xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20059999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00460
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 13, no. 38 (September 09, 2005).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c September 09, 2005
TOC DATA HERE Article title (capitalize only first letter of first word of title and same only with other proper nouns) / Author First name Last name -- next article
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 13issue 38series Year mods:caption 20052005Month September9Day 99mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2005-09-09
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Sherman Dorn College of Education University of South Florida Copyright is retained by the first or sole au thor, who grants right of first publication to the Education Policy Analysis Archives EPAA is published jointly by the Colleges of Education at Arizona State University and the University of South Florida. Articles are indexed by H.W. Wilson & Co. Volume 13 Number 38 September 9, 200 5 ISSN 1068Â–2341 Addressing the Disproportionate Re presentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education through Culturally Responsive Educational Systems1 Janette K. Klingner, Universi ty of Colorado at Boulder Alfredo J. Artiles, Arizona State University Elizabeth Kozleski, University of Colorado at Denver Beth Harry, University of Miami Shelley Zion, University of Colorado at Denver William Tate, Washington University Grace Zamora Durn, U.S. Department of Education David Riley, Education Development Center Citation: Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozlesk i, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Durn, G. Z., & Riley, D. ( 2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in specia l education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (38). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.ed u/epaa/v13n38/. Abstract In this article, we present a conc eptual framework for addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. The cornerstone of our approach to addressi ng disproportionate representation is through the creation of culturally responsive educational systems. Our goal is to assist practitioners, rese archers, and policy makers in coalescing 1 Writing of this article was supported by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) under grant # H326E020003 awarded by the U. S. Department of Educ ationÂ’s Office of Special Education Programs. Accepted under the editorship of Sherman Dorn. Send commentary to Casey Cobb (email@example.com).
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 2 around culturally responsive, evidence-based interventions and strategic improvements in practice and policy to improve studentsÂ’ educational opportunities in general education and reduce inappropriate referrals to and placement in special education. We envisi on this work as cu tting across three interrelated domains: policie s, practices, and people. Policies include those guidelines enacted at federal, state, district, and school levels that influence funding, resource allocation, accountability, and other key aspects of schooling. We use the notion of practice in two ways, in the instrumental sense of daily practices that all cultural beings engage in to navi gate and survive their worlds, and also in a technical sense to describe the procedures and strategies devised for the purpose of maximizing studentsÂ’ learning outcomes People include all those in the broad educational system: administrators, te acher educators, te achers, community members, families, and the children whos e opportunities we wish to improve. Keywords: special education; disproportion ate representation; culturally responsive education; cultural diversit y; linguistic diversity. The disproportionate representation of ethnically and linguistically diverse students in high incidence special education programs (mental reta rdation, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance) has been a concern for over three de cades (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968). The importance of this issue is evident in the fact that it has been studied twice by a National Research Council (NRC; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). Yet two NRC reports, resolutions, statements, and actions from major professional organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (CEC, 1997, 2002), litigation (e.g., court cases such as Larry P. vs. Riles and Diana vs. the California State Board of Education), policy and advocacy efforts (e.g., new IDEA amendments CEC Institutes on Disproportionality), pressure from parent groups, and efforts fr om a relatively small group of re searchers have not been sufficient to significantly reduce this problem. The recen t NRC report concluded, Â“[t]wenty years later, disproportion in special education persistsÂ” (D onovan & Cross, 2002, p. 1). The phenomenon of disproportionate representation becomes particular ly problematic when one considers that our nationÂ’s school-aged population is becoming culturally and linguistically diverse at an unprecedented rate (Smith, 2003; U.S. Depart ment of Commerce, 2000). Although disproportionate representation is most apparent among African American students when nationally aggregated data are the focus (see Table 1), there are marked differences across states (Donovan & Cross, 2002) and notable instances of overrepresentation among other ethnic and linguistic groups when data are disa ggregated and population subgroups are examined (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Hi gareda, 2005; MacMillan & Reschly, 1998; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). As yet there is no one method for ca lculating disproportionate representation agreed upon by all. Donovan and Cross report three calculat ions: composition indices, risk indices, and risk ratios. The composition index is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial or ethnic group placed in a particular disability category by the total number of students enrolled in that disability category. The risk index is calculated by di viding the number of students in a given racial or ethnic group placed in a particular disability categor y by the total enrollment for that racial or ethnic group in the school population. The risk ratio is calcul ated by dividing the risk index of one racial or ethnic group by the risk index of another racial or ethnic group. The risk ratio provides a comparative index of risk of being placed in a particular disability category and is the preferred
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 3 indicator of disproportionate representation by th e Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Donovan and Cross used White studentsÂ’ risk ratios as the denominators in calculating risk, as do we here. OSEP is now recommending using a risk ratio in the denominator that includes all racial or ethnic groups rather than Whites only. See Donov an and Cross for a detailed description of the different approaches to determining disproportionali ty as well as a discussion of the many challenges faced by those trying to follow placement patterns. Table 1 Ethnic Representation in Specia l Education, in Numbers and Pe rcentages (National Aggregates) Category White Black Hispanic Asian/ Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native Total Mental Retardation 308,243 205,590 72,695 10,843 6,242 603,613 CI 51.07% 34.06% 12.04% 1.80% 1.03% RI 0.74% 1.78% 0.74% 0.43% 0.96% RR 2.41 1.00 0.58 1.30 Learning Disabilities 1,720,061 538,782 531,299 44,798 42,921 2,877,861 CI 59.77% 18.72% 18.46% 1.56% 1.49% RI 4.13% 4.66% 5.42% 1.78% 6.63% RR 1.13 1.31 0.43 1.61 Emotional Disturbance 285,546 134,265 45,529 5,757 5,991 477,088 CI 59.85% 28.14% 9.54% 1.21% 1.26% RI 0.69% 1.16% 0.46% 0.23% 0.93% RR 1.68 0.67 0.34 1.35 Total Population 41,677,158 11,564,606 9,804,64 3 2,517,754 647,581 66,211,74 2 62.95% 17.47% 14.81% 3.80% 0.98% Note: Disability categories are terms used by Donovan an d Cross (2002). CI = composition index; RI = risk index; RR = risk ratio. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Specia l Education Programs (2003). Concern about disproportionate representation is focused on the Â“judgmentalÂ” categories of special educationÂ—those disabilities usually identifi ed after the child starts school and by school personnel rather than a medical professional. To be eligible for services as LD, MR, or ED, a child must be found by school clinicians to qualify for one of these three disability categories, and school clinicians typically exercise wide latitude in deciding who Â“fitsÂ” (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994). Children identified as having LD, MR, or ED usually do not exhibit obviously discernible features, yet are still considered to have internal deficits that affect their learning and/or behavior. It is noteworthy that overrepresenta tion does not exist in low-incidence disability categories (such as visual, auditory, or orthopedic impairment) (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Over the years some researchers and pra ctitioners have disputed the view that disproportionate representation is a problem, arguing that special education placement results in the provision of additional resources and support and shou ld be considered a benefit. Yet, as Heller,
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 4 Holtzman, and Messick (1982) contended in response to this assertion, if bias or inappropriate practice is found at any phase of the referral proce ss that leads to special education placement, then disproportionality must be treated as problematic. There are numerous reasons for this. Students in special education may be denied access to the gene ral education curriculum and, particularly if they have been placed inappropriately, may receive serv ices that do not meet their needs. Furthermore, when disability labels stigmatize students as in ferior, result in lowered expectations, potentially separate students from peers, and lead to poor ed ucational and life outcomes, improper placement is of great concern (Patton, 1998). In this article, we outline the theoretical assumptions and guiding principles that we believe should guide efforts to reduce the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. First, we describe our explicit theoretical understandings about the complex nature of disproportionate representa tion. Then we discuss our vision for addressing disproportionality and improving outcomes for all students through the creation of culturally responsive educational systems. Finally, we explain the domains of this work as they cut across policies, practices, and people. We build on the findings and recommendations of the latest National Research CouncilÂ’s report (Donovan & Cross, 2002), the work of th e Harvard Civil Rights Project (Losen & Orfield, 2002), and other key syntheses of the literature. Our approach to reducing disproportionality and improving educational outcomes for students focuses on how the different dimensions of disproportionality (i.e., child and structural facto rs) come together in practice. Though a few researchers (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Ortiz & Yates, 20 01; Serna, Forness, & Ni elsen, 1998) have urged the implementation of prereferral interventions as a way to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education, we hold that in general the field of special education has not adequately considered prevention and intervention strategies at the general education level as a viable means of addressing disproportionate representation. Moreover, compensato ry educations programs that serve culturally and linguistically diverse students are often ac ademically problematic. Many culturally and linguistically diverse students are isolated in school s that provide a compensatory education that is merely the regular curriculum Â“repeated, broken into meaningless segments, or Â‘dumbed down.Â’ Because compensatory education programs are lo cated in low-socioeconomic schools and are aimed at low-track students, the problems of a narrow, fragmented, measurement-driven curriculum that plague these schools also threaten the pedagogical utility of compensatory educationÂ” (Strickland & Ascher, 1996, p. 618). Our goal is to assist practitioners, educational leaders, researchers, and policy makers to coalesce around culturally responsive, evidence-ba sed interventions and strategic improvements in practice and policy to help close the achievement gap between culturally and linguistically diverse students and their peers. Our work is based on lo gic derived from existing literature (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Kilpatrick, Swafford & Findell, 2001; Ortiz & Yates, 2001; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003): If we can improve the instruction provided in general education classrooms and through general education support systems, then we will reduce the nu mber of culturally and linguistically diverse students referred to and placed in special education programs. Assumptions about the Nature of Di sproportionate Representation Disproportionate representation is a complex phenomenon, not explained simply nor understood easily. In summarizing the extant li terature on disproportionate representation, we draw several conclusions (see Artiles, 2003; Artiles et al ., 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Losen & Orfield, 2002 for syntheses and emergent research on this topic). The following synopsis is not meant to be
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 5 exhaustive, but rather represents what we consider to be the most salient issues to consider across a wide spectrum. Intrinsic deficits? We reject the notion that culturally and linguistically diverse students are overrepresented in special educati on because they are more likely to have true disabilities. The bulk of the literature emphasizes child factors to expl ain and address the problem of disproportionate representation. We know, for example, that readin g difficulties and behavior problems are the main reasons for special education referrals (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Child poverty and associated risk factors, such as low birth weight, exposure to alco hol during pregnancy, tobacco and drug use, malnourishment, and exposure to lead, are often described as causal factors in the development of language or cognitive deficits or maladaptive behaviors (Donovan & Cross). When framed in this way, the problem is reduced to a discussion of technical issues related to presumed intrinsic child deficits, with little attention to contextual, historic al, or institutional issues (Artiles, 2003; Artiles, Osher, & Ortiz, 2003; Daniels, 1998; Patton, 19 98). One consequence of this perspective is a growing literature base that overemphasizes studen t placement patterns in which deliberations about technical matters dominate (e.g., definitions of overre presentation, accuracy of indicators to monitor the problem); preventive or intervention models to tackle this problem have been largely ignored. Also, it is important to note that poverty itself does not automatically result in low learning potential, as witnessed by a significant number of ch ildren and schools who Â“beat the oddsÂ” (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000). Contextual issues. Emergent research evidence suggests that contextual factors play an important role in contributing to disproportionality (Artiles et al., 2004; Harr y & Klingner, in press; Losen & Orfield, 2002). Some of the specific fa ctors that shape disproportionality include the following: (a) decision-making processes by which e ligibility for special education is determined; (b) placement in special education programs with unev en levels of restrictiveness; (c) administrative decisions related to hiring practices and resource a llocation that result in disparities; (d) interactions among school location, disability, ethnicity, poverty and density of culturally and linguistically diverse populations; (e) the lack of availability of alternative programs (e.g., early intervention, bilingual education, Title I); (f) the presence of subtl e forms of bias at various stages of the referral process; (g) the uneven quality of instruction and management in general education classrooms; and (h) the effects of various discipline policies (e.g., suspensions). Donovan and Cross (2002) discuss the significan ce of classroom context in terms of teacher effectiveness, Â“[T]he same child can perform very differently depending on the level of teacher support, and aggressive behavior can be reversed or exacerbated by effective or ineffective classroom management. In practice, it can be quite di fficult to distinguish internal child traits that require the ongoing support of special educati on from inadequate opportunity or contextual support for learning and behaviorÂ” (p. 3). A national dile mma is that teachersÂ’ degrees, qualifications, and licensing or certification status in affluent communi ties are impressive and increasingly improving, while teachers in high-poverty schools are underprepared and know too little about teaching culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Villega s & Lucas, 2002). While cultural diversity in the student population is increasing, the composition of the teaching or professional force is becoming less diverse (American Association of Colleges fo r Teacher Education, 1994; Snyder, 2002). During the 1980s, commissioned reports (e.g., A Nation at Risk, National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983) and research findings (e.g., Ko zol, 1991) focused the nationÂ’s attention on the failure of U.S. schools to improve the status of ed ucation for culturally and linguistically diverse children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Mo re recently, in their investigation of the disproportionate representation of culturally and lin guistically diverse students in special education in one of the nationÂ’s largest school districts, Harry and Klingner (in press) noted that teachers in inner-city schools with predominantly Black popula tions had fewer qualifications and advanced
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 6 degrees and were more likely to exhibit ineffective instructional and classroom management skills than teachers in other schools. Power and hegemony in the educat ion of culturally diverse students A key premise of our conceptual framework is that power and hegemony play a significant role in the educational experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse students in U.S. schools. McLaren (1989) defines hegemony as the Â“maintenance of the domi nation not by sheer exercise of force but primarily through consensual social practices, social forms, and social structur es produced in specific sites such as the church, the state, the school, the mass media, the po litical system, and the family Â” (p. 173; emphasis in original). We draw from various theo retical frameworks (critical race theory, Latino/a critical theory, e.g., Ladson-Billings & Tate, 19 95; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001) to understand the central role of power in human affairs and ex amine how presumed race-neutral structures in education actually reinforce racial borders and hi erarchies (Marvin & Adams, 2002). As such, it is important to examine the impact of oppression an d hegemony in culturally diverse studentsÂ’ opportunities to learn in general education (Tate, 1995) as well as in the special education referral and placement process. In this vein, Patton (1998) asserted that ba sic assumptions about race, worldviews, beliefs, and epistemologies serve to perpetuate dispropor tionate representation. Mainstream educators generally interpret culturally diverse studentsÂ’ performance through white middle-class normative parameters of competence. Because culturally diverse studentsÂ’ performance does not always align with such parameters, it is often regarded as deficient. These hegemonic processes are further complicated by the fact that current educational re forms accept substantial inequality in practice as a baseline that actually serves to perpetuate the st atus quo (Gutierrez, Asato, Santos, & Gotanda, 2002). It is a challenging endeavor to trace how hegem ony works, particularly because it is generally invisible to members of cultural communities. An insidious feature of hegemony is that it requires that the Â“oppressed unknowingly participat[e] in their own oppressionÂ” (McLaren, 1989, p. 173). This consensual dimension of hegemony is an understudied notion in the special education field. There is an urgent need for research on this as pect of hegemony as it affects the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically divers e students in special education. At the same time, however, we must be reminded that we cannot a ssume an overly deterministic perspective when understanding the roles of power. Indeed, people resist the weight of hegemonic codes and terms of reference. Thus, future special education scholarship should also be concerned with documenting how culturally and linguistically diverse studen ts and families resist and overcome hegemonic systems of oppression. It is not enough to merely acknowledge that pow er and hegemony play a role in the lives of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Our go al is not only to make transparent the ideological barriers to optimal conditions of learning, but also to offer real solutions vis--vis technical support and advanced tool development with the goal of student advancement in mind. How this plays out is complex. At times the social practices of in dividuals in authority are built on deficit model assumptions, thus the vision of what might be technically possible in terms of improving opportunity to learn structures are not discussed or considered. Or those in power may view educational opportunity as a zero-sum game where in vestments in some groups are deemed essential and investments in other groups are thought to be superfluous. The point is that technical support and invention typically have not been forthcoming to students and communities viewed as outside the power structure. We assert that this must change. Assumptions about intelligence. Categorical views of intelligence as a measurable construct affect the way teachers and schools think about students. Deeply held assumptions about inferior intelligence among students of color represent one of the most enduring legacies of Western racism.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 7 Despite exposure of their fallacious nature by Gould (1981) and numerous other scholars, these beliefs have been institutionalized in the policies and practices of our public schools (Steele, Perry, & Hilliard, 2004). That the construct of eligibility for high incidence disabilities is tied to IQ measurement means that cultural and linguistic minor ities continue to be more likely to be found deficient, since there is little doubt that these measures reflect the cultural, social, and linguistic knowledge of societyÂ’s mainstream. The decontextua lized IQ testing for the identification of high incidence disabilities that typifies assessment fo r special education is based on a narrow view of intelligence that fails to take into account the soci al and cultural nature of learning (e.g., Hilliard, 1994; Rogoff, 2003; Rowe, 1991, Samuda, 1998). Thus, as Hilliard (1995) has argued, what is needed is Â“either a paradigm shift or no mental mea surementÂ” (p. 6). The National Research Council (Donovan & Cross, 2002), in concluding its consideration of assessment issues, called for a focus on childrenÂ’s intervention needs rather than a search for intrinsic disability, and for an end to the requirement for IQ tests as a Â“primary criterionÂ” for eligibility (p. 313). This report also emphasized that childrenÂ’s academic achievement falls along a continuum, the cut-off points for Â“disabilityÂ” or Â“giftednessÂ” are Â“artificial and variableÂ” (p. 26). We agree with these statements and recommendations. Assumptions about behavior. The notion of a continuum of performance is equally central to an understanding of childrenÂ’s behavior in sc hool settings. Many scholars have emphasized that personal and cultural norms are inextricable from decisions about which behaviors are acceptable, to whom, and under what circumstances (e.g., Cartle dge, et al., 2002; Obiakor et al., 2002; Townsend, 2000). Norms regarding what behaviors are cons idered appropriate vary across cultures, and yet school personnel tend to judge studentsÂ’ actions thro ugh a narrow, white, mainstream lens. In terms of formal assessment of childrenÂ’s behaviors, even the application of well-designed rating scales cannot exclude subjectivity in judgment and, in many states, final judgments rely on projective testing, a set of procedures that have been the subject of much debate related to unreliability and subjectivity (Gresham, 1993; Motta, Little, & Tobi n, 1993). The ambiguity of the process is exacerbated by historical racist beliefs and pra ctices (ChildrenÂ’s Defense Fund, 1975) reflected in a Â“punishment paradigmÂ” (Maag, 2001), which includes zero tolerance policies, corporal punishment, suspension, and expulsion. These strategies target African American students at disproportionately high rates (McFadden, Marsh, Price, & Huang, 1992; Skiba, 2002) and contribute to their overrepresentation in disproportionately segreg ated programs for emotional disturbance (Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986). The comb ination of historical racism and extremely ambiguous definitions, policies, and practices places the most vulnerable students at increased risk of inappropriate labeling and isolation. These serious outcomes reveal the fallacy of applying special educationÂ’s categorical mind set to what is essentially a continuum of human behavior. Wait to fail model. The educational system works on the assumption that failure must be documented first to secure assistance for stru ggling learners (PresidentÂ’s Commission on Special Education, 2002). Most students who show signs in kindergarten or first grade of falling behind are not provided with the early intervention in reading or behavior that might enable them to Â“catch upÂ” with their peers. Also, currently no mechanisms ar e in place to guarantee that students will receive adequate opportunities to learn through exposure to state-of-the-art reading instruction or classroom management before they are identified as having a Â“within-childÂ” problem (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Research to practice gap. The availability of research-based intervention approaches in general and special education does not guarantee th eir adoption in professional practice. Indeed, a major challenge in addressing disproportionate repr esentation is the widespread gap between what we know from research about Â“what worksÂ” and wh at actually gets implemented by teachers in practice (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Malouf & Schiller, 1995). The NRC report
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 8 recognizes that Â“between the articulation of what we know from research and best practice and a change in everyday practice lies a wide chasmÂ” (p.3 82). In part, we believe this gap exists because research has not sufficiently addressed issues of lang uage and culture and the varying contexts within which practice takes place (Artiles, Trent, & Kuan, 1 997), or the role of th e teacher as a knowledge generator as well as a knowledge user (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). We address these issues in more detail later in this paper. To conclude, the genesis of disproportionate repr esentation is located beyond the borders of special education and requires a solid understand ing of the intersection of culture, learning, disability, and the socio-historical constitution of educational processes and outcomes. Two issues are associated with the persistence of culturally and linguistically diverse overrepresentation in special education, namely the issues related to understanding the complexity of this problem and also difficulties associated with the use of research knowledge to address it Ultimately, what is needed is the transformation and improvement of educatio nal systems in culturally responsive ways. Addressing Disproportionate Repres entation through the Creation of Culturally Responsive Educational Systems The cornerstone of our approach is the a ssumption that disproportionate representation should be addressed through the creation of cultur ally responsive educational systems. Instead of determining how to Â“fixÂ” culturally and linguisti cally diverse studentsÂ’ Â“deficits,Â” professionalsÂ’ biases, or society as a whole, we aim to promote the creation of conditions, produce resources and tools, and support multiple stakeholders in the crea tion of educational systems that are responsive to cultural diversity. Our work draws from scholarship on culturally relevant and culturally responsive pedagogy (Gallego, Cole, & the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2001; Gay, 2000; Hilliard, 1997a; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Nieto, 1999, 2002/2003; Villegas, 1991). Through our theoretical assumptions and actions, we seek to advance the core values of care, respect, and responsibility across all levels of educational systems. Culturally Responsive Educational Systems Culturally responsive educational systems are grou nded in the beliefs that all culturally and linguistically diverse students can excel in academic endeavors when their culture, language, heritage, and experiences are valued and used to facilitate their learning and development, and they are provided access to high quality teachers, prog rams, and resources (Gay, 2000; Nieto, 1999; Valenzuela, 1999). As Sonia Nieto (2002/2003) notes, it is not enough to help students celebrate their own and othersÂ’ cultural traditions. We must ask tough questions about who is being taught by the best teachers. Who is taking advanced pla cement courses? Where and for what purposes are resources allocated? Culturally responsive educational systems inst ill ethics of care, respect, and responsibility in the professionals who serve culturally and linguistically diverse students. These systems have a transformative goal in all their activities and nurture the creation of school cultures that are concerned with deliberative and participatory disc ourse practices (Gay, 2000). Culturally responsive educational systems create spaces for teacher re flection, inquiry, and mutual support around issues of cultural differences (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Villegas, 1991). Key questions that are consistently researched and debated include the following: (a) What are the explanations for the differential achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse students?
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 9 (b) What are the conceptions of Â“self Â“and Â“other sÂ” that inform pedagogical practices? (c) How are social relations structured in the cultures of sc hools and classrooms? (d) What are the conceptions of knowledge that inform pedagogical, curricula r, and assessment practices? (e) What are the consequences of the aforementioned assumpt ions for academic and social outcomes? Culturally responsive educational systems benefit all children. When educators strive to develop the individual self-worth of each child, everyone gains. Also, exposure to a variety of experiences enriches lives by broadening persp ectives and validating each personÂ’s uniqueness and sense of belonging to a larger whole (Nic hols, Rupley, Webb-Johnson, & Tlusty, 2000). Systemic Change: Building the Context for Culturally Responsive Practice Even if teachers themselves are able to explore their own cultural boundaries and learn to reach out to their students and connect and engage th em in learning, they often do so in spite of the systems that surround them (Miramontes, Nadeau & Commins, 1997; Townsend & Patton, 2000). Individual excellence in culturally responsive teaching can only become collective tradition when the contexts in which teachers practice and learn ar e able to support, sustain and expect culturally responsive practice. While school leaders often se ek teachers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, they do so without a deep understanding of what culturally responsive practices and systems could be and accomplish. To engage in substantive transformation of our current educational systems requires changes in fundamental assumptions, practices and relationships, both within school systems and between school systems and the outside world (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000; Conley, 1997; Elmore, 1996, 2000; Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedscleaux, 1999). Christensen and Dorn (1997) emphasize that such efforts must begin with an examination of assumptions about social justice. One pa th to creating culturally responsive systems is by working at systemic reform (Townsend, 2002; Utley & Obiakor, 2000). System characteristics are often so familiar to the people involved in them that they seem invisible. Systems have a life and dynamic of thei r own that resists change (Bateson, 1972). To think about culturally responsive educational systems re quires looking at the processes, decision and communication paths that are used to make and sust ain changed practice (Beyer, 1996). It should be no surprise to observe that the hierarchical system s that have been created in most public school districts and schools mirror our military and traditional business organizations. Policy decisions are made by a few individuals at the top of a pyrami d of workers and are conveyed to the workers or practitioners who, in turn, convey them to familie s and students. Even in enlightened and reformed educational systems, where site-based decisionmaking prevails, the kinds of participatory communication and decision making that mark some cultures are rarely present (Bondy, Ross, Sindelar & Griffin, 1995). Thus, teachers who may en gage in culturally responsive teaching practices receive rather than construct policy and practice around teacher development, assessment and evaluation. This mismatch between expected practice in the classroom and systems of administration and leadership in the school can cr eate tension and signal the systemÂ’s preference for conformity over diversity. This helps explain why classroom and school practices may be so intractable. Educational systems try to maintain equilibrium in order to sustain familiar, and therefore predictable, ro utines and practices. Conversely, practitioners thrive and are better able to innovate, support student effort, and generate improved outcomes when their organi zations support and encourage their cultural responsivity through systems of leadership that al so meet standards of culturally responsive practice (Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins, 1997). Organiza tional support for culturally responsive practice must, in turn, be supported by initial educator preparation and ongoing professional development
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 10 opportunities that enable educators to acquire an d build this capacity. Teachers and other school personnel are able to engage in sustained, thoughtful, continually improving and reflective practices if the school organization is able to provide a milieu or environment that supports professional practice (Beyer, 1996). Schools that organize themselv es to create time for these rich conversations are able to sustain this kind of dialog over time (Ferg uson, Kozleski & Smith, 2003). Further, their approaches to professional development create th e contexts for continued growth and awareness of culturally responsive teaching. The key to systemic reform is the coherence and alignment of activities across and within levels. As Miramontes, Nadeau, and Commins note (1 997, p. 15), Â“Schools can make a positive and significant difference for students when educator s account for the complex interaction of language, culture, and context, and decisions are made within a coherent theoretical framework.Â” In this paper, we put forth such a framework. Because we are foc used on systemic change, this work must cut across different interrelated domains to be successful. These we describe next. Interrelated Domains in Addressing Disproportionality We believe that to be fruitful, efforts to address disproportionality must cut across three interrelated domains: policies, practices, and people. Â“PoliciesÂ” include those guidelines enacted at federal, state, district, and school levels that in fluence funding, resource allocation, accountability, and other key aspects of schooling. We distinguish between intended and enacted policies. We also contend it is imperative to understand the ideolo gical premises and histories (e.g., original goals, specific circumstances) leading to the ratification of the policies that guide educatorsÂ’ work (Cole, 1996). We use the notion of Â“practiceÂ” in two ways. Fi rst, we use it in the instrumental sense of daily practices that all cultural beings engage in to navigate and survive their worlds. Second, we use Â“practiceÂ” in a technical sense to describe the proc edures, models, or strategies devised by educators and researchers for the purpose of maximizing learning outcomes. However, our framework also suggests that people use practices in complex instit utional contexts in which policies play a crucial mediating role. Â“PeopleÂ” include all those in the broad educational system, administrators, teacher educators, teachers, community members, families, and the children whose opportunities we wish to improve. We attempt to convey the complex interplay within and across these domains. Every level in the system potentially influences and is influenced by other levels through a complex blend of top down and bottom up systemic reform strategies (Fullan, 2001). Culturally Respon sive Policies A policy can be culturally responsive only when policy makers truly take into account how its enactment affects all students. Such policies are proactive in their attempts to provide equitable opportunities to those students who historically ha ve had the least access to high quality schooling. We describe selected federal and state, district, and school policies that affect the practices and people involved in educating culturally and linguisti cally diverse students. We acknowledge that there are tremendous barriers to actually carrying out these potentially controversial policy changes.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 11 Federal and State Level Policies Policies at the federal level are the most likely to be disconnected from the work of practitioners simply because they are the result of multiple experiences and multiple viewpoints sifted and distilled over time to meet competing po litical, social, and professional agendas. Further, federal policy makers in Washington, D.C. and practitioners in classrooms across the country operate in very different worlds. While the intent of law and regulation may be to level the playing field for specific groups or increase the access to goods and services for traditionally marginalized populations, the interpretation of law through regula tion and action at the federal, state and local level may obfuscate or neutralize those goals. Hence, practitioners who carry out policy act on information that has been distilled through many layers of bureaucracy. What is intended, interpreted, required, and finally, enacted, is the product of reinvention (Ferguson, Kozleski & Smith, 2002). There is great wisdom in carefully consider ing the role of the federal government in determining education policy. We suggest that federal and state policies and practices should be reexamined and revised to promote culturally responsive educational systems. Though there are several policies worthy of scruti ny, here we discuss just a few. First, we support current efforts to amend lega l requirements at federal and state levels concerning the determination of eligibility for speci al education. Though there are those who would prefer to retain intelligence quotients and discrepancy formulae for identification purposes, others question the validity and utility of such approach es. The newly reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, now called the Individu als with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) allows states to discontinue the use of an IQ-Achievement discrepancy formula for identifying students with LD and permits the use of response to intervention (RTI) criteria as part of the special education identification process. This sh ift represents a dramatic shift in how disabilities are conceptualized. While we see the potential in such a transformation to reduce disproportionate representation, we urge caution and thorough c onsideration of issues related to cultural and linguistic diversity when making eligibility determina tions as part of an RTI model. We discuss these issues further in a later section of this paper. Second, we advise careful scrutiny of governme ntal policies and mandates related to school financing and the allocation of resources. Curre ntly, educational resources are not equitably distributed across schools and districts (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Parrish, Hikido, & Fowler, 1998). Culturally and linguistica lly diverse children living in high-poverty areas are more likely to attend schools that are inadequatel y funded and staffed. Yet more money allows districts to hire better-prepared teachers who use mo re effective instructional strategies, reduce class size, offer more college preparatory classes, and provide teachers and students with more resources. These all serve to increase studentsÂ’ opportuniti es to learn (Elliott, 1998), thereby potentially reducing excessive referrals to special education. Third, we suggest reexamining accountability measures, including how high stakes test results are used to evaluate schools. Like others, we are concerned that high stakes testing is affecting culturally and linguistically diverse sc hools in disproportionately negative ways (Hilliard, 2000; Kohn, 2000; Smith & Fey, 2000; Townsend 2002; Valencia & Villarreal, 2003). As an alternative, we support standards-based reforms that are culturally responsive and not premised on high stakes (Townsend, 2002). We agree with Hillia rd (2000), who suggests placing greater focus on teachers who excel, in spite of barriers, and prov iding additional support for teachers and schools in need of assistance.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 12 Finally, we suggest that all states should review their teacher certification/licensure requirements to make sure they include standards specific to teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students, and that they require evidence fr om teacher preparation programs indicating they are addressing diversity in significant ways. Mille r, Strosnider, and Dooley (2000) investigated the state teacher licensure requirements regarding di versity among the 50 states and District of Columbia. They found that 67 percent of respondents required some level of diversity preparation, though specific requirements varied substantially fr om state to state. This percentage should be closer to 100%. District Level Policies School systems in which all students are successful create policies that are based on a thorough and timely analysis of data related to student learning, teacher quality, beliefs about teacher learning and change, the school contexts in which students are expected to learn and teachers teach, and changing community demographics (Cochran -Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 1996; Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins, 1997; Spillane, 2002). Effecti ve systems are built on several features: (a) partnerships with local community resources in cluding museums, business, non-governmental nonprofits, mental health, police and social services, (b) alliances with families, (c) productive working relationships with teachersÂ’ unions, (d) colla boration with faith-based organizations, and (e) commitments to inform and involve the community through local media as well as the internet (Shanklin, Kozleski, et al., 2003). Having informat ion and making informed choices is critical to school system success. Capital investment, techni cal assistance, transportation, professional development, the size and quality of the teachin g force, salary compensation, maintenance, and infrastructure capacity can be allocated more effective ly and reinvested more readily in a system that collects, manages and uses information streams well. How data that drive policy, regulation and practice are assessed and acted upon signals the values of the organization. In culturally responsive systems, questions about who benefits from current policy and practice and who is being marginalized or disadvantaged are essential to any discussion of resource allocation (Townsend & Patton, 2000). District administrators who rea llocate resources based on need and equity and are more likely to bring about real change. Inequities in the quality of leadership and in struction in inner-city schools exacerbate efforts to reduce the disproportionate placement of cultura lly and linguistically diverse students in special education. Many schools that serve students from racially, ethnically, economically and linguistically diverse neighborhoods have the least qualified tea chers and administrators, inadequate physical resources, and are buffeted by violence in thei r communities (Ansell & McCabe, 2003; DarlingHammond, 1995; Klingner, Harry, & Felton, 2003; Krei, 1998; Oake s, Franke, Quartz, & Rogers, 2002; Orfield, 2000; Schneider, 1985). Problems rela ted to the recruitment an d retention of highly qualified principals and teachers in inner-city school s must be addressed if disproportionality is to be addressed effectively (Harry & Klingner, in press; Orfield, 2000). School district administrators who examine these issues can reorganize their resources in an effort to reassign the most skilled teachers and administrators to these buildings. In addition, by examining which students are being identified for special services such as gifted and talented programs, special education, and Title 1, district personnel can assess the degree to which their genera l education system is well-prepared to build upon the assets children bring to school and support studentsÂ’ various needs. Collaboration between district level special and general education administrators provides another path to reducing disproportionality. By forming partnerships with general education administrators, special education leaders can play a role in developing effective intervention models
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 13 designed to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education (for an example, see Klingner, Harry, & Felton, 2003). Recent recommendations at the federal level include the permissive use of a portion of IDEA funds to support early interventions (i .e., pre-referral) within general education. By leveraging these resources, special education administrators can ensure they are part of conversations that previously were the purview of general educators only. Community organizations have the potential to provide additional resources for improving educational outcomes for all students. School systems can create expectations and on-going processes that enlist and sustain productive work ing relationships with local community leaders. Creating a policy environment that invites and en lists this kind of community ownership for the outcomes of public education can create the milie u in which community members and organizations from multiple perspectives and experiences can come together to educate each other as well as work on improving schools (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000; Keith, 1999). Finally, many school systems are fortunate to ha ve local universities and teacher preparation institutions in their communities (Abdal-Haqq, 1998 ; Levine, 2002). Strong partnerships for teacher preparation, professional development, resear ch and inquiry and exemplary practice can be established (Murrell, 2000). Partner schools have th e potential to ground the next generations of practitioners in culturally responsive teaching and le arning and, in doing so, transform a one size fits all approach to teaching and learning to a di verse and personalized program for each child. However, for these partnerships to be successful, higher education must itself become more culturally responsive and implement powerful teacher education programs that promote models of culturally responsive practice that are committed to goals of social justice (Cochran-Smith, 2004). School-Level Policies All of our collective hopes and dreams about a quality education for every child come to fruition or wither over time in the corridors an d classrooms of our nationÂ’s schools. While federal, state, and district policies and regulations greatly infl uence what happens in schools, it is also evident that in the same community, only neighborhoods apart, one school can take a group of children and help them excel while another fails year after year to accomplish this goal. The most important aspect of renewing our nationÂ’s schools is extending our understanding of schools in which students Â“beat the odds.Â” Beacons of excellence in inner citi es exist throughout the country. In fact, in most of the 100 largest systems in this country, researchers have found schools that work well for disenfranchised students living in poverty, many of whom speak languages other than English (Charles A. Dana Center, 1999; Jerald, 2001). Much can be lear ned by studying these highly successful schools (Scheurich, 1998). Numerous key policies are established at the school level. Other policies are officially set at the district level, yet vary substantially in how they are implemented in schools (Harry & Klingner, in press). As the leader at the school-site, principals exert tremendous influen ce over hiring practices, the assignment of teachers to classes, wheth er students are grouped by ability level or heterogeneously across classrooms, discipline policie s, student retention policies, class size and scheduling decisions, whether paraprofessionals are hired and how they are utilized, visitor policies, the extent to which interruptions to instructional ti me are allowed, whether students are permitted to take school books and other materials home, how resources are allocated, and curricular decisions. In their ethnographic investigation of 12 schools in one district, Harry and Klingner (in press) noted a great deal of variability across sites in each of these policies. For example, in one inner-city school 102 students out of a total school population of 603 wer e given out-of-school
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 14 suspensions in one year, whereas in a nearby school with similar demographics 20 students out of 780 were suspended in the same time period. Culturally responsive school-level policies ta ke into account how decisions affect all students, even those who are typically marginalized. Effective school leaders are able to see the Â“big pictureÂ” and make sure the conglomeration of di fferent programs and policies they enact make sense when implemented simultaneously (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow, & Easton, 1998; Fullan, 2002a). They give a high priority to quality instructi onal time in class without interruptions. Teachers are assigned to classrooms in equitable ways that ensure that all students have access to the most effective teachers. Teachers are provided with the support they need to succeed. Culturally responsive leaders consider alternatives to suspensi on and put into practice discipline policies that are proactive, such as in-house counseling support for anger management and other emotional/behavioral needs, positive reinforcemen t systems and behavioral supports (discussed in depth later), and increased relationship building wi th students and their families (Townsend, 2000). They implement alternative programs (other than special education) that provide students with intensive, early assistance within general education, such as by using Title I funds. Culturally Responsive Practices For each of the policies we describe there is a corresponding set of practices or actions that must be carried out to bring the policies to frui tion. In our discussion of these practices we focus on ways that teacher education, professional deve lopment, literacy instruction, positive behavior supports, and early intervention can support syst emic reform efforts focused on reducing unnecessary referrals to special education. We do not intend this to be an exhaustive list but rather wish to exemplify a few key practices that are cu rrently under national scrutiny and promoted in IDEA 2005. Teacher Education: Rethinking the Context Teacher development is a process of growth over time. Sanders and Rivers (1996) assert that teachersÂ’ ability to impact student achievement occu rs over years of practice and that their influence on student learning begins a strong growth trajecto ry in about the fifth year of their teaching career and continues to improve until about the 12th year of teaching. This construct of continuing teacher growth over an extended career timeline suggests that the initiation of teachers into the practice community through preparation, induction, an d ongoing mentoring and coaching requires significant investment of resources by both univ ersities and school systems. Supporting teacher learning over time is further complicated by the ne ed to engage teachers in a critical dialogue about issues of social justice and the importance of pa ying conscious attention to culturally responsive dispositions and practices (Cochran-Smith, 2 004; McLaren & Fischman, 1998; Zeichner & Miller, 1997). School systems and university preparation progra ms are becoming more adept at creating practice arenas for teacher candidates and tea chers through teaching schools or professional development schools (Kozleski, Sobel & Taylor, in press). The Holmes Group and the National Network of Educational Renewal have been instrume ntal in developing this approach to teacher preparation and renewal (Wise & Leibbrand, 2000 ). The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education has published a set of monographs highlighting the strengths of these newer conceptions of teacher learning (K ozleski, Pugach, Bellamy, & Yinger 2002). Emerging data suggest
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 15 that teachers who are prepared in urban schools are more likely to develop culturally responsive practices and continue to work in schools and cl assrooms with students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (Ladson-Billings, 2001). Similar ly, Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) use the construct of activity theory to focus on the contexts and settings in which teachers learn their craft and sustain their own growth over an extended career. Where teacher candidates, teachers and university faculty practice together, they devel op a set of tools for informing their discourse, their actions, and their reflections that help nourish improvement over time (Chandler, Kozleski, et al., in press). The preparation and development of culturally responsive teachers requires attention to the context in which this preparation occurs, th e nature of the skills and dispositions that characterize culturally responsive teachers, and the elements of multicultural education (Ford, 1992; Kea & Utley, 1998; Obiakor, 2001). It also require s that teachers develop knowledge of specific instructional practices and how to implement these practices in culturally responsive ways that enhance studentsÂ’ opportunities to learn and redu ce the likelihood they will underachieve and be referred to special education. Another issue to consider in the context of teacher education is the recruitment and selection of prospective teachers. Haberman (1995; Haberman & Post, 1998) noted that there are certain attributes that predispose individuals to be more likely to be effective in high-poverty, culturally and linguistically diverse schools and more likely to stay on the job. Older, non-traditional students with more life experiences tend to be better suited for such settings than younger, lessexperienced candidates. Professional Development that Promot es Culturally Responsive Teaching The ultimate test of sound intervention research is its application in the contexts where practitioners and students work and learn. We advocate for on-going professional development that provides teachers with the support they need to implement new practices and to advance reform efforts (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 20 01; Hilliard, 1997b; Quartz, 2003). We envision this professional development as two-pronged, on the one hand focused on helping teachers learn how to implement instructional practices that have been validated with students similar to those they are teaching, and on the other hand designed to help them develop the attributes of culturally responsive teachers. This second prong is one that is relatively new and untested. We suggest that professional development programs should include experiences intended to help teachers understand the central role of culture in learning and think deeply about their views of culture. This development of selfawareness is an important part of the process of becoming multicultural. On-going discussions with others about diversity and what it means to be culturally responsive should also be key aspects of professional development programs (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2001). Our approach to professional development relies on the growing literature on teacher change (Borko & Putnam, 2000). Practitioners work in complex social milieus and thus, the application of research knowledge requires that th ey change what they think and do and transform the contexts in which they work. Teachers are fa ced with many challenges, including the need to reconcile differences between long -term goals and short-term needs an d to balance their experiential knowledge with new research knowledge (Artiles, Barreto, Pea, & McClafferty, 1998; Lieberman, 2000). Beliefs, feelings of self-e fficacy, attitudes, and percepti ons all affect the extent to which teachers try new strategies and persist in using them even when confronted with challenges (Artiles, 1996; Sparks, 1988). Change can be difficult even in the best of circumstances, and for teachers implementing new instructional practices or trying to teach in novel ways, it can be daunting.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 16 Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, and Manning (2001) high light the intense emotional demands that school change imposes on teachers. A supportive commu nity of teachers and researchers can provide needed assistance while teachers make the shift towards improved practice (Klingner, Arguelles, Hughes, & Vaughn, 2001; Pressley & El Dinary, 1997 ). Within this community, it is important for diverse perspectives to be respected (Grossman, Wi neburg, & Woolworth, 2001) and for teachersÂ’ needs to be validated (Silin & Schwartz, 2003). The two-pronged professional development prog rams we endorse will be most successful if they are part of a systemic change model that includes the following: (a) the program promotes practices aligned with the districtÂ’s curriculum and standards; (b) the program provides student outcome data showing the practices are effective with culturally and linguistically diverse students similar to those they teach; (c) school administrators facilitate implementati on; (d) teachers receive long-term support (including demonstrations and coaching); (e) teachers take ownership of the practices, adapting them to fit their studentsÂ’ n eeds and the local context; and (f) teachers take responsibility for mentoring their peers as part of a community of practice (Klingner, 2004). Teachers need to see concrete examples of how a new theory relates to their students and their circumstances. If teachers do not see the relevan ce of the new approach to their situation, little change is likely to occur (Englert & Tarrant, 1995). Induction programs offer a promising approa ch for mentoring beginning teachers in culturally and linguistically diverse settings and helping them teach in culturally responsive ways (Haberman & Post, 1998; Murrell, 20 00; Quartz, 2003). Such programs not only lead to enhanced effectiveness, but also have the potential to improve teacher retention (Quartz, 2003). A key component of successful induction programs is the pa rtnering of novices with true master teachers (Hilliard, 1997b). Culturally Responsive Evidence-Based Instructional Practices A core principle of our conceptual framework is that disproportionate representation will be reduced if more students receive validated cult urally responsive instructional practices. Thus, we agree with those who emphasize that instructional practices should be based on scientific evidence about Â“what works.Â” However, we would add that it is essential to find out specifically Â“what worksÂ” with whom, in what contexts, and under what circumstances. We are concerned with issues of population validity and ecological validity. Was the practice validated with culturally and linguistically diverse students similar to those for whom the practice is being considered? Were other aspects of the environment similar (Bracht & Glas s, 1968)? We value findings from carefully designed experimental, quasi-experimental, mixed m ethods, and single subject research studies, but also emphasize that much can and should be learned through qualitative means. Qualitative approaches are ideally suited to answering questions about Â“howÂ” and helping us to understand essential contextual variables that impact the eff ectiveness of an approach. A well-known example of this is the Kamehameha Elementary Educati on Program (KEEP) in Hawaii (Au, 1980; Au & Mason, 1981). KEEP was a research-and-development program that spanned more than a decade. Lessons were observed over several years while school personnel implemented different reading programs that had been found to be effective in other settings. It was not until the discourse of reading lessons was allowed to become more like the style of day-to-day Hawaiian conversation (in other words, more culturally responsive) that reading achievement improved dramatically. The issue of population validity is an important one. We advise caution when interpreting research findings when applied to culturally and linguistically diverse students, particularly when diverse students have not been included in partic ipant samples, or demographic and other relevant
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 17 information has been under-reported (Artiles, Trent, & Kuan, 1997; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Gersten, Baker, Pugach, Scanlon, & Chard, 2001 ). We emphasize the importance of research reportsÂ’ and articlesÂ’ including sufficient informat ion about the language proficiency, ethnicity, socio-economic level, immigration status, and other characteristics of participants (Bos & Fletcher, 1997; Keogh, Gallimore, & Weisner, 1997), as well as more information about environmental variables (e.g., school and community environment and history). We believe researchers and educators must c ontinue to ask tough questions about whether we are doing all we can to improve outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students who seem to be Â“left behind.Â” If Treatment A is foun d to be better than Treatment B (or nothing), we must not assume that Treatment A is the best we can do. What if we were to adapt Treatment A to be culturally responsive to a particular group of students and then compare Culturally Responsive Treatment A with Traditional Treatment A? How do we know when increased outcomes with a given intervention are Â“good enough?Â” We must cont inue to ask if we are truly providing an optimal learning environment for all students. If we believe that African American, Hispanic, and American Indian students really cannot achieve as well as their white mainstream peers, we will settle for less than satisfactory performance (Valencia, 1997). Similarly, if we expect children from low-income households to perform lower than middle-class childre n, we can use this as justification to withhold resources (Brantlinger, 2003). Yet if we believe that culturally and linguistically diverse students truly can achieve at least as well as their white counterpa rts when provided with an appropriate education, we will not give up until we have facilitated this level of learning. Only by so doing can we reduce the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Although theses issues apply across subject areas an d disciplines, in this article we zero in on how they pertain to behavior supports and litera cy instruction. We focus on these areas because reading difficulties and behavior problems are th e main reasons for special education referrals (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Also, they are the areas targeted in IDEA 2005. Culturally responsive posi tive behavior supports. Positive behavior supports (PBS) has a rich, empirically derived database, steeped in applied behavior analysis and more recently in the application of functional behavior analysis to solv e school-related behavioral issues (Utley, Kozleski, Smith & Draper, 2002). Sugai and colleagues (2000) de fine PBS as Â“a general term that refers to the application of positive behavioral interventions an d systems to achieve socially important behavior changeÂ” (p. 133). All PBS models are based on three fundamental principles: (a) behavior is affected by internal and external factors; (b) behavior is constantly shaped by unintended and intended responses in context; and (c) all behavior is lear ned and therefore can be changed (Sugai et. al., 2000). By examining behavior in context, it is possible to plan intentionally to encourage certain kinds of behaviors and to create disincentives for ot her, less desirable kinds of behaviors. According to Sugai et al. (2000), PBS takes the principles of a pplied behavior analysis and sets them within an arena that considers practicality, social values, and the interaction of variables within systems. In a school context, this means understanding the nature of student behavior, individually and in groups, the social contexts in which behaviors occur, and practical responses to shaping desirable behaviors. By studying the behavior of students across many schools, researchers have found that 80 to 90% of students in schools fall into a typical range of social behaviors (Sugai et al., 2000). Another 5 to 15% of students have more serious behavioral issues th at can be successfully addressed in specific, group interventions. And a much smaller group of students (from 1 to 7%) of a schoolÂ’s population require ongoing, individualized support an d intervention to improve their behavior. It is in the latter situation that various communities criticize behavioral approaches, in spite of protestations by PBS researchers that their me thodology incorporates considerations of social contexts and cultural expectations. At the hear t of concerns are questions about who makes
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 18 decisions about what is appropriate and inappropr iate. In schools, where the vast majority of teachers are white (92%) and female (87%) (Snyder, 2002), and the students who are most likely to be sent to the office, suspended and expelled, are boys of African American descent, this criticism takes on heightened import (Osher, Woodruff, & Si ms, 2000). Decisions to refer students for disciplinary reasons rely on the observations of teachers who themselves may not have the social and cultural contexts to translate and respond to student behavior in their classrooms. Sheldon and Epstein (2002) examined school officialsÂ’ effort s to implement family and community involvement activities to reduce the number of disciplinar y actions and ensure school climates focused on learning. They found that the more family and community involvement activities were implemented, the fewer students were disciplined. Despite these limitations, we see potential in the approach espoused by the proponents of PBS. First, they acknowledge the importance of context. Second, they recognize the different levels of systematic intervention required to support and develop pro-social behaviors. Third, they offer strong and effective strategies for behavior chan ge. To learn from critics of PBS, it might be instructive to think about the constructs inherent in multicultural communities. From a multicultural perspective, the process of identifying students to target for intervention itself is problematic because iden tification of problematic behavior focuses on descriptions of difference. Appropriately, mult icultural proponents ask the question, Â“Different from what?Â” Difference can hardly be conceptua lized in the contemporary world as existing on a unitary dimension of normalcy and deviancy since that bimodal perspective assumes homogeneity and monolithic cultural norms rather than h eterogeneous and indigenous norms. By naming and focusing on what is different, the process runs the ri sk of marginalizing some individuals. The rub of Â“othernessÂ” gives rise to other, sociologic al, or anthropological phenomena: resistance, abandonment, and exclusion. These phenomena play ou t in the high numbers of students of African American and Hispanic descent who drop out of school. Therefore, identifying problems cannot be a unitary act by teachers or groups of professionals Problem identification must be led not only by a multi-disciplinary professional team but by a multidisciplinary professional and community team. To improve school success for every student, issue s that are not typically considered as part of behavioral education must be addressed by general and special educators. Researchers and practitioners must work with families to examine issues related to classroom discipline, cultural diversity, and culturally responsive teaching to de velop successful approaches for teaching pro-social skills and reducing antisocial behavior (Townsend, 1994). Teachers should spend time observing their students and the ways they interact while simultaneously engaging in self-reflection about their reactions and beliefs. When students do not behave in expected ways, it is important that teachers not jump to conclusions about what this means. For example, Cynthia Ballenger (1998) shared that when her Haitian preschoolers did not respond as she thought they would to her classroom management strategies, she examined her own assumptions about teaching and behavior and worked with Haitian teachers to learn more about their approaches. She was thereby able to adapt her style of discourse to better support her students in the ways they were accustomed. We consider this to be a culturally responsive approach to behavior management. Sugai and colleagues (2000) note that: The use of culturally appr opriate interventions also is emphasized in the PBS approach. Culturally appropriate describes interventions th at consider the unique and individualized learning histories (socia l, community, historic al, familial, racial, gender, etc.) of all individuals (child ren with problem behaviors, families, teachers, community agents, etc.) who participate in the PBS process and approach. Data-based problem solving and individualized planning processes can help to establish culturally ap propriate interventions. (p. 134)
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 19 For these reasons, we take the stance that sc hool-wide PBS intervention s should be proactive and promote a positive, culturally responsive cl imate that is co nducive to lear ning by all. Teachers, administrators, and support staff should understand that perceptions of behavioral appropriateness are influenced by cultural expectat ions, that what is perceived as inappropriate varies across cultures, and that behaviors occur within larger socio-cult ural contexts; connect with their students in ways th at convey respect and caring; explicitly teach rules and expected behaviors within a culture of care; provide a co ntinuum of support; and in volve families and the community in positive, mu tually supportive ways. Culturally responsive literacy instruction. All children should receive culturally responsive literacy instruction that builds on their prior knowledge, interests, motivation, and home language, and emphasizes cultural relevance (August & Haku ta, 1998; Au, 2000; Rueda, MacGillivray, Monz, 2001). We support a balanced approach to liter acy instruction that promotes authentic literacy experiences in a supportive learning environmen t while providing the high level of explicit instruction needed for students to gain important sk ills and strategies (Delpit, 1995). This instruction should include frequent opportunities to practi ce reading with a variety of rich materials in meaningful contexts (Pressley, 2001; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow 2001). It should also include explicit instruction in phonological awareness, the alphabetic code, fluency, and vocabulary development (National Re ading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) as well as comprehension strategies (Snow, 2002). We believe that a focus on the complete literacy event does not mean that traditional skills are unim portant. Â“Rather these skills are situated within a holistic context that is intimately linked with goals an d conditions of readingÂ” (Roller, 1996, p. 34). If students do not receive such instruction, how can we be ensured they have in fact received an adequate opportunity to learn and are appropriate candidates for a special education referral? Literacy instruction should take into account the sociocultural contexts within which students learn (Artiles, 2002; Ruiz, 1998). A fundamental assumption of our approach is that culture mattersÂ—we believe that disproportionate representati on is due in part to the inadequate attention to culture by researchers and practitioners. Cultur e is not a unitary construct but rather is complex and dynamic. In any given classroom, there are multiple cultures Â“as embodied in the cultural toolkit that each person brings to school and the cultures that are created as students, teachers, and school staff interact over timeÂ” (A rtiles, 2002, p. 696). But what does it mean to account for culture when teaching children to read? First, it means taking a broad view of what counts as litera te in a multiethnic, diverse society. It means understanding the complex sociocultural, institutiona l, and political contexts that influence studentsÂ’ acquisition of literate behaviors (Artiles, 2003). It means recognizing that when children begin school, they may not have experienced all the same in teractions with print as their mainstream peers, but they still have had valuable experiences that teachers can and should build upon. It means explicitly connecting home, community, and school literacy practices. It means recognizing that studentsÂ’ discourse and behavioral styles may not match school-expected wa ys, but they are still to be validated (Brice Heath, 1983; Cazden, 1988). It means recognizing that bilingualism is an asset and that learning English should be an additive rather than a subtractive process (August & Hakuta, 1997). Finally, it means making sure students are motivated and engaged in reading activities (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Rueda, MacGillivray, Monz, 2001). Although teachers need not be Â“insidersÂ” in a particular culture to offer culturally responsive instruction, they should make an effort to learn about the cultures represented in th eir classrooms, respect studentsÂ’ values, and view differences in studentsÂ’ literacies as strengths, not deficits (Alvermann, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Culturally responsive literacy instruction require s choosing relevant multicultural literature and other reading materials (Bieger, 1995/1996; Godina & McCoy, 2000). Multicultural literature should be used in transformative ways that reconstruct the curriculum so that students are able to
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 20 view concerns, themes, problems, and concepts from the perspectives of diverse groups (Banks & Banks, 1997). Literature should also be selected that allows students to identify social problems and to read about how the main character takes acti on to solve these problems. This approach helps students realize that all ethnic groups have root s in the past and a strong heritage (Bieger, 1995/1996). Culturally responsive literacy programs ta p into community resources that promote childrenÂ’s literacy. One way to do this is by enlis ting volunteers to serve as reading tutors (Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001; Inve rnizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1997; Wasik, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). Another is to invite parents and others in the neighborhood to share their expertise or Â“funds of knowledgeÂ” on a multitude of topi cs (Moll & Gonzlez, 1994). For example, an effective model includes local elders in the sc hooling of American Indian youth (Aguilera, 2003). Programs that focus on developing partnerships wi th parents and other caregivers to enhance home literacy experiences also are beneficial. Parents can learn to interact with their children in ways that promote literacy achievement (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Culturally Responsive Early Intervention Students who show early signs of strugglin g should receive supplemental, intensive instruction that is culturally and developmentally appropriate. We advocate for universal screening models that identify those students who may benefit from such support as soon as they first enter school, as well as progress monitoring that identifi es students who do not advance at expected rates. Early intervention should be provided before students have had a chance to fail, as part of a general education support system. Ideally this instruction s hould take place in small groups, such as one-tothree, or one-to-four (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000). Now that IDEA has been reaut horized and the ways we conceptualize and define disabilities are evolving, eligibility and identification criteria ar e changing as well. States now have the option to use other methods of identifying students as having learning disabilities rather than IQ scores and discrepancy formulae. Many states are moving to wards a Â“Response to InterventionÂ” (RTI) model. Yet what should the interventions in an RTI mo del look like? A popular current model has three Â“tiersÂ”: the first tier consists of quality instruction in a general education classroom based on evidence-based practices. The second tier is onl y for those students who do not reach expected benchmarks using an assessment instrument such as the DIBELSÂ— Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. These students are then provided with intensive assistance, either as part of a tutoring model or in small groups, still as part of a general education support system. Students who make adequate progress in this second tier return to the first tier where they continue to receive general instruction. Students who continue to struggl e are then provided with a third tier level of assistance. It is this third tier that many would consider to be special education. Yet, like previous eligibility criteria, this mo del presumes that if a child does not make adequate progress, he or she must have an interna l deficit of some kind (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Our position is that we must ensure that the child has in fact received culturally responsive, appropriate, quality instruction. As with earlier identification criteria, this model must be based on students having received an adequate Â“opportu nity to learnÂ” through validated and wellimplemented instructional practices by skilled teachers before they are placed in special education. What should the first-tier interventions be for Engl ish language learners? What should the first tier look like for African American students, partic ularly those living in high-poverty areas? What interventions should the second tier include? Should the interventions be the same for all? If not,
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 21 how should they vary, and how should this be determined? How can we ensure that practices have been validated with culturally and linguistically diverse students? How can we make sure that teachers are implementing practices with fide lity and making well-informed and appropriate modifications, when needed, to accommodate their students and the local educational context? These are important questions to consider as we move forward with RTI models (for further discussion of these and related issues, see Klingner & Edwards, in press; Klingner, Sorrells, & Barrera, in press). People It is people who enact policies and implement practices. In this final section, we discuss the roles of various key players in creating culturally responsive education systems. We describe school administrators, teachers, family and community members, and students. Culturally Responsive School Leaders Twenty years ago, effective schools research foun d that the principal was the key to creating schools of opportunity and possibility (Edmonds & Frederickson, 1978; Jackson, Logsdon, & Taylor, 1983; Weber, 1971). As Fullan points out (200 2b), the principal must lead change efforts as an agent who transforms the teaching and learni ng culture of the school. Even the principal, however, operates within a larger culture, that of th e school district, which, in turn, responds to state and federal mandates and policies (Bridgeland & Du ane, 1987). How a principal responds to these mandates and policies affects their impact on studen ts. The principalsÂ’ beliefs, values, educational philosophies, and interpersonal as well as manageme nt skills have a great influence on the climate and culture of a school. Haberman and Dill (1999) noted that principals of successful urban schools have certain attributes that heighten their effecti veness. These principals see teacher motivation and nurturing as a top priority. They are skilled in reco gnizing and building upon each personÂ’s strengths (Goldman, 1998). They clearly exemplify a cult urally responsive approach and model positive interactions and communications with parents (Dan ridge, Edwards, & Pleasants, 2000). Overall, effective school leaders empower teachers and students to succeed in school regardless of constraintsÂ—they exemplify a s se puede (Â“it can be doneÂ”) attitude. We suggest that for school leaders to be optimally effective in reducing th e disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special educat ion, they must become knowledgeable about the nuanced factors that affect studentsÂ’ opportunities to learn in general education as well as experts in the referral process. One promising model of school leadership is called Â“distributed leadership.Â” For this approach to work in schools, the capacity of th e organization to reform, renew, and improve is thought to lie in its ability to distribute the responsibilities for leadership throughout the community. In these school communities, learning becomes the central galvanizing theme for the group. As a result, formal leaders, such as principals, can co me and go and the work of the community remains strong and responsive to the changing needs of the families and children who attend that school (Elmore, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001 ). Similarly, other researchers emphasize the value of teachers as leaders in efforts to brin g about and sustain change (Katzenmeyer, & Moller, 2001; Lieberman & Miller, 2004).
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 22 Culturally Responsive Teachers Culturally responsive teachers have developed the dispositions that support all studentsÂ’ learning and are knowledgeable and skilled in im plementing effective instructional practices. Gay (2000) describes such teachers as cultural organizers mediators and orchestrators of social contexts. To act in such a manner requires conscious attention to the ways in which students interact among themselves as well as with teachers. These teachers help their students bridge borders between their home and school cultures, recognize and understand differences in the social milieus, and build on the knowledge and skills that their students bring with them to school learning. In doing so, these teachers demonstrate their care, resp ect and commitment to each studen tÂ’s learning abilities, desires, and potentialities. Culturally responsive teachers specifically acknowle dge the need for students to find relevant connections among themselves, the subject matter and the tasks they are asked to perform (Montgomery, 2001; Salend, Garrick Duhaney, & M ontgomery, 2002). They know that students learn best when their experiences and interests se rve as the basis for curriculum connections, making learning relevant to their lives (Ladson-Billings, 19 94). Delpit (1995) helps to expand these concepts by asserting that culturally responsive teachers must explicitly teach skills and cultural capital, or, in other words, the knowledge and behaviors valued as being of high status by the dominant culture. Nieto (1999) describes the expertise of culturally responsive teachers in instruction and management and their ability to challenge and simultaneously support their students. Finally, culturally responsive teachers feel a strong sense of responsibility for all students, including students referred for or already placed in special education (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). We assert that unless teachers behave in the culturally responsive manner we describe, their students may be miseducated and underachieve not because they have internal deficits and should be in special education, but because they have not been taught in ways that promote their learning. Families and Communities We begin with the premise that many of the di fficulties faced by culturally and linguistically diverse students in schools are not caused by in trinsic deficits. Nor do they indicate failures of families. We see families and communities as encirc ling students inside the layers of school-related personnel. Families and communities possess resources and abilities, or rich Â“funds of knowledge,Â” that can promote student learning and enrich the context of the school and classroom (Moll, 1992; Nieto, 1999). Historically, deficit views of culturally and linguistically diverse families and of childrenÂ’s learning difficulties have combined to discourage family participation in schooling and in the special education referral process (Harry, 1992). When familie s are not perceived to be valued partners by school personnel, students may feel forced to choo se loyalty to family over school success (Delpit, 2002). Delpit (1995) suggests that the answers to the issues faced by culturally and linguistically diverse students and families Â“lie not in a proliferation of new reform programs, but in some basic understandings of who we are and how we are c onnected to and disconnected from one anotherÂ” (p. xv). We recommend professional development for teachers and administrators to change a pervasive negative attitude towards culturally an d linguistically diverse families living in poverty and a propensity to blame them for their childrenÂ’s stru ggles (Harry & Klingner, in press). We see great potential in proactive collaborative models th at focus on family strengths and finding common ground upon which to build, and include parent s in assessment, placement, and policy-making decisions, thereby restoring the balance of power in parent-professional discourse.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 23 Schools that successfully make a positive difference in the lives and learning of culturally and linguistically diverse students work closely wi th families and communities as valued, respected partners (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Giles, 1998 ; Harry, 1992; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Sands, Kozleski, and French (2000) suggest that schools ar e becoming increasingly aware of the importance of parental involvement and are actively working to develop a process for establishing collaborative, reciprocal relationships. Davis and colleagues (200 2) found many strategies being used to increase parental participation, including improving inter actions between teachers and parents, making home visits, bringing in extended family, and involving pare nts in school cultural activities and in planning parent training programs. They suggest involving parents in new roles as assessors, policymakers, and advocates. This level of reform requires a framewo rk of systemic change that is inclusive of all participants, and impacts change across all parts of the system. Students Our focus is on childrenÂ’s potential and promis e, not risk factors, emphasizing studentsÂ’ strengths and amazing abilities to be resilient and to overcome adversity (Spencer, Noll, Stolzfus, & Harpalani, 2001). Culturally and linguistically diverse children living in poverty come to school with a variety of background experiences and from co mplex circumstances. StudentsÂ’ backgrounds are assets that teachers can and should use in the service of their learning. Too often, students feel that they must choose to be academically successful at the cost of their cultural identity (Gay, 2000; Valenzuela, 1999 ). Yet academic success and cultural identity can and must be simultaneously achieved, not pres ented as dichotomous choices. OÂ’ConnorÂ’s (1997, 1999) studies of high-achieving African Americ an students illustrate valuable strategies for maintaining identity. She examined how African Amer ican high school students living in low-income neighborhoods situated race, class, and gender while struggling to attain status. She found that the students emphasized the importance of hard work individual effort, and education. However, studentsÂ’ overall views were complicated by their interpretations of how race, class, and gender affect life chances. How can we bring teachers to the recognition th at strong cultural identity supports, rather than detracts from, academic success? We must do a better job of helping teachers come to this understanding in our pre-service and in-service teacher education programs by emphasizing the importance of connecting with studentsÂ’ identities across the curriculum and of developing strong reciprocal relationships. Eleuterio (1997), in langua ge arts, and Hoelscher (1999), in social studies, observed that classrooms filled with teachers and st udents who openly shared their lives, cultural identities, and life experiences built trust and fos tered stronger relationships. This climate led to student engagement and excitemen t about learning together. Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasized the worth in acknowledging and valuing the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students and the development of relationships based on care, respect, and responsibility. Conclusion Our intent is to decrease inappropriate referrals to special education and promote a more equitable education system that results in propor tionate representation in special education among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Clearl y, to accomplish this monumental task will not be easy. Yet through networking with others involved in similar work, raising awareness and discussing tough questions about who benefits from current pr actice, and instituting interventions designed to
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 24 bring about real change, we are optimistic that with relentless effort we can make a difference in the lives of culturally and linguistically diverse studen ts with and without disabilities. We emphasize the importance of collaborating with state department s of education and school districts across the nation, national organizations, technical assist ance centers, research and personnel preparation projects, and institutions of higher education to ensure that culturally responsive evidence-based early interventions, reading programs, and behavioral practices are included in teacher preparation and professional development programs. We are en gaged in a process of consciousness-raising designed to lead to transformative chan ge (Freire, 1984). Together, we not only can change the world (Oakes & Lipton, 2002), we must. References Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development scho ols weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2000). Pl anning for school change: School-community collaboration in a full-se rvice elementary school. Urban Education, 35 (1), 79Â–103. Aguilera, D. E. (2003). Who defines success: An analysis of competing models of education for American Indian and Alaskan Native students (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2003). Alvermann, D. (2003). Exemplary literacy instru ction in grades 7Â–12: What counts and whoÂ’s counting? In J. Flood and P. Anders (Eds.). Internatio nal Reading Association. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educ ation. (1994). Teacher education pipeline III: Schools, colleges, and departments of educatio n enrollments by race, ethnicity, and gender. Washington, DC: Author. Ansell, S. E., & McCabe, M. (2003). Off target. Education Week, 22 (17), 57Â–58. Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Wh itehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture bo ok reading: Replication an d extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 86, 235Â–43. Artiles, A. J. (1996). Teacher thinking in ur ban schools: Toward a co ntextualized research agenda. In F. Ros (Ed.), Teacher thinking in cultural contexts (pp. 23Â–52, 355Â–363). New York: SUNY Press. Artiles, A. J. (2002). Culture in learning: The next frontier in read ing difficulties research. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to policy (pp. 693Â–701). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special ed ucationÂ’s changing identity: Para doxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73 164Â–202.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 25 Artiles, A. J., Barreto, R., Pea L., & McClafferty, K. (1998). Pathways to teacher learning in multicultural contexts: A longitudinal case study of two novice bilingual teachers in urban schools. Remedial and Special Education, 19 70Â–90. Artiles, A. J., Os her, D., & Ortiz, A. (2003, April). Â“ContextÂ” and Â“cultureÂ” in the 2002 NRC report: Challenges and risks for future special education research and practice Paper presented at the annual meet ing of the American Educati onal Research Association. Chicago, IL. Artiles, A. J., Rued a, R., Salazar, J., & Higa reda, I. (2002). Within-gro up diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Langua ge Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283Â–300. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S C., & Ku an, L. A. (1997). Learning disab ilities research on ethnic minority students: An analysis of 22 years of studies published in selected refereed journals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12 82Â–91. Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Pa lmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) (pp. 716Â–735). San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Au, K. H. (1980). Partic ipation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 11, 91Â–115. Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organiza tional factors in learni ng to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115Â–152. Au, K. H. (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving literacy achievement: Equity and excellence. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 835Â–851). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keatin g, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494Â–519. Ballenger, C. (1998). Teaching other peoplesÂ’ children: Literacy and learning in a bilingual classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Banks, J., & Banks, C. (Eds.). (1997). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bateson, G. (1972/1999). Steps to ecology of mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 26 Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999). A movement agains t and beyond bounda ries: Â“Politically relevant teachingÂ” among Af rican-American teachers. Teachers College Record, 100, 702Â– 723. Beyer, L. E. (1996). Introduction: The meanings of critical teacher prep aration. In E. Boyer (Ed.), Creating democratic classrooms: The st ruggle to integrate theory and practice (pp. 1Â– 26). New York: Teache rs College Press. Bieger, E. M. (1995/1996). Promoting multic ultural education through a literature-based approach. The Reading Teacher, 49 (4), 308Â–312. Bondy, E., Ross, D., Si ndelar, P., & Griffin, C. (1995). Elementary and sp ecial educators learning to work together: Team building processes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18 (2), 91Â–102. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4Â–15. Bos, C. S., & Fletcher, T. V. ( 1997). Sociocultural considerations in learning disabilities inclusion research: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 92Â–99. Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validi ty of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437Â–474. Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle cla ss negotiates and rationalizes school advantage New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Brice Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, an d work in communi ties and classrooms NY: Cambridge University Press. Bridgeland, W. M., & Duane, E. A. (1987). Elementary school principals and their political settings. Urban Review, 19, 191Â–200. Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cartledge, G., Tam, K. Y., Loe, S. A., Miranda, A. H., Lambert, M. C ., Kea, C. D., SimmonsReed, E. (2002). Culturally and linguistically diverse st udents with behavioral disorders. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teac hing and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chandler, S., Kozleski, E. B., Sobe l, D., Utley, B., Sands, D., How ell, C., & Sobe, B. (in press). The invisibility of inquiry: A look at the wo rk of teachers in pr ofessional development schools. Teaching and Change.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 27 Charles A. Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, highpoverty, urban elementary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. De partment of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. ChildrenÂ’s Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of kn owledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249Â–305. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Conley, D. T. (1997). Roadmap to restructuring: Charting the course of change in American education (2nd Ed.). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon ERIC Clearinghouse. Christensen, C. A., & Dorn, S. (1997). Competing notions of social justice and contradictions in special education reform. Journal of Specia l Education, 31, 181Â–198. Daniels, V. (1998). Minority students in gift ed and special education programs: The case for educational equity. Journal of Special Education 32 41Â–43. Danridge, J. C., Edwards, P. A., & Pleasants, H. M. (2000) Making kids winners: New perspectives abou t literacy from urban elementary school principals. Reading Teacher, 53 (8), 654Â–662. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequa lity and access to kn owledge. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), The handbook of multicultural education (pp. 465Â–483). New York: MacMillan. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards an d old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 263Â–287. Davis, C., Brown, B., Bantz, J. & Manno, C. (2002). African Am erican parentsÂ’ involvement in their childrenÂ’s special education programs. Multiple Voices 5 (1), 13Â–27. Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.) The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (pp. 31Â–48) New York: New Press. Delpit, L. (1995). Other peopleÂ’s children New York: The New Press. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachersÂ’ book readings on low-income childrenÂ’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104Â–122. Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in spec ial and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 28 Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5Â–22. Edmonds, R. R., Frederikson, J. R. (1978). Search for effective school s: The identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally ef fective for poor children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A metaanalysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605Â–619. Eleuterio, S. (1997). Folk culture inspires writing across the curriculum. CARTS Newsletter, 4. Elliott, M. (1998). Schoo l finance and opportunit y to learn: Does mo ney well spent enhance studentsÂ’ achievement? Sociology of Education, 71, 223Â–245. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to sc ale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1Â–26. Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creati ng collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16 (6), 325Â–336. Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 289Â–305. Ferguson, D. L., Kozleski, E. B., Smith, A. ( 2003). Transformed, inclusi ve schools: A framework to guide fundamental change in urban schools. Effective Education for Learners with Exceptionalities, 15, Elsevieer Science, 43Â–74. Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained co llege student volunteers help young at-risk children to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28Â–47. Ford, B. A. (1992). Multicultura l education training for special educators working with AfricanAmerican youth. Exceptional Children, 59, 107Â–114. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2002a). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan 81 51Â–84. Fullan, M. (2002b). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 16Â–20. Gallego, M. A., Cole, M., & The Laboratory of Human Co gnition (2002). Clas sroom cultures and cultures in Classrooms. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th Ed.) (pp. 951Â–9 97). Washington: AERA.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 29 Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988, June). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. FOCUS/NCBE, 5, 1Â–17. Gay, G. (2000). C ulturally responsive teaching New York, NY: Teache rs College Press. Gersten, R., Baker, S., Pugach, M., Scanlon, D., & Chard, D. (2001). Contemporary research on special education teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 695Â–722). Washington, DC: Americ an Educational Rese arch Association. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improv ing special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 466Â–476. Giles, H. C. (1998). Parent engagement as a school reform strategy. ERIC/CUE Digest Number 135 U.S.; New York. Godina, H., & McCoy, R. (2000). Emic and etic perspectives on Chicana and Chicano multicultural literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 172Â–179. Goldman, E. (1998). The signif icance of leadership style. Educational Leadership, 55 (7), 20Â–22. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wish ner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: ItÂ’s not ju stifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453Â–465. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Gresham, F. M. (1993). Â“WhatÂ’s wrong with this picture?Â” Response to Mo tta et al.Â’s review of human figure drawings School Psychology Quarterly, 8 (3), 182Â–186. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating conceptual and pedagogical tools for teaching English: A conceptual framew ork for studying professional development. State University of New York: Na tional Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2 001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942Â–1012. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. ( 2000). Engagement and mo tivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 403Â–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotand a, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture and the politics of reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies, 24, 335Â–351. Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. Kappa Delta Pi. Haberman, M., & Dill, V. (1999) Selecting star principals fo r schools serving children in poverty. Instructional Leader, 12 (1), 1Â–5, 11Â–12.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 30 Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multic ultural schools: The po wer of selection. Theory into Practice, 37 (2), 96Â–104. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S. & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change : Teaching beyond subjects and standards San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participat ion of African-American parents in special education. Exceptional Children, 59 (2), 123Â–131. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (in press). Crossing the border from norm alcy to disability: Culturally and linguistically diverse students and the special education placement process. New York: Teachers College Press. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H ., & Messick, S. (Eds.) (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedscleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challe nge of urban education Princeton University Press. Hilliard, A. G., III (1994). What go od is this thing called intellig ence and why bother to measure it? Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 430Â–444. Hilliard, A. G., III (1995). Either a paradigm shift or no mental measurem ent: The n on-science and nonsense of the Bell Curve Psych Discourse, 76(10), 6Â–20. Hilliard, A. G., III (1997a). Annotated selected bibliography & index for teaching AfricanAmerican learners: Culturally responsive pedagogy project. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Hilliard, A. G., III (1997b). The stru cture of valid staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 18 (2), 28Â–34. Hilliard, A. G., III (2000). Exce llence in educ ation versus high-stake s standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 293Â–304. Hoelscher, K. J. (1999). Cultural watersheds: Diagramming oneÂ’s own experience of culture. Social Studies & the Young Learner, 12 (2), 12Â–14. Invernizzi, M., Juel, C. & Rosemary, C. A. (1997). A co mmunity tutorial that works. The Reading Teacher, 50, 304Â–311. Jackson, S. A., Logsdon, D. M. & Taylor, N. E. (1983). Instru ctional leadership behaviors: Differentiating effective from inef fective low-income urban schools. Urban Education, 18, 59Â–70. Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the myth: Preliminary findings from a nation-wide analysis of highflying schools. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 31 Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Build ing reciprocal familyprofessional relationships. Baltimore: Brookes. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Kea, C. D., & Utley, C. A. (199 8). To teach me is to know me. Journal of Special Education, 32, 44Â–47. Keith, N. (1999). Whose community sc hools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory into Practice, 38(4), 225Â–234. Keogh, B., Gallimore, R., & Weis ner, T. (1997). A sociocultural perspective on learning and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities R esearch and Practice, 12, 107Â–113. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding + it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Nati onal Academy Press. Klingner, J. K. (2004). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248Â–255 Klingner, J., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T. & Vaughn, S. (2001). Examining the school-wide Â“spreadÂ” of research-based practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 221Â–234. Klingner J. K., & Edwards, P. (in press). Cultural co nsiderations with res ponse to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly. Klingner, J. K., Harry, B., & Felt on, R. K. (2003). Understandin g factors that contribute to disproportionality: Administrative hiring decisions. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 16(1), 23Â–33. Klingner, J. K., Sorrells, A. M., & Barrera, M. (in press). Three-tier ed models with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D. Haag er, S. Vaughn, and J. Klingner (Eds.), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Kohn, A. (2000). Burnt at the high stakes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 315Â–327. Kozleski, E. B., Pugach, M., Bella my, G. T. & Yinger, B. (2002). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities: Ch allenges and possibilities for special and general education teacher preparation. Washington, D. C.: The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Kozleski, E. B., Sobel, D., & Taylor, S. (200 3). Addressing issues of disproportionality: Embracing and building culturally responsive practices. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners 6 73Â–87 Kozol, J. (1991) Savage inequalities: Childr en in America's schools New York: Crown.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 32 Krei, M. S. (1998). Intensifying the barriers: The problem of inequitable teacher in low-income urban schools. Urban Education, 33, 71Â–94. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teache rs of African American children San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of cultur ally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 465Â–491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The jo urney of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. IV (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47Â–68. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Levine, M. (2002). Why invest in professional development schools? Educational Leadership, 59 (6), 65Â–69. Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: Shaping th e future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 221Â–227. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Losen, D. J., & Orfiel d, G. (Eds.) (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment : Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in education. Exceptional Children, 67 (2), 173Â–186. MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. L. (1998). Overrepr esentation of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 15Â–24. Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Pr actice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61 414Â–424. Marvin, L., & Adams, M. (2002). Critical race theory and educ ation: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 87Â–92. Massachusetts Advocacy Center (1986). The way out: Student exclusion practices in Boston Middle Schools. Boston, MA: Author. McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang, Y. (19 92). A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of handicapped school children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15 140Â–146.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 33 McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools New York: Longman. McLaren, P., & Fischman, G. (199 8). Reclaiming hope: Teacher ed ucation and social justice in the age of globalization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (4), 125Â–133. Miller, M., Strosnider, R., & Dool ey, E. (2000). StatesÂ’ requiremen ts for teachersÂ’ preparation for diversity. Multicultural Education, 8 (2), 15Â–18. Miramontes, O., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N. L. (1997). Restructuring school s for linguistic diversity: Linking decision-making to effective programs. New York: Teachers College Press. Moll, L. C., & Gonzlez, N. (1 994). Critical issues: Lessons from research with languageminority children. JRB: A Journal of Literacy, 26, 439Â–456. Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual cla ssroom studies and community an alysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20Â–24. Montgomery, W. (2001). Literature discussion in the elementary school classroom: developing cultural understanding. Multicultural Education, 8, 33Â–36. Motta, R., Little, & Tobin, K. (1993). The use and abuse of human figure drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8 (3), 162Â–169. Murrell, P., Jr. (2000). Communit y teachers: A conceptual framework for preparing exemplary urban teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 338Â–348. National Commission of Excel lence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Gove rnment Printing Office. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development. Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., Webb-Johnson, G., & Tlusty, G. (2000). Teac hersÂ’ role in providing culturally respons ive literacy instruction. Reading Horizons, 41 1Â–18. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes New York, NY: Teache rs College Press. Nieto, S. (2002/2003). Profoundly multicultural questions. Educational Leadership, 60 (4), 6Â–10. Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Quartz K. H., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high-quality urban teaching: Defining it, deve loping it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 228Â– 234. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Teaching to change the world (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: McGrawHill.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 34 Obiakor, F. (2001). Multicultural education: Powerful tool for preparing future general and special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 241Â–255. Obiakor, F., Algozzine, B., Thurlow, M., Gwalla-Ogisi, N., Enwefa, S., Enwefa R., & McIntosh, (2002). Addressing the issue of dispro portionate representation: Id entification and assessment of culturally diverse students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. OÂ’Connor, C. (1997). Dispositions toward (collecti ve) struggle and educatio nal resilience in the inner city: A case analysis of six African-American high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 34 593Â–629. OÂ’Connor, C. (1999). Race, class, and gender in America: Narra tives of opportunity among lowincome African American youths. Sociology of Education, 72, 137Â–157 Orfield, G. (2000, April). What have we learned from school reconstitution? Paper presen ted at the American Educational Research Associat ion Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LO. Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A framewor k for serving English la nguage learners with disabilities. Journal of Special Educ ation Leadership, 14, 72Â–80. Osher, D., Woodruff, D., & Sims, A. (2000). Exploring relationships between inappropriate and ineffective special education services fo r African American and youth and their overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system Paper presented at The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Be st, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999 ). Ethnic representation in special education: The influenc e of school-related economic and demographic variables. Journal of Special Education, 32, 194Â–206. Parrish, T. B., Hikido, C. S., & Fowler, W. J., Jr. (1998). Inequalities in public school district revenues. Washington, DC: National Center for Educ ation Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Patton, J. M. (1998). The disp roportionate representation of African-Americans in special education: Looking behind the curtai n for understanding and solutions. Journal of Special Education, 32, 25Â–31. PresidentÂ’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education. Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction. Executive Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conf erence. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Mo rrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. New York: Guilford.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 35 Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). Wh at we know about translating comprehensionstrategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities,30 486Â–488. Quartz, K. H. (2003). Â“Too angry to leave:Â” Supporting new teachersÂ’ commitmen t to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 99Â–111. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Roller, C. (1996). Variability not disability: Strugglin g readers in a workshop classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rowe, H. A. H. (Ed.) (1991). Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rueda, R. MacGillivray, L., Monz, L. (2001). Engaged reading: A mult ilevel approach to considering sociocultural fact ors with diverse learners. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Ruiz, N. (1998). Instructional strategies for children with limited-English proficiency. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 5, 21Â–22. Salend, S. J., Garrick Duhaney, L. M., & Montgo mery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (5), 289Â–299. Samuda, R. J. (1998). Psychological testing of American minorities: Issues and consequences (2nded). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996) Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement: Research progress report. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Center, University of Tennessee. Sands, D., Kozleski, E. & French, N. (2000 ). Inclusive Educ ation for the 21st Century Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Belmont, CA. Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by low-SES children of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education, 33, 451Â–491. Schneider, B. L. (1985). Further evidence of school effects. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 351Â–356. Serna, L. A., Forness, S. R., & Nielsen, M. E. (1998). Interven tion versus affirmation: Proposed solutions to the problem of disproportio nate minority representation in special education. Journal of Special Education, 31 (1), 48Â–51.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 36 Shanklin, N., Kozleski, E. B. Meagher, C., Sands, D., Jo seph, O., & Wyman, W. (2003). Examining renewal in an urba n high school through the lens of systemic change. International Journal of Scho ol Leadership and Management 23 357Â–378 Sheldon, S. B., & Epst ein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4Â–26. Silin, J. G., & Schwartz, F. (2003) Staying close to the teacher. Teachers College Record, 105, 1586Â–1605. Skiba, R. K. (2002). Special education an d school discipline: A precarious balance. Behavioral Disorders, 27 (2), 81Â–97. Smith, D. D. (2003). Introduction to special education: Te aching in an age of opportunity (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 334Â–344. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficul ties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Snyder, T. (2002). Digest of Education Statistics 2001 Washington, D. C.: National Center on Education Statistics. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From ra cial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9, 2Â–8. Sparks, G. (1988). Teacher attitudes toward chan ge and subsequent improvements in classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (1), 111Â–117. Spencer, M. B., Noll, E., Stolzf us, J., & Harpalani, V. (2001). Identity and school adjustment: Revisiting the Â‘acting whiteÂ’ assumption. Educational Psychologist, 36 (1), 21Â–30. Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local theo ries of teacher chan ge: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104, 377Â–420. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating sch ool leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30 (3), 23Â–28. Steele, C., Perry, T., & Hilliard, A., III (2004). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African American students. Boston: Beacon Press. Strickland, D. S., & Ascher, C. (1996). Low-income African-American children and public schooling. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research in curriculum (pp.609Â–625). New York: Macmillan.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 37 Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman M., Lewis, T., Nelson C. M., Scott, T., Liaupson, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavi or support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Beha vior Interventions, 2 (3), 131Â–143. Tate, W. F. (1995). School math ematics and African American students: Thinking seriously about opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 424Â– 448. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers : Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121Â–165. Townsend, B. L. (2002). Â“Testing while Black: Â” Standards-based school reform and African American learners. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 222Â–230. Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disp roportionate discipline of Africa n American learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381Â–391. Townsend, B. L. (1994). Involvin g families of at-risk and normally achievin g children in social skill instruction. Preventing Scho ol Failure, 39, 31Â–36. Townsend, B. L., & Patton, J. M. (2000). Re flecting on ethics, power, and privilege. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 32Â–33. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (19 98). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of special education theory, research and practice. Review of Research in Education, 23 277Â–307. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2000). Overview of race and Hispanic origin 2000 [on-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod /2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2003). Data analysis system (DANS) state population data from the U.S. Census ( http://www.census.gov ). Retrieved July 1, 2005, fr om the World Wide Web: http://nccrest.eddata.net/data/index.php Utley, C. A., Kozleski, E. B., Smith, A., Draper, I. (2002). Positive behavioral support: A proactive strategy for minimizing discip line and behavior problems in urban, multicultural youth. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 4, 196Â–207 Utley, C. A. R., & Obia kor, F. (Eds.) (2000). Special education, multicult ural education, and school reform: Components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A system atic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1106Â–1114.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 38 Valencia, R. R. (1999). The ev olution of deficit thinking: Ed ucational thought and practice. Washington, DC: Falmer. Valencia, R. R., & Villarreal, B. J. (2003). Improving studentsÂ’ reading performance via standards-based school reform: A critique. Reading Teacher, 56, 612Â–621. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U. S.-Mexican youth and th e politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilitie s as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 137Â–146. Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond. Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education ; 53 1 20Â–32. Wasik, B.A. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practices. The Reading Teacher, 51 (7), 562Â–570. Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1 993). Preventing early reading fa ilure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178Â–200. Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education. Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N. Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Cr one, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent lite racy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542Â–555. Wise, A. & Leibbrand, J. A. ( 2000). Standards and teac her quality: Entering the new millennium. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 612 Â– 616. Zeichner, K. M., & Miller, M. (19 97). Learning to teach in profe ssional development schools. In M. Levine & R. Trachtman (Eds.), Making professional developm ent schools work: Politics, practices, and policy (pp. 15Â–32). New York: Te achers College Press. About the Authors Janette K. Klingner, Universi ty of Colorado at Boulder Alfredo J. Artiles, Arizona State University Elizabeth Kozleski, University of Colorado at Denver Beth Harry, University of Miami Shelley Zion, University of Colorado at Denver William Tate, Washington University
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 39 Grace Zamora Durn, U.S. Department of Education David Riley, Education Development Center Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Janette Klingner Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado in the Division for Educational Equity and Cultural Diversi ty. She was a bilingual special education teacher for ten years befo re earning her doctorate in reading and learning disabilities from the University of Miami. Research foci include reading comprehension st rategy instruction for diverse populations and the dispro portionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. In 20 04 she received AERAÂ’s Early Career Award. Alfredo J. Artiles Ph.D., is a Professor of Special Education at Arizona State University. His scholarship focuses on how constr uctions of difference (e .g., on the basis of race, class, language background) influence sc hoolsÂ’ responses to the needs of culturally different students. Dr ArtilesÂ’ research examin es special education placement practices as a window into schoolsÂ’ cultural co nstructions of difference. Some of his work tracks disability placement patterns to inform research and policy. A related strand of re search focuses on how teachers learn to use a social justice perspective as they teach cultural ly different students. Elizabeth B. Kozleski Ed.D., is a Professor and Associ ate Dean at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center. Her research interests in clude teacher learning in urban schools, multicultura l educational practices in the classroom and the impact of professional development schools on student and teacher learning. Currently, she is a coPrincipal Investigator (PI) fo r the National Center for Cult urally Responsive Educational Systems, and PI for the National Institute for Ur ban School Improvement. Beth Harry Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Teachi ng and Learning at the University of MiamiÂ’s School of Education. Her teaching and rese arch focus on the impact of cultural diversity on education, on working with families of children with disabilities, and on qualitative methods in educational research. Dr. Harry earned her Ph.D. at Syracuse University. Shelley Zion M.S., is the project coordinator for the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems, working to provid e technical assistance to states as they build their capacity to reduce disproportionality and build educational systems that are culturally responsive. Her research focu ses on issues of student vo ice, engagement, and family participation in schools. William F. Tate Ph.D., is the Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor in Arts and Sciences at Washington University. His rese arch interests include Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (SMET) educat ion in the urban contex t and the political and cultural dimensions of opportunity to learn. Grace Zamora Durn Ph.D., is a Research Analyst with the Research-to-Practice Division in the Office of Special Education Progra ms at the U.S. Department of Education. She received her doctorate from The University of Arizona in Tucson in sp ecial education with a minor in bilingual education. She works with projects pertaining to disproportionate
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 40 representation in special education, English Language Learners (E LLs), gender equity, assessment, and curricu lum and instruction. David P. Riley Ph.D., is Executive Director of th e Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative at Education Development Center, Inc., in Newton, MA. A national network of special and general education ad ministrators, the mission of the Collaborative is to improve outcomes for children and youth with disabilities in urban school districts through leadership development.
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 41 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES http://epaa.asu.edu Editor: Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Production Assistant: Chris Murre ll, Arizona State University General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Sherman Dorn, email@example.com. Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Gene V Glass Arizona State University Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute of Technology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Michele Moses Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Michael Scriven Western Michigan University Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British Columbia
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 38 42 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES English-language Graduate -Student Editorial Board Noga Admon New York University Jessica Allen University of Colorado Cheryl Aman University of British Columbia Anne Black University of Connecticut Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald Michigan State University Chad d'Entremont Teachers College Columbia University Carol Da Silva Harvard University Tara Donahue Michigan State University Camille Farrington University of Illinois Chicago Chris Frey Indiana University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota Misty Ginicola Yale University Jake Gross Indiana University Hee Kyung Hong Loyola University Chicago Jennifer Lloyd University of British Columbia Heather Lord Yale University Shereeza Mohammed Florida Atlantic University Ben Superfine University of Michigan John Weathers University of Pennsylvania Kyo Yamashiro University of California Los Angeles
Addressing Disproportionate Representation 43 Archivos Analticos de Polticas Educativas Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman & Pablo Gentili Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998Â—2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Editorial Board Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica-CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Walter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Pia Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, California Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Educacin Mariano Narodowski Universidad To rcuato Di Tella, Argentina Iolanda de Oliveira Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Grover Pango Foro Latinoamericano de Polticas Educativas, Per Vanilda Paiva Universidade Estadual Do Rio De Janeiro, Brasil Miguel Pereira Catedratico Un iversidad de Granada, Espaa Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Romualdo Portella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas-Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona Lisboa, Carlos A. Torres UCLA Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa