Culturally Responsive Practices in Schools A Checklist to ...Chaing Checklist … · Culturally Responsive Practices in Schools A Checklist to Address Disproportionality in Special

Culturally ResponsivePractices in Schools

A Checklist to AddressDisproportionality in

Special EducationCraig R. Fiedler

Bert Chiang

Barbara Van Haren

Jack Jorgensen

Sara Halberg

Lynn Boreson

The overrepresentation of students withracial, cultural, ethnic, and linguisticdiversity (RCELD) in special educationhas been well documented for over 30years [Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn,2002; Connor & Boskin, 2001; Coutinho& Oswald. 2000; Harry & Klinger, 2006;Patton, 1998). This phenomenon isknown as disproportionality. Dispropor-lionahty is generally defined as "the rep-resentation of a particular group of stu-dents at a rate different than that foundin the general population" [Gravois &Rosenfield, 2006, p. 42). A complexinterplay of economic and demographicvariables—including poverty, culture.geography, and language, which istermed as "the new morbidity" by Turn-bull {2005, p. 32S)—was found to beassociated with the disproportionaterepresentation of minority students(Donovan & Cross, 2002; Oswald, Cou-tinho, Best, & Singh, 1999), Additionally,Losen and Orfield (2002) suggested pos-sible race-linked contributing factors,such as unconscious racial bias,resource inequalities, and power rela-tionships between school authoritiesand minority parents. When dispropor-tionality of minority students in special

education classes exists, it has a greaterlikelihood of being a self-fulfillingprophecy among the staff and the stu-dents themselves (Patton & Townsend,1999).

The most recent reauthorization ofthe Individuals With Disabilities Edu-cation Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004(20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.) noted thecontinuing and growing problem of dis-proportionality in special education andmade several new statutory provisionsto address this issue. First, states andlocal education agencies (LEAs) arerequired to develop poUcies and proce-dures to prevent the overidentificationof students with RCELD. In addition,school districts must gather and analyzedata and identify disproportionalityacross disability categories, in specialeducation placements, and in discipli-nary actions. Second, a student cannotbe determined to have a disability if thestudent's primary academic deficit is alack of appropriate instruction in read-

ing or mathematics. Third. LEAs withhigh rates of students with RCELD inspecial education are required to imple-ment early identification services and toreserve a maximum amount of federalfunds (15% of IDEA Part B) for earlyintervention services. Finally, the U.S.Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education Programs, monitorsstate comphance with the IDEA througha process that reviews state data on 20performance indicators. IDEA 2004added two new performance indicatorsdirectly related to disproportionality:

Indicator 9: Percentage of districtswith disproportionate representa-tion of racial and ethnic groups inspecial education and related servic-es that is the result of inappropriateidentification.

Indicator 10: Percentage of districtswith disproportionate representationof racial and ethnic groups in specif-ic disability categories that is theresult of inappropriate Identification.

52 • CouNCii, FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

State performance plans must nowreport the percentage of districts withdisproportionate representation of racialand ethnic groups in special educationand in specific disability categories thatis the result of inappropriate identifica-tion. Local districts so identified areseeking guidance in developing cultural-ly responsive approaches to appropri-ately identify students with RCELD astruly disabled and in need of specialeducation services.

T I M fliacklbt DovelopmentProcessIn an effort to address the dispropor-tionality issue, the Wisconsin Depart-ment of Public Instruction funded a col-laborative 2-year project to develop theChecklist to Address Disproportionalityin Special Education (CADSE). The iter-ative process involved the MadisonMetropolitan School District (MMSD),the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh(UWO). and the Wisconsin Departmentof Public Instruction (WDPI). Duringthe first year, three UWO special educa-tion researchers conducted a compre-hensive review of the literature on dis-proportionality. In addition, the univer-sity researchers reviewed IEP teamrecords from MMSD. including 75records of initial evaluations for specialeducation and transfer records. The filesreviewed were from elementary, middle,and high school records of studentsevaluated for specific learning disabili-ties (SLD) and/or emotional behavioraldisabilities (EBD). The records includedstudents who were White, AfricanAmerican, and Native American. Theliterature review and IEP records reviewgave the researchers insights into rele-vant educational practice issues sur-rounding the identification of studentswilh RCELD for special education.

The researchers generated a list ofquestions and conducted a focus groupof support teachers from the MMSD spe-cial education program, school psychol-ogists, and others involved in the spe-cial education assessment process tosolicit input on such issues as exclu-sionary factors, referral beliefs and prac-tices, assessment practices. IEP teamfactors, and staff professional develop-ment needs. About 1 month later, a sec-

ond focus group, consisting of the mem-bers of the MMSD positive behavioralsupports team, met to offer their per-ceptions of the prereferral interventionprocess, consideration of exclusionaryfactors, experiences in general educa-tion, and conceptualization of thechecklist. At the end of the first year, afinal set of five focus-group sessionswere conducted with MMSD specialeducation and program support teach-ers, school psychologists, related servic-es personnel, principals, and other dis-trict administrators to solicit specificfeedback on the draft checklist. Anonline survey employing a modifiedDelphi method to distinguish essentialfrom nonessential checklist items wasthen administered to a sample of MMSDand National Institute for Urban SchoolImprovement (NIUSl) staff. Thisprocess eliminated a number of check-list items.

During the second year of the CADSEdevelopment process, MMSD staff pilot-ed Ehe checklist in 10 elementary schoolsthat were selected because of theirinvolvement with an MMSD/NIUSI part-nership. Mid-year and end-of-year focusgroups and meetings with principals,special and general education teachers,school psychologists, and central admin-istrators were then conducted to solicit avariety of feedback on the use of theCADSE. Figure 1 summarizes both posi-tive comments on the checklist and con-cerns and issues that were raised. On theone hand, within a relatively short peri-od of time, the checklist has apparentlyhad the impact of not only raising thestaffs awareness of the problem of dis-proportionality but also generating openand courageous conversations to searchfor viable solutions. On the other hand,several of the identified concerns reflecta glaring need for useful tools and best-practice examples to guide staff's effortsin addressing disproportionality con-cerns.

PutpoM of fha CADSEAny effort to respond to the issue of adisproportionate number of studentswith RCELD being placed into specialeducation programs must consider rele-vant external and internal factors. TheCADSE was designed to help school

Figure 1. Pilot-Year Feedbackon Ihe CAD5E

Positive Feedback• Useful in helping staff articulate

professional development needsand school improvement goals,

• Led to deeper discussions aboutstudents with RCELD <ind morepatience in prereferral interventions,

• Led to better documentationof prereferral interventions andeligibility determinationdiscussions,

• Caused staff to look beyondstudent deficits and focus moreon environmental context.

Concerns and Issues• Consistency in using the checklist

from team-to-team and school-to-school.

• Some exclusionary factors (e.g..economic disadvantage, culture)were difficult to evaluate anddiscuss with parents.

• More specific guidelines (e.g,, howlong to try an inlervention beforeformal referral) were needed,

• Still a professional judgment call.

• Need for more support options forat-risk students.

• Difficult to determine impact ofexclusionary factors on learningand behavior—issue of primacy.

• Some parents viewed discussion ofexclusionary factors as barriers tonecessary services.

staff identify and discuss relevant exter-

nal factors (e.g.. impact of high stakes

assessment and accountability de-

mands, school district priorities and

policies) and internal factors (e.g.,

schoolwide ecology and supports; gen-

eral education teacher beliefs and prac-

tices; early intervening services; and

IEP processes at three stages: referral,

assessment, and special education eligi-

bility determination). The checklist is

designed to help school staff think

more deeply about issues and practices

that may contribute to the overrepre-

sentation of students with RCELD in

special education. The goal of the

CADSE is to serve as a catalyst for

school improvement efforts to ensure

that the limited resources of special

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2008 • 53

education are reserved for studentswith RCELD who are truly disabled.

The intent of the CADSE is not to putinto place unnecessary or additional bar-riers that impede students with real dis-abilities from receiving special educationservices. Rather, the goa! of the CADSEis to eliminate the assumption or predic-tion that a student with RCELD will mostlikely be placed into special education.Indeed, the issue of a disproportionatenumber of students with RCELD beingreferred and placed into special educa-tion programs should be regarded asharmful only when special educationplacement results from (1) inadequategeneral education programs, [2) inap-propriate assessment practices, or (3)ineffective special education programs.The guiding principle in creating thischecklist has been what Reschly (1988)termed the "equal treatment criterion offairness." Simply stated, this principlemeans that "given the same behaviors orsymptoms, the same decisions are madeat the referral, assessment, and place-ment steps regardless of the race or eth-nicity of the student" (p. 297).

The goal of the CADSE is to serve

as a cotalyst for school improvement

efforts to ensure that the limited

resources of special education

are reserved for students with

RCELD who are truly disabled.

On the basis of the initial review ofthe literature and feedback from theschool staff through focus groups, thepurposes of the checklist are to

1. Guide schools in eliminating themisidentification of students withRCELD in special education.

2. Ensure that only students with dis-abilities [an identified impairmentand a need for special education) areplaced into special education pro-grams on the basis of a comprehen-sive evaluation process and applica-tion of existing eligibility criteria.

This checklist is not intended to beused for teacher or program evaluation.

The checklist is designed for school-agestudents (K-12). The process reflectedin the checklist promotes a multi-tiered problem-solving approach. Thisapproach focuses on early interveningservices and accurate identification forspecial education, which will reduce theachievement gap and address the dis-proportionate representation of studentswith RCELD in special education. Theareas addressed through the checklistinclude [1) culturally responsive beliefsand practices of schools and generaleducation classrooms, (2) culturallyresponsive coordinated early interven-ing services and referral practices, and(3J culturally responsive IEP team deci-sion making. Each section providesguiding questions and qualify indicatorsfor educators addressing disproportion-atity.

CADSE FernMrt

The CADSE is formatted to contain fourkey elements in each of the three sec-tions of the checklist. The first elementposits a number of "critical questions"for school professionals to guide theirdiscussions and practices in teachingand assessing students with RCELD.The second element identifies therespondents who would be expected tobe the primary individuals to addresseach critical question, depending on thestage of the educational process.Respondents could be chosen amongprereferral intervention team members(including general and special educa-tion teachers, school psychologists orother related services personnel]; IEPteam members (including parents andfamily members); and school adminis-trators. The third checklist element isthe "quality indicators." The qualityindicators offer examples of best educa-tional practices to illustrate appropriateresponses to each critical question. Thefourth element is a rubric allowingrespondents to evaluate the degree towhich the school has addressed eachcritical question. The rubrics for thecritical questions contain four responseitems reflecting a continuum from littleor no attempts or progress made towardaddressing the critical question to sub-stantial and appropriate attempts orprogress made. Finally, in Section II!

related to IEP team decision making, afifth checklist element allows respon-dents to indicate the evidence or docu-mentation used in responding to thecritical question.

Secrions of the CliMklisI

Section I: Culturally ResponsiveBeliefs ond Practices of Schoolsand General Education Classrooms

This section is designed to review thecomprehensiveness and effectiveness ofthe schoolwide and general educationclassroom practices, services, and pro-grams. It contains a school and generalclassroom profile that establishes neces-sary context in assessing any student'sacademic and behavioral performance,and can be reviewed or completedannually for each school. Districtwidesupport for the completion of this sec-tion is crucial, and the identification ofany schoolwide issues that may con-tribute to disproportionality is essential.This section could be completed on anannual basis, or more frequently if cir-cumstances warrant. Input from theresponses will help schools develop anaction plan for school improvement.Table 1 contains the first 2 of the 19 crit-ical questions for Section 1 and anexample of the format for the checklist.For space limitations, examples of theformat are presented only for the firsttwo critical questions for each section.The complete checklist is available onthe Web site of the WisconsinDepartment of Public Instruction(http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sped/doc/disp-cadse-cklst.doc).

Other critical questions related toschool culture and supports include thefollowing:

3. Has the school principal estab-lished an attitude among staff that"all students are our students" asopposed to an attitude of "my stu-dents and your students?"

4. Do teachers (e.g.. general educa-tion. ESL, special education) workcoUaboratively to support all stu-dents in the classroom?

5. Are differentiated interventions(e.g.. Title 1, Reading Recovery)available to students with RCELD?

54 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Table 1 . Section It Culturally Responilve Beliefs and Practices of Schools andGeneral Education Classrooms

Critical Questions Quality Indicators Rubric (Circle the ff most applicable)

School Culture and Supports

1. Does the schoolculture support andcelebrate diversityand view studentswith RCELD asassets?

Does the schoolhave a positivebehavioral supportsystem for allstudents?

School environment contains evidence ofcontributions/work from individuals withdiverse racial and cultural backgrounds on aregular basis, not just during a special weekor month.

Classrooms contain evidence of contributions/work from individuals with diverse racial andcultural backgrounds.

Students with RCELD are regularly recognizedand honored for their work.

Bilingual programming is included.Materials are translated for non-Englishing speaking families.

School has established procedures thatemphasize positive behaviors, and regularlyrecognizes students for displaying appropriatebehaviors.

School staff have heen trained in theimplementation of the positive behavioralsupport system.

There are classroom incentive plans forpositive behavior.

1. The school makes little or no attempt toacknowledge and celebrate diversity.

2. The school acknowledges and celebrates diversityduring a special time of the school year.

3. The school and classrooms acknowledge andcelebrate diversity on a regular basis.

4. Acknowledgment and celebration of diversitypermeates the school and classrooms with frequentand varied examples (e.g.. students' work isprominently displayed, instructional materialscontain contributions of diverse individuals, schoolmaterials translated for non-English speakingfamilies, bilingual programming).

I. The school does not have a positive behavioralsupport system in place.

1. The school has begun to implement a positivebehavioral support system for all students.

3. The school has implemented a positive behavioralsupport system for all students, and staff havebeen trained in its use.

4. The school has implemented a positive behavioralsupport system for all students, staff have beentrained in its use, and school staff regularly engagein monitoring and problem-solving discussions inan effort to enhance the effectiveness of school-wide positive behavioral support interventions.

6. Has the school adopted a problem-solving approach that valuesassessment to drive instructionaldecisions?

7. Do school teams receive sufficientadministrative support when ex-pressing concerns about meetingthe needs of students with RCELD?

8. Has the school established a multi-tiered model of intervention serv-ices?

Critical questions involving instruc-tional team atid teacher beliefs includethese:

9 Do school teams actively considerother possible explanations (e.g.,insufficient instruction, limitedEnglish proficiency, family risk fac-tors) for the low achievement ofstudents with RCELD rather thanautomatically assume a disability?

10. Does the Instructional Team active-ly consider whether the absence ofthe student with RCELD from

school or parents/family member'smobility has a negative impact onthe continuity of general educationclassroom instruction?

11. Has the Instructional Team madeconcerted efforts to reach out to par-ents/family members of studentswith RCELD by fostering collabora-tion, mutual trust, and respect?

12. Does the Instructional Team usepeer supports in the classroom?

13. Does the Instructional Team incor-porate culturally responsive materi-als and content in the curricula anduse culturally responsive teachingpractices?

14. Does the Instructional Tfeam active-ly seek to identify the source ofinappropriate behavior or learningdifficulties of a student withRCELD?

Critical questions involving instruc-tional team practices include the follow-ing:

15. Does the Instructional Team use

culturally responsive behavior

management practices by consider-

ing the impact of culture on the

behaviors of a student with

RCELD?

16. Does the Instructional Team estab-

lish a classroom environment that

accepts individual student differ-

ences and is positive, structured,

and well managed?

17. Does the Instructional Team set

realistic, high expectations and

standards for students with RCELD?

18. Are learning strategies explicitly

taught to students with RCELD?

19. Does the Instructional Team ac-

commodate the needs of students

with RCELD through differentiated

instruction that reflects the inter-

ests and experiences of students

with RCELD?


Thible 3 . Section IhEducation

Critical Questions

I. Were earlyintervening orprereferral servicesprovided in atimely manner,for a reasonableduration, andwith an Intensiveenough approach?

2. Did the studentreceive a varietyof services to

address individualneeds?

Culturally Responsive Coordinated Early

Quality Indicators

" Building team meets within 3 weeks aftera teacher identifies a need for EIS.

• There are clear guidelines for movementacross various tiers of interventions.

• Previous year's teachers are routinelyinvited to initial building team meetingsto ensure a smoother transition.

• Counseling sessions are scheduled withstudents with RCELD to reviewexpectations.

• A time/place for students with RCELD toreceive individualized assistance withhomework assignments has been established

Intervening Services and Referral to Special

Rubric (Circle the tt most applicable)

1.

2.

3.

4.

I.2.3.4.

Student did not make progress. Both the duration,[and the] frequency and intensity of interventionwere below the level suggested.

Student did not make progress. The duration, fre-quency, and intensity were consistent with recom-mendations.Student did not make progress. The duration, fre-quency, and intensity of intervention exceeded therecommendations.Student making progress with prevention/earlyintervention supports.

One intervention has been tried.At least two interventions have been tried.

Multiple, different strategies have been tried.The team has exhausted appropriate interventionsat this level.

Section II: Culturally ResponsiveCoordinated Early InterveningServices (EIS) and Referral toSpecial Education

The second section focuses on coordi-nated early interventions, includingclassroom-specific supports, schoolwidesupports, and time-limited specializedsupport. It is more selective than thecritical questions raised in Section Ibecause not all students' educationalexperiences will be reviewed andassessed at this stage. An assumption ismade that school personnel wiil notview a special education referral of astudent with RCELD as inevitable. Useof the checklist encourages develop-ment of appropriate supplementary

Use of the checklist encourages

development of appropriate

supplementary services and

accommodations to address the

needs of a student with RCELD who

evidences academic and behavioral

deficiencies within the general

education classroom

services and accommodations toaddress the needs of a student withRCELD who evidences academic andbehavioral deficiencies within the gen-eral education classroom; the checklistis completed for each student whenearly intervening services in the contextof response to intervention (RTI) areneeded. Table 2 contains the first 2 ofthe 12 critical questions for Section IIand an example of the format for thechecklist.

Other critical questions related toculturally responsive early interveningservices include these:

3. Did the student's classroom teacherinitiate and receive support inselecting and implementing appro-priate interventions?

4. Did systematic follow-up occur toensure that interventions wereimplemented as designed and tomonitor student progress?

5. Was the student's family involvedas an equal partner in the problem-solving process?

6. Were community-based services forthe student and his or her familyconsidered and offered, if appropri-ate?

7. On the basis of review of existingdata, was cultural difference con-sidered a factor contributing to thestudent's learning/behavioral diffi-culties?

S. On the basis of review of existingdata, were excessive absences con-sidered a factor contributing to thestudent's learning/behavioral diffi-culties?

9. On the basis of review of existingdata, were family risk factorsand/or family mobihty consideredfactors contributing to the student'slearning/behavioral difficulties?

10. On the basis of review of existingdata, were life stressors considereda factor contributing to the stu-dent's learning/behavioral difficul-ties?

11. On the basis of review of existingdata, was a mismatch betweeninstructional and learning styles inreading and/or mathematics con-sidered a factor contributing to thestudent's learning/behavioral diffi-culties?

12. On the basis of review of exitingdata, were environmental or socio-economic status considered a factor


contributing to the student's learn-ing/behavioral difficulties?

Section III: Culturally ResponsivelEP Team Decision Mak ing -Evaluation and Determinationof Eligibility

At this stage, the student has beenreferred for special education evalua-tion, during which specific issues,beliefs, and practices pertaining to spe-cial education referral, assessment, anddetermination of eligibility are reviewedand assessed. The checklist has threevariations in this section: evaluationand eligibility determination for stu-dents K-12. for early-childhood-age stu-dents, and for transfer students. Thisarticle presents only the checklist sec-tion for K-12 students. Table 3 containsthe first two of the five critical questionsrelated to evaluation and the two of theeight items associated with eligibilitydetermination as well as an example ofthe format of this checklist section.

Other critical questions related to theevaluation of K-12 students include thefollowing:

3. Did the evaluation team gather andconsider information about the stu-dent's home and parent/family cul-ture?

4. When social, emotional, behavioralor medical concerns wereexpressed in the referral, wereappropriate personnel, includingpupil services personnel, involvedin the evaluation activities?

5. Were parents/family members andthe student, as appropriate, regu-larly involved throughout the eval-uation process?

Other critical questions related to theeligibility determination of K-12 stu-dents include the following:

.̂ . Was attendance (i.e., excessiveabsences) the primary explanationfor the student's learning andbehavior difficulties?

4. Was mobility the primary explana-tion for the student's learning andbehavior difficulties?

5. Were life stressors (i.e., divorce,death of a family member) or otherfactors the primary explanation for

the student's learning or behaviordifficulties?

6. Was insufficient instruction in read-ing and/or mathematics the pri-mary explanation for the student'slearning and behavior difficulties?

7. Were environmental and/or socioe-conomic factors the primary expla-nation for the student's learning orbehavior difficulties?

8. Were exclusionary factors addressedprior to discussing specific compo-nents of the criteria during the eli-gibility determination meeting?

CenclmionWe fully expect the CADSE will gothrough additional evolutionarychanges as educators gain more experi-ence and insight in using this instru-ment to address the complex issue ofdisproportionality. For future use of theCADSE, we offer the following in-sights/findings and recommendationsbased on the initial year of using allthree sections of the instrument.

1. Disproportionality is not a newissue in special education. How-ever, the reauthorization of IDEAhas brought new attention to thisissue. As an evaluation instrument,the CADSE has demonstrated itspotential to increase educators'awareness of the disproportionalityissue and factors that contribute tothe problem. It also offers guidancein leading crucial discussions onthe culture and climate of schools,classrooms, and IEP teams.

2. The CADSE informs educators thatthe issue of disproporiionality isnot simply a special educationproblem. Any comprehensive sys-tems-change efforts to address dis-proportionality must involve bothgeneral and special education sys-tems and personnel.

3. The CADSE has proved effective inincreasing the diligence of educa-tors in documenting the basis fortheir decisions at all stages of thespecial education process (e.g.,early intervening services, referral,evaluation, and eligibility determi-nation).

4. The use of the CADSE needs to beaccompanied with ongoing profes-sional development programsinvolving all teachers and pupilservices staff. If proper training islacking, the CADSE may not beapplied consistently across studentsand schools. Two organizations inparticular are on the leading edge indeveloping professional develop-ment materials related to culturallyresponsive educational practices.These two organizations are theNational Institute for Urban SchoolImprovement (NIUSI) at http://urbanschools.org and the NationalCenter for Culturally ResponsiveEducational Systems (NCCRESt) athttp://www.nccrest.org.

5. To the extent possible, the CADSEshould be aligned with existingschool initiatives and other schoolforms (e.g.. student academic andbehavioral monitoring systems,IEPs) to avoid the perception ofexcessive paperwork.

In the fmal analysis, any evaluationinstrument is only as good as the profes-sionals employing the tool. The CADSEposes relevant questions and issues con-cerning disproportionality and is a firststep in developing more culturallyresponsive educational practices toensure that students with RCELD areplaced in special education programsonly when they are truly disabled.

ReferefMesArtiles, A. ) . . Harry, B., Reschly, D. J., &

Chinn, P. C. (2002). Over-Identification ofstudents of color in special education: Acritical overview. Multicultural Perspec-tives, 4(1), 3-10.

Connor. M. H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Over-representation of bilingual and poor chil-dren in special education classes: A con-tinuing problem. Journai of Children &Poverty, 7[1), 23-32.

Coutinho. M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2000). Dis-proportionate representation in specialeducation: A synthesis and recommenda-tions. Journal of Child and Family Studies.9(2), 135-156.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minor-ity Students in Special and Gifted Edu-cation. National Research Council. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press, pp.1-14.

Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield. S. A. (2006).Impact of instructional consultation teams


Table 3 . Section IIIEligibility

Critical Questions

Evaluation

1, Were multiplemeasures/modalities ofevaluation.includingnonverbalinstruments.when appropriate.conducted acrosssettings and time.and were thoseevaluationinstruments.5TM-\rnnri.3tp fnrd LfUi u u i Id Ltr ivji

thci cinHiint ^xrilhlllL aiLJUcML WHJI

Rppr T13tv^Cl .11'.

2. Did observationsof the studentwith RCELDincludemeasurableand observabledata?

: Culturally Responsive IEP Team

Indicators of Quality

• Evaluation included standardizedtests that were normed based onculturally representative population.

• Evaluation included other infonnal.age-appropriate assessments.social and language history,observations and so forth frommultiple sources in multipleenvironments.

• Multiple perspectives weregathered by involving parent/family, teacher, and student(if appropriate).

• Standardized tests includednonverbal measures whenappropriate.

• Observation report providednumeric data (e.g., percentage oftime on task or number ofinterruptions).

• Narrative report provid[ed]possible cultural reasons foridentified behaviors.

Eligibility Determination

1, Were multipleattempts toinvolve parents/family membersmade duringeligibilitydetermination?

• Alternative means for participationwere offered, sucb as teleconfer-ence, meeting outside of schoolsetting, and so forth.

• Transportation was arranged forthe parents/family members.

• Criteria documentation andchecklist completed afterdiscussion and conclusion isreached at IEP meeting.

Decision Making—Evaluation and Determination of

Rubric

1. The evaluation included no standardizedtests and no informal evaluations such ascurriculum-based measures, social history.observations, and so forth.

2, The evaluation included some standardizedtests and minima! evaluations, such ascurriculum-based measures, social history.observations, and so forth.

3. The evaluation primarily includedstandardized tests, and some informalevaluations such as social history.observations, and so forth.

4. The evaluation was comprehensive andincluded multiple standardized tests.informal evaluations such as social bistory.observations, and so forth, and nonverbalmeasures when appropriate.

1. Observation report did not provide numericdata, (e.g., percentage of time on task ornumber of interruptions; and the report didnot include possible cuittiral reasons foridentified behaviors.

2. Observation report provided minimal numericdata, and the report minimally includedpossible cultural reasons for identifiedbehaviors.

3. Observation report provided some numericdata, and the report included some possiblecultural reasons for identified behaviors.

4. Observation report provided comprehensivenumeric data, and the report includedpossible cultural reasons for identifiedbehaviors.

1. Minimal or no efforts were made to involveparents/family members.

2. Three good-faith attempts were made toinvolve parents/family members.

3. Three good faith attempts were made toinvolve parents/family members, and onlyone alternative for participation was offered.such as arranging for transportation toencourage attendance by parents/familymembers, teleconference, and meetingoutside of school setting.

4. Three good-faith attempts were made toinvolve parents/family members, and morethan one alternative for participation wasoffered, such as arranging for transportationto encourage attendance by parents/familymembers, teleconference, and meetingoutside of school setting.

Evidence andDocumentation

• IEPEvaluationReport

• Listmeasures ofevaluation

• Other


• List data• Other


• Listevaluationtools andprocedures

• Otber

continues


labl* 3. - ConHnwd

Critical Questions Indicators of Quality RubricEvidence andDocumentation

Eligibility Determination - Continued

2. Was the student'sRCELD a primaryexplanation forlearning, behavior,or otherdifficulties?

IEP records document discussionabout cultural or languagedifferences and the effect onstudent's learning, behavior, orother difficulties.The student has had behavioraland/or academic support in theirprimary language at appropriatelevel and duration.Classroom or other settingsprovided strategies to minimizeRCELD differences (e.g..incorporating the student'shome culture when establishingand setting norms and curriculum,and involving tlie parent andothers of the same RCELD groupin developing strategies, activities,and understanding of the child'sbackground).

Specific interventions weredocumented.

No classroom strategies to minimize racial,linguistic, cultural, or ethnic differences wereprovided.

Few classroom strategies to minimize racial,linguistic, cultural, or ethnic differences wereprovided—such as behavioral and/oracademic support in the student's primarylanguage at appropriate level and duration,incorporating the student's home culturewhen establishing classroom norms andcurriculum, involving the parent and otherstaff/consultants of that race in developingstrategies that eliminate racism—andlearning and behavior difficulties persisted.Some classroom strategies to minimize racial,linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differenceswere provided—such as behavioral and/oracademic support in the student's primarylanguage at appropriate level and duration,incorporating the student's home culturewhen establishing classroom norms andcurriculum, involving the parent and otherstaff/consultants of that race in developingstrategies that eliminate racism—and learningand behavior difficulties persisted.A number of classroom strategies to minimizeracial, linguistic, cultural, ethnic differenceswere provided—such as behavioral and/oracademic support in the student's primarylanguage at appropriate level and duration,incorporating the student's home culturewhen establishing classroom norms andcurriculum, involving the parent and otherstaff/consultants of that race in developingstrategies that eliminate racism—andlearning and behavior difficulties persisted.

IEPEvaluationReportOther

on the disproportionate referral and place-ment of minority studenis in special edu-cation. Remedial and Speeial Education.^7(1), 42-52.

Harry. B., & Klinger, J. (2006). Why are somany minority students in special educa-tion? Understanding race and disability inschools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Individuals With Disahilities EducationImprovement Act {IDEA) of 2004 (20U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq). (2004).

Losen. D. J., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racialinequality in special education, Cam-bridge. MA: Harvard Education Press.

Oswald. D. P.. Coutinho, M. J.. Best, A. M.,& Singh. N. N. (1999). Ethnic representa-tion in special education: The influence ofschool-related economic and demographicvariables. Journal of Special Education.i2{4), 194-206.

Patton. J. M. (1998). The disproponionaterepresentation of African Americans in

special education: Looking behind the cur-tain for understanding and solutions. TheJournal of Special Education, 32(1), 25-31.

Patton, J. M., & Townsend, B. L. [1999).Ethics, power, and privileges: Neglectedconsiderations in the education of AfricanAmerican learners with special needs.Thacher Education and Special Education,22(4), 276-286.

Reschly, D. J. (1988). Minority MMR over-representation and special educationreform. Exceptional Children, 54. 316-323.

"Rirnbull, H. R. (2005). Individuals With Dis-abilities Education Act reauthorization:Accountability and personal responsibili-ty. Remedial and Special Education. 26(6),320-326.

Craig R. Fiedler (CEC Wl Federation). Pro-fessor. Department of Special Education. Col-lege of Education and Human Services; andBert Chiang (CEC IV/Federation), Professor.Department of Specicd Education. University

of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Barbara Van Haren(CEC Wl Federation), Director of SpecialEducation. Cooperative Educational Services/igency (CESA) ffl. Brookfield. Wisconsin.Jack Jorgensen fCEC Wl Federation). Execu-tive Director: and Sara Halberg (CEC WlFederation). Program Support Teacher. Depart-ment of Educational Services, Madison (Wl)Metropolitan School District, Madison. Wis-consin. Lynn Boreson fCEC Wl Federcdion).Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities Consultant,Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,Madison, Wisconsin.

Address correspondence to Craig Fiedler,Department of Special Education, Universityof Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wl 54901ie-mn.ilfiedler®uwosh. edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol 40,No.5, pp. 52-59.

Copyright 2008 CEC.


Documents

Culturally Responsive Practices in Schools A Checklist to ...Chaing Checklist … · Culturally Responsive Practices in Schools A Checklist to Address Disproportionality in Special