Examining the Placement ProcessBeth 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 pre-service 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 multi-perspective 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

Social dimension

Ideological dimension

Technical dimension

Personal dimension(Reflexive persona of the researcher)

Conceptual Framework Methods

The Intersection of Culture & Identity in Classroom Practices

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.

ContributionsBooks, 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.

Diversity AdditiveConcepts, themes, authors, and perspectives from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups are added to the curriculum without changing its basic structure and assumption.

TransformationalThe emphasis is on the complexities of diverse cultures and the role of government and other institutions in achieving specific outcomes.

Social ActionTeachers 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.

EvidenceDescribe the evidence you compiled to assess your performance on this dimension

Areas for Critical Discussion

• Topics/Issues

• Activities

• Language

• People Studied

• Grading/Assessment

Curricular Profile

Content Area:

Teachers: Contributions Diversity Additive Transformati

onalSocial Action

Activities

Skills Practice

Assignments

Language (form, content, usage)

People Studied

Topics/Issues

Miscellaneous

Grading

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.

OutcomesBy 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?

Social dimension

Ideological dimensionTechnical dimension

Personal dimension(Reflexive persona of the researcher)

Conceptual Framework Methods

The Intersection of Culture & Identity in Classroom Practices

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 (January-March), 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 post-dictatorship 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.