National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems

1
National Center for Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Disproportionality
2
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
3
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.
4

• General Special Education Audiences
• Students
• Families
• Practitioners
• Administrators
• Researchers
• Teacher Educators
• Policy Makers

• Products
• Research syntheses
• Policy briefs
• 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

5

• 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

6
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

7
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.

8
Assumptions About the Causes of Disproportionate
Representation
What it is not
Intrinsic or family-based deficits
9

• Disproportionate representation is caused by much
  more than the existence of intrinsic or
  family-based deficitschildren are perceived as
  disabled due to a complex weave of widely varying
  beliefs, policies, and practices at all
  levelsfamily 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.

10
Contributors

• Policies

11
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

12
Intersections
13
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

14
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.
15
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

16
Socio-cultural Contexts
17
Complexities of Disproportionality
18
Background Assumptions about Learning and
Development
Individual agency
Contextual factors
19

• Childrens 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 systemsboth
  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).

20
Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Disproportionality Beliefs, Policies, and
Practices

• Society at Large

• FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES

Disability

• School District Policies and Practices

Culture

• SCHOOLS

• Teachers

• Families and

• Sociopolitical Context

• Legal Context

• STUDENTS

• Communities

• High Stakes Testing

Learning
21
Background Assumptions about the Solutions to
Disproportionality

• Improved general ed instruction

22

• Disproportionate representations 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.

23
(No Transcript)
24
Culturally Responsive Practice
25

• 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.

26
Federal and State Policies
Legal requirements at federal and state levels
concerning the determination of eligibility for
special education.
Teacher and administrator quality indicators and
procedures for working collaboratively with
universities and school districts to improve
preparation and professional development programs.
Governmental policies and mandates related to
school financing and the allocation of resources.

Re-examine Revise
Accountability measures, including how high
stakes testing results are used to evaluate
schools.
27

• 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.

28
District Level Policies and Practices
Collaboration and Partnerships

• PRIORITIES
• Curricula
• Tracking
• Testing
• Discipline
• Resource Allocation
• Hiring

Community Agencies
Special General Ed
Local leaders
Teacher education programs
29

• 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.

30
Professional Development
Top- down
Bottom-up
31

• 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
  pagewe advocate top down support for bottom up
  reform (Darling-Hammond McLaughlin, 1995).
• Yet change can be difficultpractitioners 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).

32
School Leadership
33

• 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.

34
Culturally Responsive Teachers
35

• Culturally responsive teachers
• Are cultural organizers, cultural mediators, and
  orchestrators of social contexts (Gay, 2000)
• Are caring, committed, and respectfulthey
  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.

36
Quality Literacy Instruction
37

• 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.

38
Behavior Supports
39

• 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.

40
Early Intervention

• What is
• considered
• to be
• Special
• Education

• Intensive assistance,
• as part of
• General Ed
• support system

Quality instruction in General Ed Classroom
41
Families and Communities
42

• 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.

43
Students
44

• Children are at the heart of our conceptual
  frameworkeverything we do is to improve outcomes
  for them.
• Our focus is on childrens 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
  circumstancesstudents backgrounds are assets
  that students can and should use in the service
  of their learning.

45
Activity Arenas
Networking and Dissemination
46

• 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 research-based 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.

47
Whos 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

48
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 Childrens
  Project, University of Kansas

Project Officer Grace Zamora Durán, Office of
Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of
Education
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
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
Support Staff

• Alexandra Schroeder
• Aimee Wride

• Laura Barletta
• Ayanna Brown
• Kristy Martinez

49
Reference List

• Alvermann, D. (2003). Exemplary literacy
  instruction in grades 7-12 What counts and whos
  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 childrens 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.

50
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.

51
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 low-income
  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

52
Reference List Continued

• Delpit, L. (1995). Other Peoples 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.