Transcript Facilitating a Meeting

National Center for
Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
Conceptual Framework for
Understanding Disproportionality
Purpose
Provide technical assistance and
professional development to
• close the achievement gap between students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
and their peers, and
• reduce inappropriate referrals to special education.
Critical Foci
Culturally responsive
practices
Early intervention
Literacy
Positive behavioral
supports
Outcomes
increase the use of prevention and
early intervention strategies,
decrease inappropriate referrals to special
education, and
increase the number of schools using effective
literacy and behavioral interventions for
students who are culturally and linguistically
diverse.
General & Special
Education Audiences
–Students
–Families
–Practitioners
–Administrators
Products
–Researchers
– Research syntheses
–Teacher Educators
– Policy briefs
–Policy Makers
– Public service announcements
– Research-based articles
– On Points for Practitioners
– Virtual Professional Development
Modules
– Activities and curricula for
culturally responsive practice
– Web-based Data Maps
– Virtual State-wide “campuses”
– Meta-tagged Library
Mission
Supporting state education agencies
and local school systems to assure a
quality, culturally responsive
education for all students.
Value Added
NCCRESt supports the implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act as it extends the goals of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Key Activities
• Determine status for each state in collecting data
required in Section 618(c) of IDEA.
• Develop a web-based sensitive and responsive
continuous improvement cycle for each participating
SEA.
• Synthesize culturally responsive research-based
practices that support learning and development for all
students
• Assist SEAs in developing plans to address
disproportionality that focus on widespread screening
and effective early intervention, literacy, and positive
behavioral support.
• Link change impact to specific PD and improved teacher
quality
• Engage sites in examining patterns in impact of change
efforts.
• Evaluate impact of change efforts on stakeholders and
organizations
What are Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems?
Culturally responsive educational systems are
grounded in the belief that students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
excel in academic endeavors when
–their culture, language, heritage, and
experiences are valued and used to facilitate
learning and development; and
–they are provided access to high quality
teachers, programs, curricula, and
resources.
Culturally responsive educational
systems are concerned with instilling
ethics of care, respect, and
responsibility in the professionals
who serve culturally and
linguistically diverse students.
Culturally
responsive
educational
systems benefit all
students.
Assumptions About the Causes of
Disproportionate Representation
What it is not:
Intrinsic or
family-based
deficits
• Disproportionate representation is caused by much more
than the existence of intrinsic or family-based deficits—
children are perceived as disabled due to a complex
weave of widely varying beliefs, policies, and practices at
all levels—family and community, classroom, school,
district, state and federal government, and the society at
large.
• The genesis of disproportionate representation is located
beyond the borders of special education and requires a
solid understanding of the intersection of culture,
learning, disability, and the socio-historical constitution
of educational processes and outcomes.
Contributors
•Beliefs
•Practices
•Disproportionality
•Policies
Unequal Educational
Opportunity
• Tracking and Instructional Grouping
(Oakes, 1990; Hallinan, 1996)
• Physical facilities and school resources
(Kozol, 1991; Oakes, 1990)
• Curriculum representation (Anyon,
1997; Sleeter & Grant, 1991)
• School discipline
• Instructional quality
Intersections
•Learning
•Disability
•Culture
NRC: Biological and
Social/Environmental Factors
• Biological
– Low birth weight
– Nutrition and development
– Alcohol, tobacco, drugs
– Lead
• Social/Environmental
– Quality of parent management
– Parenting with respect to language
– Maternal depression
– Quality and availability of child care
SES and Poverty Interact
• At every SES level
– AA students more likely to be labeled ED, MR and placed
in self-contained, SPED classrooms
– AA students less likely to be labeled learning disabled or
communication disordered and placed in general ed
classrooms
• As wealth and better schooling increase, AA males are at
greater risk of being labeled MR
• As the non-minority pop % increases, AA are also at
increased risk for MR and ED identification
Oswald, Coutinho & Best (2002). Community and School
Predictors of minority children in special education. In Racial
Inequity in special education.
NRC: The Influence of
Schooling
• Differential resources
– Fewer well prepared teachers
– Poorer facilities
• Teaching differences
– Lower expectations
– Cultural differences in behavioral
expectations
• Differential opportunity for parental
participation in SE assessment may
increase risk
Socio-cultural Contexts
Regulation
Productivity
Socio-cultural Histories
Complexities of Disproportionality
•Students
•Families & Communitie
•Teachers
•Schools
•School Districts
•SEA & Fed Policies
•Social Forces
Background Assumptions about
Learning and Development
Individual
agency
Contextual
factors
•Family
•Community
•School
•Society
• Children’s learning and development are influenced by
the many contexts or nested ecological systems in which
they live and interact, including family, community,
school, and the larger society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
• Variations in learning and development cannot be
explained solely by these ecological systems—both
individual agency and contextual factors are important
(Spencer, 1995).
• Meaningful learning is situated in the context of
everyday teaching/learning settings and activities that
vary by culture, SES, and other factors (Diaz, Moll, &
Mehan, 1987; Moll, 1990; Vygotsky, 1986).
Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Disproportionality: Beliefs, Policies, and Practices
Disability
Culture
Learning
Background Assumptions about the
Solutions to Disproportionality
•Beliefs about
Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
•Improved
general ed
instruction
•Intersection of culture,
language, disability
•Enhance students
opportunity to learn
•Support teacher
learning
•Evidence- based
practice
• Disproportionate representation’s multifaceted, complex
nature requires that solutions be grounded in clear
theoretical understandings about:
– The notion of culturally responsive educational systems;
– The intersection of culture, learning, and disability;
– The sustained use of research knowledge in professional
practice; and
– The means to support teacher learning and enhance
students’ opportunities to learn.
• Improved general education instruction in classrooms and
through alternative programs (e.g., Title I) will presumably
change the number of culturally and linguistically diverse
students referred to and placed in special education
programs.
Culturally Responsive Practice
• The cornerstone of NCCRESt is the assumption that
disproportionate representation should be addressed through the
creation of culturally responsive educational systems.
• Culturally responsive educational systems are grounded in
the belief that culturally and linguistically diverse students can
excel in academic endeavors if:
– 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, programs,
curricula, and resources.
• Culturally responsive educational systems are concerned with
instilling ethics of care, respect, and responsibility in the
professionals who serve culturally and linguistically diverse
students.
• Culturally responsive educational systems benefit all students.
Federal and State Policies
Teacher and
administrator
quality indicators
and procedures for
working
collaboratively
with universities
and school
districts to
improve
preparation and
professional
development
programs.
Legal requirements at
federal and state levels
concerning the
determination of
eligibility for special
education.
Re-examine
& Revise
Governmental
policies and
mandates related
to school
financing and the
allocation of
resources.
Accountability measures,
including how high stakes testing
results are used to evaluate
schools.
• Federal and state policies and practices should be reexamined and
revised to promote culturally responsive educational systems.
These include:
– Legal requirements at federal and state levels concerning the
determination of eligibility for special education.
– Governmental policies and mandates related to school
financing and the allocation of resources.
– Accountability measures, including how high stakes testing
results are used to evaluate schools.
– Teacher and administrator quality indicators and procedures
for working collaboratively with universities and school
districts to improve preparation and professional development
programs.
– Early intervention programs should be provided to all
children in high poverty areas; early screening for reading
difficulties should be administered to all, with follow up
support.
District Level Policies and Practices
Collaboration and
Partnerships
PRIORITIES
•Curricula
•Tracking
Special &
General Ed
Community
Agencies
•Testing
•Discipline
•Resource
Allocation
Local
leaders
•Hiring
Teacher
education
programs
• Policies and practices related to curricula, tracking, testing,
discipline, resource allocation, and hiring should focus on
advancing culturally responsive practice:
– Priority should be given to assigning and retaining highly
qualified administrators, teachers, and support personnel in
schools with high-poverty culturally and linguistically diverse
students.
• Collaboration and partnerships at various levels should be
promoted:
– Between special education and general education
administrators, to assure that special educators play a role in
developing effective intervention models designed to reduce
inappropriate referrals to special education;
– With community agencies and local leaders, to build on local
assets and promote culturally responsive practice.
– With teacher education programs, to provide relevant
coursework and quality field experiences in high-poverty
culturally and linguistically diverse schools.
Professional Development
Confronting
Challenges,
persistence
Changing thinking,
transforming contexts
Top- down
Bottom-up
Ongoing
professional
development
Beliefs,
efficacy,
attitudes,
perceptions
• On-going professional development, with support, is
key to the promotion of culturally responsive practice.
• Professional development must be supported at multiple
levels, with everyone “on the same page”—we advocate top
down support for bottom up reform (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995).
• Yet change can be difficult—practitioners work in complex
cultural milieus and, thus, the acquisition of new research
knowledge requires that they change what they think and
do and transform the contexts in which they work.
• Teacher beliefs, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and
perceptions all affect the extent to which they try new
strategies and persist in using them even when confronted
with challenges (Artiles, 1996; Sparks, 1988).
School Leadership
Interpersonal &
management skills
Leadership
“sí se puede”
Beliefs, values, philosophies
• Strong leadership is an essential component
of effective culturally responsive schools.
• School principals’ beliefs, values, educational
philosophies, and interpersonal as well as
management skills have a great influence on
the climate and culture of a school.
• Successful principals exemplify a “sí se
puede” (it can be done) attitude.
Culturally Responsive Teachers
Cultural organizers, mediators,
and orchestrators
of social contexts
Caring,
Belief in their students’
committed,
abilities
and respectful
and desire to learn
Sense of
responsibility
Validate, affirm,
Explicitly teach skills
facilitate, liberate,
and
and empower
cultural capital
Experts in instruction
& management
Challenge &
support students
• Culturally responsive teachers:
– Are cultural organizers, cultural mediators, and orchestrators
of social contexts (Gay, 2000);
– Are caring, committed, and respectful—they believe in their
students’ abilities and desire to learn;
– Validate, affirm, facilitate, liberate, and empower;
– Are experts in instruction and management and know how to
challenge and support their students;
– Explicitly teach skills and cultural capital;
– Feel a strong sense of responsibility for all students, including
students referred for or already placed in special education.
Quality Literacy Instruction
Early instruction
& interventions
Emphasize
cultural relevance
Build on prior
knowledge & interests
Direct instruction,
rich materials,
meaningful contexts
• Reading instruction should be multifaceted and include
direct instruction in the alphabetic code, vocabulary
development, and reading for meaning, with frequent
opportunities to practice reading with a variety of rich
materials and in meaningful contexts.
• There must be an emphasis on cultural relevance and
building on students’ prior knowledge and interests.
• Students who struggle should receive early
supplemental, intensive reading instruction in
phonological awareness, fluency building,
comprehension and vocabulary development, and word
study.
Behavior Supports
Understand
perceptions
Involve families
&
communities
Connect
with
students
Climate
Provide
continuum
of support
Teach
expected
behaviors
• School-wide behavior supports should be proactive and
promote a positive, culturally responsive climate that is
conducive to learning by all. Teachers, administrators, and
support staff:
– Understand that perceptions of behavioral appropriateness
are colored by cultural expectations and that what is
perceived as inappropriate varies across cultures;
– Connect with their students in ways that convey respect and
caring;
– Explicitly teach rules and expected behaviors within a culture
of care;
– Provide a continuum of support; and
– Involve families and the community.
Early Intervention
Intensive assistance,
as part of
General Ed
support system
Third
Tier
Second Tier
What is
considered
to be
Special
Education
First Tier
Quality instruction
in
General Ed
Classroom
Families and
Communities
Professional Development
For
Understanding and Responding to
Cultural Differences
Family/School Partnerships
Funds of Knowledge
• Students’ families and communities represent rich and
varied “funds of knowledge” upon which learning
experiences should be built (Moll, 1992).
• Schools that successfully make a positive difference in
the lives and learning of culturally and linguistically
students work closely with families and communities as
valued, respected partners.
• Professional development is needed to change a
pervasive negative attitude towards high-poverty
culturally and linguistically diverse families and a
propensity to think of difficulties as within the child and
caused by their family circumstances.
Students
Desire to learn
Potential
Experiences
Students
Strength
Promise
• Children are at the heart of our conceptual framework—
everything we do is to improve outcomes for them.
• Our focus is on children’s potential and promise, not risk
factors, emphasizing students’ strengths and amazing
abilities to be resilient and to overcome adversity. Children
want to learn and start school ready to learn (though not
necessarily in the ways teachers expect). All kids have
potential.
• Culturally and linguistically diverse children living in
poverty come to school with a variety of background
experiences and from complex circumstances—students’
backgrounds are assets that students can and should use in
the service of their learning.
Activity Arenas
Continuous Improvement
Research and Development
Networking and Dissemination
Professional Development
• Ideally everyone, at all levels of society, should be searching for
solutions to the widespread underachievement and disproportionate
placement in special education experienced by culturally and
linguistically diverse students.
• Through four core teams, our work will focus on:
– Continuous improvement, increasing knowledge and
understanding through the evaluation of current practice, change
efforts, and their impact.
– Research and development, synthesizing and expanding researchbased practices in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, Literacy
Instruction, Positive Behavior Supports, and Early Intervention.
– Professional development, leveraging the continued improvement
of schools through collaboration with existing technical assistance
networks, local asset mapping, and leadership academies.
– Networking and dissemination, engaging in a national discourse
across local, professional practice, and policy communities on
improving educational outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students.
Who’s on Board?
•
Leonard Baca, Bueno Center
•
Kayte Fearn, Council for Exceptional Children
•
Ronald Felton, Miami-Dade County Public Schools
•
Beth Harry, University of Miami
•
Judith Heumann, The World Bank
•
Asa Hilliard, Georgia State University
•
Stephanie Hirsh, National Staff Development Council
•
Dixie Jordan, Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights
•
Joy Markowitz, Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special
Education
•
Festus Obiakor, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
•
James Patton, College of William and Mary
•
Delia Pompa, National Association of Bilingual Education
•
Kristin Reedy, Northeast Regional Resource Center
•
Virginia Roach, Teachers for a New Era
•
Anthony Sims, Illinois State Board of Education
•
Brenda L. Townsend, University of South Florida
•
Stanley Trent, University of Virginia
•
Edward Lee Vargas, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District
NCCRESt Personnel
Principal Investigators
Alfredo J. Artiles, Vanderbilt University
Janette K. Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder
Elizabeth B. Kozleski, University of Colorado at Denver
Cheryl A. Utley, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas
Project Officer
Grace Zamora Durán, Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department
of Education
Project Coordinator
Shelley Zion
University of Colorado at Denver
Director, Networking and
Dissemination
David P. Riley, Education Development
Center, Inc.
Continuous Improvement Data
Analysts
David Gibson, VIMST
Michael Knapp, VIMST
Project Staff
Carolyn Ottke-Moore,
Materials & Event Developer
Rhona Jackson, Project Administrator
Steve Kennedy, Policy Analyst
Jennifer Quinlan, Web Master
Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins,
Professional Development Coordinator
Jenn Light, Instructional Technology
Heraldo Richards, Researcher
Support Staff
•Laura Barletta •Alexandra Schroeder
•Ayanna Brown •Aimee Wride
•Kristy Martinez
Reference List
•
Alvermann, D. (2003). Exemplary literacy instruction in grades 7-12: What counts
and who’s counting? In J. Flood and P. Anders (Eds.). International Reading
Association.
•
Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating
language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a
videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 235-43.
•
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. 835-851). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
•
August, D, & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
•
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year
longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494-519.
•
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
•
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book
readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.
•
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 meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 605-619.
Reference List Continued
•
Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young
at-risk children to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28-47.
•
Invernizzi, M., Juel, C., & Rosemary, C.A. (1997). A community tutorial that works.
The Reading Teacher, 50, 304-311.
•
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
•
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Critical issues: Lessons from research with
language-minority children. JRB: A Journal of Literacy, 26, 439-456.
•
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.
•
Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction. Executive Summary and
Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.
•
Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M.
(2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. New York: Guilford.
•
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey,
D., Baker, K., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., & Woo, D. (2001). A study of
effective grade-1 literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 35-58.
Reference List Continued
•
Roller, C. (1996). Variability not disability: Struggling readers in a workshop
classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
•
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
•
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in lowincome schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165.
•
Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language
development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day
care. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1106-1114.
•
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one
tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.
•
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel,
J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 542-555.
•
Breitborde, M. and Swiniarski, L. (2002). Family Education and Community Power:
new structures for new visions in the educational village. Educational Studies, 28(3).
Pgs
Reference List Continued
•
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children. New York, NY. The New Press.
•
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching. New York, NY. Teachers College
Press.
•
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller E. (1997). What we know about using
research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of
Learning Disabilities,30(5), 466-476.
•
Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special education.
Exceptional Children, 61, 414-424.
•
Moll, L.D. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent
trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24.
•
Nieto, S. (1999). The Light in Their Eyes. New York, NY. Teachers College Press.