Transcript Examining the Placement Process - osep

Examining the Placement
Process
Beth Harry
University of Miami
KEY RECOMMENDATION
• Future research must be built on what we know
• Extend to sociocultural explorations of context, culture,
and practice
• Identify settings where special education for minority
students is not disproportionate and investigate their
practices
• Develop tools for understanding sociocultural processes
• Develop models based on these findings
What have been the Frameworks
for Understanding
Disproportionality?
Medical Model:
• Within child deficit
• Identify pathology and treatment
Research Methods:
• Epidemiology
• Correlation Studies based on Demography and
Family
So, what do we know as a result?
Variability in Placement Patterns
• African Americans greater risk of LD label in high
poverty districts, greater risk of EMR label in low
poverty districts (Coutinho, Oswald et al., 2002)
• African Americans greater risk of EMR label in low
poverty districts & in districts where there was
court-ordered desegregation (Eitle, 2001)
• LD used inappropriately for children meeting
criteria for EMR (MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian,
1998)
What do we know about
Contributors to Disproportionality?
2002: NAS report:
– Home and community contexts
– School contexts
– Home and community contexts are
important but are not under the control of
educators
– School context is
NAS statement on the role of
school contexts:
• The historical concept of a student with a disability
or of a gifted student suggests that the
characteristics of concern are within the child – an
individual or fixed-trait model of ability – and that
the student with a disability or a gift is
qualitatively different from peers. However, for the
high incidence disabilities with which we are
concerned, as well as for giftedness, both of these
propositions are called into question...
NAS Statement (cont’d)
• In terms of cognitive and behavioral competence,
students fall along a continuum…there is no
black and white distinction between those who
have disabilities or gifts and those who do not. At
the far ends of the continuum there is little
dispute about a child’s need for something
different…But as one moves away from the
extremes, where the line should be drawn
between students who do and do not require
special supports is unclear. A variety of forces
push on the lines from opposing directions…
NAS Statement (cont’d)
• We have argued that where along the continuum of
achievement the lines are drawn for specialized
education is artificial and variable. Perhaps of greater
concern, however, are factors that affect where a student
falls along the continuum. For students having difficulty
in school who do not have a medically diagnosed
disability, key aspects of the context of schooling itself,
including administrative, curricular/instructional, and
interpersonal factors, may contribute to their
identification as having a disability and may contribute
to the disproportionately high or low placements of
minorities...(Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 25-27)
“Factors that affect where a
student falls along the
continuum…”
• definitional dilemmas
• operational dilemmas
• referral/pre-referral instructional
practices
• assessment decisions, interpretations
• placement decisions
Definitional Dilemmas
• LD: Is the environmental exclusionary clause being
used?
• LD: Is the discrepancy model being used?
• Are kids compared to local or standardized norms?
• If local, in high performing schools, are perceptions of
incapacity being inflated?
• In low performing schools, are low expectations
resulting in overlooking of students who do need help?
Operational Dilemmas
• MR: Does assessment of adaptive behavior take
into account culture and context?
• EBD: How are decisions about assessment
methods made? e.g., projectives (Hosp & Reschly
2002)
• EBD: Are behavior checklists used thoughtfully?
(Harry & Klingner, 2006)
• EBD: Are disciplinary practices equitable?
(Skiba, Nardo, Michael, Peterson, 2000)
Pre-referral Instructional
Practices/Opportunity to Learn
• Are evidence based practices implemented in a
culturally responsive manner? (NNCRESt, in
preparation; Ladson-Billings, 1994)
• Are school funding and teacher quality equitable?
(Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000)
• Are instructional quality, principal quality,
administrative decisions equitable? (class size,
scheduling, curriculum) (Harry & Klingner, 2006)
Instruction
• Is evidence-based instruction (e.g., RTI) woven
into the referral process? (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;
Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
• Is attention given to cultural responsiveness in
RTI and all instructional approaches? (Klingner
& Edwards)
• In determining responsiveness, are both rate of
learning and achievement taken into account?
(Speece & Case, 2001)
Referral
• Does referral include authentic parental involvement,
documentation of classroom context, classroom
climate, management, instruction, & peer
interactions? (Harry & Klingner, 2006)
• Is there an adequate model of attention to native
language issues? (Ortiz, 2002)
• Is attention paid to non-standard varieties of
English? (Adger, Christian, & Taylor, 1999)
Assessment
• Are instruments culturally appropriate? Is
dynamic assessment considered? (Hilliard,
2006)
• Is assessment conducted in a culturally
responsive way? (Harry & Klingner, 2006)
• Is limited educational opportunity recognized
as part of the assessment equation? (Skiba,
Knesting, & Bush, 2002)
Placement: LRE considerations
• Are African Americans in excessively restricted
placements for EMR and EBD? (Fierros &
Conroy, 2002; Twenty Second Annual Report to
Congress, 2000)
• Are public/private placements for EBD
equitably selected? (Parrish, 2002)
• Is there authentic parent involvement and
choice? (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Hart, 2004)
Summary: Research on
Exemplary Processes
Identify districts where students from ethnic minority
groups are doing well and study their processes re:
• Application of disability definitions
• Operationalizing of constructs (e.g., EBD)
• Interweaving instruction and referral process
• Evidence based practices, e.g., RTI
• Assessment tools and process
• Parental involvement
• Placement process and restrictiveness
• Cultural responsiveness across all processes
Intrinsic Deficit
• Relinquish intrinsic deficit as the criterion for
special education services
• Replace it with clear-cut criteria for inadequate
achievement of academic and behavioral goals
• Redefine high incidence definitions “in terms of
human variation rather than pathology” (Reid
& Valle 2004)
Examining the
Instructional Process
Elizabeth B. Kozleski
Arizona State University
www.nccrest.org
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
• Understand how teachers understand and
transmit culture
• Examine the interaction between enculturation
and interventions
• Examine the impact of professional learning tools
that transform teacher construction of their
cultural practices
• Build prediction models for student achievement
based on teacher identity, curricular options and
instruction, as well as classroom management
Minority Students in Gifted and
Special Education (Donovan &
Cross, 2002)
Researchers have documented how these
sociocultural contexts in the homes of different
ethnic, racial, and linguistic groups in the United
States can vary significantly from those of
mainstream homes (Goldenberg et al., 1992; Heath,
1983, 1989). In light of differences in the fit between
home and school culture for many minority children
and the difference in the school experiences
provided, these results bear directly on IQ testing of
minority children. And their classroom learning
opportunities?
Student/Teacher Differences
• While our students are become increasingly diverse,
both culturally and ethnically, our teaching
population has consistently originated from
European-American, suburban experiences.
Educators typically describe themselves as white and
middle class and often add that during discussions
about diversity, “I’m an American; I don’t have a
culture” (Florio-Ruane, 1994; McIntosh, 1990; Paley,
2001; Schmidt, 1999; Sleeter, 2001; Snyder,
Hoffman, & Geddes, 1997).
Need for Culturally Diverse
Experiences
• Second, most current and future teachers
have not had sustained relationships with
people from different ethnic, cultural, and
lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result,
much of their knowledge about diversity has
been influenced by media stereotypes
(Finkbeiner & Koplin, 2002; Pattnaik, 1997;
Tatum, 1997).
School Curriculum
• Third, school curriculum, methods, and materials
usually reflect only European-American or white
culture and ignore the backgrounds and experiences of
students and families from lower socioeconomic levels
and different ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Boykin,
1984; Delpit, 1996; Foster, 1994; Howard, 2001;
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll,
1992; Nieto, 1999; Purcell-Gates, L’Allier, & Smith,
1995; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2001).
Teacher Identity
Teachers’ personal and professional histories and preservice training, alongside issues of school culture and
leadership, emerge as stronger mediating influences
(than previous literature suggests) in determining the
kinds and relative stability and instability of
professional identities which teachers develop in the
early years of teaching and thus the kinds of teachers
they become and their effectiveness. Contexts which
shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multiperspective study.
Flores & Day (2006) Teaching & Teacher Education,
219-232.
Culturally Responsive
Classroom Practices
• High expectations—supporting students as they develop the literacy
appropriate to their ages and abilities
• Positive relationships with families and community—demonstrating
clear connections with student families and communities in terms of
curriculum content and relationships
• Cultural sensitivity-reshaped curriculum, mediated for culturally
valued knowledge—connecting with the standards-based curriculum as
well as individual students’ cultural backgrounds
• Active teaching methods—involving students in a variety of reading,
writing, listening, speaking, and viewing behaviors throughout the lesson
plan
• Teacher as facilitator—presenting information; briefly giving
directions; summarizing responses; and working with small groups, pairs,
and individuals
• Student control of portions of the lesson or “healthy hum”—talking
at conversation levels around the topic being studied while completing
assignments in small groups and pairs (Schmidt, 2003)
• Instruction around groups and pairs, low anxiety—completing
assignments individually, but usually in small groups or pairs with time
to share ideas and think critically about the work
The Intersection of Culture &
Identity in Classroom Practices
Technical dimension
Conceptual
Framework
Personal dimension
(Reflexive persona of the
researcher)
Ideological dimension
Methods
Social dimension
How can we help teachers
investigate their own cultural
constructions in the classroom?
• Developed a tool for teachers
• Based on James Banks multicultural
dimensions that include
– Contributions
– Ethnic Additive
– Transformational
– Social Action
Tool Construction
Review the unit. Ask
yourself if this element
integrates content at a
contribution, diversity
additive, transformational
level or social action level.
Categorize the unit by one
of these four categories.
Make some notes that help
explain why you reached
your conclusions. If you
cannot rate something, leave
it blank.
Evidence
Describe the evidence you
compiled to assess your
performance on this
dimension
Contributions
Diversity Additive
Transformational
Social Action
Books, bulletin boards,
videos and other teaching
materials are chosen
because they portray
people from multiple
cultural, racial, ethnic,
religious, and language
groups in a variety of roles
interacting across
stereotypical lines.
Concepts, themes,
authors, and
perspectives from a
variety of ethnic and
cultural groups are
added to the
curriculum without
changing its basic
structure and
assumption.
The emphasis is on the
complexities of diverse
cultures and the role of
government and other
institutions in
achieving specific
outcomes.
Teachers infuse their
curriculum with
opportunities for students
to explore questions of
fairness and equity as they
relate to classroom
practices such as grouping,
rule setting, consequences
for conduct, and grading.
Areas for Critical Discussion
• Topics/Issues
• Activities
• Language
• People Studied
• Grading/Assessment
Curricular
Profile
Content
Area:
Teachers:
Contributions
Activities
Skills
Practice
Assignments
Language
(form,
content,
usage)
People
Studied
Topics/Issues
Miscellaneous
Diversity Additive
Transformationa Social Action
l
Process for Group
• Time: Schedule at least 2.5 hours for this activity. Three
hours is better. Teachers should be encouraged to show up on
time with appropriate materials.
• Pre-meeting work: Teachers participating in this activity
should have read the accompanying article by James Banks
and colleagues and participated in a study group around that
article prior to engaging this activity. Teachers should have
also read this document prior to attending this professional
learning session.
• Facilitator: A facilitator, typically a teacher from another
grade, is designated to lead the group through this activity.
Facilitators must have attended professional development
focused on cultural responsivity (see
http://www.nccrest.org/professional.html for downloadable
leadership modules on culture and cultural responsivity).
Facilitators are skilled at keeping a group on task, supporting
teachers through difficult conversations, and ensuring that
participants are able to voice their perspectives.
Outcomes
By the end of this session, teachers should understand the following:
• Curriculum conveys covert messages to students about who and what is
valued in school, including expectations about behavior, learning, and
social interaction.
• Pictures that depict diversity are not sufficient to support access and
participation in reading and math for students from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
• Teachers must to take an active role in expanding the images and ideas
that curriculum portrays so that students can find a way to anchor
themselves and their own experiences to the learning goals in each unit.
• Teachers need to be conscious about the values they bring to their teaching
and how they may or may not encourage and support learning for students
whose experiences, backgrounds, and values are different.
• Teachers should leave this session with additional strategies for connecting
the curriculum to the life experiences of their students.
Process
• Teachers gather together by grade levels.
• Review the five stories presented
• Introduce four ways of coding the cultural
responsivity of curriculum: (1) Contributions; (2)
Diversity Additive; (3) Transformational; or (4)
Social Action (10 minutes).
• Ask teachers to complete page one of the
curriculum matrix themselves. Make sure that
they include a brief description of the information
they used to make their rating. Once all the
teachers have completed the first page
independently, ask them to share their ratings.
Field Testing
• 6 Focus Groups
• 4 – 7 members per group
Questions to ask include:
• Show us where you found that evidence. How would the
rest of you interpret that part of the curriculum? Are
there assumptions that are being made in the way that
the curriculum is organized? What kinds of mediation
could you provide to explore those ideas?
• Does the discussion change your own rating? Tell us
more about why you think you might want to change (or
maintain) your rating? What kinds of assumptions do
you think your example is promoting?
What we learned
• Teachers need time to become familiar with
these constructs
• Applying them to their own curricular materials
is difficult
• Teachers prefer to avoid open disagreements
with their colleagues
• Assumptions about culture, perspectives, and
race are difficult to surface for critical discourse
Next Steps
• To what extent can in depth professional learning occur
without highly skilled facilitators keeping the discussion
moving forward?
• To what extent can this kind of teacher level discourse
inform and transform practice?
• How do teachers reconstruct their professional cultures
as they explore these issues?
• How does it change their lives outside of school?
• How does it change their connections with families?
• Where teachers shift their cultural awareness and their
practices, to what extent does it impact student
performance?
The Intersection of Culture &
Identity in Classroom Practices
Technical dimension
Conceptual
Framework
Personal dimension
(Reflexive persona of the
researcher)
Ideological dimension
Methods
Social dimension
KEY RECOMMENDATION
• Understand how teachers understand and
transmit culture
• Examine the interaction between
enculturation and interventions
• Examine the impact of professional learning
tools that transform teacher construction of
their cultural practices
• Build prediction models based on teacher
identity, curricular options, and classroom
management
References
•
Adger, C.T., Christian, D., & Taylor, O. (Eds). (1999). Making the Connection: Language and
Academic Achievement Among African American Students. Proc. of Coalition on Language
Diversity in Education Conf., Jan. 1998, Washington, D.C. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.
•
Banks, J. A.; Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., schofield, J.,
Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within Unity: Essential Principles for Teaching and
Learning in a Multicultural Society. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education.
•
Boykin, A. W. (1984). Reading achievement and the social-cultural frame of reference of
Afro-American children. Journal of Negro Education, 53(4), 464–473.
•
Coutinho, M.J., Oswald, D.P., & Best, A.M. (2002). The influence of sociodemographics and
gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 49-60.
Delpit, L. (1996). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press.
•
•
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in
special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
•
Eitle, T.M. (2002). Special education or racial segregation: Understanding variation in the
representation of Black students in Educable Mentally Handicapped programs. Sociological
Quarterly, 43(4), 575-605.
•
Fierros, E.G., & Conroy, J.W. (2002). Double Jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and
race in special education. In D.J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special
education (pp. 39-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
•
Flores & Day (2006) Teaching & Teacher Education, 219-232.
References
• Finkbeiner, C., & Koplin, C. (2002). A cooperative approach for facilitating
intercultural education. Reading Online, 6(3). Retrieved December 13, 2005,
from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/finkbeiner/
• Florio-Ruane, S. (1994). The future teachers’ autobiography club: Preparing
educators to support learning in culturally diverse classrooms. English
Education, 26(1), 52–56.
• Harry, B., & Klingner, J.K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in
special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
• Howard, T. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African-American students’
perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131–
149.
• Foster, M. (1994). Effective black teachers: A literature review. In E. R.
Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
• Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2002). Regional differences in school psychology
practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 11-29.
• Klingner, J.K., & Edwards, P.A. (2006). Cultural considerations with
response to intervention models Reading Research Quarterly (JanuaryMarch), pp. 107-117.
References
• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
• MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Discrepancy between
definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314-326.
• McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.
Independent School, 50(2), 31–36. Retrieved December 13, 2005, from
http://www.cwru.edu/president/ aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
• Paley, J. (2001). Marketing democracy: Power and social movements in postdictatorship Chile. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Recent
trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20–24.
• Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English
language learners. In A. J. Artiles, & A. A. Ortiz (Eds), English Language
Learners with special needs: Identification, placement, and instruction (pp. 31-48).
Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision
of special education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield, (Eds.), Racial inequity in special
education (pp. 15-38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
References
• Pattnaik, J. (1997). Cultural stereotypes and preservice education:
Moving beyond our biases. Equity and Excellence in Education, 30(3),
40–50.
• Purcell-Gates, V., L’Allier, S., & Smith, D. (1995). Literacy at the
Hart’s and the Larsen’s. Reading Teacher, 48, 572–579.
• Reid, K.R., & Valle, J.W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning
disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 466-481.
• Schmidt, P. R. (1999). Know thyself and understand others. Language
Arts, 76(4), 332–340.
• Snyder, T. D., Hoffman, C. M., & Geddes, C. M. (1997). Digest of
education statistics 1997 (NCES 98015). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
• Skiba, R.J., Knesting, K., Bush, L.D. (2002). Culturally competent
assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11(1), 61-78.
References
• Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., & Nardo, A.C., & Peterson, R. (2000). The color of
discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school
punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.
• Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools.
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.
• Speece, D.L, & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative
approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(735-749.
• Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in a cafeteria?”
And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty Second Annual Report to
Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC.
• Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
• Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2001). Parent-school relations:
Communicating more effectively with African American parents. Young
Children, 56(4), 76–80.