools and facilitated discussions with
the object of advancing equity in mathematics education for students with
dis/abilities?—we identified two central themes: (1) identity tensions and
(2) inequities between special and general educators. A third theme, recog-
nizing and addressing tensions, attended to our second research question of
how contradictions mediated learning as evidenced by participants’
expanded notions of equity in mathematics education. We acknowledged
the first two themes as emerging and ongoing tensions and the third as con-
nected to Engeström and Sannino’s (2010) process of contradictions evoked
by these tensions and ultimately addressed in the PLC. Next, we describe
each of these three themes.
Identity Tensions
Our analysis pointed to three areas of identity tensions that surfaced dur-
ing the PLC sessions: (1) teacher-student of mathematics, (2) mathematics of
dis/abilities, and (3) being an inclusion teacher and inclusivity. We assert that
the first two identity tensions served as barriers to the third—their roles as
inclusive teachers and to the extent to which students with dis/abilities
were members of the mathematics learning community. Thus, we construe
this interplay of tensions as forces against the advancement of equitable
mathematics education for students with dis/abilities (i.e., the activity sys-
tem’s object). Figure 3 displays how we mapped findings during our final
stage of data analysis (Engeström, 1987) onto a CHAT triangle.
As Figure 3 indicates, when we positioned PLC participants (including
researchers) as the subject of the system, salient tensions emerged between
the subject and rules, community, object, artifacts, and division of labor.
Next, we discuss each of the three identity tensions and provide evidence
of these with associated data.
Teacher-Student of Mathematics
The first identity tension, teacher-student of mathematics, surfaced dur-
ing an artifact-sharing activity during the second session where participants
discussed their shortcomings with mathematics as a student and/or a teacher.
This activity appeared to evoke participants’ identity tensions between their
own experiences with mathematics as a student and as a teacher of the dis-
cipline. In particular, at the end of the first session, we asked participants to
bring, for discussion in the subsequent session, a mathematics-related arti-
fact related to students with dis/abilities. We informed them of the purpose,
which was to get a better sense of their practice concerning access to math-
ematics curriculum, issues with materials, and accommodations. During
Session 2, participants took turns sharing their artifacts that ranged from
an elementary mathematics methods textbook to a mathematics manipula-
tive used for a student with a severe dis/ability to access the general
1009
Tan, Thorius
Figure 3. Mapping of CHAT from PLC participants’ perspective.

Note. Main equity components indicated as (*). CHAT = Cultural-Historical Activity Theory;
PLC, professional learning community; UDL = Universal Design for Learning.
education mathematics curriculum. As they presented their artifacts, Melissa

and Liz, a general and a special educator, respectively, openly shared their
struggles with mathematics as students. Sarah, a special educator who was
not present during the first session, also disclosed her struggles with math-
ematics, but not as a student, rather as a teacher. But first, she revealed
her artifact, which she described as drill-based mathematics learning:
. . . we do drill cards . . . with our vocabulary cards, we’ll trace them;
we’ve hopscotched them a couple of times when it’s been nice out-
side, things like that to get them moving . . . and then we do an audi-
tory drill, a visual drill, a tactile drill, and then I quiz them on it at the
end of the week. (Session 2, April 30, 2013)
She then stated, ‘‘But I will freely admit that math is the weakest area for
me.’’ This incited Claire, a special educator, to summarize her observations
about participant’s mathematics identity: ‘‘In all seriousness, all of us, except
[Kim, a general educator], have said ‘I was really terrible at math.’ In high
school I did horribly [in math].’’ Following Claire’s statement, Nancy, a special
educator also shared her own struggles in mathematics.
1010
Sarah contradicted the others by declaring ‘‘But the weird part for me is I
was really good at math . . . it is really hard for me to understand why it’s
hard for other people not to understand math.’’ Liz concurred with Sarah’s
statement about struggling to teach mathematics by adding, ‘‘When you’re
teaching reading, there are so many more strategies and options. Math just
seems . . . it’s more concrete . . . it’s harder to find a different way.’’
Melissa then replied, ‘‘I think there are just as many ways for math, but
maybe we just don’t know about them.’’
Mathematics of Dis/ability
The second identity tension, mathematics of dis/ability, related to how
participants conveyed deficit-laden student identities in mathematics educa-
tion. Such expressions continued throughout the sessions despite our intro-
duction of several tools that aimed to focus on students’ preference for
learning (e.g., UDL Guidelines; see Appendix D, available in the online ver-
sion of the journal). That is, the focus on improving their practice was over-
shadowed by patterns in conversations that fixated on students’ deficits. For
example, in Session 5, we asked participants to use the UDL Guidelines
(Appendix D) to identify areas they hoped to address more effectively. Liz
identified Provides Options for Comprehension, but then insinuated that
this area was not applicable to her practice in general, or with the rest of
the class; rather, her practice was already effective, and she would not
need to consider this UDL area if not for the deficits of a particular student
with a dis/ability:
I said as a class [providing options for comprehension is] not an issue

but when I’m thinking about Marcus in math . . . Marcus struggles
with synthesizing information . . . memory and transfer . . . everything
we do is integrated throughout the day . . . that’s just the way I teach,
and he doesn’t make those connections . . . where other kids will say
‘‘Oh, we did that and such . . . and we did that there’’ . . . and even
with math . . . doing measuring . . . just that process . . . information
processing, he’s not seeing the connections. (Session 5, May 21, 2013)
Liz’s comment also indicates that she interpreted UDL as a strategy or an

accommodation for Marcus rather than UDL being about accessible instruc-
tional design for all students.
Participants also conveyed certain deficit identities about students with
dis/abilities related to both specific and broad categorization of dis/ability
and negative implications for their mathematics education. For example,
during Session 6, Liz commented that her ‘‘inclusion kids’’ (a term partici-
pants used to encompass students with a dis/ability who spent most of their
school day in the general education setting) as a group had trouble with
complex thinking:
1011
Tan, Thorius
What I find with my inclusion kids . . . most of [students without a dis/
ability,] they get it, they connect it . . . they understand why it’s impor-
tant. Because, to me, I really think that you don’t truly understand
until you realize how it relates to you . . . and that’s where the inclu-
sion kids . . . I seem to have the most trouble with getting them to
synthesize, and process, and understand it. (Session 6, May 28, 2013)
In the above excerpt, Liz generalized an identity for her ‘‘inclusion kids,’’
as unable to make connections in their learning. Similarly, during Session 6,
while arguing that the IB curriculum in mathematics would be prohibitive for
including students with severe dis/abilities, Sarah generalized the abilities of
students with severe dis/abilities: ‘‘As a group, those students are low.’’ She
continued by forecasting that they will stay ‘‘low’’:
. . . although IB has worked very hard on trying to get SPED [special
education] more involved, [the IB] curriculum is set up . . . [as] an
inquiry-based model . . . to focus more on . . . higher learning . . .
and so when you have kids with severe disabilities coming in, they
are coming in lower, and they’re going to stay lower. (Session 6,
May 28, 2013)
We also noticed generalized assumptions about students with dis/abilities

during Session 3 after participants watched video clips from Turkey
Investigations (Dolk & Fosnot, 2005), which is part of a commercially available
professional development curriculum used by the first author in his mathemat-
ics methods course for prospective teachers. The video clips showed students
in a third-grade classroom engaged in a mathematics activity where they
worked in pairs to solve a problem, thereafter students shared and listened
to different strategies during a whole group discussion. After watching the
clips, participants expressed skepticism, in a generalized and degrading way
(e.g., negatively mocking their students) regarding their own students’ abilities
to engage in similar mathematics activities as the following excerpts illustrate:
Liz: . . . if you understood your strategy [referring to a specific way to solve the prob-
lem], why do I need to know everybody else’s [referring to a different way]? [laughs,
others laugh] . . . why do I [as a student] have to pay attention to this?
Sarah: Yes, because, her [teacher in the video] initial conversation was about her
family members; then it goes . . . to talking about money . . . my kids would’ve
been like ‘‘Where’s the family members?’’ [laughs, others laugh] . . . my kids
would’ve also gotten lost because . . . they do get lost in these whole group dis-
cussions. (Session 3, May 7, 2013)
Being an Inclusion Teacher and Exclusivity

Tensions were also evident regarding the self-termed professional role
of an ‘‘inclusion teacher’’ and exclusionary sentiments. We assert that the first
1012
two identity tensions, teacher-student of mathematics and mathematics of
dis/abilities, served as barriers to the third—their roles as inclusion teachers
and to the extent to which students with dis/abilities were members of the
mathematics and general learning community. Specifically, through their
self-identification as inclusion teachers with difficulties in mathematics
teaching and learning, and use of deficit-laden and stereotypical expressions
of students with dis/abilities, participants precluded the possibilities of equi-
table mathematics practices. Claire’s statement during the second session
captured the problematic consequences of the interplay of these identity
tensions:
My thing is if you [as a student] had an education where you had peo-
ple who don’t teach math well . . . and you don’t have a natural affin-
ity for [math], then suddenly by 6th grade, we have a kid who doesn’t
understand it . . . they can’t get it, ‘‘Oh, we should test.’’ [with the out-
come that] they have a learning disability. (Session 2, April 30, 2013)
Claire introduced us to the term inclusion teacher during the beginning of

Session 2, where she responded to our Session 1 summary observations of
teacher identity by stating,
I love that the idea of student identity . . . I don’t identify myself at
school as the special education teacher, that’s not how I introduce
myself . . . because I don’t want the students that work with me to
be labeled by their peers. So I’ll say that I’m the inclusion teacher.
I will say that I’m . . . a teacher like all of the other teachers . . .
But I’m really hyper-aware of the fact that our kids are aware and
that it’s not an easy label to live with regardless of whether they
need the assistance in school or not. (Session 2, April 30, 2013)
In response, during the same session, we made a facilitative move to try

to understand better how other participants conceptualized ‘‘inclusion
teacher.’’ We asked participants a pair of questions: (1) How is the term
inclusion being understood? and (2) We call ourselves inclusion teachers
but what does that really mean if we unpack it? Sarah responded to our ques-
tions by describing how the label had evolved over her time. With increasing
demands, she argued that shared practices such as co-planning and co-
teaching and working with students without dis/abilities that used to be cen-
tral to her work as an inclusion teacher were ‘‘virtually not there’’ in her cur-
rent work. Accordingly, these demands had resulted not in how to improve
shared practices but rather ‘‘when can I service them . . . [and which] teacher
is going to service my math kids . . . reading kids . . . [in order for me to] get
into those two classrooms.’’
Following Sarah’s comments, Liz, who regularly worked with English
language learners and students with dis/abilities, sought clarification on
the inclusion teacher term by stating, ‘‘When you say what is the role of
1013
Tan, Thorius
the inclusion teacher, do you mean the special ed teacher? Because techni-
cally I’m an inclusion teacher too as a general education teacher.’’ Yet Sarah
did not seem to agree that all general educators are inclusion teachers by
responding, ‘‘To all of us that are trained special educators, I have met
a ton of general education teachers that called themselves inclusion teachers
. . . they don’t have knowledge of IEP . . .’’ Thus, whereas Sarah and Claire
conceptualized inclusion teachers as being restricted to special educators,
Liz views it more flexibly as, for example, extending to her work as a general
educator. Such flexibility and the changing nature of inclusion was reflected
in the following session where Liz stated: ‘‘I don’t have any ESL [English
Student Learner] support, I don’t have any special ed support . . . my kids
went a whole semester with no special ed teacher . . . I was tracking all of
their data.’’
Another tension with being an inclusion teacher were the sentiments
evidenced toward exclusivity regarding students with severe dis/abilities.
The first author followed up with Liz during her individual interview inquir-
ing about her role as an inclusion teacher specific to students with a severe
dis/ability. Liz explained that the general education classroom was available
at times for students with severe dis/abilities, who were generally educated
in a self-contained environment for most of the school day. According to Liz,
the school was, however, trying to include students with severe dis/abilities
(primarily younger students) in the general education classroom during cer-
tain class periods. As an inclusion teacher, Liz expressed ambivalence about
instances when two students with severe dis/abilities came into her class-
room with their instructional assistants during her mathematics lessons
and prioritized her focus on her ‘‘babies’’ (students who were consistent
members of her classroom):
It’s harder for me because you’re [referring to the two students with
severe dis/abilities] just visiting and I don’t know you from day one,
and I know you as a student and your teacher kind of has an agenda.
So, it’s more for them just to have the experience of being in a general
education classroom . . . I hate to say it but I, unfortunately, I don’t
really focus on you. I have my other 24 babies in there. (Interview,
May 16, 2013)
Even for Aiden, a student with a severe dis/ability who was a consistent
member of Liz’s classroom community, she expressed difficulties in includ-
ing him during certain aspects of the mathematics curriculum:
So we’re finding ways to . . . allow him to communicate because when

we’re on the carpet, and I ask a question, and he raised his hand, it just
breaks my heart because I want to call on him . . . so much.
Liz also rationalized exclusion for two other students as she explained in
separate sessions:
1014
We had a [student with a dis/ability] that was sent to [a temporary spe-
cialized treatment program], and I said if he comes back, he can’t be
in my room; my room is organized chaos, he can’t handle it, he needs
structure, he needs to have a room where they have assigned seats.
(Session 6, May 28, 2013)
I’m sorry somebody else [referring to another teacher] needs you

[referring to the student] because if I don’t like you, [then] you
shouldn’t be in my classroom [laughs] . . . I could count on this
hand how many students I’ve had like that, but there are some . . .
if I can’t look at you and be a kind, wonderful person, then you
shouldn’t be in here [laughs]. (Session 7, June 4, 2013)
Sarah made a similar statement during Session 6 when she described

a situation in which a general education teacher approached her to express
their concerns with a student with a dis/ability:
This year, I had a teacher come to me and say: ‘‘I can’t take that kid
next year. I don’t feel like I would be the best teacher for him.’’ And
I’m very happy that the teacher came to me and expressed that, I
mean I would do anything I could to support her. (Session 6, May
28, 2013)
Last, Liz connected and contextualized the practice of rejecting students with
dis/abilities to systemic factors such as teacher accountability structures that
penalized them on low student standardized assessments scores by suc-
cinctly stating that ‘‘Nobody wants them!’’
Inequities Between Special and General Educators

Results of our analysis also suggested ways that identity tensions played
out as inequities between special and general educators, which is our second
theme. These inequities, which mostly affected special educators, included (1)
access to time and key resources; (2) input in the planning, development, and
modification of mathematics curriculum; and consequently (3) professional
identity and marginalization. Figure 4 displays how we mapped findings dur-
ing our final stage of data analysis (Engeström, 1987) onto a CHAT triangle.
As Figure 4 indicates, when we position special educators as the subject
of the system, salient tensions emerged between the subject and rules, com-
munity, object, artifacts, and division of labor (e.g., with the rule of special
educators’ lack of membership in grade level). In the sections that follow, we
describe these tensions in detail.
Tensions as Inequities in Time

Results from our analysis indicate that tensions between special and
general educators related to inequities with planning time. These tensions
emerged during discussions surrounding the organization of time, space,
1015
Tan, Thorius
Figure 4. Mapping of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) from special edu-

cators’ perspective.
and personnel component of the Framework for Inclusion tool (Appendix E,

based on Systemic Change Framework; Kozleski, Thorius, & Smith, 2013,
available in the online version of the journal) and during follow-up inter-
views. All special educator participants expressed differences in the avail-
ability of dedicated time between general and special educators for
planning and collaborating. They noted that general educators had more
dedicated and uninterrupted time to plan and collaborate. In addition to
a designated daily planning period, general educators had 45 more planning
minutes each day when their students attended elective/exploratory courses
in another classroom such as physical education, art, or music. Conversely,
special educators’ planning periods occurred when students with dis/abili-
ties attended these courses, yet they often sacrificed this time to be with their
students. Moreover, when not attending elective/exploratory courses, they
expressed an obligation to be available for supporting students in the
resource room. Melissa, a special educator, shared that she had a daily 60-
minute plan period that included lunch; however, during this time, her stu-
dents often came in for additional individual support (Interview, May 13,
2013). Although she had the option to turn them away, she felt obligated
to support them. Similarly, Sarah, also a special educator, expressed diffi-
culty in finding planning time due to a demanding student load of 24 spread
1016
across five general education classrooms (Interview, June 6, 2013). Sarah’s
planning time often disappeared because she wanted to make sure all her stu-
dents were adequately supported; this also meant that she had to at least sched-
ule herself (minimal) time for a lunch break. Of note, general educators did not
mention feeling compelled to support students with dis/abilities during their
planning time, nor did they express concerns with special educators’ losing
planning time. In contrast, Liz, a general educator, lamented that she, like spe-
cial educators, had numerous paperwork responsibilities but was not afforded
a day to dedicate to paperwork as were her special education colleagues.
Special educators also expressed that the limited time for dedicated
planning had negative implications for their availability to plan with general
educators collaboratively. In Melissa’s case, she had students across two dif-
ferent grade-level teams—first- and fifth-grade classrooms—which meant
that she could not attend grade-level team meetings during their planning
time. Special educators expressed tension about general education teachers
who proceeded with collaborative planning without special educators and
without regard for including them. These barriers to collaboration extended
to the end of the school day when special educators had to fulfill transpor-
tation duties, which blocked off additional collaboration time.
Tensions as Inequities to Accessible Resources

In addition to inequities with time, we noted tensions associated with
access to professional resources. These tensions emerged during discussions
surrounding the development and distribution of resources component of
the Framework for Inclusion tool (Appendix E) and during follow-up inter-
views. Nancy, for example, expressed frustration with the district because
she did not have access to a teacher edition mathematics textbook. Nancy
noted that this was not an isolated incident because as a former district-level
special educator coach, she repeatedly witnessed failure to adequately sup-
port special educators with key resources. On the other hand, general edu-
cators did not openly express issues with accessing these resources.
Participants also surfaced inequities with available professional learning
opportunities. Claire lamented that although she had a strong interest in
advancing her professional knowledge, such opportunities were limited
for special educators. Her expressed tension was that professional learning
catering to special educators often focused on technical and legal issues
such as learning to use the statewide IDEA reporting system. Conversely,
participants reported that there were a wider variety of professional develop-
ment opportunities available for general educators.
Tensions as Inequities With Input

We also noticed tensions associated with special educators’ positioning
in both daily practices in mathematics education and in the broader school
1017
Tan, Thorius
community, which in turn marginalized their voice in mathematics curricu-
lum input. In discussions that emerged from session observations and inter-
views, special educators expressed having limited access to lesson plans and
limited input in mathematics lesson plan development. We first noticed these
tensions near the beginning of Session 2 shortly after we presented a sum-
mary of conversations from Session 1 including the main tensions noted dur-
ing that first session. Melissa pointed to special educators’ lack of input:
Melissa: . . . a very, very big issue for me right now that I didn’t bring up last time
. . . is planning and collaboration with classroom teachers . . . . just the absence
of it [others agree] and how . . . when we don’t work together . . . then kids
aren’t getting what they need.
Claire: And the evaluation piece that goes along with it . . . where are your [lesson]
plans? (Session 2, April 30, 2013)
Paradoxically, opportunities did exist for special and general educators

to collaborate after contract hours (e.g., during the evenings or summer)
when grade-level teams in the two schools did a substantial amount of les-
son planning. However, special educators were typically not invited to
attend these meetings. Thus, when barriers did not exclude special educa-
tors from collaboration with general educators, their voices were still margin-
alized. For example, although Melissa felt that the current state of her grade
team’s mathematics education could be more effective, as a first-year
teacher, she did not feel like she was at a place where she could be critical
and reasoned that ‘‘I don’t have the experience to back it up’’ (Interview,
May 13, 2013).
Moreover, special educators had limited access to mathematics lesson
plans after they had been developed. During a follow-up interview with
Melissa, we circled back to the tension that she raised during Session 2 on
lack of input in lesson planning by asking her to expand on that tension.
She frustratingly expressed how she repeatedly asked her general education
team members for mathematics lesson plans to review ahead of time, but
those requests often went unfulfilled, consequently putting her in a difficult
position of supporting her students during those lessons (Interview, May 13,
2013). During instances when Melissa did receive lesson plans ahead of time,
her general education team members often changed those plans last minute
without notifying her. She described this tension as patterns where she
would receive a lesson plan from a general education teacher and, in
turn, spent the night differentiating it for her students; ultimately to find
out the next day that the general education teacher decided on the day of
the lesson to change it without notifying Melissa.
Conversely, Liz, a general educator, expressed discomfort with special
educators’ input during her individual interview. Specifically, Liz reasoned
that since special educators are typically in her room an hour and a half
1018
a day, they should not ‘‘tell her what students with dis/abilities need in her
classroom.’’ During the sessions, both Sarah and Liz mentioned more gener-
ally that tensions in shared practices existed between the two of them in
terms of disagreements, which directly related to issues of input.
For special education teachers of students with severe dis/abilities in
mostly self-contained environments, marginalization tensions were even
more pronounced. During Session 6, we asked participants about what rela-
tionships need to be in place for the kinds of conversations necessary to sup-
port all students in mathematics education including students with severe dis/
abilities. Sarah and Liz weighed in on the marginalization of voice tension:
Sarah: [T]eachers [of students with severe dis/abilities] are pushed aside. Even at the
pre-school level where everybody’s happy and optimistic, you’re still shoved in
a building, and you’re all put together and you’re not associated with anybody
else . . .
Liz: [E]ven [Teacher of students with severe dis/abilities] will tell you that in our
building where we’ve tried very hard . . . it does happen that they are forgotten
. . . they are left off emails and they are left out of certain aspects because they’re
not thought of as a homeroom . . . definitely not intentional but it does [happen].
Teachers’ Learning Toward Equitable Mathematics Education Practices

As we approached the conclusion of the professional learning, partici-
pants began to recognize and address the identity and inequities tensions.
This recognition represents our third theme: teachers’ learning toward equi-
table mathematics education practices. Specfically, we noticed that (1)
participants talked about the importance of special educators and of collab-
oration between special and general educators in advancing equity in math-
ematics education for students with dis/abilities and (2) their conversations
included the universality of learning, intentional focus on teacher practice,
and interest in understanding more about how students preferred to learn.
Thus, we interpreted these as contradictions that were evoked by tensions
and addressed in the PLC as either participant-led or through targeted facil-
itative moves.
Special Education Teachers and Collaboration as Crucial

Conversations during the final professional learning sessions included
participants’ recognition of tensions related to collaboration and acknowl-
edging the importance of special educators’ role in advancing equity for stu-
dents with dis/abilities in mathematics. Consequently, these conversations in
conjunction with special educators as marginalized tensions appeared to
stimulate a proposed solution that sought to include special educators in
grade-level team meetings and communications. In particular, Liz noted
1019
Tan, Thorius
the importance of having conversations between the general and special
educators with the UDL facilitation tool:
I think going back to the planning . . . it could also be like how we

looked at Marcus that day [referring to the facilitated discussion from
Session 4], and we shared . . . broke it down . . . especially co-teach-
ing . . . it’s like getting to know that student, and that helped . . . so it
could be a tool that way too. (Session 7, June 4, 2013)
A similar expression about recognizing the importance of collaboration

emerged during a conversation between special and general educators:
Kim: I also chose it [referring to a specific UDL chart (Appendix D) domain of pro-
viding options for recruiting interest] as a weakness because I think in the upper
grades sometimes how much choice . . . what more can I do to give them
a choice? And then I look at options and even though they may have options
. . . You keep showing them different ways . . . do you wait when you can’t
write a six-digit number?
Melissa: I think part of that is about choice. But I think it’s also just about making sure
even if you don’t offer 27 thousand different choices; it’s just making sure that the
ones you do offer are real and purposeful and meaningful to the child . . . .
Claire: That is where collaboratively we [special educators] should be able to pro-
vide [general educators with a] different set of eyes but not just ‘‘Here’s how you
should do it.’’ (Session 5, May 21, 2013)
Participants also discussed the importance of including special educa-

tors in grade-level team meetings, planning, and communications
Although teachers pointed to time constraints as limiting their collaboration
efforts, Sarah, a special educator, suggested that inviting special education
teachers to be part of grade-level team planning sessions was indeed within
their control (Session 2, April 30, 2013). This solution was not explored until
the apparent peak of special educators as marginalized tensions; specifically,
during Session 7 when participants discussed the tendencies of excluding
special educators in different aspects of the school community (e.g., not
being invited to grade-level team meetings). During this discussion, Liz pro-
posed, as part of an already existing set of Essential Agreements between
grade-level team teachers, to include special education teachers in team
meetings and communications:
It comes up like we do essential agreements for everything else . . . we
need to [included there and copied it to] the administrators. There
needs to be an essential agreement that’s made between the teams,
inclusion teachers, and the team . . . there needs to be something
set . . . because we do that in our PLC meeting . . . we create an essen-
tial agreement . . . there’ll always be chocolate at the meetings . . . so
one of the agreements needs to be that . . . lesson plans need to be in
to everyone by Sunday at 6 o’clock; that way we have time to look at
1020
them . . . but one of the agreements needs to be that [special educator]
is always copied on that email . . . we just have not have taken that step
to do it in . . . as an inclusion and general ed team. (Session 7, June 4,
2013)
Shifting Away From Individual Students’ Deficits Toward Broader Benefits

In addition to discussions about the importance of special education
teachers and collaboration, teachers’ conversations during Sessions 4
through 7 broadened beyond a focus on student deficits toward benefits
of universally designing mathematics curriculum. In particular, this occurred
concurrently with facilitative moves we made to address deficit gravitation
tensions. For example, after noticing persistent patterns of deficit-focused
conversations throughout the first five sessions, we shared these observa-
tions with participants and asked them directly whether the tools we intro-
duced were inciting such patterns. Interestingly, participants responded
with critical self-reflection rooted in systemic roles of special educators as
‘‘fixers’’:
Melissa: I don’t think the [tool] is deficit-based . . . in a conversation . . . it just sort

of becomes that way . . . I don’t know why that is . . . that’s sad that we sort of
gravitate towards . . . what’s wrong . . .
Claire: Because we’re fixers. (Session 6, May 28, 2013)
The process of addressing tensions concerning students with dis/ability

identity also involved engaging participants in deeper discussions and
understanding of UDL principles that related to shifts from a focus on stu-
dent deficit to a focus on teacher practice. For example, participants noted
how video-recording the general education teacher presenting mathematics
lessons to address an individual student’s need could positively benefit not
only the particular student but also other students, families, and educators
(Session 4, May 14, 2013). We used this example as a gateway to highlight
and discuss teachers’ expanded understanding of UDL concepts. In this
case, participants saw themselves benefiting from UDL concepts not only
as teachers but also as learners meaningfully learning from the video
resource that was originally intended for a student with a dis/ability. We
also introduced other artifacts such as the UDL mathematics lesson planning
tool (Appendix F, available in the online version of the journal) to support
deeper learning of UDL concepts and to help shift the deficit conversations.
Indeed, Liz’s reflection during Session 6 connected to the principle of
designing curricula around learner variability (National Center on
Universal Design for Learning, 2012) as she described her developing under-
standings of UDL and situated her practices as central:
1021
Tan, Thorius
I think the biggest thing with the word ‘‘multiple’’ means . . . is that it
goes back to the whole ‘‘they’re not cookie cutters’’; there are so
many different ways to learn one content . . . the way you’re going
to represent it, the way you’re going to express it, and the way the
kids are engaged or the engagement happens so it’s just looking
again at the whole child in the presentation, action, expression,
and engagement but finding multiple ways of meeting that need of
that whole child . . . which may meet the needs of others too.
Participants’ Verification of the Three Themes

After the completion of the data analysis, we conducted member checks
during the final face-to-face interviews with five of the six participants (one of
the participants was not available for the final interview). The five participants
confirmed that the three themes were generally in line with their interpreta-
tions and that the results seemed reasonable. They also offered additional
thoughts to either support some of the results, such as sharing more recent
information that confirmed the themes, or lessen their culpability in the results
(e.g., stating ‘‘it’s never intentional’’ [referring to the themes of marginalization
of teachers and constructions of students with dis/abilities]).
Discussion
The results of this study provide insights into participating teachers’
equity-expansive learning as tensions and contradictions (Engeström &
Sannino, 2010) associated with equitable practices in mathematics and stu-
dents with dis/abilities emerged, were evoked, and were, at times, partially
resolved. We facilitated conversations and introduced tools related to tensions
that surfaced and paths toward addressing some of them. In this section, we
discuss insights related to our two research questions: (1) What tensions and
contradictions are evoked and otherwise emerge during the professional
learning activity system, where we introduced tools and facilitated discussions
with the object of advancing equity in mathematics education for students
with dis/abilities, and (2) how any contradictions mediated learning as evi-
denced by participants’ expanded notions of equity in mathematics education.
Identity represented a main tension that emerged from the PLC, which
we interpreted as systemic barriers (i.e., as experienced by those in the edu-
cational system and society at large) to advancing equitable mathematics
education for students with dis/abilities. Identity tensions related to
teacher-student of mathematics, the mathematics of dis/abilities, and being
an inclusion teacher emerged more or less organically during the initial
PLC sessions. That is, in providing a conversations space with teachers about
equitable mathematics practices involving students with dis/abilities, teach-
ers may, for example, openly disclose their own struggles with mathematics.
1022
Figure 5. Model and components used to analyze the activity system (Engeström,
1987, p. 78) and how equity (noted in the rectangular boxes) interacts within the
system with the outcomes (oval).
Similarly, because social prejudices and discriminatory practices involving

individuals with dis/abilities as inferior and incapable (Hehir, 2002), these
identities become default practices. Thus, we situate these systemic tensions
within the rules component of the activity system (Figure 5) as implicit and
explicit identities.
As the two identity tensions emerged as existing activity system rules
(i.e., struggles with mathematics and dis/ability as inability), we made facil-
itative moves, such as introducing tools and asking in-the-moment questions
in an attempt to address these tensions toward equity-expansive learning.
Yet these identity tensions remained unresolved until the final two PLC ses-
sions. Resolving these tensions as forms of contradictions required engaging
participants in PLC processes and providing them space to grapple with and
explore the tensions. Of concern for us during the early stages of the PLC
was the way in which identity tensions steered participants further away
1023
Tan, Thorius
from the object of equitable practices in mathematics for students with dis/
abilities. For example, during Session 3, our goal was to attend to partici-
pants’ expressed mathematics struggles and quality mathematics practices
by introducing the Turkey video (Dolk & Fosnot, 2005) and presenting
the UDL framework (CAST, 2016); participants instead focused on their stu-
dents’ inability to engage in mathematics tasks as illustrated in the video.
Moreover, participants pointed to IB’s inquiry-based approach as problem-
atic in providing access for students with severe dis/abilities in mathematics.
Consequently, the conversations following our facilitative moves to address
participants’ mathematics pedagogical content knowledge served to exacer-
bate deficit conversations about students with dis/abilities and reinforce the
rules of inclusion teachers as gatekeepers of access to mathematics. Indeed,
our efforts to address the emerging tensions during the first few sessions led
to a process that involved a retraction from the PLC’s object (i.e., the goal).
However, these outcomes also served as an opportunity in Session 6 for par-
ticipants to unpack deficit-laden conversations.
As deficit-laden discussions persisted throughout Sessions 1 through 5,
we decided to more directly address this identity tension during Session 6
by asking participants whether the tools were inciting deficit-focused discus-
sions. At that moment, participants expressed recognition of their role as
‘‘fixers’’ in constructing students with dis/abilities. We understood this
moment of recognition and critical self-reflection as a contradiction, or
a way for the PLC to address, to a degree, identity tensions. Such contradic-
tion challenged systemic rules in the activity system that paved new paths for
other rules (e.g., inclusion teacher identity and struggles with mathematics)
to be addressed. That is, challenging notions of dis/ability as a deficit in con-
junction with ongoing UDL content learning may lead to the development of
‘‘inclusion teachers’’ that focuses more on providing multiple options for
learning experiences in the general education mathematics classroom rather
than on providing reasons to exclude. Specifically, participating teachers
shifted their conversations that were predominately focused on student def-
icits in the earlier sessions of the professional learning to grappling with stu-
dent’s preference for learning. As such, we interpret such shift as equity-
expansive learning in that teachers shifted toward resourceful exchanges
for rejecting established ‘‘truths’’ and developing new narratives (Walshaw,
2013). Since these paths represent a substantial positional shift in the math-
ematics education of students with dis/abilities, we claim they are represen-
tative of equity-expansive forms of learning. As such, contradictions in the
PLC served as pathways for such learning and continuing future inquiry
into the process of mediation for promoting and understanding change
(Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010).
Similarly, the process of eliciting tensions related to inequities between
special and general educators and consequently addressing some of those as
contradictions served as pathways for equity-expansive learning. The
1024
primary source of this tension was located within another systemic compo-
nent of the activity system—namely, division of labor. As the participants
engaged in the Framework for Inclusion tool (Appendix E), tensions related
to the marginalization of special educators were encountered, which are
well documented (e.g., Kaff, 2004; Nilsen, 2017). Throughout the sessions
and during interviews, we noticed special educators grappling with their
professional role broadly, and in particular, their role in the mathematics
education of students with dis/abilities. Special educators’ lack of access to
key resources such as teacher edition mathematics textbooks and lesson
plans contributed to marginalization tensions—the marginalization of their
role as teachers of mathematics. Consequently, their voices were largely
absent throughout the mathematics curriculum design process. These ten-
sions pointed to special educators at these two ‘‘inclusive’’ schools as not
being integral members of the grade-level team. Paradoxically, while partic-
ipants underscored the importance of collaboration and co-teaching, special
educators experienced inequities in mathematics education related to
achievement and power (Gutiérrez, 2013). While these tensions consistently
surfaced throughout the first six sessions and during interviews, they
remained unaddressed as contradictions until the final session. Unlike the
identity contradictions, we did not directly address this marginalization ten-
sion. Rather, during the final session, participants addressed the tension by
proposing a solution. We attribute the contradiction (i.e., proposal of a solu-
tion to the tension) and, in turn, equity-expansive learning, to, at the very
least, the confluence of PLC conversations around the various tools we intro-
duced and mounting frustration from special educators. Indeed, we note that
the process of PLC participants grappling with these tensions and conse-
quently addressing a problematic inequity resulted in equity-expansive
learning. Specifically, the outcome of this process represented a move
toward transforming and formulating culture (Engeström & Sannino, 2010)
regarding shared practices, consequently shifting the object of equity in
mathematics education for students with dis/abilities.
Transforming and formulating culture as expansive learning are neces-
sary because special educators’ marginalization in mathematics education
resulted in their primary identity or role as an instructional and administra-
tive assistant, a common configuration in shared practices (Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Such roles included teaching small groups
of students with dis/abilities either in or out of the general education class-
room and, at times, helping general educators with managerial duties such
as making copies of worksheets. In the case of the primary teacher of stu-
dents with severe dis/abilities, co-teaching was even more minimal, as the
‘‘Life-Skills’’ program was segregated academically, socially, and physically
from the rest of the school community. Nonetheless, during the PLC’s initial
sessions, participants expressed the desire for a more balanced approach to
shared practices including for supporting students with severe dis/abilities
1025
Tan, Thorius
who were more meaningfully integrated within the school community.
Simultaneously, participants did not see these desires as possible given
that the lack of time and increasing demands, which they initially perceived
as tensions beyond their control. The desire to synthesize the work of tradi-
tionally separate fields (i.e., general and special education) and equity-
expansive learning began to materialize as participants realized that some
of these tensions were indeed within their control; thus, participants made
meaningful commitments to engage in more collaborative efforts. Tools
and the nature of the PLC process were crucial for surfacing inequity ten-
sions and consequently for having participants take the lead in addressing
those tensions. Although not all inequity tensions between special and gen-
eral educators were addressed, we conjecture that addressing one of these
tensions as a contradiction in conjunction with other tensions paves the
way for the possibility of additional contradictions and equity-expansive
learning in the activity system. Such culmination of contradictions represents
equity-expansive forms of learning that hold promise for advancing equita-
ble mathematics education for students with dis/abilities. For example, new
concepts of practices, traditional demarcations of special or general educa-
tion roles (i.e., ‘‘your students versus my students’’) began to blur together
with consideration for not only access and achievement components of
equity but also identity and power (Gutiérrez, 2013) for special educators.
Implications
The results of this study have important implications for practice and
future research. For practice, designating time for general and special
educators to engage in shared practices is crucial to advancing inclusive
mathematics education. Challenges to mathematics content and pedagogical
knowledge make collective work between educators crucial to the mathe-
matics education of all students. Indeed, intentional or not, messages of
who is valued and who is not are being signaled when special educators
are continually excluded from teams of teachers working on mathematics
education curriculum, practices, and in communications. Participants in
this study found that essential agreements were a way to lessen these ten-
sions. As such, school leaders and administrators are central to creating
and fostering school cultures and conditions grounded in transdisciplinary
knotworking (Engeström et al., 1999) prioritizing collaboration and shared
practices for continuing professional growth. Likewise, teacher education
programs must meaningfully prioritize such knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions to advance equitable mathematics education. Too often, the culture of
working separately rather than collaboratively between general and special
educators are reinforced in teacher education programs where limited
opportunities, if any, are afforded. This is crucial in the domain of mathemat-
ics education, given the complex nature of this work that regards students
1026
with dis/abilities as mathematics doers and thinkers. These opportunities
must also extend to working with other students, families, community mem-
bers, and other school personnel. Indeed, the value of engaging with various
educational stakeholders must be experienced early and often in teacher
professional development so that there is a greater likelihood those experi-
ences will continue throughout their professional practice.
For future research, an inquiry into the extent to which equity-expansive
forms of learning in mathematics practices are enacted in daily practices will
help guide equity-focused PLC practices including larger scale studies.
Moreover, researchers must move beyond just ‘‘achieving equity’’ to a pro-
cess of eliminating inequities in and out of schools (Martin, 2003; Thorius
& Tan, 2015; Thorius & Waitoller, 2017), particularly for students with dis/
abilities. Theoretical frameworks such as Disability Studies in Mathematics
Education (Tan & Kastberg, 2017) can support research efforts representative
of human diversity. Indeed, researching with students with dis/abilities, their
teachers, and families will provide a richer understanding of the enactments
of mathematics education equity and inequities in their lives. Future research
could also consider utilizing the theoretical perspective of figured worlds as
Thorius (2016) did in relation to the special educator participants in this
same PLC (Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Since participants in
this case study faced tensions related to professional identities representing
the figured world of inclusive mathematics education, future research could
explore the extent to which such tensions shift or expand participants’ iden-
tities. Such understanding would add valuable knowledge to not only the
fields of special and mathematics education but other areas where profes-
sional roles are in a constant state of flux.
Conclusion
The outcomes from this case study show promise in moving toward
equity in mathematics education for students with dis/abilities by spotlight-
ing tensions encountered in a PLC and how those tensions led to contradic-
tions, which, in turn, mediated teacher equity-expansive learning. Although
practices influenced at the systemic level were central to these tensions, the
equity-oriented tools and instruments we introduced and discourse facilita-
tions led to contradictions that countered these historical and structural-level
tensions. Indeed, we found contradictions to be useful in mediating teacher
learning by addressing some of the salient tensions that surfaced in the PLC
and ultimately building pathways within the activity system toward more
equitable forms of mathematics education for all and of all students.
Engaging teachers in such processes contributes to the study of inequities
in education that considers the systemic nature of access, achievement, iden-
tity, power, and its consequences (Artiles, 2011) for just constructions and
school practices.
1027
Tan, Thorius
Notes
We thank the participants for their ongoing work in advancing equity in their schools.
This manuscript is based on the first author’s dissertation research conducted at Indiana
University under the guidance of the dissertation chair Dr. Erna Alant and situated within
a larger study led by Dr. Thorius. We also thank Brendan Maxcy, Avi Mintz, James
Scheurich, AERJ’s associate editor, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback
on earlier drafts. Last, we are grateful for the support of the Great Lakes Equity Center
under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Grant S004D110021. The fund-
ing agency’s endorsement of the ideas expressed in this article should not be inferred.
Supplemental material is available for this article in the online version of the journal.
1
Severe dis/ability in schools typically refers to students who may need high levels
and ongoing adult support to participate in schools in a similar manner as non-dis/abled
students (Spooner & Browder, 2015). In general, students identified as having intellectual
dis/ability, autism, and multiple dis/abilities are included under the severe dis/ability
umbrella term. Although the term severe may be functional in certain situations, it is
important to recognize that each of these individuals portray unique and complex identi-
ties and strengths that often do not fit ‘‘neatly’’ within one discrete category. Furthermore,
the notion of ‘‘severity’’ in relation to student dis/ability categories is laden with deficit
notions about student competence.
References
American Educational Research Association. (2017). Disability studies in education
SIG 143, SIG purpose. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG143/Disability-
Studies-in-Education-SIG-143
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for stu-
dents with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
Artiles, A. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in
views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164–202.
doi:10.17763/haer.73.2.j78t573x377j7106
Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity
and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher,
40, 431–445. doi:10.3102/0013189X11429391
Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and dispro-
portionality in a post-Brown era benign neglect of the constitutional rights of
students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 70–81. doi:10.1177/
07419325050260020201
Blanton, L. P., & Perez, Y. (2011). Exploring the relationship between special educa-
tion teachers and professional learning communities. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 24, 6–16.
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005).
Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100205
CAST. (2016). What is universal design for learning? Retrieved from http://www.cast
.org/udl/index.html
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qual-
itative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, L. M., DePiper, J. N., Frank, T. J., Nishio, M., Campbell, P. F., Smith, T. M.,
. . .Choi, Y. (2014). Teacher characteristics associated with mathematics teachers’
beliefs and awareness of their students’ mathematical dispositions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 246–284.
1028
Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and
special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 237–244.
Collins, K., & Ferri, B. (2016). Literacy education and disability studies: Re-envision-
ing struggling students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 7–12.
doi:10.1002/jaal.552
Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded
in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and
school reform. Teachers College Record, 110, 733–774.
Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. New
York, NY: Verso.
Davis, L. J. (2013). The disability studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
de Araujo, Z., Roberts, S. A., Willey, C., & Zahner, W. (2018). English Learners in K–12
mathematics education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational
Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0034654318798093
Dolk, M., & Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Turkey investigations, grade 3–5 (CD): A context for
multiplication (Young mathematicians at work). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dyches, J., & Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward
a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of
Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022487117705097
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowl-
edge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.),
Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold:
The importance of knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen
(Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural–historical approaches
(pp. 345–374). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations,
findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re)segre-
gated education. Teachers College Record, 107, 453–474.
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew:
Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 100–117. doi:10.1177/0022487109347877
Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 37–68.
Gutiérrez, R. (2018). Rehumanizing mathematics. In I. M. Goffney & R. Gutiérrez
(Eds.), Re-humanizing mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students:
Annual perspectives in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72,
1–33. doi:10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’
mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.
doi:10.1086/428763
1029
Tan, Thorius
Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Positional identities:
Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2008). Interpretive practice and social action. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.,
pp. 173–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2015). What is an IB education? Cardiff,
Wales: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/digital-tookit/
brochures/what-is-an-ib-education-en.pdf
Kaff, M. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators are leaving the
field. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17.
Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman,
L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive dis-
abilities are taught implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional
Children, 81, 312–328. doi:10.1177/0014402914563697
Kozleski, E. B., & Artiles, A. J. (2012). Technical assistance as inquiry: Using activity
theory methods to engage equity in educational practice communities. In
S. Steinberg & G. Canella (Eds.), Handbook on critical qualitative research
(pp. 431–445). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Kozleski, E. B., Thorius, K. A. K., & Smith, A. (2013). Theorizing systemic reform in
urban schools. In E. B. Kozleski & K. A. K. Thorius (Eds.), Ability, equity, and
culture: Sustaining inclusive urban education reform (pp. 11–31). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Lambert, R., & Tan, P. (2017). Conceptualizations of students with and without dis-
abilities as mathematical problem solvers in educational research: A critical
review. Education Sciences, 7(2), 51. doi:10.3390/educsci7020051
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM standards
by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
Martin, D. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in Mathematics
for All rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving
toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal
of Special Education, 46, 131–140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670
Mirenda, P. (2008). A back door approach to autism and AAC. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 24, 220–234.
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2012). The concept of UDL.
Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/conceptofudl
Nilsen, S. (2017). Special education and general education: Coordinated or separated?
A study of curriculum planning for pupils with special educational needs.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 205–217. doi:10.1080/13603
116.2016.1193564
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Rosas, C., & Campbell, L. (2010). Who’s teaching math to our most needy students? A
descriptive study. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33, 102–
113. doi:10.1177/0888406409357537
1030
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). ‘‘Vygotsky’s neglected legacy’’: Cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 186–232. doi:10.3102/
0034654306298273
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73,
392–416. doi.10.1177/001440290707300401
Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence.
Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148–207.
Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. (2015). Raising the bar significant advances and future
needs for promoting learning for students with severe disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 36, 28–42.
Tan, P. (2017). Advancing inclusive mathematics education: Strategies and resources
for effective IEP practices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 28–
38.
Tan, P., & Kastberg, S. (2017). Calling for research collaborations and the use of dis/
ability studies in mathematics education. Journal of Urban Mathematics
Education, 10(2). Retrieved from http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/
JUME/article/view/321
Tan, P., & Thorius, K. K. (2018). En/countering inclusive mathematics education: A
case of professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 6(2), 52–67.
Thorius, K. A. K. (in press). Facilitating encounters with white supremacy and able-
ism through professional learning around special education disporportionality.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.
Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Stimulating artifact-mediated tensions in special education
teachers’ figured world: An approach toward inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1326–1343.
Thorius, K. A. K., Maxcy, B. D., & Nguyen, T. S. T. (2011–2014). The Great Lakes
Equity Center Equity Assistance Center Program: Civil Rights Training and
Advisory Services. Indianapolis, IN: Authors.
Thorius, K. A. K., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Racial and ethnic disproportionality in spe-
cial education. In A. L. Noltemeyer & C. Mcloughlin (Eds.), Disproportionality in
education and special education: A guide to creating more equitable learning
environments (pp. 25–44). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Thorius, K. A. K., & Tan, P. (2015). Expanding analysis of educational debt:
Considering intersections of dis/ability, race, and class. In D. J. Connor,
B. Ferri, & S. A. Annamma (Eds.), Critical conversations about race, class, &
dis/ability (pp. 87–100). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Thorius, K. A. K., & Waitoller, F. R. (2017). Strategic coalitions against exclusion at the
intersection of race and disability: A rejoinder. Harvard Educational Review, 87,
251–257.
Valle, J., & Connor, D. (2011). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to
inclusive practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of pro-
fessional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro-
cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research
for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program.
Review of Educational Research, 83, 315–356.
1031
Tan, Thorius
Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy with Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy
that accounts for student dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86, 366–389.
Walshaw, M. (2013). Post-structuralism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity
and power. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 100–118.
doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0100
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yanow, D. (2014). Thinking interpretively: Philosophical presuppositions and the
human sciences. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and
method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 5–26).
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Manuscript received September 21, 2016
Final revision received September 3, 2018
Accepted October 3, 2018
1032

Toward Equity in Mathematics Education For Students With Dis:abilities: A Case Study of Professional Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward Equity in Mathematics Education For Students With Dis:abilities: A Case Study of Professional Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Educational Research Journal

June 2019, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 995–1032

Toward Equity in Mathematics Education

This case study documents a professional learning community (PLC) com-

PAULO Tan, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Hawai’i–Manoa, 1776

KEYWORDS: cultural-historical activity theory, disability studies, equity in

A lthough students with dis/abilities are increasingly spending their school

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Situating the Study in Relation to Equity in Mathematics

Figure 1. Model used to represent an activity system.

A Theory of Action in Professional Learning

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and Equity-Expansive Learning

dismantle interesting and multiple barriers to learning and participa-

PLCs are optimal sites to examine professional learning guided by

Figure 2. Cycle of inquiry in professional learning.

school reform. The design and facilitation of practice-embedded organiza-

IB programmes aim to increase access to the curriculum and engage-

Paradoxically, one of the participating schools also housed a ‘‘Life-Skills’’

Demographic School 1 School 2a School District

Total students 352 228 28,193

Melissa 22 1 (1) SE 1, 2, 4, and 5 1

Professional Learning Community

First Analysis Stage

Second Analysis Stage

Third Analysis Stage

Figure 3. Mapping of CHAT from PLC participants’ perspective.

education mathematics curriculum. As they presented their artifacts, Melissa

I said as a class [providing options for comprehension is] not an issue

Liz’s comment also indicates that she interpreted UDL as a strategy or an

We also noticed generalized assumptions about students with dis/abilities

Being an Inclusion Teacher and Exclusivity

Claire introduced us to the term inclusion teacher during the beginning of

In response, during the same session, we made a facilitative move to try

So we’re finding ways to . . . allow him to communicate because when

I’m sorry somebody else [referring to another teacher] needs you

Sarah made a similar statement during Session 6 when she described

Inequities Between Special and General Educators

Tensions as Inequities in Time

Figure 4. Mapping of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) from special edu-

and personnel component of the Framework for Inclusion tool (Appendix E,

Tensions as Inequities to Accessible Resources

Tensions as Inequities With Input

Paradoxically, opportunities did exist for special and general educators

Teachers’ Learning Toward Equitable Mathematics Education Practices

Special Education Teachers and Collaboration as Crucial

I think going back to the planning . . . it could also be like how we

A similar expression about recognizing the importance of collaboration

Participants also discussed the importance of including special educa-

Shifting Away From Individual Students’ Deficits Toward Broader Benefits

Melissa: I don’t think the [tool] is deficit-based . . . in a conversation . . . it just sort

The process of addressing tensions concerning students with dis/ability

Participants’ Verification of the Three Themes

Similarly, because social prejudices and discriminatory practices involving

You might also like

PAULO Tan, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Hawai’i–Manoa, 1776