ulturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students are frequently misidentified, misassessed, miscategorized, misplaced, and misinstructed (Obiakor, 2001; Obiakor & Ford, 2002; Utley & Obiakor, 2001). For example, Black students are overrepresented in programs for stu-dents with emotional disturbance, developmental delay, and mental retardation, and a disproportionate per-centage of Black, American Indian, and Hispanic students are placed in pro-grams for students with learning disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). These students are also commonly underrepresented in programs for gifted and talented students (Patton, 1997).
Fundamental Principles
Special education is the provision of services different from those provided in general education programming to maximize the potential of exceptional learners (Obiakor, Utley, & Rotatori, 2003). Administrators have specific re-sponsibilities for students who qualify for special education services, espe-cially in the systematic modification of services for all learners. This article urges practitioners to revise how they view the teaching/learning process for students who learn, look, and act differently (Obiakor, 2001, 2003).
SP E C I A L ED U C A T I O N
Festus E. Obiakor (fobiakor@ uwm.edu) is a professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Lynn K. Wilder
(lynn_wilder@byu.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education at Brigham Young University.
Special Education
D
I S P R O P O R T I O N AT E
R
E P R E S E N TAT I O N I N
Principals can influence identification,
assessment, placement, and
intervention to prevent
disproportionate representation of
culturally and linguistically diverse
students.
B
YF
ESTUSE. O
BIAKOR ANDL
YNNK. W
ILDERC
SP E C I A L ED U C A T I O N
Multidisciplinary Teams
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires teamwork, beginning with the pre-referral process. Losen (2002) suggested that principals take pre-referral intervention seriously to stem the flow of inappropriate special education referrals for CLD stu-dents. During pre-referral, a teacher assistance team meets to discuss a general educator’s concerns about a student and to suggest strategies that he or she must implement within the general classroom before a stu-dent can be considered for referral for special education services (see Losen, 2002). Parents, principals, and other professionals should be invited to attend when their in-put is important. Keeping track of pre-referral success rates, including data on race and ethnicity, will inform principals about whether classroom interventions are culturally sensitive and effective for CLD students (see Losen, 2002).
Of course, if a student is a member of a minority group, it is helpful to include an individual who is knowledgeable about his or her culture and language on this team. For example, if the student has a primary language other than English, team members should consider cultural and environmental factors, such as the number of years the student has lived in the United States and attended school in the district, the student’s dominant language and the dominant language at home, the student’s conversational and academic lan-guage proficiencies in his or her native lanlan-guage and in English, and the manner and length of past services (Baca & Cervantes, 1998).
It is not unusual for a student to spend five to seven years learning English when he or she first arrives in the United States; both conversational and academic lan-guage must be competent for school success (Winzer & Mazurek, 1998). Language differences may appear to be communication disorders, such as language delays or deficiencies. Speech and language therapists and bilin-gual specialists should be included on the multidiscipli-nary team when determining whether the student is ex-hibiting communication disorders or language differences.
The documentation of two failed interventions must accompany the pre-referral paperwork before a special education assessment can occur. Baca and Cervantes (1998) and Ortiz and Yates (2003) recommend going through the pre-referral process before referring a bilin-gual student for a special education assessment, unless the disability is an obvious one. Guesswork must be avoided!
Parental Safeguards and Involvement Another tenet of IDEA that may reduce disproportion-ate placement and improve a CLD student’s chances of school success is the mandate to include parents in the entire IEP process (Dyches, Wilder, & Obiakor, 2001; Ortiz & Yates, 2003). During pre-referral, an effective teacher will inform a parent of his or her concerns about the student’s difficulties and may invite the parent to participate in the pre-referral process. This is polite prac-tice that buttresses collaboration and consultation.
Artiles, Aguirre-Munoz, and Abedi (1998) examined data from the National Education Longitudinal Study and
recommended that pre-referral interventions help parents develop study and work structures for their children. Early parental involvement may avert the need for illu-sory expectations and special education services. It is im-portant for school personnel to have realistic expectation of parents and be sensitive to their challenges, particu-larly the heavy burdens of single parenting (Wilder, 2002). To successfully empower parents in decision-mak-ing processes and early interventions, educators must treat them with respect. For parents who do not speak English, effective communication can take place through a translator. Written forms must be made available in the student’s native language (Ortiz & Yates, 2003).
After the pre-referral process is complete, the next step is completing a referral form that requests a formal assessment of eligibility for special education services (Hardman, Drew, & Egan, 1999). Although the general educator usually completes this form, parents may also initiate the special education assessment process. Under
all circumstances, parents’ signatures are mandatory.
In many cases, obtaining parental permission requires school personnel to establish positive relationships within the cultural community and the individual family before
the student’s school problems manifest themselves. Post-ing school signs in English and in the language of the local community, inviting parents to share their culture with classes, and serving or volunteering on advisory committees are signs that administrators and teachers welcome the parents of CLD students.
Once a CLD student qualifies for special education, IDEA’s procedural safeguards ensure that parents are equal participants in the special education process. These safeguards—notice and consent, independent ed-ucational evaluation, the appointment of a surrogate parent, mediation, and due process hearings—are posi-tive steps in the decision-making process. It is in the student’s best interest to ensure that parents, regardless of socioeconomic status and cultural or linguistic
back-grounds, fully understand procedural safeguards (Obi-akor, 2001; Utley & Obi(Obi-akor, 2001).
Cooper and Rascon (1994) define informed consent
as school personnel’s responsibility to ensure that all parents understand the school’s special education serv-ices. When parents are empowered, overrepresentation is less likely to occur (Obiakor, Utley, Smith, & Harris-Obiakor, 2002). Parents of CLD students may exercise their legal options if they feel that school personnel ig-nore their child’s problems. It is imperative that princi-pals and teachers explore their personal cultural biases and attitudes in working with parents of CLD students because they can be detrimental to the collaborative process (Obiakor, 2003; Thorp, 1997).
Nondiscriminatory Assessment
Nondiscriminatory assessment is one tenet of IDEA that continues to haunt school personnel who work with CLD students. Diagnosticians, school psychologists, special and general educators, speech and language pathologists, and other related services personnel should be alert when assessing students’ attributes, strengths, and weaknesses. Special education assessment leads CLD students to be overidentified and placed into special education when the real problem may be differences in culture or language, not disabilities (Winzer & Mazurek, 1998).
IDEA requires that students be assessed in their dominant language. Establishing which language is dominant is sometimes difficult; a student may be tested in his or her native language and in English. Sometimes, a student’s dominant conversational guage differs from his or her dominant academic lan-guage. The academic language is the one that more ac-curately reflects the student’s ability to succeed in school tasks (Baca & Cervantes, 1998; Ortiz & Yates, 2003). However, diagnosticians and related professionals must be aware that tests contain items that are more familiar
to students in one culture than another and check the reliability and validity ratings for the instruments they intend to use for CLD students (Vacha-Haase, 1998).
Assessment information gathered from behavioral checklists, observations, and student and parent inter-views are subject to interviewer bias; teams that make educational decisions must consider this possibility. Gathering different kinds of information (e.g., student work samples and assessments) from different sources is best practice in culturally sensitive assessment (Obiakor, 2001). Using one person or one test score to make spe-cial education eligibility decisions is an inappropriate and illegal practice (IDEA, 1997).
Free and Appropriate Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
IDEA has mandated that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment—that is, in the general education classroom with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible. They may be educated outside the general education classroom only when mul-tiple interventions within the general classroom have been tried for extended periods of time and have failed (Bateman & Bateman, 2002).
Removing students from the general education class-room is rarely justified, regardless of the severity of the disability or how the student’s behavior affects others (Lipsky & Gartner, 1999). Sometimes CLD students are removed from classes because they talk, look, and act differently (Obiakor, 2001, 2003). Isolating a stu-dent from his or her same-age, nondisabled peers is of great concern. Educational outcomes improve among minority youth when educators modify their practices accordingly (Wilder, Jackson, & Smith, 2001).
Individualized Education Programs If a student has an identified disability, then the
PHOTO BY MARK FINKENSTAEDT
Removing students from the general education
classes is rarely justified, regardless of the
severity of the disability or how the student’s
behavior affects others.
SP E C I A L ED U C A T I O N
student’s culture and language must be considered by the IEP team (Obiakor, 2001; Wilder et al., 2001). The team must determine the type of language instruction the student needs, if any; who will deliver it; and where it will be delivered. Because there is a shortage of 25–35,000 bilingual special educators nationwide (Winzer & Mazurek, 1998), bilingual education special-ists and special educators can collaborate to meet the language instruction needs of CLD students. A CLD student with a disability may be served primarily in a special education classroom with English language pull-out services or may be served in a general education classroom where the teacher is bilingual and with spe-cial education support services. Several options are workable, depending on the student’s needs and ability to acquire a second language (Ortiz & Yates, 2003).
Sometimes language is not an issue but culture is. For example, if an ethnically diverse student with an emotional disability is involved in a gang, the culture of this gang will clash with the culture of the school and the student is likely to be disciplined and unsuccessful in school unless a social worker or organized gang pre-vention or removal program is employed on the dent’s behalf. In addition, poverty may impede a stu-dent’s educational progress if the student lacks school supplies or access to technology, and it can negatively affect the life of any student, regardless of race or eth-nicity (Hodgkinson, 1995).
However, there are myths of socioeconomic disso-nance. Not all students from low socioeconomic back-grounds perform lower than other students in academic achievement. These students may need access to productive after-school activities such as clubs, sport teams, community centers, religious organizations, and service-learning opportunities. These activities may serve as protective factors to occupy students after school and as opportunities to exercise and practice prosocial behaviors. IEP teams should connect students and parents to available resources within and outside the school in an effort to combat the negative effects associated with low socioeconomic status (Wilder & Obiakor, 2003).
From time to time, the culture taught at home and the culture valued at school are in conflict. Principals and their IEP teams must be aware of conflicts between the student’s home teachings and those of the school’s and include social skills goals deemed appropriate in the culture of the school and the work environment (if the student is in secondary school) into the IEP. For exam-ple, Hispanic students tend to be more comfortable with a cooperative interaction style than with the more
prevalent competitive style of classroom interactions (Car-raquillo, 1991). They may feel more comfortable than others with close physical contact and frequent emotional expres-sions, and some may interpret a lack of such contact from the teacher as rejection (Lynch & Hanson, 1992).
Further, some CLD stu-dents are culturally taught to avoid eye contact with adults as a sign of respect; this is sometimes problematic for mainstream teachers and prin-cipals. Some of these students may also have learned a re-laxed concept of time. This puts them at a disadvantage in classrooms where on-time be-havior is greatly valued, and thus reinforced, and a relaxed concept of time is punished. This variable may also affect a CLD student’s performance on assessments because many standardized tests have time limits (Hamayan & Domico, 1991).
Principals and other school personnel must be aware of cultural factors that impinge upon learning and in-fuse culturally sensitive programming into IEPs. Their goal must be to educate all learners (Obiakor, Grant, & Dooley, 2002). As a result, they should employ multi-disciplinary teams that include parents in nondiscrimi-natory assessment and decision-making.
Conclusion
Principals are important in providing appropriate educa-tional programming for excepeduca-tional students, especially those who are at risk for disproportionate representation in special education settings. Principals have important roles to play to ensure that all students, regardless of disability, language differences, race, ethnicity, religion, family status, or socioeconomic status are properly iden-tified, assessed, classified, placed, and instructed. Most important, each student should be treated with respect and have the opportunity to reach his or her maximum potential, regardless of cultural and linguistic differences. Such practice improves the outcomes of CLD students with exceptionalities and reduces their disproportionate representation in special education settings.PL
Principals and
other school
personnel
must be aware
of cultural
factors that
impinge upon
learning.
References
❏ Artiles, A. A., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Abedi, J. (1998).
Pre-dicting placement in learning disabilities programs: Do pre-dictors vary by ethnic group? Exceptional Children, 64(4), 543–559.
❏ Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (1998). The bilingual
spe-cial education interface (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
❏ Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2002, November). What
does a principal need to know about inclusion? ERIC Digest #E635. Retrieved from www.ericec.org/digests/e635.html
❏ Brown v. Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education. (1954). 347
U.S. 483.
❏ Carraquillo, A. L. (1991). Hispanic children and youth in
the United States: A resource guide. New York: Garland.
❏ Cooper, K. L., & Rascon, L. (1994). Building positive
rela-tionships on the border with parents of special students: Effective practices for the IEP. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED369627)
❏ Dyches, T. T., Wilder, L. K., & Obiakor, F. E. (2001).
Autism: Multicultural perspectives. In T. Wahlberg, F. E. Obi-akor, S. Burkhardt, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders : Educational and clinical intervention (pp. 151–180). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
❏ Hamayan, E. V., & Domico, J. S. (1991). Developing and
using a second language. In E. V. Hamayan & J. S. Domico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 40–75). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
❏ Hardman, M. L., Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W. (1999).
Hu-man exceptionality: Society, school, and family (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
❏ Hodgkinson, H. L. (1995). What should we call people?
Race, class, and the census for 2000. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 173–179.
❏ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34CFR
300.550 (1997).
❏ Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1999). Inclusive education:
A requirement of a democratic society. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), Inclusive education: World yearbook of education 1999 (pp.12–23). London, England: Kogan Page.
❏ Losen, D. J. (2002, January). Minority overrepresentation
and underservicing in special education. Principal, 45–46.
❏ Lynch, M. J., & Hanson, E. W. (1992). Developing cross
cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Brooks.
❏ Obiakor, F. E. (2001). Transforming teaching and learning
to improve minority student achievement in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 81–88.
❏ Obiakor, F. E. (2003). The eight step approach to
multicul-tural: Learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
❏ Obiakor, F. E., & Ford, B. A. (2002). Creating successful
learning environments for African American learners with
excep-tionalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
❏ Obiakor, F. E., Grant, P. A., & Dooley, E. A. (2002).
Edu-cating all students: Refocusing the comprehensive support model. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
❏ Obiakor, F. E., Utley, C. A., & Rotatori, A. F. (Eds.).
(2003). Effective education for learners with exceptionalities. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
❏ Obiakor, F. E., & Utley, C. A., Smith, R. &
Harris-Obi-akor, P. (2002, September). The comprehensive support model for culturally diverse exceptional students: Intervention in an age of change. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 14–27.
❏ Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2003, April). Serving English
language students: Trends and issues in general and special educa-tion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Coun-cil for Exceptional Children, Seattle.
❏ Patton, J. M. (1997). Disproportionate representation in
gifted programs: Best practices for meeting this challenge. In A. J. Artiles & G. Zamora-Duran (Eds.), Reducing dispropor-tionate representation of culturally diverse of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 59–81). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
❏ Thorp, E. K. (1997). Increasing opportunities for
partner-ship with culturally and linguistically diverse families. Inter-vention in School and Clinic, 32(5), 261–270.
❏ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Programs
(2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the imple-mentation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
❏ Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (2001). Special education,
multicultural education, and school reform: Components of qual-ity education for students with disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
❏ Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization:
Explor-ing variance in measurement error affectExplor-ing score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(1), 6–20.
❏ Wilder, L. K. (2002). The homeless are people too:
Includ-ing homeless students in educational programmInclud-ing. In F. E. Obiakor, P. A. Grant, & E. A. Dooley (Eds.), Educating all students: Refocusing the comprehensive support model (pp. 64–84). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
❏ Wilder, L. K., Jackson, A. P., & Smith, T. B. (2001).
Sec-ondary transition of multicultural students: The Navajo Na-tive American experience. Preventing School Failure, 45(3), 199–124.
❏ Wilder, L. K., & Obiakor, F. E. (2003) The myth of
so-cioeconomic dissonance: Working with homeless students in special education contexts. In F. E. Obiakor, C. A. Utley, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Effective education for learners with excep-tionalities (pp.401–415). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
❏ Winzer, M. A., & Mazurek, K. (1998). Special education in
